HomeMy WebLinkAbout1563
.
.
.
RESOLUTION 1563
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 98-004 TO EXTEND THE HOURS OF OPERATION OF
THE EXISTING 64,872 SQUARE FOOT VONS PAVILIONS RETAIL
MARKET TO 24 HOURS A DAY AT 745 WEST NAOMI AVENUE.
WHEREAS, on February 11, 1998, an application was filed by The Vons
Companies for a Conditional Use Permit to extend the hours of operation for the existing
Vons Pavilions retail market, Planning Department Case No. C.U.P. 98-004, on a C-2
zoned property that is commonly known as the Vons Pavilions Center at 745 W. Naomi
Ave. and more particularly described as folIows:
Portions of Lot 2 & 3, Block A of Santa Anita Land Company's Tract, M.B. 6-
137 and portions of Lots 1,2 & 4 of the Santa Anita Land Company's pumping plant no.
1 Tract, M.B. 10-163, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of Cali fomi a,
as per Maps recorded in the office of said County Recorder.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 24, 1998, at which time all
interested persons were given fulI opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the attached report is true and correct
SECTION 2. This Commission finds:
I. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit wilI not be detrimental to
the public health or welfare, or injUrious to the property or improvements in such zone or
vicinity because the initial study did not disclose any substantial adverse affects to the
area affected by the proposed proj ect
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper use for which a
Conditional Use Permit is authorized.
1563
1
.
.
.
3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate said use. AlI yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping
and other features are adequate to adjust said use with the land and uses in the
neighborhood. The proposed project complies with all related zoning requirements as set
forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code.
4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type
to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan because the land use and current zoning are consistent with
the General Plan.
6. That any new exterior design elements for the subject building are in
compliance with the design criteria set forth in the City's Architectural Design Review
Regulations.
7. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the
environment, and that based upon the record as a whole there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends,
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reaSons this Commission grants a
Conditional Use Permit for the existing market to operate 24 hours a day upon the
following conditions:
1. That delivery hours be limited to no later than 9:00 p.m. and no earlier than 7:00
a.m.
2. That trash pick-up schedules shall remain as is and at no time shall said pick-
ups take place later than 9:00 p.m. nor earlier than 7:00 a.m.
3.C.U.P. 98-005 shall not take effect lmtil the property owner and applicant
have executed and filed the Acceptance Form that is available from the Development
Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval.
4. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use
permit shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation.
2
1563
.
.
.
SECTION 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution
reflect the Commission's action of March 24, 1998, and the following vote:
AYES:
Murphy
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Ka1emkiarian, Sleeter, and
None
None
SECTION S. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and
shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of March, 1998, by the
following vote:
AYES:
Murphy
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Sleeter, and
None
None
~~-~
hairman, PI . . ommission
City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
~~,
Secretary, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
}!HiJ/c.,~
3
1563
~j-
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
March 24, 1998
TO:
Chairman and Members of the
Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM:
Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator
By: William E. Stokes, Assistant Planner WG5.S
SUBJECT:
Conditional Use ~ermit No. CUP 98-004
SUMMARY
.
This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by The Vons Companies to allow the
existing Vons Pavilions at 745 W. Naomi Avenue to expand its hours of operation to 24 hours a
day. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the applicant's
proposal, subject to the conditions outlined in this staff report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
The V ons Companies
LOCATION:
745 W. Naomi Ave.
REQUEST:
To expand the operating hours of an existing Vons Pavilions to 24 hours
a day
SITE AREA:
286,764 square feet (6.58 acres)
FRONTAGES:
496,77 feet along Naomi Ave. and 359.21 feet along Duarte Rd.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Commercial
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
.
The site is developed with the 64,872 square foot Vons Pavilions and an 19,881
square foot multi-tenant strip commercial building. There are 425 on-site parking
spaces and the site is zOIl~d C-2.
.
.
.
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North: Multi-family residential and commercial offices; zoned R-3 and C-2
South: Multi-family residential; zoned R-3
East: Commercial retail center; zoned C-2
West: Commercial retail center, zoned C-l
BACKGROUND INFORMATION. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The subject site provides 425 on-site parking spaces for the Vons facility and a 19,881 sq. ft.
multi-tennant commercial building. The current operating hours are from 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00
p.m., Monday through Sunday. The applicant is requesting to extend such hours to 24 hours a
day.
The City of Arcadia does not require a conditional use permit to operate a retail market if it
operates under "normal" operating hours. This new CUP application is necessary as a result of
the proposed 24 hour operation of the store.
Staff does not feel that the proposed hours of operation will negatively impact the existing retail
establishments or the surrounding neighborhood because there' should be a signifficant decrease
in traffic from 11 :00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., provided that the delivery hours are no later than 9:00
p.m. and no earlier than 7:00 a.m. Additionally, Public Hearing notices were sent to surrounding
property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject shopping center, and at the time this staff
report was prepared, the Community Development Division had not received any complaints
associated with the proposed hours of operation.
CEQA
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development
Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed project. Said initial study did
not disclose any substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area
affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and
objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is
no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife
resources. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Developmem Sel'Vices Department recommends approyal of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-
004 subject to the following conditions:
I. That delivery hours be limited to no laterthan.9:00 p.m and no earlier than 7:00 a.m.
CUP 98-004
March 24, 1998
Page 2
.
.
.
2.
That CUP 98-004 shall not take affect until the owner and applicant have executed a form
available at the Planning Office, indicating awareness and acceptance of the conditions of
approval.
3. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit shall
constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation.
FINDINGS AND MOTIONS
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this conditional use permit application, the
Commission should move to approve and t'ilethe Negative Declaration, find that the project will
not have a significant effect on the environment and approve the resolution which incorporates
the Commission's decision, specific fmdings and conditions of approval as set forth in the staff
report, or as modified by the Commission.
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this conditional lIse permit application, the
Commission should make specific finding based on the evidence presented, and move for denial
with a resolution which incorporates the Commission's decision and specific findings.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions regarding this
application prior to the March 24, 1998 public hearing, please contact Assistant Planner, William
Stokes at (626) 574-5444.
AP~ovef By:
~ lD .11iL ~/.MM
Corkran W. Nicholson
Planning Services Manager
Attachments: Site Plan, Land-Use Vicinity Map, Negative Declaration, Environmental
Checklist and Information Form, and Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
CUP 98-004
March 24, 1998
. Page 3
t.
.
.
.
I I \
0 R-3 5 ,
0 C-2 B it "
0 0
0 RE11&EMEN1' .- ~ l;;
2
CD "OTE\.
0 OffICES
@ (j) (j)
G) G) 0 @
CD DUi\R'fE ROi\D
\ \
r @ '.IONS
pi\'JI\.IONS
.. \\UB
S\\O??R'O
.. \. .cE\'l'fE\l.
?\l.ESIOEl'lT'S C~2
SQUi\Rf;
S\\O?PR'O - -\
CEl'lTE\l.
.~ C-l CO;;:;:'CIt.!.
Q-
~~
,
~t
\ - .
.', ;...'.11'..
~ N;...OMI
" \
~
~ 00
\ \ CD 0 Si\'J.()lI
\~' IV @ 0 @)CD CD ' 00.., S\\O??R'O
@)'" - CD @O CE1<1'E\l.
:; -0 CD C-2
a. 0 @0 ' 0
,~ 0 . 0 3 5 1.0 @ ool.-t
H
~~\ 0 0 0 _R-~- \ @
r- -- 0 ,L9 1---- 00 \
~ ~ \' \i\ \ I
r ---' - I
,
,
\ I I \ \ I
.'
LAND USE AND ZONING
. . -.. . . t NORTH
CUP No. 98-004
745 liv. Naomi Ave. Scale: I inch = 200 feet
---- .-- ,
I
I.
I
\ .
j
I,
,..
I
I
I
l'
I
I
,
It.:
[,
I'
i
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
i
!
r
I
i
t
i
~fi
~;
;,1
~,
~I
g:i
.
!
~
!
i
e.
"'~o:<t
.
YICIIlITT IIAP
_._____~-.-9M~!U-E--
J
I
,
!
i
,
J
~
~
~
i
I
i
I
!
i
i
.
".... .
'T~~" it
.
.
--
d-=--
!
i
,
--
-
._M
-.___011
~
'Old
IM~"
~
.
-
- -
----
PIIo.11!CT IlUCRIPTION
.
PROJECT SITE
CU'..~........y_..... t....-.............____
lot ,. .... . ... .. ,.. '""" "~U1A ..... UI~U]'J .,
::..:.r.~~~,=-~~I"'~n. J'~"""'"
...-
~ "ORMA11ON
AIflJCANTl
Jr~ c.
L~~",-,a
"""""1__'
j
I
Af'FUCANT'8 ACBfT!
=-~
c:''::-cJJ..~-r II
COIUl;hMCY"1Q1I3DI
""5'''~'
I
I
i
i
I
!
i
i
,
I
I
i
I
-.. -.. I
] ..-- -.. . I
I ,
I I
J~,,~~~!l!.11..'~d,)~).~.~~~~)l.'~'~'~~);.'.~.~;';)~~~--
NAOMI un' , E~uc c..... 41
-_. .-----. -----...-...... .-___.________________.___1.
-..,
..,
..
PRO.ECT -4DG Eli..\"
-..... ....
,.,(ASllUlMl'IL
......~"........
PRO.ECT zore
CllIIlIODlC-t
rT---=n" 0MfBJ
---
!!!!..~ -..-nrt
a;;:a,~DU= tom
..".tU-Irn
UOAL IlUCRIPTIOH
ID.,.~. ~~fH (jj)
ua.tJDo4ft.-ac,ta.m.m
~rnr.~LtfI"ffflMr:rf~.."
... 1'.......:M."""..lf4._I...u.~~
""",_,.tIC'." M(lU
-
VONS
C....-n. 1M..
.....~...
.--
lM---.Cl.-....
..--
_00.-
81Tl! PUll
DRA_
--.-
~
-----..--..-
-----
14Usr_awc..
..... ~ 1'-
---
"_tl'WfOlJ
--
-- 15
-- 208
--
I of I
File No.: CUP 98-004
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA. CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. Title and Description of Project:
C.U.P.98-004
A Conditional Use Permit to allow the existing Vons Pavilions retail market to expand its hours of
operation to 24 hours a day.
B. Location of Project:
Retail Shopping Center located at 745 W. Naomi Ave., Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, California
.
C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
The Vons Companies
P.O. Box 513338
Los Angeles, CA 90051-1338
(626) 821-7047
D. Finding:
This project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California
Environmcntal Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the attached Initial Study.
E. Mitigation measures, if auy, iucluded iu the project to avoid potentially significant effects:
.
Date:
Date Posted:
February 12, 1998
February 12, 1998
//0C//.
t/1/C ~ LY<4'..0...",
W.E. Stokes, Assistant Planner
File No. CUP 98-004
,
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
CUP 98-004
2. Project Address:
Retail Shopping Center located at 745 W. Naomi Ave., Arcadia, County of Los Angeles,
California .
3.
Project Sponsor's Name, Address and Telephone Number:
.
The Vons Companies
P.O. Box 513338
Los Angeles, CA 90051-1338
(626) 821-7047
4.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Arcadia
240 W.Huntington Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91007
5. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Planning Services (626) 574-5423
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial
..
Zone Classification:
C-2
~
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.
Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
A Conditional Use Permit to allow the existing Vons Pavilions retail market to expand its
hours of operation to 24 hours a day.
9. Other public agencies. whose approval is required. (e.g., permits, fmancing approval, or
participation agreement.)
The market already exists (change in store hours only)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
.
0 Land Use & Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
.
E.LK Checkhst
7/95
-2-
&ETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
1RI
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in.this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached.sheet have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets,
eftheeffect.is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be. addressed.
o
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project.
o
?/~.d~
Febmaty 12. 1998
Date
Signature
W.E. Stokes. Assistant Planner
Printed Name
City of Arcadia
For
.
E.!.R. Checklist
7/95
-3-
.VALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
.
.
1.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2.
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if. there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination
is made, an EIR is required.
4.
"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
rnitigation measureS has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than
Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII.
"Earlier Analyses." may be cross-referenced.)
5.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII.at the end of the checklist.
6.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
E.I.R. Checklist
7/95
-4-
.
.
.'
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designations or zoning?
(The proposal is consistent with the CQmmercial
designation in the General Plan and is a use for
which is authorized by Section 9251 of the Zoning
Ordinance.)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
(The proposal will be required to comply with the
regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with
applicable environmental plans. E.g., the South
Coast Air Quality Management Oistrict)
c) Be compatible with existing land uses in the
vicinity?
(The existing use is a grocery store which is
consistent with the surrounding land uses.)
d) AffC1:t agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
(There are no agricultural resources or operations
inthe area.)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a,low-income or
minority community)?
(The existing use is a grocery store which is
consistent with the surrounding land uses.)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
(The existing use is a grocery store which is
consistent with the surrounding land uses.)
b) Induce substantial growth in' an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
-5-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
File No.: CUP 98-004
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
I I
[ I
[ I
[ I
II
[ I
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
No
Impact
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
(The proposal is consistent with the zone
designation and general plan.)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
(The proposal is consistent with the zone
designation and general plan.)
3. GEOLOGIC paOBLEMS
Would the proposal result in or expose people to
potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
(The site for the proposal is not within the vicinity
of an identified fault.)
b) Seismic ground shaking?
(The site for the proposal is not more susceptible to
seismic ground shaking than any other site in the
area. The project will be an existing building that
complies with current seismic standards.)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(The site for the proposal is not within the vicinity
of an identified fault or liquefaction zone.)
d) Landslides or mudflows?
(The ,site for the proposal is on flat land, and not
within an inundation area.)
e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, ~r fill?
(The proposal is consistent with the zone
designation and general plan.)
f) SUbsidence of \he land?
(The site for \he proposal is not in an 'area subject
to subsidence.)
g) Expansive soils?
(The site for \he proposal is not in an area subject
to expansion of soils.)
11) Unique geologic or physical features?
-6-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
II
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 98-004
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[Xl
[X]
[X]
[Xl
[X]
[X]
[Xl
IX}
[X]
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
(No such features,have been identified at the site of
the proposa1.)
4. WATER
Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoffl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, no
such changes are included in the proposal.)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
(The site for the proposal is not within an
inundation area)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity)?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect:surface waters.)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect surface waters.)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect any currents or water
movements.)
t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of any aquifer by cuts or excavations
or through substantial loss of ground water
recharge capability?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis; the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
g) Allered direction or rate of flow of ground water?
(Based on a project.specific screening. analysis, ,the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
h) Impacts to ground water quality?
-7,
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 98-004
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
I ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[Xl
[Xl
[X]
[X]
[Xl
[X]
[X]
IX]
CEQA Checklist
7/95
File No.: CUP 98-004
Potentially
Significant
. potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ground
water otherwise available for public water
supplies? L ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project'specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
5. AIR QUALITY
Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? I ] I] [ ] [Xl
(The existing grocery store will be required to
comply with the regulations of the South Coast Air
Quality ManagementDistrict.)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis the
. proposal will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants.)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or
cause any change in climate? [ ] [ I [ I [X]
(Based on a project,specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
d) Create Objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project,specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
6. TRANSPORTATION I CIRCULATION
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
(See attached comments.)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? I] I I [ ] [X]
(The existing grocery store is consistent with the
zone designation and general plan. The location
.' that has not been identified as hazardous.)
.
CEQA Checklisl
-8, 7/95
.
.
.
Would the.proposal re,sult in
potential impacts involving:
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
(The site of the proposed use is readily accessible
and the proposal will not inhibitaccess to adjacent
or nearby uses.)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(There is adequate on-site parking for both the
employees and patrons to serve the propnsal.)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis,
there are no existing or potential hazards or
barriers'to pedestrians or bicyclists.)
f) Conflicts with adopted pnlicies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis,
there are no existing or potential conflicts with
policies supporting alternative transportation.)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals and birds)?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have'a.'1Y such impacts.) .
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
(Based on a project'specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any stich impacts.)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)?
-9-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 98-004
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
I I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[Xl
I
[Xl
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
7/95
File No.: CUP 98-004
Potentially
Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential imp,,:cts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(The existing grocery store is consistent with the
zone designation and general plan.)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
. mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? [ I [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts,)
9. HAZARDS
Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? [ 1 I ] [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific.scrconing analysis, lho
proposal will UOI have any such impacts.)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? [ I [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
.
.
CEQA Checklist
-10, 7/95
File No.: CUP 98-004
Potentially
Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? [ I [ I [ ] [X]
(Based on a project,specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass or trees? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
10. NOISE
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? [ ] [ I [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
. proposal will not have any such impacts.)
11. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered govemmentservices in any of
the following areas:
a) Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [ I [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Schools? [ ] [ I [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including'roads? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have.any such impacts.)
e) Other governmental services? [ ] [ ] [ I [X]
.'
.
CEQA Checklist
-11- 7/95
File No.: CUP 98-004
Potentially
Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal resultin Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? [ ] [ ] [ ] !Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Communications systems? [ I [ ] [ ] !Xl
(Based on a project~specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? [ ] [ I [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
. d) Sewer or septic tanks? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Storm water drainage? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on,a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
f) Solid waste disposal? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
g) Local or regional Water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ I IX]
(Based on a project-specific screening analySis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
13. AESTHETICS
Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic visla,or scenic highway? [ ] [ I [ I [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
, b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
.
CEQA Checklist
-12- 7/95
File No.: CUP 98-004
Potentially
Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Create light or glare? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? [ 1 [ 1 [ I [Xl
(Based on a project-specific'screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? I I [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Affect historical resources? [ I [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project,specific screening analysis, the
. proposal will not have any such impacts,)
d) have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ 1 [ I [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
15. RECREATION
Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? [ I [ 1 [ I [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
.
.
CEQA Checklist
-13- 7/95
.
.
.'
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fISh or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal Or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
(Based ona project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-tenn, to the disadvantage of long-tenn,
environmental goals?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future project.)
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
17. EARLffiR ANALYSES
No additional documents were referenced pursuant to
lhe tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA processes to
analyze any noted effect(s) resulling from the proposal.
-14-
Potenlially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
File No.: CUP 98-004
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ I
[ ]
[ I
No
Impact
IX]
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
7/95
, .
.
ZOl;
./
File No...clLLP ~;( - 004
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
Date Filed:
General Information
1.
Applicant's Name: The Vons Companies
ATTN: Jim Houghton
Address: P.o. Box 513338, Los 'Anqeles, CA 90051-1338
2.
Property Address (Location):
745 East Naomi Avenue
"" Assessor's Number: !:>~~.O~.O'2cf,O-z..S.OUD .O'2.e.
.
3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project:
Nancy Patterson, Urban sOlutions' (619) 350-6255/fax (619) 350-6250
1049 Camino Del Mar, Suite 11, Del Mar, CA 92014
4.
List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this
project, including those required by city, regionalt state and federal agencies: .
No other permits are required
5.
6.
'Zone Oassilication:
Commercial
Commercial
General Plan Designation:
Project Description
7. Proposed use of site (project description): The exi stinq use of the site, a shopping
center, wi'11 not change under the requested CUP; the requested CUP is
to expand the existing 6AM to llPM hours of operation to 24 hours a day
"" 8.
v 9.
10.
~1.
2.
13.
Site size: E,l( ISTlf-.)u ~O Crl: A.~61 ~
Square footage per Duilding: V 0;" S . &:, '-I , "6 -, Z-
Number of floors of construction: Existing one story (no chanqe proposed)
Amount of off-street parking provided: Existing parking provided
Proposed scheduling of project: Expand hours with the approval of the CUP
Anticipated incremental development: None
14. If residentialt include the number of units, schedule of unit sizest range of sale prices or
rents, and type of household sizes expected:
NA
.
15. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally orientedt square
footage of sales areat and loading facilities, hours of operation:
The requested CUP would expand the hour" of operat.ion t.n 24 hours
a day for an existing Vons store.
16. If industrial, indicate typet estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities:
NA
17. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shiftt estimated
occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project:
....Tlt.
18.
If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this
and indicate clearly why the application is required:
Under Sections 9275.1.53.6 and 9275.1.53.7, a CUP is required for
.
commercial activities between the hours of midnight and 6AM.
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes
(attach additional sheets as necessary).
YES NO
19. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground
contours.
o lrJ
20. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public
lands or roads.
o IKI
21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
o IKI
o [)
22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
23. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
o [)
.'
.
E.I.R.
3/95
-2-
,~ ,
24.
.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
YES NO
Change in ground water quality or quantitYt or alteration of existing
drainage patterns.
o
Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
o
o
o
[s site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more.
Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materialSt such as toxic.substancest
f1ammab[e or explosives.
Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, watert
sewage, etc.).
o
Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas,
etc.).
o
Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
o
Environmental Setting
.31.
32.
[!)
~
I]J
I]l
[]
[J
I!I
Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the projectt including
information on topography, soil stability, plants and animalst any cultural, historical or
scenic aspects, any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach
photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.
Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, induding information on plants,
animalst any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of [and uses (residential,
commercial" etc.)t intensity of land use (one-family, apartment housest shops, department
stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-backst rear yards, etc.). Attach
photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.
Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data
and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the factst
statements, and information presented are true and c rrect to the bes f my knowledge and belief.
Date
.'
.
-3-
E.I.R.
3/95
.
.
.'
.
31. The project site is currently developed with a one -story shopping center, including the
V onslPavilions store. There are no original natural, cultural, historic or scenic
resources left on the project site due to the previous construction of the shopping
center. Please refer to the project's photo board for photographs of the site.
32. To the north and west of the project.site are multi-family residential uses. To the south
and east are other commercial uses. The project site and all surrounding properties are
fully developed.