|
|
Council Agenda - City of BurbankTuesday, April 27, 2004Agenda Item - 1 |
|
|
Council Agenda - City of BurbankTuesday, April 27, 2004Agenda Item - 1 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to consider an appeal of the Planning Board�s decision on March 1, 2004 pertaining to the proposed Home Depot store on an 11.1-acre site zoned M-2 Industrial and located at 1200 South Flower Street. The Planning Board adopted resolutions approving the following matters: certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report; adoption of findings of environmental impact and a statement of overriding considerations; and approval of a Conditional Use Permit, a Sign Variance for a second ground sign, and a Development Review.
The Municipal Code establishes a 15-day appeal period beginning on the day a signed copy of the Planning Board�s resolution approving the project is sent to the applicant. A signed copy of the Planning Board�s resolution approving the project was sent to the applicant on Wednesday, March 3rd, and the 15 day appeal period began on March 3rd, and ended on Thursday, March 18th. An appeal of the Planning Board�s certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and approval of the project was filed by Howard Rothenback and Mike Nolan on March 18, 2004 (Exhibit A).
PROJECT BACKGROUND: Property Location: The project is located on the easterly side on Flower Street between Alameda Avenue and Dana Street, and contains approximately 11.1 acres (Exhibit B). The site is generally level and has only a few foundation elements remain.
General Plan Designation: LAND USE ELEMENT DESIGNATION The project site is designated General Manufacturing in the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
BURBANK CENTER PLAN The Burbank Center Plan (BCP) was adopted on June 10, 1997 as an economic revitalization plan. The project site is designated General Manufacturing in the BCP which is consistent with the existing zoning and the land use designation in the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
Zoning: The project site is zoned M-2 Industrial. The proposed home improvement store is a conditionally permitted use in the M-2 zone, and requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Property Dimensions: The property is a trapezoid in shape, and the Los Angeles County Assessors Records indicate that the property is approximately 450 feet on the northerly side, 945 feet on the easterly side, 560 feet on the southerly side, and 937 feet on the westerly side (Exhibit C).
Street Classification ALAMEDA AVENUE Alameda Avenue is designated a �Major Arterial� in the City of Burbank�s General Plan from Riverside Drive to Glenoaks Boulevard. The right-of-way width varies from 123 feet west of Flower Street to approximately 76 feet in width east of Flower Street.
FLOWER STREET Flower Street is designated a �Collector Street� in the City of Burbank�s General Plan, and designated a �Minor Arterial� in the City of Glendale�s General Plan. The right-of-way varies in width from 40 to 66 feet, and is 55 feet in width adjacent to the project site.
ALLEN AVENUE Allen Avenue is designated as an �Urban Collector�street from Glenoaks Boulevard to the Golden State Freeway (I-5) in the City of Glendale�s General Plan. Allen Avenue adjacent to the project site has one travel lane in each direction within a right-of-way approximately 36-feet in width. Allen Avenue however, has been closed to through traffic pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the City of Glendale and the Southern California Rail Authority dated July 27, 2000 (Exhibit D). Barricades were installed at the MTA railroad right-of-way between San Fernando Road and Flower Street to eliminate on-grade railroad track crossings, and the closure is now permanent.
Current and Past Development of the Site: In the late 1930s General Controls purchased agricultural and residential property adjacent to the Southern pacific Railroad tracks for development of a manufacturing facility. During the 1940s and 1950s General Controls constructed most of the buildings that eventually occupied the project site. In June of 1963 General Controls merged into ITT and became known as ITT Industries � General Controls (ITT-GC).
In late 1986 ITT-GC began to reduce its activities at the site, eventually ceasing its operations there, and moving to other locations. As part of the movement of operations to other locations manufacturing equipment and surface storage areas, above ground tanks, storage tanks, clarifiers, and sumps were either closed in place or removed from the site. At present only the foundations remain of the buildings that once existed. PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed home improvement store will consist of approximately 115,130 square feet of interior floor area for home improvements supplies and approximately 24,677 square feet of outdoor garden supplies. The proposed Home Depot store will be approximately 32 feet in height and architectural features at the top of the building parapet at the store entrance will be up to 40 feet above the finished floor elevation. The proposed store also includes a surface parking lot with a total of 627 on-site parking spaces, and a loading dock area capable of accommodating up to five (5) tractor-trailer delivery trucks.
APPLICATION The Planning Division received applications for the proposed project on May 15, 2002 (Exhibit E). The Planning Division determined that the supplemental applications adequately addressed all of the concerns raised in the previous letter, and found that Home Depot�s application was complete.
Conditional Use Permit The Burbank Municipal Code allows a home center (home improvement) store as a conditional use in the M-2 Industrial zone, and the applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit for the proposed Home Depot store on an 11.1 acre site at 1200 South Flower.
Sign Variance The Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) only permits one ground sign on a legal lot and also establishes the maximum height of a sign at 25-feet in height throughout the City and also restricts the signage area to 50-square feet of signage per side on a double faced ground sign unless a sign variance is approved. The applicant submitted a sign variance application for a second ground sign that was a 95-foot tall pylon sign on the northwest corner of the site with approximately 580 square feet of signage on each side. However, the applicant has revised the plans for the second ground sign and reduced the height from 95 feet to 25 feet, but will still require the sign variance because this will be the second ground sign.
The BMC only permits the use of promotional banners two (2) times each year, and the applicant also included a request in the sign variance application for approval to use promotional banners up to 12 times a year. The applicant has since modified the request and reduced the number of times they want to use promotional banners to four (4) times a year.
Additional Information Provided With the Application In addition to an application for a conditional use permit and a sign variance, the applicant also provided the following studies as part of their application. Some of the studies were submitted with the initial application, and some of the studies were submitted later when they were completed or after they were approved by another government agency.
MUNICIPAL CODE CONFORMANCE: The following table illustrates Municipal Code requirements for various development standards and the status of project compliance.
Compliance with Municipal Code Requirements
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW The Municipal Code requires that projects of this size go through the Development Review process to insure that any inconsistencies with the Municipal Code are identified. On July 23, 2002 the applications and plans for the proposed Home Depot were circulated to City departments and the City of Glendale for review and comment. A Development Review meeting was held on August 15, 2002 to receive comments from the both City departments and the City of Glendale, and those comments are attached (Exhibit J). All of the comments that were received were addressed in both the environmental review process and the conditions of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS: The basic purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act and the adopted Guidelines are to inform government decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities, and identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.
Initial Study An Initial Study was completed for the proposed project on September 27, 2002 that identified potentially significant impacts in the areas of aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, transportation and circulation, utilities, and storm water, and determined that an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared.
Notice of Preparation The Initial Study and a Notice of Preparation (NOP) were submitted to the State office of Planning and Research (OPR) on September 27, 2002 (Exhibit K), and OPR distributed the NOP to various State Agencies (Exhibit L) and began a 30-day comment period on September 30, 2002. The 30-day public review period ended on October 27, 2002, and the comments letters that were received during the public review period in response to the NOP are in Appendix A on the DEIR. Based on the NOP and the comments received during the public review period the DEIR includes the analysis of the following environmental issues:
Draft Environmental Impact Report On September 29, 2003 the DEIR was completed. The DEIR addressed each of the areas of concern identified in the Initial Study.
LAND USE SECTION The proposed home improvement store is a conditional use in the M-2 Industrial zone, and the Land Use section of the DEIR discusses land use related plans and policies at the regional, county, and local level. The Land Use section also discusses compliance with the Municipal Code, and notes that the proposed project is consistent with the Municipal Code with the exception of project signage, and the applicant has applied for a sign variance. The Land Use section concludes that the proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the applicable plans and no mitigation is required, and there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION SECTION The applicant contracted directly with Crain and Associates to prepare a traffic study for the proposed project. A copy the final traffic study dated March 19, 2003, which received significant input and revisions from the traffic divisions in the Cities of Burbank and Glendale, was submitted by the applicant and incorporated into the DEIR. The traffic study analyzed existing traffic conditions at 24 intersections surrounding the project site, and studied the impacts of traffic associated with construction of the project, and impacts associated with traffic that the project. The traffic study indicates that the project is expected to generate 5,965 daily trips, including 280 trips during the A.M. peak hour, and 447 trips during the P.M. peak hour. The traffic study found that the level of service exceeded the thresholds of significance at only two of the 24 intersections that were studied, and only during the P.M. peak hour of traffic.
Alameda Ave. and Victory Blvd. � During the P.M. peak hour
Alameda Ave. and Flower St. � During the P.M. peak hour
The traffic study identified two mitigation measures to address impacts associated with traffic that the project would generate and these two intersections, and a third measure that would require specific improvements to Flower Street. The traffic section concludes that after mitigation traffic impacts will be less than significant, and there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS SECTION The Geology and Soils section of the DEIR discusses the environmental setting with regards to regional faults and seismicity, geologic setting, soil conditions, groundwater and caving, local seismicity, and local policies and requirements. One mitigation measure is prescribed that requires compliance with the recommendations and mitigation measures that are set forth in the Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Home Depot, Burbank California, prepared by Geotechnical Professionals Inc. dated November 7, 2002. The Geology and Soils section concludes that with implementation of the mitigation measure impacts will be less than significant, and there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY SECTION The Public Health and Safety section of the DEIR begins with a brief history of the site and surrounding properties and the involvement of various regulatory agencies in soil and ground water investigations. The Regional Water Quality Control Board was ultimately designated the lead agency with oversight responsibility, including approval of any investigation or remedial activities, including clean up criteria proposed by the applicant.
The analysis in the Public Health and Safety section made the following determinations;
Geology -the project as designed under the oversight on the CRWQCB will not have any significant geologic impacts and no additional mitigation is necessary.
Water Resources � all plans have, or will be, reviewed and approved by the applicable agencies, including the City of Burbank, the City of Glendale, the SCAQMD, and/or the CRWQCB before the City issues any permits necessary for the project to begin, and no additional mitigation is necessary. However, the DEIR has determined that implementation of the slurry wall will result in a significant unavoidable adverse impact to water quality standards because water quality standards would be violated if installation of the slurry wall causes the edge of the existing diesel plume to move to where the plume currently does not exist. The DEIR analyzed potential mitigation measures and alternatives to the slurry wall to mitigate or lessen these groundwater impacts. The DEIR concluded that the analyzed mitigation measures and alternatives are either infeasible, cause new impacts, or are significantly less efficient at remediating the site than the proposed remedial design. Therefore, for the City to approve the project, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required.
Public Health � subject to compliance with the requirements in the plans review and approved by the SCAQMD and the CRWQCB no other mitigation is necessary. However, the DEIR has determined that implementation of the slurry wall will result in a significant unavoidable adverse impact to ongoing and future remediation activities on the IBC site. Therefore, for the City to certify the EIR adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required.
AIR QUALITY The Air Quality section of the DEIR provides a summary of Federal, State, and regional agencies, regulations and standards, and current air quality data from the East San Fernando Valley and West Los Angeles and Burbank Monitoring Stations. Estimated emissions from demolition and construction activities, and a local area carbon monoxide dispersion analysis is also incorporated into the section. The DEIR recommends twelve mitigation measures and concludes that with mitigation both construction related and long-term operational impacts are forecasted to occur and the project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on regional air quality. Therefore, for the City to certify the EIR adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required.
NOISE The Noise section of the DEIR provides a summary of noise characteristics and sound measurement, Federal and State standards and regulations, and local regulations. The section discusses sensitive receptors, ambient noise levels, and includes an analysis of project construction and operational related noise from the proposed project. The store operation related noise includes both stationary and mobile sources such as vehicle traffic, loading dock activities, trash compactor, roof-top mechanical equipment, and the vapor extraction equipment. The DEIR includes three mitigation measures that are intended to address noise related impacts, and with mitigation there will be no significant noise impacts related to the proposed project. The Noise section concludes that no mitigation is required, and there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES The Aesthetics and Visual Resources section of the DEIR includes view perspectives from each of the street frontages, and describes the physical characteristics of the existing structures. The section also discusses the visual impacts proposed site plan and building, the proposed signage specifically the proposed 95-foot tall pylon sign, and the proposed lighting. The section does incorrectly indicate that a sign variance could be approved based on a number of observations. The Aesthetics and Visual Resources section concludes that no mitigation is required, and there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES The Water and Wastewater Services section of the DEIR includes a survey of existing water demand within the City, wastewater service, relevant local water policies, and an analysis of the project related demand and the City�s ability to serve the proposed project. The DEIR recommends three mitigation measures that address water demand, and one mitigation measure that addresses wastewater that would be discharged from the proposed project. The Water and Wastewater Services section of the DEIR concludes that with the prescribed mitigation the water and wastewater demands will be less than significant, and there will be no significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
ENERGY The Energy Section of the DEIR includes a summary of existing and future electrical power, natural gas, and petroleum supply resources, relevant plans, policies, and regulations, and an analysis of the estimated energy demand the proposed project will generate. The Energy section concludes that no mitigation is required, and there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
ALTERNATIVES The Alternative section of the DEIR analyzed five different alternatives.
Alternative 1 No Project/No Development This alternative assumes that the project site would be left in its current condition. Alternative 2 Reduced Project This alternative assumes that the proposed project is reduced by 25%, resulting is a total of approximately 86,350 square feet of interior floor area and approximately 18,500 square feet of outdoor garden area. Alternative 3 Alternative Land Use This alternative assumes development of a total of 300,000 square feet of industrial uses. Alternative 4 Remediation This alternative assumes that the proposed slurry wall is either modified or eliminated. Alternative 5 Alternative Site This alternative assumes that the proposed home improvement facility is constructed on an alternative site.
The DEIR analyzed the Land Use, Traffic and Circulation, Geology and Soils, Public Health and Safety, Air Quality, Noise, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Water and Wastewater, and Energy aspects of each alternative provides a summary of the potential impacts. The Alternative section concludes with a discussion of the Environmental Superior Alternative, and Alternative 2 Reduced Project is considered the overall environmentally superior alternative because it would result in the clean-up of the on-site contamination, reduce impacts that are associated with the amount of development, and not result in any new significant environmental impacts.
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT This section of the DEIR evaluates the growth inducing impacts of the proposed project, and it concludes that the project would not result in a significant impact.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The DEIR has identified Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts in the following areas;
Notice of Completion On September 30, 2003 a Notice of Completion (NOP) was filed with the State Office of Planning and Research, and the State authorized commencement of the 45-day public review on October 1 (Exhibit M). The 45-day public review period ended on Friday November 14, 2003.
Copies of the DEIR were distributed to the Planning Board and City Council (Exhibits M-1 and M-2), five copies of the DEIR were placed in both the Central Library and the Buena Vista Branch, and three copies were placed in the Northwest Branch. In addition, a copy of the DEIR was placed in the City Clerk�s Office and a copy is also available at the public counter in the Planning Division.
The project site was posted with copies of the NOC which described the project, the beginning and ending dates of the 45-day public review period, where copies of the DEIR were available, and the date and time of the Planning Board public hearing on the DEIR. Public notices of the 45-day public review period, where copies of the DEIR were available, and the date and time of the Planning Board public hearing on the DEIR were mailed to property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the project site in the City of Burbank (Exhibit N). A copy of the same public notice was mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site in the City of Glendale.
Planning Board Hearing on the DEIR During the 45-Day Public Review Period The Planning Board held a public hearing on October 27 to invite public comments on the DEIR and for the Board member to provide their comments on the DEIR. Staff provided a description of the project and summarized the CEQA process beginning with preparation of the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation to completion of the DEIR and submission of the Notice of Completion to the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The City�s environmental consultant team presented a summary of the DEIR and a focused summary of the Public Health and Safety section of the DEIR, and the representative from the applicant�s traffic consultant, Crain & Associates presented a summary of the traffic study.
All of the comments provided by the Planning Board members and the public were recorded in the minutes for the meeting (Exhibit O) and have been responded to by the consultant team in the Responses to Comments in the Final EIR.
Environmental Oversight Committee The Environmental Oversight Committee met on Wednesday November 5 with City staff and the City�s environmental consultant team for the proposed Home Depot, and a description of the project, the environmental process, and the DEIR was provided. The following people attended the meeting and a copy of the minutes is attached (Exhibit P).
All of the comments provided by the Environmental Oversight Committee members and the public were recorded in the minutes for the meeting and were responded to by the consultant team in the Responses to Comments in the Final EIR.
Comments Received During the 45-Day Public Review Period The 45-day public review period ended on Friday November 14, 2003 and the following written comments were received and have been incorporated into the Final EIR:
The comments received addressed a variety of issues including the historic and current status of site characterization and remediation, air quality, public utilities, and traffic related concerns. Specific traffic related concerns were raised by both the Planning Board and City Council member Todd Campbell for the intersection of Alameda Avenue and Flower Street including the need to analyze traffic on the weekends and the need for a signalized left turn phase for west bound traffic on Alameda Avenue. Council member Todd Campbell also expressed concerns about emissions from diesel powered construction equipment during the different phases of construction.
Final Environmental Impact Report The Final EIR was completed and submitted to the City on Friday January 30, 2004 and contains all of the comments received during the 45-day public review period and the responses to the comments that were prepared by the consultant team. In addition, weekend traffic counts were taken and a supplemental analysis prepared that was incorporated into the Final EIR. The applicant also agreed to lower the height of the 95-foot tall pylon sign to 25-feet, and additional mitigation measures were added to require specific traffic improvements, address air quality, noise, and electrical utility issues in the Final EIR.
WEEKEND TRAFFIC COUNTS The City Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department sent a letter to the applicant�s traffic consultant, Crain and Associates, and asked them to address several aspects of the traffic analysis including incorporation of weekend traffic counts. The City Traffic Engineering Division had weekend traffic counts taken at six intersections on January 24 and 25 to avoid the impact of the holiday season.
The weekend traffic counts for each movement at each of the six intersections were given to the applicant�s traffic consultant for analysis and comparison with the week day assumptions provided in the initial traffic study. The results of the supplemental analysis of the weekend traffic counts has been incorporated on pages 17 -20 in to the Final EIR and indicates that the project will not cause significant impacts at the six intersections on either Saturday or Sunday.
TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS The City Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department also asked the applicant�s traffic consultant, Crain and Associates, to revisit the proposed design for the intersection of Alameda Avenue and Flower Street including traffic lane alignment and provision for a west bound signalized left turn phase on Alameda Avenue. The results of the expanded analysis of the intersection of Alameda Avenue and Flower Street have been incorporated on page 21 of the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure which the applicant has agreed to was added:
Mitigation Measure B-4: Subject to final review and approval by the City of Burbank Traffic Division, the Project Applicant shall provide for the following improvements to the intersection of Flower Street and Alameda Avenue:
AIR QUALITY In response to concerns expressed about emissions from diesel powered construction equipment the following six (6) additional mitigation measures were agreed to by the applicant and were added:
Mitigation Measure E-5: All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials off-site shall be covered and maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). Mitigation Measure E-13: The Applicant shall require all contractors to conform to one of the following criteria regarding diesel powered construction equipment that will be used during the demolition, excavation, and/or construction of the Project:
Mitigation Measure E-14: During construction of the Project, construction contractors shall be required to use heavy-duty diesel powered construction equipment manufactured after 1996 (with federally mandated �clean� diesel engines), wherever feasible.
Mitigation Measure E-15: During construction of the Project, construction contractors shall be required to minimize the number of construction equipment operating simultaneously through efficient management practices to ensure that the smallest practical number is operating at any one time.
Mitigation Measure E-16: During operation of the Project, the Applicant shall be required to equip the back-up generator with filters to reduce emissions.
Mitigation Measure E-17: During operation of the proposed Project, truck engines shall be turned off while merchandise is being off-loaded. This mitigation measure shall be imposed if determined to be legally feasible. At the request of the City, the California Attorney General�s Office is currently reviewing whether it is permissible for local agencies to impose vehicle idling restrictions, or whether they are preempted by state law from imposing such regulations.
In response to concerns expressed by the neighboring property owner, Westwind Media, the following four (4) additional mitigation measures were added:
Mitigation Measure F-4: The Applicant shall ensure that one-half of all Project-related construction trucks arriving from or returning to the I‑5 Freeway utilize the Western Avenue interchange and the other half utilize the Alameda Avenue interchange.
Mitigation Measure F-5: The Applicant shall provide Westwind Media with a daily schedule showing specific hours of the day whenever (1) excavation of the site; (2) hauling of contaminated soil or excavated debris; and/or (3)any other substantial construction-related vibration impacts will be occurring at the Project site.
Mitigation Measure F-6: The Applicant shall be required to maintain ongoing communication with a designated representative from Westwind Media regarding construction-related activities.
Mitigation Measure F-7: The Applicant�s contractor shall provide a contact person and phone number to be available during the construction phase of the Project to address and report back on neighbor and community concerns.
MUNICIPAL ELECTRICAL SERVICE The Electrical Division of the Burbank Water and Power Department submitted comments on the DEIR and requested the following thirteen additional mitigation measures be added:
Mitigation Measure I-1: The Applicant shall conduct all electrical substructure work in accordance with Burbank Water and Power drawings and specifications. Switch pad and transformer pad(s) shall be at-grade level on undisturbed soil to allow for the installation of pads and boxes underneath them. The Applicant shall provide a recorded easement five feet wide for an underground duct system from the property line on Flower Street to the pad-mount switch, an easement 25 feet by 15 feet for a pad-mount switch and easy accessibility to the electrical facilities for BWP employees at all times. The Applicant�s surveyor shall provide a legal description of the easements, which shall be reviewed by BWP and then processed by the Community Development Department.
Mitigation Measure I-2: The Applicant shall be responsible for the installation of any underground electrical ducts, on-site and off-site, pull boxes, grounding systems, switch pad, and transformer pad(s).
Mitigation Measure I-3: Any engineering support, inspection of the contractor�s work, installation of pad-mount transformer(s), a pad-mount switch, primary cables, and metering devices provided by Burbank Water and Power shall be conducted at the Applicant�s cost.
Mitigation Measure I-4: The Applicant shall install secondary conduits and cable from a transformer to switchboard/meter section. This portion of work shall be inspected and approved by the Building Department inspector.
Mitigation Measure I-5: The Applicant shall utilize outdoor meter locations to the extent feasible. In the event that adequate exterior wall space is not available, a separately locked, clearly labeled meter room accessible from outside of the building through one door must be provided. The Applicant shall supply a key to this room to Burbank Water and Power, which shall be installed in a lock box adjacent to the door. The Applicant shall consult the Department for an approved location.
Mitigation Measure I-6: The Applicant shall provide five (5) copies of EUSERC drawings prior to manufacture of a switchboard for BWP approval. Service shall not be energized unless these drawings are provided.
Mitigation Measure I-7: Prior to issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall install two (2) 4-inch PVC concrete-encased conduits (with a recorded easement) from the pad-mount switch to the northerly property line to provide service to the future development of the site located between the Project site�s northerly property line and Alameda Avenue.
Mitigation Measure I-8: Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall ensure that all equipment locations and screening structures are indicated on the plans and must meet the Community Development Department Equipment Screening Guidelines. The plans shall include the proposed screening method, height of screening, material finish and color, or species of vegetation. All screen walls, which are a part of, or adjacent to, the proposed building shall be shown on the building elevations. All screen walls detached from the building shall be included as a separate elevation. Verification of submittal requirements and recommendations for screening requirements shall be made by the Community Development Department Director or his designee.
Mitigation Measure I-9: Prior to issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall provide �-inch conduit with 4-pair category 3 minimum communication wire from the telephone demarcation point to the meter for the Automatic Remote Meter (AMR) reading.
Mitigation Measure I-10: Prior to issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall demonstrate that a complete underground streetlight system has been installed along the Flower Street Project frontage, including streetlight bases, pullboxes, conduits, and a service cabinet. Streetlight standards with luminaries, underground conductors, and labor to install them will be supplied by BWP at the Applicant�s expense. All work shall be conducted according to BWP design and specifications. An electronic copy of a plot plan of the sidewalks and proposed driveways shall be submitted to BWP during the initial stage of the Project to aid in the streetlight design.
Mitigation Measure I-11: Prior to issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall demonstrate that the electrical design complies with California Building Code Title 24 energy efficiency requirements and shall use, wherever practical, surge suppressors, filters, isolation transformers or other available means to preserve a quality of power of its electrical service and to protect sensitive electronic and computer-controlled equipment from voltage surges, sages, and fluctuations. BWP also recommends the use of an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) and a standby generator for critical loads.
Mitigation Measure I-12: In order to minimize kVA demand as well as energy use, the Applicant shall demonstrate that a power factor correction to a minimum of 90 percent is utilized at all times. There would be a rate penalty for power factors less than 90 percent and a credit for power factors between 90 percent and 98 percent. The Applicant shall use the California Non-resident Building Standard to consider and implement energy efficient electrical equipment and devices for minimizing peak demand and wasteful energy consumption.
Mitigation Measure I-13: Prior to plan approval, an electric service confirmation shall be obtained from BWP. The plans shall show the pertinent information related to the method of service as specified on the confirmation.
PYLON SIGN A number of comments received during the 45-day public review period also expressed concern about the 95-foot tall pylon sign proposed by the applicant. As a result the applicant submitted a revised signage plan and reduced the height of the proposed 95-foot tall pylon sign to 25-feet in height. A sign variance will still be required for the 25-foot tall sign because it will be the second ground sign and only one ground sign is permitted per lot. The applicant has also agreed to reduce the number of times promotional banners/signs will be used each year from twelve (12) to four (4), and both the reduction in height of the pylon sign, and the reduction in the number of times promotional banners/signs would be used annually are referenced on page 48 and 49 of the Final EIR.
Environmental Oversight Committee On Friday January 30, 2004 the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was distributed to the members of the Environmental Oversight Committee, and the Committee held a special meeting on Thursday February 5, 2004 to review the response to the comments that had been received during the 45-day public review period. The City environmental consultant team (PCR and Environ) presented the responses to comments that were received during the 45-day public review of the DEIR. A copy of the draft minutes for the Environmental Oversight Committee meeting on February 5, 2004 is attached (Exhibit Q).
At the Committee meeting on February 5, 2004 a number of people spoke during oral communications, and those comments were responded to by representatives from PCR and Environ, the applicant�s consultant team, and staff. The City Council members on the Committee (Jef Vander Borght and Todd Campbell) also asked questions that were responded to by the City and Home Depot consultant teams and staff. The City Council members on the Committee did however; ask for an expansion of the air quality analysis that would indicate the cumulative health risks from mobile and stationary sources of emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Home Depot store.
The City�s consultant team prepared a Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Assessment dated February 2004, and a copy was distributed to the Planning Board with the Final EIR (Exhibit R), and a copy of the Health Risk Assessment was also distributed to the Environmental Oversight Committee. The applicant�s environmental consultant team provided a Cumulative Health Risk Assessment that indicates the cumulative emissions from both fixed and mobile sources associated with daily operation of the proposed Home Depot will be below established limits, and will not create a significant human health risk (Exhibit S). A copy of the Cumulative Health Risk Assessment was distributed to the Planning Board and the Environmental Oversight Committee.
The Environmental Oversight Committee met for their regular monthly meeting on March 18, 2004 and staff placed the Cumulative Health Risk Assessment on the agenda because the assignment to prepare the Cumulative Health Risk Assessment had originated with the Committee members at their previous meeting on February 5, 2004. The Committee members discussed the analysis and indicated they were comfortable with the results. Council member Todd Campbell said he had the Cumulative Health Risk Assessment reviewed by experts in the field and that the analysis was well done and addressed the issues he was concerned with, and he had no additional concerns.
DAY LABORER FACILITY: On March 11, 2003 the applicant submitted plans for a day laborer facility that would be located in the northeasterly corner of the surface parking lot (Exhibit T). The proposed facility was approximately the 54-feet by 18-feet, and occupy approximately 6-parking spaces. The applicant provided reference to a similar facility at the Home Depot store at Wilshire Boulevard and Union Avenue in Los Angeles and included two pictures of the existing facility. The applicant also indicated they did not intend to build the day laborer facility when the store was initially constructed, but were intending to wait and see if the need materialized and then build the facility.
Staff went to the day laborer facility that serves the Home depot store in the City of Glendale and spoke with the coordinator, Laura Young about the proposed facility. Ms. Young said the Glendale facility was approximately 20-feet wide and 150-feet long, had four restrooms, and served between 60 and 70 workers each day. Ms. Young reviewed the plans for the proposed facility and said she felt the facility was undersized and that it should have at least one additional restroom.
The plans for the proposed day laborer facility were also distributed to the Park, Recreation & Community Services and Police Departments, the Traffic Engineering section of the Public Works Department, and the License and Code and Transportation Divisions of the Community Development Department, and the City of Glendale for review and comments. We received the following comments from each of these departments indicating their opinion that the facility would be needed when the store opened, and that the proposed facility was undersized.
On Tuesday January 13, 2004 City staff met with representatives from the City of Glendale, and the Catholic Charities who operate the day laborer facility that serve the Glendale Home Depot store. The representatives present agreed that the demographics of the surrounding area (including a viable customer base), the nature of this particular store as a stand-alone operation with an entrance close to the public right of way, the experience of the City of Glendale and the Catholic Charities with the Glendale day labor facility, and the number of day labors that frequent the U Haul business at Alameda and Victory in Burbank, confirm the need for a day laborer facility for the proposed store immediately upon the opening of the store. The meeting participants agreed that the following minimum requirements were essential for a viable day laborer center:
The day laborer facility should be operational when the store opens.
There is no viable off-site location in direct proximity to the proposed store.
The facility needs to be on-site.
The day laborer facility and the day labors must not interfere with store patron access or store operations, but be easily accessible to the store patrons and have a vehicle turn out area.
The facility needs to provide an economically viable option for the day laborers, and any fee must be financially reflective of the circumstances of the day laborers or they will simply not use the facility.
The Home Depot team submitted a revised site plan that showed the day laborer facility located next to the northerly entrance to the parking lot (Exhibit U). The revised design provided room for an expanded facility, and included a separate drive aisle with a vehicle turn out area to accommodate passenger loading and unloading. On Tuesday January 29, City staff met with representatives from the City of Glendale to continue the discussion of the day labor facilities that will be required for the Home Depot store, and consider the revised site plan. The representatives present agreed that the proposed location adjacent to the northerly entrance to the parking lot was acceptable, that Home Depot would be required to construct the facility simultaneously with the store. The representatives present also agreed that the facility would include an office area, restroom facilities.
A condition of approval has been included that requires Home Depot to construct a building with restroom facilities and other amenities suitable for a day labor facility. Home Depot is required to construct the facility prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy and transfer the facility to the City or a City designated third party that will operate the day labor facility. As set forth in the Conditions of Approval, Home Depot will not have any liability or responsibility for the day laborer facility after conveyance to the City. The location and specifications of the site, as shown on the site plan (Exhibit U), will help to better manage day laborers and ensure the successful operation of the facility. This day laborer site and facility was developed in consultation with the City of Glendale and others with experience in operating day laborer centers.
An additional comment letter was received from Westwind Media dated December 10, 2003 that addressed several non-CEQA aspects of the project (Exhibit V). The letter was addressed to the Dennis Barlow, City Attorney, and Mike Garcia, Assistant City Attorney has prepared a response, and a copy is attached (Exhibit W).
PLANNING BOARD HEARING Public Notice A public notice which provided the date, time, and location of the Planning Board hearing scheduled for March 1, 2004 was published in the Daily News on Saturday, February 21, 2004. Copies of the public notice were also mailed to property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the project site in the City of Burbank and the City of Glendale (Exhibit X).
Public Hearing On March 1, 2004, the Planning Board held a public hearing in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, and a copy of the minutes are attached (Exhibit Y). Staff provided an overview of the project and the environmental review process. The City�s environmental consultant provided an overview of the ElR, comments received, the mitigation measures, the unavoidable adverse impacts, and the findings that can be made to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The applicant�s traffic consultant also provided an overview of the traffic study and the mitigation measures that were required. In addition, the City�s consultant for the Public Health and Safety section of the EIR provided a detailed summary of the various studies that were prepared, analyzed, and incorporated into that section of the EIR. Staff also provided an overview of the proposed day laborer facility. Finally, the applicant provided a description of the project.
The Planning Board opened the public hearing, and Gary Yamada, who represents neighboring property owner Westwind Media, asked a number of questions, to which staff and the consultant teams provided responses. Then the public hearing was closed, and the Board members were given the opportunity to ask a variety of questions. City staff, the City�s consultant team, and applicant�s consultant team, subsequently responded to each question. The Planning Board discussed the pros and cons of the proposed project and voted to approve Resolution No. 2921 certifying the FEIR (Exhibit Z-1) and Resolution No. 2922 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-6, Sign Variance No. 2002-1, and Development Review No. 2002-12 (Exhibit Z-2).
CITY COUNCIL At the City Council meeting on March 2, 2004, Council Member Jef Vander Borght raised the issue of funding the day laborer facility at the proposed Home Depot store. Mr. Vander Borght suggested that the City Council consider appealing the Planning Board�s approval to require Home Depot to pay for the annual operation of the day laborer facility, and asked that the issue be placed on the City Council�s agenda. The item was placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting on March 9th; however, the Home Depot team asked that it be continued to the next regular City Council meeting on March 16th.
At the City Council meeting on March 16th the Home Depot representatives offered to commit to annual payments to the City of $94,000 to pay for additional City services, including police and fire services related to store operations, in lieu of contributing directly to the annual operational cost of the day laborer facility. The Council discussed the proposal and approved a Mitigation Fee Agreement with Home Depot USA Inc. to accept annual payments of $94,000 to pay for additional City services (Exhibit Z-3). Under the Mitigation Fee Agreement, Home Depot would have no obligation to pay the fee if the Planning Board�s decision was appealed. Since the decision was appealed, Home Depot has agreed to a Condition of Approval with the same pertinent terms as the original agreement (Condition No. 1.T.).
APPEAL OF PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL On March 18, 2004 the City received an appeal of the Planning Board�s decisions to certify the FEIR and to approve the Conditional Use Permit, Sign Variance, and Development Review (Exhibit A). The appeal was filed by Howard Rothenbach and Mike Nolan, and an attachment was included that states three general issues for appeal.
1. The first area of concern is that the project did not conform to standard practices under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), past practices, and codes in the City of Burbank for the adoption of a FEIR, and that the Planning Board did not have the authority to certify the FEIR.
An Initial Study was prepared for the project and submitted with a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the State Office of Planning and Research on September 27, 2002. The State initiated a 30-day public review period, and distributed copies of the NOP to various State Agencies for review and comment. The 30-day public review period ended on October 27, 2002 and the comments received were incorporated into the DEIR, and copies are provided in Appendix A. A Notice of Completion (NOC) was prepared and submitted to the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) on September 30, 2003, and OPR initiated a 45-day public review that began on October 1st, and ended on November 14, 2003. Copies of the DEIR and Appendices were placed in the Central Library, the Buena Vista Branch, and the Northwest Branch Libraries. Copies of the NOC were posted on the fence surrounding the project site, and the NOC described the project, the beginning and ending dates of the 45-day public review period, where copies of the DEIR were available, and the date, time and place of the Planning Board hearing on the DEIR to take oral comments during the 45-day public review period. A public notice, which provided the same information, was mailed to property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the project site�s boundaries in the City of Burbank and to property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site�s boundaries in the City of Glendale.
The Planning Board held a public hearing on October 27, 2003 to invite public comments on the DEIR, and to allow the Board members to provide their comments on the DEIR. The Environmental Oversight Committee also met on November 5, 2003 to review the DEIR during the 45-day public review period, and the Committee provided a number of comments. All of the written and oral comments received during the 45-day public review of the DEIR were responded to in the Final EIR.
The FEIR was completed on January 30, 2004 and copies were distributed to the Planning Board and the Environmental Oversight Committee. The Environmental Oversight Committee met on February 5, 2005 to review the FEIR, and the Committee asked for an expansion of the air quality analysis that would address the cumulative health risks associated with mobile and stationary sources of emissions from the construction and operation of the proposed Home Depot store. Copies of the cumulative air quality health risk analysis where distributed to the Environmental Oversight Committee and to the Planning Board.
The Planning Board met on March 1, 2004 to hold a public hearing on the FEIR, conditional use permit, sign variance, and development review for the proposed Home Depot store. Public Notices were mailed to property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the project site advising them of the date, time, and place of the Planning Board hearing.
Section 31-1935 of the BMC states that � The Board or Council, as hereinafter provided, may grant a conditional use permit�.� (Exhibit AA), and Section 31-1916 states that �The Board shall have the authority, subject to the applicable provisions of this division, to grant a variance from the provisions of this chapter�� (Exhibit BB), so for both the conditional use permit and the sign variance the BMC gives the Planning Board the authority to grant either request. Section 21-105 (h) of the BMC states that �[t]he Director shall submit the appropriate environmental document to the Council or other decision-making person or body who will approve or disapprove a project. The decision-making body shall certify the adequacy of the environmental document� (Exhibit CC) (Emphasis added.) Thus, the BMC expressly states that the �decision-making body,� in this case the Planning Board, shall certify the FEIR.
Moreover, the California Environmental Quality Act, in implementing regulations, and CEQA case law, supports the Planning Board�s authority to certify the EIR. Cal. Pub. Res. Code � 21151(c); CEQA Guidelines �� 15090, 15091, 15093, 15185(b) and 15356; Greenbaum v. City of Los Angeles, 153 Cal. App. 3d 391 (1984). As the approving body, the Planning Board was authorized and indeed required to certify the EIR. Nothing in CEQA or the Code supports the interpretation that the Board is only the �recommending body� when a project requires an EIR.
2. The second issue is that the impact of �day laborers� on the site was raised as part of the environmental review for the project, and therefore it is incorrect to say in the agreement with Home Depot that it is not mitigation for the project. The appellant states the agreement does refer to it as mitigation, and therefore must run with the land as part of the conditions of approval and contain the appropriate successor language.
As stated in the responses to comments in the Final EIR, issues related to day laborers and the proposed day laborer facility are not issues requiring analysis under CEQA. Nevertheless, the City certainly has the authority to address issues and impacts that are not environmental impacts outside of the CEQA context. As stated in the Mitigation Fee Agreement, the fee is not mitigation for a significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. However, the City still has the authority under its police power to impose conditions that �mitigate� impacts to the public health, safety, and welfare. Operation of the Home Depot store is likely to have additional social and public services impacts that need to be addressed. These impacts will include the operation of the day laborer center, but may also include the need to pay for additional services, including police, fire, and/or community services. The Mitigation Fee Agreement leaves the City with the discretion of how to use the fee.
3 The third issue concern raised by the appellant is that the $94,000 Home Depot has agreed to pay annually to the City is illegal and unfair.
The fee is neither illegal nor unfair. The fee will be used to offset additional costs associated with Home Depot store operations. Operating a day laborer center is not illegal under federal or state laws.
PUBLIC NOTICE A public notice was prepared for the City Council hearing scheduled for April 13, 2004, on the appeal of the Planning Board�s certification of the FEIR and approval of the project (Exhibit DD). A copy was sent to the City Clerk on March 25, 2004 for publication and for mailing to the surrounding property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the project site.
ANALYSIS: The project site is designated General Manufacturing in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and zoned M-2 industrial, and the proposed home improvement store is a conditionally permitted use in the M-2 zone. The surrounding properties are developed with one and two story buildings and industrial uses, and the applicant is proposing to construct a home improvement store that will be a one story structure, and the highest architectural feature will be 40 feet above the finish floor. The proposed store will also include a surface parking lot with a total of 627 full size on-site parking spaces which is 166 spaces more than required by the Municipal Code. The Municipal Code also requires three (3) loading spaces that are a minimum of 300 square feet is size for a building that is 40,001 square and larger, and the proposed home improvement store will include a 4,550 square foot loading dock area that is 65 feet is width and 70 feet in depth. The proposed store will also provide Code compliant setbacks and the surface parking area is also designed to provide the required landscaping, therefore, the physical development of the project site will be consistent with the Municipal Code and compatible with the surrounding development.
Environmental Status
Final EIR The Final EIR was completed and submitted to the City on Friday January 30, 2004, and all of the comments received during the 45-day public review of the DEIR were responded to by the consultant team and incorporated into the Final EIR (Exhibit EE). In addition, weekend traffic counts were taken and a supplemental analysis prepared that was incorporated into the Final EIR. The applicant also lowered the height of the 95-foot tall pylon sign to 25-feet, and twenty four (24) additional mitigation measures were added to require specific traffic improvements, address air quality, noise, and electrical utility issues in the Final EIR.
Summary of Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The DEIR has identified Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts in the following areas;
Therefore, for the City to approve the project, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required for the significant unavoidable adverse impacts in the areas of water quality, ongoing and future remediation activities on the IBC site, and for regional air quality.
CONCLUSION: The Final EIR indicates that the project can be fully mitigated with the exception of significant unavoidable impacts related to public health and safety and air quality. Approval of the CUP would require a finding of �Overriding Considerations� of the significant unavoidable impacts related to public health and safety and air quality.
The environmental effects of the project found to be significant unavoidable and adverse after mitigation are air quality emissions during construction and operation of the Project, and public health and safety effects resulting from the proposed slurry wall associated with the proposed remediation activities. However, it should be noted that although the proposed project would generate quantities of certain pollutants that exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD, Project consistency with the AQMP indicates that the project would not jeopardize attainment of State and Federal ambient air quality standards. Furthermore, the project proposes to implement a remediation program intended to protect public health by remediating the hazardous contamination on the site, which has precluded the site from any ongoing productive use, removing an existing continuing source of contamination to the underlying regional ground water, which is used as a water supply, and, lowering the risk associated with transport of vapor to the surface. A resolution for the Planning Board�s consideration has been prepared that contains these findings, and the resolution also indicates that the unavoidable, significant adverse impacts of the project as described in the FEIR are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the project for the following reasons and justifications:
Requirements for Granting a Conditional Use Permit The Burbank Municipal Code allows a home center (home improvement) store as a conditional use in the M-2 Industrial zone, and the applicant submitted an application for approval of a conditional use permit for the proposed Home Depot store on the subject property at 1200 South Flower.
There are six requirements that must be met to approve a conditional use permit, and each of the six requirements is listed below along with a response that indicates how the proposed project complies with the requirement. It is staff's assessment that, with regard to the request for a conditional use permit, the six findings required for approval of a conditional use permit can be made for this project.
(1) The use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Chapter 31 of the Municipal Code.
Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-810 establishes the conditional uses that are permitted in the M-2 Industrial zone, and a �home center� is listed as a conditionally permitted use.
(2) The use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located.
The project involves construction of a home improvement store with an outdoor garden supply area and a surface parking lot with 627 parking spaces. The proposed store and garden center will have 139,807 square feet of floor space and the Municipal Code requires 461 parking spaces, however, 166 additional spaces are going to be provided. The proposed store will accommodate all store related activities on-site, and the use will not be detrimental to surrounding existing or permitted uses.
(3) The use will be compatible with other uses on the same lot, and in the general area in which the use is proposed to be located.
The architecture, hours of operation, traffic, parking demand, and all on-site activities of the proposed home improvement store will be compatible with the surrounding commercial and industrial uses.
(4) The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features required to adjust the use to the existing or future uses permitted in the neighborhood.
The project site consists of 11.1 acres and the proposed project will provide all required setback and landscaped areas, 166 additional parking spaces, and be constructed in accordance with the development standards for the M-2 zone as outlined in the Burbank Municipal Code.
(5) The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated or to be generated by the proposed use.
As the project site for the proposed home improvement store fronts on Flower Street which is designated a �Collector Street� in the City of Burbank�s General Plan, and designated a �Minor Arterial� in the City of Glendale�s General Plan. The right-of-way varies in width from 40 to 66 feet, and is 55 feet in width adjacent to the project site. Alameda Avenue is designated a �Major Arterial� in the City of Burbank�s General Plan from Riverside Drive to Glenoaks Boulevard. The right-of-way width varies from 123 feet west of Flower Street to approximately 76 feet in width east of Flower Street. The Traffic Study that has been prepared for the proposed project has indicated that both Flower Street and Alameda Avenue have sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic the proposed home improvement store would generate.
(6) The conditions imposed are necessary to protect the public health, convenience, safety, and welfare.
All mitigation measures identified in the Draft and Final EIR have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the conditions of approval for this project, are intended to insure that there are no impacts to public health, convenience, safety, or the welfare on the owners or occupants of the surrounding property.
Requirements for Granting a Variance From Sign Regulations: The applicant has submitted an application for sign variance for a second ground sign, and approval to use promotional banners four (4) times a year as opposed to the two (2) times permitted by the BMC..
There are four requirements that must be met to approve a sign variance, and each of the four requirements is listed below along with a response that indicates how the proposed project complies with the requirement. It is staff's assessment that, with regard to the request for a sign variance, the four findings required for approval of a sign variance can be made for this project.
(1) The sign is in proportion to the structure or property to which it relates.
The subject property is approximately 11.1 acres in size and has approximately 937 linear feet of street frontage on Flower Street, and 560 linear feet of street frontage on Allen Avenue. The additional ground sign will located on the Flower Street frontage, and will be proportional to the long street frontage. The use of promotional banners an additional two (2) additional times each year for seasonal events that will be internal to the site within the interior of the surface parking area will be proportional to the size of the project site, and consistent with the nature of the home improvement store.
(2) The sign has balance and unity among its external features so as to present a harmonious appearance.
The individual components of the second ground sign will be compatible and combine to create a well-balanced appearance. Although the Municipal Code only permits one ground sign on each lot the site has approximately 937 feet of street frontage on Flower Street. The promotional banners will be used within the interior of the site for seasonal events and for limited periods of time, and will compatible with the physical characteristics of the interior of the surface parking area.
(3) The sign will be compatible with the style or character of existing improvements upon adjacent property.
The project site is in an industrial area and the second ground sign on Flower Street, which is a collector street, would be compatible with existing development on the surrounding properties and would not be out of character with the existing development patterns in the area. The promotional banners will be used internal to the site for seasonal events and will also be compatible with surrounding improvements on adjacent properties. (4) The sign is not contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or the objectives of any applicable specific or master plans.
Allowing a second ground sign on a project site with a street frontage 937 feet in length, and promotional banners two (2) additional times a year for seasonal events for a home improvement store would not be contrary to any General or Specific Plan goals or objectives.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council certify the final environmental impact report, adopt findings of environmental impacts and a statement of overriding considerations, and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-6, Sign Variance No. 2002-1, and Development Review No. 2002-12 subject to the conditions of approval.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: The action of the City Council may be to certify the final environmental impact report and approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the conditional use permit and sign variance. If the City Council chooses not to certify the final environmental impact report and/or make the findings and adopt a statement of overriding considerations, then neither the conditional use permit or the sign variance can be approved.
�I move that the City Council certify the final environmental impact report, make findings of environmental impact, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and that Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-6, Sign Variance No. 2002-1, and Development Review No. 2002-12 be approved, and that the following resolutions be approved:
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A Application to appeal the Planning Board�s action dated March 18, 2004
EXHIBIT B Vicinity Map
EXHIBIT C Site Map
EXHIBIT D Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Glendale and the Southern California Rail Authority dated July 27, 2000.
EXHIBIT E Project applications
EXHIBIT F Letter from the CRWQCB dated April 16, 2003 approving the Basis of Design Report.
EXHIBIT G Letter from the CRWQCB dated December 23, 2002 indicating that NPDES Permit No. CA0064467 was issued to Home Depot.
EXHIBIT H Letter from the AQMD dated October 16, 2002 approving the Soil Mitigation Plan under AQMD Rule 1166.
EXHIBIT I AQMD Permit to Construct an On-Site Vapor and Dual Phase Extraction and Treatment System dated February 13, 2003.
EXHIBIT J Comments submitted at the Development Review meeting on August 15, 2002.
EXHIBIT K Notice of Preparation (NOP) dated September 27, 2002.
EXHIBIT L State Office of Planning and Research distribution list for the Notice of Preparation.
EXHIBIT M Notice of Completion (NOC) that was filed with the State Office of Planning and Research on September 30, 2003.
EXHIBIT M-1 Distribution of DEIR to the Planning Board dated October 2, 2003
EXHIBIT M-2 Distribution of DEIR to the City Council dated October 2, 2003
EXHIBIT N Public Notice of the 45-day public review period of the Draft EIR.
EXHIBIT O Minutes from the Planning Board meeting October 27, 2003.
EXHIBIT P Minutes from the Environmental Oversight Committee meeting on November 5, 2003.
EXHIBIT Q Minutes from the Environmental Oversight Committee meeting on February 5, 2004.
EXHIBIT R Distribution of Final EIR and Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Assessment to Planning Board on February 20, 2004, and the Cumulative Health Risk Assessment on February 27, 2004
EXHIBIT S Cumulative Health Risk Assessment dated February 26, 2004
EXHIBIT T Initial plans for a day labor facility submitted by the Home Depot on March 11, 2003.
EXHIBIT U Final plans for a day labor facility submitted by the Home Depot team on January 29, 2004.
EXHIBIT V Letter from Westwind Media dated December 10, 2003
EXHIBIT W Letter to Westwind Media from Mike Garcia, Assistant City Attorney, dated February 25, 2004.
EXHIBIT X Public Notice for Planning Board hearing on March 1, 2004.
EXHIBIT Y Minutes from Planning Board meeting on March 1, 2004
EXHIBIT Z-1 Planning Board Resolution No. 2921 Certifying the FEIR
EXHIBIT Z-2 Planning Board Resolution No. 2922 Approving CUP No. 2002-6, Sign Variance No. 2002-1, and DR No. 2002-12, with the Conditions of Approval attached
EXHIBIT Z-3 Fee Agreement with Home Depot USA Inc. approved by the City Council on March 16, 2004
EXHIBIT AA BMC Section 31-1935
EXHIBIT BB BMC Section 31-1916
EXHIBIT CC BMC Section 21-105 (h)
EXHIBIT DD Public Notice of City Council hearing of appeal
EXHIBIT EE Final Environmental Impact Report dated January 2004
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
