HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1994/08/24 (4)
City Plarming Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of August 24, 1994
Page 1
1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCA-94-05; Consideration of amendments to Sections 19.58.225
and 19.60.600 of the Municipal Code to allow freeway-oriented
electronic message board signs to be established "offsite" at
selected locations - Citv Initiated
A. BACKGROUND
In October 1992, the Redevelopment Agency approved the Master Plan for the Chula Vista Auto
Park located on the south side of Otay Valley Road, to the east of the 1-805 Freeway. The
Agency and the auto dealers agreed that the City would assist in undertaking the necessary
actions to permit the consideration of a message board sign to identify the Auto Park to the
Interstate 1-805 Freeway (see Exhibit "B").
The first Auto Park dealerships are nearing completion, and the dealers are anxious to proceed
with a proposal to construct a freestanding electronic message board sign at the southeast
quadrant of the 1-805/0tay Valley Road interchange, just outside the boundaries of the Auto
Park. Since such "offsite" signs are not presently permitted within the City, an amendment to
the Code is considered appropriate.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study (IS-94-29) of potential
environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached
Initial Study and comments thereon the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no
significant environmental impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued
on IS-94-29.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution PCA-94-05 recommending that the City Council amend Sections 19.58.225
and 19.60.600 of the Municipal Code in accordance with the attached draft City Council
ordinance and the findings contained therein.
C. DISCUSSION
In 1992, the Plarming Commission and City Council approved an amendment to the Code to
allow for electronic message board signs. The amendment limited such signs to specific zones
within the Town Centre and Otay Valley Road redevelopment project areas where interest in
utilizing message board signs had either been expressed or anticipated. The Auto Park was one
of the areas where the use of a message board was considered appropriate, but it was not
anticipated that the sign would need to be constructed offsite in order to achieve adequate
visibility from the Freeway.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of August 24, 1994
Page 2
A message board at the Otay Valley Road/I-805 interchange is considered by the auto dealers
essential to the success of the Auto Park , which is a subregional or even regional serving use,
but which is not located directly adjacent to the Freeway. The use of both on- and off-site
message boards is common in the case of auto parks and centers, which according to the experts
rely heavily on drive-by trade, and which are certainly one of the largest contributors to the tax
revenues which support City services and facilities.
The amendments would relate directly to the provisions which presently allow message boards
only within certain selected areas upon approval of a sign program by the Redevelopment
Agency following a recommendation from the Design Review Committee. The amendments
have also been narrowly drawn in terms of their application, i.e. they could only be freeway-
oriented signs, and all commercial messages would have to relate directly to the sponsor of the
sign (no second party commercial advertising). They would, however, allow flexibility in
considering the appropriate size and dimension of a sign in order to provide adequate freeway
visibility (see Exhibit A).
It is anticipated that the auto dealers will submit a specific design proposal for consideration by
the DRC and Agency within the next several weeks.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Code Amendment Language
Planning Commission Resolution
Draft Council Ordinance
Exhibit B: Language from Agency/Auto Dealer Agreement
Initial Study
EXHIBIT A
Code Amendment Language
Section 19.58.225 Offsite Advertising Signs
Offsite advertising signs or structures are prohibited in all zones except inirdI19\'Ji~;fnf6r
~~byappiovai of a conditional useperrl1it foithe purpose of idocationofexistlngstructUiesas
encouraged by the State of California Business and Professions Code, Section 5412.
19.60.600
Electronic Message Board Regulations
Electronic message board signs may be authorized on a case by case basis by the Redevelopment
Agency in any CO, CC, or IL zoned areas located within Town Centre I, Town Centre II and Otay
Valley Road redevelopment areas, subject to conditions deemed appropriate by the Redevelopment
Agency upon recommendation by the Design Review Committee as part of an approved sign program.
Said conditions shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
A. The location of said sign shall be at least one-half (1/2) mile in any direction from any
other lawfully permitted electronic message board sign;
B. The operator of said sign shall devote a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of each hour
of the time the sign is in operation during normal business hours of the establishment to
messages conveying non-commercial announcements or other messages of benefit to the
community in accordance with a detailed operational program subject to review and
approval by the Community Development Department;
C. Said signs shall not result i~..an increase i~ ~:all?~abl:si~~ar:a~~!ilifor~e type
of sign in the zone, except j#;! in tile C-O n\d1riiVis~~~~~r!:1~~~Q~l()ff'il} zoned
areas, in which case additional sign area for said . signs. up to a rI1axirIlurl1 of fifty
~!~~!8!ts.q. U.a. r.e. fee.t. IIIa..y.?e~II?\Ve?'2~~~~!8~~}!!t~;!!!~~!!~!~!;~~~!8!5
Ij...d........ .......... .....'d d f ..........,A.!i/".... ......195822"'.. .....hl>.. ... .......... ..... .... ....... ............
~~~~!}+~~,T~~RF?0~7~7?f~~r~~P~~~7;::+;;.~\A)Y~#~~!t~~~~
f~rr~;;~~&r~~~&Qf~gi_~~tli~r~li;~&iri_'~;~~~~~~~t~I~!~~
D. Said signs shall be located on major or collector streets;
E. Rooftop and monument (ground) electronic message board SIgns; are expressly
prohibited;
:t1fu ffi1~.~~~~~.I~~~~~~~....!:!~~...p~g!~~~IWI!S~~~~!I1....~iii..!R~i~!1r9~....~i.\i'i!~~~lip~
99i11iI1~t~i~I...~~\iertisiii~....iS..pr6hibired:
Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall be considered grounds for revocation of the
approved sign program.
RESOLUTION NO. PCA-94-05
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS
TO SECTIONS 19.58.225 AND 19.60.600 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW
FREEWAY -ORIENTED ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARDS TO BE ESTABLISHED
OFFSITE AT SELECTED LOCATIONS
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for an amendment to the Municipal Code was filed with
the Plarming Department of the City of Chula Vista on June 8, 1994 by the City of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, said application requests approval of amendments to the Municipal Code to allow
off-site electronic message boards per the provisions of Sections 19.58.225 and 19.60.600; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study (IS-94-29)
of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project and based on the
attached Initial Study and comments thereon the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no
significant environmental impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-
94-29; and
WHEREAS, the Plarming Director set the time and place for a hearing on said proposed
amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city at least 21 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely August 24, 1994
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Plarming Commission and said
hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION finds that
the project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopts the Negative Declaration issued
on IS-94- 29.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, based on the facts
presented at the hearing, recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft ordinance amending
Sections 19.58.225 and 19.60.600 of the Municipal Code based on the findings contained therein.
That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 24th day of August 1994 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
William C. Tuchscher II, Chairman
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING
SECTIONS 19.58.225 AND 19.60.600 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
TO ALLOW FREEWAY-ORIENTED ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARDS TO BE
ESTABLISHED OFFSITE AT SELECTED LOCATIONS
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for an amendment to the Municipal Code was filed with
the City of Chula Vista on June 8, 1994 by the City of Chula Vista; and,
WHEREAS, said application requests approval of amendments to the Municipal Code to allow
off-site electronic message boards per the provisions of Sections 19.58.225 and 19.60.600; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study (15-94-29)
of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project and based on the
attached Initial Study and comments thereon the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no
significant environmental impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-
94-29; and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 1994, the Planning Commission voted to adopt Resolution
No. PCA-94-05 and thereby recommend that the City Council enact the proposed amendments to the
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said application and notice
of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely September 13,
1994 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said
hearing was thereafter closed.
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the project will have no significant environmental
impacts and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-29.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, detennine,
and ordain as follows:
SECTION I:
That the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice
justifies the amendment and that the amendment is consistent with the City of
Chula Vista General Plan.
SECTION II:
That Sections 19.58.225 and 19.60.600 of the Municipal Code shall be amended
to read as follows:
Section 19.58.225 Offsite Advertising Signs
Offsite advertising signs or structures are prohibited in all zones except!m
r&;i~r~~~~irrt~'ItI11;lril,~ill..
~I!'I!!'~gjj~RI~t,~i~~tili1iiriiiil~~,liifi~.,i~ltli,~~;~fii;,~t
(Z}i by approval of a conditional use permit for the purpose of relocation of
existing structures as encouraged by the State of California Business and
Professions Code, Section 5412.
19.60.600
Electronic Message Board Regulations
Electronic message board signs may be authorized on a case by case basis
by the Redevelopment Agency in any CO, CC, or IL zoned areas located within
Town Centre I, Town Centre II and Otay Valley Road redevelopment areas,
subject to conditions deemed appropriate by the Redevelopment Agency upon
recommendation by the Design Review Committee as part of an approved sign
program. Said conditions shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, the
following:
A. The location of said sign shall be at least one-half (1/2) mile in any
direction from any other lawfully permitted electronic message board sign;
B. The operator of said sign shall devote a minimum of thirty percent (30%)
of each hour of the time the sign is in operation during normal business
hours of the establishment to messages conveying non-commercial
announcements or other messages of benefit to the community in
accordance with a detailed operational program subject to review and
approval by the Community Development Department;
C. Said signs shall not result in an increase in the allowable sign area~r
P~!~ryf f?rthe typeofsig~ i~ the zone, except I) in the C-O
f!OC'dirill1iSilii~tryeand~~(jfe:ssionifl()1'fj~) zoned areas, in which case
additional sign area' for saids:~ns.~R.~o~~a~~IlIl1.?friftylllt9~
-
theff~t1way;
D. Said signs shall be located on major or collector streets;
E. Rooftop and monument (ground) electronic message board signs; are
expressly prohibited;
SECTION III:
Presented by
F.
~~~=e;~~~ ~~::::c:iU~~;I~.i:1itl~d~e spoliSor ofthe$i~
Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall be considered grounds for
revocation of the approved sign program.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect on the thirtieth day
from and after its adoption.
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
EXHIBIT B
Language from agency/auto dealer agreement
g) Either (meaning that either of the options
described below shall be equally acceptable to
Redeveloper): (x) at Redeveloper's sole cost and expense
(except as expressly provided to the contrary below),
and with such cooperation as Agency can reasonably
provide, arrangements reasonably satisfactory to
Redeveloper (including, without limitation, the conduct
of such public hearings as staff may deem necessary
thereto) shall be made to permit Redeveloper. at its
sole cost and expense, to erect and maintain in the
vicinity of the southeast quadrant of the intersection
of Otay Valley Road and the Interstate a "reader board".
visible in both directions of Interstate travel. to
advertise the Project, or (y) Otay valley Road shall
(following such public hearings as staff may deem
necessary thereto) be renamed to a name to be agreed
upon between the parties hereto (but to contain the
words "auto park", "auto mall", "auto mart" or such
other combination of words reasonably satisfactory to
Redeveloper which indicate the existence of retail auto
sales). Should negotiations with the owners/operators
of the site proposed for such "reader board" prove
unsuccessful, and should Agency make the necessary
findings as required by law and determine to acquire
certain interests by eminent domain proceedings, Agency
shall be required to incur the costs of eminent domain
counsel in connection therewith. In no event shall
Agency be required to take title to any ownership
interest in the "reader board" (or property upon which
it is situated) other than as a conduit. Redeveloper
shall bear any and all costs associated with changing
signs to reflect the renaming. As is provided in clause
(ii), below, in no event shall the foregoing be
construed as any commitment on the part of Agency or any
other government agency to use its power of eminent
domain, or to make any other particular finding:
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Chula Vista Auto Park Sign
PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest portion of property located at 4501 Otay Valley Road (1-
805 and Otay Valley Road)
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
624-060-27
PROJECT APPLICANT: Chula Vista Auto Park
c/o CM&D
5469 Kearriey Villa Road, Suite 3058
San Diego, CA 92123
CASE NO: lS-94- 29
DATE: July 8, 1994
A. Proiect Settin2
The project is proposed in the location of an existing free-standing billboard sign structure.
The surrounding property is undeveloped and has been used as a storage yard. The Otay
River is to the immediate south of the sign location and the 1-805 freeway is to the immediate
west.
B. Proiect Descrintion
The project proposes an amendment to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to allow for
construction of an off-premise sign that will ultimately incorporate an electronic reader board.
The sign will be constructed on an existing pole in the location of an existing billboard sign
structure. Ultimate height of the proposed sign will be 60 feet and the widest portion will
be approximately 60 feet. Total approximate sign area is 650 feet. Electronic connections
will require extension of undergroupd utilities across disturbed land (storage yard).
C. Comnatibilitv with Zonin2 and Plans
The project includes an amendment to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to allow for an off-
premise reader board sign within a Redevelopment Project Area.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental
Checklist Form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant
environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070
of the State CEQA Guidelines.
city of chul. vlat. p"nnlng dep.rtment
environment.. review ..ctlon
Pa~ {ft...
-.-
......~~
""~~~
CI'IY Of
. OiUlA VISTA
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNlNG\STORED\10ZO.9~f. 1021.93,1022.93)
Case No.
IS-94- 29
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: Chula Vista Auto Park
2.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista, CA 9]910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
Chula Vista Auto Park
c/o CM&D
5469 Kearney Villa Road, Suite 3058
San Diego, CA 92]23
4. Name of Proposal: Chula Vista Auto Park Sign
5. Date of Checklist: July 8, 1994
Page 1
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNINGlSTORED\1718.94
The following impacts have been determined to be less than significant. These include: Land
Use, Utilities and Services and Aesthetics.
E. Mitigation necessarv to avoid significant effects
The proposed project will not result any significant or potentially significant environmental
impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation is be required.
F. Consultation
1 . Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Joe Monaco, Community Development
Roger Daoust, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering
Bob Sennett, Planning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Crime Prevention, MaryJane Diosdada
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
3. Initial Studv
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any
comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public
review period for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent
judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the
environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning
Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
~~ -
E ONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 5/93)
Page 2
WPC F:\HOME\PlANNING\STORED\1020.9~ef. 1021.93,1022.93)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Signmcant Unless SigniliCIJ.nt No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 181 0
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 181
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 0 0 0 181
impacts to soils or fannlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physicaJ arrangement of an 0 0 0 181
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)?
Comments: The project consists of an amendment to the Municipal Code to aJlow for construction of
an off-premise sign. Construction of the sign without the amendment would be inconsistent with the
Code. However, the Code amendment, which is proposed as a part of this project would bring the
project into compliance with the Code and no mitigation is required. No significant impacts related to
zoning inconsistency would result from the project.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 181
population projections'?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 181
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastrucnue)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 181
housing?
Comments: The characteristics of the project do not have the capacity to affect population or housing.
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic 0 0 0 181
substrucnues?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 181
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 181
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any 0 0 0 181
unique geologic or physical features?
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1718.94
Page 2
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less tban
Signllicant Unle$S Significant No
Imput Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 181
either on or off the site?
t) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, 0 0 0 181
or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet
or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 181
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments: The project is proposed to replace an existing billboard sign and will not result in ground
disturbance or construction of a facility in a location that is not geologically suitable for the proposed
use.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 181
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 181
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 181
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 181
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 181
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 181
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 181
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 181
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: The project does not propose any physical change that would affect surface or
groundwater.
WPC F:\HOME\PlANNING\STORED\l718.94
Page 3
Potentially
Significant
Imparl
Potentilll}"
Significant
UoJ_
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) V iolate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 181
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 181
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 181
or cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 181
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 181
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: The project does not propose any activities that would have the potential to substantially
affect air quality, either directly or indirectly.
VI. TRANSPORT ATION/CIRCULA TION. Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 181
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 181
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., fann equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 0 0 0 181
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 181
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 181
t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 181
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 181
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181
Management Program? (An equivalem of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments: The project will not generate trips or create demand for parking.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
o
o
o
181
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1718.94
Page 4
Poteatially
PoteDIlally Signifiamt 1.-... than
Signif"lalnt Unless Significant N"
In:apact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? 0 0 0 181
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, oak 0 0 0 181
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 181
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 181
t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 181
efforts?
Comments: The project would not result in disturbance of any natural habitat.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would
the proposal:
a) Cont1ict with adopted energy conservation plans? 0 0 0 181
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 181
inefficient maIU1er?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 181
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments: The project will not conflict with any conservation plans or result in the wasteful
consumption of resources.
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 181
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 181
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 181
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 181
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 181
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The limited scope and nature of the project would not result in any substantial public
hazards.
Page 5
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1718.94
Potentially
Potentially Sigtilllcant Less tban
SiJ!;nlficant U.... Significant N.
Impu1 Mitigated Impact Impact
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 181
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 181
Comments: The project does not propose any activities that would generate noise or expose people to
noise.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 181
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 181
c) Schools? 0 0 0 181
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 181
roads?
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181
Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in impacts to these services.
XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the 0 0 0 181
City's Threshold Standards?
The City's Threshold Standards are not applicable to this project.
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 181 0
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 181
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 181
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 181
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 181
t) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181
Comments: The project will require extension of new electronic connections, however, no significant
impacts are anticipated to result from installation of these facilities.
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1718.94
Page 6
PotentiaJly
Potential!).. Signifi<ant Less than
Significant Vnles., Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 181 0
public or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic 0 0 181 0
route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 181 0
d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 181 0
increase the level of sky glow in an area or
cause this project to fail to comply with Section
19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 19?
e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 181
Comments: The project would allow construction of a sign in the location of an existing sign facility.
The sign would not substantially deviate from the dimensions of the existing sign structure and would
not produce a significant adverse visual impact, nor create a substantial amount of light or glare.
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 181
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 181
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 181
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 181
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 181
ErR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
Comments: The project would not disturb any land not previously disturbed by human use, nor any
land that has any known potential for the presence of cultural resources.
WPC F:\HOME\PLA.NNINGlSTORED\171R.94
Page 7
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
SignIncant
Unl_
Mitigated
Less than
SipUkant
Impact
No
Impu,ct
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction
of paleontological resources?
Comments: The project would not disturb any land that has any known potential for the presence of
paleontological resources.
o
o
o
181
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 181
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 181
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 181
plans or programs?
Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in impacts to recreation.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
See Negarive Declaration for mandatory findings of
significance. If an EIR is needed, this section
should be completed.
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 or California history or
prehistory?
Comments: Based on the analysis in the Initial Study, no significant impacts were found to occur to
biological or cultural resources. Implementation of the project would actually improve the biological
resource conditions at the site.
o
o
o
181
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 181
short-teno, to the disadvantage of long-teno,
environmental goals?
Comments: No loss of natural resources which could provide long-teno environmental benefits would
be affected by this project.
Page 8
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1718.94
PotentiaUy
Significant
Impact
Potentially
SignIncant
D.....
Mitigated
Les!i than
Slgnificanl
Impact
No
Impact
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 effec1s of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
Comments: The analysis in the Initial Study found no cumulative impacts.
o
o
o
181
d) Does the project have environmental effect
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments: The analysis in the Initial Study found that no direct or indirect adverse effects would
occur to human beings from the project. The issues relevant to this fmding including air quality, water,
noise, light and glare, land use compatibility, risk of upset, population/housing, traffic, public services,
human health, aesthetics, and natural hazards (earth).
o
o
o
181
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1718.94
Page 9
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" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
D Land Use and Planning D Transportation/Circulation D Public Services
D Population and Housing D Biological Resources D Utilities and Service Systems
D Geophysical D Energy and Mineral Resources D Aesthetics
D Water D Hazards D Cultural Resources
D Air Quality D Noise D Recreation
D Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
"
I find 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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
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, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is reqnired, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
o
o
o
sCZP~
7//3/'1r
Date
Joseph Monaco, AJCP
Environmental Projects Manager
City of Chula Vista
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1718.94
Page 10