HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1995/05/24 (9)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 3
Meeting Date 5/24/95
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing:
PCA-94-05: Consideration of amendments to
Sections 19.58.225 and 19.60.600 ofthe Municinal
Code to allow freewav-oriented electronic message
board signs to be established "offsite" at selected
locations - Citv Initiated
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 an electronic message board sign to identify the Auto Park to the Interstate 1-805
Freeway (see Exhibit "B").
The first Auto Park dealerships have been completed and the dealers are anxious to proceed with an
amendment which would allow the construction of a freestanding electronic message board sign at the
southeast quadrant of the 1-80510tay Valley Road interchange, just outside the boundaries of the Auto
Park. Such "offsite" signs are not presently permitted within the City.
On August 24, 1994, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of a previous version
of these amendments. At and following that hearing but prior to consideration by the City Council,
however, concerns arose from the auto dealers regarding the 30% public service message component
of the language, and also from the City Attorney regarding the legality of the proposed conditions under
which an off-site sign could be approved. As a result of these concerns, staff has prepared a totally
revised version of the text amendment.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study (IS-94-29) of potential
enviromnental 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
enviromnental impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-29.
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.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: At its April 6, 1995 meeting, the Town Centre
I Project Area Committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the amendments with the stipulations
that (1) the public service announcement requirement be set at a minimum of 20%, and (2) if a message
is displayed in a language other than English, then that message should also be translated into English.
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date 5/24/95
At its April 10, 1995 meeting, the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee voted 4-1 to recommend
approval of the amendments as proposed.
DISCUSSION: In 1992, the Planning Commission and City Council approved an amendment to the
Code to allow for on-site 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.
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 on-site message boards
only within the Town Centre I, Town Centre II, and Otay Valley redevelopment 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. there
could only be one off-site sign per redevelopment area, and they could only be freeway-oriented signs.
Flexibility would be allowed, however, in considering the appropriate size and dimension of a sign in
order to provide adequate freeway visibility, and in considering the amount of time required to be
devoted to public service messages.
The differences between the original and the present proposal are as follows:
. Only one off-site freeway-oriented electronic message board sign is allowed in each of the
selected redevelopment areas; the prior amendment would have allowed as many as one off-site
sign every 1/2 mile.
. The amount of time required to be devoted to public service messages is not specified, but is
subject to the discretion of the Community Development Director in approving the operational
program for the sign; the prior amendment would have required a minimum of 30% of each
hour to be devoted to non-commercial messages.
. Monument (ground) electronic message boards are permitted; these were prohibited in the prior
amendment.
. The present amendment requires the message board to be made reasonably available to other
commercial uses within the redevelopment area; the prior amendment specifically prohibited any
commercial advertising other than that of the "sponsor" of the sign.
Page 3, Item ~
Meeting Date 5/24/95
. Off-site message boards would be limited to a specified time period of operation and use; the
prior amendment had no time limit.
With regard to the proposal by the auto dealers to delete the 30% minimum for public service messages,
they argue that the cost of the sign and its monthly maintenance by the auto dealers), coupled with the
several auto dealers which would eventually be advertising on the sign, would render the 30%
requirement unreasonable in this particular case. Staff concurs that perhaps it is more appropriate to
review each set of circumstances on a case-by-case basis. This approach may also be supported by
revisions made by the City Attorney which would require time on the sign to be made reasonably
available to any other commercial enterprise in the redevelopment area.
The City Attorney's revisions have been made in order to address legal concerns with the City
"arbitrarily" limiting the number of such signs and regulating the content of the message to the sponsor
only, as the prior language would have done. The amendments are now tied directly to the goal of
eliminating blight and promoting redevelopment in the specified redevelopment areas by allowing all
of the businesses in the redevelopment area to avail themselves of time on the sign. By doing this it
is the City Attorney's opinion that we can legitimately limit the number of such off-site signs to one per
redevelopment area on a first-come, first-served basis.
A copy of the originally proposed text amendment is attached as Exhibit "A".
Attachments
Planning Commission Resolution
Draft City Council Ordinance
Exhibit "B": Language from Agency/Auto Dealer Agreement
Exhibit "A": Original Proposed Code Amendment Language
Planning Commission Resolution & Minutes from Meeting of August 24, 1994
Town Centre PAC minutes from meeting of April 6, 1995
Otay Valley Road PAC minutes from meeting of April 10, 1995
Negative Declaration and Initial Study IS-94-29
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION
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 Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on June 8, 1994 by the City of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, said application requested 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 Enviromnental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study (IS-94-29) of
potential enviromnental 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 enviromnental impacts and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-
94-29; and
WHEREAS, the Planning 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 Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, at the August 24, 1994 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend
approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, at and following that hearing, but prior to consideration by the City Council,
concerns arose regarding the public service component of the proposed language and regarding the
legality of the proposed conditions under which an off-site sign could be approved; and
WHEREAS, as a result of those concerns the proposed amendments have been revised to address
the concerns stated, and the item was rescheduled for public hearings; and
WHEREAS, at its April 6, 1995 meeting, the Town Centre I Project Area Committee voted 6-0
to recommend approval of the revised proposed amendments subject to certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, at its April 10, 1995 meeting, the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee voted
4-1 to recommend approval of the revised proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a new hearing on said revised
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 May 24, 1995 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION finds that
the project will have no significant enviromnental 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution supersedes the previous resolution PCA-94-
05.
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 May 1995 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
William C. Tuchscher II, Chairman
N aney Ripley, Secretary
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE
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 Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on June 8, 1994 by the City of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, said application requested 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 Enviromnental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study (IS-94-29) of
potential enviromnental 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 enviromnental impacts and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-
94-29; and
WHEREAS, the Planning 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 Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, at the August 24, 1994 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend
approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, at and following that hearing, but prior to consideration by the City Council,
concerns arose regarding the public service component of the proposed language and regarding the
legality of the proposed conditions under which an off-site sign could be approved; and
WHEREAS, as a result of those concerns the proposed amendments were revised to address the
concerns stated, and the item was rescheduled for public hearings; and
WHEREAS, at its April 6, 1995 meeting, the Town Centre I Project Area Committee voted 6-0
to recommend approval of the revised proposed amendments subject to certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, at its April 10, 1995 meeting, the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee voted
4-1 to recommend approval of the revised proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 1995, the Planning Commission voted to adopt superceding
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
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 environinental
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, determine,
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 ~
-
f~) hyapproval of a conditional useperffiidor tile purPose of relocatioriof
existing structures as encouraged by the State of California Business and
Professions Code, Section 5412.
19.60.600
Redevelopment 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 (112) mile in any
direction from any other lawfully permitted electronic message board sign,
~ngl~!f~~Ic~lug!ng~~n1lpl~~)9t~t~~!~~~!\\\j~PU!8m:~~~~~~9p~i;g
~Jgq~r~~~Y~lqpi~qt!Wlr............ ...... ... ..... ....... .... .... .
B. The operator of said sign shall devote a p~j:\t#:trnJAii5!~~t9i~!I~!lt
minimum of thirty pereeBt (39%) 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
~~i1iii1~111Iti'li\IIRIIII*,ittm'l
~g~nGY and shall. be included in aeeoFdaaeev/ifu acletaijecl 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 or
~~~~~tro~~:.t~P7 .?~.sig~i~thezone, except ~ in the C~()
(~d!J:!mi~ativiillrld.1?rrifiis$i~iiit1~I~) zoned areas, in which case
adclitioflaj sign area for saicl signs up to a maximum of fifty ~g9~ti!:i)'!ift
square feet may be allowed, 6r~~)t~r6ffsit~friiii\V~xt~tJ,~~t~~~je6it6iiiB
R~~~~li~~f~I'I~'11I~1~'~~1~~~~lrll~I~~g~1
;lr~;;!~~i~~~~~i~~~C~~$!~t$R~!I~I~~~~~i$i9!1!i~f~
D. Said signsshalIelMY be located onmajor or collector streets;~5~~~~~9f
qit$JIm:s~~~gSI~;q~i~}Y~is9i~~~H~~9!!~~#g~9j~iil~]2~~i;I}Y~Yi
E. Rooftop aad IfItJIItIIHeBt (grouBd) electronic message board signs are
expressly prohibited;
SECTION III:
Presented by
F;~f~~~~!~~~$~~~~!$I~!g~~ij~9.t:9f~I!~~MI9~~9f
~~r~~~~~~~!~!.~~'~'~~'~~~~~j~!I~~~?~i'~'~f?f
1[_ittl~I'~~~rill'I'j~1~lrlr~111il~~I[~lrl.I~~~~11
-
Ilrll~I{I~I~I,.,~I~111111111111
111~llllr~lll~ill'r~!~il~.~i~l~r~.llllllr~1
~~I~~9!~~~P!I!@~~~~~$1j9~9!"W!f!!M!~!~~M\~)~~~ir
II~tillll~ll~~~_~~lfll!~li'~~l1t'l~iiil~III_1
li\.~Q...~..~In.~.'.f.~l....t.b..i....L....~ent.~....r........~. r...~..I~P!lf!~Hg~~!HI.~~.f9ft~q~gB~qg~~n~~~
.................... ........
Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall be considered grounds for
revocation of the approved sign program.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect on the thirtieth day
from and after its adoption.
Approved as to fonn by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
(m: \home\planning \patty\pcc9409. cc)
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A
Original Proposed Code Amendment Language
Section 19.58.225 Offsite Advertising Signs
Offsite advertising signs. or structures are. prohibited. in all zones except il$f6~~~S!f~I'j'~~
~~Ji 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.
B.
c.
D.
F.
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;
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;
Said signs shall not result in an increase in the allowable sign area 6iliiilght for the type
of sign in the zone, except ~ in the C-O (.A,Qfij.i~*tiiJijjy~~*~~r*t\ilt.J,~fi~ zoned
areas, in which case additional sign area for said signs up toamaxiillum of fifty
~
Said signs shall be located on major or collector streets;
E.
Rooftop and monument (ground) electronic message board signs are expressly prohibited;
~l_~1;;;;Jt~~I~I;~i;;~~f.M,~~!i!~~~~~~~l1iiS{j~~t'~~i~~!~~~~~~.
Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall be considered grounds for revocation of the
approved sign program.
)
j
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 commit.ent on the part of Agency or any
other government agency to use its power of eainent
domain, or to .ake any other particular finding:
1-: 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION AND MINUTES
FROM MEETING
OF AUGUST 24, 1994
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 Planning 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 Enviromnental Review Coordinator has conduc!ed 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 enviromnental impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative
Declaration issued on IS-94-29; and
WHEREAS, the Planning 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 Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
fmds 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
fmdings contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
recommendation for approval of said amendments is in recognition that proposed Section
19.60.600.F may be modified in consultation with the City Attorney's office prior to fmal
approval and adoption by the City Council.
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:
Commissioners Martin, Ray, Salas and Tarantino
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioners Fuller, Tuchscher (both with prior notification) and Moot
~c-.g~
Jo . Ray, Vice Ch 'r
~~~~
Nancy pley, Sec tary
(f: \home\p lanning \patty \pca9405 , per)
--..
---
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 Enviromnental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study (lS-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 IO 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 ofChula Vista does hereby find, determine,
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 III:
Presented by
~
(-
F. Commercial messall!~ must be 4~ly nilited tQ ~ ~ qf ~ /rip;
second party commercial adver1laW,g is p@mbit~.
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.
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Approved as to form by
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
7:05 p.m.
Wednesdav. August 24. 1994
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Vice Chair Ray, Commissioners Salas, and
Tarantino
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
Commissioners Fuller and Tuchscher (excused), and
Moot
STAFF PRESENT:
Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner
Griffm, Associate Planner Batchelder, Community
Development Specialist Martinez, Redevelopment
Coordinator Kassman, Contract Attorney Basil
MOTION TO EXCUSE
MSC (Tarantino/Martin) 4-0 to excuse Commissioner Tuchscher who was out of town.
It was noted that Commissioner Fuller had been excused at a previous meeting.
Vice Chair Ray acted as Chair in the absence of Commissioner Tuchscher.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Chair Ray led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silence.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Vice Chair Ray reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and
the format of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
As requested, the Commission considered Item 2 before Item 1.
PC Minutes
-3-
August 24, 1994
Vice Chair Ray asked if, upon an application to convert from the prior designation as it was
built, they would still be required to go through all the same normal procedures. Mr. Batchelder
concurred.
VOTE:
4-0 (Commissioners Fuller, Moot, and Tuchscher absent)
ITEM 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 - City
Initiated
Principal Planner Griffin stated that when the City originally negotiated with the auto dealers,
specifically Fuller Ford and South Bay Chevrolet, regarding the Auto Center on Otay Valley
Road, one of the agreements reached was that the City would assist the dealers in either
obtaining a message board-type sign on the freeway or changing the name of Otay Valley Road.
The decision was not to pursue a name change on Otay Valley Road, but to pursue an
amendment to the Code to allow off-site message board signs. This is a new concept, coupled
with the electronic message board amendment which was made approximately two years
previously which would allow message boards in the Town Centre and Otay Road
Redevelopment Areas. Mr. Griffin noted that the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee
had considered this item on Monday and requested that four areas of interest be transmitted to
the Commission and Council: 1) they felt this was a selective amendment that was favoring the
Auto Center and thought other businesses should have the opportunity to establish this type of
sign, as well; 2) concerned about the provision which would prohibit secondary advertising on
the sign; 3) felt the City should make an attempt to notify the residents once a particular sign
design came in--those residents close to the freeway would have to look at the sign, 4) felt it was
important that the sign be well designed, sensitively designed, because it would reflect on the
image of the City. Mr. Griffm noted that the City Attorney's office and the Planning
Department had been working on a legal question regarding proposed item (t) in the resolution.
He asked that the Commissioners consider an additional paragraph being distributed to them
which would formally indicate that the Commission recognizes that there was work continuing
on that item and it may be changed prior to going to the City Council.
Commissioner Martin stated this would not be a flashing sign with a big arrow; it would be a
sign tastefully done with information running across it to be seen by the public. There would
not be a lot of light coming from the sign. He felt that particular phase of the lighting program
should have no impact on the residents living on the side of the hill, and asked if the residents'
concerns had been addressed.
Mr. Griffm answered that there was no specific design; the conceptual designs limit the size of
the message board part of the sign to text. He did not think it would be type of sign which
would be large with dramatic light effects. If, in fact, that was proposed the residents would
be informed and they would have an opportunity to comment.
PC Minutes
-5-
August 24, 1994
Commissioner Martin noted that 30% was 18 minutes. The public notices would be bullets; he
liked the idea of the community having a vehicle for communication. He did not think 18
minutes out of an hour was a lot. Ms. Strandgaard disagreed, because the automobiles go by
the sign so quickly that it might hurt business, not just give public notice. She did not know
where staff got the percentage.
Assistant Planning Director Lee stated it was part of the existing ordinance, which was originally
crafted to address the downtown area on Third and "H". The percentage was set by Community
Development in part in looking at trying to provide a public service percent. For it to be broken
down by zones would require additional review by Planrting and Community Development,
readvertising and another public hearing. If the auto dealers wanted this to move forward, it
would have to move forward as it stood. The item could be continued or they could come back
and revisit this issue under a separate amendment.
Noone else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Salas noted that Mr. Lee had brought up options for the car dealership, and she
wanted to know what Ms. Strandgaard thought about the options.
Vice Chair Ray reopened the public hearing and Ms. Strandgaard reapproached the podium.
Ms. Strandgaard asked that the Commission proceed with the amendment, and if they want to
go back and readvertise, they would have to do so. They wanted to proceed with the existing
requested amendment and supported staff's recommendations, and they would work with staff
regarding the 30 % requirement.
Vice Chair Ray asked if the Commission approved the amendment, item "b" would be have to
be approved "as is" or if another item could be added that would includ,: negotiations between
the applicant and the City. Assistant Planning Director Lee thought it could be done if the
options were left open as the item moved forward to City Council, making sure that the
advertisement for the hearing before the City Council. Staff would want to make it clear to the
Council what issues were discussed with the Commission.
Ms. Strandgaard stated that, at this point, even though the item had not yet been carried forward
to Design Review, they were trying to get a reader board out as soon as possible with the
opening of the auto mall happening in the next month. They did not want to slow the approval
up; they could install a reader board advertising the 30% and still try to work with Council at
a later time. Mr. Lee felt that would work best from a timing perspective.
Commissioner Martin noted that it was still the auto park providing the community with the
service.
Mr. Lee stated that it had not been discussed with Community Development or the applicant;
there should be further discussion and brought back before the Commission later.
Vice Chair Ray then closed the public hearing.
PC Minutes
-7-
August 24, 1994
ADJOURNMENT at 7:45 p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of September 14, 1994, at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers.
~c; ~Pley~
Planning Commission
(8-24-94.min)
DRAFT
MINUTES
TOWN CENTRE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Thursday, April 6, 1995
8:45 a.m.
Council Conference Room
City Hall
1 . Roll Call
Members Present: Chairman Blakely, Members Altbaum, Hawk, Killian, Mason and
Winters.
Members Excused: None
Staff Present: Assistant Engineer, Mike Donnelly; Principal Community
Development Specialist, Pamela R. Buchan; Principal Planner,
Steve Griffin; Redevelopment Coordinator, Fred Kassman;
Community Development Specialist, Miguel Tapia.
2. Approval of Minutes of February 2,1995.
MSUC (Hawk/Altbaum) to approve the minutes as mailed.
The applicant for the land use permit item was late in arriving. Therefore, Parking Business
was taken out of order.
PARKING BUSINESS
5. Passenger Loading Zone for New Medical Building at 256 Landis Avenue
Community Development Specialist Miguel Tapia introduced the item by stating that the
Traffic Engineering Division of the City's Engineering Department received two requests for
loading zones from different offices in the same building. One was a request for a loading
zone on Davidson Street, which is a very narrow street. The second request was from the
Developer of the building requesting a loading zone in front of the building on Landis Avenue.
The second request would require the removal of one parking space. Some discussion
followed regarding the two requests and it was clarified that this would only be a passenger
loading zone. Assistant Engineer Mike Donnelly further explained that staff's recommendation
was to grant one loading zone on Landis Avenue.
MSUC IAltbaum/Winters) 16-0) to accept staff's recommendation that the Committee
recommend to the City Engineer removal of the first meter on the west side of Landis Avenue
south of Davidson Street and install a one stall passenger loading zone.
6. Time Limit Zone on E Street
Mr. Tapia said that another request was received from a business on the northwest corner of
Garrett and E Street. This site is slightly out of the Redevelopment Project Area; but, within
the Parking District. The request is to designate the area in front of the store as short-term
parking. The business owner is requesting this because there are presently no meters in front
Minutes
April 6, 1995
Page 2
DRAFT
of their business and many people who are not their customers will park in front of their
business all day. Therefore, they are requesting that a 30-minute zone be designated in front
of their business. Engineering Department has reviewed this and they are recommending the
30-minute zone designation on a trial basis.
Chairman Blakely asked how this could be enforced effectively.
Staff responded that the 30-minute time limit would discourage people from parking there in
itself. If someone decided to park there for longer periods than 30 minutes, then they would
be ticketed.
Member Mason asked if any business in the City could request 30-minute parking in front of
their business. His concern was that we might see an influx of 30-minute parking spaces
throughout the City.
Mr. Tapia replied that it is not the policy within the Parking District. He said that the policy
exists only within the Redevelopment Project Area.
Member Mason asked if there are businesses in the area who would be adversely affected by
this change.
Mr. Donnelly answered no. Businesses around this area have other places where their
employees may park.
MSUC (Winters/Mason) 16-0) approve the recommendation to establish a 30-minute time limit
zone in front of a business on the northwest corner of Garrett and E Street for an 8-month trial
basis.
REDEVELOPMENT BUSINESS
4. Electronic Message Board - Revisions to Language in Municipal Code
Principal Planner, Steve Griffin, distributed copies of the amendment along with additional
proposed language, a copy of the original text and a copy of how the code reads now for on-
site electronic message boards. He said that the City Attorney is proposing changes to the
language in the Municipal Code dealing with electronic message boards. He also said that the
auto dealers had expressed concern with the 30 percent public service component. They feel
that if and when the auto park develops as proposed, there will be several dealers who will
all want time on the sign and that 30% public service time will be too much. The dealers are
hoping to get the 30% figure changed to a discretionary amount to be determined along with
the rest of the operational package by the Community Development Director.
Mr. Griffin explained what the differences wel'e in the language that was presented to the
DRAFT
Minutes
April 6, 1995
Page 3
Committee previously. The proposed changes state that you can only have one off-site
message board per Redevelopment Project Area and it must be oriented towards the freeway.
The intent of the sign must be to further the purpose of the Redevelopment activity within the
Redevelopment Area. Previously the ordinance stated that there could not be any second-
hand advertising (only the sponsor of the sign could advertise on the sign). The City Attorney
restructured the amendment to allow others within the Redevelopment Area to be offered tirne
on the message board. The auto dealers were given a chance to respond to this change in
the ordinance; but, so far they have not responded. It is assumed that they have agreed to
accept this change.
Member Altbaum asked if off-site was where the sponsorship of the board would be split and
if that would also apply to on-site.
Mr. Griffin answered no it would not. He said that in provision F he added off-site message
board to the beginning so that it would be clear that second-hand advertising would only apply
to the single off-site message board.
Member Mason asked for clarification regarding the number of off-site and on-site electronic
message boards per Redevelopment Project Areas. He asked if Town Centre I could have an
off-site electronic message board.
Mr. Griffin said no because Town Centre I is not adjacent to a freeway and the sign not only
must be adjacent to a freeway but also within the Redevelopment Project Area.
Chairman Blakely said he had a problem with leaving the public service announcement
restriction open. His feeling is that it is difficult enough to enforce the 30% public service
announcement time without leaving it wide open.
Member Mason added that he did not think 30% public service announcements was
unreasonable.
Mr. Griffin suggested that the Committee could recommend that the 30% public
announcement stipulation remain in the amendment.
Member Altbaum expressed his concern regarding the language that the electronic message
board would be displaying.
Mr. Griffin said that because of the problem with the Third Avenue and H Street sign that the
question of which language the sign is in, would be addressed on each of the operational
programs.
Redevelopment Coordinator, Fred Kassman clarified the limitation of off-site and on-site signs.
He said that Cal-Trans does not allow off-site signs in Chula Vista. Cal-Trans will allow the
installation of a sign if the business is on the highway. He stated that if a business is not on
Minutes
April 6, 1995
Page 4
DRAFT
the highway then there are a couple of loopholes in the law that will allow those signs. One
of the loopholes is that if the business is in a planned development area. Since the
Redevelopment Area is considered a planned development area a sign in the Redevelopment
Area is considered an on-site sign. He explained that if you propose an off-site sign in a non-
Redevelopment area, Cal-Trans will not allow it.
Mernber Altbaum asked why would the City grant a business a monopoly on a sign without
placing any restrictions on them.
Mr. Kassman answered by saying that this was in the agreement between the auto park
developers and the City whereby they request that the City assist them with the locating of
a reader board sign visible from the highway. Unfortunately, the only sign that was available
was the site on the Vince Davies property which already had a reader board sign. The auto
park developers then had to negotiate with Mr. Davies to lease the property, buy off the
owner of the reader board sign, bring in electricity and pay all the costs of operating the sign.
It all became very expensive. Therefore, when the City asked for the 30% public service time
on the electronic message board, they would not agree to it.
Chairman Blakely asked if they were unhappy with the 30% public service announcement
restriction, what was their counterproposal.
Mr. Griffin said it was his feeling that they understood that there would be a public service
component; but, they felt that 30% was a little too much.
Chairman Blakely asked if the 30% public service announcement component has been met at
Third Avenue and H Street.
Mr. Tapia answered that it has been met; but, not every month. He said that in the month
of February it had not been met. He said that the manager of the office building indicated that
there had not been any requests received for public service announcements. He informed
them that the City's Public Information Officer sent out a letter to non-profit organizations
inviting them to utilize the message board at Third Avenue and H Street.
Member Altbaum said that he felt the public service announcement requirement should be at
least somewhere between 20 to 25%.
Member Mason said his preference would be to come up with a set minimum amount of public
service time that must be adhered to.
Chairman Blakely said he felt that there should also be a restriction on the maximum amount
of time that the message board could be run in a language other than English.
Member Altbaum expressed his concerns over how the messages were being monitored to see
if the 30% public service time was being adhered to. He also asked what language the
DRAFT
Minutes
April 6, 1995
Page 5
messages were displayed in and if that was included within the 30% if it is in a language
other than English.
Principal Community Development Specialist Pamela Buchan responded that if the messages
were displayed in two languages then 15% could be in English and 15% could be in Spanish.
MSUC (Mason/Altbaum) (6-0) to accept the City Attorney's proposed changes to the language
in the Municipal Code dealing with message boards with the stipulation that the public service
announcement requirement be at a set minimum of 20%.
Amended Motion (Mason/Altbaum) (6-0) to amend the motion to include that if a message is
displayed in a language other than English, then that message should be translated in English.
3. Land Use Permit for New Life Christian Fellowship
Mr. Tapia briefly introduced the item. The New Life Christian Fellowship is proposing to rent
the second floor of the building at 347 Third Avenue for the purpose of religious worship and
instruction. This type of use requires a Special Land Use Permit which must be approved by
the Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency is expected to review this item at
their meeting of April 18, 1995. Staff is recommending approval of the permit with conditions
for one year.
The Committee members discussed this item and expressed their concern with regards to
parking. However, it was decided that the days and hours of operation would not conflict
with the daily normal parking requirements of other businesses. In fact, the proposal might
bring additional customers to the various eating establishments in the area.
MSUC (Mason/Winters) (6-0) to support staff's recommendation to approve the land use
permit for the New Life Christian Fellowship for one year with conditions.
CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: None.
MEMBERS' COMMENTS:
Member Altbaum requested that staff provide a copy of the procedures for an Administrative
Hearings for people who contest a parking ticket.
Member Hawk asked if there was a manner in which we could encourage the parishioners of
the Baptist Church to use their own parking lot instead of the new pay lot on Third Avenue.
She mentioned that she has noticed that their lot has been locked while the City lot was full.
Ms. Buchan suggested that if this is impacting anyone that they should call Ken Lee in the
Planning Department.
Minutes
April 6, 1995
Page 6
DRAFT
STAFF COMMENTS: None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10: 15 a.m. to the regular meeting of May 4,
1995.
Sylvia C. Simmons, Recorder
ITC P ACminDisk/4-06-95 .min]
Minutes
OTAY VALLEY ROAD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
Monday, April 10, 1995
9:00 a.m.
Conference Rooms 2&3
Public Services Building
1 . ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Chairman Casillas, Members Palumbo, Hall, McMahon, Nava
ALSO: Fred Kassman, Redevelopment Coordinator; Steve Griffin, Principal Planner; John McCormick,
property owner, Vince and Tom Davies, property owners, George Krempl, Deputy City Manager
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from the meeting of January 23, 1995
Member Palumbo pointed out a typographical error in the fourth paragraph on page two under item 3.
The word "Ford" is misspelled, the letter "d" is omitted.
MSUC (Casillas/McMahon) to approve the minutes as corrected t5-O-OJ.
3.
REPORT:
Proposed Trash Transfer Site, Maxwell Road
Deputy City Manager George Krempl presented the background and current status of the proposed
trash transfer site on Maxwell Road within the Redevelopment Project area. Mr. Krempl indicated that
the issue was the competitiveness of the trash system. The City Council indicated their desire to
investigate the feasibility of a trash transfer site. At the transfer site, trash is separated into larger
vehicles and can be hauled to landfills with lower tipping fees. At the trash transfer site, the recyclable
items such as plastics, newspapers, etc. are taken out for resale.
The City issued an RFP to develop a trash transfer site. Five proposals were received. The firm of
Sextan and Chula Vista Sanitary Service were chosen as the best proposer. He indicated they could
develop the transfer system for a total cost of $48/ton versus $55/ton currently being charged by the
County landfill. The City was paying $74/ton at the landfill. It was recently reduced to $55/ton. The
City has a contract with Sexton to locate a trash transfer site. Three sites were investigated. One on
Bay Boulevard and two in the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area. Council eliminated the
Bay Boulevard (SDG&EI site. The focus was on the two properties located in the project area. Some
weeks ago, Council directed that a purchase agreement be executed with R. E. Hazard for use for
approximately 10 acres of their site located on Maxwell Road. There is a tentative agreement with
Hazard on the business terms acquisition of the property.
The proposed project will require a special use permit which will come before the PAC. The decision
to construct has not yet been made. It will take approximately 18 months to complete the necessary
permitting for the facility.
Chula Vista's pursuit of the trash transfer site is causing changes in the County's thinking which may
result in lower rates. The City wants to have the possibility of the trash transfer site as an option in
case the County chooses to raise its rates. Use of the Campo landfill is another possibility. Mid-
America Company is developing the landfill and is proposing tipping fees of $25. The City of Chula
Vista could use its transfer site and haul garbage to Campo and the total price could be cheaper than
tipping fees at the Otay Landfill.
Staff will come back to the PAC at the time of completion of the Initial Study and a description of the
product, when completed. Project information is being developed at this time.
Minutes, Otay Valley Road PAC
-3-
April 10, 1995
some problems in the language after it had been sent out and made some changes and passed out new
language for the Committee to read. The revisions made to the code amendment limit offsite signs.
Under item D, an offsite sign would have to be located adjacent to the freeway. Item F only relates
to offset message boards and limiting the life span of signs.
Member Palumbo indicated that the City doesn't really want a sign, but devised language so that only
the auto park could use one. The section concerning time for public service doesn't require community
public benefit for messages. If the amphitheatre is constructed, they will want to put up another sign.
They should be allowed to share the Auto Park sign for a fee at the City's discretion.
Mr. Griffin indicated that the amphitheatre consultants were contacted and indicated they were not
interested in using a readerboard sign.
Member McMahon questioned whether an advertising balloon, such as the one Fuller Ford is currently
using is considered a sign. Mr. Griffin indicated that it is, and the Fuller Ford balloon should not be
there.
Member Palumbo Questioned if someone owning a business wants to have an open house or special
occasion, it would be nice to have the option to put something on the sign. Everybody in the industrial
park should have the option to use the sign. Mr. Griffin indicated that anyone in the redevelopment
area can use the sign at a reasonable cost. The amphitheatre is outside the area.
Chairman Casillas indicated that he did not think any language referring to the Redevelopment Project
Area should be in the ordinance.
Staff indicated that the code revision would go to the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency
next. The Town Centre PAC was concerned about doing away with minimum public service time.
They recommended that there should be a minimum 20% time dedicated for public service
announcements. A minimum is necessary.
Member McMahon asked whether groups outside the City where members are residents of the City
could advertise on the sign. Staff responded that there is flexibility in determining what goes on the
sign.
MSC (McMahon/Naval to approve the code amendment language as proposed by staff (4-1-0; Hall
opposedl.
5. STATUS REPORTS:
a. Auto Park
Staff indicated that the Auto Park is open but the Chevrolet dealership is having some financial
difficulty at this time. It is possible that the ownership of the dealership may change through sale to
another dealer, or it may be taken over by GMAC and run as a company store. The Ford dealership
is surviving although sales are currently lower than anticipated.
b. Otay Valley Road
The Otay Valley Road Widening project should be completed by mid July. The pile of fill material at
Brandywine A venue is actually the ground up surface material of the former road surface which will
be used as a base for the new road. That material should be placed within the next two weeks.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Chula Vista Auto Park Sign
PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest portion of property located at 4501 Otay Valley Road (I.
805 and Otay Valley Road)
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
624-060-27
PROJECT APPLlCAJII'T: Chula Vista Auto Park
c/o CM&D
5469 Kearney Villa Road, Suite 3058
San Diego, CA 92123
CASE NO: 15-94- 29
DATE: July 8, 1994
A. Proiect 5ettin~
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 Ota)'
RIver is to the i=ediate south of the sign location and the 1-805 freeway is to the immediate
west
B Proiect DescriDtion
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 UDdergroupd utilities across distw'bed land (storage yard).
C. COmDatibilitv with Zoninp and Plans
The project includes an amendment to the Cbula Vista Municipal Code to allow for an off.
premise reader board siiD within a Redevelopment Project Area.
D. Identification of Envirn'ftm~nta1 Bffects
AD. initial study conducted by the City of CbuIa Vista (iDcludini tile .......IIM EnvirC)ft"""'t,a!
Checklist Form) determined that tile proposed project will DOt have a ai&Dificant
environmental effect, IDd the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required. This Negative Declaration bas been prepared in ICCOI'dance with Section 15070
of the State CEQA Guidelines.
WPC FIBONE\I'I.AJ'ININGISTOREDII02O.9J;R<1 1021.93.1Im.93)
~,~
-.
, -
The foil 0\\ ing impacts have been determined to be less than significant These include Land
l.1se, l.1tilities and Services and Aesthetics.
E. Miti~ation necessary to avoid si~nificant effects
The proposed project will not result any significant or potentially significant enviromnental
impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation is be required.
F. Consultation
I. Individuals and Or~anizations
City of Chula Vista: Joe Monaco, Community Development
Roger Daoust, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Hal Rosenberg. Engineering
Bob Sennen, Planning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing
Carol Gove. Fire Marshal
Crime Prevention, Mary Jane Diosdada
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept
Rich Rudolf. Assistant City Anorney -
~
D0cument,
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19, Chula VIsta Municipal Code
3 Initial Srudv
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
environmentaJ 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:\BOME\J'l...A.NSno;G\STORED\1020.9XRef. 1021.93,1022.93)
Case No.
E!'.,'IRO!\~1E!'.lAL CHECKLIST FOR1\1
1. I"ame of Proponent: Chula Vista Auto Park
2.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
Chula Vista Auto Park
c/o CM&D
5469 Kearney Villa Road. Suite 3058
San Diego. CA 92123
4. Name of Proposal: Chula \'i,ta Auto Park Sign
5. Date of Checklist: July 8. 1994
\1-'-- ~ ""H't'"f" .....'.....,..'r, c;"'J'ORfD PH 0.:
15-94- 29
Page 1
Pat_au,-
rat_au,- .......... '- 'Oan
.......... u..... .......... '0
I.pad MM.._ I.pad I.pad
I. LA"'D t'SE A!\,'D PLA"'lNG. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 181 0
zoning"
b) Conflict with applicable environrnrntal plans or 0 0 0 181
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricuJtural resources or operation.< (e.g., 0 0 0 181
impact.< \0 soils or farmlands, or impact.< from
incompatible land uses)"
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 0 0 0 181
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)"
Comments: The project con.<im of an amendment to the Municipal Code \0 allow for construction of
an off-premJ>e sign. Con.<truction of the sign without the amendment wouJd be inconsistent with the
Code However, the Code amendment. which is proposed as a pan of this project wouJd bring the
project into compliance with the Code and no mitigation is required. No significant impacts related to
zoning incO!1.,istency would result from the project -
II. POPl"LATIO...... A"'D HOl'SING. Would the
proposal
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projection.<"
b) Induce substantial grov.'th in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or exten.<ion of major
infrastructure)"
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
c) Displace existing housing. especially affordable
housing"
Comments: The characteristics of the project do nO! have the capacity to affect popuJation or housing.
o
o
o
181
1lI. GEOPHYSICAL. Would tht proposal result in or
t:IJlose people to potelllial impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or cban&es in eeoloeic 0 0 0 III
substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 III
overcoverin& of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 181
features"
d) The destruction, coverin& or modification of any 0 0 0 181
unique eeoloeic or physical features?
Pas' 2
WPC' Fc\HOMFJ>l.A"''NINO'ST'ORED,1711.9oI
'__aD:<
.....~ ........ '- ,...
......... u_ -- No
"'''- M......ed ",..- I.,.d
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 IBI
either on or off the site"
1) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, 0 0 0 IBI
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 IBI
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
u~e.
I\". WATER. Would rhe proposal resulr in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 IBI
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or prope!1Y to water related 0 0 0 IBI
hazard, such as fl ooding or tidal waves"
c) DIscharge into surface waters or other aJteration 0 0 0 IBI
of surface water quality (e.g.. temperature,
di>>olved oxygen or turbidity)"
d) Changes in the amoum of surface water in any 0 0 0 IBI
water body"
e) Changes in currems, or the course of direction 0 0 0 IBI
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
water~ ')
1) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 IBI
through direct addition.< or withdrawaJs, or
through interception of an aquifer by cutS or
excavations ?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 B
groundwater?
h) ImpactS to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 B
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood [J [J D II
waters?
j) Substal11ial reduction in the amoum of water 0 0 0 B
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: The project does not propose any physical change that would affect surface or
groundwater.
Page 3
WPC' F:IHOMFPlAo,;NINO\STORED'>1.,1I.9oI
Pot....1aDy
P_....alt:r .......... I-t_rr.
........- ~ ........... N.
J_,.d M.p_ I_,.d I_...d
Y. AIR QCALm'. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 ISI
an existini or projected air quality violation"
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutantS" 0 0 0 ISI
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature. 0 0 0 ISI
or cause any chanie in climate, either locally or
reiionally"
d) Create objectionable odors" 0 0 0 ISI
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 ISI
non.stationar)' source~ of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality"
Comments: The project doe, nO! propo;e any activitie, that would have the potential to substantially
affect alf quality. either directly or indirectly.
\1. TRA!>lSPORT A TlO,,"/CIRCULA TIO"'. Would
the proposal result In.
a) Increa,ed vehicle trip, or traffic congestion" 0 0 0 ISI
b) Hazard, to ,afelY from design feature, (e.g., 0 0 0 ISI
sharp curve, or dangerou, intersection.<) or
incompatible u,e, (e.g.. farm equipment)"
c) Inadequate emergency acce>> or access to nearby 0 0 0 ISI
use~')
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site" 0 0 0 ISI
e) Hazard, or barrier, for pedestrian.' or bicyclist'" 0 0 0 ISI
f) Conflict' with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 ISI
alternative tranSponation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail. waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 1m
h) A "Jar!:e project" under the COlliestion 0 0 0 ISI
Management Prov.un? (AD equivalem of 2400
or more averaie daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments: The project will nOl !:enerate trips or create demand for parkin&.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts /0:
a) Endan&ere.d, sensitive species. species of 0 0 0 ISI
concern or species that are candidates for
listini"
WPC f,\HOhIE\P~~!"IQ_~,171!." Pale 4
P....~
PaL_aD! -- ~~_D
S_ U.... -- No
....0 ~ip.1M1 1...1;f ..,.I;f
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)" 0 0 0 181
c) Locall) designated natural communities (e.g, oak 0 0 0 181
forest, coastaJ 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
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 181
efforts?
Comments: The project wou1d not resu1t in disturbance of any natural habitat.
\111. E!'or:RGY A)'l> Mr-.r:RAL RESOL'RCES. Would
the proposal'
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans" 0 0 0 181
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 181
inefficiem manner?
c) If the site i, designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 181
protection. will this project impact this
protection"
Comments: The proJect will not conflict with any cotl5ervation plans or resu1t in the wasteful
cOTl,umfni()n of re~our..:.:e~.
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidentaJ explosion or release of 0 0 0 181
hazardous substances (incIutling. but not limited
to petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)"
b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 [J 181
response plan or emeriency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or poten1ial [J 0 0 B
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existin& sources of [J [J 0 181
potemial health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fI.mmable [J [J [J 181
brush, iT3Ss, or trees?
Comments: The limited scope and nature of the project would not result in any substantial public
hazards.
Page S
WJI(' J: \~OI,{F PLA"'NINQ\ST'QRED 1711.901
P."~
P..,.~ -- ~t_1I
.- u_ -- No
1...1.':1 MMipI.d I.pal.':l 1.,.1.':1
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase~ in ex.isting noi~e 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 ienerate noise or expose people to
nOlse.
XI. PUBLIC SER'lCES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or al!ered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection" 0 0 0 181
0\ Police protection') 0 0 0 181
cJ Sch("'ol~ ') 0 0 0 181
d) Mamtenance of puol}C facilities. including 0 0 0 181
road~')
e) Oth~r goverrunemal ser\'ice~: 0 0 0 181
Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in impacts to these services,
XII. Thresholds. \\711 the proposal adversely impact the 0 0 0 181
00 'j Threshold Srundllrd.s?
The City', ThreshoJd Standards are not applicable to this project,
XIII. l'TILITIES AND SER'lCE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new systems. or
subsrunnal al1eran'ons to the follO"1ng wiliries:
a) Power or natural gas" 0 0 181 0
b) Communications systems~ 0 0 0 181
c) Local or reiional water ueatmem or distribution 0 0 0 lID
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 lID
e) Storm watet drainaie? 0 0 0 lID
f) Solid waste disposaJ~ 0 0 0 lID
Comments: The project will require extension of new electronic connections, however, no siznificam
impacts are anticipated to result from installation of these facilities,
wPC Fc\BOME\PLA."'ISINO\STORED-1711.94
Page 6
r....aD:<
PCli_~ ....-- L-t_1I
.- U..... ........- No
.....c.t Mliipted I.,..c.t .....c.t
X]\". AESTHETICS. ""'ould the proposal:
a) Ohstruct 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 demonsuable negative aesthetic effect' 0 0 181 0
d) Creale 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
1966100 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 cOI1$truction of a sign in the location of an existing sign facility.
The sign would not suhstantlally deviate from the dimension.\ of the existing sign ~trucrure and would
not produce a stgnificant adverse visual impact. nor create a substantial amount of light or glare.
)",. Cl'LTI"RAL RESOL'RCES. Would (he proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 181
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site"
0) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 181
aesthetic effecl.s to a prehistoric or historic
buildmg. structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 181
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic culrural values'
d) Will the proposal restrict existin2 reli&ious or 0 0 0 181
sacred uses within the potemial impact area?
e) Is the area idemified on the City's Genera! PIan 0 0 0 181
EIR as an area of high potemial for
archeological resources?
Comments: The project would nOl disturb any land nOl previously disturbed by human use, nor any
land that has any known potemial for the presence of cuJruraI resources.
Page 7
.. - ~~-~ .." ".
P...a>>y
--
I.pad.
,...an,
--
'*-
.........
.... ,...
--
.....
No
I.,.d.
X\1. PALEOJ\,OLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal resul1 In the al1erarion of or the tkstrnction
of paleontological resources?
Comments: The project would not disrurb any land that has any known potemial for the presence of
paleomologicaJ resources.
o
o
o
181
X\'II. 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 opporrunities" 0 0 0 181
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 181
plarL' or program'"
Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in impacts to recreation.
}"III. MA,....'1>ATORY FTh"DINGS OF SIGNIFlCA,lI/CE:
See !Vegati,'e Declaration for mandatory findings of
significance If an EIR is neetkd. this secnon
should be completed.
a) Doe, the project have the potential 10 degrade
the quality of the environment. substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population 10 drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten 10 eliminate a
plant or animal community. reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endan2ered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods or California hi.llOry or
prehistory?
Comments: Based on the anaIysi.l in the Initial Study, no siinificam impacts were found to occur to
biologicaJ 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 potelltiaI to achieve 0 0 0 III
shon-term, to the disadvamage of 10D&-temt,
enviromnemal 2oals?
Comments: No loss of natural resources which could provide 10D&-term environmemaI benefits would
be affected by this project.
WPC F;\HOMFJ"l.ANNINO\S"roREIt\1711.JW
Page 8
P."~
,...au, -- I-t_1I
-- .... .......~~ "0
1_..eII ........ 1_..eII 1_..eII
C) Doe~ the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 181
ind]\'iduaJly limited, but cumulatively
considerable' (" Cumulatively considerable.
means that the incrememal effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future project>.)
Comments: The anaJysis in the InitiaJ Study found no cumulative impacts.
d) Does the project have environmemal effect 0 0 0 ~
which will cause substantiaJ adverse effects on
human beings. either directly or indirectly'
Comments: The anaJysis in the Initial Study found that no direct or indirect adverse effects would
o~cur to human being, from the proje~t. The issues relevant to this finding including air quaJity, water,
noise. light and glare. land use compatibility, risk of upset, populationlhousing. traffic, public services,
human health. aestheti~,. and natural hazards (earth).
Pas' 9
Wt>I'"" J:\I-I()~ f'J..........'NQ'ST'QIU:!' .~1' ~
E!Io'\lRO!'o'ME!'o'T AL FACTORS POTE/Io'TlALL Y AFFECTED:
The enviromnemaJ factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significam Impact" or "Potentially Significam Unless Mitigated: as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
o Land Use and Planning
o Population and Housing
o Geophysical
o Water
o TransportAtionlCirculation
o Biological Resources
o Energy and Mineral Resources
o Hazards
o Public Services
o Utilities and Service SystemS
o Aesthetics
o Cultural Resources
o Recreation
o Air Quality
o Noise
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETER!\m;A TlOl'O:
On we basis of this initial evaluation:
I find wa! we proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that alwough the proposed project couJd have a significant effect on we environment,
were will not be a significant effect in this case because we mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to we project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that we proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find wat we proposed project MAY have a significant effecl(s) on the environment, bul al least
one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
sW1dards. and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if we effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or 'potentially
significant unless mitigated.' An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, bUI it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
sr2!?~
7/ t!/"'f
Dare
Joseph Monaro, AlCP
Environmental Projects Manager
City of Cbula Vista
II
o
o
o
1NPC F: \HOME\P'lANNlNO\STOl.ID\l' 11. ""
Page 10
TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 10, 1995
TO: Honorable Chainnan and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Robert A. Leiter '1'l;/
Director of Planning ~
SUBJECT: Workshop Item Re: Multiple Species Conservation Program
The City of Chula Vista has been participating in the development of a draft Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan, which is being prepared by the City of San Diego
Metropolitan Wastewater Department for its regional sewerage service area, including Chula
Vista and several other jurisdictions. The City of San Diego recently_released a public review
draft of the MSCP Plan and has requested comments. The following are the stated objectives
of the program:
Efficiently and effectively comply with the Endangered Species Acts through a regional
and habitat-based approach to protect endangered, threatened and rare species and to
preclude the need to list more species as endangered or threatened_
-
Enable and facilitate economic development of the region, including development of
public and private projects, on lands not designated for habitat preservation.
Achieve a workable balance between preservation of natural resources and regional
growth and economic prosperity.
To achieve these general objectives, the draft MSCP Plan contains the following elements:
1. The plan defmes a proposed Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHP A) within which preserve
planning is focused, or in some cases, within which a preserve boundary is defmed for
future dedications and acquisitions. The MHP A conserves sufficient habitat to protect
an identified list of species and provides for wildlife use and movement to pennit self-
sustaining populations.
2. A partnership is proposed between federal, state and local agencies of govermnent and
with private property owners to cooperatively implement the plan through local project
review and approvals and through public commitments of lands and money for
acquisition.
Planning Commission
May 10, 1995
3. The plan provides a framework for development of subarea plans (more specific habitat
conservation plans) and/or project plans to directly implement the MSCP, and provides
guidelines on land use regulations and project mitigation for local jurisdictions to develop
their own implementing tools.
4. A financing and acquisition strategy is presented which equitably spreads costs among
all beneficiaries and provides an affordable program.
5. Recommendations for long-term management and for monitoring of the system build-out
and success are provided, along with guidelines for compatible land uses and activities
within and adjacent to the preserve.
Enclosed is a copy of the Executive Summary of the Draft MSCP. Staff will provide a
presentation of the Program at the workshop on Wednesday, May 17, 1995, and will welcome
any questions, comments or concerns.
Enclosure
(:\MSCP.PC)
2
Public Reviev\I Draft
Multiple Species
Conservation
Program
MSCP Plan
Executive Summary
"
DRAFr
MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
March 1, 1995
Table of Contents
~
1. Introduction and Objectives 1
2. Study Area Biology, Ownership and Land Uses 2
3. Conservation Plan 5
3.1 Plan Description 5
3.2 Biological Conservation 6
3.3 Preserve Assembly and Operation 10
3.4 Implementation Process and Structure 14
4. Compatible Uses and Preserve Management Guidelines 16
5. Economic Impact Analysis 18
6. Statement of Assurances and Implementing Agreement 20
7. Planning Process and Participants 21
90-day public review period ends May 30, 1995.
Comments may be sent to:
Comments
MSCP Plan
600 B Street, Suite 500
San Diego, California 92101