HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1995/11/29 (7)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 2
Meeting Date 11/29/95
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: DRC-95-44; Appeal of a Design Review Committee
decision denying a request for a modification to a Precise Plan to allow
increased height for an existing pole sign located at 4450 Otay Valley
Road - Holiday Inn Express
This is an appeal from a portion of a decision of the Design Review Committee. The applicant
is proposing to amend the existing precise plan standards governing this property (see PCM-78-
19, attached) to allow an increase in height for the existing pole sign, from 50 ft. to 75 ft. The
original request also included a proposal to increase the height of an existing monument sign
from 7'6" to 14'6". On October 23, 1995, the Design Review Committee voted unanimously
(5-0) to approve the requested height increase for the monument sign, but to deny the requested
height increase for the pole sign.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS-96-02, of possible
environmental impacts associated with the project. Based on the attached Initial Study, the
Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant
environmental effects and, therefore, recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued
on IS-96-02.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt attached Resolution DRC-95-
44 affirming the decision of the Design Review Committee, thereby denying the appeal.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Review Committee voted 5-0 to deny the request.
On October 23, 1995, the Design
DISCUSSION:
Site Characteristics
The Holiday Inn Express motel is located at the southwest quadrant of 1-805 and Otay Valley
Road. The existing business identification consists of wall mounted signs on the north and east
sides of the building, a 7'6" high monument sign along Otay Valley Road, and a 50 ft. high
freeway oriented sign located along the east property I ine. The motel is bounded on the south
by a condominium complex, to the west by a service station, 1-805 to the east, and condominium
units across Otay Valley Road to the north.
Page 2, Item 2
Meeting Date 11/29/95
Zoning and Land Use
North -
South -
East -
West -
R-3-P-12
R-3-G
N/A
C-N-P
Condominiums
Apartment Complex
I-80S Freeway
Commercial Center
Back2:round
In 1990, the Design Review Committee considered and approved an amendment to the motel's
sign program which included a request to increase the freeway oriented sign from 35 ft. to 50
f1. and allow the relocation of the existing monument sign to within the public right-of-way.
The approval for additional height was based on visibility constraints created by the freeway
landscaping (trees) and the applicant's inability to obtain permission from CalTrans to top the
trees. Staff had not favored the increase in height primarily because the landscaping would
eventually catch up with the requested height (see attached November 12, 1990 DRC report and
minutes) .
ANALYSIS:
The Chula Vista Municipal Code and the original Precise Plan for this property limit the height
of the pole sign to 35 f1.; as noted above, however, in 1990 the Design Review Committee
(DRC) approved a 15 f1. increase in height to 50 f1.
The DRC concurred with the applicant's assessment of the present constraints. Eucalyptus trees
within the CalTrans right-of-way have grown over and around the existing pole sign, obscuring
the view of the sign from motorists travelling on the 1-805 Freeway.
The DRC did not agree, however, that the increase in height will provide an effective long-term
solution to the problem of visibility. The previous height increase was granted, but, as
evidenced by the current request, is not a permanent solution. Since the surrounding eucalyptus
trees are easily capable of growing to 100' f1. it is not unreasonable to assume that in five or so
years from now the property owners will once again be in need of relief.
The sign code also does not recognize that any site is inherently entitled to freeway visibility.
When it can be accommodated, as before, some deviation from the Code has been viewed by
the DRC as reasonable. However, at 75 f1. or more, which is more than double the normal
height limit, the freeway-oriented sign becomes increasingly more disproportionate and
obtrusive. Additionally, identification of available lodging in the area is provided by CalTrans
signs along the freeway both northbound and southbound.
This property location is also designated in the City's General Plan as a Gateway to the City.
Although this designation does not carry any specific design criteria for signage, it suggests to
staff that exceptions to the major development standards at Gateways should be reserved for
Page 3, Item 2
Meeting Date 11/29/95
elements which improve the image of or promote the City as a whole, rather than one property.
While Committee members were sympathetic to the applicant's desire for freeway exposure,
members felt that the 75' height was excessive from a design standpoint and, as evidenced by
the previous increase, did not provide a permanent solution to the need for exposure.
Public Input
In response to the Initial Study, staff received petitions bearing 10 signatures of neighboring
residents opposing the request (see attached). Concerns expressed on the petition include
ambient light levels and visual impacts posed by the sign. These residents were sent notices of
the Design Review Committee hearing along with copies of the sign plans. There was not,
however, any negative public input at the hearing.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed, staff recommends denial of the appeal based on the findings in the
attached Resolution DRC-95-44.
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Locator
3_ Precise Plan PCM-78-19
4_ Design Review Committee Minutes, October 23, 1995
5. Design Review Committee Consideration, 1990
6. Petitions
7_ Initial Study
8. Disclosure Statement
m: Ihome Iplanninglpattyldrc9544a.rep
ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. DRC-95-44
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING AN APPEAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DECISION
,
AND THEREBY DENYING A REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A
PRECISE PLAN TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE HEIGHT OF AN
EXISTING POLE SIGN LOCATED AT 4450 OTAY VALLEY ROAD,
WITHIN THE C-V-P VISITOR COMMERCIAL/PRECISE PLAN ZONE
WHEREAS, a duly verified Design Review application was filed with the City of Chula
Vista Planning Department on May 22, 1995 by Holiday Inn Express; and,
WHEREAS, said application requested approval for the amendment of Precise Plan
PCM-78-19 in order to allow increased height for an existing monument sign from 7.5 ft to
14.5 ft and an existing pole sign from 50 ft to 75 ft at 4450 Otay Valley Road within the CVP
Visitor Commercial/Precise Plan zone; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS-
96-02, of possible environmental impacts associated with the project and has concluded that there
would be no significant environmental effects; and,
WHEREAS, the Design Review Coordinator set the time and place for a hearing on said
application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its mailing to
property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 21 days prior
to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely October
23, 1995 at 4:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3 of the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth
Avenue, before the Design Review Committee; and,
WHEREAS after hearing public testimony and considering the project, the Design
Review Committee voted 5-0 to approve the height increase for the monument sign but deny the
height increase for the pole sign; and,
WHEREAS, on October 30, 1995 the applicant filed an appeal from the Design Review
Committee decision with the Planning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said appeal
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper
of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely November
29, 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
DOES hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows:
I. Findings.
The Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed pole sign height increase is not
consistent with other signage allowed in the vicinity or the zone and is disproportionate
with respect to size and scale. [t does not meet the principles of the Precise Plan
modifying district in that it far exceeds established standards and represents only a short
term solution.
Precise Plan Findings
A. That such plan will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
The height increase for the pole sign is not consistent with other signage allowed
in the vicinity or the zone and is considered disproportionate with respect to size
and scale. Objections to the request have been received from surrounding
residents.
B. That such plan satisfies the principles for the application of the P modifying
district as set forth in Section 19.56.041.
The proposed pore sign height increase is not considered to meet the principles
of the Precise Plan modifying district in that it far exceeds the established
standard and is considered only a short term solution.
C. That any exceptions granted which deviate from the underlying zoning
requirements shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose
and application of the P precise plan modifying district.
The approval of the pole sign height increase is not considered necessary or
consistent to meet the purpose of the precise plan modifying district.
D. That approval ofthis plan will confonn to the general plan and the adopted
policies of the city.
The General Plan designates the project area as a City Gateway which should be
limited to elements which improve the image or promote the City as a whole
rather than one property.
II. That a copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the applicant.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 29th day of November by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
WiIliam C. Tuchscher II, Chair
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
m: \home \p Ianni ng \patty\drc9544a.res
ATTACHMENT 2
LOCATOR
i.LLLLL.l
-I
PROJECT
LOCATION
~
?>
~
~
I
1
I
,----
I -
..-
-....-O-~
I
r.'"
...J
I
I
,
.
,
,
;
--
-
--
OF
> SAN
'.
.
-1
1
-'
./
.
T CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
J
LOCATOR PROJecr Holiday Inn
C) Arl'UCANT:
PROJecr 4450 Otay Valley Rd. Request: To increase height of existing free
ADDRESS:
; standing sign from 50 ft. to 75 ft. and
~, flU NUMBER: monument sign from 7.5 ft. to 14.6 ft.
! NORTH 400'
ATTACHMENT 3
PRECISE PLAN PCM-78-19
---.-"'" ---.
-117
RESOLUTI Oi~ NO. PCf1-78- 19
RESOLUTIorl OF THE CITY PLANNIrlG COf1MISSIOil RECO:.;t'1E11DHlG
TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLMI FOR A '.;OTEL
AND RESTAURANT AT SOUTHHEST QUADRANT OF 1-805 A::D OTAY VALLEY
ROAD IN C-V-P ZONE - 5 FLAGS LlIUTED
\iHERFAS. a precise plan was submitted by Carl Salatino for the construction
of a 105 unit motel and one manager's apartment unit, a restaurant with a seating
capacity for 155 persons and 191 parking spaces on a 2.8 acre parcel located
at the southwest corner of I-80S and Otay Valley Road in the C-V-P zone, and
WHEREAS. the City Planning Commission, at a duly advertised public hearing
held at 7:00 p.m.. l'lay 10,1978 in the Council Chamber, City Hall. 276 Fourth
Ave-ue, considered the precise plan as submitted, and
WHEREAS, t!1c Environmental Impact Report. EIR-78-7, covering the project
was certified by the Planning Commission on May 10. 1977.
NOW, THEREFORE 8E IT RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission finds as
follows:
a. That such plan will not. under the circumstances of the particular case,
be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing
or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity;
The architectural treatment and materials used on the proposed structures
are similar to those used on the adjacent residential structures and are
therefore compatible with those buildings. The closest residential
structures to the motel are approximately 140 feet away. The grading
of the two commercial properties on Otay Valley Road will be similar.
The proposed circulation plan will not affect the development of the
adjacent property.
b. That such plan satisfies the principles of the application of the P ~~difying
District as set forth in Section 19.56.041;
The architectural theme established in the area has been carried onto the
proposed develop~ent.
I
--! ? rJ
PCI-:-78- , 0
Cont'd
Page 2
c. That any exceptions granted which deviate from the underlying zoning
requirements shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and
application of the P Precise Plan Modifying District;
Under the ordinance only 1 freestanding sign would be allowed and the
applicant is proposing two. The monument sign on Otay Valley Road will
provide adequate identification from the street and since the proposed
uses are tourist oriented. the freeway oriented sign will enable trave-lers
using the freeway to locate the proposed uses sufficiently in advance to
permit safe exiting from the freeway.
d. That approval of this plan will conform to the general plan and the
adopted policies of the city.
The proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan designation of
visitor co~ercial for this area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission recommends that
the City Council approve the precise plan for the construction of a 105 unit
motel and one manager's apartment unit, a restauI.nt with a seating capacity
for 155 persons and 191 parking spaces on a 2.8 acre parcel located at the
southwest corner of 1-805 and Otay Valley Road in the C-V-P zone. subject to
the following conditions:
1. The freestanding pole sign shall be limited to 35 feet in height.
2. The periphery parking shall be interspersed with planters at intervals
of approximately 10 parking spaces.
3. Compact parking spaces shall be limited to lO~ of the total number
of required spaces.
4. The total number of motel units and/or the seating capacity of the
conference room and restaurant shall be predicated on the number of
parking spaces provided unless adjacent parking is leased.
5. Grading and drainage plans, and improvement plans for Otay Valley
Road, shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall
bo subject to approval by the Director of Public Works.
CI/30
- -
----..
,
pc:-:-i&-d Cant a
Page 3
6. The developer shall be responsible for the installation of full
ultimate street improvements in the southerly half of Otay Valley
Road adjacent to the subject property. Improvements shall include
but not be limited to pavew~nt, curb, gutter. sidewalk, drainage
facilities. and street lights. These improvements shall be coordinated
with the facilities now being constructed by the County of San Diego
and those to be constructed by the Plaza Valle Verde developers.
The developer may be required to participate or guarantee participation
in the construction of a traffic control signal at Dtay Valley Road
and Melrose Avenue.
7. The method of sewering the project shall be subject to approval of
the Director of Public Works.
8. All areas not used for building construction. parking, or walk areas
shall be landscaped in accordance with the City Landscape r~nual.
A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted and approved
concurrent or prior to the issuance of a building permit.
9. The developer shall obtain any required permits or approvals from
CAl TRAilS pri or to commencement of any work proposed wi thin the 1-805
freeway right-of-way.
10. The developer shall underground overhead utilities along Otay Valley
Road and within the proposed project.
11. The right of way area extending from the westerly property line for
a distance of approximately 410 ft parallel to Otay Valley Road in
front of the motel and restaurant shall be included in the landscaping
plan.
12. At the time of development of the adjacent parcel of land, the
parking stalls and plan located south of the entrance drive extending
in from Otay Valley Road shall be removed to provide joint access
between this development and future developMent plans to the south
and west. S.id access shall remain open at all times allowing for
free flow of traffic between both area. Owners of both properties
are to draw up a joint access, liability and maintenance agreement
to 2ccc-~lis~ this ccr:iti~n.
q :; I)
PC,,-7 8- l' ;ont'd Page 4
13. All signs except for the requested freestanding free>lay sign shall
be subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator. All free-
standing signs oriented to Otay Valley Road shall be of a ~onument
type.
PASSED A:1O APPROVED by the City Planning COlMlission of Chula Vista, Calif.
this 10th day of May. 1978 by the following vote. to-wit:
AVES: Commissioners Renneisen, O'Neill, Chandler. Pressutti. R. Johnson,
G. Johnson and Smith
~OES: None
ABSEnT: None
iZ/ ~
/t::]_L/-'Vl' J
r
. J2i-",Vh .~~~
Cha1rman
ATTEST:
.
..." A"
Secretary
-
q/3D
-"'__'':'-'- -~. $,-.::0'
....~~,~.....-. "~~'-""";
~..._"-.,~....,.",,.- ~
~--
ATTACHMENT 4
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES
EXCERPT FROM THE DRAFT
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Monday. October 23. 1995
4:30 p.m.
Conference Rooms 2 and 3
A. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Spethman, Vice Chair Rodriguez, Members Way, Duncanson,
and Kelly
STAFF PRESENT:
Principal Planner Steve Griffin
Special Planning Projects Manager Jerry Jamriska
Senior Planner Rick Rosaler
Assistant Planner Ann Pedder-Pease
Assistant Planner Patty Nevins
B. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chair Spethman made an opening statement explaining the design review process and the
committee's responsibilities. He asked that all speakers sign in and identify themselves verbally for
the tape when speaking.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Spethman/Kelly) (5-0) to approve minutes for June 26, 1995 and July 24, 1995.
MSUC (Spethman/Rodriguez) (4-0) to approve minutes for August 28,1995 and September 11, 1995.
D. PRESENTATION OF PROJECTS
2.
DRC-95-44
Holiday Inn Express
4450 Otay Vallev Road
Modification to Freestanding Signs
Applicant Presentation
Ms. Cheryl Cox representing Holiday Inn Express presented the project, which consists of a request
for an increase in height for the existing pole sign, from 50 ft. to 75 ft., and an increase in the
height of the existing monument sign from 7'6" to 14' 6". She presented the Committee with
several photos depicting the pole sign as viewed from the freeway and indicated that when traveling
south down 1-805 the sign is not visible until you have already passed the exit ramp. She stated that
the hotel was unfortunately built in a gully and therefore made the sign, even at 50 ft., not visible
traveling in either direction on the freeway due to the eucalyptus trees. Holiday Inn Express has
contacted Cal Trans to see if they would be willing to trim the trees or if they would allow the
applicant to trim the trees, and they said absolutely not. Cheryl Cox also presented to the
Committee photos showing that a flag test was conducted to see if the sign height of 75 ft. would
be visible, and stated it was very visible.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
-2-
OCTOBER 23. 1995
Ms. Cox asked the Committee for their favorable consideration of the monument sign. She pointed
out the gas station sign immediately to the west of the Holiday Inn Express monument sign and
stated that their sign was much higher, noting that the request to increase the monument sign height
was consistent with the height of the service station monument sign and would provide better
visibility.
Ms. Cox went back to express her concerns about the height of the pole sign and felt that freeway
visibility makes a difference in the hotel economy as well as the City's. She indicated they are
hoping to capture the traffic of the people who are interested in going down to Mexico, and handed
out a chart which showed the revenues generated by the hotel for the City.
In summation, Ms. Cox asked for approval on the monument sign which doesn't seem to be too
controversial, and asked the Committee to consider the position that this particular property owner
is in. The existing 50 ft. pole sign is being asked to be increased to 75 ft. in order to increase
visibility of his hotel since his hotel happens to be located next to a freeway off-ramp where it can't
be visible until you have already passed the exit ramp.
Staff Presentation
Assistant Planner Patty Nevins stated that the application involves two requests requlflng the
Committees approval. Both are sign height increases. She indicated that normally monument signs
are limited to 8 ft. high, and the applicants are asking 14' 6". The pole sign is normally limited
to 35 ft in height, but the applicant received previously approval to increase the height to 50 ft. and
are now asking for an additional increase to 75 ft. Ms. Nevins stated that staff has recommended
approval of the monument sign realizing that the existing sign is largely obscured by the westerly
adjacent service station monument sign, and that the proposed increase in height would allow the
sign to be more visible to east bound motorists on Gtay Valley road and would be consistent with
the scale of the service station monument sign.
Ms. Nevins indicated that the pole sign was previously approved by the Design Review Committee
on November 12, 1990, to increase the sign height from 35 ft. to 50 ft. She stated at that time staff
did not favor the increase in height primarily because the landscaping would eventually catch up
with the requested height and obscure the sign. Ms. Nevins noted that staff concurs with the
applicant's assessment of the present constraints; eucalyptus trees within the CalTrans right-of-way
have grown over and around the existing pole sign, obscuring the view of the sign from motorist
travelling north on the I-80S freeway. However, Ms. Nevins indicated that staff does not agree that
the increase in height will provide an effective long-term solution to the problem of visibility.
Public Comments
Steve Palma, President of the Gtay Committee and a resident of the Gtay area, asked to address the
Committee on this issue. His comments related back to Cheryl Cox's statements on the visibility
of the pole sign from the freeway. He stated that the issue of what might happen in 5-10 years is
not the issue, his concern is the present. Mr. Palma indicated that he is very concerned about the
business the hotel is now losing and will lose because of the sign not being visible to the freeway
travellers. He felt that what miQ.ht happen with the trees in 5-10 years should not prevent the sign
gomg up.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
-3-
OCTOBER 23. 1995
Mr. Davis, affiliated with the Chamber of Commerce, concurred with the applicant's statements
about the sign not being visible from the freeway until you have already passed exit ramp. He said
he also spoke to CalTrans and confirms they will not trim the trees until they become a liability.
Mr. Davis brought up tourist issues. His thoughts were if the proposed MCA Amphitheater was
approved, a higher sign would attract the attention of the motorist headed in that direction. He
indicated he was in favor of the height increase.
Committee Ouestions
Member Rodriguez questioned the height limits for signage or pole signs for the Auto Park. Ms.
Nevins stated they only have monument signs and no pole signs. It was noted by the applicant that
the signage for the Auto Park does not fall within the apparent sign regulations that this industry
would fall into. Mr Griffin added that on-site signage for the Auto Park is limited to a monument
sign up to 12 ft. high.
Member Spethman raised the issues made by neighboring residents which include ambient light
levels and visual impacts posed by the sign. Staff indicated the Environmental Review Coordinator
has conducted an Initial Study, IS-96-02, of possible environmental impacts and concluded that there
would be no significant effects.
Member Way asked if staff traveled the freeway to verify that you can't see the sign. Assistant
Planner Nevins stated she did do a sight check and the sign is visible right about at the off-ramp.
Member Way then asked if there were any sign opportunities along the freeway back a mile or so
from the site. Mr. Griffin stated that the City of Chula Vista does not allow off-site signage.
Member Duncanson made note that 5 years ago the height increase seemed to be the solution, but
feels with the current situation coming back that another increase is not a permanent solution. All
Committee members seem to agree with this.
MSUC (Spethman/Rodriguez) (5-0) to adopt Negative Declaration IS-96-02.
MSUC (Spethman/Rodriguez) (5-0) to adopt DRC-95-44; recommendation #2 to deny the pole sign
height increase; recommendation #3 to approve the new monument sign height and design subject
to conditions a & b of the staff report.
ATTACHMENT 5
PETITIONS
,~..,
;
P---.-. '-'
. ,..-, -
0"- ." ,
. r_ _ . ' , .:...._
August 28. 1995
AU" ~ '
IJ ',J _
'.
Mayor of Chula Vista
Chula Vista City Council
F __:..
Our communi ty objects to the Holiday Inn ,raIsing the lighted
free standi ng sl gn from 50 ft. to 75 feet. The mote I Is
located at the bottom of the rIver bed and the raised sign
would not alert clients from further away than what It does
now since both the north bound and south bound lanes of
Freeway 805 give notice that lodging Is available. The
raised signs would. however. be a nuIsance for surrounding
resIdences. The raised sign would add to an already
objectionable ambient light level for nearby residences.
Also. the Shell station on the East side would no doubt want
to return the hIgher sIgn It had years ago before the city
of Chula Vista enforced Its sign height lImit. Please
recognize the needs of the tax-paying residents to maintain
a quality neIghborhood.
Regarding the enlargement of the monument sign from 7.5 feet
to 14.6 feet. residents In the surrounding area want to see
an artists renderIng of the two signs so that we can respond
appropriately.
ChNmlJe:jqlp . /96 0 ~-If>f CV. CJ/91{ tf(l-~1~.
--, tJ /1. n C:lt\ \.D <:'J t.p \
"'\ :. j \ \ L'. '" S ' L "3 ~e>\'o.& to', nO I{. ~
\- ,-\f\r\,Q '-' t'\e\r\Ol.€Z- '" /: / / I, '/_
,J,..,/ -.1..... ""'2/ -f-- jLf/et (J/h.--~-&"'/ Ck.d~ t/~?~
~/~ r., .r-- 'l'~~K /:C,- C{i/-IN~P( Ilv'l7 G[~ 1/f/1
r~,l.tf ." Fillto,(lY/5t!rr '1011
A~;f4A(l/c" ISJP'-)'.;-Y' Jo/(O'o. Or:c,tZ- C. {/. q /C( 1/
/.1:J~ I RtJ5A r e5~AI~ / SC; ~-$v ~~ Or. e vt.
w."''''6. -r" . _..._. I .
{'~- t CZ.LA..'~ J? 3 ~ OJ6A-M~ ~-e.- ey. 9/9,11
~[J!~ IT----;S; M~fJO(A1JI) t>tl.;Wo (1.(// 91f{tl ttrJ.. 9445"'
eoens, 'J'f'v(Bf1Y2. I5fO -9f/?IFAIaZI UOtZ. (!jJ lIP/!
Mzf
ATTACHMENT 6
INITIAL STUDY
negative
_eclaration
PROJECT NAME: Increase in height of free standing and monument signs
PROJECT LOCATION:
Holiday hm
4450 Otay Valley Road
Chula Vista, CA 91911
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
624-060-6400
PROJECT APPLICANT: Rick Kothari
CASE NO: IS-96-02
DATE: September I, 1995
A. Pr01ect SeninQ
The project is located on the southwest corner of the' intersection of 1-805 and Otay Valley
Road. Surroum!ing land uses include a multi-family residential development,to the north,
Interstate 805 to the east. a multi-family residential development to the southwest and a service
station and strip commercial development to the west. There are three shifts per day. The hotel
is open 24 hours and maintains an estimated 40 customers per day. A total of 124 parking
spaces are provided on site.
B. Proiect Description
The proposed project consists of obtaining a Precise Plan Amendment to increase the heights
of both the free standing sign and the monument sign on the Holiday 1M property at 4450 Otay
Valley Road. The free standing sign will be increased in height from 50 feet to 75 feet and in
size from 100 .square feet to 144 squ'are feet. The monument sign will be increased from 7.5
feet 10 14.6 feet. The applicant believes that the current height of these signs limits visibility
of them from 1-805 northbound. southbound and eastbound on Main Street/Otay Valley Road
due to freeway landscaping. The applicant believes they have lost business due to this.
c. Comp.atihiJi\y with ZoninQ and Plans
The project is zoned CV.p (Visitor Commercial-Precise Plan) and has a .General Plan
designation of CV (Visitor Commercial). The Zoning Ordinance states that the maximum
allowable height for a sign is 35 feet. The project proposes to construct a 75 foot pole sign.
The project is consistent with the land use designation of the Visitor Commercial and will
conform to zoning with the approval of a Precise Plan Amendment, If a Precise Plan
Amendment is gramed. it will be site specific and only apply to an increased height for the two
signs under consideration.
NN
~~lt-
-,,-
r~_...,;;;~
--
RW"'0209)(R.f '02'93, '02"3, clt)' of .chula villa planning clepartment POa",m Of
environmental review .eclion, CHULA VISTA
. ,
The proposed project ts designated a "gatewayft and discussed in ;)ection 7.4 of the Land Use
Element. The text of the uGatewaysft section generally defines gateways as the area where a
major approach route enters the city and extends along that route for some distance into the
city. Special treatment is considered to be appropriate to signify the arrival at the city or arrival
at and progression into an important element of the city. This should include a theme of
signage and landscape material which varies to match the specific topographic and roadway
configuration. Within the category of "overall city gateway elements" which this'project falls,
Ihe plan states, "a consistent designation should make a statement which graphically and
symbolically creates a gateway or announces the arrival to the city." More specific criteria are
expected to be developed sometime in the future. If this project is approved. the placement of
one freestanding pole sign will not significantly effect the ultimate design of this gateway to
the city.
D.
Identification of EnvironmentaJ Effect!i:
No impacts were identified in the Initial Study which will require mitigation.
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Envirorunental
Checklist Fonn) detennined that the proposed project will not have a significant envirorunental
effect, and the preparation of an Envirorunental Impact Report will not be required. This
Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
E. Miti~ation necessary to avoid siinificant effect~
The proposed project will not result in any significant or potentially significant envirorunental
impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation is required.
F. Con~u)tation
1. Individual~ and OrQ'anization~
City ofChula Vista: Keith Barr, Planning
Barbara Reid, Planning
Roger Daoust, Engineering
Cliff Swanson. Engineering
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering
Bob Sennen, Planning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building &. Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Crime Prevention, MaryIane Diosdada
Marty Schmidt, Parks &. Recreation Dept.
Ann Moore, Assistant City Anorney
wpc f;\HOME\Pl.ANNINCi\STORED\J02O.9J tRef. 10'21.~. 1022.9))
Pago 2
.,
. .
3.
Initia1 Sntcfv
This envirorunental derennination 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 infonnation regarding the envirorunental review
of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Departtnent, 276 Fourth
Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
~
ENVIRON TAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 5/93)
WPC F:\HOME\P1.ANNING\STORED\l0'20.93 IRer. 10'21.93.1022.'3)
Pa~. 3
APPLICATION CANNOT Bf _CEPTED UNLESS SITE
PLAN IS FOLDED TO FIT II'< lOAN 8.112 X II FOLDER
A, BACKGROUND
1. Project Title Fyt nf f='rpp ~t;:ann;na cnng ~
2. Project Location (Street address or description)
4450 Otay Valley Road
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Assessors Book. Page & Parcel No. 624-060-6400
.
3. Brief Project Description AmpT'ui prp,..;cu::a p1::11n (P"'M_"'R_'Q~ +-1"\ :111,1"\1.Y pn1e
sign from 50 to 75 feet and the monument sign from 7.5 to 14.6
INITIAL STUDY
For Office Use Only
Case No. IS.
Dpsl. AnUlI.
Receipt No.
Date Rc.c'd.
Acccpted by
Project No. FA.
Dpsl. No. DO-
CIP No.
Relased Case No.
City of Chula Vista
Application Form
mnnmt
sign on property.
feet.
4. Name of Applicant RicKY Kothari (General Manaaer)
Address 4450 Otay Valley Read Fax# 425-4605 Phone 422-2600
City Chula Vi sta State CA Zip 91911
5. N:une of Preparer/Agent Nicole Hohenstein
Address 4450 Otay Valley Road Fax# 425-4605 Phone 422-2600
City Chula vista State CA Zip 91911
Relation to Applicant T)irpl""tnr nf ~;:('p~ ;:(nn Mi=lrkpting
6. Indicate all pennits or approvals and enclosures ~r documents required by the Environmental
Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required.
General Plan Amendment
Rezone/Prezone
_ Grading Pennit
_ Tentative Parcel Map
Site Plan & Arch. Review
_ Special Use Permit
_ Design Review Application
_ Tcntative Subd. Map
_ Redevelopment Agency OPA
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
_ Public Project
Annexation
Precise Plan Amdmt.
..2L.. Specific Plan
Conditional Use Pennit
Variance
_ Coastal Development
Oilier Femut
If project is a General Plan Amendment and/or rezone, please indicate the change in designation from
to
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator).
_ Grading Plan
_ Parcel Map
-X.. Precise Plan
_ Specific Plan
_ Traffic Impact Report
Hazardous Waste Assessment
Arch. Elevations
= Landscape Plans
_ Tentative Subd. Map
_ Inlprovement Plans
_ Soils Report
_ Geotecluueal Report
_ Hydrological Study
_ Biological Study
_ Archaeological Study
Noise Assessment
= Oilier Agency Permit
Oilier
\\'T":~'J!O'~!'L"""'<"'''''''',~ ,~,~~~ ':;.I,C~'Kr' :~., i.."
7. Indicate other applications for pennits or approvals that are being .ubmitted at this time.
a. Pennits or approvals required.
General Plan Amendmenl
_ Rezone/Prezone
_ Grading Permit
_ Tentative Parcel Map
Site Plan & Arch. Review
_ Special Use Permit
_ Design Review Application
_ Tentative Subd. Map
_ Redevelopment Agency OPA
_ Redevelopmenl Agency DDA
_ Public Project
Almexation
Precise Plan Amdmt.
.!.- Specinc Plan
_ Conditional Usc Permit
Varianee -
_ Coastal Development
Other Pcrmit
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1.
a.
Land Area: square footage or acreage , 7i
If land area to be dedicated. state acreage and purpose. N A
b. Does the project involve the construction of new buildings. or will existing structure be
utilized'! ~a
Complete this section if project is residential or mixed use.
a. Type of development:_ Single Family _ Two Family _ Multi Family
Townhouse Condominium
otal number of structures
c. M' um height of structures
d. Number Units: I bedroom
2 bedroom
3 bedroom
droom
Total 'ts
e. Gross density (DU/total acres)
f. Net density (DUltotal acres minus any de
g. Estimated project population
h. Estimated sale or rental price range
i. Square footage of structure
j. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures
k. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
I. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial or mixed use.
a. Type(s) of land use Hot p 1
b. Floor area Height of structures(s)
c. Type of construction used in the structure
WPC,F,~IOMN1.ANNINClSTOIWNO~I-A_9J (R.f. 1020.9JI (R.f. 1022.9J)
Page 2
d.
Describe majc
and streets Th e
to 1-805 on
;cess points to the structures and the 0 ,tation to adjoining properties
property fronts Main St. / Otay Valley Rd., adjacent
the east, adjoining entrance with gas station on the
west.
e.
Number of on-site parking spaces provided 124
Estimated number of employees per shift 1 front desk, 7 Hskg.
Number of shifts 3 Total 27 empl.
Estimated number of customers (per day) an'l basis of estimate 40
2 Main.
f.
g.
h. Estimated number of deliveries per day 1
i. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate A hiqh percentage of our
guests come from Mexico or Northern California.
j.
Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings
NA
k.
1.
Hours of operation
Type of exterior lighting
74 hours
4 If project is other than residential. commercial or industrial complete this section.
Type of project
b.
c. Square feet of enclos
d. Height of structure(s) - maxt
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be pro
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
h. Additional project characteristics
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
I. Wiu the project be required to obtain a permit through the Air Pollution Control District (APCD)?
Page 3
."PC,F,\HOMIN'I~GlSTOIWN021,"'.93 ,Rd. 1020.931 (R.I. 1022.931
2.
Is any type of grad in. ; excavation of the propeny anticipate
If yes. complete the following:
Excluding trenches to be backfilled. how many cubic yards (If eanh will be excavated?
No
b. How many cu . ds of fill will be placed?
c. How much area (sq. ft. or will be graded?
d. What will be the: Maximum depth of c
Average depth of cut
Maximum depth of fill
Average depth of fill
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of
energy used (air conditioning. electrical appliance. heating equipment. etc.)
Tl1uminatinn nf free standina sian and monument sian which are on
timers.
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is pan of the project (sq. ft. or acres)
NA
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these
jobs. ","
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within
the project site? NA
7. How many estimated automobile trips. per day. will be generated by the project? 80 To 90
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project. and their points of
access or cOlUlection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following:
new streets; street widening; extension of gas. electric. and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. NI'.
..-IOC,F,\IIOMElPlJ,NNINGlSTORED\I021.....3 CR.f. 102093) CR.f. 1022.93)
Page 4
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRO, ,ENTAL SETrING
I. Geology
Has a i!eology study been conducted on the propeny?
(If yes. please allach)
Has a soils repon on the project site been made?
(If yes. please allach)
2. Hydrology
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site?
(IT yes. explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface eyidence of a shallow ground water table?
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site?
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly in to or toward a domestic water supply,
lake. reservoir or bay?
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas?
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location.
3. Noise
a. Are there any noise sources in the project vicinity which may impact the project site?
b. Will noise from the project impact any sensitive receptors (hospitals. schools. single-
family residences)?
4. Biology
a. Does the sile involve any Coaslal Sage Scrub vegelation?
b. Is the project site in a natural or panially natural slate?
c. IT yes. has a biological survey been conducted on the prope"y?
Yes No (Please attach a copy.)
d. Describe all trees and vegetation on the site. Indicate location. height. diameter. and
species of trees. and which (if any) will be removed by the project.
WPC:F:\lIOME\P1..ANNlNCi'STORElN021.A,9J (Rd. 1020,93) (Rd. 1022.931
Pa,. 5
_~. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical or an.:heological resources located on or near the ploject
site'!
b. Are there any known paleontological resources?
c. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site'!
d. What was the land previously used for?
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site.
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property.
North
South
East
West
7. ~
a. Are there any residents on site? y'"'' If so. how many? ? Inn cd~" m"'1ager)
b. Are there any current employment opponunities on site? no 0
If so. how many and what type?
8. Please provide any other infonnation which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project.
We are increasing the height of the free standing sign from 50
to 75 f~p~ end thp mnn11mpn+ ~ian ~rnm 7 ~,+ tn 1~ ~ ~AAt T~e
hpiQht ~~i~h hnt~ ~rA 'n~~+Grl .c nn+ "i~i~'A ~rnm T_Rn~ "nr+~ ~nd
:=Inn en,,+-"" """'1"11"1 :tot'\A _'!!Io~'" ~...A .........~ 1o..~RA ~R N'iiR i't .' 0\:::1:1" "Allor Rd.
As a rp-su1t nf tni~ WI) h::tvp 'n~t hn':::;nl:loC::~
WPC:F:\HOt.1E'J'LANNING\ST0R.E.D\102t.A.93 tRee. I020.Q}) (Ref. 1022.93)
Page 6
E. CERTlFICA nON
I. as owner/owner in escrow.
Print name
or
I, consultant or agent.
Ricky Kothari
Print name
HEREBY AFFIRM. that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all
respects true and correCI and that all known infonnation concerning the project and its setting has been
included in this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for
attachments thereto.
Owner/Owner in Escrow Signature
or
~ (l f;(AVl!
Consultant or Agent Signature
Date
.If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
~PC';F:~CNTORUN021.A.93 {Rd. 1020.931 (Rd. 1021.93)
Page 7
INITIAL STUDY PROCESSING AGREEMENT
Name of Applicant: Holidav Inn EXDress Chula Vista
Address: 4450 Otav Val1ev Road
City: Chula Vista Stale CA
Name of Authorized Represenlative (if signatory): 11; r-"y Knth"r;
Address: 44c;n nt~y Vr:\'1py ~n~n
City ChI]' a Vi ~ta Slate ("A
Agreement Date:
Deposit Amount:
Phone 422-2600
Zip 9 1 911
Phone 4??-?f>nn
Zip ql qll
This Agreement ("Agreement") between the Cily of Chula Vista, D char1ercd municipal corporation ("City")
and the forenamed applicant for an Initial Study ("Applicant"). effective as of the Agreement Date set forth above.
is made with reference to the following facts:
Whereas, the Applicant has applied 10 the City for an Initial Sludy of the Iype aforereferenced ("Initial
Study") which the City has required to be obtained as a condition to penniuing the Applicant 10 develop a parcel
of property; and.
Whereas. Ihe City will incur expenses in order 10 process said Inilial Study through Ihe various departments
and before the various boards and commissions of the Cily ("Processing Services"); and,
Whereas. the purpose of this agreement is 10 reimburse the City for all expenses it will incur in conneclion
with providing Ihe Processing Services;
Now. therefore. the parties do hereby agree. in exchange for the mUlual promises herein contained. as
follows:
I. Applicant's Duty to Pay.
The Applicant shall pay all of the City's expenses incurred in providing Processing Service related to
applicant's Initial Study. including all of the City's direct and overhead costs related thereto. This duty of
Ihe Applicant shall be referred to herein as the "Applicant's Duty to Pay."
A. Applicant's Deposit Duty
As partial perfonnance of the Applicant's DUly to Pay, the Applicant shall deposit Ihe amount
aforercfen:nced ("Deposit").
I. The City shall charge its lawful expenses incurred in providing Processing Services
against the Applicant's Deposit Jr, afler the conclusion of processing lhe Applicant's
Initial Study, any portion of Ihc Deposil remains, the City shall relurn said balance 10 the
Applicant wilhout interest thereon. Jr, during the processing of the Applicant's InUial
Study, the amount of the Deposil becomes exhausted. or is imminenlly likely 10 become
exhausled in the opinion of Ihe City, upon noliee of same by the City. the Applicant shall
forthwith provide such additional deposU as Ihe City shall calculate as reasonably
necessary 10 continue 10 provide Processing Services. The duty of the Applicant 10
inilially deposit and to supplement said deposit as herein required shall be known as the
"Applicant's Deposit Duty".
II. Cily's Duty
The City shall. upon the condition that the Applicant is not in breach of the Applicant's Duty to Payor the
Ap!'t;c:ulI's Deposit Duly. use good faith to provide processing services i~ ,clalion to the Applicant's Initial
Study application.
WPC;F;\lIOME'~'LANN1NG\STOREIN021.A.43 lRer. ID20.9JJ (Rd. I022.9J)
Page 8
A. The Cily shaJl have no liahility hereunder to Ihe Applical1l for the failure to process Ihe Applicanrs
Initial Study application. or for failure 10 process Ihe Applicanrs Initial Sludy wilhin the lime
frame requested by Ihe Applicanl or estimated by lhe City.
B. By execution of Ihis agreement. Ihe Applicant shall have no right to direcl or otherwise innuence
the conduct of Ihe Inilial Study for which Ihe applicanl has applied. The City shall use ils
discretion in evaluating Ihe Applicanl's Inilial Study application wilhout regard 10 Ihe Applicanl"
promise to pay for the Processing Services. or Ihe execulion of the Agreement.
1lI. Remedies
A. Suspension of Processing
In addition 10 all olher rights and remedies which the Cily shall otherwise have allaw or equity.
Ihe Cily has Ihe right 10 suspend and/or withhold the processing of the Initial Sludy which is Ihe
subjecl matler of Ihis Agreement. as well as Ihe Initial Study which may be the subjecl matter of
any other Pennil which Applicanl has before Ihe City.
B. Civil ColleClion
In addilion to all olher rights and remedies wllich Ihe City shall olherwise have all law or equily,
Ihe Cily has the righlto collecl all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civil aclion.
and upon instituting litigation 10 collecl same, the prevailing party shall be entitled 10 rcasonable
atlorney's fees had costs.
IV. Mjscellaneous
A. NOlices
All notices. demands or requests provided for or pennitled 10 be given pursuant 10 Ihis Agreemenl
musl he in wriling. AU nolices. demands and requests 10 be senl 10 any party shall be deemed 10
have been properly given or served if perwnaJly served or deposiled in Ihe United Slales mail.
addressed 10 such party. poslage prepaid. regislered or certified. with relurn receipt requesled, al
the addresses identified adjacent 10 Ihe signatures of Ihe parties represented.
B. Governing Law/Venue
This Agrecmenl shall be governed by and cons\IUed in accordance wilh the Laws of the Slale of
California. Any aClion arising under or relating 10 Ihis Agreemenl shall be broughl only in Ihe
federal or Slate courts localed in San Diego Counly, Slale of California, and if applicable, thc City
of Chula Vista. or as close Ihereto as possible. Venue for this agreemenl, and pcrfonnance
hereunder. shall be Ihe Cily of Chula Visla.
C. Multiple Signatories
If there are ",uhiple signalories 10 this agreemenl on behalf of Applicanl, each of such signalories
shall be jointly and severally liahle for the perfonnance of Applicant's duties herein sel forth.
D. Signatory AUlhorily
The signatory 10 this agreemenl hereby warrolnts and represents lhal il is Ihe duly designaled agent
for the Applicant and has been duly authorized by the Applicanl 10 execute Ihis Agreement on
behalf of Ihe Applicanl. Signatory shall be personally liable for Applicant's Duly 10 Pay and
Applicant's Duty 10 Deposil in Ihe evenl it has nOl been authorized 10 execule this Agreement by
Ihe Applic~"'.
\\'PC;F:~ME'ft.ANNtNCi\STOkED\I021.A.Q3 (Ref. 1020.93) (Rcr. 1012.93)
Page 9
E. liold liarrnlcss
Applicant shall defend. indemnify and hold h:umless the City. its elccled and appninled olfi..ers
and employees. from and against all claims for d"mages. li"hilit)', ensl and cXllen", (induding
willioullimilation anomeys' fees) arising nul of processing Applicant's Inilial Study. exn'pt nnly
for those claims arising from Ihc sole negligence or sole willful conducl of the Cily. inculTed hy
the City. its officers, agen15, or employees in defending against such claims, whether liIe same
proceed to judgement or not. Further, liIe Applicant, at i15 own expense, shall. upon wriUen
request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against liIe City, i15 officers, agents.
or employees, Applicant's indemnifcation of the City shall be limiled by any prior or subsequent
declaration by the Applicant.
F. Administrative Claims Requiremenls and Procedures.
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against liIe City unless a claim
has first been presented in writing and filed with the Cily of Chuta Vista and acled upon by the
City of Chula Vista in accordance with liIe procedures sel forth in Chapter 1.34 or liIe Chula Vista
Municipal Code. as same may from time 10 time be amended, liIe provisions of which arc
incorporated by the reference as if fully set forth herein. and such policies and procedures used by
the City in liIe implementation of same. Upon request by Ihe City, the Applicant shall meel and
confer in good faith with the City for liIe purpose of resolving any dispute over liIe terms of Ihis
Agreement.
Now. liIerefore. Ihe parties herelo. having read and understood Ihe Icrms and conditions of liIis agreement,
do hereby express their consent 10 Ihe tenns hereof by sening liIeir hand herelo on liIe dale set forth adjacent thereto,
City
City of Chula Vist;!
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
By:
Dated:
Applicanl (or authorized representalive)
Kothari
By:
L-I.'I .
By:
I) lfr/rT
Paled:
Page 10
\I,'PC;F;~fOME\P1.ANNlNG\5TOkfJ7.J021.A.93 tkrr. 1(l209JI (lhf. 1022.931
. ~..' :....r-....'... t!~-'&I"~_~~~O~. ~J
.~ I ..
t . ~ .
.... . ,.... .
~.
-+
.
1
II
-ill
"1:
-11
I
I
L-
~
"J ~(~
-ii
, (
..
I
I
i
""1. ~
. I~
t-:. --@
I
i
- ..,.~--
"
i
,
__ ..J.
..
\ '.'-
. - .-"-.. ._-
-.. .-..
,
t
"-
.' ~
..---4
_0.. '._.._.._.
'.
~
-
APPENDIX m
CITY DATA SHEET
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I. Current Zonin!! on site: CVP
North R-3 P-12
South R-3.P-13
East R-I
West CNP R-3-6
Does the project confonn to the current zoning? YES
D. General Plan land use designation on site: 0/5 MED
North O/S. MED-HIGH
South MED-HIGH
East O/S. FREEWAY RESEARCH & LIMITED MANU.
West RET AIL MED-HIGH
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? YES
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated?
NO
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? NO
(If yes, descn"be the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of the route).
NIA
m. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: NIA
~
Caoacitv
Enrollment
Units
PrQDosed
Generating
Factors
Students
Generated
From PrQiect
Elementary
Junior High
Senior High
.30
.29
.10
IV.
Remarks:
N/A
-
~-""~.IL
'-::",.,,"" .--'. .'~ "'~,~-~-,._""'~'~.P'-~'"",,'-'=-"'_._.~-~'.
_~~'~'~~'.'_ ~- _",-~'.~_'~i.=."'.~~
,.
Case No. 15 .-9(,. -&>~
~
o/~/'5
Date
Director of Planning or Representative
.
WPC;F;\HOME\Pl.ANNING\STORED\l022.93 (Ref. 1021.93) (Ref. 1020.93)
Page 2
~....~-------_..~ .- --.,-----
YS- c"Ll
ROUTING FORM
.
J
,
f.,
f!J
,"
DATE: August~, 1995
Fflef,{! ~:
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Anne Moore, Asst City Attorney (Draft Neg
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado)
Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev, only
Current Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Garry Williams, Landscape Planner
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
Doug Reid (Community Development Projects)
Other
-rr>: ~:
Doua Reid
Environmental section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-96-02/FA-____/DQ )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-____/FB-____/DP)
Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-____ERR-____)
Review of Draft Neg Dec (15- ~~- /DQ- )
." .
.." \
The Project consists of: '1' .1
,
Holiday Inn is proposing to increase the height of the
existing free standing sign from 50 feet to 75 feet and the
monument sign from' 7.5 feet to 14.6 feet.
Location: Sign on Property at 4450 Otay Valley Rd.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by 8/18/95
Comments:
NIO
~""'~
~j
8/0~-
ROUTING FORM
DATE: August 8, 1995
TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Anne Moore, Asst City Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado)
Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
Current Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Garry Williams, Landscape Planner
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
Doug Reid (Community Development Projects)
Other
FROM:
DOUCl Reid
Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-96-02/FA-____/DQ )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ )
Review of a Draft. EIR (EIR-____/FB-____IDP)
Review of Environmental Review Recor~ (FC-____ERR-____)
Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- iFA- /DQ- )
"".. ,
The Project consists of: '.: .)
Holiday Inn is proposing to increase the height of the
existing free standing sign from 50 feet to 75 feet and the
monument sign from 7.5 feet to 14.6 feet.
Location: Sign on Property at 4450 Otay Valley Rd.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by 8/18/95
Comments:
\~"?J~~
~re. C--$I'J....r~ '* ""fProvd...G:>.. b~ Sl~~ VI~V...Q
11' . . I.{-!
o..{' ~V"O\,DhJi. 1I.1.',f'V~~. t--Jo ~~""- -I- ~ I::'f>~
~c.-- _ ~
Pl." :t:?....,~
r;:
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-96-02/FA-____/DQ )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-____/FB-____IDP)
Review of Environmental Review Recor4 (FC-____ERR-____)
Review of Draft Neg Dec (1S- ~A- /DQ- )
.'1.("" I
The Pro~ect consists of: } }
.6 ~ I ' _I..... '~"
1f,JiJ"J 11'1.. is proposing to increase the height of the
existing free standing sign from 50 feet to 75 feet and the
monument sign from 7.5 feet to 14.6 feet.
ROUTING FORM
RECE!VED
August 8, 1995
AUG - H19%
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Anne Moore, Asst City Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & E1R)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado)
Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
Current Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Garry Williams, Landscape Planner
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft E1R - If annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
Doug Reid (Community Development Projects)
Other
Cli', (;f C",oc!; Ilo,A
BUILDING & HOUSING DEPi.
DOUG Reid
Environmental Section
Location: Sign on Property at 4450 Otay Valley Rd.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by 8/18/95
Comments:
7JoUj -
f}~~
,
;~fy- ~ ~A4.
~/~J
ROUTING FORM
DATE: August 8, 1995
TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Anne Moore, Asst City Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado)
Community Development, R~dev. Economic Dev. only
Current Planning l-&;'[~
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Garry Williams, Landscape Planner
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
Doug Reid (Community Development Projects)
other
FROM:
Douq Reid
Environmental Section
The Project consists of:
~1~ :,;. ~ii;- is proposing to increase the
existing free standing sign from 50 feet to
monument sign from 7.5 feet to 14.6 feet.
Application for Initial Study (IS-96-02/FA-____/DQ )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-____/FB-_/DP)
Review of Environmental Review Recore (FC-____ERR-____)
Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- -tFA- /DQ- )
....... I
) : }
!,.
> .
height of the
75 feet and the
SUBJECT:
Location: Sign on Property at 4450 Otay Valley Rd.
"-
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by 8/18/95
Comments:
- f?op1 d.aI.o /?pt ~iII& ~ ~ ;:144 t7///m/hU#r ~
Jk'/wllV\. ftu- f'6,.:J~t-h "f" a.. 4-1luv~ ~1I/~4 /L
{'1f at.. Jluck {Up\., 7k /f'?GJP ;'(/f/I ,bt ~s>/dad- ~
1lu.. ~ h:rit<<) UhH~f /Ti?6.
~
-kfHt-.
ROUTING FORM
, '.
1,0',; ~
DATE: August
~
~\
B, 1995
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
oger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
ne Moore, Asst city Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR)
arol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado)
Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
Current Planning
~
,
Garry Williams, Landscape Planner
o ., . .
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
Doug Reid (Community Development Projects)
Other
-C Doua Reid ~
Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-96-02/FA-____/DQ )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-____/FB-____/DP)
Review of Environmental Review RecorQ (FC-____ERR-____)
Review of Draft Neg Dec (15- iFfi- /DQ- )
.~. ,
., .
The Project consists of: '. I
, '.
Holiday Inn is proposing to increase the height of the
existing free standing sign from 50 feet to 75 feet and the
monument sign from 7.5 feet to l4.6 feet.
Location: Sign on Property at 4450 otay Valley Rd.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by 8/18/95 .
Comments: 00 Cot\.\.VveV\.l:~ 4 ~ iiol\{-e., f)v\'1kc..
ir>itia.e~. - &r
~ tl,l't'tS-
-.-.....-..--
~-.....=="-~...-'-=-
I
LANDSCAPE PLANNING
Case No. 9t, -<='~
A. Does the project affect native plant communities? 'OOV\.-€..
If so, please identify which communities. -B-
Will the project ~uire native plantinJ? (Please describe) -"'10
. B.
Please identify any imponant or hiahly visible hiDsides on OJ' adjacent 10 Ibe project.
. (' ~
,
C. Of the total area to be developed. how much, and which &IUS are expected 10 be replanted
and require supplemental watering? (Please describe). j)0V\e
E. Are there any other landscape ~uirements or miti.ation for the project? ~.
~~~
~m~
Date
~:F:~o:zz.n taoo'.I02I.n)taoo'.IOID.n)
'aael
Case No. /S-9t?-o,;{
APPENDIX IV
Comments
Received During the Public Review Period
_ No Comments Were Received Durina the Public Review Puiod
.
~m"~.ICI:II.J:I)(Iol.IWI.")
ROUTING FORM
DATE: August 8, 1995
TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (ISI3, EIRI2)
Anne Moore, Asst City Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado)
community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
Current Planning l-&;'(~
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Garry Williams, Landscape Planner
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
Doug Reid (Community Development Projects)
Other
FROM:
Doua Reid
Environmental section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-96-02IFA-____/DQ )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____IDQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-____/FB-____IDP)
Review of Environmental Review Record (FC-____ERR-____)
Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- -tFA- /DQ- )
.". f
" ~, .}
The Project consists of: 1 _
It. _J., , _ , .
~ ".1,( Jar .TR'" is proposing to increase the height of the
existing free standing sign from 50 feet to 75 feet and the
monument sign from 7.5 feet to 14.6 feet.
Location: Sign on Property at 4450 otay Valley Rd.
~
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by 8/18/95
Comments:
- ~()j<<1 ~,dpt ~i/ld ~ ~ ;?1&4 t7~/H.I.wM'f- t24-
Jk4vVl II'\. -Ho- f'~<(j-\-1 'f" a.. 4-1IUVaR4 ~/lItp(~4- /L
('1fIUK Jlurk~, 7k/~~? tt/(// d ~~/~~
1Iu.. ~ ~-:ri u() Uh Hd1 / ~ .
~
.JtfHt-.
ROUTING FORM
, "
I, u\;
DATE: August 8, 1995
~
~\
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
oger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
ne Moore, Asst City Attorney (Draft Neg Dec & EIR)
arol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (M.J. Diosdado)
Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
Current Planning
~
,
Garry Williams, Landscape Planner
o ., . .
Chula vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Martin Miller, Project Tracking Log (route form only)
Doug Reid (Community Development Projects)
other
~DOUg Reid ~ Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-96-02/FA-____/DQ J
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-____/FB-____/DQ J
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-____/FB-____/DP J
Review of Environmental Review RecorQ (FC-____ERR-____J
Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- ~Ffi- /DQ- J
''-0;' I
The Project consists of: ',: J
Holiday Inn is proposing to increase the height of the
existing free standing sign from 50 feet to 75 feet and the
monument sign from 7.5 feet to 14.6 feet.
Location: Sign on Property at 4450 otay Valley Rd.
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by 8/18/95
Comments: ()o co~we/A.'"t~ 4 ~ 'tiMe I 611\.11-c..
inl-naQ ~. - &r-
~ 'tl,l'i.1S-
---....,.,',.,<',,,:>...~>~""--
/ LANDSCAPE PLANNING
Case No. 9t. -~~
A. Does the project affect native plant communities? ~OV\.-e.
If so, please identify which communities. -8-
Will the project require native plantin,? (Please desaibe) jlo
B.
Please identify any imponant or hiahJ)' visible hi11sides on or adjacent to Ihe project.
. ~ e....
/
C. Of the total area to be developed. how much, and which areas are expected to be replanted
and require supplemental waterin,? (Please ducribe). j)0V\e
E. Are there any other landscape requirements or miliaation for the project? ~ .
~~
~m~
DIIe
WI'C:F'~o:a.f)~. ItI2l.f))~.I_.n)
Pac.'
Case No. /S-9~-o",-
APPENDIX IV
Comments
Received During the Public Review Period
_ No Comments Were Received Durin. the Public Review Period
.
WI'C~mn~.ICI:II.tJ)(Io(.I_n)
Case No. 15-96-02
E. iRONMENT AL CHECKLIST F<' .d:
1. Name or Proponent: Holiday Inn, Ricky Kothari (General Manager)
2.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of ChuJa Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3.
Address and Pbone Number orPropoDeDt:
4450 Otay Valley Road
Chuta Vista, CA 91911
(619) 422-2600
4. Name of Proposal: Extension of free standing sign and monument sign
5. Date orCbeckIist: September I, 1995
(a:'dIIctlItrp)
Pille'
"'.tIaIIy
.....tIaIIy IApUicul .....u
....llIcut v.... -..... N.
"pod MI...... ..- ....d
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 0 0 IBI 0
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 IBI 0
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 0 0 0 IBI
impacts to soils or fannlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 0 0 0 IBI
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
Comments: The project is zoned CV-P (Visitor Commercial-Precise Plan) and has a General Plan
designation of CV (Visitor Commercial). The allowed height of a sign is not to exceed 3S feet. The project
proposes to construct a 7S foot pole sign.
The project is consistent with the land use designation of the Visitor Commercial and will confonn to
zoning with the approval of a Precise Plan amendment.
II. POPULA nON AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 IBI
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly 0 0 0 IBI
or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
inftastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 IBI
housing?
Comments: The project consists of the extension of existing sign heights, therefore it will not induce
growth in the area or displace existing housing.
ilL GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic 0 0 0 IBI
substtuctures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 IBI
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 IBI
features?
d) The desttuction, covering or modification of any 0 0 0 IBI
unique geologic or physical features?
(.'chIddaIp)
PISe 2
-...,
-- .......... '-"u
1ip11cu1 U.... .......... N.
I..... ......... ...." I.pea
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, [J [J [J ~
either on or off the site?
1) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, [J [J [J ~
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 [J [J [J ~
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments: As the project is the extension of existing sign heights, it will not serve to impose adverse
geophysical impacts.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal resull in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or [J [J [J ~
the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related [J [J [J ~
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of [J [J [J ~
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any [J [J [J ~
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of [J [J [J ~
water movements. in either marine or fresh
waters?
1) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either [J [J [J ~
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? [J [J [J ~
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? [J [J [J ~
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? [J [J [J ~
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water [J [J [J ~
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Commeuts: The project will not alter the rates of absorption or flow and will not alter the course or
direction of flow of flood waters. There will not be any impacts to groundwater. The project will not have
any impacts on water related issues and concerns.
Pag' 3
{a\tMdlbup)
........."
....- ....,.... '-"0
Iipll5cut U.... _.. N.
...... Mldpled ..- ..,.tt
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 0 0 0 I!!I
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive recepl.Jrs to pollutants? 0 0 0 I!!I
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or 0 0 0 I!!I
cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 I!!I
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or non- 0 0 0 I!!I
stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: The signs use electrical energy which do not produce pollutants.
VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION. Would the
proposal resull in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 I!!I
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp 0 0 0 I!!I
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., fann equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 0 0 0 I!!I
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 I!!I
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicYClists? 0 0 0 I!!I
1) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 I!!I
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 I!!I
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 I!!I
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or
more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more
peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments: The signs are designed to provide advertisement for the Holiday Inn, and therefore may
increase the vehicular traffic but only in insignificant amounts.
vn. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
resull in impocts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of concern 0 0 0 I!!I
or species that are candidates for listing?
ta'd.cklJa.ap) Page 4
-..."
......., ....1&c..1 La. ...
.....&cul U.... _IAtaIIl No
...... Midpl.d ...... ....d
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? 0 0 0 Ii!!
c) LocaJly designated natural communities (e.g, oak 0 0 0 Ii!!
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, ripariar. and vernal 0 0 0 Ii!!
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 Ii!!
1) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 Ii!!
efforts?
Comments: The project site has previously been disturbed, therefore it will not result in any adverse
biological impacts.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would
the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 0 0 0 Ii!!
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful 'and 0 0 0 Ii!!
inefficient manner?
c) I f the site is designated for mineral resource 0 DOli!!
protection, will this project impact this protection?
Comments: The proposed project will not use excessive amounts of energy and does not propose to use
any non-renewable resources. The project will not adversely affect mineral resources.
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 DOli!!
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The proposed signs do not use any material that is considered hazardous, therefore they wiJl
not expose people to any health hazards.
o
o
o
Ii!!
o
o
o
Ii!!
o
o
o
Ii!!
o
o
o
Ii!!
(aIcMdrJup)
Page 5
_...~
.....dall, -...., a-...
IiplfklB' U.... 16p'1k.u1 N.
....d MJdpted ....d ....d
X. NOISE. Would the proposal resull in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 IBI
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 IBI
Comments: The signs do not produce noise, thus there will not be an increase in existing noise levels
induced by the project. The increase in vehicular trips produced from the increase in advertising will be
insignificant, therefore an increase in generated noise will be minimal.
XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effecl upon, or result in a needfor new or allered
governmenl services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 IBI
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 IBI
c) Schools? 0 0 0 IBI
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 IBI
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 IBI
Comments: No new governmental services will be required to serve the project.
XlI. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the
City's Threshold Slandards?
o
o
o
IBI
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold
Standards.
a) FirelEMS
o
o
o
IBI
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls
within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or Jess in 75% of the cases.
The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest
fire station is 2- 1/4 miles away and would be associated with a 6 minute response time. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The fire department will be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection. The fire
department is capable of reaching heights up to 100 feet with its aerial ladder.
b) Police
o
o
o
IBI
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 4.5
minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or
less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
(.~i&")
P.~. 6
_...~
Splne-..
..-
.....tiafly
.........1
""...
"'dp'"
........
lipilka.t
..,.d
N.
...."
Comments: The proposal is the construction of signs, therefore, it will not have an impact on the police
thresholds.
c) Traffic
o
o
o
IBI
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS)
"C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak
two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west off-80S are not to operate
at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the
average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with fteeway ramps are exempted from
this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The proposal is the construction of signs and therefore would not affect current threshold
standards for traffic.
d) ParkslRecreation
o
o
o
IBI
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I ,000 population. The proposed
project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: As the project is a sign, the threshold standard for parks and recreation does not apply.
e) Drainage
o
o
o
IBI
The Threshold Standards require that stonn water flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The project will not alter stonn water flows o. volumes, therefore it will not have an impact
on the drainage threshold standards.
1) Sewer
o
o
o
IBI
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards.
Comments: As the project is the construction of signs which will not produce extra amounts of sewer. the
sewer threshold does not apply.
g) Water
o
o
o
IBI
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities
are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standar:ls are not
jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this
Threshold Standard.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set
progr8..1 the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building pennit issuance.
(e'cftlckISlIgll)
PaEc 7
r--dlolly
....- -...., ........
....Ileut v.... -..... N.
....d -... "pod 1....11
Comments: The proposed project will not use water or produce any waste water, thus it will not impact
this threshold standard.
XIIL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new syslems, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 181
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) Stonn water drainage? 0 0 0 181
1) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181
Comments: Extension of facilities to serve the project will not be required. The existing services are
adequate.
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would Ihe proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 181 181 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 0 181
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 197
e) Result in an additional amount ofspilllight7 0 0 181 0
(a-\dl<<.klllsan)
P'g< 8
....liaIly
IIpllka.1
I.pllct
...dally
1ip1nc..1
Va...
Mi...,tIII
......u
1Ip11ia..
l.plleI
N.
....d
CommeDts: Through the design review process, the applicant will be required to meet City standards. The
proposed signs are to be placed along a designated gateway (Otay Valley Road) and are subject to the
height, size and material requirements set forth by the Municipal Code. The proposed project will not result
in new light as the signs are cUrTently in existence. They are internally illuminated and, as such, there is no
glare. The City's perfonnance standards regarding light (specifically Section 19.66.100 of the Zoning
Ordinance) provide the following protection to residents: "No direct or sky-related glare shall be
pennitted, whether ITom floodlights or from high-temperature processes such as combustion or welding or
otherwise. so as to be visible at the points of measurement specified in Section 19.66.060."
Further, although the project could produce a potentially significant aesthetic impact, since the project is
only one 18' x 8')" sign and due to the distance ITom the fi'eeway and the existing eucalyptus trees along 1-
805, the impacts are below a level of significance.
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the 0 0 0 181
destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 D 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
EIR as an area of high potential for archeological
resources?
CommeDts: The site is not in an area of high potential for archeological resources. This site has been
disturbed as a result of the existing building. The proposal will not have any negative impacts on
archeological resources.
XVL PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the 0 0 0 181
proposal resull in the alleralion of or the deslru&tion
of paleontological resoUTces?
CommeDts: Due to the fact that the site has previously been disturbed and is not located in an area of high
potential paleontological resources as identified by the City's General Plan EIR, no negative impacts will
occur as a result of this project.
XVIL RECREATION. Wouldthepropasal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional 0 0 0 181
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational OppOrtUl. :ties? 0 0 0 181
(.. "ned.is..IiF. I
P.:!~e 9
-...,
......., lipllkul a-dl..
....Ilkul U.... ..........
Ia_ au....ted la-
D 0 0
N.
..,.a
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation plans
or programs?
Comments: As the project is an extension of the heights of two signs it will not create any new demand for
parks or recreation facilities.
xvm. MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
See Negative 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 imponant examples of the major
periods or California history or prehistory?
Comments: The site is already developed as a Holiday Inn. The project which is the proposed expansion
of the existing sign heights would not degrade the environment or substantially affect any biological
habitats or cultural resources.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-tenn, to the disadvantage of long-tenn,
environmental goals?
Comments: No areas will be graded as a result of the project. There are no significant impacts. With the
requirement that all of the City Standards be met, the project does not have the potential to achieve short-
tenn goals to the disadvantage of long-tenn environmental goals.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
Comments: The project impacts are limited and not cumulatively considerable since this sign is the only
sign of this type in the area.
IBI
o
o
IBI
o
o
o
o
IBI
o
o
o
IBI
d) Does the project have environmental effect which 0 0 0 IBI
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings. either directly or indirectly?
Comments: The project will have no environmental effects that will cause adverse effects on humans.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
,.'dIedo:.I"'IfII)
Pas, 10
impact that is a "Potentially Signu.cant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unle.o Mitigated," as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning 0 TransponationlCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems
0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
o Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
o MandatoI)' Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
~
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o
o
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect: I) 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 required. but it
must analyze only the effects that remain \0 be addressed.
o
JJ~ c$;/
Signa .
~~r /, 1"1" b
Date /
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
Page I]
ycMdlJol,.stn)
ATTACHMENT 7
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
1HE en. OF a-nJLA VISfA DISCLOSURE SfAuoMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of cenain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign
contributions, on all malters which will require discretionary action on the pan of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Ashuk
Sw-e?h Pct-kJ
I%MOJ LRII
Iso."'\
)
2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or pannership, list the names of all individuals owning
more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any pannership interest In the pannership.
Asho k l-SrcAn i
SVlre.sh po.+el
3. If any person * identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
~/p.,
.,
Have you had more than S250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ No v If yes, please indicate person(s):
5.
Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who
you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
~\Gkv Ko+har;
I
to 1 c..o Ie. \-to ~ e r) 5 +ev\
C1ex~ [ Coy-
-.
Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggreg'lle, contributed more than SI,OOO to a Councilmember in the
current or preceding election period? Yes_ No..:i::::. If yes, state which Councilmember(s):
Date:
}O J~O 10::
,
· . * (Nom Attach additional pages as D
Qf-i€~/1- S. CbX
Print or 'type name of contractor/applicant
· Person is tkfU~d aJ: "AllY uulividw:d, /inn, co-pa1TlJeT'Ship, jow vauure, as.wcituion,sociiJ/ club, fraJt:miJ1 organizotion, corporation, utaU, trust, rrcd~, syndicate,
thi.s olld mry other cowuy, city and cowury, dry mwucipaliry, district, or other Political subdivision, or any olhl:r group or combination acting as Q unit"
-