Loading...
Resolution - 9390• RESOLUTION NO. 9390 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION' OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR CODE AMENDMENT NO. 265 (COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE REVISION) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 265 COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE REVISION NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPLICANT: City of West Covina LOCATION: City of West Covina - Citywide WHEREAS, on June 27, 1995, the Planning Commission initiated a for Code Amendment No. 265; and WHEREAS, Code Amendment No. 265 is a City -initiated project to revise K_ portions of Chapter 7 (Buildings and Building Regulations) and Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal Code that relate to signs; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a 'project' pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, an initial study was prepared for said project; and WHEREAS, based upon the findings of the initial study, it was determined that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment and will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared for the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 22th day of October, 1996, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said application and environmental documents, and the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-96-4386, recommending that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Code Amendment No. 265; and WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 5th day of November, 1996, conduct a • duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said application and environmental documents, and considered evidence presented by the Planning Commission, Planning Department, and other interested parties. Z:/CC/RESOJJ/A265N DRS. DOC I • E Resolution No. 9390 Amendment No. 265: Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Revision November 5, 1996 - Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of West Covina does hereby resolve as follows: 1. After receiving and considering all determinations, studies, documents, and recommendations, as well as other appropriate public comments, the City Council of the City of West Covina hereby certifies the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. 2. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Resolution. PASSED AND APPROVED on this 19, day of November, 1996. lywAff�;� Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF WEST COVINA I, Janet Berry, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19. day of November, 1996. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Herfert, Manners, McFadden, Wong, Touhey None None APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney City CIA Z:/CC/RESOJJ/A265N DRS. DOC AMENDMENT NO. 265: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE REVISION CEQA INITIAL STUDY FORM SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 1 CEQA INITIAL STUDY FORM • 1. Project Title: Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Revision Code Amendment No, 265 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of West Covina 1444 W. Garvey Ave. South West Covina, CA 91790 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jay Jarrin - (818) 814-8422 4. Project Location: City of West Covina, California City Wide 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of West Covina 1444 West Garvey Avenue South West Covina, CA 91790 (818)814-8422 6. General Plan Designation: N/A 7. Zoning: N/A 8. Specific Plan/Redevelopment Plan Designation: N/A 9. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary). This project is a City -initiated project to revise the portions of Chapter 7 (Buildings and Building Regulations) and Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal Code that relate to signs. This is a comprehensive revision that will replace existing sign regulations in their entirety with updated sign regulations. The primary intent of these revisions is to streamline sign review procedures, make sign code standards easier to understand, and to modify sign code regulations to reflect current market conditions. 10. Surrounding Land Use and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The project area is the entire city. The City of West Covina is a mature urban area located approximately 20 east of downtown Los Angeles. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g or participation agreement). none 12. Sources consulted in preparing Initial Study. City of West Covina General Plan • City of West Covina Zoning Code permits, financing, approval, CA JAY/A265/A265ND.D0C/JAY AMENDMENT NO. 265: CEQA INITIAL STUDY FORM COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE REVISION SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected • Environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 1. Land Use and Planning 2. Population and Housing 3. Geological Problems 4. Water 5. Air Quality 6. Transportation/Circulation 7. Biological Resources 8. Energy and Mineral Resources 9. Hazards 10. Noise Public Services 11. Public Services 12. Utilities and Service System Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: 13. Aesthetics 14. Cultural Resources 15. Recreation 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance X❑ I found that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact', or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environments, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been adequately addressed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR , including revisions to the project design or itigatio easures that are imposed upon the proposed project. obel/96 Sign re Date JAY JA'RCzIN ��Ni�G Ass/tT,t,�-T Printed Name City of West Covina CJ1 JAY/A265/A265NEGDEC.DOC/JAY AMENDMENT NO. 265: CEQA INITIAL STUDY FORM COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE REVISION SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 3 Instructions for the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts • 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers- except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). • 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more 'Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, and EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from section 17, "earlier analyses," may be cross referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, as effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. CA JAY/A265/A265NEGDEC.DOC/JAY AMENDMENT NO. 265: CEQA INITIAL STUDY FORM COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE REVISION SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 4 CEQA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST WOULD THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN THE I No FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING: A. Conflict with the general plan designation or FXI zoning? B. Conflict with applicable environmental plans 0 or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? C. Be incompatible with existing land use in the ❑ vicinity? D. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from the incompatible land uses)? E. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of al an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING: A. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? B. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? C. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS: A. Fault Rupture? B. Seismic ground shaking? C. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? Landslides or mudflows? F. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Yes Potential Potential Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Inc. ❑ ❑ U 0 ❑X ❑ 0 ❑ Eil El Ex-1 El Less Than Significant n a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ FRI ❑ ❑ ❑ C:/1 JAY/A265/A265N EGDEC. DOC/JAY 4 4 AMENDMENT NO. 265: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE REVISION CEQA INITIAL STUDY FORM SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 5 Yes Potential WOULD THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN THE No Potential Unless Less Than FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Impact Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Inc. Impact G. Expansive soils? © ❑ ❑ ❑ H. Subsidence of the land? ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ I. Unique geologic or physical features? o ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. WATER: A. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount or surface 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ runoff? B. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ C. Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. ❑ ❑ ❑ temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? D. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? . ❑ ❑ ❑ E. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ❑ ❑ ❑ F. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, Q ❑ ❑ El or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge or capability? G. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ H. Impacts to groundwater quality? I. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. AIR QUALITY: A. Violate any air quality standard be contribute 0 ❑ El ❑ to an existing or projected air quality violation? Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ C. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, ❑ ❑ ❑ or cause any change in climate? CA JAY/A265/A265NEGDEC.D0C/JAY 4 4 AMENDMENT NO. 265: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE REVISION CEQA INITIAL STUDY FORM SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 6 Yes Potential WOULD THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN THE No Potential Unless Less Than FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Impact Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Inc. Impact D. Create objectionable odors? 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: 0 A. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? B. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. a sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? C. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? D. Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off site? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: A. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? B. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ❑X ❑ El 0 C. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? El El FJ D. Wetlands habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and -vernal pool)? a ❑ 11 El E. Wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors? ❑ El ❑ 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES: A. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ ❑ ❑ B. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? El El El C. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the El El El State? HAZARDS: A. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not Ellimited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? CA JAYIA265fA265NEGDEC.D0C1JAY AMENDMENT NO. 265: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE REVISION CEQA INITIAL STUDY FORM SEPTEMBER 10. 1996 - PAGE 7 Yes Potential WOULD THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN THE No Potential Unless Less Than FOLLOWING ENVIR6NMENTAL EFFECTS: Impact Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Inc. Impact B. Possible interference with an emergency Ex-1 ❑ ❑ ❑ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? C. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ D. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ E. Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ® ❑ ❑ Elbrush, grass, or trees? 10. NOISE: A. Increases in existing noise levels? © ❑ ❑ ❑ B. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 11.PUBLIC SERVICES: A. Fire protection? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ B., Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ C. Schools? © ❑ ❑ D. Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ ❑ E. Maintenance of public facilities, including ® ❑ 0 El roads? 12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: A. Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ B. Communications systems? ® ❑ C. Local or regional water treatment or © ❑ ❑ ❑ distribution facilities? D. Sewer or septic tanks? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ E. Storm waste disposal? ® ❑ ❑ Solid waste disposal? ® ❑ ElG. El Local or regional water supplies? © ❑ ❑ ❑ CA JAY/A265/A265NEGDEC.DOC/JAY AMENDMENT NO. 265: CEQA INITIAL STUDY FORM COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE REVISION SEPTEMBER 10. 1996 - PAGE 8 Yes Potential WOULD THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN THE No . Potential Unless Less Than FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Impact Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Inc. Impact 13.AESTHETICS: A. Affect the scenic vista or scenic highways? ❑ ❑ ❑ B. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? El❑ ❑ ❑X C. Create light or glare? ❑ ❑ al 14.CULTURAL RESOURCES: A. Disturb paleontological resources? Y ❑ ❑ ❑ B. Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ C. Affect historical resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. RECREATION: A. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ B. Affect existing recreational opportunities? 1-1 El F1 16.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or ❑ ❑ ❑, El species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? B. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of ❑ El El ❑ long-term, environmental goals? C. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (`Cumulatively considerable" that the incremental effects of a 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ e considerable when viewed in n with the effects of past projects, Leffects of other current projects, and the probable future projects) - C:/1 JAY/A265/A265NEGDEC. DOC/JAY 0 4 AMENDMENT NO. 265: CEQA INITIAL STUDY FORM COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE REVISION SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 9 Yes Potential WOULD THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN THE No Potential Unless Less Than FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Impact Significan Mitigation Significant tImpact Inc. Impact D. Does the project have environmental effects El D 0 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Attach additional sheets if necessary) EXPLANATION OF RESPONSES 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING (A,B.D,E), 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING, 3. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS, 4. WATER, 5. AIR QUALITY, 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION, 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES, 9. HAZARDS, 10. NOISE, 11. PUBLIC SERVICES, 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (B-G) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES, 15. RECREATION, 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE NO The project consists of revising the regulations in the Municipal Code regulating signs. The Code Amendment does not propose or serve as a commitment to any specific sign proposal. Consequently, the Code Amendment will not create any environmental impacts in the areas listed above. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1 C. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? I YES, LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT While approval of this Code Amendment will not authorize any sign construction at a particular location, its standards will permit signs that may potentially have an impact on surrounding properties. Sign types that have the greatest potential for creating • such impacts will be subject to separate environmental reviews. However, all signs, regardless of approval procedure, will not be permitted to adversely impact surrounding properties. C:/7 JAY/A265/A265NEGDEC.D0C/JAY q'� • AMENDMENT NO. 265: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE REVISION 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 12A. Power or natural gas? YES. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CEQA INITIAL STUDY FORM SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 10 The project consists of revising the regulations in the Municipal Code regulating signs. This project will not authorize any particular sign construction at a specific location and therefore will not affect the need for power. However, the proposed sign standards will allow a great number of signs, some of which are electrical, that cumulatively may have a negligible impact on the existing power supply. 13. AESTHETICS 13A. Affect the scenic vista or scenic highways? YES, LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The project consists of revising the regulations in the Municipal Code regulating signs. This project will not authorize any particular sign construction at a specific location and therefore will not affect any scenic vistas or scenic highways. However, the erection of a future sign permitted by the Code may affect scenic vistas or scenic highways. Separate environmental reviews will be required for the types of signs (e.g. pole signs, roof signs, projecting signs) that have the greatest potential for affecting scenic vistas or scenic highways. 13B. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? YES, LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The project consists of revising the regulations in the Municipal Code regulating signs. This project will not authorize any particular sign construction at a specific location. Signs in general, as permitted to be erected pursuant to these regulations, have the potential to create adverse aesthetic impacts if their number, size, and appearance are not properly controlled. The proposed Code will incorporate design standards to minimize negative aesthetic impacts that may occur from certain sign proposals. Separate environmental reviews will be required for the types of signs (e.g. pole signs, roof signs, projecting signs, electronic readerboard signs, oversized signs) that have the greatest potential for creating negative aesthetic impacts. 13C. Create light or glare? YES. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT While approval of this Code Amendment will not authorize any particular signs at a specific location, its standards may potentially permit signs that create a negative impact from light and glare emanating from signs. Specifically, flood lit sign, exposed neon signs, and electronic readerboard signs may create light and glare spillover onto adjoining properties. However, significant impacts from such signs is not expected since standards will be incorporated into the Code limiting the amount • of glare and lighting spillover that may be permitted. SOURCES CONSULTED 1. City of West Covina General Plan 2. City of West Covina Municipal Code C:/1 JAY/A265/A265N EGDEC. DOC/JAY