HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1995/04/12 (5)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 4/12/95
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit PCC-95-26: Request to
establish the Moose Lodge at 25/33 Naples Street - Loyal Order ofthe
Moose Chula Vista Lodge # 1927
The project consists of redeveloping a 2.25 acre site to establish the Moose Lodge at 25/33
Naples Street in the C-N, Neighborhood Commercial zone district. A fraternal organization is
considered an "Unclassified Use" subject to a conditional use permit in any zone.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS-95-15, of possible
environmental impacts associated with the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and
comments thereon, 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-95-15.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt attached Resolution PCC-95-26
recommending that the City Council approve the project in accordance with the attached draft
City Council Resolution based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The Design Review Committee approved the site plan and architecture by a vote of 4-0 on
March 13, 1995. (see Attachment 4).
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics
The project site is the westerly 2.25 acres of a neighborhood commercial center located
at the northwest corner of Hilltop Drive and Naples Street within the C-N zone (see
Attachment 1).
The site was previously occupied by a grocery store and a health club. The grocery store
was destroyed by fire several years ago and the health club building has been vacant for
some time. The 7,000 sq. ft. health club building along with a 28 ft. high freestanding
wall from the previous grocery store still remain on the site. The eastern 1. 9 acres of
the original neighborhood commercial center features a liquor store, marlial arts school,
beauty shop, coin laundry and a convenience markel with gasoline sales.
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date 4/12/95
The site is bounded to the north by single family dwellings located approximately 12 ft
above the property, to the east by a retail commercial center, to the west by a
residentially zoned parcel belonging to the San Diego Country Club, and to the south by
single family dwellings across Naples Street.
2. Zoning and Land Use
Site
North R-I
South R-l & R-I-5-P
East C-N
West R-3-P-14
Vacant Structure & Paving
Single Family Dwellings
Single Family Dwellings
Neighborhood Commercial Center
Vacant SDCC Property
3. Proposal
The proposal consists of removing the remaining concrete slab and foundation of the
destroyed structure, retrofitting the 7,000 sq. ft. former health club building with a 1,300
sq. ft. addition, and establishing parking for 157 vehicles with landscaping and olher
associated site and street improvements. The proposal includes an area to accommodate
a 4,000 sq. ft. addition at a later date ( see Attachment 4).
The Moose Lodge is a fraternal organization for members only, and features a lounge
area with capacity for 66 people (UBC maximum occupancy), administrative offices,
conference rooms, storage rooms and an assembly area with a capacity for 409 people
(UBC maximum occupancy). The Lodge currently has 560 members of which 150 are
active.
The Parking required for this facility is as follows:
Assembly area (2,862 Sq. ft.)
Lounge 66 seats (based on UBC max occupancy)
Total parking required
1/50 sq. ft.
1/2.5 permanent seats
= 57 spaces
= 27 spaces
= 84
The parking provided is 157, which allows 73 spaces for the future expansion.
The Lodge is open Monday through Thursday from 11: 00 am. to 11 :00 pm., Friday
from 10:00 am. to 11:00 pm., and Saturday and Sunday From 7:00 am. to 8:00 pm.
Page 3, Item _
Meeting Date 4/12/95
Typical daytime activities include breakfast on Sundays from 8:00 to II :00 am. (avg.
attendance 65), Senior Citizen lunches once a month from 12:00 to 2:00 pm. (avg.
attendance 185) and business meetings and conferences during different times of the day
(avg attendance 20). Evening events include: bingo nights from 6:00 pm to 9:00. (avg.
attendance 120), dance classes on Saturday (avg. attendance 20-25), live music
entertainment and dancing Fridays and Saturdays, and other similar events (avg.
attendance 90-100). Outdoor activities are very limited and include periodic barbecues
and special events at Easter, Halloween, Christmas, and so on.
4. Public Input
On March 9, 1995, the Planning Department sponsored a public forum to familiarize the
surrounding residents with the applicant's request and the planning process. At the
meeting, the owners of 2 northerly adjacent residential parcels (32 and 36 Hilltop Court)
expressed their desire to retain the existing 28 ft high tilt-up wall adjoining their
properties and the owner of 40 Hilltop Court expressed the desire to retain the existing
wood fence adjoining his property in lieu of a masonry wall as suggested by staff.
In addition to the input received at the public forum the Planning Department has
received correspondence from an area resident expressing concerns about the traffic
congestion at the intersection of Hilltop and Naples Street as well as the number of
accidents that have occurred along this segment of Naples Street (see Attachment 5).
4. Analysis
Although the properly is zoned for Neighborhood Commercial use, it has for several
years remained vacant and largely an eyesore for Ihe surrounding neighborhood. There
has apparently been no interest in redeveloping the properly with a new grocery store or
other neighborhood serving commercial use. In fact the site is too small to accommodate
a modern grocery slore, which generally requires a site of about 4-5 acres.
It is believed the Moose Lodge is an appropriate alternative use of the property and
should represent a welcome addition to the neighborhood in terms of upgrading the
appearance and security of the site. It will also represent a suitable location to meet the
needs of the Lodge and the activities and good works of its members in a pleasant
neighborhood commercial setting.
Page 4, Item _
Meeting Date 4/12/95
With regard to activIty impacts, as noted above, the vast maJonty of activities are
condncted indoors, and the hours of the Lodge are consistent with the limitations
specified for uses in the C-N zone. Following is a discussion of the issues of fencing,
traffic and accidents raised by area residents.
An acoustician was consulted and determined that the eXIstmg off-site noise level
combined with the proposed use noise exposure will be well within the City's standard
of 65dB CNEL combined. But, to reduce any potential nuisance, he recommended that
a barrier (zoning wall) be installed along the north property line (see Attachment 7).
Also, pursuant to Section 19.58.360 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, a zoning wall
(6 ft. high masonry wall) is required along the property line abutting residential districts
(north side). The intent of the wall is to screen and buffer residential uses from the noise
and activilies associated with commercial zones.
Three of the four northerly adjacent homes would be properly screened and buffered
from noise by the existing structures and the existing tilt-up wall, but the house adjoining
the northwest corner of the project site will not have the same protection. The owner
of this parcel, however, has expressed the desire to retain the existing wood fence in lieu
of the required zoning wall (masonry wall). According to the acoustician, the existing
wood fence would provide adequate protection from noise. Therefore, staff is
recommending that this requirement be waived per the attached Resolution.
A traffic study was condllcted to analyze the expected traffic generated by the Moose
Lodge versus traffic from commercial development of the site (see Attachment 6). The
study shows that based on worst case conditions, the Lodge would be expected to
generate 80 average Daily Trips (ADT) at the PM peak hour (they do not have an AM
peak because they do not open until 11:00 a.m.). This is about 60 ADT less than the
PM peak for 12,000 square feet of typical commercial development, and about 30 ADT
less than would be expected to be generated from the old Mayfair Market which
previously occupied the site. Also, the intersection of Hilltop and Naples will continue
to operate at LOS B at the AM and PM peaks. This is well above the City's threshold
standard of LOS D for peak hours.
To address concerns about the number of accidents in the segment of Naples Street
between First Avenue and Hilltop Drive, the City Traffic Engineer reviewed four years
of accident history.
Accident data is typically measured in number of accidents per million vehicle miles
(MVM) and compared to a State average. The records for this segment of Naples Street
show that in the past four years the accident rate has been relatively low (1.6/MVM)
Page 5, Item _
Meeting Date 4/12/95
when compare to the State average for a similar street (2.211MVM). However, to
improve safety, in 1989 the speed limit on Naples was reduced from 35 to 25 MHP in
order to compensate for atypical road conditions and prevent potential hazards at the
residential intersections (Tobias and Vista Way).
5. Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions
contained in the Draft City Council Resolution.
Attachments
1. Locator
2. Planning Commission Recommending Resolution
3. Draft City Council Resolution
4. DRC Minutes and Redevelopment Proposal
5. Public Input
6. Traffic Analysis
7. Noise Analysis
8. Initial Study and Negative Declaration
9. Disclosure Statement
(m: \home \planning\luis\pcc-9552 .rpt)
ATTACHMENT 1
LOCATOR
I
':t
,
:;:,'.,.r ! tr',>-~ rT,:;.,r..:~... . Fr t :;'."" f'r ;.rf'...: ~'..::L-
~:.l~rry':;r~~.(:$-., (I. ("ft'~ ("t' ,;':rf'"1. .F~""r.:~y'r..r~V,;. ;.r~:_
.,.(.r'rrr.~r .."~,'r....(J~ r"rr't"'.;~-~:..(-rln'r."r 1.LJt'" -r--
",~;f''''..r-:t;'r.. ".....'.'lrr.... ,..('r((')(",';;';~;1.-...;.~.t ~
,.&lir, \.:'~'(''''fr ;r.,:-f,',''- ~-.. ;rt.~,; .r-:"r'.r\,~"'r.f
' . ......'r'r.:. ,. r~' '1.. ........~, . , r"',.... ....... 1"", ..
r.':.,.....'(,"',.r:f" rr~~ r_,p.-,.~..r',,;," ""'-/"(:"":f.'~ '_,
rot.. r'''',.~''''I''(f-,!r,._ /,r', 'to. ,.'rr,.r,' '''C,,,.<'ro, r":-:-r'r(
'; ::"~ f' ;,,~f''f- )". ~,.'~" ~~";.') ;:__;','(1:r } r../r i.' .'~" ':'rr~ ;
f"r.~(--. r ;;'7rrJ.;:;. r,".:;;.:: .;.: :;....;..,.,..r;,.~'~.~rf,' ~;..;r:,,~ t--
'f'''' .......c.J.,.. "',.-:-" /' , r(,'" r ,. f'., .... ~
.:.. r,...,.-'<';" ;....;...:.......,...-0' r"'7:'...l.:''-''''-';' /,...r....."I"".:.... '--
',. '-'r'/~ (!"',';r.. ...r f r:f;.: ...:-. I'r r If". (':.---
......r~.r ;...,;f'(''',,' ....ti r.il" ....('...r". r...,I:." f'r....r ;..J
I..,.... , "',c. '. r ~,..' },rq'f 1".....1.,,..,.1'.,. r ('.... .. , ,,;s,_
~(r.!J'f'I",I"';"I.,'J. 'r:~''':-';,J''''''~ r_.&.r~", f,.. rr ~(';r(-r.,.,;;.t":,
trrr,L"r' . . ~ -.. r,Lr, . .
;', ~~, '!J!: SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB ,,!JJ,~
'(",' "rr.;J"'. ...~~;,., ".~ r,. ~:".,.", n
"";"r I,. ,,.. f ,..."':' ',,;.....r... :-;;. ',,:' .-:- ,"'; ~ .('1".. r." "";r r,. ,.. f ,.._
"f" ,.-:"., . ~ '1-.". _,. ~r "So"."""",. I"': ...r ...
r"~'6,=:-r '"?' :F.~... 7';: :b-f~ ,p '>..r;1r;,f:':{ f'}"{Ir;. : I:. r-
.... C". ".. _.('(" . -.... , .. ". ... . , . - F'"
..I .....,.r'.rT .. _
'.. #{.." {r....~F"
.. . r,,. r'"
;: -"'r!.r;-,.,~,.
~ PLOCRO!~ICOTN J?f~rf
~.. AI ..':'r ;,.
..~ ,.....1"',,.
.( Y .
-., .
f' ..,...;[r'"
I:..~rr.; .t';lt'r1" I {~~f, r::r~:: (.(","
"r :"Ld:t .l",.!,,~rn-.~I'''r ..' I r
,. ~r?,,;f",('("U!.. or~( /".'~"f ~,'~'. ';.~s::f':'"
.J.-.
I "VA.
1'~~0
~- "T.~T
=- - ':. -lfl.
=~~ ~ ~
- Jr-I -.:
r- .""''' "1::::f-...
-, ~ ~~
-@........ ~ ?;~
- -t(.J
}' . r-
oA.
- i/~ ~
~lJ ;,;v
/:--,..,. \
,...1/: \-.i"
~
-
~.-
-..
r-o(
r- ~
~
-
'" - CASTLE M"K i~
i = -.t ~
'" - ~ - I
11 ~ ~ :: E ~ I 'l
lTT11lTR rrlTTllI1lJlTfl=ITl.,'"-1 jD II 1 r l' :
3~
11 U ,
t--~
- I- -
....--.-
.jt J -
.--
..
c-
r-
r-- 1
.1
J
~
L
H !.I...:I ~
II COM~E~CIAL ~
1 CENTER ;:::
I J I I
""API..l!;~
- ! t
"') :
- I
I_r- L_____
'Ie
I!
I>
>:
I
St.
~f
::I r
z
~
>
c
!
-
-
~~;jl
I
t-
--
u
c
:1- -
~-
u-
.~
I:
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR ......c.urr: Cbula Vbta Moole Lodge I'IIOJECT DElCIIIPT1ON:
~ ~ . 33 Nap'" Street Remodel and expanalon of an
ADDI:..:
eXlatlng atructur.e for a propoaed
ICALI: ...........: 12,494 aq.ft. fraternal organization
NORTH 1" - 400'
ATTACHMENT 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
RESOlUTION NO. PCC-95-26
RESOlUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A
FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION LODGE AT 25/33 NAPLES STREET
WITHIN THE C-N ZONE
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the
Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on January 11, 1995 by the Loyal Order of the
Moose, Chula Vista Lodge #1927, and
WHEREAS, said application requests permission to establish a fraternal organization lodge
at 25/33 Naples Street, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department set the time and place for a hearing on said conditional
use permit application 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 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least twenty one days prior to the
hearing, and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., April
12, 1995 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project would have no significant environmental
impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued on 15-95-15.
WHEREAS, The Commission has found that three of the four northerly adjacent homes will
be properly screened and buffered from noise by the existing structures and the existing tilt-up wall,
and the house adjoining the northwest corner of the project site will be adequately protected by
the existing wood fence in lieu of a zoning wall.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOlVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby waives
the requirement for a zoning wall along the northerly boundary in accordance with CVMC Section
19.58.360.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that
the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-95-26 in accordance with the findings, and
subject to the conditions contained in the attached draft City Council Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City
Counci I.
Resolution No.
Page 2
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
this day 12th day of April, 1995 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
William C Tushscher II, Chairman
ATTEST:
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
M:\HOME\PI ANNING\luis\pcc.9S26.pcr
ATTACHMENT 3
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
D R AFT RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY
COUNCIL APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ESTABLISH A FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION LODGE AT
25/33 NAPLES STREET WITHIN THE C-N ZONE
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Conditional Use
Permit was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula
Vista on January 11, 1995 by The Loyal Order of the Moose, Chula
Vista Lodge # 1927; and
WHEREAS, said application requests permission to establish a
fraternal organization lodge at 25/33 Naples Street within the C-N
zone; and
WHEREAS, A public forum was noticed and held on March 9, 1995
to inform surrounding residents of the proposal and to receive
their input prior to the public hearing process, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
April 12, 1995 and voted to adopt the Negative
Declaration issued on IS-95-15 and to recommend that the City
Council approve PCC-95-26 the findings, and subject to the
conditions contained therein; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing
on said application and notice of said hearing, together with its
purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within
500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten
days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the
advertised, namely
276 Fourth Avenue,
thereafter closed.
hearing was held at the time and place as
6:00 p.m. , 1995 in the Council Chambers,
before the City Council and said hearing was
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DOES
hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows:
I. Adoption of Negative Declaration. That the project will have
no significant environmental impacts and adopts the Negative
Declaration issued on IS-95-25.
II. CUP Findings. That the City Council makes the findings
required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance
of the conditional use permit, as hereinbelow set forth, and
sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the
stated finding to be made.
A. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or
desirable to provide a service or facility which will
contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood
or the community.
The proposed land use would provide a centrally located
and convenient facility for the organization's members
and would provide needed improvements to the site to
enhance its appearance and security.
B. That such use will not under the circumstances of the
particular case, be detrimental the health, safety or
general welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
The proposal includes as conditioned measures to avoid
potential noise impacts to nearby residences and the site
plan and building design solutions contribute
significantly to the betterment of the overall
neighborhood.
C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations
and conditions specified in the Municipal Code for such
use.
Compliance with all applicable conditions, codes and
regulations shall be required prior to issuance of
development permits and on conditioning basis thereafter.
D. Tha t the granting of this condi tional use permi t will not
adversely affect the general plan of the City or the
adopted plan of any government agency.
The approval of this project as conditioned is consistent
with City policies and The General Plan.
III. Conditional Grant of Permit; Conditions. The City Council
hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC 95-26 subject to the
following conditions, whereby:
a. The hours of operation shall be restricted to the hours
between 7:00 am to 11:00 pm
b. The project shall comply with the plan conditionally
approved by the Design Review Committee (DRC-95-26).
c. The project shall comply with all the requirements of the
Chula Vista Uniform Fire and Building Codes to the
satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and Director of Building
and Housing respectively.
pcm-res.cc
d. A structural engineer shall certify that the existing
tilt-up wall is safe to remain or provide a reinforcing
design to ensure that the wall is safe to remain as part
of the project.
IV. Additional Terms and Provisions of Grant.
A. This permit shall be subject to any and all new,
modified, or deleted conditions imposed after adoption of
this resolution to advance a legitimate governmental
interest related to health, safety or welfare which City
shall impose after advance written notice to the
permittee and after the City has given to the permittee
the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the
City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may
not impose a substantial expense or deprived the
Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the
Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use
permitted, be expected to economically recover.
B. This conditional use permit shall be void and ineffective
if the same is not utilized within one year from the date
of this resolution in accordance with Section 19.14.260
of the Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any
condition of approval shall cause this permit to be
reviewed by the City for additional conditions or
revocation.
V. Findings re Relation of Exaction to Impact of Project
The City Council has individually and independently reviewed
each of the exactions imposed on the applicant contained in
this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the
exactions are imposed to mitigate an impact caused by the
project and are our reasonably related to the project and the
extent and degree of exaction is in rough proportionality to
the impact caused by said project.
V. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the
applicant.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
pcm-res.cc
ATTACHMENT 4
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES AND
REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
;~
't
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
2~'t~:1F~r
Mondav. Januarv 9. 1995
4:30 p.m.
Conference Rooms 2 and 3
A. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Spethman, Vice Chair Rodriguez, Members Duncanson and
Kelly
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Member Way, with notification
STAFF PRESENT:
Principal Planner Steve Griffin
Acting Associate Planner Amy Wolfe
Special Planning Projects Manager Jerry Jamriska
Senior Planner Rick Rosaler
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/Rodriguez) (4-0) to approve the minutes of the March 13, 1995 meeting as
presented.
D. PRESENTATION OF PROJECTS
1.
DRC-95-24
Moose Lodge
25 Naples Street
Fraternal Or!!anization Lodge
Staff Presentation
Principal Planner Steve Griffin reviewed the project, which consists of the retrofitting of an
existing building shell and addition of 1,300 sq.ft. of floor area, as well as new parking lot
paving, lighting, landscaping, and associated site improvements. Mr. Griffin noted that although
the property appears as an extension of the easterly existing commercial center, the project site
is actually a separate parcel. He reviewed the proposed renovations and architecture, pointing
out that the redevelopment proposal includes an area to accommodate a 4,000 sq.ft. addition in
the future.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
. ~.
MARCH 27 9. 1995
Applicant Discussion
Project Architect Roy Johnson questioned condition "c" of the staff report, stating that he saw
no benefit to adding an additional element at the transition point between the existing adjacent
commercial center and this site. He added that landscaping provides a clear separation between
the two properties. Mr. Griffin stated that this condition was a suggestion only, noting that the
existing center has no current plans to remodel and that these are in fact two separate properties.
Committee Discussion
Chair Spethman asked what would be happening at the rear of the property. Mr. Johnson
indicated that the adjacent center had a driveway easement at the rear, but that the lodge had no
plans to uses the rear for loading activities. He added that the adjacent residences were
approximately 12' higher than the project, and would not see this area. Members discussed the
proposed rear wall. In response to further questions from Chair Spethman, Mr. Johnson stated
that the only lighting at the rear would be a night light at the door. Member Rodriguez
questioned lighting to be utilized at the front of the facility; Mr. Johnson stated that it would
probably be recessed in the ceiling of the port cochere.
Member Kelly noted the size of the patio area and asked if it would be covered; Mr. Johnson
responded that it would not be, adding that this was not intended to be an active outdoor areas.
Chair Spethman inquired about the timing of the possible expansion; it was stated that this would
probably be in 3-5 years.
Member Kelly asked if the two properties were actually separated by a wall; Mr. Johnson stated
that this was correct, and there is no public access between the two properties. Chair Spethman
asked if a graffiti sealant was to be utilized on the rear wall; Mr. Johnson noted that this was
a good idea.
MSUC (Speth man/Rodriguez) (4-0) to adopt Negative Declaration IS-95-15 and approve DRC-
95-24 subject to the conditions stated in the staff report, adding condition "f" - Anti-graffiti
sealant shall be utilized on the north wall.
2. PCM-95-0l
Otay Ranch Villag.es 1 and 5
(Presentation of Otav Ranch Overall Desig.n Plan)
Staff Presentation
Acting Associate Planner Amy Wolfe advised that a memo had been provided outlining a
proposed review schedule for the two required levels of design guidelines for the Otay Ranch
project, and introduced the members of the project team to review the project to-date.
Senior Planner Rick Rosaler summarized the processes that had resulted in the current approved
status of the Otay Ranch planned community. He outlined the three major parcels composing
It.""".."".,.,,,,,
;:..";.,,..,
,w,.,,,,,,,.,,,,
L~6~+ 3D001 7 i:
V.L51^ V10H:J ~
"
3500W ~o :i
1130110 1V AO" - - :i<J<J<J
~XJXXYld J 3U.UmIHJUV
l:Jtln1pJC
'CTC IIDsmlDt ,\DJ
-I
~
,
..
;,iIiI
,
-l
~ ...
I
"
II
"
:1:
Ii
\
3
~
i
;0<7,_
,
,
......
.
\
~"';
~I '~.:
I 1
I ~g:
~i~i ~ J~
::-:..
"')..
>..
JF
; ,c~
1$
t:t:t::c:.
~n~
~~~ \
""'-'~~
~ t~l!:
~ ~~ ~
'C' ~'t 'I
~ ~,...;
. ~ . .
\~~t 2
?!~! ~
~~.~ -
............ .....
'I ~'f'''' ~
;:~t) ~
.."1.'....
.. ~-:~
:2~~(3
"'!.""1
hh
~I""':'~~
m~W~
<:0
~
fI
""
~~
~2
)5
,~ ~
t'. !if:'
~~~
~~ ~-
~f ~~
{~ ~I
h s>
"3 "
~. ~~
$I}~ f~
~:~ :~
~
9
;;
-
.
>
"!!
;;:
i
,
-<
~!:~
"~~~
I...,,"
i~.$'b
"'t ~$ ~
rei ~
~~ ~~ ~
~ ~;:!~"-
;:~~~I;;:
:: a.....
... ~H't~
..,; .s.tt~
l~ ~1~hIH
~ ~ ~~l~ iI5~~
5i ~
3 .
~"
ii
~~
il
~ ;o.:s.'
"
...,....,
~ .~
, ~,-
~~~~.
~~if;
~~~.- ~
"':;:<'J"
~h
t
:z:~ ~
~.M~t
~gf'":-
. ..- ;:.t'i
< 1 ~~::i
'<--- "9 !>
O::.H ! _ ~
-:. 0 it ~
',.
0.-
~e
,,",,,,\"-",,,~,,,,,",,-,,-,, '--
~.<~ ,,"'"'' '.
- '.--"
, .
,--
'{OJ
I~ I
S{~;(~ ", ~
... ... ':!~ ...1
E~i ~t~ I zt
2~~.". I ;,
~<!..-____-i '(
~~
"-
;-<
,"
W
K
,. '. I- '0
" ,~"
"-\i'-L ~
- !I! II' 'II
_ ;: uJ \.
-< ~:..; J ~
'-,~
~ '
z:
,'; .~
,.
;.
"\ , Ii
'1 ,
;
,
,
.
.
>
~
.
-
J,
'~
~ ~
L
~
~
ii'
i:::
-t
i~ft
:~~'r
,~"~
, -,
~~!~~
~ ,,~ ~
~ S~~ i
I': ~~~~1
il- " "'-::\ ,e
--I .... ....~~~
)~ o:.:i _.._...
"H ~ ~~~:.
l'L ~ '"~~.
.;""~
~ ~iP- -0;-0;
t",
. /'Yl'7IA
,
Ii
~!
"'
,-'
~
~
~
~~
" "
;:~
.
.-
L-
~
~~.
~-
-~
Ht.-,-.~
11.1 - ""","
~ ~ .
)Ji _-~~,.,.z "., .
i)~Gflll (! ! , " ~~
"'1 (,
1", ,
I ,. ..
" p!! hO
--.
I ~ ~ I . I z ..
~.. I v: Ii
:4;1 n
s~ i-fI-+~( I:', i~ 1.:" ~. .~ i'
f,." ~,
1 ~- ,,~ 'S:lJS' ....:.
~I !! ~.. .f:.1 ) I 4 I 1 ~
"" h ~ . '1' ~ <'10.
00
(
~~
"
'"
o
o
,.,
><
CO
><
co
...-.....- ......
.--
~'t~t'.,~I~
.-
~
.
><
co
--
JS!!.
" 1
..... ;; "!
~ ,1; i 0
;: j I ";
~ 'd ~ j
-J .' - ~
Cl ct:
~ ~ !
~ :5 ;;
~ g t ;: a~
~ ~!" : ~<::
h lJJ ~ ~ ~; 2~ ~ 5
<: ~ i1 S( i1"~ lU ~
Lu ~ ~ } ~ i i:- E: =
&~b~
I
i
i
!
i
!
!
,
"
i
J
~ I
~ I
r ~
!
,
3
.'
..
"
,
~' i
ill
",i:i
: i ...
::.. i ' ~ i
: i i i
"
<: ... ! ~
; ,
ct a C,' ! ~! E
~ ! t! ~
; "I 1. ..! ~ ~ , =: l' ..
.. . :: ~ a:: = i'i ..
I! .: ~ :; i ::: .. 'C ...:::
1X)!!g:8!t'~;~~
!!i i1.",n.:!
~ co Q :: ~ ..! t :! ..
ii;I~~:~e~3 :;
llMl0l ilG~ t
.
,
!
I !
lIil,
!! ~ ~ ! ! ;: ~.
5 ~ : : 'II ~
: i ~ ~ :. ~ i1
.
J
OJ
'"
..,.
gS!
~8
",
'"
.-.
~!:5
....
/;1:::-
~i
~~
t'
~ r
~;i
;1:(:5
~i.
~-~
. .
~ .
.
i
is!t: -
~~g~
i:g:ffi
~==--:~
~~SS -
":'S":'i
~'f8;:
~>~~
I!"''''..
:~':i:
J~
1III
, I
. .,
JSillOO:3I'1ODDNUSlXJ
....:3'nSIAY'\I1H:)
LUIIIUIJld'fHIC
ll:eL '30001
~
~O ~3a~o WAO'
!
,
.
,
~
Hi
; ~ .
, i 1
. "~
~q
. i .
Hi
!
E ;
i S
, .
; :
~ ;:
~U
~
!!
"
!~! Iq If:: I - I
~
.
. I "'-'
I
r , ~
, , !
, (f)
.:: , Z
~~ i ; >-<C
-. ! ; cc..J
~ <(a.
" j
" zw
- ! -a.
t ! :2<(
! !I ...It)
. ~: W(f)
. i' CCo
! ,I ,a.z
! ~~ <(
j j. ...I
i~
. ~~
1 ,.
..
. !;
OJ i H
..,. .
, .~ .
'" , ,
; .
! I (jj) ;'
I I
I !
I ..
.- ,<
i ;"
.. .. ; AIM Ij'!A
,Ii II!
"I
'"
II III
ii iii
II III
" ...
.Be seE>
!I
.
.
Iii
.
.
..
j
.~
.<
,~
g-
.g
~~
~
.---
eAl'(Jl..qD.L
l~61.. 3!JOO1 ..1/ -
v lSI^ V1nH:J ~ t \
." 2 ;,
M
3S00W ~o - - . ~
1130110 1V';01 ;; = ,;<]<]<]
r---
-U~~;:t>" - -
-- -----
r
,
~
~
.
~
-'
I
I,i~
I ~'5
,I
~,
'.
i
II
I
I
.
~~,I
~~!~
,
I .
-
~~.
~i
r01~:;
~~ .L.i~"
<~
r
.
~
'-
~
~
-~
M-
2S
I~
I
,
i
I
,
i
g
,
~ I
J I
L_______~_____,_ _~
! .
i .
I. ~
- ~
",:'""';Iil
. ......"" -0'. .. ~
~ :r
@
.
.', .\i1:.
aliI.. 3~ao' "F r'
~~
-~ ....
. Y.L51^ Y,nH::> " :g'f ~
"'~ ,
" ~r
,,~ ....
3500'" ~O . ~c
11301l0'YAO' - 5!
- . ,<]<]<]
";,IJ;
....,1'1 ''':'-'!
s
i
!
"
t- ~ I
/.
~~ ~
"-
..
::~
;!; i
.-\t..,r;
LJ g
~ ~ [ ~
~ ~~: . /
-..~,
~\
~->C
~
\,
.1
~
<,
~,
.~)-
.,
!~<if ;1
. ,
1--
~~
~~
-'
~
<
)
'"
2
"
~
, ,
bF1
~
Ii! I
~~
i I
!,
, ,
, I
i r
I':j~/,
~-~-----
_1,
..
E
~ "':::-
,
.
1~
.>
,.
;;~
(
,
,
~
^
~
e,
01
I , ~-
" ~.
y' - .
.i~~Y4 - "
"\ , ~~
~~~~! y ~",
E ,
" >" i2 ~~.
~ \0 <-- ! m . ... ::I~~
r; ;~ "
, ~J
'- ~3
"- l'
~~
>.
~, '"
'i:~ ....:S
..
\ .
!
I. ,
'. ,
i'i ~ -"'~~~;;
i: Ii ~
~~f~ ;:
;~l' J ~
!' ,- ~
,
~
.~'...
-:')1
E
m
z:
~~
w.
I$'~
ATTACHMENT 5
PUBLIC INPUT
R..,.,....,..--"-:.:->
__,_l...._-..I
DOUGLAS D. REID
E. R. COORDINATOR
R.E. CASE # IS-95-15
JA~jO 5 i9S~
eLANNiNG
THIS IS IN REGARDS TO IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED MOOSE LODGE TO BE LOCATED
AT 25 & 33 NAPLES ST.
WE THINK IT WOULD HAVE A SEVERE NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT OF
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR SEVERAL REASONS.
* TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION:
NAPLES ST. HAS BECOME A MAIN STREAM OF TRAFFIC SINCE OPENING THROUGH
TO TELEGRAPH CYN. RD., COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, AND SOUTHWEST ~OLLEGE AND
TRAFFIC IS ALREADY CONGESTED AND OVERLOADED AT PEAK HOURS~COMMUTERS TO
AND FROM WORK PLUS THE TRANSPORT OF CHILDREN TO AND FROM SCHOOLS BY
PARENTS AND SCHOOL BUSES.
TO ADD TO THIS WOULD CAUSE GRIDLOCK ON NAPLES ST., ESPECIALLY BETWEEN
TOBIAS DR., VISTA WAY, AND HILLTOP DR.
THERE ARE MORE ACCIDENTS HAPPENING NOW ON NAPLES ST. AT THAT ADDRESS
EVEN WITH A VACANT LOT THERE. IT IS COMMONPLACE FOR TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
AT THOSE TWO DRIVEWAYS NOW AND WILL BECOME MUCH WORSE BY ALLOWING
SEVERAL HUNDRED MORE ADDED VEHICLE USAGE PER A D T STUDY
THAT ADT STUDY SHOULD INCLUDE TOBIAS DR., VISTA WAY, NAPLES ST., AND
OTHERS AS WELL AS HILLTOP DRIVE.
* PROXIMITY TO SCHOOLS:
THERE ARE TWO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN THIS AREA AND THEY ARE ONLY A FEW
HUNDRED FEET FROM THIS SAME LOCATION, ONE IS AT EMERSON ST. &VISTA WAY
AND THE OTHER AT EMERSON ST. & CUYAMACA
MANY CHILDREN HAVE ONLY THE NAPLES ST. ROUTE TO WALK TO AND FROM SCHOOL.
THIS IS THE FOOT TRAFFIC ROUTE ALSO FOR THESE CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS.
THEY SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO MORE VEHICLE TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION THAT
WOULD ADDED TO THE COMMUNITY IF THIS LODGE IS BUILT HERE.
* DETRIMENTAL EFFECT:
THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. A LODGE SUCH AS THE MOOSE PROPOSES
SHOULD NOT BE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
THE LODGE WOULD BE A PLACE FOR DRINKING ALCOHOL AND FOR SOCIAL ACTIVITIES
OF A PARTY NATURE WHICH WOULD SURELY CREATE AN ATMOSPHERE OF NOISE,
TRAFFIC CONGESTION, AND GENERAL DISRUPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD PEACE AND QUIET
THAT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE THAT TYPE OF
BUSINESS COME INTO OUR HID31.
THESE ARE OUR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS IS-95-15.
THANK YOU FOR READING.
MR. AND MRS. MACK BEAUMONT
1101 TOBIAS DR.
,
,
ATTACHMENT 6
TRAFFIC STUDY
DRRNELL & RSSOCIRTES
TEL No.619-233-4034
Rpr 3,95 9:58 No.002 P.02
Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC eNGINEERING
.January 18, 1995
Mr. Andrew Smitko,
Administrator
Loyal Order of Moose
Chula Vista Lodge #1927
2638 Main Street, Suitc L
ChuJa Vista, CA 91911
D&A Ref. No.: 950104
Subject:
Traffic Impact Analysis for New Mo()~e t .odgc' in Chula Vista
Dear Mr. Smitko:
In accordance with your authori7.alion, Damell & Associat(.s, Inc. (D&A), has completed ou,. tmffie
impact analysis relative to thc proposed rc!ocation of the Moose I "'dge # 1927 to Naples Stn:('\ ncar
Hilltop Drive in the City of Chula Vista. This rcport addrcsses exi~ting conditions, existing plus
project conditions, and idcntifies any traffic assodated impacts.
INTRODUCTION
The Loyal Order of Moose #1927 is proposing to relocate their existing operations from Main Street
in Chula Vista to Naples Street near Hilltop Drive. Figutl~ I depicts a general vicinity map of the
project location. rigure 2 depicts the proposed site plan for the new lodgc. Thc huilding ilrea is
comprised of approximately 12,500 ~quaTl' feet onee the final phase of expansion is complete.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Currently, the proposed building site houses an ,-,xi sting vaeant huilding and adjacent parking lot.
Although the building abuts a small strip commercial eetHCr, there is currently no traftk generated
immediately on site. The PTl,vious land usc for the vacant building was a Safcway supcrmarkct. The
trip generation potential of the c.ommcrcialuse was 150 trips per '1,000 square feel. Thc previous
trip gencration at this site would have been approximately 2,R50 daily trips.
Naples Street is a two-lane light collcctor wad with approximmdy 40' paved surface at the project
frontage and no turn pockcts. The speed limit on Narks is 25 mph. Future classification of the
road is a Class 2 C'.ollector (three lanes).
Due to the proximity of the propos cd site to the corner of Naples Street and Hilltop Drive, a pcak
hour traffic count was conduete.d to determine the ('xisting operating eharacteristics at this signalized
intersection. Count data was eollc,-,tl;d on a ckar Tuesday, January 17, 1995, from 7-9am and 4-l\pm.
The existing AMIPM peak hour trame is depicted on Figun: 3. The wunt data sheets afl~ included
as an attachment to this reporl.
1202 KETTNER BOULEVARD' SUITE B. SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101
~HON~: 619.2.3.93/. . r AX: 6192334034
DR
,;UO ~\::; j1l- mo
,0;, .;r
C~;:rI
.... Cl~~ ~~ ~!
~~~II"I
~-' ,....:::;.
"
.-..,
~~
:"I::<>:~
S_~ AI/
'^
8 ~!,
z ~~r
:( lC"'"
::;: ,
o <
n
~<
AV n,
~i5
~ '
"'1,"
I I ;00
,"
1_ ;8
In
.~ I
AV ~
8 ~
.
~
",7'j;
>--
VO
>--
VO
'~
;' , t;;i
\ c....-J.
. . I
01 i 'I
1,1, ;.['('1
~,.fl-i!! : ;
"I' I
~ i \
;<,
.o'a's~:~)T
~I ;::-
~ -,
. ~
9LVO
:;;:
::;:
>
~
';;';'CC
ST
,
~
::;
----:i ~~
'"
",.A;
alVO
Sl) t. Af.i?R
~.
-
1
~
---
Cl
<(
:2
w
er:>-
~f-
GZ
LL U
>
'-'
Z
-
i"MY!
~0NJ
UJ
""
~
-
'-'
o
UJ
UJ
-<
-'<!
......
......
<l)
~
::-.
cO
A
"
~~
'i~
3~
~
J.".n..
- ';~ yl<;;.l^
I
I _..
I ..
" -'\, ;.,
~ ~ t
!t ~~
- J/
,on .---","~ I
I ~~r
h~fJ' I~\I" .
. ~ I .~I{ 3,
~~~ .... !~! n [,
~o'" II 2, _ ; I
','.:I '\.' I ....
-c> I' " - -r
.'"'
."
,
~
~
I
I,
I: ~
, ~~
\:.
~ ,
I
~ 'I .
'~-~
(
: ~
"
~ , -
'..' ~:;
;:, ~;.
n
;:;:'l'~
~~~
.;;~
-..;: $ ~
0JZ
<(
W ---1
cr::CL
:=JW
c....')1-
LLU)
u
2S
en
r.:I
....
-<
-
U
o
'"
en
-<
.:os
........
........
il)
~
~
cO
~
..
<.0 r<) 0
<.0 o:J -.;j- L (J)
'-........-'-.... 114/84
o:J '-.... <.0 W
-.;j- N....- 2
L() 224/279
....- - ==>
--- ,.~z-"" I. f ~ l..." , 56/94 --.J
.->~ . ~...;.J , 0
>
HIll. TOP DRIVE U
t
70/94 ~ -, I LL
n LL
r--. ....- L() <(
253/295 ~ 0 ..q- r--- Wo:::
N
~'-.... '-.... 0::: I-
18/64 (J) ==>
-. L() o:J N
o:J r<) 02
....-
- D-
LL~
2
<(
f-
W
W 0
go
U1 Z
U1 I-
w
....J (J)
a.
<(
z X
W
W
f-
(/)
f-
U
W
J
0
a::: t.J
z
0.... -
<IJ
~
~
t.J
0
<IJ
~
011
~
~
<J.)
-A cp , , ~
~
cO
0
_.,~..._-
Mr. Andrew Smitko,
Loyal Order of Moose
January 18, 1995
Page 5
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of Service (LOS) is a professional industry standard by which to measure the operating
conditions of a given roadway segment or intersection. Level of service is defined on a scale of A
to F, where LOS A represents free flowing traffic conditions with no restrictions on maneuvering
or operating speeds, low traffic volumes and high speeds; LOS B represents stable flow, more
restrictions, operating speeds beginning to be affected by traffic volumes; LOS C represents stable
flow, more restrictions, speed and maneuverability more closely controlled by higher traffic volumes;
LOS D represents conditions approaching unstable flow, traffic volumes profoundly affect arterials;
LOS E represents unstable flow, and some stoppages; and LOS F represents forced flow, many
stoppages, and low operating speeds. The City of Chula Vista encourages operation of LOS D or
better at existing intersections and roadway segments.
EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE
The LOS for the signalized intersection of Hilltop/Naples was analyzed using the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) software, consistent with City of Chula Vista analysis procedures. The existing
conditions analysis determined that the intersection of Hilltop/Naples currently operates at LOS B
for both the AM and PM peak periods. The HCM worksheets are included in the attachment to
this report.
PROJECT RELATED CONDITIONS
In discussions with Moose Lodge members as well as the shift bartender at the existing lodge, the
operating characteristics of the lodge was determined to be as follows:
Dav
Hours of
Operation
Monday-Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
llam-llpm
llam-12am
lOam-llpm
7am-8pm
Every 2nd and 4th Monday of the month. the Lodge sponsors a lunch for senior citizens. The
majority of the seniors arrive in vanpools or by bus. The lunch serves between 150-200 persons.
Lunch on these days is served from 12-2pm. On other days, there is no lunch service.
Standard dinner functions occur on Friday nights from 6-7:30pm, serving 70-80 persons. Special
function dinners (once per month on Saturdays) serve 150-200 persons.
Evening functions could include group meetings of up to ten (10) persons.
The Lodge is closed on Holidays.
Mr. Andrew Smitko,
Loyal Order of Moose
January 18, 1995
Page 6
During regular business hours described above, the Lodge bar and game tables are open for use.
On an average weekday, the Lodge may receive up to 40 persons for these uses. On a weekend, it
is expected to be approximately 60 patrons.
Staffing at the Lodge includes one (1) manager and one (1) bartender on the premises at anyone
time. Kitchen help is voluntary and may include up to four (4) people for food preparation during
special events.
TRIP GENERATION
Due to the very specific use of the proposed project, there are currently no published trip generation
rates for this type of facility. Therefore, utilizing the discussion above on operating characteristics,
the following table quantifies the potential daily trips generated by this project on various days of
the week.
I TRIP GENERATION FOR MOOSE LODGE I
Worst-Case Dally Patronage
Monday Friday Saturday Sunday
Employees;Volunteers 6 6 6 6
Bar/Games 40 40 60 60
Dinner 0 80 200 0
Senior Citizen Lunch 200 0 0 0
Breakfast 0 0 0 70
Evening Meeting 10 0 0 0
I Total Patronage I 256 I 126 I 266 I 136 I
Daily Trips 1 512 252 532 272
Sr. Citizen Ride Share' (100) 0 0 0
I Average Daily Traffic I 412 I 252 I 532 I 272 I
1 Daily trips are calculated as one inbound and one outbound per patron or 2 trips per patron
, Sf. Citizen ride share reduction assumes 2 persons per vehicle
Mr. Andrew Smitko,
Loyal Order of Moose
January 18, 1995
Page 7
Peak hour traffic can be quantified by determining approximately how much of the daily traffic
generated by the project occurs during the City's weekday AMIPM peak hours. The peak hour is
identified as the highest traffic volumes during four consecutive 15 minute intervals of the peak
period. As stated previously, count data was collected between the peak periods of 7-9am and 4-
6pm. Review of the existing counts conducted on January 17 identify the peak hour at the
intersection of Hilltop/Naples to occur from 7:15-8:15am, and 5:00-6:00pm.
The Moose Lodge does not conduct business prior to 11:00am Monday through Friday, therefore,
this project does not have a morning peak hour impact. The worst-case weekday evening peak
scenario identified above would occur on Friday. Assuming that the 80 dinner patrons all arrived
in individual vehicles prior to the 6:00 serving, this would account for 80 peak hour trips. For the
purposes of a worst-case analysis, 80 peak hour trips were distributed to the surrounding street
system. Fifty (50) percent of the traffic was distributed to the east and 50% to the west. Figure 4
depicts the project trip distribution and related PM peak hour traffic volumes.
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The project related volumes shown in Figure 4 were added to the existing traffic at the intersection
of Hilltop/Naples. These volumes are presented on Figure 5. Again, it should be noted that the
project does not effect the morning peak hour traffic. These volumes were analyzed for intersection
operation using the HCM methodology. The intersection of Hilltop/Naples will operate at LOS B
for both peak periods with the addition of project traffic. HCM worksheets are included in the
attachment to this report.
CIRCULATION & ACCESS
The existing parcel provides two access points from Naples Street. The site plan proposes to remove
the existing 15' driveways to provide new 30' driveways adjacent to the existing ones. The 30'
driveways provide adequate width to accommodate ingress and egress traffic. However, the
westernmost access creates an offset with Tobias Drive. It is our recommendation this access be
moved farther west to best align with Tobias Drive, thus reducing left turn conflicts entering the
project versus entering Tobias Drive.
The circulation within the proposed parking lot provides 24' wide roadways, which is consistent with
City policy and adequate for safe traffic flow. The turning radius beneath the porte-cochere at the
south of the building provides adequate clearance for cars, although trucks will not be able to
successfully navigate this movement. In discussions with Lodge members, there is one truck delivery
per week which occurs prior to opening. The truck would not be required to negotiate beneath the
porte-cochere as the parking lot would be empty.
D&A would also recommend that the parking layout be restructured along Naples Street to allow
perpendicular slots. By pushing back the proposed planters and removing four spaces at the end of
each row, the overall net gain of perpendicular parking will be 4.5 spaces, with increased circulation.
turning radii, and safety. Refer to Figure 6 for a schematic of these recommended improvements.
~
<D U
..- LL
-----.. L LL
~ <(
0 0::::
N
------ - l-
i l.. .- (12.5%) 10 ~
<(
W
0....
~ I t I ~2
0 wo....
~ '<t- <D 0::::0
..- ..- ..-
%) 14 -----.. -----.. -----.. =:Jw
, ~ ~ ~ 01-
LO 0 L.() LL<(
. N N
r---- ______ --.J
..-
..- ------ w
------
0::::
l- I-
w t u
w
~ W
(f) -::>
(f) 0 0
w
-' '<t- 0::::
CL
<( -----.. 0....
z ~ U
0 we;:
W LO ~~
f- ------ ~CY
(() ~ ....JI-
0
f- >:x::
:x::<(
U <(w
w I wa...
-;)
0 a...~
~<( t,;)
0:::: Z
0... 0 a... 0 -
'<t- ........z 00
~ r.:I
-----.. (f) ~
~ z<(
0 OI t,;)
0
LO i=1- en
------ ~u en
CDw <
i - ""? .:.!
g:o
(f)CY ~
0 o a... ~
z Q.)
w a...w ~
G - I-
CYo
w t:..z ~
....J cd
~
HILLTOP DRIVE
(17_5
----:l cp \
- - --~-----
U
LL
LL
<C
0:::
f-
~
",OJQ <C
'" OJ '<t- L W
............~............ 114/84 0....
CON'"
'<t- ~
L() 224/279 L
~ ~
0....
~ , l.- , 56/104 ~
L
HILL TOP DRIVE LO<C
~ I ~ I W f-
70/94 o:::U
::::Jw
253/295 ~ ~ f'. L() C)J
N L() CO -0
~ N ............
18/78 -. ............ ............ OJ LLo:::
L() CO N 0....
CO n
~ (f)
::::J
--.J
0....
I-
w
w C)
~
(f) Z
en f-
UJ
....J (f)
a..
<>: -
z X
W
W
I-
VJ
I-
U (j
w z
-, -
0 00
0:::
0.... ~
u
0
<ZI
<ZI
-<
.:es
.-I
---2 cp , , .-I
Q)
~
~
cd
~
"
"
"
II
"
~I ',0.
. "
)1 ;.
~ ~ ~
'- I ~.::
.J..:....., .
...:: .... 7--~
,...~... ':;. '<:. h:1
, ~::;~r. ~-:~~
1~~~ ~:~"
, ml'J ~
"I.~IAU>~11ITTJ9ji;; ~
I 1 . . I ~
.1 [< ~I" ,
... ~~ I .
~...
.AT'/)'.
-.,- y..!.o;:.JA
I
, I
II
\
I (~C (
, I~~~ n /...
I 2~ :," \ I
' >
. ,II'~
I'"
Id" ~ ..
\, ,
I~ ?
e ~ ~
t~ If') ~
. I~ ::; w , ::
. F" i ~ ~ ~
, ~-<..
. .
_ r
,~
<
/
/
~
I,-~ \
1:-/
i~ I
~ ,';
,
i 1
I, ,
~~
;_1 I
.~
~i
'I
~
,
I
,
,I
\ ~:
II~ IIII~
I I.' I Iii I
I~ I"
> [
, ,
,
"
:::j
,
I
. \ ~ \ > ~ \ -'-I '\1 I I I r I I
\\ \ "\!h\\! \1" I 'Ii I I'~ "1'""I~JI
. ~~. ~ I, ~ ~ _
"-,7::\ \ ~. I
I ~
',. I
I TiTTlWji i~~JJ]tli 1),111
\ ~ ;~';:. ~::!
~'>i:: ;:_:~ $=-
:.~; - ~ ~~
~.
> .~, I
I" . .:_.....~^I:!9
m',~,~~~~ __,'",01
I
(
,
,
'0---
--'. $ ~
(f)
I-
z:
w
L
w
>
o
0:::
(L
L
CD z:
o
w-
0:::1-
=:=><(
G-I
- =:=>
LLU
0:::
U
o
W
o
z:
w
L
L
o
U
W
0:::
Co>
25
en
[z1
~
Co>
o
rn
~
old
~
~
(J)
~
~
ct:!
Q
DARNELL & ASSOCIATES
1--"
.
TEL No.619-233-4034
Apr 3,95 9:58 No.002 P.03
Mr. Andrew Smitko,
Loyal Ord~r of Moose
January 18, 1995
Page 11
IMPACTS
The proposed project does not have a morning peak hour impart. The evcning peak hour impael
atlhe intersection of Hilltop/Naples docs not caus~ tlw c'xjsting level of servkc. to declinc from LOS
B.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The project should be rcsponsible for sidewalk and half. width il11provemenls along Ihe projc.ct
frontage on Naples Slreet.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
1. The intersection of Hilltop/Naplcs currently opcratcs al LOS 11 for both peak periods.
2. The previous commercial use on the project site gennakd approximalely 2,850 daily
vehic1cs. The propostod project will generale a maximum of 4J2 trips on a weekday and 532
trips on a weekend.
3, The operating characteristics of the proposed Moose Lodge will not have ,I morning peak
hour impact. The worst.cast. weekday evening peak hour traffic. impac't of 80 trips docs not
cause the LOS at Hilltop/Naples 10 decline. bdow its existing operation.
4. Access and circulation recomlTIc'ndations arc notc~d on Figure 6.
If you have any qu~.stions or require addjlionaJ information, please fed free: 10 contact this oftic.e.
Sincerely,
DARNELL & ASSOCIATES, I
. \. \SSIUI\~I;~
:.. ... ...... 't."
,>:..,/(.\)A11rv,,2 'i6i~.
, '1...::;,-- <,.';1-
:.- r'~ ~o.'lZ~~\Pi. 1 f)'~\\
," \ f.10\1~~\ ~;~
. :,
'. (:I\I\\- .r~.{::
'\ . '.;.
,.,'/
~~
Bill B. Darnell, P.E.
BRD/hh
Q1~OOS.APT/9S.'
Attachments
~ Count Data Summaries
~ HCM Worksheets
PM PEAK 1622
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
PM COUNT
DATE COUNT TAKEN: 1-17-95 CITY: CHULA VISTA
INTERSECTION: HILLTOP/NAPLES
PEAK HOUR: 5.00 PM TO 6.00 PM
(E/W STREET) (N/S STREET)
------------------------------ ------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
-------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- Peak
Time L T R L T R L T R L T R E+W N+S Total Hour
-------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -----
3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3: 45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 29 54 15 10 33 9 12 85 9 15 78 29 150 228 378
4:15 PM 35 52 17 4 51 11 22 68 7 16 80 33 170 226 396 774
4:30 PM 30 54 14 4 31 11 6 72 5 12 80 34 144 209 353 1127
4:45 PM 31 69 13 4 43 14 22 71 7 20 84 31 174 235 409 1536
5:00 PM 36 63 12 9 31 13 15 74 13 13 70 32 164 217 381 1539
5:15 PM 27 53 24 10 45 15 26 77 13 27 69 17 174 229 403 1546
5:30 PM 24 56 16 9 50 17 26 75 16 27 74 16 172 234 406 1599
5: 45 PM 20 69 23 12 57 21 27 69 22 27 66 19 202 230 432 1622
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 1241
6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 838 1622
PEAK
PERIOD
107 241
o 0
75 40 183 66
o 0 0 0
94 295
o 0
64 94 279 84
o 0 0 0
kr
AM PEAK 1203
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
AM COUNT
DATE COUNT TAKEN: 1-17-95 CITY: CHULA VISTA
INTERSECTION: HILLTOP/NAPLES
PEAK HOUR: 7.15 AM TO 8.15 AM
(E/W STREET) (N/S STREET)
------------------------------ ------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
-------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- Peak:
Time L T R L T R L T R L T R E+W N+S Tota L Hour
-------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -----
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 17 22 7 2 39 11 15 43 3 7 35 18 98 121 219 219
7:15 AM 38 29 12 7 52 16 17 71 6 10 66 29 154 199 353 572
7:30 AM 25 40 6 4 35 15 12 71 4 24 75 31 125 217 342 914
7:45 AM 9 26 4 2 33 6 15 54 2 7 44 35 80 157 237 1151
8:00 AM 13 43 7 3 32 11 26 57 6 15 39 19 109 162 271 1203
8:15 AM 33 33 11 4 47 13 26 64 9 13 54 34 141 200 341 1191
8:30 AM 25 37 5 6 49 17 7 50 15 14 48 25 139 159 298 1147
8:45 AM 25 18 7 5 39 12 15 59 3 5 44 22 106 148 254 1164 1203
PEAK
PERIOD
85 138
o 0
29 16 152 48
o 0 0 0
70 253 18
o 0 0
56 224 114
000
A~v
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
01-18-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Streets: (N-S) HILLTOP
Analyst: DARNELL BH
Area Type: Other
Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS
(E-W) NAPLES
File Name: HILNAPXA.HC9
1-18-95 AM PEAK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Lanes
Va Lumes
Lane Width
RTOR Vels
I Northbound I Southbound I Eastbound I Westbound
[L T R 1 L T R I L T R I L T R
1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----
1 1 1 < 1 1 1 1 [1 1 < [1 1 <
[ 56 224 1141 70 253 181 85 138 29[ 16 152 48
112.012.0 [12.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 112.012.0
I 101 21 31 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
N8 Left * IE6 Left *
Thru * I Thru *
Right * [ Rigbt *
Peds * I Peds *
S6 Left * IW6 Left *
Thru * I Thru *
Right * 1 Right *
Peds * 1 Peds *
E6 Rigbt IN6 Right
W6 Right [ S8 Right
Green 42.0A jGreen 42.0A
Ye llow/ A-R 3.0 IYeLLow/A- 3.0
Lost Time 3.0 !Lost Time 3.0
Cycle Length: 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat vie glC Approach:
Mvmt s Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
NB L 483 1034 0.12 0.47 10.3 B 10.6 6
TR 791 1694 0.44 0.47 10.6 6
S6 L 434 931 0.17 0.47 10.6 6 9.9 B
T B32 1782 0.32 0.47 9.B B
R 703 1506 0.02 0.47 8_4 6
EB L 549 1177 0.16 0.47 10.5 8 9.7 B
TR 811 1738 0.21 0.47 9.2 6
WB L 577 1237 0.03 0.47 9.9 B 9.5 B
TR 803 1721 0.26 0.47 9.4 6
Intersection Delay = 10.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.346
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
k~
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
01-18-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Streets: (N-S) HILLTOP
Analyst: DARNELL 8H
Area Type: Other
Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS
(E-W) NAPLES
File Name: HILNAPXP.HC9
1-18-95 PM PEAK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Lanes
Volumes
Lane Width
RTOR Vols
Northbound Southbound Eastbound I Westbound
1 L T R I L T R I L T R 1 L T R
1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----
I 1 1 < I 1 1 1 1 1 1 < 1 1 1 <
1 94 279 841 94 295 641 107 241 751 40 183 66
112.012.0 112.012.012.0112.012.0 112.012.0
1 81 61 71 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
N8 Left * IEB Left *
Thru * I Thru *
Right * 1 Right *
Peds * I Peds *
SB Left * IW8 Left *
Thru * I Thru *
Right * 1 Right *
Peds * I Peds *
E8 Rigbt INB Right
WB Right ISB Right
Green 42.0A IGreen 42.0A
Yellow/A-R 3.0 IYellow/A- 3.0
Lost Ti me 3.0 Ilost Time 3.0
CycLe Length: 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat vie glC Approach:
Mvmt s Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
N8 L 416 891 0.24 0.47 11.0 B 10.9 B
TR 805 1724 0.46 0.47 10.8 8
58 L 411 881 0.24 0.47 11.0 B 10.1 8
T 832 1782 0.37 0.47 10.1 B
R 703 1506 0.09 0.47 8.6 B
E8 L 508 1088 0.22 0.47 10.9 8 10.5 8
TR 803 1721 0.41 0.47 10.4 B
WB L 450 964 0.09 0.47 10.2 B 9.8 B
TR 799 1713 0.32 0.47 9.8 B
Intersection Delay = 10.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 see Critical v/c(x) = 0.435
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A~4-
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
01-18-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Streets: (N-S) HILLTOP
AnaLyst: DARNELL BH
Area Type: Other
Comment: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
(E-W) NAPLES
FiLe Name: HILNAPXA.HC9
1-18-95 AM PEAK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Lanes
Volumes
Lane Width
RTOR Vals
Northbound I Southbound j Eastbound I Westbound
[L T R [L T R 1 L T R 1 L T R
1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----[---- ---- ----
1 1 1 < 1 1 1 1 [1 1 < 1 1 1 <
[ 56 224 114[ 70 253 181 85 138 29[ 16 152 48
112.012.0 112.012.012.0112.0 12.0 [12.0 12.0
[ 101 21 31 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 [ 5 6 7 8
NB Left * IEB Left *
Thru * [ Thru *
Right * [ Right *
Peds * 1 Peds *
SB Left * [WB Left *
Thru * 1 Thru *
Right * 1 Right *
Peds * [ Peds *
EB Right INB Right
WB Right [SB Right
Green 42.0A IGreen 42.0A
YelLow/A-R 3.0 IYeLLow/A- 3.0
Lost Ti me 3.0 [Lost Time 3.0
Cycle Length: 90.0 sees Phase combination order: #1 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summa ry
Lane Group: Adj Sat vie glC Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
NB L 483 1034 0.12 0.47 10.3 B 10.6 B
TR 791 1694 0.44 0.47 10.6 B
SB L 434 931 0.17 0.47 10.6 B 9.9 B
T 832 1782 0.32 0.47 9.8 B
R 703 1506 0.02 0.47 8.4 B
EB L 549 1177 0.16 0.47 10.5 B 9.7 B
1R 811 1738 0.21 0.47 9.2 B
WB L 577 1237 0.03 0.47 9.9 B 9.5 B
TR 803 1721 0.26 0.47 9.4 B
Intersection DeLay = 10.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/CycLe, L = 6.0 see Critical v/e(x) = 0.346
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A-7
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
01-18-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
;======================================================================
Streets: (N-S) HILLTOP
Analyst: DARNELL BH
Area Type: Other
Comment: EXISTING PLUS
(E-W) NAPLES
File Name: HILNAPPP.HC9
1-18-95 PM PEAK
PROJECT CONDITIONS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Lanes
VoLumes
Lane Width
RTOR VaLs
Northbound 1 Southbound 1 Eastbound I
1 L T R I L T R I L T R 1 L
1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- --------1---- ---- ----
I 1 1 < 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 < 1 1 1 <
1 104 279 841 94 295 781 121 257 851 40 199 66
112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0
I 81 61 71
Westbound
T R
6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
NB Left * IEB Left *
Thru * I Thru *
Right * 1 Right *
Peds * 1 Peds *
SB Left * IWB Left *
Thru * I Thru *
Right * 1 Right *
Peds * 1 Peds *
EB Right INB Right
WB Right ISB Right
Green 42.0A I Green 42.0A
Yellow/A-R 3.0 IYellow/A- 3.0
Lost Time 3.0 ILost Time 3.0
Cycle Length: 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summa ry
Lane Group: Adj Sat vie glC Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
NB L 399 855 0.27 0.47 11.2 B 10.9 B
TR 805 1724 0.46 0.47 10.8 B
SB L 411 881 0.24 0.47 11.0 B 10.1 B
T 832 1782 0.37 0.47 10.1 B
R 703 1506 0.11 0.47 8.7 B
EB L 494 1059 0.26 0.47 11.1 B 10.8 B
TR 802 1719 0.44 0.47 10.6 B
WB L 428 917 0.10 0.47 10.2 B 9.9 B
TR 802 1719 0.34 0.47 9.9 B
Intersection Delay = 10.5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 see Critical v/C<x) = 0.452
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A~~
ATTACHMENT 7
NOISE STUDY
-;>~;
fEB-07-1995 17:01 GIROUX & ASSOC.
I""' UtrOUX &; AsSor '8
Envifonmental Consultants
'.--;.-
/.4>'--
/ v-:, ,-
P.01
...Vq.-" ,.......... ,......~
To I ' -
. ~ _ t/h<;.c"\/"'-
CoJD.pt~ c.tL.~_
Phone ft
-8-609
Fax II
February 7, 1995
city of Chula vista planning Dept.
Attn: Ms. Susan Vandrew
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Moose Lodge Relocation
Dear susan,
We have reviewed the materials that you sent regarding this
project. We utilized the traffic data from Darnell & Associates to
estimate any site access/egress traffic noise impact potential. We
utilized the CNEL metric relative to the City standard of 65 datA)
CNEL as a measure of impact significance.
Our assumptions were:
Fraction traveling:
Before 7 p.m. ~ 1/3
7 p.m. - 10 p.m. ~ 1/3
After 10 p.m. ~ 1/3
EastjWest split on Naples ~ 50%/50%
Travel Speed - 35 mph
The off-site noise impact is 52 dB (A) CNEL superimposed upon the
non-project baseline. Based on our measurements of similar traffic
exposures as along Naples Street, combined project and non-project
noise exposures will be well within city standards (well below 65
dB (A) CNEL combined).
Any potential noise issues are solely on-si te concerns.
Entertainment noise, car door slams, start-ups and tire squeal may
be audible at nearby residences, especially late at night. The
residences to the south are far enough away to be little affected.
We would prefer that a barrier be maintained along the northern
site boundary to reduce any nuisance potential from people
accessing their vehicle and departing the site during the late
evening hours.
/7744 $J:y Pck Circle. Suite 2/0. bvioe. Cslifomia 92714 . PboI1~ (714) 851-8609 - FlU (714) 651-86/2
F,EB-07-1995 17:01
GIROUX 2, ASSOC.
P.02
-;2-
We do not believe that an acoustical study would substantially
alter our conclusions. Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
-
~?/,() ,./;(. L.<.L<---f
Hans D. Giroux
Senior Scientist
Giroux & Associates
HDG:ai
TOTAL P.02
ATTACHMENT 8
INITIAL STUDY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Applicant's
Agent:
Roy
Johnson
Architect
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Traffic Impact Analysis, Darnell & Associates (1/18/95)
Noise Review, Hans Giroux (2/7/95)
3. Initial Studv
This environmental determination is based on the attached
Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study
and any comments received during the public review period
for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the
independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista.
Further information regarding the environmental review of
this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning
Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
LA~d~ (~/)~p-~
ENVIRONMEN AL REV EW CO RDI ATOR
3. Does the project have possible effects which are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable? As
used in the subsection, ncumulatively considerablen means
that the incremental effects of an individual 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?
The proposed project will generate 400 ADT. A commercial
use of the size sq. ft. of that of the Moose Lodge will
generate 1499 ADT. The Moose Lodge, an unclassified use
will therefore generate fewer ADT than a commercial
tenant on the site. The proposed project is also expected
impact the site in a lesser degree than that of the
previous user. All impacts, both individual and
cumulative have been found to be less that significant,
as the result of the applicant's compliance with the
City's Code requirements, therefore cumulative impacts
are not considerable.
4. Will the environmental effects of a project will cause a
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
The proposed project will not cause any significant
impacts and is in compliance with threshold standards for
fire, police, school, and other public services as
discussed in the threshold section of the Initial Study.
The proposed Moose Lodge will not cause environmental
impacts to humans, either directly or indirectly.
F. consultation
1. Individuals and Orqanizations
City of Chula Vista: Susan Vandrew, Planning
Barbara Reid, Planning
Roger Daoust, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering
Bob Sennett, Planning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Crime Prevention, MaryJane Diosdada
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept.
Erik Basil, Acting Assistant City Attorney
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
E. Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
1. Does the project have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
The proj ect site has been developed previously. The
proposed project will not impact sensitive species or
habitat in the area.
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals?
The 2.25 acre project site was previously used for a
small commercial center which includes a vacant building
(previously Lou's Gym ) and a fire wall to a structure
which had burned down (previously a Mayfair Supermarket.
The site frontage has no landscaping and the vacant
structure is an aesthetically unpleasant site, which has
been of little value to the neighborhood.
The project proposes renovation of the desolate structure
and expansion of the structure. Also, an aesthetically
pleasing lawn area and landscaping at the project
frontage is proposed.
In addition, the project applicant will be required to
dedicate a drainage easement which will assist the City
in providing future drainage improvements and meet the
long term goal of upgrading the drainage system in an
area of the City, which was annexed from the County of
San Diego.
The project will provide for a revitalization bf the site
and serve as a public/quasi public area for the
community, providing a meeting area for the local
boyscouts and providing free luncheons for senior
citizens (please see Feb. 1995 schedule for more details
of events). Therefore, the proposed project does not
disadvantage long-term environmental goals.
The applicant proposes to retain an existing concrete
retaining wall along the northern property boundary. Also,
compliance with energy conservation requirements of the
building code will facilitate the use of insulation in the
proposed Moose Lodge. The insulation, along with the
retaining wall will provide a buffer to noise, which will
ensure that nuisance noise is at a level below significant.
Nearby resident's have raised concern about traffic, safety,
congestion and nuisance noise. The aforementioned traffic and
noise anaiysis, coupled with the measures taken by the
applicant, as recommended in the noise review and traffic
study, ensure that impacts in these areas are at a level below
significant, addressing the concerns of the nearby resident's.
The applicant will be required to comply with the fire code
requirements.
The Sweetwater Authority has determined that the 1500 GPM fire
flow at 20 p.s.i. residual pressure for a two hour duration as
required by the City of Chula Vista Fire Department will be
available upon installation of an a-inch fire service to serve
the required on-site fire hydrant. The applicant will comply
with this requirement prior to issuance of a building permit.
School fees will be required by the C.V. Elementary School
District and the Sweetwater Union High School District for the
additional square footage.
Discretionary actions include Design Review , a Conditional
Use Permit and a Building Permit. A soils study will be
required prior to issuance of a building permit.
C. ComDatibilitv with Zoninq and Plans
The project site is zoned for CN and designated Commercial
Retail in the General Plan. The project is an unclassified
use, which is allowed in the CN zone with approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista
(including the attached Environmental Checklist Form)
determined that the proposed project will not have a
significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This
Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The proposed hours of operation will be Monday through
Thursday, 11:00 am-ll:00 pm, Friday, 10 am-II pm, Saturday,
and Sunday, 7:00 am-8:00 pm. The Moose Lodge will employ 2
persons over a 24 hour period and 200 patrons are expected per
day. The senior luncheons which occur twice a month expect
200 patrons during lunchtime.
The Moose Lodge serves as a fraternal membership facility,
however it is utilized for various community activities, which
involve the entire Chula Vista area. Activities include:
senior lunches, boyscout meetings, and bingo (Please see
attached February 1995 schedule).
A traffic study completed by Darnell & Associates concluded
that: the intersection of Hilltop/Naples currently operates at
LOS B for both peak periods; the previous commercial use on
the project site generated approximately 1,075 trips daily
vehicles and the proposed project with generate a maximum of
412 trips on a weekday and 532 trips on the weekend; the
operating characteristics of the proposed Moose Lodge will not
have a morning hour impact and that the worst-case weekday
peak hour traffic of 80 trips does not cause the LOS at
Hilltop/Naples to decline below is existing operation.
The study recommends the western most access be moved farther
west to best align with Tobias Drive, thus reducing left turn
conflicts entering the project versus entering Tobias Drive.
The study also recommends that the parking layout be
restructured along Naples to allow perpendicular slots. By
pushing back the proposed planters and removing four spaces at
the end of each row, the overall net gain of perpendicular
parking will be 4-5 spaces, with increased circulation turning
radii and safety. The applicant is in agreement with the
recommendations in the traffic study.
A noise review by Hans Giroux concluded that the off-site
noise impact is 52 dB (A) CNEL superimposed upon the non-
project baseline. Based on Mr. Giroux's measurements of
similar traffic exposures as along Naples Street, combined
project and non-project noise exposures will be well within
City standards (well below 65 db(A) CNEL combined}.
Therefore, any noise issues are solely on- si te concerns.
Entertainment noise, car door slams, start-ups and tire squeal
may be audible at nearby residences, especially late at night.
The residences to the south are far enough away to be little
affected. Mr. Giroux would prefer that a barrier be
maintained along the northern site boundary to reduce any
nuisance potential from people accessing their vehicle and
departing the site during the evening hours.
.
negative
declaration
PROJECT NAME: Chula Vista Moose Lodge
PROJECT LOCATION: 33 & 25 West Naples Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 619-100-30 & 619-100-29
PROJECT APPLICANT: Loyal Order of Moose, Chula Vista Lodge #1927
CASE NO:
IS 95-15
DATE: February 22, 1995
A. Proiect Settinq
The project site, 33 & 25 West Naples Street (280 feet west of
Hilltop Drive on Naples) is within an area of the city that is
zoned C-N (Neighborhood-Commercia11. The 2.25 acre site was
previously used for a small commercial center. Currently, the
center consists of a vacant building (previously Lou's Gym )
and a fire wall, the remains to a structure which had burned
down (previously a Mayfair Supermarket). East of the site
there is a parking lot and a strip commercial center. Other
adjacent uses include single-family residences to the north
and south of the site. The parcel to the west is zoned for
multi-family residential, but is undeveloped. The average
graded slope of the site is 3%.
B. proiect DescriDtion
The proposed project. involves two phases to allow for a
private membership fraternal Moose Lodge. The first phase
will involve renovation of an existing 7,159 sq. ft. structure
and a 1,320 sq. ft. expansion to this structure. This phase
of development includes: a lodge room, a lounge and a kitchen
and a 6, 900 sq. ft. patio and lawn area. .
The second phase will involve the addition of 4,015 sq. ft.,
to the existing structure, reducing the lawn 'area by 2,400 sq.
The second phase will provide an additional assembly area.
The ultimate building area is proposed to total 12,949 sq. ft.
There are 145 parking spaces provided and 143 are required;
the proposed number of spaces comply with the zoning ordinance
for this type of use. Ninety six spaces will be provided
during phase I of the project and 47 will be provided during
phase II. .
~{ft-
-.,-
.~~~
. - ~ 1'_
eIIull .1111 pllnnlng "epartment 01Y OF
....Ironmenll' ,."Ie. Hcllon. CHUlA VISTA
City of
'" ~I 8.~.., j
'" Q ;;: "'s
.. ~ .;; t.5 ~
.. f- gSh <'3
~of-;j ,;; ::' ] $ .1
~ 5~...~ ~
."a",,x::E ::E
~ 8. 88 i
r e ; ~~l'i
;~ f '8"~<'3
~~ ~:iff$1
~~ I.. uMir
fO)~~...hJ
i
!J!
i J~
gllr
=]~H
!
:0:
;.:
i 8 '€
, ~ d
ISf' ~l
:/ '$
j!' i
~d...,d
:! j'
lu~
j! i'~K
00 Oc....j
-is
! 8
:0: .
.. ~
.. ,
$ 8'2!,
'" 1Ji=,j!
I~ff~
~h~Jl
f .
!!~
~"'b
j ..11 1i
.& i-..
~::E&
iliH
!
:0:
;.: 8
~l ~~]
t~f' j~
~~IJ...lj
In g
I!!
~ !~
~
II"
~ ~ '!',
r- ~~~ I
~ J .'.
>- jlH j if .
:
!3
~ z If).:! If I
ICI
!oj
~ _Iddl .Jl)
~
= II
~ b II
>- 'D~
: gfl I!
~ 'IU .jf
~ui ~~~
.. gjlll ,
..Ii >-
11; i ! I gll gIll
It' l,!t UJ!U ll!: lj!! i
~
..U \Oll~ :dl fu ~JJfj . ~JJ'd
0- lill .:1
... .
'" I:l ~ II
- f~~~{ i
.. I'I 1:1
~ >- ). !J
S ~
~ ..! : : : J=s. tlj J=s.
'" . . . l~ii!1 . -s.
c ... ~. !l ~. !ilra ~. !j
. IIi!! 1/)' iON h
I
. ..
Case No. IS-95-15
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: Loyal Order of Moose, Chula Vista Lodge #] 927
2.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 9]9]0
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 2683 Main Street Chula Vista CA 92011
4. Name of Proposal: Chula Vista Moose Lodge
5. Date of Checklist: February 22, ] 995
Page 1
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1111.94
PotentJ.-Ily
POltatiaUy SiI'lJfjcaaj Leu than
Silaificaat Vale.. Sipifkant N.
Impact Mitisated Impact Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 ~
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 ~
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 0 0 0 ~
impacts to soils or fannlands, or impacts trom
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 ~
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
Comments: The project site is zoned for CN and designated Commercial Retail in the General Plan.
The project is an unclassified use, which is allowed in the CN zone with approval of a Conditional
Use Pennit.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 ~
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 ~
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 ~
honsing?
Comments: The proposed Moose Lodge will service the existing residents, thus will not placing an
additional demand on existing housing.
m. GEOPHYSICAL Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 181
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 ~
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 ~
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 ~
any unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 ~
either on or off the site?
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNINOISTORED\17J8.94
Page 2
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less thin
Sipifiant V.in. Sipifiant N.
Impllct Milia_ted Impacl Impact
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 181
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any
bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 181
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments: No compaction or replacement of soil is proposed. The engineering department has
indicated that a soils report will be required prior to the issuance of the building pennit.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 181
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 181
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 181
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 181
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 181
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 181
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 181
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 181
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: The project will not impact the water supply in any manner aforementioned. The
applicant is required to dedicate to the City an easement for an existing stonn drain and future City
improvements prior to issuance of a building pennit.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 181
an existing or projected air quality violation?
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNINGISTORED\1718.94
Page 3
POfelltially
Poltoti.lly Spitino! Leu Ihan
Spitinot U...lftl Se...itic....t N,
I_pael MitieaCtd Imp.cl Impact
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 181
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 181
or cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 181
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 181
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: The applicant proposes a land use with lower traffic generation than the previous user
(please refer to Section VI of this checklist). The project will not require an NPDES permit. The
proposed project is not expected to impact air quality.
VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CmCULATION. Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 181
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 181
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 181
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 181
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 181
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 181
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 181
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
WPC F\HOME\PLANNING\STOREO\I7111_94
Page 4
PoteatiaJly
Sil'lificant
Implct
Pot.....tially
SigailicI..t
Vlllesl
Mitiglted
Lesstbln
Sil'liliclllt
Impact
N,
Implct
Comments: A traffic study completed by Darnell & Associates concluded that: the intersection of
Hilltop/Naples currently operates at LOS B for both peak periods; the previous commercial use on the
project site generated approximately 1,075 trips daily vehicles and the proposed project with generate
a maximum of 412 trips on a weekday and 532 trips on the weekend; the operating characteristics of
the proposed Moose Lodge will not have a morning hour impact and that the worst-case weekday
peak hour traffic of 80 trips does not cause the LOS at Hilltop/Naples to declines below is existing
operation.
The study recommends the western most access be moved farther west to best align with Tobias
Drive, thus reducing left turn conflicts entering the project versus entering Tobias Drive. The study
also recommends that the parking layout be restructured along Naples to allow perpendicular slots.
By pushing back the proposed planters and removing four spaces at the end of each row, the overall
net gain of perpendicular parking will be 4-5 spaces, with increased circulation turning radii and
safety. The applicant is in agreement with the recommendations in the traffic study. The project
street improvements, dedication and agreement to provide the recommendations of the traffic study,
will ensure that transportation are at a level below significant.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 181
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? 0 0 0 181
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, 0 0 0 181
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 181
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 181
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 181
efforts?
Comments: The project area is an older urbanized area of the City on a previously developed site.
The proposed project will not impact sensitive species or habitat in the area.
VIL ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 181
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 181
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 181
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNJNG\STORED\1718.94
Page S
Potentially
Sipineaat
Impact
Potentially
Significant
VI1IQS
Mltia_ted
Lets than
Silllmcant
I_pact
N,
Impact
Comments: The proposed project, the renovation of an existing structure and the expansion of the
structure to allow for a Moose Lodge, will not demand resources over that which currently exists in
the area. The project is not in conflict with adopted energy conservation plans and the site is not
designated for mineral resource protection.
VIII. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 181
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 181
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 181
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 181
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 181
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The proposed project will not create any health hazards or risk of upset.
IX. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 181
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 181
Comments: A noise review by Hans Giroux, concluded that the off-site noise impact is 52 dB(A)
CNEL superimposed upon the non-project baseline. Based on Mr. Giroux's measurements of similar
traffic exposures as along Naples Street, combined project and non-project noise exposures will be
well within City standards (well below 65 db(A) CNEL combined).
Therefore, any noise issues are solely on-site concerns. Entertainment noise, car door slams, start-ups
and tire squeal may be audible at nearby residences, especially late at night. The residences to the
south are far enough away to be little affected. Mr. Giroux would prefer that a barner be maintained
along the northern site boundary to reduce any nuisance potential from people accessing their vehicle
and departing the site during the evening hours.
The applicant proposes to provide a zoning wall along the northern property boundary. Also,
compliance with energy conservation requirements of the building code will facilitate the use of
insulation in the proposed Moose Lodge. The insulation, along with the zoning wall will ensure that
nuisance noise is at a level below significant.
X. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire protection?
o
o
o
181
wpc F:\HOME\PLANNING\STOREDlI718.94
Page 6
Potentially
Potentially Significant Lentban
Significant Unle... Siplficant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 181
c) Schools? 0 0 0 181
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 181
roads?
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181
Comments: The fire department will require the fire protection measures as outlined in the threshold
section of this checklist. The police department has indicated that the project could not significantly
impact police services or calls for services and that improvements to the parking area lacks significant
lighting; appears to be below the minimum standards for security. The Planning department will
recommend that the applicant comply with all crime prevention measures indicated by the police
department. School fees will be required by the project applicant to mitigate impacts. Street
improvement, as described in Section IX will be required of the applicant. Other governmental
services will not be impact and the compliance with the aforementioned requirements of the applicant
will ensure that impacts are at a level below significant.
XI.
Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the
City's Threshold Standards?
o
o
o
181
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold
Standards.
a) FirelEMS
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 less 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 1/4 mile away and would be associated with a 3 minute
response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The fire department will require the following fire prevention measures: a one hour fire
separation (type of building material and amount used to ensure one hour fire before full combustion
of the wall) is required between the proposed Moose Lodge and the existing Group B-2 occupancy to
the east; a fully automated fire sprinkler system, a fire hydrant will be required; fire alarm system is
required; exit lights, exit illumination and/or emergency lighting is required; interior finishes and
drapes, hangings must comply with the Building and Title 19, California Code of Regulations; fire
access roads in excess of 150' require turnarounds and fire extinguishes and a fire suppression system
for the kitchen will be required.
The Sweetwater Authority has detennined that the 1500 GPM fire flow at 20 p.s.i. residual pressure
for a two hour duration as required by the City of Chula Vista Fire Department will be available upon
installation of an 8-inch fire service to serve the required on-site fire hydrant. This provision by the
applicant will ensure that fire department requirements are meet and impacts are at a level below
significant.
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1718.94
Page 7
PotQti.lly
Signilkut
ImpllCI
POlentially
Signifiullt
Unleu
MitiS.led
Lets than
Sigailk.nt
Impact
N.
lrapa(1
b) Police
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority ] 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.
Comments: The police crime prevention unit has indicated that improvements to the parking lot area
lacks significant lighting and appears to be below minimum standards for security and has requested a
lighting plan for review. This issue will be addressed in the design review process to ensure that
crime prevention measures are taken on the proposed project site. The proposed project will not
significantly impact police services or calls for service.
c) Traffic
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 of
1-805 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 freeway
ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this
Threshold Standard.
Comments: The traffic study detennined that the intersection of HilltoplNaples currently operates at
LOS B for both peak periods.The applicant will be required to widen Naples Street along the project
frontage to half-width standards of Class II collector street with bike lanes.
d) ParkslRecreation
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres!l,ooo population. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: Parks and Recreation are not impacted by the project as the project is not residential.
e) Drainage
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: Existing on-site drainage facilities consist of surface flow to Naples Street and a 60"
RCP which flows from the northeast to the southwest through the proposed project. Existing off-site
drainage facilities consist of downstream continuation of 60" RCP, which discharges to a 4' x 10'
concrete trapezoid channel. Project impacts are negligible, thus the City improvements are not
required. A Capital Improvements Project is expected to address the issue in the future.
wPC F:\HOME\PLANNING'STORED\1718.94
Page 8
PoteDti.lly
Sisnilic:nt
IlDpact
PoteDtWl)'
SisnilinDt
Vale.,
Miti..ted
Len tbu
Sipilinnt
IID~ct
N.
IDI~ct
1) Sewer
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. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: Existing sewer lines consist of a line in Naples Street which flows to the west. This
facility is adequate to serve the project.
g) Water
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards 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 program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building pennit issuance.
Comments: The Sweetwater Authority has indicated that domestic water is available to the site and
that no new facilities are required. The project will not impact local water supplies.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 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) Stann water drainage? 0 0 0 181
1) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181
Comments: The proposed Moose Lodge is in a older portion of the City and the construction of the
Lodge will not significantly impact any of the utilities listed above.
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the
public or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view?
o
o
o
181
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a
scenic route?
o
o
o
181
Page 9
wPC F:\HOME\PLANNINGISTORED\1718.94
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
d) Create added light or glare Sources that could
increase the level of sky glow in an area or
cause this project to fail to comply with Section
19.66. JOO of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 19?
e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light?
Po(tntially
Potentially Signifitlnt Len tbln
Significant Unlen Silnificant N.
I_pad Mitigated Imp..:t Implrt
0 0 0 I8J
0 0 0 I8J
o
o
o
I8J
Comments: The site currently is paved and consists of 7.159 sq. ft. structure, which is not to code.
The Moose Lodge proposes to renovate the existing structure, expand that structure and provide a
lawn area and landscaping fronting the property. The existing site, as is, has been an eyesore in the
community for several years and this will greatly improve the site and the aesthetic view of the area.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 I8J
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 I8J
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 I8J
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 I8J
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 I8J
EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
Comments: The project is proposed in an older, developed area of the City and there will be no
impact to cultural resources.
XV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments: The project is proposed in an older, developed area of the City and there will be no
impact to paleontological resources.
o
o
o
I8J
XVI. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 I8J
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 I8J
wPC F.\HOME\PLANNINGISTOREDI1718.94
Page 10
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation
plans or programs?
Comments: The Moose Lodge is used for community activities for senior citizens, boyscouts and
other community organizations. The proposed project will increase recreational opportunities for the
community.
PolelltiaU)"
PotentiaJly SipificlIDf Leu tban
Sipifiunt UllleSI Sipificant N.
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 181
XVII. MANDATORY 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
important examples of the major periods or
California history or prehistory?
Comments: Please refer to section E. of the Negative Declaration.
o
o
o
181
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 181
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
Comments: Please refer to section E. of the Negative Declaration.
c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 181
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: Please refer to section E. of the Negative Declaration.
d) Does the project have environmental effect 0 0 0 181
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments: Please refer to section E. of the Negative Declaration.
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\17IB.94
Page 11
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
o Land Use and Planning
o Population and Housing
o Geophysical
o Water
o Air Quality
o Transponation/Circulation
o Biological Resources
o Energy and Mineral Resources
o Public Services
o Utilities and Service Systems
o Aesthetics
o Hazards
o Cultural Resources
o Recreation
o Noise
o Mandatory 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 0
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 0
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least 0
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 to be addressed.
ff] -4 tlJ2/
Signature /'
2l2~'/7r
Date
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1718.94
Page 12
APPENDIX ill
CITY DATA SHEET
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I.
Current Zoning on site: CN
North
South
East
West
Rl
RI
CN
R3P14
Does the project conform to the current zoning? Yes. The proposed proiect is an unclassified use
which is permitted. subiect to a conditional use permit. in the CN zone.
II. General Plan land use designation on site: Commercial Retail
North Low-Medium Residential
South Low Medium Residential
East Commercial Retail
West Medium-High Residential
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. describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of the
route).
ill. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: N/ A
School
Capacity
Enrollment
Units
ProDOsed
Generating
Factors
Students
Generated
From Proiect
Elementary
Junior High
Senior High
.30
.29
.10
IV.
319 ~ )9...5-
"
Dat
FROM/'"
/-1V
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-95-15 IFA- 664 IDQ - 141 )
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR--/FB- IDQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR--/FB-_/DP)
Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- ERR--l
Review of Draft Beg Dec (IS- IFA- IDQ- )
2'he Project consists of: The remodel and expansion of an existing structure
(previously a 9ym, 7,159 sq. ft.) to allow for
a Moose Lodge (a proposed total of 12,494 sq. ft.)
and an additional 5,100 sq. ft. patio and lawn area.
DATE:
J(f,~
Location:
ROUTING FORM
RtCtWtD
/JC(} 1 :1
CITy 7994
BU/lO/lVi' CHUlA
& HOUS/t/'I;"!j
G Of Pl.
December 13, 1994
Ken Larson, Building 4i Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Asst City Attorney (Draft Beg Dec " EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Harty Schmidt, Parks " Recreation
Crime Prevention, police Department (Capt. Zoll)
community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
CUrrent Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
SWeetwater Union H.S. District, 2'om Silva (IS" EIR)
Haureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Hartin Hiller, Project 2'racking Log (route form only)
Other
Barbara Rei d
Environmental section
25 & 33 Naples Street
Please review the document and forward to .. any coJlll/lents you have
by 12/23/94 .
;JM""'~ J
~ ftJ_U( 0-
, ~
"5 d-l4-~1
Comments:
ft:~y ~"- ~ /'~ >>r;LJ
~~
aey~1
-~------ ---- .
--.-------- --
- -~---------~--
-- - ------
--- ------~--~
..---.---.- - .
- -- ~- - --
------ ----
1,1
1
I
1;1 .
i!i jJl2.EL.(NJ/~-"'If2 '7 ;('"4'1 ~~ pr ~
, Q ~'S) 3} M/Ji.E.S sf.
.
j,'J1'7 (. ()'?PE~ of /Hoo 5E.,
!1
f. A-~I cJcc""-po..-..c,:; C:L<",:;-~'.f;{'~/(o",-, C'/9NN"'- Of..
/1/) /7 //-/V But"L .o1",J'G (' T/98~ E. s- c o,c U/.3c. ) .
Ii
I
I ~
,
,
"--- -
:(, ,PLCT ;;Jc-'1,.J /IINel.5 7P ~[/?t'"c/Isro T(} .54(/<<.1
,.40:T,,/cen-r- CO/YtMf/"?CI",p, <J,;.f.4/a'.~ "",,-,p
. TlI79r OA/...y 7"4/0 E:X'T<e/?co/? w-'1LLS EYI.5T
i
i
I
"
II
'I
!I!
'n
I
II
" 3,
It
I:
.,
Ii
"
iI
Ii
f.
fit? j//kJ!,o ~tO p/?O:TFc.r.
71f:A ;:J/t<:Tf: C T
15 /9 ,NEw COA/ST/ZuCTIO"" 0/ /'1 dt'''''n.IS'~Ed
C8/<!f - (l.4MI9G€{)) .~77?uc TUI?€ (' ,(c;<;' GYM) .
J}...r).'IOf ;'11V' f.~, TIN C
f'E5{jN ft;or P/~
!fI OCcu.~ -I t:?t:< d..s .
ai<-v.-h; of,5A,.; fl(~, /kA-t'lt," bkrt1.,-z/7L-I<e...../ ",' IZvrtu'/
.j"f c..'I/l~fae(J k,"Ic.-/'€-?L .
:[
"
"
II
II
'[
:1
I,
I'
Ii
,I
5,
tll3c ~Iv...' JJ'Cl:2(C) ~tft'(/Z..L4 t1..v pi' ,4-t{ (r;Ma 4c:.
.5/,11.."""- /0-r ;J-:?-4......
~,
~ ;?~f ~~ ~ ~c) w/R,
{'/Ie.. 7I1-1f' 2.;1 a;w,?:b./A.~ ~~..e.,.'h...~.
I'
i
I
I
':\
,
.,
~ e..<--t'...~, CA1t'ff?41--'5 f")#Nlln<i:.te
rtA-l..t 0"1/- (;272 X. 3097
,
I
.,
"
[
YS-b ( :L
-
":..'
._ . i
-
ROUTING FORM
~G:~:T f;":'('"
."""'. l.-'...I.,..
13 'Ii In. 03
r,., ~v'
~
DATE: December j5. 1994
ftlDM: .--:
-ro: ..BI f n
Ken Larson, Building , Housing
Jobn Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
CliEE SwlUlson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
. Ricbard Rudolf, Asst City Attorney (DraEt Beg Dec , EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Harty Schmidt, Parks , Recreation
Crime Preventionr police Department (Capt. Zoll)
community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
CUrrent Planning
Duane Bazzel, AdvlUlce Planning
Bob Sennett, city Landscape Arcbitect
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 Hiller, Project Tracking Log (route Lorm only)
Otber
Barbara Reid
Environmental Section
.
SUBJEC'l': Application for Initial Study (IS-95-15fFA-664 IDQ- 141)
Cbeckprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- /FB- IDQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- IFB- -IDp )
Review ot Environmental Review Record (FC- ERR--1
Review ot Draft Beg Dec (IS- IFA- ID()- )
Tbe Project consists of: The remodel and expansion of an existing structure
(previously a 9ym. 7.159 sq. ft.) to allow for
a Moose Lodge (a proposed total of 12.494 sq. ft.)
and an additional 5.100 sq. ft. patiQ and lawn area.
25 & 33 Naples Street
Location:
Ple..e review the document and Lorward to .. any coJ/llll8nt. you have
by 12123/94 .
Comments:
/~~/q'"
11fo
YS~/;L
CaseNo.~5
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENT SHEETS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
I. Drainage
A. Is the project site within a flood plain? No.
If so. state which FEMA FIoodway Frequency Boundary. t-J,IA-.
B. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? 5v12FAt:.E f:/~ TO
NAP/~ 9rfil.(:.~ AoJr:> A ~"fZL;.p WH,C.I-I.f:u:.14I9 Rzr..M -R-tE J.l~EA1:'r n>
r.z;ea T-
-rI4~ SovTU & -nf1l.ot:J&1J -ru~ ~h 'A'~~/'!"r. .
C. Axe they adequate to serve the project? "'D.
If not, please explain briefly. 6b" PI'1=" ,.;. /NA""<f'uA-nE. PEIZ... ~~ ,qbLI Ti:F~
(:4 >S~lAL- 9n.tbY Dt: t:!.7'h4M l:EA 'uV'..E.. t:4C.IUT7I!!;C,'.<! G.- tr::u...tJr Tb
mE. C.HVLA V(S'?'A 6:.EAlF.I!AL- PLAM' .TuNE. FI~) .
, -
D. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? ~<!n=AA'\
t:.&NT7AJuI4TTD1J OF bc>" /2CP WIIICK r;,/o-LU.~J;;JI; m A 1J'f(/~'
.
~J.1'...JI1J.:Ire -rIl..f,.'z:>,r,_~ ~J..Lr:=1 .
E. Axe they adequate to serve the project? Al~ .
If not, please explain briefly. 6>0" fZL.P ,~ IIJAnFqlJATE PEP- ~~ 1"1(;.'1 lZE~.
TranStlortation
A. What roads provide primary access to the project? IJM~ ,"ell'r
B. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)?
~CC> ~ (00E.~ 1016"" ~'--Er::> /E..K/ST"/AI./f; I APP/20r/f;.f:> 1.MJ.f> o;.~,) .'
C. What are the Average Daily TraffIC (A.D.T.) volumes on the. primary access roads before and
after project completion?
Street Name Before After
NM>t.E6 9rfIE.E.-r' 'it&fD IO.ZJfe>
Do any of these volumes exceed the City's Level-of-Service (L.O.S.) "C" design ADT
volume? If yes, please specify. lnJ.I::IoJbWAl. AAl IAl.n#IX:.F/':TloJ.J CARIoC.rrv,/
L€v.::, -6F-~I""; A#JI4L.V~IS WI(.L B~ 1ZE/(ur~.l:> oF mE.. ~c...4rNT
~7J.IE 1u-rE..~Ec:rr~ 6F ~ ~~ At--Ir>HUA.."7'OP 1>R,V'E.
WI'C""'lIOMElFl.ANNlNCJ\STOREIN022.93 (11.01. 1021.93) (1I.ol. IO:!D.93)
Page 2
Ys-~(~
\
,
,
Case No. Is -q!> -IS
H the A.D.T. or L.O.S. "C" design volume is unknown or not applicable, explain briefly.
fl-l-n::4&..~C.77c.J c..c.p.ll:.t7Y II Ffl'tEL-C;JJ:-"SE!2VtGE ANA'-VsrS ~ M~
I
1i~F"l 'PF4~""'" ~ -rII~ 1A1~~c:n",,-I 0': #-UP! FCo 5ir1lE.er- hlb
U f u:rr:iP 7:)12J1i1E.
. D. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? ~/-MEA.tr lJ F NA AZ<:. ~
H not, please explain briefly. Al>::r;\r,.~tr Tb "pp^TPr_1 IS At>F(" ~"1E.
Ik:wlEIiEll.. IN:rEII25F""'aJ 6F H 1u.."Tl;:p
/ ~ t
l:I0~/"'AP< ,::tf:. ~FP'?r Mo'ty BE I~~E-
E. Would the project create unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) at intersections adjacent to ~71::,
or in the vicinity of the project site? V,.,JI4IDWIJ. AN 1~t;U;ncrJ CAPA&,.r'(/l-EvEt.-cF_
H so, identify: Location ~t.. <;FLJo/rGl! AfJ4t.\oSIS If: I2'FqvlRE.t> ~ WE.
Cumulative L.O.S. ').4 IAJ'FYA:.F~ I!>F J.flu.."I?:P 'DAIvrf AJi.P/.E.S
F. Is the proposed project a "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An Sr1tEEr
equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle
trips). H yes, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required. In this case the TIA will
have to demonstrate that the project will not create an unmitigatable adverse impact, or that
all related traffic impacts are not mitigated to a level of non-significance.
Yes X. No
The following questions apply if a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required.
G. Is traffic mitigation required to reduce traffic impacts that will result from implementation of
the proposed project? X Yes No
H yes. please describe0WrbEMII.I' ~ #JA'~ ~F--T"" A-t.DN&-".,e -"""""7""
F~AJTM.e. -rt> HAI.F-Wll:IT"H ~"OtN~...c. of CI.M:~:rr CL:,LI ,,- ~er- WrnI BI/:E..
Z "" ~I
i<'E'--t>F- ~~~/~~/. '1F. It. S-'-7
H. th'e project cO!1~1Stem With thtf cnteria esta U1 the lty s Trans , ftnI.EET
General Plan Traffic Element, and all other pertinent traffic studies? Please reference any
other traffic impact studies for roadway segments that may be impacted by the proposed
project. YE~. APP(..fCA"~ ~~ A r .A&lb 1><JIr Wrrv LrJW.1> ~ FRc.
~~/E.b.,.".] ~ -rJfE. r., t6._..rr7..Y_ ~""/EZ> JJfrAlb USE..
Is a traffic study required? Yes X No
Is there any dedication required? YI!';. ~"'T1HE. W0"'TlY:-r ~e. 6tJ UlA;.E..s g,-
H so, please specify."nIfS -;~~ D~ W.PLES S,kcl I~ C.J.J..a(F"II!"b A~ A
~.~c %" c,..r, .~~ ~Fr Wrru s,~ l..A,Ns; IIJ ~ t:,15..K~ ~.
5uF'FIe.r,;,Jr XlEt><<.omctJ ,S ~ulteED Tt> f-AEer 71-IE. Hdi.F-klfZ7T1-f ~s OF
SA,b 't:>1E~t~A1AT7t6J . .
WfC:F:~OU.93 (JIet. 1011.93) (lid. 10711.93) Poae 3
1
J.
Y~-"I:L
Case No.rS-45-IS
K. Is there any street widening required? >'e5. ALofJG ~r ~~ .
H so, please specify. WI bEAt. -rt:> HA-c.F-Wlb7'ff ~~AbS- OF ~(; ~ r'""", (Ft:.77JI.
~ WI'rW g,"" l.A-N.~<:.
L. Are there any other street improvements required? YfG:G.
IT so, please specify the general nature of the necessary improvements.
CU(2.(!, {;rJ"T7J:"fJ S,f)P-WALIL) A .C.P.MIt=:MF..J..f"r t:>SfVF'::WAV<:: r:;-n;>F~
" .---......-. -
L / ~f..Pr r A./r.. F?T7:..
r
M. Will the project and related public improvements provide satisfactory traffic service for
existing conditions and future buildout General Plan conditions? (please provide a ~rief
explanation). ~""-;T"1..v.;=:> YEX (F Iorf..t.. ~F<t>"(~':~ Mrr1~cN ""~IA!F'f;
/ .
~~ IMPL-Fu€J...l'rE,t;;:1 Furv!,C' ~q.,z,t:=Er IMPA.DVl!:S.AF~ WILL RF AT
,
-r1J.E:J IZ. VL "-'.AA8rE I #V".A -nel..l ~ ~ 1=J'J"").,&/r ,:-~ . FIZDN.
I
m. Soils (}t..-nfvIA"rE ~{,JE 7?; 'PA(CCE~ RZoPEIaY /"'(NE.
A.
B.
C.
Are there any anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the project site? VIIKlJo/1/N .
IT yes, specify these conditions. #J 14 .
.
Is a Soils Repon necessary? YE4:; 'PIZrct;.. TC> 7'Iff. /t;,(jJM./GF-:. t!JF: EUfLD,JJr.. PF'~I'TS.
J -
IV. Land Fonn
A. What is the average~lope of the site? ge>"
B. What is the maximu~ slope of the site? 5%
V. Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that
a noise analysis be required of the applicant? N.o.
VI. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewer) waste will be generated by the proposed pro~ per day?
Solid :2c:;o P~UAl~ 'PF..1.2... 'D4\1'
Liquid Z7D30 CA',-,e;. 'PeL> ~Y((O..;J.. E.DrJ~ '\ .
0/
What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or downstream from the site?
12'( V.G~P. qE~ LlL1~ 1JJ 1JAPL.eG 9rI1Eer WHtC,H ~w~ T'Z -rIlE. W~...;;.-r:
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? (H no, please explain) YE.t5.
WI'C:F:~CJI5TORED\1022.93 (Rd. 1021.93) (Rd. 1020.93)
Paae 4
Y5-~/.;t.
Case No. r5-45-fS
VD. National Pol1utant Dischanze Elimination Svstem CNPDES) Stonnwater Reauirements
Will the applicant be required to me a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board
for coverage under an NPDES Stonnwater Pennit? Me>.
.
. If yes, specify which NPDES pennit(s) and explain why an NPDES pennit is required. "'fA.
.
Will a Stonn Water Pollution Prevention PIan (SWPPP) be required for the proposed project?
Yes X No
Additional comments NOf-.(E.
VD. . Remarks
Please identify and discuss any remaining potential adveISe impacts. mitigation measures, or other
issues. -r'I-Ic. EVI5rfAll:. ~. rz.t:.p "".P"$Sfl.1~ TUE c:;..,I.T""'r' R2.0PELTV L<;' 'AIA~
FofL A 56-YFArL 1="~qJt:).JG." ~. ~tJ&"" ~ A.PPL.IGAIJr W,...&. Mb-r&E:.
:-::u=~ ::p;:- u:;~~~r-~:F::'::~ ::~;r;:.~
,
-ro *'T'H'E crrv 6~ CIlul.A V/1!!:TA. -r:IIE ~,LIA&~ t::A<~E.A.tr WILt. ~(ve.. T1I1!E. ~nvTHE
1Z.J~",... Tl:J CDN<~(Jt:.r MA-/~IAl """~"-nE 1Z':#lJrI::.~ ~~ .DI!l.... EAJI.a.DL5:.:T14E
- ", .
ST'Z)~ T::1t11fUrIM C/~Lf~.-..rc IN., UPaAl, ~V6=II. A-IJb A,..D.....e<:. ~ G1A.'TEL:-T 'RtJ,.s:w:-p.T)'~
rr At-so ~/"'~ -n..IE Cr-rY -n-H!:.. 1!:.(~1I'r. 'TZ> EAl*l""WV1 'JpNJ ANI> TZ> a~s ~
'f!.:"~tX. 6Ve~ A:J..lt:>. i!rl..&:JU& ~/b .~eJi.4EJJr. 71,"CSL hJl> ~~ RP"?",JltLiE)JTS
~h ~IJJAI~(~ MA-~ rr- Ne~~-~y ~ IJ,-;, S1]2.IV':-n"~ ~ RUllbfA.U$S
,4~ gVlL--r />VEIL 7'"U-E. 7:>IJ..A1tJA~E EAS5f.s.rr. AL~ -rJ.IE. RlDR!>S~" 11 CI=Pr-W/Z:1E.
.
~"A 'MI!:>~,I-I E'Ac&.fE'Jr ~HoWl.1 O#.J -rJ.H!E SfTE. PL.A#.1 IS DWLY WIf:1F ~~ Fctt..
T'JfE Extof;'77Atl; ~t, LGP. BUT Alnr kit. T1+'"E. VLrIAA~ 5Z:>-~ t)e;.I;/"ck!
,
t:>l2AJAJA.~ C::V<-ra=-Lt.
r
IJ-!P-llc:r4
. I
Date
WPC:F'~O:z2.93 ~cf. 1021.93) (W.l020.93)
PageS
DATE:
~
~.
"
_ FI3^N I
"70:
ROUTING FORM
December 13, 1994
Xen Larson, Building 6 Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cli~~ Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudol~, Asst City Attorney (Dra~t Beg Dec 6 EIR)
'i Carol Gove, Fire Department
Harty Schmidt, Parks 6 Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (Capt. %011)
Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
CUrrent Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Xate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS 6 EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Dra~t EIR - I~ annexation is involved)
Hartin Millerr Project Tracking Log (route ~orm only)
Other
~ R~ Env,jronmental Section
SuB.:TEC"l': Application ~or Initial study (IS-95-15 IFA- 664 IDO- 141 J
Checkprint Dra~t EIR (20 days) (EIR- IFB- IDO J
Review o~ a Dra~t EIR (EIR- -/FB- _/DP )
Review o~ Environmental Review Record (FC- ERR--1
Review o~ Dran Beg Dec (IS- IFA- IDQ- J
!'he Project consists o~: The remodel and expansion of an existing structure
(previously a gym, 7,159 sq. ft.) to allow for
a Moose Lodge (a p~oposed total of 12,494 sq. ft.)
and an additional 5,100 sq. ft. patio and lawn area.
25 & 33 Naples Street
Location:
Please review the dOCWll8nt and rorward to _ any comments you have
by 12/23/94
Comments:
See attached comments.
Horsfall, X330S
Case No. /.$- 9<;- L<J
FIRE DEPARTMENT
A. What is the distance to the nearest fire station'! And what is the Fire Department's estimated
reaction time'! one and\ miles. three minutes.
B. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the
proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel'! Yes
c. Remarks
~~ e. 1~
Fire Marshal
,'-...-1'-/ -CfY
Date
WPC,p,~On.93 (Rd. 1021.93) (Rd. 1020.93)
Pllofi
CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT
BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION
PLAN CORRECTION SHEET
Address 25 & 33 Naples
Is 95-15/FA-664
Plan File No. Checker Horsfall Date 12/14/94
Type Constr. Vn1
Occupancy A-2.1
No. Stories 1
Bldg. Area
The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions.
~~i1ix~~~fl.~ COMMENTS
1. A one hour fire separation is required between the proposed Moose Lodge and the
existing Group B-2 occupancy to the east.
~ 2. Type Vn construction is not allowed for Group A-2.1 occupancies. Please check
with the Building & Housing Department to see if there are any exceptions to this.
3. A fully automatic fire sprinkler system is called out on the submittal. This is
required in occupancies over 5000 sq.ft. where alcohol is to be served.
4. A fire hydrant will be required.
5. Please submit /provide information showing the square footage of the entire
commercial complex so the proper fire flow can be determined.
6. Fire flow will be reduced 50% with the installation of the fire sprinkler systew.
7. Will the patio area be covered?
8. A fire alarm system is required per Article 14 of the 1991 Uniform Fire Code and
Chapter 31A of the State Building Code. (See Matrix for SHI requirements:)
9. Exit lights, exit illumination and/or emergency lighting is required per the 1991
Uniform Building Code.
10. Please contact Sweetwater Authority to determine what the existing fire flow
is at the site at this time.
11. Interior finishes and drapes, hangings, etc. must comply with the Building
Code and Title 19, California Code of Regulations.
12. Fire acces~roads in excess of 150' require turnarounds per the fire code.
13. Fire extinguishers and a fire suppression for the kitchen will be required.
FPB-29
ROUTING FORM
D~E: December 13, 1994
...... ",.',' " t. ~'N"' V.
J..)i,...c 't r\ -;; \~
j ',,' '3.., '-';
!l'O: \ Xen Larson, Building' Housing DE.L: 1 ~ 1;.;j4
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) , 'T
\ Cliff SWanson, Engineering (EIR only) PA~V~ J \l.utl,:.,:IU~ Udl\?lttlt~,
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only) ~Kr,v"" .
\ Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolr, Asst City Attorney (Draft Beg Dec , EIR)
\Carol Gove, Fire Department
~ Harty Schmidt, Parks , Recreation
\Crime Prevention, Police Department (Capt. Zoll)
Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
\ CUrrent Planning .
\Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
\Chula Vista Elementary School District, Xate Shurson
:,SWeetwater Union H.S. District, 2'om Silva (IS' EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Drart EIR - Ir annexation ls lnvolved)
Martin Miller, Project 2'racking Log (route form only)
other
FROM:
Barbara Reid
Envlronm.ntal Section
SUBJEC'1': Application for Initial study (IS-95-15 /FA-~/DQ~ 141)
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- IFB- IDQ )
Review or a Draft EIR (EIR- _/FB- -IDP )
Review or Environmental Revi.... Record (FC- ERR--l
Revi.... or Draft Beg Dec (IS- /FA- IDQ- )
2'he Project consists or: The remodel and expansion of an .existing structure
(previously a 9ym, 7.159 sq. ft.) to allow for
a Moose Lodge (a proposed total of 12,494 sq. ft.)
and an additional 5,100 sq. ft. patio and lawn area.
Location:
25 & 33 Naples Street
Please r.view the document and forward to .. any colDllNlnts you bave
b)': 12/23/94 .
Comments:
tvo
Cot'N'"~
~.~.
,).. .'\t.t- . ~q-.
(
IULA VISTA POLICE DEPAR,,.......NT
CRIME PREVENTION UNIT
PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
17
DATE: Vc.(YI' Iq (qqS'
-
TO: 1:>"""", b_'--Y--".- ~=-,:- d , @"" VI,-c '" "" e".sr7"-<- iJj
VIA: C-P-rt hl/" :r:~)yr<-:"T,6T-rT7t-'F- ~r)~,,""'^. ,-4
FROM: 1n.:Y.i)IE'!:.ct...--.d':', S,,-. 0."-...".- n.c...."t.f)rzf'-/~ .5ft.hi,c,...{v..r
PROJECT: :;::: -S - '1 :s - I ::,
J.1et ~~ Lt>d.(....
The Crime Prevention Unit does not have any comments regarding this project at this time,
~ Information on the project. or within the plans, does not provide enough detail to permit
crime prevention analysis.
P Please forward th~ following information to the Crime Prevention Unit when available.
;>0 Elevations
...25!..-. Floor Plans
~ Landscape and Lighting Plans
Site Development Plans
Comments:
V/i /'t'/ ~ Ift:f;/h"':...k::
/
7:../r;(Fr~tlc;r/?C",,-) y:S 10 "Y-h;"
.. . (.. 1- I' f', , k I. / ) .
':, '1//1 I .J....r (' 11-"1 , '$',1 ::r iI/f2 1 /Jf r t.fi,..j/'$ -0 (/-f / It),! /IJ 1/7 / IJ1 [(..1'17
~1A1JcIm?/11 .~ 0 - ,sJ~-(,'('(f"~5' P{e/LrP krullLrtf adt:l/fr;;'T?K(
, ..
-j'!ttl1J' f,r/!/Il f7 liJ.!/I/!/;J:h, -::Cmf'rd~s eel- Y.h.~.. 6r/cdt1f
{if . it! /I. .. 0 (:C{.-P1-1 '/ I/;/ >lit!.-f ~ I t:eFt//&S
.. '-// (lUJ' .l tl..-t:J
, V
ili huff
/,; iP[:..1-
('''. .'
'. --I \
'Lf. r, l'//f..,;;' /l; /71:/
i
..J
cc: Brookover, SCA
CPTED Rauling Form
PDlcpu 06/93
, CHULA VISTA POLICE DEPAR1MENT
CRIME PREVENTION UNIT
PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
DATE: fV1~ 1& ( I q qS-
~">~ {a.n.~)
Gvt-VI-YC~
r-~-.. '-D
: - ----.:..:. .'..: ~~
TO:
VIA:
FROM: IVt1"\:);o-o d....-cb I .5C'...-PS
(Y~~ h.o~
r.i' "" 1 1995
!r'I,L;;,,\1..J ....
P'! ,. .,. "If"'\
&"''-.1 ,I ';,.J, \.J
PROJECT:
The Crime Prevention Unit does not have any comments regarding this project at this time.
-
Information on the project, or within the plans, does not provide enough detail to permit
crime prevention analysis.
Please forward the following information to the Crime Prevention Unit when available.
Elevations
Floor Plans
Landscape and Lighting Plans
Site Development Plans
*
Comments:
d
\
(J ~ c~ ..1' ,r o[ ~ f' _'\ ' f . ' .'
~ ~ ""--~_,,"L - d ~(/(^ Q 1'-.- (1-vJ-~V xf- ~,
(\ .Q;y\ V..f2A1 ,/ p /Y1 C.f _
cc: Brookover, SCA
CPTED Routing Fann
PD/cpu 06193
ROUTING FORM
D~E: December 13, 1994
2'0: Ken Larson, Building " Bousing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Bal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Ricbard Rudolf, Asst city Attorney (Draft Neg Dec " EIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Harty Schmidt, Parks " Recreation
Crime prevention, police Department (capt. Zoll)
Community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
CUrrent Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, city Landscape Arcbitect
Bob Leiter, Planning Dirf!ctor
Cbula Vista Elementary Scbool District, Kate Sburson
Sweetwater Union B.S. District, Tom SHva (IS" EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Martin Hiller, Project Tracking Log (rout. form only)
Otber
FROM:
Barbara Reid
Environmental section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-95-15 IFA- 664 IDQ- 141)
cbeckprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR- IFB- IDQ )
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- IFB- -IDP )
Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- ERR--J
Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- IFA- IDQ- )
Tbe Project consists of: The remodel and expansion of an existing structure
(previously a 9ym, 7,159 sq. ft.) to allow for
a Moose Lodge (a proposed total of 12,494 sq. ft.)
and an additional 5.100 sq. ft. patio and lawn area.
25 & 33 Naples Street
Location:
Plea.. review the dOCWll8nt and forward to .. any comments you bave
by 12/23/94 .
Comments: /ofO ~A't"H~,
i.
"I
ROUTING FORM
D~E: December 13, 1994
ro: f~.n Larson, Bul.ltUng ~ Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cli~~ SWanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Bal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudol~,. Asst city Attorney (Dra~t Neg Dec ~ BIR)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Harty Schmidt, Parks ~ R.creation
Crime Prevention, 1'o11ce Department (Capt. ~oll)
. COlllJ/Junity Development, Redev. Economic Dav. only
: CUrrent Planning
't'l".Jane .....1, ~~QI..J.ftftfftg j.
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Archit.ct
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
: Chula Vista Elementary School District,~at. Shurson
SWeetwater Union B.S. District, !'om Silva (IS 6t BIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
LA:FCO (IS/Drart EIR - I~ annexation J.s J.nvolved)
'Hartin Hiller, Project !'racking Log (rout. LOrI/J only)
Other
FROM:
Barbara Reid
Environm.ntal S.ction
SUBJECT: Appl1cation ~or Initial study (IS-95-15/FA-664 IDQ- 141)
checkprint Dran EIR (20 days) (EIR- IFB-
Revie", o~ a Dran EIR (EIR- IFB-
Revie", o~ Environmental Revi.", Record (FC-
Revie", or Dra~t Neg Dec (IS- IFA-
!'h. Project consists o~:
IDQ
IDp
ERR-
IDQ-
)
)
)
)
The remodel and expansion of an .existing structure
(previously a gym, 7,159 sq. ft.) to allow for
a Moose lodge (a proposed total of 12,494 sq. ft.)
and an additional 5,100 sq. ft. patio and lawn area.
Location:
25 & 33 Naples Street
1'1._. revi." the document and Lorvard to .. any co...nU you bav.
b~ 12/23/94 .
C01llJ/J8nts: 1!u- A~CL (?laA..... .~. ~ ~ J.oe.r. ~t ~~~
c?>~ pe. ~j.,J)" ~ ~ ~nos-.8 0.,,",~ Us.c. ~:+-
V~..,~ ~ J..... ..L '.n .. ,. \". .
~'I .' r~I~\AJ( t'l1I\'S(.I- ~t2. I-(.o\'-s.e, '1"'"'1'~ 0"- ~I~
AAA.o.4 ,+0 ~_ ~ ~ -f,> ~ c.n--,~ .,..etf Q.S pt"'Yr ~<f' +& la.-i ~
~S\~. ~~}"?,....Q .__ .
2-95 THU 16:48 CHULA
<< \
BOARD OF EDUCATION
JOSEPH D C\JM~INGS. Ph D.
SHARON GI\.fS
PArR1CK A. JJDD
PAMELI> e SMITH
Illl<EA.SI'E'fI>fR
SUPERINTENDENT
USIA S. GI~ PhD.
.....1STA
SCHOOL
~
DIST..
P..02
CllULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET . CH1JLA VISTA, CALlFOR.'{lA 91910 . 619425.9600
EACH CHILD IS AN IJI<"DMDVAL OF GREAT WORTH
December 15, 1994
Ms Barbara Reid
Environmental Secticn
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chuta Vista, CA 91910
RE: 15-95-151 FA.6641 00-141
Project: Chula Vista Moose Lodge
Applicant: Loyal Order of Moose
Address: 25 Naples Street
Dear Ms. Reid:
This is to advise you that the project located at 25 Nap!es Street, is within the
Chula Vista Elementary School District which serves children from Kindergarten
through Grade 6. Castle Park Elementary is the home school for this project.
District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of 2-112-4 percent over the
past several years, and this is projected to continue. Permanent capacity has
been exceeded at many schools and temporary relocatable classrooms are
being utilized to accommodate increased enrollments. The District also buses
students outside their attendance areas, both to accommodate growth and assist
in achieving ethnic balance.
State law currently provides for a developer fee of $.28 for non-residential area
to be charged (Chula Vista Elementary School District - $.13/square foot;
Sweetwater Union High School District - $. 15/square foot) to assist in financing
facilities needed to serve growth, Since this project is a renovation of an existing
building, fees will only be charged on new square footage.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
~ g\.~~
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc: Loyal Order of Moose
'-
ROUTING FORM
D~E: December 13, 1994
ro: Ken Larson, Building Ii Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Asst city Attorney (Draft Neg Dec Ii EIR)
Carol Gave, Fire Department
Harty Schmidt, Parks Ii Recreation
Crime Prevention, Police Department (Capt. Zoll)
community Development, Redev. Economic Dev. only
Current Planning
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, city Land~cape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, ~om Silva (IS Ii EIR)
HaureenRoeber, Library (Final EIR)
LAFCO (IS/Draft EIR - If annexation is involved)
Hartin Miller, Project ~racking Log (route form only)
Other
FROM:
Barbara Reid
Environmental Section
SUBJECT: Application for Initial Study (IS-95-15 /FA-~DO.- 141,
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days) (EIR-_/FB-_/DO. ,
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- IFB- /DP ,
Review of Environmental Review Record (FC- ERR--l
Review of Draft Neg Dec (IS- fFA- fD()- I
~he Project consists of: The remodel and expansion of an .existing structure
(previously a 9ym, 7,159 sq. ft.) to allow. for
a Moose Lodge (a proposed total of 12,494 sq. ft.)
and an additional 5,100 sq. ft. patio and lawn area.
25 & 33 Naples Street
Location:
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have
by 12/23/94 .
Comments:
----;: J
/( /-;'_.~
~/ :r/.. ?/~".-
~ .? -/ "/,
/
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chule Viste, Cali'ornla 91911-2896
(619) 691-5500
,-:,.,.... (
'- r.hU L
Division of Planning and Facilities
p, /..
. "- i' '.,
January 4, 1995
Mr. Douglas Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Reid:
Re: Case No. IS.95.151Local Order of Moose Chula Vista Lodge #1927
The above project will have an impact on the Sweetwater Union High School
District. Payment of school fees will be required pursuant to Government Code
No. 65995 (Developer Fees) prior to issuance of building permit.
S;4:~
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TS/ml
,
,
,WEETWATER AUTHO'
..
~~f.T'W!4)',
~~..-~
< ~i~
:P(ft:;c.'.1,
"1t0'"
505 GARRETT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91912.2328
(619) 420-1413
FAX (619) 425-7469
GOVERNING SOARD
BUD POCKlINGTON, CHAIRMAN
GEORGE H WATERS. VICE CHAIRMAN
SUE JARRETT
EDWIN J STEELE
MARGARET A. WElSH
JAMES S WQlNIEWICZ
_ _~ CAR\' F. WRIGHT
January 4, 1995
J!.,-
"':'IJ .'?
v i9c~
, v.)
WANDA AVERY
TREASURER
ClAN J REEVES
SECRETARY-ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE
r .....'
""
....".'"'\
". ~ '...::I
Mr. Douglas Reid
City of Chula vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: WATER AVAILABILITY
PROPOSED MOOSE LODGE
25 AND 33 NAPLES STREET
CASE NO: IS-95-15
SWA Dev. File: Moose Lodge
Dear Mr. Reid:
This letter is in response to your Notice of Initial Study for the
subject project within the Sweetwater Authority service area.
There is a 6-inch A.C. water main located on the north side of
Naples Street adjacent to the proposed development. Our records
indicate that there is no water service to this property. Enclosed
is a copy of 1/4 SEC. 120 map which shows the existing water
facilities.
At this time, we cannot comment on the adequacy of the existing
system to provide fire protection for this project. However, with
the only fire hydrant on this portion of Naples Street being on a
dead end 6-inch main, providing the required fire flQw without
upgrades to the water facilities cou14 be a problem. As plans
develop for structures, the Owner must submit a letter to the
Authority from the appropriate fire agency stating fire flow
requirements. Based on this requirement, this project may result
in the need for new water systems or substantial alteration to the
existing water system. The Authority recommends that your Agency
work with ours to determine if the existing water facilities are
adequate to meet the added demands prior to issuing a building
permit.
If the Owner provides the required fire flow information and enters
into an agreement for water facility improvements with the
Authority, water service can be obtained at a pressure ranging from
a maximum of 74 p.s.i. to a minimum of 59 p.s.i.
A Public Agency,
Serving National City, ChuUz Vista and Surrounding Areas
Mr. Douglas Reid
city of Chula vista
Re: Water Availability
Proposed 31 Townhome Project
25 and 33 Naples street
January 4, 1995
page two
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Russell Collins at
420-1413, ext. 639.
very truly yours,
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
~.~
L. Smyth
Engineer
JLS:RC:ln
k:\lorelei\wp51~.e.ltr
enclosure:
photocopy of 1/4 SEC. 120 map
pc: Moose Lodge No. 1927
2638 Main Street
Chula vista, CA 91911
,.r-
,.,. .
/j
1,'-'./
~~~ :>~~ "y
I . tJ~~.
.t. .:.~ n h :,rtr
-i- ~/ ~~1 ~
ii fj
.
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
1
,
.1
I
I
I""
...
I
I
I
I
I
::J lEG. t.;.>
I.
G04-f
.1
I
,
I.
I
I
I
!
I I t)
I . "7'Y'
! it)
I I
i,
(. ~
f-
~
t
I .
I . I
J...;IJ !._~
~7::~
11 1?i.!2 fR .
II',[>-'I::~"'"
I ,,;:: tv Ef "'"
I , 7 ,3twa'.I)
o >..::c.
"'4 <!> & I!J J1.;:
Il' Q;... 1e>',,",
I=...~.
u ~
...' taMI!'~
.t!C;; ... .t;..I~1
)31#a~
-. I- t. P:.!l..l .
,
I
I
,
I
I
M&II.
..-i,
,.,."..,
'."7415
........ Iii
,..,....~
.,
"
.-..0
~.!~::!~ - -
llr..q .~ ~_
-63
.....,.
....'
-.. _-W
eao2 - ".-.0
...,.. tnJ '."'t
..... -
.....,~
1- : ,.
....... '..
~- ....."',
..
-- I- 3~
- ,-...
-..
--
~ .-,..
. \IIICio,.M
-... ~-
.- ,,..,-
f- - ,.
.n
-- . ~.. - -...-.._-
'. ,_.
:
'_\....UO
J
1&1
...,
t'5
..
-
-
mc
~g
PROJECT SITE
!.
I I
-
.~~'h~l.o.
_v
- I-
I-
---=: -1 ..I,~
.~ <( ~ I -... !'..na -~
-li ""- I j!
~ ~ "_~ :)j~"a >:<( 0'. ,,_
aT <(-J~: _j
~~~ '''_, ~ ",~r-~ .--.. ~ n....
- . ....
4 t- ~'T" ( It
... W U """'" r:l <(r-Jl"....~.- :;=
;:::=~;, ~. d '11
~.' ,1- -' ~t\I
.e 0:: i nor,s '...". (/) i ......... . ~ ~~~-
~f-! Z3 lO H . 6 II'
.' Q
Z"~' > .....'"!_!"' _>
U ......... I- wo._.. Co'
~ I- . we': ,.--"""".. I
-nIIR Ie 4eO'-"':CA.;.... ""e..ar;o I I j '-
~-nHILL O~ i IC'I I E ';=
37 ~ I E - 42 4.1 .. 'f
~ I "'. _'fwtl"TCO :>- .
~"AlQM w. ~.."": ~..~ tt\e.
,~~:-Q" UI_.
;" .~ '\ ,."
i ~~~ I Q
-
.
~~~
--'5 w:>oeB i-
."
tM.JS7 71 ftA,oI.., I-
,-
f-
,,,- ~
R..... ,..jj CL..Ue.
IC1CO 0 _
J'
~
.,..,'" ~~
MA.P ~:
,tt't0'Z': ~O'
;,
1r"J05 . I t~'2
1--'
c:: ~~ '
z,c,o 0 ~~: --
'i I
t'E"tlOeo ~ I ,...... 83 5
~I:
Ii"
Ie"TCG (f: --.... .."
2IUlIo. '111:1 ~II aU..'
3313_ ~~ ~.~
~ : I (.....,....)
-u~:
.. '
~:,o, -.u...
3U ~~ I ~za3
2~ :
--
.-
I-
-i-
H08
,-.on '_00 I-
..--- ......r~w....1
2c;.AG. I ~....'"
I_I
.
-- Z -1'-,' .......
.. ,
,
-~X-~* .-
1)1
I
O-~f. .-
'2Ga& ,. I
R..... ~ 1<1----
'8aI!W& .. f.- "'r~
4 "
C>~ .U,....o 2
,.-..., ~ i ,...u..
AI=' .': 2G.e!!1i1
,eGraI& ~"''''t'J'r... I"
.... ~'f I .___. ow
,...~ I-
'.......
.-
_LL
u.." 0
,-..:;.-. -~
I)
.- -~
...... J.
<i
o
,.-0 .It
...... -I
'0
I)
(/) ~
I
"" .i=
., e 53 ~;
!-~
,,,- I- .
.--
'''''''''
-
~.
U
"C
..,8GoI!t \"TSee. I- .
'" Z -II
'-i-~
.. ,.
Ia.
'--
-.
~'7() ..c.
'--
&4
.4
.~NAPLES ST
! f _
In
.....,
-
. :.;;~
nee!
---- I. ,6
,.,..... t'\ I-
f'IJ'''' 171,^ ~
.
-
..'
.-
..
....,
.-- -'"
....., >; -~
= _::>-~
2~
taG- .--a ....i.
.-." q ,....-~
,.......1 .- A -'i
, ..--:0 t;
=:;~.~w: ,.,..., > -
..~ ",16
,.,..,.n ......p
-!
...... ~ Bo-...J ~
,.,......~~~.--.I
......, ,~~ .-.-
1-
,.,.... ~ ^
.-- ( ........ -
O( "I..
n_ ....... - I
I.. 11
~ la-
,
0 ~
~
~
.
4
Ii
ill
.
-~
~
-
.
_....~
.-..D
-!
....."TO~ .
........
a
I....... r
-~
-=~
0
""14.
'8.....&
......... I .
'''04-' .. ..
.
~~
"
, '.
. .
~.
.,...
-
"
,
-WEETWATER AUTHORIT'
505 GARRETT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91912-2328
(619) 420-1413
FAX (619) 425-7469
GOVERNING BO"RD
BUD POCKLINGTON. CHAIRMA'"
GEOAGE H. WATERS. VICE CHAIRMAN
SUE JARRETT
EDWIN J. STEELE
MARGARET #t. WELSH
JAMES S. WOlNIEWICZ
CARY f. WRIGHT
WANDA AVERY
TREASURER
OIAN J. REEVES
SECRETARY-ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE
January 27, 1995
Mr. Tom Bushfield
Roy Johnson Architect
7830 La Mesa Blvd., suite A
La Mesa, CA 91941
subject: CHULA VISTA FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY
25 & 33 NAPLES STREET
SWA DEV. FILE: MOOSE LODGE
Dear Mr. Bushfield:
The 1500 GPM fire' flow at 20 p.s.i. residual pressure for a 2-hour
duration as required by the Chula vista Fire Department will be
available upon installation of an 8-inch fire service to serve the
required on-site fire hydrant.
To meet the required flow, the Authority recommends that an 8-inch
pipe be installed up to the on-site hydrant.
If you have any questions, please call Mr. Russell Collins at 420-
1413, ext 639.
Very truly yours,
r\EETWATER AUTHORITY
r;~.~~f!0
\;hief Engineer
JLS:RC:ln
k:\Lorelei\wpS1\mOOse2.ltr
pc: Ms. Carol Gove
city of Chu1a vista
Fire Department
447 tlFtI street
Chula vista, CA 91910
A Public Agency,
Serving National City, Chula Vista and Surrounding Areas
Case No. Is-95- IS-
APPENDIX IV
Comments
Received During the Public Review Period
_ No Comments Were Received During the Public Review Period
.
"'1'C~GISTOREINOn93 <Rei. 102l.93) (Ref. 1020.93)
R--,..-- ~.. .,. _.--"
..:.. ',...,:':-t \/ .::. ' ...
,,. 'iO .-. -:1"~
...1-'.1-.1 ~ I,:I~._~'
DOUGLAS D. REID
E. R. COORDINATOR
R.E. CASE # IS-95-15
PLANNiNG
THIS IS IN REGARDS TO IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED MOOSE LODGE TO BE LOCATED
AT 25 & 33 NAPLES ST.
WE THINK IT WOULD HAVE A SEVERE NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT OF
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR SEVERAL REASONS.
* TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION:
NAPLES ST. HAS BECOME A MAIN STREAM OF TRAFFIC SINCE OPENING THROUGH
TO TELEGRAPH CYN. RD., COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, AND SOUTHWEST COLLEGE AND
TRAFFIC IS ALREADY CONGESTED AND OVERLOADED AT PEAK HOURS~COMMUTERS TO
AND FROM WORK PLUS THE TRANSPORT OF CHILDREN TO AND FROM SCHOOLS BY
PARENTS AND SCHOOL BUSES.
TO ADD TO THIS WOULD CAUSE GRIDLOCK ON NAPLES ST., ESPECIALLY BETWEEN
TOBIAS DR., VISTA WAY, AND HILLTOP DR.
THERE ARE MORE ACCIDENTS HAPPENING NOW ON NAPLES ST. AT THAT ADDRESS
EVEN WITH A VACANT LOT THERE. IT IS COMMONPLACE FOR TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
AT THOSE TWO DRIVEWAYS NOW AND WILL BECOME MUCH WORSE BY ALLOWING
SEVERAL HUNDRED MORE ADDED VEHICLE USAGE PER A D T STUDY
THAT ADT STUDY SHOULD INCLUDE TOBIAS DR., VISTA WAY, NAPLES ST., AND
OTHERS AS WELL AS HILLTOP DRIVE.
* PROXIMITY TO SCHOOLS:
THERE ARE TWO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN THIS AREA AND THEY ARE ONLY A FEW
HUNDRED FEET FROM THIS SAME LOCATION, ONE IS AT EMERSON ST. &VISTA WAY
AND THE OTHER AT EMERSON ST. & CUYAMACA
MANY CHILDREN HAVE ONLY THE NAPLES ST. ROUTE TO WALK TO AND FROM SCHOOL.
THIS IS THE FOOT TRAFFIC ROUTE ALSO FOR THESE CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS.
THEY SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO MORE VEHICLE TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION THAT
WOULD ADDED TO THE COMMUNITY IF THIS LODGE IS BUILT HERE.
* DETRIMENTAL EFFECT:
THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. A LODGE SUCH AS THE MOOSE PROPOSES
SHOULD NOT BE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
THE LODGE WOULD BE A PLACE FOR DRINKING ALCOHOL AND FOR SOCIAL ACTIVITIES
OF A PARTY NATURE WHICH WOULD SURELY CREATE AN ATMOSPHERE OF NOISE,
TRAFFIC CONGESTION, AND GENERAL DISRUPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD PEACE AND QUIET
THAT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE THAT TYPE OF
BUSINESS COME INTO OUR MID~.
THESE ARE OUR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS IS-95-15.
THANK YOU FOR READING.
MR. AND MRS. MACK BEAUMONT
1101 TOBIAS DR.
March 9, ]995
I, Elizabeth Hoffman do hereby authorize Wayne EIIsworth to
represent my interests at the Chula Vista Planning Department meeting
March 9, 1995. I am the property owner of the address of 36 Hilltop
Court.
<? fncl lJ /7CjS/
~~M//; ~
(, IIV
I
March 9, 1995
In regards to CASE NO: DRC-95-24 IS-95-15
PCC-95-26
LOCATION 24 & 33 NAPLES ST
PROJECT CHULA VISTA MOOSE LODGE
We, the residents of 40 Hilltop Court, are assigning our proxy to
matters at hand pertaining to the Chu1a Vista Moose Lodge project
and its possible impact on our neighborhood to ~. C. Wayne Ellsworth,
our neighbor' at 32 Hilltop Court for this public town meeting of
March 9, 1995.
JLxu
T'rlEODORE J. BURGE
DEBRA L. JONES
40 HILLTOP COURT
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911
(619) 498-1716
DARNELL & ASSOCIATES
TEL NO.619-233-4034
Apr 3,95 9:58 No.002 P.02
. .
Darnell & ASSOCIATJ<:S, INC.
TRANSPORTATION PlA.NNING. TRAFFIC [NGINtERING
January 18, 1995
Mr. Andrew Smitko,
Administrator
Loyal Order (If Moose
Chula Vista Lodge #1927
2638 Main Strcct, Suitc L
Chula Vi5ta, CA 91911
D&A Ref. Nu.: 950104
Subject:
Traffic Impact Analysis for New Mousc I.odge in Chula Vista
Dear Mr. Smitko:
In accordance with your authorir.allon, Darnell &. Associatcs, Inc. (D&A), has completed our tramc
Impact analysis relallve to the proposed relocatiun ufthe Moosc l.odge #1927 to Naples Street nc.ar
Hilltop Drive In the City of" Chula Vista. This report addrefoSCs cxi5ting t('ntlitions, existing plus
project conditions, and Identifies any traMe associated Impacl$.
INTRODUCTION
Thc Loyal Order of Moose In 927 Is pmposing to relocatc thclr existing operations from Main Street
In ChuJa Vista to Naples Street near IlIlItop Drive. Figure J depict. II cencral vicinity map of the
project location. t:lgure 2 depk.'tJ; the proposed sllc plan for the new lodce. 'Ibe building area is
comprised of approximately J2,5OO IiqUlre feet once the final phase of expansion II complete.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Currently, the propoled building lite houses IIn cxisting vacant building and adjllccnt parking lot.
Although the builtling abuts a small strip commercJal centcr, there is currently no traffic generated
Immediately on aite. The pr~"Vious land usc for thc vacant building was a Safcway lupermarket. 1be
trip generation potenllal of the commerclal use was 1 SO trip; per 1,000 square feel. The previous
trip acneration al this site wuuld have been approximatcly 2,1150 daily trips.
Naplcs Street 15 a two-lane light collector road with appwximately 40. paved surface at the projCc.1
frontage and no turn pockets. The speed limit on Naplc~ is 25 mph. Future. classification of the
road Is a Qass 2 Collector (Ihree Janes).
Due to the prOJlmlty of Ihe proposed site to the cmner of Naples Slreel and HJlllop Drive, a peak
hour traffic counl was conducted 10 determine the ex/slinS operating characteristics at this sIgnalized
intersection. Counl data was collected l'n a clear Tuesday, January 17, ) 995, from 7-9am and 4-()pm.
The existing AMlPM peak hour traffic is depicted nn Figure 3. TIle count data sheets arc included
as an attachment to this report.
1202 KETTNtR BOULEVARD' SUITE B. SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101
"HON~: 619.2a3.93/a . 'AX, 6192334034
..
'~r
ST
~ U
= z
-
.... ~
'" rn
i
BLVD . ~
0
'- tr.I
- tr.I
i <
-4cp r \ ~
, '" -
I -
Q)
~
! --.......
t ~
I /"'"' '. ~
,-
0
--
~ c\
170'
...
= 8~1,
- ~~I
~ 1,,<"
~ 0
D-
..-<(
:2
w
0::>-
~t-
GZ
lL... U
>
~rn
:
.", \
I!; ~
~~
:.::
,
,
\.
II
I
~:L_
"'I'
t':'''
"
,
t~\
L::I
"\
i
I ."
,
. i
. ,
~-
:,!
..;:
1
:,
.1
ii
,
"
,
2~
i"
- .
,,~
.
'"
'L
.~ ::,~
t \~
. ,-..... \
.....
-1..""
.
. .
~'t
~~
h
5~~
=:~
,.
.~.J.
;.....
\
.
>
<"
.-
:~
~~
,,~
J
~l
J"
."
:
~
.
:
~
.
\ ~
;; ..:::
o:.u,
.""J.%
......:$~
.
r.,
1..-.51'-
iH~ .
a~ ~r::: ~
>
"
:' ,I
..
," ,'T
- ,
-
~
.. .
'"
" t-
\'
~
t
~.
\
:
.\
'i -:
= 11')'"
~ .... ~
~ J..... j :..
, . \.l... I
I : ') "'
s%:
:
A"'~
--:) 'r"1~1^
.
!.
!
~. ~I
.
.- ~'14'.1
(
00JZ
<(
W -.J
a:: 0....
:::::>w
01-
Li... -
(f)
c:.J
1:5
~
E:)
o
~
~
<
o1d
.....->I
.....->I
(1)
~
~
d
~
\ -
-
CD r<') 0
CDex)'<:j- L (f)
..........,.......... 114/84
ex) ",CD W
'<:j- t.() ..- ~
224/279
..- ~ :::::>
---,~.. --...J'-.- ~t.--. 56/94 -.J
,."...~ '," 0
>
HILL TOP DRIVE U
~
70/94 ~ I I" LL
I"") LL
f'.. ..- J.{) <(
253/295 ~ 0 '<:j- f'.. wQ::
'"
,.......... .......... Q:: I-
m
18/64 , J.{) ex) '" :::::>
ex) r<') GL
..-
-0....
LL'-...,
L
<(
I-
W
w G
~
VI Z
VI I-
w
...J (f)
c..
< .'
z X
W
W
l-
(/) .:
I- ~ :
.'
() .'
.:
W :.
.'
J ::
0 ~
a::::
a..
~
0
tI2
~
~
......
......
Q)
A <p ' , ~
~
cO
Q
Mr. Andrew Smitko,
Loyal Order of Moose
January 18, 1995
Page 5
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of Service (LOS) is a professional industry standard by which to measure the operating
conditions of a given roadway segment or intersection. Level of service is defined on a scale of A
to F, where LOS A represents free flowing traffic conditions with no restrictions on maneuvering
or operating speeds, low traffic volumes and high speeds; LOS B represents stable flow, more
restrictions, operating speeds beginning to be affected by traffic volumes; LOS C represents stable
flow, more restrictions, speed and maneuverability more closely controlled by higher traffic volumes;
LOS D represents conditions approaching unstable flow, traffic volumes profoundly affect arterials;
LOS E represents unstable flow, and some stoppages; and LOS F represents forced flow, many
stoppages, and low operating speeds. The City of Chula Vista encourages operation of LOS D or
better at existing intersections and roadway segments.
EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE
The LOS for the signalized intersection of Hilltop/Naples was analyzed using the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) software, consistent with City of Chula Vista analysis procedures. The existing
conditions analysis determined that the intersection of Hilltop/Naples currently operates at LOS B
for both the AM and PM peak periods. The HCM worksheets are included in the attachment to
this report.
PROJECf RELATED CONDITIONS
In discussions with Moose Lodge members as well as the shift bartender at the existing lodge, the
operating characteristics of the lodge was determined to be as follows:
Dav
Hours of
Operation
Monday-Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
llam-llpm
llam-12am
lOam-llpm
, 7am-8pm
Every 2nd and 4th Monday of the month, the Lodge sponsors a lunch for senior citizens. The
majority of the seniors arrive in vanpools or by bus. The lunch serves between 150-200 persons.
Lunch on these days is served from 12-2pm. On other days, there is no lunch service.
Standard dinner functions occur on Friday nights from 6-7:30pm, serving 70-80 persons. Special
function dinners (once per month on Saturdays) serve 150-200 persons.
Evening functions could include group meetings of up to ten (10) persons.
The Lodge is closed on Holidays.
Mr. Andrew Smitko,
Loyal Order of Moose
January 18, 1995
Page 6
During regular business hours described above, the Lodge bar and game tables are open for use.
On an average weekday, the Lodge may receive up to 40 persons for these uses. On a weekend, it
is expected to be approximately 60 patrons.
Staffing at the Lodge includes one (1) manager and one (1) bartender on the premises at anyone
time. Kitchen help is voluntary and may include up to four (4) people for food preparation during
special events.
TRIP GENERATION
Due to the very specific use of the proposed project, there are currently no published trip generation
rates for this type of facility. Therefore, utilizing the discussion above on operating characteristics,
the following table quantifies the potential daily trips generated by this project on various days of
the week.
I TRIP GENERATION FOR MOOSE LODGE I
Worst-Case Dally Patronage
Monday Friday Saturday Sunday
EmployeesNolunteers 6 6 6 6
Bar/Games 40 40 60 60
Dinner 0 60 200 0
Senior Citizen Lunch 200 0 0 0
Breakfast 0 0 0 70
Evening Meeting 10 0 0 0
Total Patronage 256 126 266 136
Daily Trips 1 512 252 532 272
Sr. Citizen Ride Share2 (100) 0 0 0
Average Daily Traffic 412 252 532 272
1 Daily trips are calculated as one inbound and one outbound per patron or 2 trips per patron
2 Sr. Citizen ride share reduction assumes 2 persons per vehicle
Mr. Andrew Smitko,
Loyal Order of Moose
January 18, 1995
Page 7
Peak hour traffic can be quantified by determining approximately how much of the daily traffic
generated by the project occurs during the City's weekday AMIPM peak hours. The peak hour is
identified as the highest traffic volumes during four consecutive 15 minute intervals of the peak
period. As stated previously, count data was collected between the peak periods of 7-9am and 4-
6pm. Review of the existing counts conducted on January 17 identify the peak hour at the
intersection of Hilltop/Naples to occur from 7:15-8:15am, and 5:00-6:00pm.
The Moose Lodge does not conduct business prior to 11:00am Monday through Friday, therefore,
this project does not have a morning peak hour impact. The worst-case weekday evening peak
scenario identified above would occur on Friday. Assuming that the 80 dinner patrons all arrived
in individual vehicles prior to the 6:00 serving, this would account for 80 peak hour trips. For the
purposes of a worst-case analysis, 80 peak hour trips were distributed to the surrounding street
system. Fifty (50) percent of the traffic was distributed to the east and 50% to the west. Figure 4
depicts the project trip distribution and related PM peak hour traffic volumes.
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
The project related volumes shown in Figure 4 were added to the existing traffic at the intersection
of Hilltop/Naples. These volumes are presented on Figure 5. Again, it should be noted that the
project does not effect the morning peak hour traffic. These volumes were analyzed for intersection
operation using the HCM methodology. The intersection of Hilltop/Naples will operate at LOS B
for both peak periods with the addition of project traffic. HCM worksheets are included in the
attachment to this report.
CIRCULATION & ACCESS
The existing parcel provides two access points from Naples Street. The site plan proposes to remove
the existing 15' driveways to provide new 30' driveways adjacent to the existing ones. The 30'
driveways provide adequate width to accommodate ingress and egress traffic. However, the
westernmost access creates an offset with Tobias Drive. It is our recommendation this access be
moved farther west to best align with Tobias Drive, thus reducing left turn conflicts entering the
project versus entering Tobias Drive.
The circulation within the proposed parking lot provides 24' wide roadways, which is consistent with
City policy and adequate for safe traffic flow. The turning radius beneath the porte-cochere at the
south of the building provides adequate clearance for cars, although trucks will not be able to
successfully navigate this movement. In discussions with Lodge members, there is one truck delivery
per week which occurs prior to opening. The truck would not be required to negotiate beneath the
porte-cochere as the parking lot would be empty.
D&A would also recommend that the parking layout be restructured along Naples Street to allow
perpendicular slots. By pushing back the proposed planters and removing four spaces at the end of
each row, the overall net gain of perpendicular parking will be 4-5 spaces, with increased circulation,
turning radii, and safety. Refer to Figure 6 for a schematic of these recommended improvements.
HILLTOP
.
to U
..- LL
~ L LL
~ <(
o. 0:::
N f-
"-' ~
~ , ~ .- (12.5%) 10 ~
<(
W
DRIVE Q..
-.J I t r "<d-L
WQ..
~ "<t- to 0 0:::::0
..- ..- ..-
(17.5%) 14 ~~ ~ =>w
-. ~ ~ ~ Gf-
L{) 0 L{) LL<(
. N N
f"-. "-' --.J
..- ..- W
"-' "-'
0:::
..... f-
w t u
w
1= w
(/) ~
(/) 0 0
W
...J "<t- O:::
c..
<( ~ Q..
z ~ ()
0 wlL..
W L{) ~1L..
~ "-' :::><(
(f) -JO:::
~ 01-
~ >::.::
::.::<(
U <(w
w I wo..
J
0 o..~ t..i
0:: ~<( 15
CL 0 0..0
"<t- .........Z en
N ~
.---.. (/)
~ z<(
0 o:I: 0
L.{') 1=1- <n
"-' :::>() en
(Dw <
, - -:> ~
g:o
(/)0::: .....-I
a -a.. -
a Q)
, , z 9::~
w ~
c.:>
w g:o ~
-J .....-Z ~
~
.lcp
U
lL-
LL
<{
a::::
I---
~
tOmo <{
tOm v L W
".:::::." 114/84 0-
coNtO
V ..-
lr) 224/279 :2
..- ~
0-
~ , ~ , 56/104 "-
:2
HILL TOP DRIVE L()<{
~ I t I WI---
70/94 a::::U
::::>w
253/295 ~ ..- r--- L.() 0-::>
N L.() co -0
..- N " LLa::::
18/78 , "" m
L.() co N 0-
co n
..- (j')
::::>
-1
0-
f-
LLI
LLI 0
I!"
VI Z
VI I---
LLI
....J (j')
a..
<
z X
W
W
I-
(j)
I-
U I:i
w i!:i
-:>
0 rn
a::::
a... ~
t.)
0
~
~
-0:
old
~
-4 cp , , ~
Q,)
~
~
cd
Q
I
d
JI .,.....
JI_ '\
j h
~ I ~ r
"I l~
i
"
Ji"
!~"i
g!L
;~j
<
Ii
!' ;B
I to::
:'-'
~ J
:1
~ I
J
I
,
I
,
'-
~
~
....'....':;. :z:.g
~~::::~ ~ H:
t~~;. ~~~$
,J.J.'I'n.
-., "'.!..~I^
,
~
1.-;
I~I
~ ,"
(,
-. 3,..
::'i' ~~ \'
~: ~~ 1./
....,.. ..
. ,
,I .!:
I ,I'
, ''': , '
~E ~
~ ~ ~
~<
~ ,
, .
'. I!')"
!: ~... '-
. t!: 1 ':-
.. .....J ~ .
. \., ~ - t -
~ """
_ :z:
;g
\
.~
.i j ----I
.. .~~i'_~_,~,^",!f'
't _.::..: -'r'C,jO.1.
..""--'-.
I
(
--0: Q ~
(/)
~
Z
W
~
W
>
o
0::::
CL.
~
(()Z
o
w-
O::::~
::)<C
G--.J
- ::)
lL..U
0::::
U
o
W
o
Z
w
~
~
o
u
W
0::::
~
~
rn
~
o
rn
~
~
.......c
.......c
Q)
~
~
ctj
~
DARNELL & ASSOCIATES
1____
.
TEL No.619-233-4034
Apr 3.95 9:58 No.002 P.03
Mr. Andrew Smitko,
Loyal Ord~r of Moose
January 18, 1995
Page 11
IMPACTS
'Ibe proposed project does not have 11 morning peak hOllt Impact. The evening peak hour impact
atlhe Intersection ()f Hilltop/Naples docs not cause tht'. e.xisting levc.\ of service to decline from LOS
B.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The project should be respon~ible for sidewalk and ha!f.width improvements along Ihe pwje.ct
frontage on Naples Street.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS" CONCLlJSIONS
1. The intersection of Hilltop/NapJcs currcntly operate's al LOS B for both peak periods,
2. The previous cummerdal use on the pwje.et site generaKd approximately 2.850 daily
vehicles. 'Ibe proposed projel..1 will generate a maximum of 4!2 trips on a weekday and ~32
trips on a weekend.
3. The opcrating characteristics of tilt: proposed Moose Lodge will not have II morning peak
hour Impact. The worst-case. weekday evcning peak hour traffic Impact of 80 trips docs not
cause the LOS at Hilltnp/Naplcs 10 decJlne bclow Its txistlng opcratlon.
4, Access and circulation recommendati()n~ arc noted on Figure 6.
If you have any questions or require addltlonallnformatinn, please fccl free 10 oonl4C1 this office.
Sincerely. .
DARNELL & ASSOCIATES,l
. . ), (.~SI(JfM~
/;~, 'k,6AiiiVfl <'1~'~.
, ''f.;rY '< ~ .
"':'("" ~ \\
:": ~o.~\..1 ~.~ .
.:': ~",,\'>J' -{r
~', . :<
, ,.
'," C:I'J\\.. ~~
";:,,,:.~, , ... ~,S~>~
~-w~
ill B. Darnell, P.E.
BF.D/bh
O1011otOOS.RPTIDS-I
Attachments
~ Count Data Summaries
~ HCM Worksheets
PM PEAK 1622
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
PM COUNT
DATE COUNT TAKEN: 1-17-95 CITY: CHULA VISTA
INTERSECTION: HILL TOP INAPLES
PEAK HOUR: 5.00 PM TO 6.00 PM
(E/W STREET) (N/S STREET)
------------------------------ ------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
-------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- Peak
Time L T R L T R L T R L T R E+W N+S Total Hour
-------- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ----- ----
3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 29 54 15 10 33 9 12 85 9 15 78 29 150 228 378
4:15 PM 35 52 17 4 51 11 22 68 7 16 80 33 170 226 396 774
4:30 PM 30 54 14 4 31 11 6 72 5 12 80 34 144 209 353 1127
4:45 PM 31 69 13 4 43 14 22 71 7 20 84 31 174 235 409 1536
5:00 PM 36 63 12 9 31 13 15 74 13 13 70 32 164 217 381 1539
5:15 PM 27 53 24 10 45 15 26 77 13 27 69 17 174 229 403 1546
5:30 PM 24 56 16 9 50 17 26 75 16 27 74 16 172 234 406 1599
5:45 PM 20 69 23 12 57 21 27 69 22 27 66 19 202 230 432 1622
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 1241
6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 838 1622
PEAK
PERIOD
107 241
o 0
75 40 183 66
000 0
94 295 64
000
94 279
o 0
84
o
k(
AM PEAK 1203
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
AM COUNT
DATE COUNT TAKEN: 1-17-95 CITY: CHULA VISTA
INTERSECTION: HILLTOPINAPLES
PEAK HOUR: 7.15 AM TO 8.15 AM
(E/W STREET) (N/S STREET)
------------------------------ ------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
-------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- Peak
Time L T R L T R L T R L T R E+W N+S Total Hour
-------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ----- ----
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 17 22 7 2 39 " 15 43 3 7 35 18 98 121 219 219
7:15 AM 38 29 12 7 52 16 17 71 6 10 66 29 154 199 353 572
7:30 AM 25 40 6 4 35 15 12 71 4 24 75 31 125 217 342 914
7:45 AM 9 26 4 2 33 6 15 54 2 7 44 35 80 157 237 1151
8:00 AM 13 43 7 3 32 11 26 57 6 15 39 19 109 162 271 1203
8:15 AM 33 33 11 4 47 13 26 64 9 13 54 34 141 200 341 1191
8:30 AM 25 37 5 6 49 17 7 50 15 14 48 25 139 159 298 1147
8:45 AM 25 18 7 5 39 12 15 59 3 5 44 22 106 148 254 1164 1203
PEAK
PERIOD
85 138
o 0
29 16 152 48
o 0 0 0
70 253 18
000
56 224 114
000
A-v
..
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
01-18-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Streets: (N-S) HILLTOP
Analyst: DARNELL BH
Area Type: Other
Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS
(E-W) NAPLES
File Name: HILNAPXA.HC9
1-18-95 AM PEAK
==--=============---=--=--===--===--=========--=============
No. Lanes
VoLumes
Lane Width
RTOR Vets
I Northbound I Southbound I Eastbound I Westbound
I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----
I 1 1 < I 1 1 1 I 1 1 < I 1 1 <
I 56 224 1141 70 253 181 85 138 291 16 152 48
112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0
I 101 21 31 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8
Na left * IE8 Left *
Thru * I Thru *
Right * I Right *
Peds * I Peds *
sa Left * Iwa Left *
Thru * I Thru *
Right * I Right *
Peds * I Peds *
Ea Right INa Right
W8 Right Isa Right
Green 42.0A I Green 42.0A
Yellow/A-R 3.0 IYellow/A- 3.0
Lost Time 3.0 I Lost Time 3.0
eye le Length: 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c glC Approach:
"vmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
Na L 483 1034 0.12 0.47 10.3 8 10.6 8
TR 791 1694 0.44 0.47 10.6 a
S8 L 434 931 0.17 0.47 10.6 a 9.9 a
T 832 1782 0.32 0.47 9.8 B
R 703 1506 0.02 0.47 8.4 a
Ea L 549 1177 0.16 0.47 10.5 a 9.7 a
TR 811 1738 0.21 0.47 9.2 8
wa L 577 1237 0.03 0.47 9.9 a 9.5 8
TR 803 1721 0.26 0.47 9.4 a
Intersection Delay = 10.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.346
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A~~
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
01-18-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Streets: eN-S) HILLTOP
Analyst: DARNELL BH
Area Type: Other
Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS
(E-W) NAPLES
File Name: HILNAPXP.HC9
1-18-95 PM PEAK
================== -==============================================
No. Lanes
Vo l urnes
lane Width
RTOR Vols
I Northbound I Southbound Eastbound I Westbound
1 L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ----. ----1---- ---- -___
1 1 1 < I 1 1 1 I 1 1 < 1 1 1 <
I 94 279 84/ 94 295 641 107 241 751 40 183 66
112.0 12.0 112.012.012.0112.012.0 112.012.0
I 81 61 71 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8
N8 Left . IE8 Left .
Thru . 1 Thru .
Right . 1 Right .
Peds . I Peds .
SB Left . IW8 Left .
Thru . I Thru .
Right . 1 Right .
Peds . I Peds .
EB Right INB Right
WB Right IS8 Right
Green 42.0A I Green 42.0A
Yellow/A-R 3.0 IYellow/A- 3.0
Lost Tillie 3.0 ILost Time 3.0
Cycle Length: 90.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #S
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat vlc glC Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
NB L 416 891 0.24 0.47 11.0 B 10.9 8
TR 805 1724 0.46 0.47 10.8 8
S8 L 411 881 0.24 0.47 11.0 B 10.1 8
T 832 1782 0.37 0.47 10.1 8
R 703 1506 0.09 0.47 8.6 8
EB L 508 1088 0.22 0.47 10.9 B 10.5 8
TR 803 1721 0.41 0.47 10.4 8
WB L 450 964 0.09 0.47 10.2 8 9.8 8
TR 799 1713 0.32 0.47 9.8 B
Intersection Delay = 10.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 see Critical v/e(x) = 0.435
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A~4-
"
HCM; SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
01-18-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
-------=--::====================================================--=======
Streets: (N-S) HILLTOP
Analyst: DARNELL BH
Area Type: Other
Coeoent: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
(E-W) NAPLES
File Name: HILNAPXA.HC9
1-18-95 AM PEAK
---=========---===============--====--==============
No. Lanes
Volumes
Lane Width
RTOR Vots
I Northbound I Southbound I Eastbound I Westbound
I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----
I 1 1 < I 1 1 1 I 1 1 < I 1 1 <
I 56 224 1141 70 253 181 85 138 291 16 152 48
112.012.0 112.012.012.0112.012.0 112.012.0
I 101 21 31 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8
N8 Left * IE8 Left *
Thru * I Thru *
Right * I Right *
Peds * I Peds *
58 Left * IW8 Left *
Thru . I Thru *
Right . I Right *
Peds . I Peds *
E8 Right INB Right
W8 Right ISB Right
Green 42.0A I Green 42.0A
Yellow/A-R 3.0 IYellow/A- 3.0
Lost Time 3.0 ILost Time 3.0
Cycle Length: 90.0 sees Phase combination order: #1 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Ad; Sat v/c glC Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
N8 L 483 1034 0.12 0.47 10.3 8 10.6 B
TR 791 1694 0.44 0.47 10.6 B
SB L 434 931 0.17 0.47 10.6 B 9.9 8
T 832 1782 0.32 0.47 9.8 B
R 703 1506 0.02 0.47 8.4 8
EB L 549 1177 0.16 0.47 10.5 B 9.7 8
TR 811 1738 0.21 0.47 9.2 8
WB L 577 1237 0.03 0.47 9.9 B 9.5 8
TR 803 1721 0.26 0.47 9.4 B
Intersection Delay = 10.0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/cex) = 0.346
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A-Cj
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
01-18-1995
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
=======================================================================
Streets: (N-S) HILLTOP (E-W) NAPLES
Analyst: DARNELL BH File Name: HILNAPPP.HC9
Areo Type: Other 1-18-95 PM PEAK
Comment: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
No" Lanes
Volumes
Lane Width
RTOR Vols
Northbound 1 Southbound I Eostbound I Westbound
I L T R 1 L T R 1 L T R 1 L T R
1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- .----1---- ---- ----
I 1 1 < I 1 1 1 I 1 1 < I 1 1 <
I 104 279 841 94 295 781 121 257 851 40 199 66
112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0
/ 81 6/ 71 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8
NB Left * IEB Left *
Thru * I Thru *
Right * 1 Right *
Peds * / Peds *
SB Left * /WB Left *
Thru * 1 Thru *
Right * I Right *
Peds * I Peds *
EB Right IN8 Right
W8 Right IS8 Right
Green 42.0A IGreen 42.0A
Yellow/A-R 3.0 /Yellow/A- 3.0
Lost Time 3.0 I Lost Time 3.0
Cycle Length: 90.0 sees Phase combination order: #1 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat vIe glC Approach:
Mvmts Cop Flow Ratio Ratio Deloy LOS Delay LOS
NB L 399 855 0.27 0.47 11.2 B 10.9 B
TR 805 1724 0.46 0.47 10.8 B
S8 L 411 881 0.24 0.47 11.0 B 10.1 B
T 832 17B2 0.37 0.47 10.1 B
R 703 1506 0.11 0.47 8.7 8
E8 L 494 1059 0.26 0.47 11.1 B 10.8 8
TR 802 1719 0.44 0.47 10.6 8
WB L 428 917 0.10 0.47 10.2 B 9.9 B
TR 802 1719 0.34 0.47 9.9 B
Intersection Delay = 10.5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/cex) = 0.452
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A,&
MEMORANDUM
''- .
... ,-tqr;
. V,-,
".
" 't, ~..
.~
February 1., 1.995
File # YS-61.2
SUBJECT:
Susan Vandrew, Planning Tech. II
Hal Rosenberg, Traffic E~gineer~
Zoubir Ouadah, Civil Eng~neer~
Traffic Study for Chula Vista Moose Lodge
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
I have reviewed the attached traffic impact analysis performed by
Darnell and Associates (January 1.8, 1.995) for the proposed Moose
Lodge on Naples Street and concur with its findings and
recommendations.
Please note the report recommendations on page 7 regarding
circulation and access:
a. The westernmost driveway should be aligned with Tobias Drive.
b. The parking layout should be restructured as shown on Figure
6 of the report.
Please forward two final copies of the traffic impact report to
Engineering Division for our files.
ZAO:dv
(F:\HOMB\BNGINBBR\TRAFFIC\MOOSB.ZAO
fEB-07-1995 17:01 GLROUX & RSSOC.
. ?-' UlrOUX a: ASso !I
(" f.. . Environtnental Con~wtants
r~.-.. . """.....-
-/'
-'>:..~.-<-
,~ """" ~-. ....:. I
P.01
TO
- o-{, cY
ColDopt~
Phone 1f
'a)! "
February 7, 1995
city of Chula vista ~lannin9 Dept.
Attn: Ms. Susan Vandrew
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
......
Re: Moose Lodge Relocation
Dear Susan,
We have reviewed the materials that you sent regarding this
project. We utilizeCS the traffic data from Darnell (, Associates to
estimate any aite access/egress traffic noise impact potential. We
utilized the CNEL metric relative to the City standard of 65 dB(A)
CNEL as a measure of impact significance.
OUr assumptions were:
Fraction traveling:
Before 7 p.m. _
7 p... - 10 p.m. _
After 10 p.m. _
EastjWest Split on Naples -
Travel Speed _
1/3
1/3
1/3
50'/50'
35 mph
,
The ott-site noia. impact is 52 dB(A) CNEL superimposed upon the
non-project baseline. Based on our measurements of similar traffic
exposures as along Maples Street, combined project and non-project
noise exposures will be well within city standards (well below 65
dB(A) CNEL cOmbined).
Any potential noise issue. are solely on-site concerns.
Entertainment noi.., car door slams, start-ups and tire squeal may
be audible at nearby residence., especially late at night. The
residences to the south are far enough away to be little affected.
We would prefer that a barrier be maintained along the northern
site boundary to reduce any nuisance potential from people
acce.sinq their vehicle and departing the site during the late
evening hours.
17744 SJ;y hrk CYn:.!c. Suite 2/0. JrviJJe. c.JiIortJa 92714 . PIttmt! (III) 151-M09 . Fu (114) 85/08612
F,EB-07-1995 17:01
GIROUX & ASSOC.
.
P.02
-2-
We do not believe that an acoustical study would substantially
alter our conclusions. Please call .e if you have any questions.
sincerely,
.
~Y" (). ../ft.~.....(
Hans D. Giroux
Senior Scientist
Giroux & Associates
HDG:ai
TOTAL P.02
APPLICATION CANNO'. ,E ,-_CEPTED UNLESS SITE
PLAN IS FOLDED TO FIT INTO AN 8-1/2 X II FOLDER
BACKGROUND
1. Project Title 4VlA LliH.A MOcl5~ LOf}(jr.
2. Project Location (Street address or description)
2 t:J N;f PL t.5 'S"'reu r
A.
INITIAL STUDY
For Office Use Only
Case No. IS-~"-- /.'r-
'Dpsl Amnl 9 ~ .
Receipt No. ,,; Yd,,~
Date Rcc'd. /-':>-/J- 91/
Accepted by n'J/L).
Projcct No. FA-I,,&oL/
Dpsl No. DO- / </ i
CIP No.
Related Case No. -
City of Chula Vista
Application Fonn
tb/if -I vI:) -;:'1 (" 30
~v2./l pF J.{PP$~. Ut/LoA
.
3.
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No.
Brief Project Description I t:1 Y A L
Lop c:,f. -H- (C;Z7
Vl5TA
4. Name of Applicant L.o AL O/!.{lZli! er p(,,(oo~~ C~v'A lIt5r4 LOf}Gf "'/'1(.7
Address ?t;p]f? MAl'" )T. Fax# Phone
City C!-fVLA Vt~TA State CA Zip 92011
5. Name of Preparer/Agent ZOY )Otl"-'fO...r, t4fZ~"(TicT
Address 78'50 LA ;!If SA 8LVP Fax# 4~2-($ZZ Phone 4r.,Z-')jC:xeo
City LA ,M'r5A State CA Zip qt941
Relation to Applicant A f2. c. w , r ~c r
6. Indicate all pennits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental
Review Coordinatqr.
a. Pennits or approvals required.
General Plan Amendment
_ RezonelPrezone
_ Grading Pennit
_ Tentative Parcel Map
Site Plan & Arch. Review
_ Special Use Pennit
4 Design Review Application
_ Tentative SuM Map .
_ Redevelopment Agency OPA
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
_ Public Project
Annexation
_ Specific Plan
L Conditional Use Pennit
Variance
_ Coastal Development
Other Pennit
IT 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
Precise Plan
= Specific Plan
_ Traffic Impact Report
Hazardous Waste Assessment
Arcb. Elevations
= Landscape Plans
_ Tentative SuM Map
_ Improvement Plans
_ Soils Report
_ Geotechnical Report
_ Hydrological Study
Biological Study
= Arcbaeological Study
Noise Assessment
- Other Agency Pennit
- Other
WPC,)','iIOME\PLANNlNG\ST0RED\I021.A.93 (Ror. 1020.93) (Ref. 1022.93)
Pagel
\
7. Indicate other applications for permits or approvals that are being submitted at this time.
a. Permits or approvals required.
General Plan Amendment
_ RezonelPrezone
_ Grading Permit
_ Tentative Parcel Map
-'-- Site Plan & Arch. Review
_ Special Use Permit
1- Design Review Application
_ Tentative Subd. Map
_ Redevelopment Agency OPA
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
_ Public Project
Annexation
_ Specific Plan
. Conditional Use Permit
Variance
_ Coastal Development
Other Permit
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1.
a.
Land Area: square footage erg, Z 2. Z. or acreage
If land area to be dedicated. state acreage and purpose.
2.2~
b. Does the project involve the construction of new buildings. or will existing structure be
utilized? /lOP/not-' TO t=^/ :;PrJ G )7"i-tfcru~~
2. Complete this section if project is residential or mixed use.
a. Type of development:_ Single Family _ Two Family _ Multi Family
Townhouse Condominium
b. Total number of structures
c. Maximum height of structures
d. Number of Units: I bedroom
2 bedroom
3 bedroom
4 bedroom
Total Units
e. Gross density (DU/total acres)
f. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication)
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
1. 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
b. Floor area Height of strUCture5(s)
c. Type of construction used in the structUre
Wl'CoF,\HOMEII'L-'!INlNG\STOREl1\I021-A.93 (Ref. 1020.93) (Ref. 1022.93)
Poge2
j.
d.
.
Describe major aCCess points to the structures ana ..Ie ouentation to adjoining properties
and streets
e.
Number of on-site parking spaces provided
"
Estimated number of employees per shift L_
Number of shifts '/- Total
Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
f.
g.
h.
Estimated number of deliveries per day
Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate
i.
Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings
k. Hours of operation / lCj YVI - II PI'''' 1~1-r::lf- ,DC-v :;2'!!:f !J'/~
1. Type of exterior lighting F /1- ('2 I 5A T (/) - II PrY)
5undav 7t?YYJ -'8'f/r>J '
4. H project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section.
a. Type of project Fe A r.z i! ".NIL L" 0 G €
c. Square feet of enclosed structures / Z I 4 q 4-
d. Height of strUcture(s) - maximum 2 / I
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project 4- tJ 0
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided ( 4 5
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces ~ Z I 4 7 S-
h. Additional project characteristics
b.
L (1) 6 E 120PM,
LtJ()~6 € /C tTCIN^-I,
. ,
Type of facilities provided
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
I. Will the project be required to obtain a pennit through the Air Pollution Control District (APCD)?
No
WPC:F:\HOME\I'UNNlIiG\STORED'J021.A,9] (Ref. 1020,9]) (Ref. 1022,9])
Page 3
2. Is any type ot !;radmg or excavation of the property an\..~lpated? No
H yes, complete the following:
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated?
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed?
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?
d. What will be the: Maximum depth of cut
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.)
/tIE- LtJ"'OlTl",.,/...-6 (6L~crrZ(c-) ;f; (LI rc:.ltFN E7;J()( f,<.(ftJ, (6,.(-5 $ ~(fc)
4. Indicate the amoW1t of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres)
NOt-Il...
5. H the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these
jobs. YH. 2 CAinl'-vff5 $" / .J A rJlro/Z.. fCJTAL {Jfi 24.-
/ktvz. f}7'luJV.
,
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within
the project site? No
7.
How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project?
Zoo
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of
access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following:
new streets; sneet widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. No f'J L
WPC:F:'HOMlN'UNNlNG\STORED\JD21.A,93 (lief, 1020.93) (lief. 1022.93)
Page 4
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SE'ITING
1. Geolol!V
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? Ale"
(If yes, please attach)
Has a soils report on the project site been made? ;V 6
(If yes, please attach)
2.
Hvdrolol!V
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site?
(If yes, explain in detail.)
a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table?
1\10
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site?
Y'i5. AIV II ~o" IA;/()'i 5"7V!'" 1){1<4''-' 7ASEKf,..,T,
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly in to or toward a domestic water supply,
lake, reservoir or bay? N (j
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? No
No", f:
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?
N.o
b. Will noise from the project impact any sensitive receptors (hospitals, schools, single-
family residences)? No
4.
Biolol!V
a. Does the site involve any Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation?
b.
Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state?
H yes, has a biological survey been conducted on the property?
Yes No (Please attach a copy.)
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. No IV z:
/'10
No
c.
d.
WPC:F,\llQMEII'UNNlNG'&TOREIN021-A.93 (Ref. 1020.93) (Ref. 1022.93)
Page 5
.
5. Past Use of the Land
a. AIe there any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project
site? No
b. Are there any known paleontological resources? N ()
c. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site?
No
d. What was the land previously used for? /Z'i rAIL.. :frotlU
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site.
-YACAwr 7f {')C( 5~. PI. rrr"q"l/?E
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property.
North
South
East
West
~fV6.(~ FAM.Il~ iZt.5l/JftJefS
'57,. 6lf FA....."o( iZf5IPf,..Cf.5
CPM.rt"iiZcl/tt.. lS'uu..vu..r0-5
GULF L"",2.5~
7.
Social
a.
b.
Are there any residents on site? AI" If so, how many?
Are there any current employment opportunities on site? No
If so, how many and what type?
8. Please provide any other infonnation which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project.
Page 6
WPC,F,\IIOMlN'UNl<!NG'SfOIlEI)\I021-A.93 (ReI. 1020.93) (ReI. 1022.93)
,.
E. CERTIFICATION
I, as owner/owner in escrow.
Print name
or
I, consultant or agent.
;?O y S- J (HI"" Sr,,J
lJ.~cH I ~l. r
Print name
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and infonnation herein contained are in all
respects true and COITeCt 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
Iz/r/94-
t .
Date
.rr acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
WPC:F:IIIOMEIPU.NNlNG\5TOREI)'U021.A.93 (Rd. 1020.93) (Rd. 1022.93)
Page 7
1$
~
2
{:.
- ,
z:
,,'
- .
;>,
~~
.-
,"
.,
.0
!
~
.....'....It:: 0
%~:i ~ ~
~~t:.[ ~~Ei
.1:J;- ~":'i ....
~l~~ "').-~ ....'
% -a~~ ~li5 ..
~;~ ~~h ~~l
';;1....11' .......
!;;t
\,,': -,,-""'-7' '.".
,",~ ""':'\,., """'" , .
~ ','~~, .
h;;t,' _I (
o=.~::[~ 'I'"
::t...~ ::It:;:; ...1 .
e';;;1.~ ..' it:
~..~... ,'..J o~
-..:~---- ~!
j~
1.....
'\
"
';
!t!
..
'-
,
~
H
...,.<
;,U.
.
i.1
!I
:;;;:;
~
1"
<
.-
~5
'l~.-..",
!::1
.
~
.
.
,
,
~
\ '<
.
.
~
."
.
..
t
~.
t~
.
i=
.>
-
H6~" 3DOOl
V J.SI^ VlnH:J
..'P
=.1
: -
;; ;: =1
i'
~
-
"
.-
=;<J<J<J
3S00W dO
~30~O lVAOl
~~~1:
5:,)'! ~
]. ~~~:::!:
~ -: a.....
5 ~:I S
........ =.,.~
., a~
~j~~ ~iiH
~ ~ - he
~~~~5~i::
,~:)
H!tl~
~ ~ ,:t.~ ~
'C'~ 'f '4'
"'1("" ,r-- :!;
r--_ _
.... .
\~;-t ::
~!~! !
~<t..1!t
~~'H, 5
~~.~'5. ~
~~..~
~~ti3
~f'"'~
~ih
a~""\.4~1::I
~............~
~~'t~
~ ...~cc.
.
.
~
""
;:;~
Zl
'.
~ 5~
~ ~~
;~ ~~
.,At r"
: ~~ ~I
'!B ~.
-, ,,~
~~ ~"
$1\1" f~
~:~ ~;;
~
;:
"
!i
.
-,
~!:~
Q,"'.
>t\-i-~
;...~,.. -"
';f.$'t>~
't C!.$\I ~
Olfi!1f 3-
~~~~$
~5'~~<( ::t
~.n:;I"
~ ...~~- ~
'.
.'.
~
!
~fi'''J.2
'1
g~
~~
,,~
~~
,e
;t
~.
_3
~:::
.~
Sir
L
...
.
-
'-
r.
h~!'
:~~('"
"'~E~
,-,
m~~<.-~'
... .. ~ -
~ ~5' ~~i
~..
,"
.I!m
~ --~;.'"
.LI'<~ni
~ ~;i~
~ ~i!-........
!
).yM
-? yl~l^
,
~
~
~
~
~.
o~
rr
(!!
!
~~
~
~
~
~,
0--:--)""'(14"'1
(
, .
~uu(l;. i)
'ef: -r/j)
--f?eOJ t::r ,:?/TE
,L- -'~
MoSS 5T.
~
~
'\:
>-
.'t
'-
~
~
~
j
J
I '
.r--..... ~.-
In,
I '- i
,---' ~I
I ....!
I I I
HILi rpt' .
1 i
/:
~
~
~
I
I
I
I
cr.
.
,
N4FLE5
. "
I I .' lit
tJ /00 'lot) 'Too
L tJC'A T /0 N ;VI4'?
ExHibIT A I
l
I.t.I
),..
........
_._.~
~
I~
~
..,j
..,j
........
~
-
tJ
I
/00
.
'ZOO
,
100
Tt:? PtJ6RAfl/I cAi idA'?
EXf-l/PIT 18'
..
,: C.
INITIAL STUDY PROCESSING AGREEMENT
NameofApplicanc: Lt7'rAL ~2iJ'i12 OF f{OO5"f.
Address: "2 tP J f? ft1-4[ IV 5""rlZ[ ~..
City: C:::/(ULA Vt5rA
{lame of Authorized Representative (if signatory):
Address: ~ol I<!. I vt:l?~ S T-
City C HC/ L A V 1ST t+
Agreement Date:.
Deposit Amount
CUVlA VISTA ~l?G.'C -# /<qZ7
Phone ~
State .c.d Zip '7 II
ANnREVI/ .5MIT/<O
Phone '-12/ 0 '-/7-5
Zip 9 I q / /
State
r fl,
This Agreemen( ("Agreement") between the City of ChuJa Vista, a chartered 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 Applican( has applied to the City for an Initial Study of the type aforereferenced ("Initial
Study") which the City has required to be obtained as a condition to pennitting the Applicant to develop a parcel
of property; and,
Whereas, the City will incur expenses in order to process said lnitial Study (hrough the various departments
and before the various boards and commissions of the City ("Processiiig Services.'); and,
Whereas, the purpose of this agreement is to reimburse the City for all expenses it will incur in connection
with providing the Processing Services;
Now, therefore, the parties do hereby agree, in exchange for the mutual 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, \ncluding all of the City's direct and overftead costs related thereto. This duty of
the Applicant shall be ref~ITed to herein as the "Applicant's Duty to Pay."
A. Applicant's Deposit Duty
As partial perfonnance of the Applicant's Du(y to Pay, the Applicant shall deposit the amount
aforereferenced ("Deposit").
1. The City shall charge its lawful expenses incurred in providing Processing Services
against the Applicant's Deposit If, after the conclusion of processing the Applicant's
Initial Study, any portiorl of the Deposit remains, the City shall return said balance to the
Applicant without interest thereon. If, during the processing of the Applicant's Initial
Study, the amount of the Deposit becomes exhausted, or is imminen~y likely to become
exhausted in the opinion of the City, upon notice of same by the City, the Applicant shall
forthwith provide such additional deposit as the City shall calculate as reasonably
necessary to continue to provide Processing Services. The duty of the Applicant to
initially deposit and to supplement said deposit as herein required shall be known as the
"Applicant's Deposit Duty".
u. City's Duty
The City shall, upon the condition that the Applicant is not in breach of the Applicant's Duty to Payor the
Applicant's Deposit Duty, use good faith to provide processing services in relation to the Applicant's Initial
Study application.
WPC:F,'JIOMEIIUNNlNCJ\STOREI>J021_A.93 (R,I. 1020.93) (R<r. 1022.93)
Page 8
\
-
A.
The City shall have no liability hereunder to the Applicant for (he failure to process the Applicant's
Initial Study application, or for failure to process the Applicant's Initial Study within the time
frame requested by the Applicant or estimated by the City.
B. .
By execution of this agr~ment, the Applicant shall have no right to direct or otherwise influence
the conduct of the Initial Study for which the applicant has applied. The City shall use its
discretion in evaluating the Applicant's Initial Study application without regard to the Applicant's
promise to pay for the Processing Services, or the execution of the Agreement.
m. Remedies
A. Suspension of Processing
In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity,
the City has the right to suspend and/or withhold the processing of the Initial Study which is the
subject matter of this Agreement, as well as the Initial Study which may be the subject matter of
any other Pennie which Applicant has before the City.
B. Civil Collection
In addition (0 all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have all law or equity,
the City has the right to collect all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civil action,
and upon instituting litigation to collect same, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable
attorney's fees had costs.
IV, Miscellaneous
A. Notices
All notkes, demands or requests provided for or pennined to be given pursuant to this Agreement
must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to
have been propedy given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail,
addressed to suctYparty, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with rehmi rereipt requested, at
the addresses identified adjacent to the signatures of the panies represented.
B. Governing Law{Venue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Laws of the State of
California. AIiy action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the
federal or state courts loca(ed in San Diego County, ~tate of California, and if applicable, the City
of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this agreement, and perfonnance
hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. '
c. Multiple Signatories
If there are multiple signatories to this agreement on behalf of Applicant, each of such signatories
shall be join(ly and severally liable for the perfonnance of Applicant's duties herein set forth.
D. Signatory Au(hority
The signatory to this agreement hereby warrants and represents that it is the duly designated agent
for the Applicant and has been duly authorized -by the Applicant to execute this Agreement on
behalf of the Applicant. Signatory shall be personally liable for Applicant's Duty to Pay and
Applicant's Duty to Deposit in the event it has not been authorized to execute this Agreement by
the ApplicanL
WPC-.F:\HO~G\STOR.IDJ021.A.93 (Ref. 1020.93) (Rd. 1022.93)
Page 9
..
<
,.
..
E. Hold Harmless
Applicant shau defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers
and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including
without limita(ion attorneys' fees) arising out of processing Applicant's Initial Study, except only
for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, incurred by
the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same
proceed to judgement or not Fumer, the Applicant. at its own expense, shall, upon written
request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents,
or employees. Applicant's indemnifcacion of the City shall be limited by any prior or subsequent
declaration by the Applicant
F. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures.
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of (his agreement; against the City unless a claim
has first been presented in writing and med with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by the
. City of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are
incorporated by the reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by
the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by the City, the Applicant shall meet and
confer in good faith with the City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the teons of this
Agreement
Now, therefbre, the parties hereto, having read and understood the teons and conditions of this 'agreement,
dO hereby express their consent to the teons hereof by seuing their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto.
City
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
By:
.
Dated:
Applicant (or authorized representacive)
( /IN!:> .ReI.) S m I Tk 0
~ z." 37 /17~,.., .97'- 5"w L.
l c2Z:t C~"I
By_ ~ ~
-
By:
Dated:
/2 ~ 57,- ,?y
,
WPC,F,\IIOME'J'U.NNINGI.STOREl:N021.A.93 (Ref. 1020.93) (1<<(.1022.93)
Page 10
,.
TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of cenain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which
will require discretionary action on the pan of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies.
The following info!1rultion must be disclosed:
I.
List the names of all persons have a fmancial interest in the contract, i.e" contractor, subcontractor,
material supplier.
L DO t'VJ
(,-o06'E
ICfz.. 7
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.
IV.A,
,
3.
If any person identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any
person seIVing as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustee of the trust.
ALL
I ) ,I<.E: c'" 6f2. 5>
4. Have you had more than 5250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards,
Commissions, Committee,s and Council within the past twelve months?
NO
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.
goY
V<>~"" 5'0..1
1912 /G- <> ,
6.
Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed~.':2pre than $1,000 (0 a Council
member in the current or preceding election period? Yes [ ] No ~ If yes, state which Council
member(s): .
Person is derIDed as: 'Any individual, film, co-pannersbip,joint veDIU.., LSsocialioD, social club, fralernaJ OllanizalioD. corporalion. estale.
trust.. receiver, syndicate, this and any omercounty, city and C()unty, city. mwUcipality. district or otberpolirlca.l subdivision. or any other. group
or combination acting u a unit..
(NO'IE:
Attach additional pages as Decenal")')
I~;;-jy
r:kh~
Signature of contractor/applicant
Date:
A/VORDJ ~/7..k()
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
Page \I
WPC:F:\HOME\PLANNINCi\STOR.ED\I021-A.9J.Rd. I020.93)(Rd. 1022.93)
ATTACHMENT 9
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
TI-IE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
V, Jre ,,'quired to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign
",'",t,ulions. on all mailers which will require discrelionary action on Ihe part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
, ,~,c: ,'ITidal bodies. The following in(ormation must be disclosed:
List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subjecl of the application or Ihe
conlract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Lt/YAt.. ~PH~. "F #"05l c;..VL"'- V'5rl1 L-o{lG'Z. 11 /"127
,
If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corpora lion or partnership,list the names of all individuals owning
more than 10% of the shares in Ihe corporal ion or owning any partnership interesl in the partnership.
NIA
,
1. If any person" identified pursuanl to (1) above is non.profit organization or a trust, list Ihe names of any person
serving ~eclor of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trusl.
)'J/).I'; I G}If-_Ik/~ ~
4",,*e-cJ ,5'n7/TA-D
4. Have you had more Ihan S250 worth of business transacled with any member of Ihe City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Commillees, and Council within Ihe pasl twelve months? Yes_ NoLS.. If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultanls, or independent contraelors who
you have assigned 10 represent you before Ihe City in Ihis mailer.
"fu"( ~/ 0/4 ,",rCi~/.J1tz"("c"'r
n. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than SI,OOO to a Councilmember in Ihe
current or preceding election period? Yes_ No_ If yes, state which Councilmember(s):
Dale:
\/I?/Vf / O~
. . · (NOTE:
?,~-
A_~d;'.W~22"x;a
......, Signature of contractor/applicanl
AIJI(ElJ 5,hr .I7"?b
. Print or type name of contractor/applicant
. Ila~!!1! i.r defined as: "AllY iJlJi~'jdual, finn, cn-ptJf17llnhip, joilll \'t1UUfC', aJJOCIDt;O".. Jocial club, fralmlal OfKUIIIZ.CWfIf/., (rJrpoftJ(ioll. eSlott. trust, rtceiva, J)'UIica/~
(II/,\ clnd iJ1I.V lither ~', Il.ml)', city olld COUIIO)'. city fntmicipCJliry, diJrricl, of other l'olil/fcJl subdi\'isioll.. or any ollla' group or combinatioll actillg as a &miL"