HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1988/05/25 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
~_ e__~ ~_ e_ s__d aY__, _M__a~_ 2 5_, _ !_9 _8 _8 _ :__7: 3_0_ ~_. _m._ ....................................... _C i _t~ _ C_o ?_ c i !__C_h_a_m _b _e_r _s
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission
on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an
item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five
minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-J Consideration to rezone 1.4 acres at
the northwest corner of Bonita Road and Plaza
Bonita Road from A-8 to C-V-P - County of
San Diego
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-88-47 Conditional Use Permit: Request to
approve master plan for future development of
the Elks Lodge at 901 Elks Lane - Elks Lodge #2011
3. OTHER BUSINESS: General Plan Policy Discussion
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION ACTIONS Cancellation of Meeting for June 8, 1988
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of June 22, 1988
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 25, 1988 Page 1
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-J Consideration to rezone 1.4 acres at the
northwest corner of Bonita Road and Plaza Bonita Road
from A-8 to C-V-P - County of San Diego
A. BACKGROUND
1. The County Department of General Services has submitted this request
to rezone 1.4 acres located at the northwest corner of Bonita Road
and Plaza Bonita Road from A-8 (Agricultural/8 acre minimum lot size)
to C-V-P (Visitor Commercial/Precise Plan).
2. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that a previous
Negative Declaration issued on IS-78-11 may be reviewed for adequacy
in order to assess the potential environmental impacts associated
with the project. If the Commission chooses to adopt the staff
recommendation for an indefinite continuance, no environmental action
need be taken. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval of
the request, it is recommended that the item be continued to the
meeting of June 22, 1988, in order to accomplish the necessary review
of IS-78-11.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to deny PCZ-87-J or with the applicant's concurrence
continue the matter indefinitely until a final decision is reached on a
long-term traffic solution for the Bonita Road/I-805 area.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North A-70 Sweetwater Regional Park
South RR-1 Single Family
East A-70 Sweetwater Regional Park
West C-V-P Vacant
Existing site characteristics.
The proposal site is a vacant, level 1.4-acre "remnant" portion of the
Sweetwater Regional Park. The major park holdings are located just to the
north and east of the site across Plaza Bonita Road. The parcel has
approximately 300 ft. of frontage on Bonita Road and 600 ft. of frontage
on Plaza Bonita Road. Adjoining the site to the west is a vacant 0.83
acre parcel which is zoned C-V-P, and beyond that is the northbound
on-ramp to the 1-805 freeway.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 25, 1988 Page 2
County Proposal.
The County proposal is to rezone the site for visitor commercial use, and
either sell or lease the property to a private developer in order to
generate funds for the development and maintenance of the balance of the
Sweetwater Regional Park holdings. The rezoning request is consistent
with the General Plan which designates the site for Visitor Commercial
use. The proposed P Precise Plan modifier would require review and
approval of subsequent development plans by the City's Design Review
Committee.
D. ANALYSIS
This application was originally submitted more than a year ago, at which
time the County agreed to a request by staff to postpone the matter until
the completion of the Sweetwater Valley Traffic Study. The study was
considered and accepted by the City Council on March 17, 1988, with
direction for staff to return with preliminary cost estimates for three
alternative long-term traffic solutions for the Bonita Road/I-805
interchange. These estimates are not yet completed.
The study was at least partially prompted by traffic concerns associated
with a proposal in 1986 for a Mobil station/mini-market on the adjoining
C-V-P zoned site to the west. The staff had recommended approval based on
the fact that the Mobil proposal (which required discretionary approval of
a CUP) would generate substantially less traffic volume than several uses
which would be permitted as a matter of right in that zone. The
Commission, however, denied the request based on the absence of any
long-term plans for solving the increasing traffic problems in the area.
The Commission's decision was later upheld by the Council on appeal.
The Sweetwater Valley Traffic Study was contracted for by the City of
Chula Vista, and conducted in cooperation with representatives and
technical staff from National City, San Diego County and the California
Department of Transportation (CalTrans), as well as with citizen
representatives from the Sweetwater Valley area. The study discusses one
short-term project and three long-term alternatives to help ease the
traffic situation at the Bonita Road/I-805 interchange.
The short-term solution (0-5 years) has been partially implemented. It
includes an additional through-lane on both westbound Bonita from Plaza
Bonita to the interchange and on eastbound Bonita before the interchange.
It also includes double left-turn lanes on Bonita at both ramps, right
turn lanes from Bonita to 1-805 (two right-turn lanes on the southbound
ramp), and lengthening of the left-turn lanes for eastbound Bonita at
Plaza Bonita (see Exhibit A).
The long-term solutions are expected to be needed in a 5-15 year time
frame. The study looked at the following three alternatives:
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 25, 1988 Page 3
1. Redesign the interchange as an Urban Interchange {see Exhibits B1 and
B2).
An urban interchange brings the four ramps underneath the freeway
together into a single intersection instead of the two intersections
(typically 300-600 feet apart) at a typical diamond interchange. By
eliminating one intersection, total delays per vehicle on the segment
are reduced. There is also a greater distance between intersections
along Bonita Road which allows more storage space for left-turn
lanes. This alternative would require no additional right-of-way,
nor would it directly affect the applicant's property. However, it
would require major structural modifications to the 1-805 ramps and
bridge.
2. Add a loop in the southeast quadrant and move the northbound ramp
east and Plaza Bonita Road west so that they align with one another
(see Exhibit C).
The addition of a loop in the southeast quadrant and the relocation
and alignment of Plaza Bonita and the northbound exit ramp would
eliminate one intersection on this segment. Relocation of the ramp
would increase the volume at the Plaza Bonita intersection. One of
the benefits would be that the number of left-turns from eastbound
Bonita to Plaza Bonita would be reduced considerably, since the
vehicles from northbound 1-805 could proceed directly across Bonita
Road to Plaza Bonita Road. Also, right-turning vehicles from both
directions on Bonita on the east side of 1-805 would not be
restricted by a traffic signal. Of the three alternatives, this
would require the most additional right-of-way, and would directly
affect the applicant's property by realigning Plaza Bonita Road to
the west.
3. Add a new off-ramp from the 1-805/South Bay Freeway exit ramp to
Plaza Bonita Road (see Exhibit D).
This alternative would make no changes at the Bonita/I-805
interchange, nor would it affect the applicant's property. The new
ramp would provide a direct link from northbound 1-805 to Plaza
Bonita Road. The northbound right-turn volume at the northbound
1-805/Bonita intersection and the eastbound left-turn volume at the
Plaza Bonita/Bonita intersection would be reduced by approximately
270 vehicles during the PM peak hour. However, volumes would remain
unchanged at the southbound 1-805/Bonita intersection.
The study found that Alternative 1 {Exhibit B), the Urban Interchange, is
the recommended long-term alternative because it shows a somewhat improved
level of service at the southbound ramp intersections in comparison to the
other alternatives. It also initially showed a comparatively favorable
cost-benefit ratio. Subsequent to the publication of the study, however,
CalTrans refined their cost calculations and found that the Urban
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 25, 1988 Page 4
Interchange would be prohibitively expensive. Alternative 3 IExhibit D),
which provides the least benefit, is also not favored by CalTrans because
it is contrary to state policy against constructing freeway improvements
to serve a single project--the Plaza Bonita Shopping Center.
Therefore, CalTrans has now indicated that Alternative 2 (Exhibit C), the
loop, is their preferred alternative. They have agreed to prepare design
studies once the City has settled on a new General Plan for the eastern
territories (which will have an affect on the long-term traffic volumes
and necessary design solutions for this interchange). The new General
Plan is expected to be considered by Council in late summer.
As noted above, Alternative 2 is also the only alternative which would
have a direct affect on the proposal site by the realignment of Plaza
Bonita Road to the west. If this were to happen, most if not all of this
remnant park parcel would thereby rejoin the balance of the Sweetwater
Regional Park holdings east of Plaza Bonita Road.
Despite the completion of the study and CalTrans' current position, there
are still many uncertainties regarding the eventual nature and timing for
a long-term solution to the Bonita Road/I-805 traffic situation. Until
such decisions are made, we believe it would be inadvisable to intensify
development potential in this area generally, or to specifically authorize
commercial development on a parcel which may very well play a key role in
an ultimate solution which all parties are aggressively pursuing at this
time.
City staff is scheduled to meet with CalTrans May 27, 1988, to discuss the
timing of CalTrans to approve, design, and fund the improvements. As the
Sweetwater study indicates, this is a long-term project to be accomplished
in the 5- to 15-year range.
WPC 5199P
EXHIBIT A
*-...~.
:~:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:~:i:i:~:~:~:~ ========================================
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ii ~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~ ~u~u~
EXHIBIT, B (1)
EXHIBIT B (2)
Sweetwater Valley Traffic Stud)' _jhk
Figure 4-7 .
CONCEPTUAL SKETCH OF A TYPICAL URBAN INTERCHANGE
A-Il
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
Install Ramp Rd
Rd
Sweetwater Valley' Traffic Study ,,
Figure 4-9
NORTH RAMP TO PLAZA BONITA ROAD
PLAZA BONITA ROADfl-g05
t4-13
PIPELINE ESM T~, DOC. NO. 15-02595S. ~0~
PIPELINE ISM.T, ~C.N0. 25-039605.
PIPELINE ESM ~, ~C. N0. 45-076529.
~LE LINE ESM T~ ~C. NO. 7~-~2740.
SEWERLIN~ ESM T, ~C. NO. 81-110~17.
ROAD ESM T, DOC. N0.8]-091917.
N0 SCALE
'~' /
- : ~.:.~.~..,
!:i,40 ·
oo
OWNER~ COUNTY OF SAN D~E60
ZONING: A-8
GENERAL_PLAN DESIGNATION: R~TAIL LINWOOD
SK~T~% ~NE~ Sg~W~Sl .~. ~ I ~ ~ I s~u ~ i
WEETWATER tuRK_SALE ,SIT[pLAN .....
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE)4ENT
IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INT£R£STS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
OF
WHICH WILL R£QUIR£ DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
County of San Diego
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
CountS of San Diego
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
N/A
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
N/A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No X If yes, please indicate person(s)
IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint ventuFe, association, I
~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, d~strict or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)~_,j~x~'j_ ~ ,
~ignature of applicant/~e
WPC 0701P FRANK C. DEMLING
A-110 )'tint or type name of applicant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 25, 1988 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-47; request to approve
master plan for future development of the Elks Lodge'
at 901 Elks Lane - Elks Lodge No. 2011
A. BACKGROUND
The request is for approval of a master plan for the Elks Lodge including:
(1) A 6,000 sq. ft. expansion to the lodge building and 24 additional
parking spaces;
(2) The creation of three single-family lots on the southerly portion of
the property with access off E. Naples Street;
(3) The construction of five single-family retirement cottages on the
northwesterly portion of the property;
(4) Improvements to the outdoor activity area to include a restroom/snack
bar and tennis court.
The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-88-53,
of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of
the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if
any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant
environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration
issued on IS-88-53.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and
Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on
IS-88-53.
2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt
a motion recommending that the City Council approve the request,
PCC-88-47, subject to the following conditions:
a. The design of the building addition and associated landscaping,
along with the overall lodge floor plan in relation to available
parking, shall be subject to site plan and architectural review
by the Zoning Administrator.
b. The creation of three single-family lots adjacent to East Naples
Street will require the submittal of a parcel map and grading
and improvement plans subject to review and approval of the
Director of Planning and City Engineer.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 25, 1988 Page 2
c. An approved landscape, irrigation and striping plan shall be
implemented in conjunction with the expansion of the building or
parking area. The plan shall address the entire parking lot.
d. The retirement cottages shall be subject to the approval of a
subdivision map and/or development plan by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
e. The improvements to the outside activity area are subject to
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. A landscape
and irrigation plan to provide a sight and noise screen around
the perimeter of the outside activity area (at approximately the
300 foot elevation and above) shall be reviewed, approved and
installed in conjunction with the implementation of any of the
master plan components.
f. The following items are required under the authority of the City
of Chula Vista Municipal Code:
1. Sewer, Impact, and Traffic Signal Fees to be assessed when
the Building Permit is issued.
2. A Construction Permit for work performed in the street
right-of-way.
3. Public Improvements, including but not limited to:
a. Paving, curb, gutter and sidewalks.
b. Driveway approach.
c. Street lights.
4. A lot consolidation or Parcel Map.
5. Street dedication for E. Naples.
6. A Grading Plan and Permit.
7. Prior to construction on residential lots, fire hydrants
will be required. Provisions will be required for
turn-around areas for fire apparatus at dead-end driveways
in excess of 150 feet.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use
North R-3-G-P Multiple family and Telegraph Canyon Road
South R-l-lO Single-family and vacant
East R-l-P-4 Single-family (proposed)
West R-1 Single-family
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 25, 1988 Page 3
Existin~ site characteristics
The Elks property totals 12.8 acres and encompasses a small canyon or
"draw" which extends between East Naples Street on the south down to
Telegraph Canyon Road on the north--a drop in elevation of approximately
120 ft. from south to north. The northerly and largest portion of the
property is zoned R-1-H (Single-family/Hillside modifying district), while
the remaining portion to the south is zoned R-l-lO (Single-family/lO,O00
sq. ft. minimum lot size).
The north-central portion of the site contains an 8,200 sq. ft. lodge
building and 200 parking spaces with access off Telegraph Canyon Road.
The south-central portion of the site contains an outdoor activity area
(Elks Park), and a vacant strip of land extends southerly from that to
East Naples Street. The developed portions of the property sit 35-40 feet
above Telegraph Canyon Road and 30-60 feet below existin9 and proposed
single-family areas to the west and east.
Proposed use
The proposed master plan has four components:
1. Lodge/parking expansion - An expansion of the existing lodge building
by 6,000 sq. ft., from 8,200 sq. ft. to 14,200 sq. ft., and expansion
of the parking area from 200 to 224 spaces. The expansion would
allow an increase in the dining capacity from 187 to 300-350, and
include the relocation and renovation of the kitchen area. The
additional seating/dining capacity would also open the possibility
for the lodge to offset their costs by renting a portion of the space
to outside groups for meetings and seminars.
2. Single-family lots - The creation of three single-family lots on 0.95
acres on the most southerly portion of the site adjacent to East
Naples Street. Each lot would be at least lO,O00 sq. ft. in area to
conform with the underlying R-l-lO zoning--with one lot fronting on
the street and two panhandle lots served by a common drive. The lots
would be terraced down from East Naples, and would require
approximately 16,000 cubic yards of fill (to a maximum height of 15
feet) to be provided from the grading for the parking lot expansion
area just to the west of the lodge buildin9.
3. Retirement Cottages The construction of five single-family
retirement cottages on approximately 3.2 acres on the northwesterly
portion of property which is zoned R-1-H. Access would be provided
by a short cul-de-sac off the existing parking area. The units would
contain approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area and would be leased
or held under life estates for the benefit of retired Elks.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 25, 1988 Page 4
4. Elks Park Improvements - The construction of a restroom/snack bar and
tennis court within the outdoor activity area. This area presently
contains bocce ball courts, horseshoe pit, swings, basketball hoop,
volleyball court, and a barbecue and picnic tables. These
improvements would serve Elks members as well as outside groups which
have indicated an interest in utilizing the space on a periodic basis.
D. ANALYSIS
Lodge/Parking Expansion
The parking standard for this type of use is one space for every 2.5 fixed
seats, plus one space for every 50 sq. ft. of assembly area. Based on
this standard, the present building requires 115 of the 224 total spaces
proposed; leaving 109 spaces to serve the expansion area. Even
considering the proposed ultimate dining capacity, there appears to be
more than adequate parking, subject to later detail review of floor plans
and occupancy figures. The design of the building would further be
subject to site plan and architectural review by the Zoning Administrator.
Single-Family Lots
The creation of the three single-family lots on the southerly portion of
the site also appears generally supportable subject to detail review of
grading plans and a parcel map. The property is zoned for single-family
use with a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft., and the review and approval
of a parcel map and grading plan is an administrative procedure which is
not subject to public hearing. The administrative review may result in a
reconfiguration of the lots and a change in the grading shown on the
master plan. The transition and consistency of public improvements and
setbacks between this property and the adjacent Rancho del Sur project
will also be addressed with the parcel map.
The "fill" necessary to create these lots will be provided by grading the
slope just to the west of the lodge building; this area will then
accommodate additional parking spaces. A landscape and irrigation plan
shall be required for the slope as well as the new parking area. Since
many of the parking spaces indicated on the site plan are not actually
striped at this time, it would also be appropriate to require an overall
parking lot plan prior to any expansion. The plan should also include
provisions for landscaping 10% of the total parking area in accordance
with City standards and subject to review and approval of the City
Landscape Architect.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 25, 1988 Page 5
Retirement Cottages
The 3.2-acre area proposed for the retirement cottages is subject to the
R-1-H Hillside Modifying District regulations which include density and
grading limitations based on the average natural slope (ANS) of the site.
In this case, the site has an ANS of approximately 25%, which allows for a
maximum density of 1.73 dwelling units per gross acre, and grading of no
more than 37.5% of the site. The proposal for five units is at least
conceptually consistent with the density limitation, but detailed grading
and development plans are still subject to review and approval by both the
Commission and Council.
Elks Park Improvements
The proposed improvements to Elks Park are modest but may increase the
intensity of use and potential for adverse noise and activity impacts on
adjacent uses. The area has been developed by Elks members without the
prior approval of the City, and although there have apparently been no
complaints regarding its use, this may change with greater usage and/or as
areas to the south, west and east (Rancho del Sur) develop with
single-family homes.
The applicant has stated that in return for off-site grading rights,
Rancho del Sur has agreed to landscape and irrigate the manufactured
slopes on the Elks property to the east, and just above, the Elks Park.
We believe this program should be expanded to include an overall program
for landscaping around the perimeter of the park to provide a noise buffer
and visual screen to surrounding properties.
For these reasons, and with the conditions noted above, we recommend
approval of the master plan based on the following findings.
E. FINDINGS
1. 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 master plan components will enable the Elks Lodge to expand the
scope of its services and facilities for the benefit of local members.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular
case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity.
The implementation of the master plan as conditioned will better
utilize and upgrade the appearance of the site, and ameliorate
potential adverse impacts on existing and future residents from noise
and activities within the Elks Park area.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 25, 1988 Page 6
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
Compliance with all applicable conditions, codes and regulations
shall be required prior to the implementation of the plan or any of
its components.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely
affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government
agency.
The master plan components as conditioned are consistent with the
Medium Density Residential Plan designation of the property.
WPC 5197P/2652P
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: P.B.O. Elks #2011 - Land Use General Plan
PROJECT LOCATION: 901 Elks Lane
PROJECT APPLICANT: P.B.O. Elks Lodge #2011
901 Elks Lane
Chula Vista, CA 92011
CASE NO: IS-88-53 DATE: May 10, 1988
A. Project Setting
The project site consists of 12.87 acres of land currently owned by the
Elks located off of Telegraph Canyon Road. Existing on the site are the
7,200 squa're foot lodge building, parking lot, volley ball court, bocce
ball courts and hoop shoot court.
Adjacent land uses consist of single family residences and a church to the
north, single family residences to the south, open land which is in the
process of being subdivided for housing to the east, and single family
housing as well as apartments to the west.
B. Project Description
The project consists of the addition of approximately 6,000 square feet to
the existing lodge. In addition, the project will include a new parking
lot of 32 spaces. The project will also entail the construction of five,
1,250 sq./ft, cottages plus' the construction of a tennis court, restroom,
hiking trail and pitch and putt course. Three building pads will also be
provided by the project for three parcels which will front along a future
extension of East Naples Street.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and P~ans
With the granting of a conditional use permit for the lodge, the project
will comply with the R-1-H {Hillside modifying district) and R-l-lO zoning
on the site as well as the medium density residential designation for the
area.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
1. School s
The project will have no impact on schools as the proposed cottages
will house retired Elks. While children may ultimately reside in
homes built on the three building pads, fees will have to be paid at
the time of building permit issuance. The addition of three dwelling
units will not significantly effect the provision of educational
services.
city of chula vista planning department ¢I'[Y OF
environmental review section ( HULA VI A
2. Fire Protection
The Fire Department will require two fire hydrants on Elks Court
being no more than 300 feet apart with a fire flow of 2,500 GPM.
Fire flow level may be reduced by 50 percent if fully automatic
sprinkler system is installed in cottages.
A fully automatic sprinkler system must be installed in existing
lodge structure as well as addition. A set of plans must also be
submitted for Fire Department review at the time of building permit
plan check.
3. Transportation
Traffic along Telegraph Canyon Road will increase from 23,630 ADT
(Average Daily Trips) to 24,341 ADT with the implementation of the
project. This increase of ADT is not considered a significant
environmental impact to the surrounding local or regional area.
E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
Necessary mitigation will include the improvement of E. Naples Street to
residential collector street standards (as proposed by Rancho Del Sur
Subdivision). These improvements will include A.C. pavement, curbing,
gutters and sidewalk.
Additional mitigation will entail the landscaping of a buffer zone around
existing BBQ, hoop shoot, swings, etc. This buffer zone shall consist of
trees and screen planting that will not block views.
F. Findings of Insignificant Impact
1. The proposed Elks retirement village, lodge and parking lot addition,
as well as the grading of three building pads, will not result in
environmental degradatioq. The cottage area will have to conform to
the grading and density restrictions of the Hillside Modifying
District.
2. The project is designed to provide much needed family and senior
housing and will thus not result in adverse long-term environmental
impacts. The project conforms to the long-term goals of the City.
3. The project,, located on Elks owned land, will not result in
significant cumulative environmental impacts. It is essentially an
infill project surrounded by existing development or property that is
being developed.
4. The project will not result in any significant impacts that might
adversely affect human beings either directly or indirectly.
Performance standards such as noise will avoid any impact on the
adjacent single family dwellings.
city of chula vista planning department CITY OF
environmental review iIctlon. CHUIAVISrA
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Mike Donnelly, Associate Traffic Engineer
Applicant's Agent: D.M. Hughes
Chairman, Home and Land Development
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan
Chapter 19.70 of Title 19 (Zoning)
Chula Vista Municipal Code
This determination, that the project will not have any significant
environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on
the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further
information regarding the environmental review of the project is available
from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
92010.
ENVIRO~ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 3/88)
WPC 5165P/O175P
city of chula vista planning department CI]YC~:
environmental review section. CHULA ¥IS1-A
FOR OFFIC£ USE
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No./~/~/
Date Rec'd ~-~-~
City of Chu~a Vista Accepted by~
Application Fo~m Project No.
A. BACKGROUND
P~ECT LOCATION {Street address ov de~'b¢~pt~on)
5. Hame of Preparer/Agent ~ ~ /~x ~
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Revision Design Review Committee ~ Public Project
-~ Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map ~Annexati°n
Precise Plan ~Grading Permit Design Review Board
Specific Plan ~ Tentative P~rcel Map ~ Redevelopment Agency
.~ Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Revi~u
Variance Other
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by ~:he Environmental Review
Coordinator).
~, Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report
Grading Plan ~ Landscape Plans _~ Hydrolngical Study
~ Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study
Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey
-~ Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map -~ Noise Assessment
-~ Specific Plan ~- Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency P~rmit or Soils Report ~_ Other ~.rx.~=~
Approvals Req,: ed
-2~
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Land Ar~a: ;,:, footage __ 3; ~cr~age
If !and ~a ~:o be dedJcated, s ~':~ ,}cre-'r,'~ ;nd purpose.
2. Complete th~s section ff p~ogec: ~s resident1*].
a. Type development: Sfngle :amfly" '"
-~, Two family
Hul ti family Townhouse Condomi ni um
' b'. )lumber of structures and heights ~:, ~/~
c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom ~ 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units
d. Gross density (DU/total aches) ~~ /~ ~ ~,.~y
e. ~Jet density (DU/total acres minus any dedication)
f. Estimated project population ~ ~
g. Estimated sale or rental pnice range ~
h. Square footage of floor area(s) ~. ~.j~
i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures
j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface ~Y
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
a. Type(s) of ladd use ~ ~ / ~ /~,,'_~
b. Floor area ~.~. ~ ~ght of structure(s)
c. Type of construction used in the structure
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and s~reets ~
e. ~Jumber of on-site parking s)aces provF,X ~ ~-~d>
f. Est~;:,~i:~d number of employe~s per oh~ . ~" , ~umber of
shi f~s ?~- 'Focal ~
9. :st,,,,~te( number of custome:s (per da>) ;;~d basis of estimate
h. Estimated range of service area and ~::si of estimate .wff~-~'~-
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings /~./~?~
j. Hours of operation ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~
k.. Type of dxterior lighting _ ~ ~./~ ~ ~/~/~
4.I~ project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section. ~/-~ ~
a. Type of project
b. Type of fac'ilities provided ~dr~ /~-/~)~$ ~m~-
c. Square feet of enclosed structures ~o _~. ~/-
d. Height of structure(s) - maximum sd' ~
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project ~x2 F ~_~ .~ ~~~
f. NumOer of on-site parking spaces ~ provided ~_~o_Smo
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces /~o ~
C. PR~ECT CHARACTERISTICS
1.If the prcject could result in the direct emission of any air
pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated
(If yes, complete the following:)
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated? .~-~.~f~.~.~ ,/~ .~.d~ ~"o..?<~,/£
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? ~u~. /~
c. How much area (sq. ft. or a:res) will be graded? .y~a ~.
i~:.'~: : , .,.',. <-' ..
?'ojec, , c'/ e ri: eF'~tq ; ~,,~ f:ning, electrical
, -. _ . _ ,-'~i~c-
4. Indfca~e ti~e amounZ of ~atura~ (pen space c,, ~ frs part of
(sq. ft. or acres) ~-~'~-'-z-~.~.
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. ~$~x;~C. ~t~
6. Nfl] hfgh]y flammable'or potentfa]]y exp]osfve materials
substances be used or stored wfthfn the project
sfte?
7. How man~ estfmated automobf]e trfps, per day, w~]'] be generated
the project? ~ ~ -~'~' ~M.~ ;~/~~
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; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; ct;t and fill slopes; and )edestrian and bicycle facilities.
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Geology
Has a geology study been ,conducted on the property?
(If yes, please attach)
Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? ~r~F~x~/~-
(If yes, please attach)
2. Hydrology
Are any of the following features, present on or adjacent to the
site? /If yes, please expl,,in in detail.)
a. IS there any surface evidence of a si~ai!~ · ground water
tabl e? /~'~ ~-.. ~
b. Are th,:": any watercourses cr drainage i,lmevements on or
adja:en~ i'a the site? ~_~x~
-5-
c. Does ~unoff from the projec] site drain directly into or toward
a domestic ~ater supply, lale, reservoir or bay?
d.Could drainage from the sit~ cause erosi(m or siltation to
adjacent areas?
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their
location. ~'~/~,-,-~- ~'./~-~, ~,~,~ ~w~w-~
3. Noise
a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site
or from points of access which may impa~ct the surrounding or
adjacent land uses?
4. Biology
a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state?
.
b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which
(if any) will be removed by the project.
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site?
b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
or near the project site? . ~
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all s~rnctures and l~nd uses c~rrently existing on th~
Describe all structures anc: land uses ~:,,'en~ly existing on
adj$cent property.
7,
a. A~e there any Pesidents on site? (If so, so. many?}
b. Are there a~y curment employment opportunities o~ site? {If so,
Please provide any other information ~hich could expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project.
- 7 -
E. CERT!FICATIOBJ
or
Owner/ ' *
Con:g! t~nt or---~Lge~nt*
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, tile statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true ~nd correct and that all known
information conce:ni~q tse project and it; setting hr.':e been included in
Parts ~, C and O ~; ~i: application for n lnitiai i ~!~), cf possible
environ~-~ental i~', :~ ~d :~% enclosures f<r L'L~L~Cii:T!('Ii~ chereto.
*If ~cting for a corporation, include cap;city ~m:J c :n,:ny name.
CITY OF C}IULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT
IAPPLICA,T'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTEREST~ ON ALL APPLICATIONS
i~NICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTIO,q gN THE PART OF THE CI~TY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COM~.I.TSSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
List the nan!es of ail ~ "~?~-q . ..... :r'l'~ i
~ ...... r,.~ ~ : n~"" ~rope,"t\~ invol~ed.
2. .Tf any person identified p~':,,ant to (l above is a cor':~orat~c~n or partnership, list
the names of all indiv~dt~als owning more than
,O~ of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in t;e partnership.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization' or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Bo~ Commissions, Committees and Council within the. past ,twelve months?
Yes . If yes, please indicate person(s)
IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venturel association, '
social club, fraternal organizatio% corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
po]itical subdivision, or any o~her group or combination acting as ~ unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary ~$ , , >. ./
~ig~a~ure of appli'cant~d~t~
A-110 :r iht or type name of'~p~icant
-8-
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site:North Y~ ~7/~z~ ~ /-/-/69
South /~_ /_ /~-
East ~,- /-~-~ ~
West
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use . ' · , , '
designation on site: fi~ ~
South ' >~' /1~/ .~~ ....
West ~,~ ~k~ ~
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated?
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes?
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to prot~t or enhance
the scenic quality of Chula Vista.)
How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District
of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the
General Plan?
What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service
District? ~2~, ~
How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project?
(2AC/lO00 pop.) ~. 0
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to proxide
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.)
-9-
3. School s
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
E1 ementary ~
ar. High ~ /~ /~2/ /~
High ~ /~/~
m
Sr.
4. Aesthetics
Does the project contain features which could be construed to he at a
variance from nearby features due to bpl/k, form~ texture or~ colo? (if
so, please describe.)
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources:
Electricity (per year)~/~'/t~/-z/~ /~x~L /~?.~.~ zl~l
Natural Gas (per year) ' ? ~
Water ( per day ) ×'?~-~ ~/~ ~ ~
6. Remarks:
DireCtOr o~Yanning or R.e_~presentative
-10-
Case No.
A?
G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. .Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain?
b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards?
c. Will the project create any flooding hazards?
d. What is the location and description of existing on-site
drainage facilities? ~ ~Lc~ ~ (~ ~
e. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~G
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage fac~l~tles.~ c~:,ok~rnT, u~-qD cSx~
g. (~ adequate to serve the project?
2. ~ransportat~on
a. ~hat roads provide prJmary access to the project?
b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
generated by the project ~per day)? ltC, (%~,cc~p¢
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
~c~ ~on ~w~. Before After
L.O.S.
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project?
If not, explain briefly.
e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing streets?'.~t/.
If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions.
- ll
Case No.
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?~
/
Liquefaction?
Landslide or slippage? ~) Ih~ qb~
b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the
project?
4. Soils
a. Are there any anticipate~ adverse soil conditions on the project
b, If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions?
c. Is a soils report necessary?
5. Land Form
a. What is the average natural slope of the site?
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site?
6. Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enou~ to justify that a noise analysis be required
of the applicant?
-12-
Case No. I%
7. Air Quality
If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with
this project, complete the following:
Total Vehicle
Trips Emission Grams of
(per day) Factor Pollution
CO -'/~ X 118.3 =
Hydrocarbons ~9~ X 18.3 =
NOx (NO2) 7~ X 20.0 :
Particulates ~ X 1.5 :
Sulfur ~ X .78 =
8. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid Z~ :~/~Aw Liquid ~ ~ ~/~
What is the. ~l°ca'ti°n~ ~ and size of existing sewer l~nes' on or adjacent
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? ~¢/-y~O
9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact
If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible
significant impact on the environment, please identify the public
facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact.
(Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any
public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.)
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures
Ci'cy~/ngineef' Or~lTepresentat~ ve '
- 13 -
Case No. IS-88-53
FIRE DEPARTMENT .
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the. Fire,/
Department's estimated reaction time?
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level o'f fire
protection for the ~rg~!o~ed facility without an increase.in equipment,
or personnel?y~'
~. . Remarks S~ ~
~ire M~rs'ha~ D~te /
CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT
BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION
PLAN CORRECTION SHEET
AddressZ~)/ E/~-.S ZI~ Plan File No.__ Checker~/~-yZ) Date
Type Constr..~ Occupancy~-J~-~ No. Stories / Bldg. Area
The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions.
PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN:
/
FPB-29 '~
!/ CHULA VISTA ELKSI
' I "~
/ /
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEI~NT
IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No ~)~ If yes, please indicate person(s)
is defined--~s: "Any individu'~T, firm, conartnersh~. ~oint vo-+-~
club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate,['t~ust,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, dis~,rict or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." '
Sigh~b~e~f appliCant/date ' -
Yr~n~ or type name of applicant