HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1976/04/06 Item 22 Item No. 22
April 6, 1976
Ordinance 1673 i . . . , '
�! ' 2�
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ITEM N0.
. . � COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT � � • � �������_
• FOR MEETING OF:
ITEM TITLE: Public hearing - Consideration of change of zone for property at 65-81 Third
Avenue from R-3-G to R-3-P-12 �
Ordinance #1673 - Amending the zoning map to rezone property at 65-81 Third
� Avenue from R-3-G to R-3-P-12 SECOi�D RcrlDi�iG Ai��D �DOPTION
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning��
ITEM EXPLANATION�
1 . On January 27, 1976 Council directed that no building permits be issued for a 63 unit
townhouse project at 65-81 Third Avenue (see locator) until rezoning of the property had
been considered. This direction came partially out of Council ' s concern that the redesig-
nation of the property from R-3-B-4-D (1 unit per 4,000 sq. ft. ) to R-3-G (1 unit per 2500
sq. ft. ) in 1969 increased the density without specific notification to the adjoining
property owners.
2. An Initial Study (IS-75-85) of possible adverse environmental impact of this project,
63 townhouses on 3.54 acres, was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on
December 30, 1975. The E. R.C. concluded that there would be no significant effects and
made a draft Negative Declaration, which�_ioas duly` forwarded for Planning Cortenission
certification. A copy of the Environmental Review Committee staff report is attached and
the Initial Study application, evaluation and all other relevant documents are on file in
the Planning Department for review.
' 3. On February 23, 1976 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed
rezoning and concluded that the present R-3-G zone is inappropriate for the following
reasons:
a. The predominant character of the area to the north, east and south is single
family residential .
b. The topographic character of the area is such that substantial grading is required
so that a sizable area would be devoted to slopes with the result that a site plan
designed to accoirunodate the maximum permitted density under the R-3-G zone is a
fairly crowded site plan.
EXHIBITS ATTACHED �continued on supplemental page)
Agreement Resolution Ordinance X Plat � Other X
Rpt. to P1an.Cormn.2/23/ 6
Environmental Document: Attached IS-75-85 Suqmitted on Resolution PCZ-76-A
Re ort o nv.Review Cortan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Concur with Planning Cormnission recorrunendation. In addiGion, the City Council should
certify that it has reviewed IS-75-85 and has considered the information in the Initial
Study and finds that it has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Environmental
Review Policy. �
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION�
On February 23, 1976 the Planning Corrnnission voted 6-1 to reT o�mendJ Chat� the City
Council rezone the subject property from R-3-G to R-3-P:_12' i-n accordance with the
findings set forth in Resolution PCZ-76=A. by the
City C - ,<<1 �
COUNCIL ACTION�
' _ , .��rnia
Ordinance placed on first reading March 23, 1976 Chu�-4 � -- " ' /
��3 Dated,.........._`�;..''.._`..'.�G•-...__..._..
Form A-113 (ReeS-75)
AGENDA ITEM N0; ���� 22
' Supplemental page No. 2
� c. The location of the property at the bend in Third Avenue and at a point where
the downgrade steepens is one in which substantial additional traffic should
be discouraged.
d. The General Plan designation for the area is Residential 4-12 DU/Acre.
4. A full discussion and analysis of the rezoning proposal is contained in the enclosed .
staff report to the Planning Cormnission dated. February 23, 1976.
>�3
. 'J � "" '""' �.� .': -` ' "
t"t,
V) , � ...... m ... _ — _ ..�"" """ ' .t`ll��C,` Q (�,� ,
� � -". N . � . .... - m ' •�'� r;i.'{.]� D��l', " . � ..
. — y ; ,i. •'. ,;•�
;-1 -i . '. ��:C�'i`'�. . .i'.':i:.�:.�`, .
� n GUAVA AVENUE -- ---- .-,-- - • c � ,.
n _�T , :�� ;��i•' :'�:�
O , '� , T- , , l�;'; ,.+.,'� �^`i','.:'"
< cn � � � � . , ., �•�� ;:t.t"_�. �.
� Z7 - - - - -- - i �i- - �- � 1T i -- /��� � . . � .'�._�.,'".�_`;(.����,t ti: ., ''`. . �.( .
�' i I "'1 V1`� ; � � ...:`; ` '^� .i.�� �
rn , � � ' �,�. . :y � . ,
p='..,-•.;
rn i: ; � i , � ; ; � � -+ � ' � _ � `l-. ',�,;,••��':
� �:�.'; '�:.�:. .�•. �.�_.
� FOURTH AVE. � NORTH
' -r�; � � , � . � � p . ; � �=-r-
m : . ;+i : � � , ; , -+: � �' , n - � , �
z � _ f '_'� '� � � � � � � ' .
m . , I_ � � . --- -� :(J�1 I � --i_�---�-
A GLOVER AVENUE � -- "-- --- � i 1
— , W
' T - --- - GLOVER C'f. / � :
. � ' � �"� � ' I. �
, i , ' ' I
; � ' � � � I
GARRETT AVENUE ` n , ��,--- –=� --��_
; , , ; , , ; m I o � .� ' .N� - : U� ��� � .
::i ' : � � . . �� --I- - - —,_ .� : �� _ _ ' a� ` � '
� �, � , * . � T ,,C' g ,. �
LANDI. NUE � _.. . . . . . � � � �` .r^ ` � - . . .
, I I ' ' , � i � � '-1 . �' - --- W 0) '
I i i � � i � �i � � �T ' s . ^ '-{ �
� � �_.."�_ __ _ _ +Ni '. �n -1 � _ � lJJ . �
'T'rT _. ' � _ '< < �
1 i ' i i � i i i i � � � �"" �' A ^ � N�l� (Y� � O
I ,' , •�• � T 4 .
' THIRD AVE. SEA VALE __NORLH THI
i � �� Gu^r�:'L� t ��' b <T Ti���iT , _ _ � �
� � � �. �.`" T�T (1 fl I i � ��•_ _ •
� ' .. O r`�]]]] -� - -i � (/� —,',1 — P,I 4�EGf � � ■
� i � ; `__ .' � �_ ._ _ L O� � O D< + �./� e 1
° '� �1 --- n
� ' �
;hIURCH �avENUE _ ; �� o='� _ _ (jJ � —�— t i x � i
— < ,
__ ` � UI � _ _ /�� T _ _ n �
_ - -- - ?• •- - -,- - u, -r ,r - -- �n '- -- � i
' � . ' O �� ����_ _ _ _ .• i f
— ---- ' � - r''�'�Ti� -•� � . �
AVENUE � ----- -- - � � �
DEL FAAi
r11]I:i�"�I� T T .I-_� � . �I
_ _ _ _ ' _ _ '.,=���'_ " TWIN — � �c�1gN� _`9' � ° 1 "' — � _ N _�.�
_. , . _
�
' " � i � . ... O 2 ��n � "}";.. - i — i_... "' 2c_
'"" /
— � . . i � � __ " ' _ . __ __ "' �j -, '_
, _. _i � i ' -..._ A N O � W D � � -. .. . (°� ._. � _�._ A1
I _. __ �c __' �l ,��l U � ' � ' U " " — N __ "' " "V _. n "__ � '
AVE ��UE '^ _ c�,Z`I (}�,wj, i 0 '- ,�' -` - ' - - - -- - � --- ' - �� - --
clRCl K�'}.iD'� • j--- - - '' - --. � •--- �__ _ , i� � -•i
' " 1 ' ' p ����iii 7 "' (il ' , I I � - :/+
_ _ __ --.i "l- _ _ �-' N I . -1 " " _� ..___.. � 1. ' '"
''I"' ; ' '_�'�_I ___,.._r-- O . _.� , � • •r .- T> . ;-. '-- _ i , -
_ --�; , ; _ _ � � . , , _ 0 �)
� ,
� ' � n . -:" - �' � • i
�: . � .. � . - : . : ' � . --
. . . � a , b
. . - X_ �
Cit� Planning .Cor�ission . � � . �
Agenda Items for t�eeting of February 23, 1976 page 9 �.
4. PUBLIC HEARIilG: Rezoning PCZ-76-A, 65-81 Third Avenue from R-3-G to
, R-3-G-P - City i m tiated
A. BACKGROUt�D
1 . On January 27, 1976 City Council directed that no building pernits be
issued for a 63 unit townnouse project at 65-81 Tnird Avenue (see lo�ator}
until rezoning of. the property had been considered. This direction came out
of Council ' s concern that the redesignation of the property from R-3-B-4-D
(1 unit per 4,000 sq. ft. ) to R-3-G (1 unit per 2500 sq. ft. ) in 1969 �
increased the density without specific notification to the adjoining property
owners.
2. An Initial Study (IS-75-85) of possible adverse environmental impact of
this project, 63 townhouses on 3.54 acres, was conducted by the Environmental
Revieo-i Conrnittee on December 30, 1975. The E.R.C. concluded that there �•iould be
no significant effects and made a draft P;2gative Declaration, which is herewith
� forwarded for Planning Comnission certifi"cation. A copy of the Environmental.
Review Committee staff report is attached and the Initial Study apolication,
evaluation and all other relevant documents are on file in the Planning Depart-
ment for review.
, B. RECOhu4ENDATION ,
1 . Adopt a motion finding that this project of 63 townhouses and r2zcning
FCZ-io-x would noi nave any possible significant impact on tne environment and
certifying the Negative Declaration.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council rezone 3.54 acres at
65-81 Third Avenue frcm R=3-G to R-3-P-12 (12 DU/acre) , subject to the conditions
set forth in Section E of this report.
C. DISCUSSIOh7
1 . Surrounding zoning and land use:
North - R-1 Single family hanes
South - R-1 , R-3-G Single family home; offices
East - R-1 Single family homes
- West - R-1 Third Avenue; single family home; vacant parcel
2. Site characteristics.
, The 3.54 acre site (see Exhibit "A") slopes to the center and to the ti�iest,
creating a small draw running �east to west and ranging in elevation from 60'
at the east end to a low of 32' at the west end. The average natural slope of
the entire site is 15N. The property is 14' low;er than the street at Third Avenue.
Several mature pepper trees are located at the west end of the property.
73 '
City Plann.in� Certvnission • . . ' _ �
Agenda Items far �9eeting of February 23, 1976 page .l0
, 3. Analysis.
a. In 1966 the owner of this 3z acre site proposed to construct a
convalescent hospital on the property. The zoning ordinance at that time
required multi-family zoning in order to apply for a conditional use permit
to build such a facility. After the proper hearings �•rere held the Ci.ty
determined .that multi-family zoning was aopropriate for the site and zoned
- the property R-3-B-�-D (1 unit per 4000 sq, ft. ) . A conditional use permit
for a convalescent hospital �vas subsequently approved but the facility �•+as
never built and the conditional use perrit has expired.
� - In 1969, the City adopted a new comprehensive zoning ordinance which
eliminated tfie R-3-B-4 category. The closest corresponding multi-family
_ zone was R-3-G (1 unit per 2500 sq. ft. ) and therefore tne subject property
was placed in the R-3-G category. Tnis action resulted in a density increase
of 6 DU/acre without specific notification to the surrounding home o�rrners. The
6eneral Plan desi9nates the area as Medium Density Residential , 4-12 DU/acre.
b. In staff' s judgment, the site is not �•iell suited for even• a
moderately dense multiple family development for the following reasons:
. • The predominant character of the area to the north, east and south
is single family residential .
• The topograohic character of the area is such that substantial .
� . . qradilly 1� i2y�7iC:'� SO �^.'.� d 51Z8FJ�9 3r�ca ;.�n����l hc dP"oted to
slopes with the result that a site plan designed to accommodate
_ . the maximum permitted density under the R-3-G zone is a fairly
crowded site plan.
• The location of the property at the bend in Third Avenue and at a
point where the downgrade steepens is one in which substantial �
� . additional traffic should be discouraged.
- c. Although the general character of the surrounding .area is single
family residential (except the west end) , the topography of the site, its tiaidth,
and the fact that is is closed in on three sides , makes it unsuitable for a
typical R-1 subdivision. The width of the property is 255 feet. The zonin�
ordinance requires a minimum lot �•iidth of 60 feet, which ti�rould require a depth
of 117 feet for the typical R-1 lot. Adding 52 :`eet for the width of the public
right of way results in a total required viidth of 286 feet fer tt•;o ro�•rs of lots
and one street. Thus, the subject property is substandard in �•+idth to develop
for single family homes. In addition, the site will require a substantial ar.iount
� of grading, consuming a sizable portion of the usable area of the R-1 lots. On2
, solution to minimizing the heigh: of the graded slope banks �•rould be to fill *_h�
entire canyon until the eleyations correspond to that of the adjoining properties.
Unfortunately, this solution creates a very c�echanical and monotonous look ��hich
would destroy any semblance of the existing canyon's shape and create in .its
place a long sloping flat pad, measuring 255'x600' .
d. A development pattern which does not require a public street,
prescribed lot sizes and deoths, could make mucli better use of the site without
obliterating its basic character. The t��o r�ost familiar types of patterns in
this category are: (1 ) aparunents, and (2} planned unit developmeiits, wiiere
the dwelling units are clustered on a limited part of_ the site and tlie existing
slopes are preserved to the maxir�um extent. The owner' s present site plan
?�
, . .
City Pta"nning. Co:::nission • �
Agenda Itens for Meeting of February 23, 1976 page 11
� preserves the basic land for�; hov�ever, the proposed density creates 12:1 side
slopes in order to provide the open space �•rithin the interior. A reduction in
density would provide the developer r�ith the opportunity to retain more .of the
_ existing land form.
4. Conclusions.
It is staff' s conclusion that neither the existing R-3-G nor R-1 zoning
is appropriate for the property for the followin9 reasons:
a. The R-3-G allo�•is density higher than that intended by the City
in 1966. - -
b. An R-1 subdivision is impractical on this property due to the
dimensions and topography of the property.
5. Rationale for proposed zoning (R-3-P-12)
Section 19.56.045 enables the City to limit density under the Precise Plan
hbdifying District. Staff' s recommendation is to limit the density to 12 units
per acre (designaged R-3-P-12) which is approximately the same as the earlier
� zoning (1 unit/�000 sq. ft. = il DU/acre) which �•�ill bring the project size of
42 units on 3.54 acres more into conformance with the General Plan. Such a
density will be more compatible with single family homes in the area, will
acknowledoe the existence of R-3 zoning to the south, and w�7� ro�ngpi�a r�o
dirficulty of developing the property with detached single family homes.
D. FIMDIt7GS
1 . Good zoning practice dictates that the density of development should be
reduced •from 17 DU/acre. The existing R-3-G zoning (1 DU/2500 sq. ft. ) conflicts
with the earlier City intent in 1966 that the density be limited to 1 DU/4000 sG.
ft. The R-1 zone is not suitable since the resulting development would be
impractical due to the width and topography of the property.
2. The addition of the "P" Precise Plan hiodifying District is necessary
in order to limit the density of the property to a number more compatible o-+ith
the surrounding si�gle family heighborhood and to ensure that the �resulting
apartment project �aill not be a detriment to the .character of the surrounding area.
3. The proposed zoning, R-3-P-12, conforms to the Chula Vista General Plan,
which designates the property as Medium Density Residential , 4-12 DU/Acre.
, . E. COilDITIOtJS OF APPROVAL
l . The maximum density allowed shall be 12 dwelling units per net acre.
2. No access shall be allo�aed onto Del Mar Avenue or Chula Vista Street.
3. To insure retention of the basic land fonn, the development of the proaerty
shall incorporate the criteria set forth in the Hillside Development Policy and
the Design Criteria for f4illside Development htanual .
��3 :
' : . ���
. � .
� � . .. .
. � ' \
� � ' .
> �
, � � --
. ,
. _ �J a -- . . _ - .
� : �
� /
U
��nd adw �3o � � � � � __ � -
- � � ..
, �
� \ � ,� .
: , � � � � - -
. i%!
� ��� � � ;
, ��
�
� � � j �� --
J ,+ � � � W :
���11 �--- � . ._
; �- �,��� � N �
,��. ,; , _ . . _
J�, . , � I , / ,f..� ���,
- � ` I . J ����.. � ;
� I , . _ : �
� _ / \�l�i, o - .
, J . � _
, �� j � �i�i.i - -
/ � I'r!'` .
/"`�
� _ /� \ __ . . . .
j � ;��f / �
; :�`_;. � � � � t��� � ` l :� '
� � ,
. .,� : ,,\ ,�; � �� '
� � �;��
I �. � � �_ `�
I � �u���s.:-r=...-t��`��
1--- -- ��-_��_-- --
. 3f1N3/1t1 42�IH1
� ' �"' g 1
. Q Q»no �Z -� .
F-(;:��� ��
�) r W°F- �Y �
= No�,o O z�' .
� .'• W ���� 2
, h.
o ' ' �
. . q � � . .
r � .
r �_ � � � � �ya , e
� RESOLUTION N0. PCZ76-A �/ �
RESOLUTIO�� OF THE CITY PLANtJING COhu4ISSI0N RECONu�ENDING TO • �
THE CITY COUiILIL THE CHANGE OF� ZOt;E FOR 3y54;]ACRES IOCATED
AT 65-81 THIRD AVENUE FROhf R-3-G TO R-3-P-12�� ' -
� WHEREAS, due to the concern over the residential density allowed by ;
existing zoning, the City Council directed the initiation of a zoning
i .
change application for 3.54 acres located at 65-81 Third Avenue from R-3-G • ;`
to R-3-G-P, and i;
WHEREAS, the Planning Cortonission set the time and place for a hearing - ;
t �
on said application, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, i
i
was given by the publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the . �
��
City at least 10 days prior to 'the date of said hearing, and ' .• �;
WHEREAS, a hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
`
7:00 p.m. on February 23, 1976 before the Planning Cortmission, and said i
. " :�
hearing was thereafter closed, and � �
WHEREAS, The Comnission found that based on the findings stated in the '
draft Negative Declaration, the project would have no significant impact on • `
, the environment and certified the IJegative Declaration. ! �
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: !
l. From facts presented to the Co�nission, the Commission finds that i i
the rezoning of property at 65-81 Third Avenue from R-3-G to R-3-P-12 _ �
(12 DU/acre) with ;.he Precise Plan subject to the following conditions:
_ I
a. The maximum density allowed shall be 12 dwelling units per net : �
acre. ; �
_ ,
b. No access shall be allowed onto Del Mar Avenue or Chula Vista Street. • �
c. To insure retention of the basic land form, the development of the �
I
prope:ty shall incorporate the criteria set forth�in the Hillside . ; �
Development Policy and the Design Criteria for Hillside Development ' i
' Manual.
�
, 2. The findings of fact in support of said determination are as follows: ; �
r
a. Good zoning practice dictates that the density of development �
; i
should be reduced from 17 DU/acre. The existing R-3-G zoning � i
! 'i
(1 DU/2500 sq. ft.) conflicts with the earlier City intent in i
; i
7966 that the density be limited to 7 DU/4000 sq. ft. The R-7 '
i .
zone is not suitable since the resulting development would be ; -�
impractical due to the width and topography of the property.
b��y `
f
. � ,
� b. The addition of the "P" Precise Plan Modifying District is - � .
necessary in order to limit the density of the property to a !
number more compatible with the surrounding single family � '
neighborhood and to ensure that the resulti�g apartment project `•
� £
will not be a detriment to the character of the surrounding ¢
i' �
area. t 'i
�.
c. The proposed zoning conforms to the Chula Vista General Plan, � '
which designates the property as Medium Density Residential , � ''
4-12 DU/acre. � ,
3. The Planning Cormission recormnends to the City Council that said � . !
rezoning be approved. �' ''
�: .
4. That this resolution be transmitted to the City Council and a copy r ��
be transmitted to the oo-mer of the property. jc _ �?
i•
i 1
PASSED AtdD APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA { ' .
this 23rd day of February, 1976, by the following vote, to-wit: j ;
AYES: Coirmissioners Starr, Floto, Rudolph, Chandler, Pressutti and Johnson
E .
, ' I
NOES: Cortunissioner Smith �
. � '
P,3SE;:;: t;one � '
j �
/�it ? • �?1-ut�i.,�,t-(< � .
� �
�
Chairman � �
ATTEST: ' !
I
Acting Secretary �
,
{
f
� ' I
� �
- e .
�
�
r �
. �
�
1
�3 • �
. ,
. � . .
� . - . . �Q , b .
DP.ArT I::GATII;E D�CLi�RnTIQ:'1 GF Eii`JiR�Jili�lti(iAL I"itnCT X � .
G,y December• 30, 197� � a draft ';egative Declaration of Environmer�tal Inpact
YldS recor.z�:2na�a � :ne _nviron-:�cntal i�°V104i�C(Yl@Ii.LE'E'� Ot tfl2 Cl �`.y Of �:lU�d ��:75i.d.
The proj2ct is descri�ed as ro11o4;s: A o3 unit toti•:nhouse project on 3.5? �
, acres �:�ith 112 parkinq spaces over 1/2 acre of landscaaina.
. ro�ec ocation: n2 easter y si e o � r ve. , � ee nort or treet.
- Chula 1'ista
: It is the fir.ding of the Environnental �Revie:a Corunittee Liiat �he project wili not
haVe a sienificant effect on the environrr,ent for the folicwinq reasons:
, a. The project will not adversely effect any natural or man-made
. • environmental features present in the project setting , nor wi11
the project generate zny nollutants that will have a potential
to significantly degrade the quality of the environment or
. _ curtail the range of the environment sahich supports the biosysten.
b. The project is in conformance with 'the long range goals of
the City of Cnula Vista and will not therefore attain .short term
_ to the disadvantage of long range goals .
,
e. Tne project wi�l r.ot orovide anl system that could support
- � ' secondary ceveiopment Ehat would cumulace co a ievei of being .
_ . substantial and adverse nor do any of the insignificant inpacts
�. interact to a significant level.
d. The project crill not result in the generation of any noise , .
_ air pollution , light, aesthetic blight nor any other hazard to
the welfare nor health of any human being.
_ Information for the Initial Study was prepared by: � -�
Thomas 41ong 3534 University Ave. San Dieqo, CA 9210�
The Initial Study Apolication and Evaluation is on file o-rith the Environmental
, Feview Coordinator o` tne City of Chula Vista and may be reviea;ed at the Planning
Department of the City of Chula Vista between 8:00 a.m, and 5;00 p,m,
�� . ��I��/�_:O � . .
Environ;r ital Revicrr �oo a�na or � .
. CASE ��U;iBER IS-75-85 -
Date Dec. 30, 1975 �
EN 3 (rev. 3-20-75) .
b�3 � ' . . . . �
. ' � � .
.
_ December 26 ; '1975 '
.
TO: Members of the Environmental Review Committee � /
FRO�S: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinatorr
SUBJECT: IS-75-85 Chula Vista Townhouses
A. Backqround
This project consists of a 63 unit townhouse project on 3 . 54 acres .
of land easterly of Third Ave. near Rimball Terrace. The site is
void of all significant environmental resources and hazards and the
urban infrastructure is adequate in this area. � -
� B. Recommendation -
Adopt chis staff re�ort at,d evaivation form and recommend that the
2oning Administrator and Director of public �4orks find that the
project will have no possible significant environmental impact in
accordance with the attached Negative Declaration and the findings
, therein. �
C. Project Setting �
The project site is located on the eastern side of Third Ave .
approximately 140 ' north ' of D St. in a small canyon that drains
toward Third Ave. The area is generally developed with single
family dwellings except for a multi family project at the north
east corner of 3rd Ave. and D St.
The project is not in the flood olain and there are no soils or
geologic problems with the site , there are no significant biological
or archaeological resources present.
, The existing traffic on Third Ave. is about 9500 ADT (both directions) ,
there is adequate capacity in Thrid Ave . to accommodate this project.
However this traffic volume does produce an unacceptable noise level
. on the project site.
Most urban support systems are adequate for this project, the exception
beinq the secondary school facilities which are currently o�erating,
above capacity. Before oUtaining building permits "can serve" letters
will have to be presented to the City . t�iith a project of this nature
and magnatude no substantial impact is anticipat-ed.
IV1�
. . . : . . . .. ._. ._,.. . .. . ,
. .
� . : • � " page 2
D. Project Discri�tion
The project consists of a G3 unit two story apartment/to.m house
development at a density. of just over 17 DU/�lC . �11 the units coould
. have two bedrooms and rent at $175-5200 per month . . The project will
also involve about 112 parking spaces and miscellaneous public
improvements.
About 29 , 000 cu. yrds . of gradinq is necessary to implement the
project. Slopes of up to 18 ' in heic,ht would be created . The
slopes would be planted and irrigated in accordance with the City ' s
landscape manual.
E. Evaluation
The most significant issue involved in this Initial Study seems to
be the compatibility of ;the project in this single family area and
the land form change �hat t•;ould result from the project implementation.
The issue of comnatibility is primarily a planning issue but the
topograohy differer.ce which will result from the grading will insure
no conflicts due to building bulk. Access will be provided only
from Third Ave. so no ADT increases in residential area will result
, The land form change will be fully mitigated by standard development
regulations which will insure slope stability , minimal erosion and
r.o der�onstrable aesthetic i„�pact. ,
GeneraZly a project of this magnitude could result in potential
impacts . fiowever as the Environmental Review Policy points out,
projects in the urbanized area of Chula Vista have a lotaer potential
fnr adverse environmental consequences .
F. Findings �
J a. The project will not adversely effect any natural or man-�ade
environmental features present in the project setting , nor wilZ
the project cenerate any pollutants that tioill have a potential
, to significantiv degrade the quality of the environnent or
curtail the range of the environment which supports the biosystem.
� - b. The project is in conformance with the long range goals of
� the City of Chula Vista and . will not therefore attain short term
to the disadvantage of long range goals . �
, � .
c. The project will not provide any system that could suoport
.. secondary developnent that would cu�ulate to a level of being
� _ _ substantial and adverse nor do any of the insignificant impacts
interact to a significant level.
, d. Thc project wiil not result in the gencration of any noisc ,
� air pollution, lignt , aesthetic blight nor any other hazard to
" ' the kelfare nor health of any human bcing. . ,
l ��', . , . . �
� - - - - -lr - i-�- �-
----� � �
, • � . . . F � .
. . � -- - --� .
� I
- - �-- - - - � -^ -
� I � I � I �
/ � � � � �
j I 1 � I j W
i I I I � � Q
�
,% '�,` �-- SEA VALE ST.
. , �
> i � ; �
.'�� i i i i �
� �� i i i i Q
I i � ,
i � , � , �
I I i � _ �_ � � �_ _ J I � I I
I I I
I I I \� � -- � I I Q - -- � I I � i
i --1 I F - - --
� � � � �' --- -� i � _c� �-d CHIAA VISTA ST.
�
KIMBq� ' � � � � � � �
i b � i i i � i
� i i i i � I
' ' TERR.
i i i , �a - - - ei , � i �
' � � � � ' r - - - -� �
i � � i i /f � � i �
i � - � -'- , , , i i r-t i-T � �-i - r
� � i -- --a i ' ( � i I � � � i ' � � i
i ii
i ; ; a i i ; i ; � ; � ; � i i ; i ; i
uD" STREET
LLi "' �
� oinn.±
a � Q 250'
i = b 590'
_� � 1 __ _
F- C 50'
20' NpR�
e 300'
N f eio
0
z
�
GASE NO. PCZ-76-A � HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ZONING MAP
' ACREAGE 3.a4 WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF ORDINANCE
1673 BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 6,1976
; SCALE 1"�200' •
� DAT E �RIL 14.1976 _���.�'"'
, qTY CL RK AT
= DRAWN BY ^ ,
I CHECKED BY �O�IIlIG MAP - 326
� �� 3 . - -� - --- -