Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 1983-2056 2056 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE REZONING 0.62 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN "C" STREET AND SEA VALE STREET 660 FEET EAST OF NORTH GLOVER AVENUE FROM R-1 TO R-3 - GREENWICH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY The City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds as follows: That in accordance with the attached Negative Declaration, IS'84-5 and the findings therein, the proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact upon the environment, and the City Council hereby certifies that the Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION I: That the Zoning Map or Maps established by Section 19.18,010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code be hereby %mended by adding thereto the following zoning changes: That that certain property consisting of 0.62 acres located between "C" Street and Sea Vale Street 660 feet east of North Glover Avenue be, and the same is hereby rezoned from R-1 to R-3 in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. PCZ-84-B, adopted on the 30th day of November, 1983 pursuant to the provisions set forth in Section 19.12,020 governing the rezoning of property. SECTION II: That any and all ordinances heretofore adopted by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista concerning zoning of said property be, and the same are hereby rescinded insofar as the provisions therein conflict with this ordinance. SECTION III: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirty-first day from and after its passage and approval. Presented by Approved as to form by Rev. 7- 82 FIRST READ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE lTY OF CHULA VISTAj CALIFORNIAj HELD December 13 19 83 AND , __~ FINALLY PASSED AND ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD December 20 · 19 83 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE· TO-WIT: AYES: Councilnmn: Scott, Malcolm, Cox, Moore, McCandliss NAYES: Councilmen: None ABSTAIN: Cavilmen: None ABSENT: Counci~en: None ~~~he City of Chulo Vista / ATTES ~ ~ ~I'ATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) s s. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chulo Visto, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is o full, true and correct copy of ORDINANCE NO, 2056 ,and that the some has not been amended or repealed. DATED (seol) City Clerk CC-660 · ,- negativ : ' ,deciaration PROJECT NAME: Canterbury Court Senior Citizens Housing Development PROJECT LOCATION: Approximately 5 acres located south of "C" Street within the 200 and 300 block of "C" Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Greenwich Devel2pment Company CASE NO: IS-84-5 DATE: October 31, 1983 A. Project Setting The project site is located within the flood plain of the Sweetwater River. Therefore, the provisions of the Federal flood insurance program apply to this project and the residential structures will have to be raised to one foot above the projected flood level. Because the property is located in the flood plain, groundwater is also present. However, given the proximity to the bay area, the water has a high salinity content and therefore is not potable water. A minor amount of drainage flows across the property and in an area immediately adjacent to "C" Street there is a depression that retains water after rainfall. This produces a potential problem for a vector infestation. The geology of the vicinity poses two potential development problems for the property. Because the site is located within the flood plain and there is groundwater present, there is a potential for the liquification process to take place during, an earthquake. Additionally, there is an inferred earthquake fault which is located along the western boundaries or just to the west of the property. This fault is a minor one which is not associated with the La Nacion earthquake fault system. Again, because the project site is located in a flood plain, there are heavy deposits of alluvial soils along the lower elevations of the property. This factor will have to be taken into consideration during grading and construction of pads for buildings on the property. The project site, with the exception of the extreme western portion which is currently utilized for parking for an existing one story office building, is characterized ashaving steep slopes, some bluffs and a swaIe which generally runs from an east to west direction. As was previously noted, the central portion of the site adjacent to "C" Street has a depressed area which frequently ponds after rainstorms. The project site also has several mature California Pepper and other trees. There are no rare or endangered plant species on the property. LL city of ch~a vista plan~ng department (~ environmental review section According to information provided by adjoining property owners, the site is frequented by several animal species. However, no rare or endangered animal life has been identified on-site nor is known to utilize the site during transitory trips. B. Project Description The project consists of a 207-unit senior citizens apartment project. The proposed units would be located in structures ranging from one to three stories in height and will be provided with approximately 140 parking spaces and be served by one bus stop. The density of the proposed project on the five acre+ site is approximately 41.5 dwelling units per acre. The dwelling units '~ould be split between iT1 one-bedroom units and 36 two-bedroom units. A recreation building and associated uses would be provided along the frontage of the property on the extension of Third Avenue which has various office and commercia! uses. The entire site would be graded with a balance of cut and fill involving 21,500 cubic yards of earth to be excavated and filled. The maximum depth of cut will be about 15 feet and the maximum depth of fill would be approximately 14 feet. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The project site is currently zoned R-l, R-3-G-D, and C-O. The project applicant proposes a rezoning of the R-1 area to an R-3 classification to permit the proposed use. In accordance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance regarding senior citizens housing, the density of this classification of projects may exceed the density specified in the zoning ordinance and maps. Therefore, the proposed use is in conformance with the zoning ordinance of the City of Chula Vista. As is specified in the Housing Element of the Chula Vista General Plan, the proposed use may exceed the density provisions of the Land Use Element subject to the provision of senior housing facilities with a percentage provided at an affordable rate. D. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. Drainage As was previously noted, the project is located within the flood plain of the Sweetwater River and therefore, it must abide by the provisions of the national flood insurance program. This would be accomplished as is shown on the grading plan by raising the pad elevations for the dwelling units above the lO0-year flood level. 2. Groundwater The project site involves a minor drainage swale and a drainage problem regarding the ponding of water on the property. The proposed grading plan would solve the issue of ponding of water on the site and the project would be required to tie into existing drainage facilities subject to the approval of the City Engineer. This would L?~ ~' avoid any significant impact due to on or off site drainage. Although groundwater is present, it has a high salinity content and is not suitable for human consumption. Therefore, the project will not significantly impact this resource. 3. Geology Geological maps of this vicinity indicate an inferred earthquake fault along the western property line of the project or just to the west of the project sit~. Additionally, because the project is located within the flood plain there is high groundwater present and there are alluvial soils, the project will be subject to some level of the liquification process. These potential impacts upon the project are typical of development in this vicinity and can be easily dealt with during standard development regulatory processes which will include the submission of a soils and geotechnical report. Implementation of recommendations from these reports which will be required by the City will avoid any significant environmental impact. 4. Biology There are no significant biological resources on the project site and therefore development of the property will not have an adverse impact on these resources. 5. Noise The project is not of a nature that would create any substantial acoustical impact. However, continuing compliance with the City's performance standards and nuiscance regulations will be required and that will avoid any substantial impact. The dwelling units closest to Third Avenue extension may be subject to an acoustical impact due to traffic volumes on Third Avenue extension. This may require the submission of an acoustical report specifying mitigation measures to avoid significant impact. All of these measures will avoid any substantial adverse impact resulting from the project's implementation. 6. Transportation/Access The City's Traffic Engineer has estimated that approximately 680 trips would be generated by the project and in assigning these trips to various streets in the vicinity of the project, it was found that no street would be significantly impacted by the proposed project. Current levels of service on adjoining streets is "A" and this will not change after implementation of the project as proposed. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects No mitigation measures are recommended since standard development regulations and the implementation of all recommendations proposed within both a geologic/soils and acoustical report on the project site will reduce potential impacts to a level of Insignificance. F. Findings of Insignificant Impact I. There are no significant natural or manmade resources within the project area which could be adversely affected by project implementation. 2. The proposed senior housing project is in conformance with the General Plan and will not achieve short term to the disadvantage to the long term environmentaj goals. 3. All potential impacts can be mitigated through standard development regulations and the implementation of geologic/soils and acoustical report recommendations. No impacts are anticipated to interact and cause cumulative effect on the environment. 4. The project will not create any source of significant noise or odors, nor will any hazards to human being result. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Tom Dyke, Building Department Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Applicant's Engineer: Dan Biggs 2. Documents Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. WPC 0175P LLEN 6 (Rev. 12/82) city of chula visla planning depadmenl environmental review section - E;' ~ {qev. i2/82) ~--- rear Fr. Reid. ~"e would like to register our concern over the following points in the Initial Ztudy of the Canterbury Court Fro jeer. Point A. 6a. Permits or approvals required: '~ this project is subject.-~to "control" as you stated as a ~enior .~Tousing }'roject, why isn't a Yublic ]:roject or Redevel- opmeat A~ency Yermit or some simi!iar public scrutin3~ necessarF7 "'e a~ resldents in the area feel this project does require a 2olls Report, HS~drolo~Tical Study,Noise Assessment, and Traffic ~mpact Ret3ort due to the following reasons. Coils Report [s necessary due to the extensive grading Irol_.DSed and ar:ount .Dr fill proposed in the future and wha't was done in ~he Fast that we are aware of over 20 ye~r~ at least. m-= '.ater levels of ~,~ ' .... ~ ..... natural ~.asin art i'c~r.j altered, the f'inc~ F!ain is a r, art of this proyerty or adjacent land in tb.e f!ooc= F. lain ,,.,hich ',vi!l be affecte~ by the chan~e in drain- are .......... o.. ~h_. future imnact b'r the builCer[= no imr~ct statement 'jceS not reassure t.he neighbors. L'e ~,.'ou ld like a HydrolOgicai 2tudy done. A ~oise Assessment is a need not as apparent,but still desirable due to ~in~ proposed in a canyon which ha~' been a natural a=Fhltlnaater fop 2~r~ars. An addi~icnal D0C residents however cuiet will with the configuration ~f' the land and the Ea~t/"'est site D!a~ have an im=act just as the conversations at the routh Ray ]loaders rise to the surrounding R1 homes. Traffic ~mDact Reports are desirable in a neighborhood with aE man~~ types of uses as are now in existence and as near by hills and curves make off street parking hazardous. Foint B.d. Gross density ?'e question the simple arithmetic of 300 residents on acres being 26.? density. ~.'Ze think it is much higher than the usual R3 dens it2,~ in the city. ~. Rental ~rice ranEe 7f this ms to be fTinanced at lower interest rates for yublic benefit why are they not required to offer a low rent, orderermine the possible price for public scrutiny. h. Square footage Foes th~s meet the code for rentals if this was not listed as a Zenior Project! j. Yrumber of 3n-site parking spaces ~oes this meet the code for rental units. R3 FroDerty~ not listed a~ a Senior Froject? Is this adequate for'even a Senior F'roject~ if there can be such a label now~' Point ~ YrD:~ + ..... c~ Characteristics OCT 21 PLANNING D ARTM T 2.Grading or excavation V'hat is the street treatment on"C" Street going to be? The site plans do not relate to the hills around their plan and the nearby streets. Point P. Environmental Setting 1. Ceolo~y V'hy do they bypass a Soils Report an a project this large an~ with grading, fill, and drainage problems? 2. Nydrolofy A surface evidence of ~hallow ground water is evidenced by over 10 full grown trees plus much natural vegetation. and a lovely pond every winter. They deny this. Existing drainage under C Street is proposed. This existing drainage has flooded every year without more stress, and a grading plan funneltag a canyons worth of drainage on to a mobile home park which is below the level of this project. 3. Poise This is a natural amphitheater. The noise rises. At least they should snswer this concern truthfully. 4. Piology There ar~ at least 10 sizable trees on the site. 6. Current lan~ Use Th~ v~cant !an~ consists of old foundations fr~,v t,hs ~siry and unknown land ff!!. The'adjacent property does not ref!~ct the number of people !ivin~ in the Fohile Home Park. The tru:k loading terminal v'ith[n ~ound impact, and the All i'Uight ~ar-hSuse directly be- hind the rsrartment of Fotor Vehiclss. 7. ~ocial The impact on an older residential neighborhood is clearly of concern. rs this goin~ to be a quality type environment the city is labeling a Senior Project? The insertion of three story buildings blocking the view of the South Bay Pioneers and existing R1 residences is also a negative social value. V'e want more study and public information available on these points. Truthful answers would seem required to the initial Etudy e!so. Sincerely, I.Zr and i,Zrs Dean Smith 6 RECEI V,I:D October 21, 1983 OCT 2 1 !983 TO: Doug Reid Director, Environmental Review PLANNING D~PARTMB~T city of ula vista CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA FRO~I: Peter Watry F~~~'/ 81 Second Avenue Cbula Vista 92010 SUBJECT: Cantebury Court project on 'C' Street I offer the follo~,ing concerns about the Cantobury Court project in the hone that they will be considered and satisfactorily addressed. 1. ;Yater runoff. Some of the subject property presently lies below the street level so during, rains water rmoff from most of the property and surrounding banks simply stays on the property and soaks in event,,~lly. After completion of this project it appears that all the runoff will be dumped out on the street. And a great deal of the property will be pavement and rooftops, so there will be a massive increase in the amount of ,~ater being channeled off the property. To ~vhere? The mobil-home park is "downstream" and that is already subject to flooding now. 2. Traffic. C Street already has a large apartment complex on it, a high density mobil-home park, and the South Bay Pioneers. I believe that the estimte of 200 car trips-per-day is very seriously underestimated. This location is isolated. It is not within walking distance, or at least easy walking distance, of anything useful except Jack-In-The-Box. Unlike a place like Frederika ,',~nor or a centrally located place, people living in Cantebury Court ,~ill most certainly feel the need off a car. 207 units will generate far more than 200 trips per day in n~ opinion, and so aggrevate an already crowded C Street. . 3. Noise. The nature of that "C Street canyon" is such that noises are exaggerated and carried up the canyon to Sea Vale and surrounding areas. E{7 parents used to live on Sea Vale and noises from the west could easily be heard, particularly from the businesses and even from Sweetwater High School. This high-density project will simply add to the noise-problem already evident in the surrounding hf~her levels. 4. View. If my estimates are correct, some of the buildings will be high enough to seriously impede the view of existing homes on Sea Vale. It seems to me that some of the most south-eastern building'pads could be lowered at least 5 feet without hindering 'minimum runoff and dr~n slopes. 5. General R-1 environment. We have always fought hard to preserve what we think is a nice older residential neighborhood in the general vicinity of Second Avenue, including Sea Vale Street. The City has supported us m-ny times in keeping out or minimizing projects that would tend to destroy a fragile older neighborhood such as ours. A retirement home at the proposed location would not in and of itself adversely affect the neighborhood, but I believe that one of this high density would. 300 people in such a limited area is certainly a striking contrast to the adjacent R-1 areas, and so the developer profits at the expense of others. A much lower density ~ould be compatible. Also, with so many other senior-citizen units being built in the area, the demand may not be sufficient for 207 units by Just senior citizens. Therefore, "regular" (younger) apartment dwellers my end up being the residents along with their vehicles, stereos, and so forth. Just by observation, it would appear that some families with young children are livin~ at Frederika L~anor. It cannot simply be assumed that only older people will be living at Cantebury Court forover and ever. The market for rentals will dictate that. OCT 0 198S October 1983 PLAi Z!iiiG This letter is ll: re~r~ to the ~lsnne~ development of the canyon located so.jth of C Street an~ within the 200 and 3CC block of C Street. As a neiS~bor of the canyon for seven years, an~ possessinS a clear vie~.~ of the ,.~hole canyon fron my home, I have ~.~atche~ the effects of the climate on this piece of Chula ~fista. B~rin5 times of seasonal rainfall, the canyon see~s to serve very well as a natural place for r'~noff ,.:I'~ile posin5 no threat to any of the s,.~rro.~n~inS areos. It seems to be a natural protedtion for the areas by providinS a .glace for water to collect while not over- capacitctin5 drainage c~nsls nor csusin~ any physical SanEar to existinS b'.~ildin~s or l~n~scape. ~ere see~s to ~e a very good bsls. nce of nat'~re in the canyon, orovldinE avcry necessary service to s'~r. ro'mndin= homes ~.~itnout the a]~e~ expense of a "modern" ]rain- age system. So~e of the concerns I have if this c~ny.Dr. is lost revolve aroun~ the loss of this nnt~ral Sr~in~e ~res. The S'_nEer to my home see~s imminent If the nat,3r::l drainn~e ?rer, is lost; snJ the t~reat of floo~ln;' to a~, ho~e bqilt in the area or those exist- ~n~ ~rk~ s~eas very oosslble 'lith the loss Df e~rth to absorb an ,~nme~s,~red :mount of ,.~ater, I q'mstion the sbllit7 of the drr:in- a=e ~'-=teT tD '~r'; as effectivel- an~ e:'ficleEtl~r ~s the n~mtural one no,., in ex!ste~ce. It se~s qnret~scna~!e to ts'<e out a ~.mrkin5 D-/> system and try to ~t~ild a system all at the expense of the .oeople of ~nula Vlst-~. I am spaskinS both financially und physically when I say expense. The dr'~ina~e system reconstnuction will cost the city; and if the s~ste~ Is not successful In ~ealin5 ,,~lth the quantity of water it Is Eiven~the residence In the area will with t~_eir homes and be!on=incs. I s,~ also cDnce~ned ~bT. ut the possibility of landslides w[~ioh the planned ~ovement of soil could t~i~Ee~, especially with the re,oval of E~oun~ cover. Any ~ove~ent of s0il could affect the stability of the surPoundin5 canyon slopes. The anlmah~hich live In the canyon include foxes, skunks, and oppossu~s. Basically they live in the c~on, makin~ only infrequeDt Journsys to our ho~es. I feel sa~ened by theiP ~otentlsl loss of homes, and concerned ~bout the possible p~oble~s t~ey ms2.~ cause the surroundin5 po~ulste~ areas when their loss Oc~rs. I hope you will t,:ike my concerns Int9 consideration with any decisions you are req':ired to ~gke. The.Lr 9re very sincerely and thouEhtfully 5iven. Sincerely, October 19, 1983 sy._.~~ E O Environmental Review Coordinator OCT o n 1983 City of Chula Vista, California Case No. IS-84-5 Dear Sir: I am Mrs. Dorothy G. Davies, who with my son, David P. Davies own property at 309 Sea Vale Street. The proposed Canterbury Court complex lies along the northerly line of our property, making us the major property owner affected. At this time we wish to state why we believe an environmental review should not be necessary. We will be happy to answer any questions also. First: We have seen a change from grazing land for mi"~cows become a trash dump and an eyesore. Cement, asphalt and ordinary trash have been dumped. The foundation of the old milk barn is filled 'with lumber, broken glass and beer cans. Second: There are deadly poisonous castor bean plants growing there. Third: Rats, ground squirrels and skunks overrun the canyon. We have never seen or heard any coyotes, but if they are there, they endanger the children who use the canyon as a short cut from "C" Street to Third Avenue. Fourth: The most important reason is the fire hazard. Any fire could ignite the pepper trees and send fire up the north side of Sea Vale Street. Any pumper truck would have to use the Pioneer's parking lot. Fire hydrants are in front of Chula Vista Mobile Home Park, "C" Street Apartments, North Del Mar and Sea Vale, and Gentry Glen - most too far away. Therefore, considering all the negative aspects, any improvements would be a blessing. Environmental Review Coordinator 2 We are environmentalists also, but sometimes common sense must prevail. Sincerely, - Dorothy ~I. Davies David P. Davies 309 Sea Vale Street Chula Vista, CA 92010 Phone: 420-6955 ORDINANCE NO. 2056 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE REZONING 0.62 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN "C" STREET AND SEA VALE STREET 660 FEET EAST OF NORTH GLOVER AVENUE FROM R-1 TO R-3 - GREENWICH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY At the meeting of December 20, 1983, the City Council placed the ordinance on second reading and adoption. The ordinance rezones the subject property to R-3 in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. PCZ-84-B adopted on November 30, 1983. Copies of the ordinance are available at the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA. Dated: 12/22/83