HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1986/09/10 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, September 10, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-2M: Request to
establish a child care center and pre-school
at 95 Orange Avenue - Elva Cacho
2. Consideration of Final EIR-86-2: San Diego Country Club Clubhouse
Environmental Impact Report
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-C: Consideration to rezone portions of the
Las Flores Study Area from R-2 to R-1
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT to the Business Meeting of Wednesday, September 17, 1986
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
TO: City Planning Commission
FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning
SUBJECT: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting
of September 10, 1986
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-87-2M: Request to expand
existing daycare center to 20-25 children in an RV-15
residential zone - Elva Cacho
The applicant, Mrs. Elva Cacho requests a continuance of the hearing to
consider conversion of an existing single-family dwelling with family day-
care for 12 children, as an accessory use, to a daycare facility for
20 to 25 children as the sole use of the property.
The site plan for the project is under revision to accommodate alterations
in parking design and vehicular access to the site.
Mrs. Cacho has requested that the hearing on the matter be rescheduled to
the meeting of October 8, 1986.
The Montgomery Planning Committee, at its meeting of September 3, 1986,
approved Mrs. Cacho's request to continue the hearing before the Committee
to October 1, 1986, for the reasons previously mentioned.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 10, 1986 Page 1
2. Consideration of Final EIR-86-2, San Diego Country Club Clubhouse
Environmental Impact Report
A. BACKGROUND
A public hearing on the draft of this EIR was held by the Planning
Commission on August 13, 1986. Prior to the meeting, several letters of
comment were submitted and at the meeting written and verbal comments were
made. These written comments along with a transcript of the testimony
from the public hearing have been included in the Final EIR. Where
appropriate, responses to comments have been added to the report.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Certify that EIR-86-2 has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State
CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of
Chula Vista and further that the Planning Commission will consider the
information in the final EIR when it reviews the major use permit for
project.
C. ANALYSIS
1. Most of the comments on the Draft EIR were not germaine to the EIR
(i.e., statements in opposition or support of the project) or were in
support of the conclusions in the EIR. No response to these comments
are necessary.
2. A letter from Stephen P. Oggel, Counsel for the Country Club, was
received which states in part:
"Second, the basic consideration of an EIR is one of land use.
Mr. O'Neill's letter seems addressed to the historical quality
of the old clubhouse, which is a different issue. That
consideration has al ready been addressed by the Resource
Conservation Commission last week."
Historical and pre-historical resources are identified in CEQA as
having environmental importance. It is a basic policy of the State
to:
"Take all action necessary to provide the people of this state
with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural,
scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from
excessive no~se.~[~21OOl(b)]
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 10, 1986 Page 2
Also CEQA defines the environment as follows:
"Environment" means the physical conditions which exist within
the area which will be affected by a proposed project, including
land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of
historic or aesthetic significance. (21060.5)
Historical and cultural resources are the focus of this EIR. Under
the policies and definitions of CEQA this is a proper scoping of the
issues.
3. During the testimony on the Draft EIR, Anthony Ambrose, a planner
with HCH representing the applicant, stated a basic disagreement with
the conclusion of the EIR that demolition of the clubhouse would have
a significant environmental impact. (See page 29 of the final £IR.)
Section 15151 of the CEQA guidelines notes that:
"Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but
the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among
the experts."
In this instance, the opinion of the three architectural experts,
noted in the EIR, were considered along with: (1) the inclusion of
this site in the State Historical Site Inventory, (2) its discussion
and inclusion in the "Chula Vista Heritage" publication (pages 38
through 39 and 61 to 62), and (3) the recent recommended designation
as a historical site by the Resource Conservation Commission.
D. CONCLUSION
The 1921 establishment of the Country Club at this location, the retention
of a most prominent architect, the establishment of a pure example of his
mission revival work and the fact that this original structure remains in
the core of the Country Club,all contribute to the conclusion that the
demolition of the clubhouse will result in significant environmental
impact and the elimination of an example of a prominent architects
contribution to the regional architectural heritage.
WPC 3104P
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EIR-86-2
THE PROPOSED
DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION
OF THE
SAN DIEGO COUNTY COUNTRY CLUB
88 "L" STREET
CHULA VISTA, CALIF. 92011
PREPARED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SECTION
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF
MARIE BURKE LIA
ATTORNEY AT LAW
September 1986
INDEX
Page
1.O INTRODUCTION ................. 1
1.1 PURPOSE ................ 1
1.2 SUMMARY ................. 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRI?TION ............... 2
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .............. 2
3.1 HISTORIC ................ 2
3.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......... 2
History of the Club
The Original Clubhouse
Background to the Project at Issuance
19/~
198O
1982
3.1.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT ........ 8
3.1.3 MITIGATION MEASURES .......... 8
1. Design
2. Documentation
4.0 ALTERnaTIVES ................. 10
1. No project
2. Structural renovation - State Historical Code
3. Other location/preservation
4. Other location for social functions
5. Land Swap
6. Sale of site w/preservation
5.0 ANY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLENENTED ............. 14
6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 14
7.0 EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT ......... 14
8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ......... 15
9.0 INITIAL STUDY - CHECK LIST EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS . .
lO.O LIST OF APPENDIX .............. 17
11.0 COI,1MENTS AND RESPONSES ............. ]~
1.O INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
All governmental discretionary actions defined as projects by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require environmental assessment. Those
actions which could result in significant physical impacts to the environment
require the preparation of environmental impact reports.
This project proposal involves the demolition and replacement of the San Diego
Country Club Clubhouse at 88 "L" Street. Because of the historic/cultural
significance of the clubhouse and golf course, this environmental impact
report (EIR) was prepared.
This environmental impact report (EIR 86-2) has been prepared in accordance
with the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act (Cal. Admin. Code Section 15000 et seq.) and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. The scope of the EIR was refined by
public input solicited by the City (i.e., a Notice was distributed to
residents in the project vicinity). Additionally, a Notice of Preparation
(NOP) was distributed by the City to various State and County agencies for
opportunity to comment.
The purpose of this EIR is to provide an accurate and concise information
which delineates and explains the environmental impacts which could result
from the proposed project. The EIR analyzes all issues identified as having
potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from approval of the
proposed project. The EIR clearly identifies significant environmental
impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[a]) and provides analysis which
emphasizes the study of impacts determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15143). Mitigation measures and alternatives designed to reduce or
eliminate environmental impacts are delineated (CEQA Guidelines Section
15126[c][d]). Agency and public comments regarding the Draft EIR will be
included in the Final EIR with appropriate responses.
It is the policy of the City of Chula Vista that every project that it carries
out or approves shall, if it is feasible to do so, avoid or mitigate any
significant effect. While major consideration must be given to prevent
adverse environmental impacts, it is recognized that there is an underlying
obligation to balance other objectives including economic and social factors
in determining whether or how a project should be approved.
1.2 SUMMARY
The project, if implemented as proposed, will result in the demolition of the
San Diego Country Club clubhouse. The demolition of the clubhouse will result
in a substantial and adverse environmental effect on a structure of historic
and cultural significance and irreversibly eliminate an example of a prominent
local architect's contribution to the region's architectural heritage.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The San Diego County Club is proposing to build a new 36,140 square foot
clubhouse facility in place of their existing 23,000 square foot clubhouse at
88 "L" Street. The existing clubhouse was built in the early 1920's and has
had additions to it which altered the appearance and internal function.
A major use permit application will be processed by the City of Chula Vista.
At the City's request, the application also addresses the entire San Diego
Country Club. T~le major use permit is required since the property is within
the Montgomery co~nunity which was recently annexed to the City of Chula
Vista. However, the property is zoned S-90, a County zone, which requires a
major use permit for a private country club and golf course (i.e. section 2905
of the County zoning ordinance).
The site plan and elevations accompanying this application indicate the
building characteristics and parking arrangement.
Since the proposed use is the same as the existing use no significant impact
to surrounding properties is anticipated. In addition, the access to the club
property is not proposed to be substantially changed.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
3.1 HISTORIC RESOURCE
3.1.1 PROJECT SETTING-EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The Clubhouse of the San Diego Country Club is located at 88 "L" Street in
Chula Vista, at the northwest corner of the Club's 160 acre site, most of
which was recently annexed to the City of Chula Vista.
The Clubhouse was designed in 1921 by one of the region's most prominent
architects, Richard S. Requa. Famous in Southern California architectural
history for the development of his "Southern California" style and several
significant architectural and planning projects, Requa chose the Mission
Revival style, popular during the 1920's, for the Clubhouse.
The one-story building has a stucco exterior, a flat roof with parapets,
extensive red tile trim and a simulated bell tower. When completed in 1921,
it presented an excellent expression of Requa's work as influenced by his
years of architectural association with Irving Gill. The quality of the
building's original appearance is best appreciated from the 1921 and 1925
photographs from the San Diego Historical Society archives and the Chula Vista
City Planning Department (in the Appendix of this report).
Significant of Resource
Requa began his architectural career with Irving Gill and was later associated
with Mead, Jackson, Rice and Hamill, all of whom made substantial
contributions to the region's architectural heritage. The Clubhouse is seen
by some as an excellent example of Gill's influence combined with Requa's
Mission Revival style.
-2-
~~,~, .. ~LOCATIONAL MAP
SA~ DIEGO COUHTRY
GOLF COURSE
..... :..:.. ~ LLllllllllllllE
~- ~ NIl[lllllilll
f ~ ~ 2a I, ~1-
SITE PLAN
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
<q
LOWER FLOOR PLAN
2d
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
2e
Samuel Hamill, F.A.I.A. -
Mr. Hamill was an associate of the Requa firm in the 1920's, joining shortly
after the construction of this building. Upon viewing the historic
photographs of the Clubhouse, Mr. Hamill stated that this building is a good
example of Requa's Southern California style and should be preserved. It
evidences a great deal of the Gill influence, in appearance and in the
interrelationship with the landscaping and terrain. The chimney hood is a
particular Requa characteristic.
Bruce Kamerling, Curator, San Diego Historical Society
Author, "Irving Gill, The Artist as Architect" -
Upon viewing the historic photographs of the Clubhouse, Mr. Kamerlin§ also
identified the strong Gill influence in the structure. He felt it to be such
an excellent statement of Requa's work that every effort should be expended in
trying to save it.
Mary Taschner, M.A.
Author, "Richard Requa, Southern California Architect" -
Ms. Taschner's Master's Thesis exhaustively documented every stage and
accomplishment of Requa's professional career from 1907 to 1935. She analyzed
his influences, development of his various styles, and the many remaining
examples of his superior architectural and design abilities. With reference
to this building, her thesis states, on page 87:
"Surprisingly, for the clubhouse design, Requa left his successful
Secessionist style work and reverted back to the earlier Mission style.
The country club, a cubistic structure, is nearly a replica of Irving
Gill's work. Requa's touch is a decorative chimney with a Spanish tile
roof."
In May of this year, Ms. Taschner viewed the Clubhouse in its current state,
and advised that, in her opinion, the building today is not a good example of
Requa's Southern California Style, or of Requa's work, or of Requa's work as
influenced by Gill.
History of the Club
The Club was formed in 1896 and used a portion of Balboa Park for course and
Clubhouse until the 1915 Exposition required the site. They merged with the
Point Loma Golf Club and used those facilities until the eve of World War I.
In 1920, the Club members decided to establish and own their own Club at a
permanent location and acquired the present 160 acre site. Plans for the new
structure were prepared by Requa, construction undertaken, and the new
Clubhouse was completed by the fall of 1921. During World War II the Club
survived with the assistance of a lease with Rohr Aircraft Employees
Association for use of the premises as a recreation center.
-3-
As a cultural entity, the Club's membership has always included persons
prominent in the County's business and professional life. The course itself
is considered one of the finest in the County. [M.L. Ward, 1967]
The Original Clubhouse
On September 9, 1921, the San Diego Union described the Clubhouse and course
in an article entitled "Magnificent New San Diego Country Club at Chula Vista
is Inspected by Visitors at Formal Reception", [SD Union 9/1/21, pg. 8, sec.
A]. The room descriptions from that article and the historic photograph of the
interior, lead to the belief that the original Clubhouse contained a large
central lounge (which included the current ball room, entry and office area),
an adjacent card room, a dining room, a sun dining room, a kitchen, a men's
grill, a women's lounge and dressing rooms, and men's dressing rooms. "One of
the most charming features of the building is the terrace facing west, with
its comprehensive view of the entire club holdings and picturesque vista of
the distant sea..~
The original building plans being unavailable, the above described sources,
personal interviews and the County Assessor's records were combined to produce
the suspected configuration of the original building as shown in the Appendix
to this report.
Modifications to the Clubhouse
The 1921 historic Clubhouse has had several additions, alterations and
refurbishments. In 1922, caddie accommodations were built. In 1923, a new
golf shop was added and the old shop was converted into a lounge room. In
1927, the men's locker room was extended and a shower was added to the ladies'
locker room. In 1946, the men's locker room was again enlarged and a new golf
shop was built. In 1950 alterations were made to the ladies' locker room, the
location of the bar was changed and the grill was enlarged. In 1951, a check
room was built contiguous to the entrance. During the 1950's the lounge,
dining room, locker rooms, grill golf shop and kitchen were completely
redecorated and/or refurnished. In the late 50's more space for hand carts
and electric carts was added, alterations to the porch were made and a heating
and ventilation plant was installed. (SDCC 1897-1959, Dr. Leo Langlois)
In the course of these alterations some architectural features of the 1921
building were lost or abused. It is possible that only the north or front
elevation remains true to its original appearance, all other elevations having
been modified. Please see the Appendix.
In 1985, Clubhouse was included in the Historic Resources Inventory of Chula
Vista as "the work of an important architect and the home of an organization
that had many prominent people as its members".
Background to the Project at issue:
Although the functional and structural adequacy of the Clubhouse appears to
have been clearly an issue since 1978, for the purposes of this report, Club
documents from 1979 through 1982 were reviewed.
-4-
Throughout the Club's planning on this project, their primary emphasis has
been on quality recreational use of their property. The golf course is
paramount and the Clubhouse is seen as a functional adjunct to the enjoyment
of sport. The Clubhouse is intended to house the necessary golf course
service elements and host social, club and public, gatherings.
1979
In October of 1979, the Club's Long Range Planning Committee reviewed the
Club's operations, compared other, newer club facilities and considered
alternatives for the future of the Club. They concluded that a new,
moderately sized and highly functional Clubhouse, in the same location, would
best serve Club needs.
In order to pay for the construction of the new Clubhouse, the Committee
recommended the sale of the property to generate funds for the replacement of
the "aging and i~adequate clubhouse facilities".
1980
As the next step, the Committee worked with the Club's architectural and
planning consultants (Tucker, Sadler and Associates) to determine the basic
needs for a Clubhouse facility. They concluded that the desired facility
should not contain less than 26,000 square feet and should include larger
men's and ladies' locker rooms, additional restroom facilities, separate men's
and ladies' card rooms, a dining area to accommodate seating for 400, larger
pro shop space, greater cart storage space and greater storage facilities.
The Long Range Planning Committee presented these recommendations to a Special
Meeting of Members in August, 1980, resulting in a 'lively discussion' and the
appointment of an Ad Hoc Committee, composed of members representing all
views, to study all aspects of the question and report to the Board of
Directors. [Final Planning Committee Report, April 1982]
At this time, the majority of the membership was opposed to replacement of the
existing Clubhouse with new construction. Therefore, the Ad Hoc Committee was
directed to investigate the retention, remodel and renovation options. [Busby
4/23/86]
In this pursuit, in October of 1980, the architectural, planning and
engineering consultants provided the Ad Hoc Committee with a Report on the
feasibility of modernizing and updating the existing Clubhouse with further
additions and enlargements, hereinafter referred to as the Renovation Report.
The Report's proposed Renovation Program was outlined in three phases which
included some demolition, new construction and remodeling. The total cost was
estimated in August 1981 dollars to be $2,165,000. A copy of the Report is in
the Appendix to this EIR.
-5-
The Renovation Report included extensive discussion of compliance with the
Uniform Building Code. No reference was made to the State Historical Building
Code enacted in California the previous year and applicable to historic
buildings such as this one.
The Renovation Report made the following points:
1. The walls of the building are of hollow burnt clay tile, a common
building material in 1921 and for many years thereafter.
2. Subsequent to the 1933 Long Beach earthquake, building codes and
practices were modified to incorporate seismic resistance. In the
course of such modifications, hollow clay tile construction was
found inadequate for this purpose.
3. The architects and engineers presumed that a rational structural
analYsis of the Clubhouse was not possible because seismic design
approaches did not exist in the 1920's. Therefore it would be
impossible to analyze the seismic adequacy of the existing roof
system, the elements transferring roof stresses to the walls, and
the walls themselves.
4. They also assumed there was no way stresses could be transferred to
or from the hollow clay tile walls and that the only remodeling
option was to build a new independent structure in, over and around
the existing structure. The original structure would still be, in
their opinion, unsafe.
5. Because of the Club's needs for public assembly space, accommodating
in excess of 300 persons, the Report noted this but repeatedly
stressed the overall structural inadequacy of this building.
1981
In August of 1981, the Ad Hoc Committee reported it had made a thorough study
of the needs of the Club and all aspects of a minimal and/or full scale
remodeling of the Clubhouse, the construction of a new Clubhouse and other
relevant issues. The committee concluded that to remodel the existing
Clubhouse would be imprudent and that a new Clubhouse of adequate size and
design to accommodate membership needs was instead required. Three areas of
inadequacy were stressed: the lack of seismic resistance, inability to meet
minimum fire safety standards and an overall worn and inadequate physical
plant.
Relying on the above Renovation Report, the Committee reported that even
"[w]ith modest or large scale remodeling we would continue to have a building
which failed to meet present day safety safety standards". After comparing a
projected remodeling cost of $3,023,000 with a projected new construction cost
of $3,879,000, the Committee opted for new construction.
On September 15, 1981, a General Membership Meetin9 was held to discuss these
recommendations in depth. The Minutes of that meeting illustrate the broad
range of opinions expressed on the subject.
1982
In January of 1982, a Safety and Fire Protection Survey Report was prepared as
the result of an on-site safety and fire protection survey, and identified 84
separate fire or safety problems.
Of primary importance in this survey was the fact that the current Clubhouse
consists of the original building surrounded by several additions and
sub-structures. It appears as if each add-on was a piecemeal, partial
solution to then identified needs. The premises were found to possess an
inadequate electrical wiring network and lack a smoke/fire detection and
evacuation systems; both conditions were compounded by frequent overcrowding.
The statement "[w]e take this position because of the age of the present
structure" in the survey indicates some lack of sensitivity for historic
buildings. However, the surveyors had been advised that the architect and
structural engineers had already determined that the existing building could
not support additional equipment and needed new independent load-bearin9 walls
for support.
Of these identified fire or safety problems, 90% have been subsequently
corrected, according to the Club Manager, Mr. Talbott.
On February 19. 1982, an Environmental Health Consultant Survey was submitted
for the premises. This Report, which followed a sanitary survey of the
operational facilities, found approximately 75 discrepancies from the minimum
standards required by the California Restaurant Act and the San Diego County
Food Ordinances relative to the operation of a restaurant. Of these
discrepancies, approximately 90% have been remedied according Club Manager,
Mr. Talbott.
The two foregoing Reports were part of a major presentation to the membership
in April of 1982. That presentation also included a cover letter from the
Club President and the Final Planning Committee Report, both of which are
included in the Appendix of this Report.
In his cover letter the President noted that as the oldest Country Club in the
area they shared a Club heritage as well as 'the premier' golf course in the
County. The Club had been relocated twice, and since its construction in
1921, reconstructed and remodeled many times. The objective of the Final
Planning Committee Report was to provide recommendations for Club's well-being
for its second 85 years, which was seen as dependent on the provision of a
safe, adequate and affordable Clubhouse facility without impairin§ the quality
of the §olf course. The decisions the Committee would ask the membership to
make, which would include demolition and new construction and the sale of
excess property, were described as "the most important in the history of the
Club."
-7-
The Report analyzed the structural and physical inadequacy of the existing
Clubhouse, relying on and referencing many of the Reports discussed above. It
then addressed the "functional inadequacy and declining attractiveness o the
existing Clubhouse.
In evaluating the choices present, the Report quickly dispensed with the "do
nothing" alternative and went on to the question of "Remodel or Replace". As
mentioned above, an earlier determination had been made that 26,000 square
footage of usable space was required to meet the Club's minimum needs. This
was and is 6,000 more square feet than offered by the existing building. The
alternatives of partial and extensive remodeling, with projected maximum costs
of $3,023,000, were compared to new construction, with projected maximum costs
of $3,879,000.
In opting for the new construction alternative, the Committee stressed this as
the only solution "that will meet the requirements of a legally safe building,
additional space, more efficient and cost effective utilization of space,
eliminate fire, health and safety liability concerns," etc.
Therefore, the entire premise of the new construction choice was based on the
structural and architectural analysis which relied on certain assumptions
about the condition of the building and did not utilize the options under the
Historical Building Code. Further, at no time during this extensive
decision-making process were the CLub or its advisors aware of the historic or
architectural significance of the 1921 building. A true historic
restoration/rehabilitation alternative was never pursued.
A further consequence of the Club's lack of understanding about the historic
or architectural significance of the original Clubhouse relates to the
question of availability of federal income tax incentives for certified
rehabilitations. The Club itself, as a non-profit entity, can not now benefit
from these incentives. Before 1984, it was possible for a non-profit entity
to enter into a long term lease with a for-profit, tax-paying lessee. The
lessee would complete a certified rehabilitation of the historic building,
receive the tax benefits and lease the premises back to the non-profit entity
for continued use. Not surprisingly, Congress put an end to this practice in
1984, allotting these incentives (investment tax credits) only when the
non-profit user ultimately utilized less than 35% of the leasable square
footage of the rehabilitated building.
3.1.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
The demolition of the Clubhouse will constitute a substantial adverse effect
on an object of historic significance and eliminate an example of a prominent
local architect's contribution to the regional architectural heritage.
3.1.3 MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation of potential adverse effects could be achieved through the denial
of demolition aspect of the proposed project and provisions for the
restoration and rehabilitation of the historic structure within the project
design. If, after review by the appropriate advisory agencies and the City
Council, demolition is approved, it is recommended that such destruction
should occur only under the following conditions:
1. Design of new the construction should be required to reflect the
significant features of historic Clubhouse:
The 1921 Clubhouse, upon completion, was considered an excellent example
of Requa's Mission Revival architecture in Southern California. As
illustrated by the historic photographs, the stucco exterior surface
provided a plain background for the creation of interest with arched
windows, red tile trim, a simulated bell tower and other features. The
interior elements remaining include large ceiling beams, an original
fireplace. None of these architectural elements are incompatible with
modern construction or the functional design of the new Clubhouse.
After the ~lub determined that the construction of a new Clubhouse was
appropriate, the membership was polled on the desired design and
appearance of the new construction. The membership rejected all designs
which did not repeat the Spanish style of the existing structure and
directed their architects to recreate the feeling and style of the
original. [Busby 4/23/86]
As evidenced by the April 8, 1986 letter from the current architect,
attached in the Appendix, an attempt to incorporate the style, materials
and characteristics of the original building has been made.
The Design Review Committee of the City of Chula Vista could make a
professional evaluation of the level to which the new construction
accurately reflects the Mission Revival characteristics of the 1921
building. To the extent that suggested design modifications did not
conflict with the functioning of the building, the proponents might not
be opposed to such professional consultation and advice.
Design Review Committee evaluation to achieve the most viable replication
of the qualities of the original historic architecture, as a condition
for approval of the final development plan, is a feasible mitigation
measure.
2. Documentation of existing and original structure:
The existing structure should be professionally photographed and sketched
to architecturally document the building. A complete illustrated
architectural history of the original building should be prepared by the
Club for its members and the appropriate Chula Vista historical archives
and agencies.
However, implementation of these mitigation measures would not reduce the
level of impact to less than significant.
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
4.1 NO PROJECT
The No Project alternative would not result in the demolition of the historic
resource, but it would also not restore the resource to its original,
significant appearance. The No Project alternative would not resolve any
remaining seismic safety hazards present in the Clubhouse.
4.2 STRUCTURAL RENOVATION ANALYSIS CONDUCTED UNDER THE STATE HISTORICAL
BUILDING CODE
The 1980 renovation analysis conducted by Tucker Sadler and Associates did not
take into consideration the availability of the 1979 State Historical Building
Code for the renovation of this historic building. They assumed that the age
and composition of the original structure precluded its retention because of
cost considerations, using the Uniform Building Code. They also applied a
phased remodeling requirement from the UBC, a requirement eliminated by the
Historical Code.
The Historical Building Code was intended to make available alternative
measures to strengthen archaic materials such as the hollow clay tile present
herein, and to reduce structural retrofit costs. In 1985 this Code was made
mandatory for use with historical buildings in California.
A renovation analysis by architectural and engineering professionals familiar
with this Code could conceivably result in a lower cost estimate, making the
rehabilitation option compare more favorably with the new construction
option. The staff of the State Historical Building Code Board in the
Department of General Services, Sacramento, California, is available to
provide advice and assistance in the application of this Code.
In 1980, during the consideration of the renovation option, an informal
evaluation of the building and the renovation plan was made by a structural
engineer, Mr. Whitelaw of Bl aylock-Willis. He informally estimates that a
structural survey of the building under the Historical Building Code might be
achieved within a cost of $10,000.00. [Whitelaw 4/22/86]
According to an experienced preservation architect, the type of structural
stabilization permitted under the Historical Code for hollow clay tile
construction might be achieved with the application of gunite wall additions
and the creation of an interrelated steel column and beam framework.
[Donaldson 4/23/86]
A recent determination by the State Historic Building Code Board clarified the
generally acceptable means to strengthen existing hollow clay tile in historic
buildings by (1) providing some form of reinforcement in gunite or cement
plaster on both sides of the wall with ties between the two levels of
reinforcement to basket the tile and confine it, or (2) to apply reinforced
shot-crete to one side of the wall generally with ribs or studs chipped into
the tile to stiffen the tile, such reinforcing to be tied into the structure.
-10-
4.3 CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW CLUBHOUSE ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY, RESTORING
AND PRESERVING THE 1921 CLUBHOUSE FOR SPECIAL USES
The significant environmental effect which cannot be avoided if the project is
approved revolves around the stated need to construct the new Clubhouse on the
site of the historic one.
In the early planning stages of this project, the Club conducted an inventory
of their holdings to determine what constituted surplus property which might
be disposed of to fund the desired improvements, in the course of which they
identified three sites: a site in the interior of the course, 6.2 acres east
of the 17th hole and 3.3 acres west of the 7th tee, adjacent to Third Avenue.
[Long Range Planning Committee Report 10/79]. The interior site subsequently
became the site of a new maintenance building. The area east of the 17th hole
was later chosen for disposition for development.
With reference to the feasibility of constructing the new Clubhouse on one of
these surplus sites, preserving the historic resource, the Club presents the
following specific considerations which, in their view, make this alternative
infeasible.
4.3.1 The basic objective of the project is to improve their Clubhouse
facilities, without detrimentally impacting the quality of the golf
course. The course is, in their opinion, an important environmental
resource itself, equal if not superior to the 1921 Clubhouse.
4.3.2 The siting of a golf club house is a significant factor in the design
and layout of all golf courses. That design determines the quality of
play and thus of the Club itself. The Clubhouse must be located near
the 1st tee and 1st hole, the 9th hole terminus, the 10th hole start and
the 18th hole terminus. The character of the finishing holes is
important, they must be either physically appealing or athletically
challenging. The starting and finishing holes, the 1st, 9th and 18th,
should neither be short or of average quality, as they determine the
quality of the course.
4.3.3 Because the siting of the Clubhouse and the layout of the course cannot
simply be redesigned to relate to a new Clubhouse at a new location.
The course is laid out in a progression that is important to the
function of the sport.
4.3.4 The original siting of the Clubhouse and the development of the course
itself were based on the property's topographical conditions. A
Clubhouse is normally situated at the highest point, as is this one, to
provide a view of the course.
4.3.5 Even if the total redesign of the course were feasible, both surplus
sites are located at elevations so low as to be impractical for a
Clubhouse location.
-ll-
4.4. CONSTRUCTION OF A CLUBHOUSE FOR SOCIAL FUNCTIONS AT ANOTHER LOCATION
The County Assessor's earliest records indicate that the Clubhouse occupied
approximately 16,000 square feet. Over the years, the Club's activities have
outgrown that space, as evidenced by the multitude of additions, and the
public assembly spaces are now inadequate. Accepting the Club's
representations that Clubhouse siting near specific holes and tees is crucial
to the use of the golf course, another alternative would be to restore the
original 1921 Clubhouse for golf functions only and construct another building
for the Club's social and public assembly functions. This social building
could be located, with necessary parking, on one of the identified surplus
areas of the Club's property. The Clubhouse could be restored to its original
Requa appearance.
The operation of two separate facilities may result in additional costs and
the location of the food service facilities in the social building would
detract from the golf course amenities. The ideal solution would be to site
the social building adjacent to or near the historic, course serving building.
4.5 LAND SWAP WITH THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
As the community has long been aware, [Chula Vista Star News, 11/12/70], the
Club property is a magnificent island of open space within the City, easily
convertible to a public park. The 1921 Clubhouse could be appropriately
restored for community use. T~e Club could be provided with undeveloped open
space elsewhere with more than adequate space for their needs.
The recent improvement activities of the Club have, no doubt, provided
appraisals of the fair market value of the entire property. The feasibility
of such a public acquisition alternative can only be evaluated by the public
entity itself.
California has recently enacted two historic preservation grant programs
designed to assist local governments with the acquisition, development,
rehabilitation or restoration of historic resources.
The first of these programs was created by the California Park and
Recreational Facilities Act of 1984. Funds from this program are only
available to units of local government having adequate ownership control over
historic (~ational Register eligible) properties. That ownership control can
be by agreement with a non-profit owner but only if the non-profit
organization maintains a non-restrictive membership policy, which would
exclude a country club. The City of Chula Vista would have to acquire the
historic resource to benefit from this program. The maximum grant available
is $150,000 and the grants average $94,000 per project. This program ends in
1987 and if the City chose to participate, it would have to apply by
October 1, 1986.
-12-
The second program enacted was the Community Parklands Act of 1986, which
makes an allocation to each local entity on a per capita basis. These funds
can be used for the acquisition, development, rehabilitation, improvement or
restoration of recreational or historic areas or facilities. A 25% matching
requirement is imposed on acquisition projects.
The Club's likely position with reference to such an acquisition is suggested
by their opposition to sale of the entire site for private development,
discussed below.
4.6 SALE OF ENTIRE SITE FOR DEVELOPMENT WITH PRESERVATION RESTRICTIONS FOR
THE HISTORIC CLUBHOUSE
This alternative contains the only opportunity to utilize the federal income
tax incentives discussed briefly above at the conclusion of Section 3.1.1.
This opportunity would be dependent upon a private (tax-paying) buyer's
ability to secure 'certified historic structure' status for the building,
process an approved rehabilitation proposal through state and federal
agencies, and meet the minimum spending requirements of the federal income tax
law governing such projects. If such were accomplished the new owner would be
eligible, under tax reform legislation now pending in both houses of Congress,
for 20% investment tax credits. In addition, a facade easement charitable
contribution deduction might be available to provide further economic
incentives for retention and rehabilitation of the historic building. The
availability of such income tax incentives could enhance the market value of
this property if this sale alternative were pursued.
This alternative was considered by the Club when a developer offered to buy
the entire property for an amount sufficient to enable them to acquire and
develop a new course and Clubhouse elsewhere. [Busby 4/23/86]
The Club membership rejected this option, regardless of the substantial
economic benefits, in the belief that a more suitable site in quality or
location could not be found for two specific reasons. First, a large enough
parcel, available for such development and within a like proximity to the
Ocean is not to be found. The current site is close enough to the Ocean to
provide cooling breezes on the hottest days but not so close to be adversely
affected by dampness. Second, the site possesses excellent drainage and the
use of the course is less affected during the rainy season than are other
Clubs in the County.
In 1920, when this Club was seeking a suitable site, the possibilities were,
of course, more extensive. They considered two general locations, Kearny Mesa
and Chula Vista. They chose the Chula Vista site because Kearny Mesa then had
no water supply. [Langlois, 1957] Considering the freedom of site choice
available to the Club in 1920, it is reasonable to assume that the contour and
drainage of this site were factors in the site choice and subsequent course
design.
-13-
5.0 ANY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSAL IS
IMPLEMENTED
The project, if implemented as proposed, will result in the demolition of the
San Diego Country Club clubhouse. The demolition of the clubhouse will result
in a substantial and adverse environmental effect on a structure of historic
and cultural significance and irreversibly eliminate an example of a prominant
local architect's contribution to the region's architectural heritage.
Implementation of the above noted mitigation measurers (Sec. 3.1.3) would not
reduce the level of impact to less-than-significant.
6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed facility is of substantially the same size and function as the
existing clubhouse. There are no new substantial utility extensions with
excess capacityL that could support additional growth. There are no
growth-inducing effects which would result from the proposal.
7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
In accordance with the attached "Evaluation of Potential Environmental
Impacts" check list, it was concluded that the only significant impact would
be in the are of historic/cultural resources. This impact has been discussed
in the EIR.
-14-
8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
Arden, Sylvia Head Librarian, San Diego Historical Society
Bartosik, Bruce Project Architect, Klages, Carter, Vail & Assoc.
Brandes, Dr. Ray Historian, University of San Diego
Busby, Howard A. Board member and former President, SD Country Club
Chula Vista, City of Environmental Impact Report San Diego Country Club
Villas, EIR 84-7
Chula Vista Star News various articles
Cullimore, Clarence Architect, State Historic Building Code Board
Donaldson, Wayne Architect, Historic Preservation Specialist
Hamill, Samuel Architect, former Requa associate
Henderson, John Architect, Historic Preservation Specialist
Kamerling, Bruce Architectural Historian, expert on Irving Gill,
Curator, San Diego Historical Society
Langlois, Dr. Leo SDCC 1897 - 1959
Requa, Richard S. Old World Inspiration for American Architecture
Architectural Details: Spain and the Mediterranean
Rojas, John President, Chula Vista Historical Society
Taschner, Mary Richard S. Requa, Southern California Architect,
1881-1941
Talbott, Charles Manager, San Diego Country Club
Tucker, Thomas Architect, Tucker, Sadler & Associates
San Diego Country Club Ad Hoc Planning Comittee Report, 8/26/81
Long Range Planning Report #2, 8/80
Tucker, Sadler & Assoc., 10/21/80
Maintenance Engineer's Report, 1/13/82
Safety & Fire Protection Report, 1/29/82
Environmental Health Report, 2/10/82
Membership Meeting Minutes, 9/15/81
Final Planning Committee Report, 4/82
-15-
San Diego Historical Borthwick, Anderson, personal interview 1979
Society Archives: Cotton, Oscar W., The Good Old Days
MacPhail, Elizabeth, personal interview 1975
Requa, Richard S., clipping file
San Diego Tribune various articles
San Diego Union various articles
Ward, Mary County Historian
Webster, Karna Chula Vista Heritage 1911-1986
Producer, Chula Vista Historic Resources Inventory
Whitelaw, Robt. Structural Engineer, Bl aylock-Willis
-16-
9.0 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CASE NO. EIR-86-2
I. Analysis (Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed for
all si§nificant or potentially significant impacts.)
YES POTENTIAL NO
1. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to any substantial
hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or
liquefaction? X
b. Could the project result in:
Significant unstable earth conditions or
changes in geological substructure? X
A significant modification of any unique
geological features? X
Exposure of people or property to significant
geologic hazards? X
2. Soils
a. Does the project site contain any soils which
are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible? X
b. Could the project result in:
A significant increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or off-site? X
A significant amount of siltation? X
3. Ground Water
a. Is the project site over or near any
accessible ground water resources? X
YES POTENTIAL NO
b. Could the project result in:
A significant change in quantity or quality
of ground water? X
A significant alteration of direction or rate X
of flow of ground water?
Any other significant affect on ground water? X
4. Drainage
a. Is the project site subject to inundation? X
b. Could the project result in:
A significant change in absorption rates,
drainage patterns or the rate of amount of
surface runoff? X
Any increase in runoff beyond the capacity
of any natural water-way or man-made facility
either on-site or downstream? X
Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters? X
Change in amount of surface water in any
water body? X
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as, flooding or tidal
waves? X
5. Resources
Could the project result in:
Limiting access to any significant
mineral resources which can be
economically extracted? X
The significant reduction of currently or
potentially productive agricultural lands? X
6. Land Form
Could the project result in a substantial change
in topography or ground surface relief features? X
YES POTENTIAL NO
7. Air Quality
a. Is the project subject to an air quality impact
from a nearby stationary or mobile source? X
b. Could the project result in:
A significant emission of odors, fumes,
or smoke? X
Emissions which could degrade the ambient
air quality? X
Exacerbation or a violation of any National
on..State ambient air quality standard? X
Interference with the maintenance of
standard air quality? X
The substantial alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any significant
change in climate either locally or
regionally? X
A violation of the revised regional air
quality strategies (RAQS)? X
8. Water Qualits
Could the project result in a detrimental
effect on bay water quality, lake water
quality or public water supplies? X
Noise
a. Is the project site subject to any
unacceptable noise impacts from nearby
mobile or stationary sources? X
b. Could the project directly or indirectly
result in a significant increase in
ambient noise levels? X
YES POTENTIAL NO
10. Biology
a. Could the project directly or indirectly
affect a rare, endangered or endemic species
of animal, plant or other wildlife; the
habitat of such species; or cause interference
with the movement of any resident or migratory
wildlife? X
b. Will the project introduce domestic or other
animals into an area which could affect a
rare, endangered or endemic species? X
ll. Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of
or the destruction of a prehistoric, historic,
archaeological or paleontological resource? X
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historical building, structure, or object? X
c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause
a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic or cultural values? X
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? X
12. Land Use
a. Is the project clearly inconsistent with
the following elements of the General Plan?
Land Use X
Circulation X
Scenic Highways X
Conservation X
Housing X
Noise X
Park and Recreation l
Open Space X
Safety l
Seismic Safety X
Public Facilities ~
YES POTENTIAL NO
b. Is the project inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Regional Plan? X
13. Aesthetics
a. Could the project result in:
Degradation of community aesthetics by
imposing structures, colors, forms or lights
widely at variance with prevailing community
standards X
Obstruction of any scenic view or vista
open to the public? X
Wi~l the proposal result in a new light
source or glare? X
14. Social
a. Could the project result in:
The displacement of residents or people
employed at the site? X
A significant change in density or growth
rate in the area? X
The substantial demand for additional housing
or affect existing housing? X
15. Community Infrastructure
a. Could the project inhibit the ability of the
urban support system to provide adequate
support for the community or this project? X
b. Could the project result in a deterioration
of any of the following services?
Fire Protection X
Police Protection X
Schools l
Parks or Recreational Facilities l
Maintenance of Public Facilities
Including Roads X
YES POTENTIAL
16. Energy
Could the project result in:
Wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption
of energy? X
A significant increase in demand on existing
sources of energy? X
A failure to conserve energy, water or other
resources? X
17. Utilities
Could the project result in a need for new systems
or alternatives to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas X
Communications systems X
Water
Sewer or septic tanks l
Solid waste & disposal
18. Human Health
Could the project result in the creation of any
health hazard or potential health hazard? X
19. Transportation/Access
Could the project result in:
A significant change in existing traffic
patterns? X
An increase in traffic that could substantially
lower the service level of any street or highway
below an acceptable level? X
2u. Natural Resources
Could the project result in a substantial
depletion of non-renewable natural resources? X
YES POTENTIAL NO
21. Risk of Upset
Will proposals involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any
hazardous substances lincluding, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset condition? X
b. Possible interference with an emergency
plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X
22. Growth Inducement
Could the service requirements of the project
result in secondary projects that would have a
growth inducing influence and could have a
cumulative effect of a significant level? X
23. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a. Does the project have a potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, or curtail
the diversity of the environment? X
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term to the disadvantage
of long-term environmental goals? (A short
term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in the relatively brief, definitive
period of time, while long-term impacts
will endure well into the future.) X
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (Cumulatively considerable means
that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable when viewed in connec-
tion with the effects of past project, the
effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects.) X
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? X
DETERMINATIO~
On the basis of this initial study:
It is recommended that the decision making authority find that the
proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to the
decision making authority for consideration and adoption.
It is recommended that the decision making authority find that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the MITIGATION MEASURES described above have been ADDED to
the project and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded
to the decision making authority for consideration and adoption.
X It is f~ound that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required to
evaluate the issues identified in this Initial Study.
It is found that further information will be necessary to determine
any environmental significance resulting from the project and the
technical information listed below is required prior to any
determination.
Envi ronmenta~eview Coordinator Date
lO.O LIST OF APPENDIX
The following appendix are on file and available for public review at the
Chula Vista Planning Department.
A. Configuration of original building
B. Pictures of the original clubhouse
C. Renovation Report
D. Final Planning Committee Report with cover letter
E. Letter from Klages, Carter, Nail & Partners regarding the architecture of
the proposed building
WPC 2913P
-17-
11.0 Comments and responses
22
24
z~
27
. , .... ~ ~ ~ ~ -
5 ~
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 10, 1986 Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-87-C - Consideration to rezone portions of the Las
Flores Study Area from R-2 (one and two family
residence zone) to R-1 (single family residence zone)
A. BACKGROUND
On June 12, 1985, the Planning Commission considered and approved a
tentative parcel map for property located at 160 Minor Avenue. The
Commission's consideration had resulted from an appeal filed by 45
residents protesting a parcel map condition calling for an offer of
dedication of right-of-way should the City determine in the future that
street widening along Minot Avenue was appropriate. Residents expressed
concerns that increased traffic from present developments allowed under
the existing R-2 zoning in the area would have an adverse impact on area
residents, and that they did not want Minot Avenue involved.
At that time, the Commission directed staff to prepare a zoning study of
the area to examine the issue of downzoning land along Minot Avenue from
R-2 to an R-1 residential zone. The City Council at their meeting of
November 19, 1985, al so directed staff to prepare a zoning study, after
consideration of a petition from Minot Avenue area residents requesting an
emergency ordinance prohibiting lot splits on Minot Avenue, and a refund
of an appeal fee paid by residents to protest tentative parcel map 85-10.
On July 24, 1986, an open meeting was held between staff and residents of
the zoning study area to discuss land use and density issues, traffic
impacts and possible zoning alternatives. Input from residents within
this area expressed at the meeting or received as written correspondence
is addressed in this report.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to recommend that the City Council rezone the Las Flores
Study Area as outlined in Alternative A of this report, and request that
City Council retain Minot at a 30 foot curb/curb width.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed
action constitutes a Class 3(a) categorical exemption, and therefore does
not require further environmental review.
C. DISCUSSION
The boundaries of the Las Flores Zoning Study Area resulted from a review
of land uses and traffic along Minot Avenue which showed the street to be
interrelated with a larger area based on present zoning patterns, lot
lines, topography, and the street system. The study area encompasses 37
acres and stretches from First Avenue to Second Avenue and from "E" Street
to "D" Street. Impacts from areas under development north of the study
area were also considered as both Las Flores and Minot Avenue extend from
the study area by approximately 600 feet.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 10, 1986 Page 2
The zoning study area is offset from its surroundings by uniform R-2
zoning. The present zoning pattern has been in existence since 1949. It
is also characterized by sloping topography which gives it a physical
distinction from other areas. The street system included within the study
area has a direct impact upon traffic utilizing Minot Avenue. Minot
Avenue is a cul-de-sac 2,UO0 feet long with a curb-to-curb width of 30
feet.
Recent development interest focused on the Las Flores Zoning Study Area
has resulted in the approval of an 1911 Act Assessment District for Las
Flores Drive, setting the stage for increased future development. Under
the present zoning pattern, development pressures within the study area
would continue to cause increases in traffic flow over the street system,
with the heaviest impact to Minor avenue, followed by increases on Las
Flores Drive. Properties along Minot Avenue between "E" and "D" Street
have the potential for an additional 30 to 40 units, while present zoning
would allow the area south of "D" Street to be developed with 27 to 30
duplexes. While the north end of Las Flores Drive is zoned R-1 and is not
within the study area, present approved subdivision and development plans
for the area would result in an additional 50 single family units. The
cumulative total then is 107-120 additional dwelling units within the area.
Overall, traffic impacts to the south half of Minot avenue as a result of
present development pressures in and around the study area would represent
an increase of approximately 300 to 400 additional trips per day.
Although the total traffic count, as noted below, is not unusual for a
long residential cul-de-sac, Minot Avenue is only 30 feet wide while the
City standard is 36 feet from curb-to-curb.
Aside from increases in traffic moving through Minor Avenue, development
impacts would also alter the general character of the area. The
predominance of duplexes would result in more on-street parking and an
increase in average building size and scale. The increase in traffic and
on-street parking would increase the pressure for widening Minor Avenue
resulting in, removing or relocating items such as fencing, utility poles,
landscaping, and bringing dwellings closer to the street.
Mitigation of traffic impacts along Minot Avenue can be approached using a
combination of two different types of controls; through zoning and through
changes in road design.
ZONING ALTERNATIVES
Through changes in the zoning pattern for the area, the density and
intensity of development can be controlled to varying degrees. In
reviewing zoning options for the area, staff has developed three
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 10, 1986 Page 3
alternatives which are illustrated at the end of this report. Projected
traffic counts associated with the ultimate buildout of each alternative
are listed in the table below.
Projected Traffic Count
Minot Avenue North of "E" Street
Average Dai~y lrips
Present R-2 Zoning Pattern Existing 580
At buildout 1,500-1,600
Alternative A At buildout 900-1,000
Alternative B At buildout 900-1,000
Alternative C At buildout 1,400-1,500
Entire Study Area to R-1 At buildout 800-900
Zoning Pattern
Alternative A
In this alternative, properties which abut Minot Avenue and most portions
of "D" Street would be rezoned to R-1 residential with a 7,000 square foot
minimum lot size. All other properties within the study area retain R-2
zoning, with the exception of one lot containing apartments abutting "E"
Street, which presently has an R-3 zone.
The downzoning of properties along Minot Avenue would give the entire
length of Minor Avenue both outside and inside the study area, uniform
single family zoning. At ultimate buildout, Minot Avenue can be expected
to experience a traffic count of approximately 900-1,000 trips per day.
The rezoning would result in nine non-conforming lots along Minot Avenue.
However, 23 lots would be conforming with the change to R-1.
Alternative A is also characterized by downzoning of properties north of
"D" Street, including four lots abutting the south side of "D" Street
between Second Avenue and Las Flores Drive. In general, this reflects
existing land uses in this area; only 2 lots north of "D" Street presently
have duplexes or 2 single family dwellings on one lot, the rest contain
single family dwellin§s or are vacant.
Alternative B
The proposed zoning pattern in Alternative B is similar to Alternative A
in that lots north of "D" Street and adjacent to Minot Avenue are zoned
only for single family dwellings. In Alternative B, however, properties
which take access onto "E" Street located between Las Flores Drive and the
alley south of "D" Street are also zoned R-1. The four lots abutting the
south side of "D" Street between Second Avenue and Las Flores Drive retain
the present R-2 zoning rather than the proposed R-1 zone reflected in
Alternative A. Each of the four lots are developed with a single family
drawing at present.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 10, 1986 Page 4
The projected traffic counts at ultimate buildout for Alternative B are
approximately the same as for Alternative A; counts would range around 900
to 1,000 trips per day.
Alternative C
The zoning pattern proposed in Alternative C allows a higher density and
intensity of uses than the previous two alternatives. With this plan,
properties adjacent to "D" Street are rezoned to R-l, while the remaining
properties within the study area retain the present R-2 zone, including
most properties along Minot Avenue. Only two non-conforming lots result
from this option. However, Minot Avenue would be impacted more
significantly by increased traffic. Projected traffic counts for Minor
Avenue under this alternative would increase to 1,400-1,500 trips per day.
Other Alternatives
Two alternatives reviewed by staff but not presented are the extremes in
the range of zoning patterns available; rezoning the entire study area to
an R-1 zone, and leaving the entire area with the present R-2 zoning.
The first extreme, restricting the entire area to single family
development would result in reduced traffic impacts when compared to other
alternatives presented. However, the existing development patterns on
First, Second, and Las Flores are more clearly established with duplex and
multiple units and the street improvements are of a sufficient width to
accommodate the increase in density. Development of existing vacant
properties, especially those located adjacent to Las Flores Drive would
still increase existing traffic levels by 40% to 50% on Minor Avenue.
Traffic levels along Minot Avenue with exclusive R-1 zoning would average
8U0-900 trips per day. Rezoning the study area to R-1 residential zones
also places all existing duplex structures under non-conformance status.
Duplexes constitute 24% of all residential structures in the area.
The second extreme, leaving the entire area with the present R-2 zone
would result in the greatest levels of traffic impacting Minot Avenue,
estimated at approximately 1,500 to 1,600 trips per day. In addition to
traffic, increased curb cuts made from driveways created to serve the
greater number of duplexes, reduces available spaces for on-street
parking. The increase in traffic coupled with reduced areas for on-street
parking would likely necessitate widening the street to City standards for
the length of the street between "D" Street and "E" Street.
ROAD DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Changes to the present road design can serve to augment proposed changes
in the present zoning pattern to alleviate projected increases in traffic
as development continues. The range of road design options available for
this purpose is listed as follows:
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 10, 1986 Page 5
1. Widen Minor Avenue by 6 feet from curb-to-curb and include
construction of sidewalks. Note: Right-of-way increase would total
16 feet.
2. Remove parking from one side of the street to create two lanes, ll
feet wide and 8 feet of parking width.
3. Close "D" Street to Minot Avenue.
The first option, widening Minot Avenue, has been strongly opposed by
Minot Avenue residents. Parcel map conditions requiring dedications for
road widening were the basis for the controversy necessitatin§ the study.
Widening Minot Avenue may also involve removal of fences, tree, and other
landscaping which may fall within the right-of-way, for approximately nine
properties along Minot Avenue. The inclusion of sidewalks along both
sides of Minot Avenue would be necessary to protect pedestrians from
increased traffic along Minot Avenue. Financing of any proposed widening
and improvements would probably be accomplished through a 1913 Act
Assessment District.
The option to remove parking from one side of the street has been used
successfully in other areas of Chula Vista to accommodate increases in
traffic without increasing the overall width of the ri9ht-of-way. The
success of this particular option depends, however, on the number of curb
cuts present on the street and the resulting on-street area available for
parking.
The option to close "D" Street to Minot Avenue would have the effect of
limiting traffic increases to development occurring on Minot Avenue.
Closure of "D" Street would cause Minot Avenue and Las Flores to operate
completely independent of each other. However, closure of the street to
through traffic limits circulation options and creates a difficult
situation for providing City services such as police, fire protection,
street sweepin9, and trash collection. The lack of an adequate turnaround
at the terminus of "D" Street, properties which abut "D" Street between
Las Flores Drive and Minot Avenue makes it impractical for street sweeping
and trash collection vehicles to operate the closure of the street would
al so force limits on everyday services such as mail routes, school access,
etc. Finally, additional traffic congestion could occur at the
intersection of "E" Street and Minot as a result of not being able to
access "D" Street to Second Avenue.
On July 24, 1986, staff met with residents from the zoning study area and
presented the three alternatives, along with the various options for
altering road design along Minot Avenue. In general, residents in the
area were concerned with projected increases in traffic and opposed
widening of Minor Avenue, but were not interested in a zone change
restricting construction of duplexes. There were some suggestions by
residents that closing access to Minor Avenue from "D" Street would be an
acceptable alternative to street widening.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 1D, 1986 Page 6
After reviewing the suggestions made by residents at the public meeting,
staff is of the opinion that altering the road design by restricting
parking to one side of the street is preferable to closure of "D" Street,
for the reasons previously stated in the discussion of road design
options. However, while restricting parking locations would reduce some
traffic impacts, it does not address the central problem of land use
intensity that is greater than the existing road system can adequately
support and the change in character of development impacting the existing
single family homes. Ultimate residential density should be reduced to
the point where traffic impacts are lowered to a more acceptable level,
rather than attempting to fit higher traffic levels onto a substandard
road.
Of the three zoning alternatives presented to achieve this end, staff
recommends adoption of the zoning pattern outlined in Alternative A,
coupled with retention of the 30 foot wide road and the possible
restriction of on-street parking to one side of Minot Avenue at some time
in the future.
Out of the three alternatives presented, Alternatives A and B result in
the greatest reduction of traffic levels to Minor Avenue at ultimate
buildout. While both A and B result in ultimate traffic levels of 900 to
1,O00 trips per day, Alternative A better reflects existing land uses by
designating R-1 zoning along both sides of "D" Street between Second
Avenue and Las Flores Drive. The retention of R-2 zoning for properties
which abut "E" Street in Alternative A also allows a greater residential
density based upon access to a street system which accommodates higher
traffic levels ("E" Street).
Staff is of the opinion that implementation of Alternative A with possible
restriction of parking on Minot Avenue will serve to preserve the quiet
residential character of Minot Avenue while accommodating the needs of
future development occurring in the surrounding area.
WPC 3093P
E ~ STREET
Chula Vi,.~,ta Planning Dept.
E STREET
_ I
I !
XISTING LAND USE'
,
STREET
~EGE ND
~ ALTERNATIVE A
~ROPOSED R-1
PROPOSED R-2
~ PROPOSED R-3
E STREET
.LEGEND
ALTERNATIVE
B
~ pROPOSED R-1
PROPOSED R-3