HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2010/10/27 MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. 276 Fourth Avenue
October 27, 2010 Chula Vista, California
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL /MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Members Present: Spethman, Liuag, Bringas, Vinson, Tripp, Felber ,
Member Absent: Moctezuma
MSC (Vinson/Felber) to excuse Cmr.. Moctezuma„ Motion carried.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 22, 2010
MSC (Felber/Liuag) (6-0-0-1) to approve minutes of September 22, 2070 as submitted.. '
Motion carried„
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 6:07:5? PM
Kevin O'Neill spoke regarding the need to have better oversight of pseudo recycling centers in
the form of large shipping containers that are situated in the parking lots of commercial centers;
they attract transients who create a sanitation nuisance.
CONSENT AGENDA: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.. Public Hearing: SUB 10-01; Consideration of an amendment to the Chula
Vista Subdivision Manual (Section 5-000 Appendices) to
include, by reference, a list of Standard Conditions of
Approval for Tentative Subdivision Maps. 6:11:41 PM
Background: Joe Gamble reported that as part of the City's overall efforts to streamline
and create efficiency, staff has been working with an oversight committee in the creation of
standard Tentative Map Conditions of Approval
Currently, the approval of a Tentative Map contains numerous conditions establishing
requirements for street improvements, parkland obligation, trails, grading, drainage and
other items relevant to the project. Each staff reports contains a resolution with an
attachment containing added conditions resulting in a lengthy report that can obscure issues
unique to a project The establishment of list of standard Conditions of Approval fora I
Tentative Map provides clarity to the applicant. Additionally, it will reduce the volume of
Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - October 27, 2010
individual reports, resulting in time and cost efficiencies while still informing applicants of
City requirements
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution SUB 10-01
Public Hearing Opened and Closed. No public input
Commission Comments:
The Planning Commission supported the proposed measures for process improvement and
Cmr Felber made the following observations: I
the Sweetwater Union High School District should be added to the language along side
where CVESD is mentioned in Condition of Approval 40
asked how Condition 53, which states that the applicant shall prepare an annual report
monitoring the development of the community and analyzing the supply and demand for
public facilities and services, fit in with the current GMOC monitoring
I
Tom Adler responded that this language came out of the 1993 EIR for Otay Ranch, but we
rely on the current GMOC review, however, it is there and could be required should the
need arise. ;
6:25:56 PM ~I
MSC (Vinson/Felber) (ti-0-0-1) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution SUB
10-01..
2.. Information Item: Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance Update. 6:27:08 PM
I
Background: Ms Tessitore-Lopez stated that the City Council directed staff to adopt a
Historic Preservation Ordinance that aligns with the policies contained in the General Plan
The ordinance proposes to create a Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) comprised of
qualified individuals that meet the standards of the State and Federal government to have
the authority to designate historical resources, which is currently done by the City Council I
The HPC would also have approval authority over major alterations to historical resources, ~I~
with their actions being appealed to the City Council. The ordinance also establishes
definitions, procedures and criteria for survey for designation of individual properties and
districts and alterations to historic resources
Commission Comments: I'
For the most part, there was general consensus from the Commission that the proposed
ordinance is good; there was, however, apprehension on the make-up of the Historic
Preservation Commission and their qualifications. The Commission emphasized the
importance of upholding individual property rights for those non-contributors within a historic
district
Cmr. Vinson asked what are the impacts or added layers of processes or regulations to a
non-contributor's within a historic district who wishes to make changes to his property.
Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - October 27, 2010
Ms Lopez stated there is no distinction between anon-historic and a historic building in
terms of what triggers the need for a building permit To further clarify; if you're anon-
contributor in a historic district acquiring a building permit, the threshold of what you can or
cannot do will be significantly lower than those historical resources within a historic district.
Cmr Vinson asked what benefit does the City obtain in having a Historic Preservation
Program and Ordinance.
Ms Lopez stated that local governments that have obtained Certified Local Government
status for historic preservation qualifies them to obtain Federal and State preservation grant
monies. The Federal Historic Preservation Act requires States provide local agencies with
10% of federal monies that they receive In addition to monies, they will provide local
governments with technical training in historic preservation
Cmr. Liuag stated he is comfortable with the proposed ordinance and confident that property
rights remain intact for those who choose to be non-contributors in a historic district In fact,
a historic district with a Modifier on it would apply to anon-contributor. As an example in the !i
R-1 Zone if an owner wants to build an addition that's more than 50% of the original building
footprint, he would be required to provide atwo-car garage. As anon-contributor in a district
that has a Modifier that allows for flexibility of standards, this non-contributor would not have i
to provide the two-car garage ~i
Director's Report: None. ~
Commission Comments: None.
Adjournment: To a regular Planning Commission meeting on November 10, 2010.
Respectfully submitted
Diana Vargas
Secretary to the Planning Commisison
I
L