Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC MIN 2002/01/14 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION January 14, 2002 Mercy Building Conference Room 430 "F" Street MEETING CALLED TO ORDER by Chair Charles Bull at 7: 15 p.m. ROLL CALL/MOTION TO EXCUSE MSC (Reid/Thomas) to excuse Commissioner Pamela Bensoussan. Vote: (4-0) Commissioner Juan Diaz was not excused. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Charles Bull, Vice-Chair Doug Reid, Commissioners Cindy Burrascano and Teresa Thomas (7:14) STAFF PRESENT: Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator Edalia Olivo-Gomez, Environmental Projects Manager Lynnette Tessitore-Lopez, Associate Planner (TEP) Dave Hansen, Deputy City Attorney Linda Bond, Recording Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Felix C. Delgado, 311 'D' Street Leticia Delgado, 311 'D'Street Frank M. Roseman, 66 Montebello Street Jim McVeigh, 644 Second Avenue Mari A. Torres, 58 San Miguel Drive Jose M. Torres, 58 San Miguel Drive Ethel M. Carter, 181 Madrona Street APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 1 and December 3,2001 There was not a quorum to approve the minutes of October 1 or December 3, 2001. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. If there were no objections, Chair Bull requested that NEW BUSINESS be taken out of order. RCC Minutes -2- Januarv 14. 2002 NEW BUSINESS 4. IS-02-18 - Main Street General Plan Amendment (between 1-805 and Heritage Road) Ms. Edalia Olivo-Gomez (Environmental Projects Manager) reported that the proposed amendment would reclassify Main Street from 1-805 to Heritage Road from a 6-lane Major Street to a 6-lane Prime Arterial. This 1 and o/.-mile segment of Main Street is located in a fully urbanized area of the City. No additional right-of-way would be required. The Initial Study found that the proposed amendment would not result in any environmental impacts because the change in classification does not result in any land use changes or any physical changes to the environment. Vice-Chair Reid wondered about the noise from the increased capacity of 40,000 to 59,000 ADT. Ms. Marilyn Ponseggi (Environmental Review Coordinator) stated that additional traffic is going to be looked at when additional anticipated projects raise the noise and traffic levels. Those additional projects will have environmental reviews. MSC (Burrascano/Thomas) that the RCC accept the Negative Declaration as adequate. Vote: (4-0-0-2) with Bensoussan and Diaz absent. OLD BUSINESS 1. Reconsideration of Recommendation for Historic Designation, 58 San Miguel Drive Ms. Ponseggi reported that at this meeting the RCC has on the agenda two homes that the Commission previously considered and recommended for the Historic Site Designation. In both cases the homeowners' have now withdrawn their request for Historic Designation. However, because these were recommendations to the City Council the City Attorneys office advised staff that the items should be brought back to RCC for reconsideration of their recommendation based on new information, which is primarily the fact that both property owners have withdrawn their request for designation. If the RCC votes not to recommend these houses for designation, that will be the end of the action and they will not go on to City Council. If the RCC votes to go ahead and designate them, then that recommendation would go on to City Council where the Council would be advised that the owners are not in agreement with the RCC recommendation. In the case of 58 San Miguel Drive, the RCC voted not only to recommend designation to the City Council but also that the historic site permit be put on it. The owners of 58 San Miguel Drive were not in attendance at the RCC meeting when action to designate their home with the Historic Site Permit was taken. RCC Minutes - 3 - January 14. 2002 The second house, 181 Madrona Street, was recommended by the RCC for Historic Site Designation only. The owner of 181 Madrona Street was in attendance when the RCC originally considered the designation. Mr. Jose M. Torres (Owner, 58 San Miguel Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91910) stated that he and his wife have owned the house for almost two years. They applied for the historic designation, but, unfortunately, the Commission also voted for the historic site permit, which they did not agree to because of the restrictions the site permit would put on the house. Ms. Mari A. Torres (Owner, 58 San Miguel Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91910) stated that, when they applied for the designation, they knew there were going to be some restrictions, but they never expected the site permit on the house. They have no plans to destroy the house. The house is not endangered. When the City came out with the historical site permit, it did not make sense to them because they knew what to do in the house. They know the house needs to remain the same. Commissioner Burrascano asked the homeowners if they would be willing to be just under the historic designation without the restrictions? Ms. Torres indicated that they might consider it. Commissioner Burrascano asked if there were any disadvantages to not having the historic site permit desianation restrictions? Ms. Ponseggi stated that there are potential impacts that could happen to the house just from it being designated. If the owners want to do anything to the property in the future that falls under a discretionary act, and it were designated as historic, it would trigger certain CEQA reviews that would not be triggered otherwise. The Mills Act has other restrictions on it once you enter into the contract, which you can only enter into if you have the historic designation. However, if you have historic designation, you are not required to enter into a Mills Act. Those restrictions would only apply if you chose to enter into the Mills Act. Chair Bull indicated that he would support the continuing the action in order for the owners to have the opportunity to talk to staff about what all the implications are so they have time to think about them and understand them and then, hopefully, come back and support the historic designation without the historic site permit. Ms. Torres stated that they have talked with staff about the restrictions for the historical site permit and have received a copy of the code. She stated that she feels that if the RCC were going to put these types of restrictions on her property, the City would have to consider putting these restrictions on every house around the City that looks similar to hers in order for it to be fair. -------- RCC Minutes -4- January 14. 2002 Commissioner Burrascanos' viewpoint was that having a site permit is restrictive, which is why she voted against it the first time. The language needs to be rewritten. She did not have a problem with a historical designation. She knew the owners did not ask for that although the house does qualify. Commissioner Thomas stated that she would like to reconsider the historic site permit and honor the owners' viewpoint. They might change their minds in the future and come back to the Commission. But on the historic designation, there is no doubt it is historic, which is why the homeowners came in the first place. What she would like to explore is the possibility of tabling that part into the future and giving the owners three or four months to consider it then put it back on the agenda for the RCC consider. Ms. Torres understood that it is a wonderful house, but they do not agree with the historical site permit. They do not want it. Chair Bull asked, if the RCC were to reconsider and not recommend the historic site permit, would the homeowners feel positive about postponing the RCC's reconsideration of the historic designation until they had some time to review the details? Ms. Torres wanted to know, if they were to put the historical designation on their house, would the RCC, in the future, put the historical site permit on the house again? Chair Bull stated that he sure hoped not. He would hope that the Commissions' records would be sufficient enough that they would be able to remind them of the action and that they would not do that. He hoped that the Commission would be more responsible than that. MSC (Burrascano/Reid) that the RCC reconsider the recommendation for a historic site permit and rescind that action. Vote: (4-0-0-2) with Bensoussan and Diaz absent. Ms. Ponseggi suggested that the Commission take a recess to let staff talk with the applicants to make sure they understand what the Commission is proposing. Recess from 7:45 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Ms. Torres stated that they still wish to withdraw their request for Historic Designation. Commissioner Burrascano asked if there was anything the RCC could do to help get them more information? Ms. Torres' response was 'time'. RCC Minutes - 5 - January 14. 2002 Commissioner Thomas did not feel comfortable withdrawing that particular motion and then coming back and putting it on again. She asked the homeowners if they would rather wait to withdraw the motion? Ms. Torres stated that they would like to withdraw right now and would like more time to think about it. Vice-Chair Reid stated that he would rather have it continued to a date certain. Commissioner Thomas stated that she would feel better continuing it. It is not ignoring the homeowners' request. By continuing it, it merely puts it back on the agenda for them to say 'yes' or 'no', and the Commission could still honor that. It is just considering their request that they want to talk about it and explore it more. Ms. Torres stated that she wanted the RCC to respect their point of view right now. Mr. Dave Hansen (Deputy City Attorney) indicated that a potential problem with tabling the item to other than a date certain due to the noticing requirements. Ms. Ponseggi was concerned that, even though the RCC had voted to rescind the action on the historic site permit, the RCC cannot guarantee to the homeowners that the RCC would not in the future once again make the recommendation on the historic site permit because the RCC does the authority to do so. Chair Bull indicated that his sense was to acquiesce to the desires of the homeowners and, hopefully, they would be willing to bring it back to the RCC in the future because the house deserves this recognition. Vice-Chair Reid asked the homeowners if they would be able to reach a conclusion by June 3rd? MS (Reid/Burrascano) to continue this item to the June 3, 2002 RCC meeting. Discussion Mr. James McVeigh (Resident, 644 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910) stated that he came to the meeting to ask the Commission to go ahead with designating historic site, not the permit, over the objections of the homeowners. He has talked to Mr. & Mrs. Torres and thinks they are very dedicated. They love their home, and they will take care of it. Mr. McVeigh stated that he was going to change his mind to say that he did not agree that the Commission should force designation on these people. He thought that the homeowners did not understand the benefits of a designation. They do not understand that there are no real obligations to a designation, but he did not believe that the designation should be imposed upon them. RCC Minutes -6- January 14. 2002 Ms. Ethel M. Carter (Resident, 181 Madrona Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910) thought the RCC should respect their wishes and let them withdraw their request. Commissioner Thomas did not think continuing it was forcing it; it was just bringing it back. The Torres' are still the owners and would have the decision. Ms. Leticia Delgado (Resident, 311 'D'Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910) questioned whether the Commission wanted to give the homeowners five months or so to see whether or not they would change their mind about wanting the home designated. Ms. Delgado questioned if that was is the action the RCC takes now, would the RCC rescind their recommendation to designate the home if when it comes back to the RCC the homeowners still wish to withdraw? Ms. Delgado also asked for clarification as to if the request is withdrawn now can the property owners reapply later on. Ms. Tessitore-Lopez responded in the affirmative. Vote: (3-1-0-2) with Bull opposed and Bensoussan and Diaz absent. Vote failed. Chair Bull indicated that he would entertain a motion to rescind the recommendation to the City Council for the historic designation until such time as the owners bring the issue back before the Resource Conservation Commission. And, furthermore, that the motion does not infer the absence of any historic significance to the building. Mr. Felix C. Delgado (Resident, 311 'D'Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910) stated that, if this goes to City Council because it has gotten out of control, he would have every member of the historical committee sitting out there and they would speak for 30 minutes each on how the RCC caroused the opinions of a perspective applicant. And this will reflect not only for everyone at the community meeting but also the news writers and everyone that will be available. They will actually investigate this whole meeting, and the RCC minutes will be exposed. You have to be respectful. This will reverberate to all the other perspective homeowners. Chair Bull stated that it could have serious ramifications when you do not have the support of the property owner. It is something the RCC needs to be aware of. MSC (Reid/Burrascano) to continue the historic designation to the February 18,2002 RCC meeting. Vote: (4-0-0-2) with Bensoussan and Diaz absent. RCC Minutes - 7 - January 14, 2002 2. Reconsideration of Recommendation for Designation of the Almond Pickering House as a Historic Structure, 181 Madrona Street Ms. Ponseggi reported that the property owner has requested to have the application withdrawn for the historic designation. They plan to make some modifications to the outside of the house, and they want to ensure that there are not going to be any ramifications if they make those alterations. Ms. Ethel M. Carter (Owner, 181 Madrona Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910) stated that she wanted to be withdrawn from everything. She does not want anything in the future or to have to come back or any reconsideration or the Mills Act. She appreciated the RCC for considering her home, but they have got a lot of alterations they are going to do, which will conflict with everything. MSC (Burrascano/Thomas) to withdraw the historic designation. Vote: (4-0-0- 2) with Bensoussan and Diaz absent. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR COMMENTS Ms. Ponseggi reported that she would not be at the next meeting as she would be on vacation. Michael Meacham will be doing a presentation on the Solid Waste Program. If any RCC member is not going to be at the meeting, please let staff know. Chair Bull indicated that he would probably be late if he could get to the meeting at all. He has a 4:00 p.m. meeting in Carlsbad. Ms. Ponseggi asked the Commissioners if they would reconsider starting their meetings at 6:00 p.m. instead of 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Burrascano said it would be impossible for her. OLD BUSINESS (Cont'd) 3. Revised RCC Meeting Schedule for 2002 MSC (Burrascano/Reid) that the RCC adopt the revised schedule. Vote: (4-0- 0-2) with Bensoussan and Diaz absent. CHAIR COMMENTS: Chair Bull hoped the RCC had learned from the 58 San Miguel Driye issue. The Ree knew when we designated it with the historic site permit that it was a potential problem. Hopefully, we have recognized some of the ramifications that some of the things we do go beyond what we believe the results are. The RCC has to be careful and not do that again so we do not get into this kind of situation in the future. Commissioner Thomas believed a lot of that would be eliminated once some of the threatening language of the historic permit is resolved. RCC Minutes - 8 - January 14. 2002 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Thomas shared with the Commissioners that the San Diego Union/ Tribune is now showing the mold count in the weather section under air quality. On November the 18th it was totally unhealthy. You see a lot of that now. That makes it all the more important for the RCC to make sure that kind of control is taken care of in its mitigations with new projects. Vice-Chair Reid asked if the Manager of the General Plan Update had been scheduled to give a presentation at a future RCC meeting? Ms. Ponseggi responded that the presentation will be scheduled in the next few months once the General Plan Update Work Program has been finalized. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Bull adjourned the meeting at 8:43 p.m. to a regular meeting on Monday, February 4, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. in the Mercy Building Conference Room, 430 'F' Street, Chula Vista, CA. Prepared by: {/~ /.æ / éC~7" d_ Linâa Bond Recording Secretary (A:\lIb\RCC#1\RCC011402mins Final.doc)