Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2009/07/08MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 276 Fourth Avenue July 8, 2009 Chula Vista, California CALL TO ORDER: 6:05:27 PM ROLL CALL /MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Members Present: Tripp, Clayton, Moctezuma, Vinson, Spethman, Thompson, Felber INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Tripp APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 10, 2009 MSC (Thompson/Clayton) (5-0-1-1) to approve minutes of June 10, 2009 as submitted. Motion carried with Cmr. Thompson abstaining and Cmr. Moctezuma absent for the vote. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. CONSENT AGENDA: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Public Hearing: TPM 08-08; Consideration of an appeal of a conditional approval of Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 23,381 sf site in the R-1 zone into three legal lots. The site is located at 634 Second Avenue. Appellant: Save Our Heritage Organization. Background: Rima Thomas reported that Save Our Heritage Organization (SOHO) filed an appeal of the decision of the Development Services Department's conditional approval of Tentative Parcel Map TPM 08-08. The project site is comprised of a single 23,381 sf parcel located at 634 Second Avenue with an existing one-story residence and detached garage. Vehicular access is available from Second Avenue with a driveway shared by both the subject property and the property to the north. The proposal consists of subdividing the single parcel into three lots for individual ownership and the demolition of the existing residence and garage. Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 8, 2009 Steve Power cited the following as grounds for the appeal: • The TPM violates the Public Resources Code and the exemption is not proper when a project may have a significant impact on a historic resource. • The site is not physically suitable for the development in light of the proposed demolition of an architecturally and historically important structure of cultural and aesthetic value to the community. Mr. Power's response was that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060 an assessment of potential historic resources was conducted by a qualified expert who examined each of the criteria for determining historical significance, they are: 7.) Mandatory Historic Resource, 2.) Presumptive Historic Resources, and 3.) Discretionary Historic Resources. The project was found to not qualify under any of those criteria and it was determined that it qualified for a categorical exemption from CEQA under Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions). Each one of the lots meets the lot size and dimension requirements of the R-1 zone, therefore, the project is consistent with the applicable criteria for land division. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the resolution denying the appeal and approving Tentative Parcel Map TPM 08-08 based on the findings of fact contained therein. Public Hearing Opened. 6:29:04 PM Bruce Coons, the appellant, representing Save Our Heritage Organization stated that collectively they have extensive years of experience evaluating historic resources and it is their professional opinion that the building has the potential of being a historic resource under CEQA. Mr. Coons further stated that the City's approval of TPM via a CEQA exemption is not proper when a project may have a significant impact on a historic resource. Expert evidence supports a fair argument that the house is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. According to prior case law a building must be treated as historic for determining the level of CEQA review required if there is a fair argument of historic status. 6:35:05 PM Colleen Flemming stated she opposes the proposed project because it would ruin the integrity of this historic neighborhood, therefore, she supports the appeal and opposes staff's recommendation for approval of TPM 08-08. 6:36:19 PM Peter Watry stated he opposed the project because the density increase will change the historic character of the neighborhood. Additionally, three dwelling units sharing a single driveway may create a potential problem with access for emergency vehicles. He supports the appeal and opposes staffs approval of TPM 08-08. 6:39:25 PM Eric Fotiadi, Architect and Structural Engineer stated he has retrofitted historic homes in Coronado, integrating them into the fabric of the neighborhood. He described the unique characteristics of the type, period and method of construction of the Craftsman bungalo and urged the Commission to preserve it for posterity. 6:42:25 PM Coreen McCall stated she believes the Percy Clay house meets the criteria to be eligible for designation in the Califomia Register of Historical Resources based on the Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 8, 2009 following criteria: 1.) it's associated with patterns of events that made a significant contribution in local or regional history; 2.) it's associated with the lives of persons important to local or regional history; and 3.) it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction with artistic values. Ms. McCall then gave a historical overview of the house and surrounding neighborhood. She expressed concern with increased density, parking along the shared single driveway and blocking access of emergency vehicles. She supports the appeal and opposes staff's approval of TPM 08-08. Carol Flemming, stated it would be a tragedy to demolish a house that will be 100 years old when the City celebrates its Centennial; she supports the appeal and opposes the proposal. Jill Galvez stated she opposes the destruction of the Percy Clay home and stated that this historic neighborhood is one of the crown jewels of Chula Vista that is showcased in the Annual Historic Home Tour attracting visitors and hobbyists from the region. Glenda Devaney, organizer of the Historic Home Tours, stated the tour raises awareness of the treasure of historic homes and enhances the image of Chula Vista; they have donated $25,000 to be used in completing a new inventory of historic buildings. The Percy Clay home needs to be preserved and the neighborhood protected from over-development. James McVeigh stated the City has invested in developing a Historic Preservation Ordinance and the City's General Plan is designed to preserve .and protect historic neighborhoods on the west side. He urged the Commission to look beyond at the long- range benefits of preserving our valuable resources. Jim Peterson stated that the area between I and J along Del Mar and Second Ave was determined by a study the City commissioned back in 1992 that this neighborhood contained the most important historic structures in Chula Vista. Degradation of the neighborhood is evident by having one long driveway serving three residents. Georgie Stillman stated the house is listed in our Historical Resource Inventory and was built by a pioneer Chula Vistan. Back when Greg Cox was Mayor he proposed that the neighborhood be designated a Historic District, which meant that if you develop on it you would keep in stylistic harmony with the neighborhood. Kevin O'Neill stated he's heard all of the arguments as to why this is a historical house, but more importantly it's not substantiated by the facts as outlined in the CEQA Historical Resource Analysis Report prepared by Wendy Becker, a highly credential expert in the field. All of the issued that have been raised have been addressed in the report. Public Hearing Closed. 7:09:47 PM Commission Questions. Cmrs. Thompson asked if staff had had adequate time to review the materials that were placed on the dais tonight and if they in any way changed their analysis. Mary Ladiana stated they did review the materials and it didn't change their findings in any way. Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 8, 2009 Cmr. Moctezuma asked for clarification on a statement made by Mr. Coons that when two expert opinions differ, the assumption is made in favor of the expert who believes a building has historical significance. 7:14:59 PM Deputy City Attorney Miller stated that the standard that has been presented by SOHO is incorrect; the proper standard under CEQA is Substantial Evidence on the record that the home is of a historic nature. The Fair Argument Standard does not apply until after the home is declared historic to determine whether or not there would be an environmental effect. Cmr. Spethman stated there was mention of preserving the home, but adding a second story in order to maximizing this property's profitability; he asked Ms. Becker's opinion on the matter. Additionally, Cmr. Spethman asked how feasible would it be to relocate the house somewhere else on the lot; could the structure withstand the move. Ms. Becker stated that if the perspective is that the building is a historical resource, adding a second story would constitute the same level of material impact as demolition would; it would negate the integrity of the building. With regard to the move, Ms. Becker stated that she's not a structural engineer nor does she know what is the structural integrity of the house. It's always possible to relocate a historic building; the feasibility is more financial in nature. Cmr. Thompson stated that looking at the plot it appears that there could be three 7,000 sf lots with the house being preserved and asked if the applicant had given any consideration to that. Mr. O'Neill stated he had, however, there is an existing hammer-head condition that was created when the adjacent lot was split and based on Fire Department requirements, it didn't work. Cmr. Vinson stated he knows Mr. O'Neill to be afair-minded businessman who champions and is a protector of the Single Family Residential zone in Chula Vista. Cmr. Vinson also fervently believes in owner property rights, therefore, he supports staffs recommendation to deny the appeal. Cmr. Felber stated he is a big supporter of historic resources, however, in his opinion, the evidence was not compelling enough to make the necessary findings against the project, therefore, he supports staffs recommendation to deny the appeal. Cmr. Clayton stated the Commission is placed in a very difficult position of having to look at protecting owner property rights and the neighboring owners' perception as to how this change will affect them. She concurs with her fellow commissioner's comments that there is no compelling rebuttal to support the appeal, therefore, she is supporting staffs recommendation. Cmr. Thompson stated that in spite of Ms. Becker's analysis he feels like we're losing a community resource and wished there could be a way for the applicant and the neighbors to sit down and work out a plan where the house could be preserved. Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 8, 2009 Cmr. Moctezuma echoed Cmr. Thompson's comments and stated she is torn between the two because, in her opinion, there is substantial evidence in the record that mentions the house and may qualify for the California Register of Historical Resources. Cmr. Tripp stated that in many case, two parties come to different conclusions, however, from an outsiders point of view, what can tip the scale is evaluating two equally credentialed experts' analysis; in his opinion, the appellant did not prevail in providing substantial evidence to make the necessary findings in his favor. MSC (Clayton/Vinson) (5-2) that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution denying the appeal and approving Tentative Parcel Map TPM 08-08 based on the findings of fact contained therein. Motion carried with Cmrs. Moctezuma and Thompson voting against the motion. 7:42:30 PM 2. Public Hearing: EIR 07-01; Close of the public review period for the Draft Second Tier Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Urban Center Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map. Marni Borg stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to hear oral comments on the adequacy of the EUC Draft EIR and to close the forty-five day public comment period. All comments received this evening will be considered and addressed in writing as part of the Final EIR. No motion or vote by the Planning Commission is necessary this evening; the 45 day public review comment period on the Draft EIR will end with the closing of the public hearing tonight. Public Hearing Opened. Ahmad Solomon, representing SDG&E stated they do not oppose the EUC SPA Plan, however, they would like to continue working with the City, as well as the developer, in siting an electric facility that can serve the future growth planned in this particular development. Public Hearing Closed. (7:58.39) ACTION ITEMS: 7:58:32 PM 1. Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair for FY 09-10 Cmrs. Clayton and Vinson were nominated to serve as Chair and Vice Chair; they both accepted the nomination. Cmr. Clayton was nominated to serve as Chair; nomination failed with a vote of (2-5). Cmr. Vinson was nominated to serve as Chair; nomination passed with a vote of (5-2). Cmr. Clayton was nominated to serve as Vice Chair; nomination passed with a vote of (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 8, 2009 2. Consideration to change starting hour for Planning Commission meetings. There was discussion regarding the reason for the request, which are mostly due to budgetary reasons i.e. staff overtime payment. Although some members of the Commission stated they have flexible work schedules and could meet earlier, the majority felt that due to their work schedule, an earlier time would create a hardship to them, notwithstanding the fact that starting earlier might preclude members of the public from being in attendance at these meetings because of their work schedule; for these reasons they would like to retain the same starting hour of 6:00 p.m. Adjournment to a regular Planning Commission meeting on July 22, 2009. Submitted by, Diana Vargas Secretary to the P nning Commission