Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-24 City Council (21)City of Palo Alto C!,t ,Manager’s..Rep0rt TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENTi Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: September 24, 1996 CMR:407:96 Amendments to Urgency Ordinance Establishing a Moratoi’ium on Certain Development and Demolition of Older Residences REQUEST On September 16, 1996, the City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance establishing a moratorium on the demolition of residential structures built prior to 1940. The Council also directed staffto return with analysis of possible exceptions to the ordinance. This staffreport responds to the Council’s request. RECOMMENDATIONS Staffrecommends that the Council adopt, as an urgency measure, the attached ordinance that amends the September 16 Urgency Ordinance to establish the following exceptions to the prohibition of issuance of demolition permits: .. Projects that have submitted a complete building plan check application prior to September 13, 1996; Projects that received a discretionary planning approval (e.g., variance) prior to September 13, 1996 for which no additional City discretionary approval is necessary; Projects that have received a discretionary planning approval (e.g., variance) prior to September 13, 1996 and which subsequently receive a City Council planning approval; and Buildings that have been declared unsafe under Section 16.40 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. CMR:407:96 Page 1 of 5 BACKGROUND On September 16, 1996, the City Council considered a request from four members of the Council to adopt an urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium on the demolition of residential structures built prior to 1940. A~er extensive public testimony, the Council: Adopted, on a vote of 9-0, the urgency ordinance to be effective for a two-month period from September 16, 1996 to November 15, 1996. Directed staff to return to the Council on September 24, 1996 with analysis and recommendations regarding possible exceptions to the moratorium. o Agreed to consider, at a September 30, 1996 Council meeting, policy issues related to interim regulations that would supersede the September 16, 1996 mofatorium ordinance. o Directed staffto develop interim regulations for consideration at the October 15, 1996 Council meeting. DISCUSSION On September 16, the Council heard public testimony that imposition of the urgency moratorium on residential structure demolition permits would result in .personal and economic hardships for a number of people. Subsequent Council discussion included interest in considering exceptions from the moratorium. Situations that were identified that could warrant an exception included: o Projects that have filed plan check applications with the Inspection Services Division, Projects that have received a discretionary planning approval (i.e., variance, subdivision map) from the City, and ¯Sites with purchase contracts effective before the moratorium. Staff indicated that the last category would present substantial verification problems for City staff and recommended that it not be pursued further. Regarding projects that have filed plan check applications, staff have identified seven applications that would involve the removal (defined as removal of more than 50 percent of the exterior walls) of a house built prior to 1940. (As noted at the September 16 Council meeting, the City does not yet have a comprehensive permit tracking system. Given the volume of applications in the plan check process, there is a small possibility that an CMR:407:96 Page 2 of 5 additional application has not been identified.) The seven applications involving the removal of a pre- 1940 residential structure include: Address Year Built 336 Guinda 1903 1450 Dana 1937 227 Churchill 1919 1120 Fulton 1924 660 Kingsley 1912 243 Tennyson 1923 754 Los Robles 1938 Permit Description Addition and Remodel Addition and Remodel New House New House New House New House New House These seven houses are not listed on the City’s Historic Inventory. Staff has identified the following projects that have received a discretionary planning approval: Address Year Built Action 218 Cowper 1908 Variance 960 Forest 1927 Variance 448 College/2717 E1 1904 Variance, Use Camino Real Permit and ARB Approval These three sites are not listed on the City’s Historic Inventory. The first two variance approvals have no additional City approvals needed, other than the building permit. The site at 448 College, which has received avariance and a use permit and ARB approval for expansion of a religious institution, also needs approval of a subdivision map to combine 11 existing lots into three lots. The tentative map application is scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on September 25. City Council consideration is tentatively scheduled for October 21. CMR:407:96 Page 3 of 5 Staff concludes that the moratorium ordinance should be amended to allow applications submitted for plan check approval.prior to September 13 and applications that have received their final discretionary approval to proceed through the plan check process and receive demolition and building permits. Further, the project at 448 College/2171 E1 Camino Real should be allowed to proceed if the City Council approves the subdivision map application. In each of these cases, there is a clear demonstration of reliance on City regulations and related City decisions that staff concludes should warrant an exception from the moratorium. There is also a variance application in process for 760 Lytton Avenue that involves the removal of a house constructed in 1924. This house is not on the City’s Historic Inventory. The application was filed on August 12, 1996, and the Zoning Administrator’s public heating is scheduled for October 3. Since there are no approvals in place, staff concludes that the site should be subject to the moratorium and any subsequent interim regulations. Finally, the City Attorney advises that an exception should be established for buildings declared unsafe under Section 16.40 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Under Section 16.40, the Chief Building Official can, for buildings meeting the Code’s definition of dangerous, order a building to be repaired if reasonably possible or demolished in cases where repair is infeasible. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Historically, City adoption of development moratoria has generally allowed for "projects in the pipeline" to proceed through the City review process. Creating the recommended exceptions would be consistent with the actions of previous City Councils. ALTERNATIVES The primary altemative to the recommended action would be to not create exceptions for one or all of the categories identified in the staff report. These projects would then be subject to future interim regulations and might, or might not, be able to proceed under those yet-to-be- drafted regulations. FISCAL IMPACT Actions identified in this staff report do not have a substantial fiscal impact on the City. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Staffwill contact the applicants for the projects identified in this report and inform them of the City Council’s next actions and the next available step in processing of their projects. CMR:407:96 Page 4 of 5 As noted in the Background section, discussion of interim regulations to replace the moratorium is scheduled for the September 30 and October 15 City Council meetings. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance CC:Architectural Review Board Historic Resources Board Planning Commission Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Palo Alto Board of Realtors Speakers at the 9/16/96 Council Meeting PREPARED BY: Kenneth R. Schreiber DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: C CMR:407:96 Page 5 of 5 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4369 TO ESTABLISH EXCEPTIONS TO A MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOLITION OF OLDER RESIDENCES, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF, TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows: SECTION I. Findings. The Council .finds and declares: A. At the regular City Council meeting of.September 16, 1996, the Council enacted Ordinance No. 4369 as an urgency measure to preserve the public health and safety by temporarily prohibiting the demolition of residential structures originally constructed before 1940. B. The Council received extensive public comments during its consideration of Ordinance No. 4369. Many comments indicated that the temporary demolition moratorium could cause unreasonable economic and personal hardship for property owners who, although they had not yet acquired a legally vested right to proceed, had nonetheless made substantial investments in the preparation of demolition and reconstruction plans, equipment, and materials, all in good faith reliance upon the City zoning and building laws and regulations that existed before September 17, 1996. C. The Council established November 15, 1996 as the expiration date for Ordinance No. 4369 based upon its intention to act on or before October 15, 1996 to establish interim regulations governing the demolition of pre-1940 residential structures. This expiration date will not permit the Council to make such interim regulations effective before expiration of the temporary demolition moratorium without taking urgency action.. In order to avoid being required to take urgency action on the interim regulations, the Council finds it necessary to extend the expiration date to November 30, 1996, or the effective date of the interim regulations, whichever is earlier. D. It is necessary for the preservation of the public health and safety to enact as an urgency measure an ordinance which creates specified exceptions to, and extends the termination date of, the temporary demolition moratorium so that unreasonable economic hardships resulting from even a short-term delay can be avoided or minimized, and so that the Council is not necessarily required to take urgency action on any subsequent interim regulations. 960919 ape 0051606 1 SECTION 2. Section 4 of Ordinance No. 4369 is hereby amended to read as follows: ~r~-.~£:s.:~an~-~:~:Bu.~-l~:~qs ~c~. The provxsxons of tH~s ordxnance permit or ~emolltlOn permit ~as been issued on or before SECTION 3. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 4369 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption and shall cease to have force and effect on November ~!~i ~-~, 1996, or the effective date of an ordinance readopting or r~ealing the provisions hereof, whichever date earlier occurs." SECTION 4. upon adoption. This ordinance shall be effective immediately SECTION 5. The Council finds that this project is exempt from ~the provisions of the Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this project will have a significant effect on the environment, and because this ordinance falls within the emergency 960919 apc 005 ~606 project exception to CEQA set forth in Section 15268 of the CEQA Guidelines. This ordinance was-introduced at a regular meeting of the Council .of the City of Palo Alto which commenced on Tuesday, September 24, 1996, and was passed by a four-fifths vote of all Council members present at the meeting as follows: INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED:" City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community.Environment 960919 ape 0051606 3