After their meeting last week that began with a wag of the shame finger by flooded Westside residents, spent an hour and a half discussing a contentious wetlands land swap deal and ended at the five-hour mark following discussion on a controversial smoking ordinance that was blasted by some members of the public, a pared down Long Beach City Council was no doubt relieved to begin Tuesday’s meeting on a note of celebration.
The Long Beach Playhouse was officially recognized by the Council, sans out-sick Council members Rae Gabelich and Gerrie Schipske, on the occasion of the theater’s 80th birthday.
The Playhouse, regarded by many as one of the most underestimated bits of quality live art in the city, was roundly praised by all of the Council members. Founded in 1929, the theater’s two stages feature productions 50 weeks of the year, and trust me, as a journalist–translate as ‘always on a fixed budget’–I can attest to it being a serious value for the price of admission.
Speaking of roles on a stage and the players that perform them, with the absence of Gabelich and Schipske–two of the most interrogatory members of the council–the leading role in the weekly production of “Question the Agenda Item” fell to Council member Tonia Reyes Uranga–a role she always seems more than happy to step into. Tuesday she was allowed by the attending Council members to perform the role as a virtual one-woman show, routinely asking pointed questions on numerous items that came before the dais.
While civic bodies such as the Council are often lambasted for being rubber stamp organization, it is no doubt refreshing for the public to see Council members go beyond the staff-prepared memorandum in front of them and ask serious well-thought out questions. Not only does it appear to foster greater discourse on the dais, it also makes it clear that a Council member is willing to consider options or ideas they had not walked into chambers with.
The absence of Gabelich and Schipske also led to the tabling of two agenda items, one potentially volatile. The first was an update on the financial status of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, known as CalPERS, and its impact on the city.
The second, which has already raised the ire of some residents, was the consideration of an ordinance defining what size trucks can legally park on city streets. The ordinance could bar many residents from parking their larger work-type trucks, such as those built on common frames such as Ford F250s and Ford F350s, in their neighborhoods.
Both items were held over to the March 3 Council meeting.
The first vote taken up by the Council on Tuesday affects those residents that live in one of the city’s 17 historic districts.
Specifically, if you live in one of these historic districts and were toying with the idea of painting your Craftsman house fire-engine red or perhaps something more akin to the Partridge Family tour bus, you should take note that the Council approved changes to the form and function of the Cultural Heritage Commission–the all-powerful city entity which decides on the “appropriateness” of such things.
Back in Feb. 2006, the Council received a report recommending changes to the way the current CHC is formed and operates. Tuesday, the Council unanimously approved these recommended changes including reducing the number of CHC members from 15 down to seven and allowing city staff–instead of the commissioners–to review permits requesting minor alterations to structures in historic districts.
“What we are really trying to do here is bring forward some changes to the structure of the CHC and the operation of the CHC that is intended to streamline the development process,” said Craig Beck, the city’s director of Development Services.
“We’ve been having some issues relative to having quorums because of the large membership number and we believe having seven individuals to sit on this committee will allow us to move forward with business more expeditiously,” said Beck.
Seven members is the minimum number of commission members allowed under criteria for local historic preservation agencies set down by the state of California.
In addition, the changes will allow Development Services staff to permit “routine and non-alterations,” as described by Beck, in an “over-the-counter” fashion. Beck said that because the commission only meets once a month, applicants for permits were sometimes facing delays in being considered, especially when the applications needed to be changed in any way.
“We believe that staff can certainly manage–with the appropriate training–some of the smaller items, like a change out of a window with like materials, a change out of a door with like materials, and so those items are being proposed to be managed and addressed by staff,” said Beck.
The applications seeking more serious alterations or changes, under the approved changes by Council, will still require a review and approval from the new seven-member commission.
Reyes Uranga, whose 7th District includes the historic Cal Heights area, said that many of the calls and complaints that she receives from these residents are regarding the CHC process.
“I am hoping this will alleviate that and I look forward to a more efficient process,” she said.
However, several members of the public, including a former CHC commissioner, raised concerns about the changes.
Carol McCafferty, a past CHC commissioner, said she did not feel the city was adequately seeking input from the historic district residents before making such changes.
“For two years the Development Department has been changing the rules governing historic neighborhoods without ever consulting with the people who live in the historic districts. Changes already instituted, as well as those proposed, are tantamount to zoning changes,” she said, also asking that the vote be held over until her 1st District elects a council member.
Bry Myown, a resident of the Rose Park Historic District, said her concern was “one of due process and notice.”
She said that under the approved Council changes, residents would only have 10 days to file an appeal against a neighbor’s approved alterations, “and yet years have gone by where the CHC itself could not learn in a timely fashion what certificates (of appropriateness) had been granted.”
Myown suggested that any and all applications before the CHC be posted in the Council consent agenda each week, thereby providing the public with adequate notice.
Development Services’ Beck said that the city plans to address the notice issue in the future by posting the applications on the city website.
John Thomas, president of Long Beach Heritage, while supporting the idea of streamlining the overall CHC process, also raised concerns about who would sit on the new trimmed-down CHC.
Currently there are no sitting CHC commissioners, so the mayor will have to nominate and the Council approve, all seven members, either from previous members or from new applicants.
“Our chief concern is that the qualifications of the new CHC be studied, vetted and consistent with the (state) recommendation,” said Thomas.
“These folks are community members, they will be making critical decisions by the time the work gets to them and more importantly, under the proposed amendments, staff–related decisions will be appealable to the commissioners,” he said. “So their qualifications, and how those qualifications are vetted are going to be paramount to ensure that this amendment is appropriate and successful.”
Thomas added that because there are 17 historic ordinances governing the 17 historic districts, and each is slightly different, it will also be critical to properly train city staff on the nuances of the different ordinances in order to perform the “over-the-counter” approvals.
Mayor Foster made no mention as to when he might begin the nomination process for the new commissioners.