HomeMy WebLinkAbout35-Planning
~ . CITY OF SAN BE~ ..ARDINO ~ REQUEST ':OR COUNCIL ACTION
Larry E. Reed, Director
From:
Planning and Building Services
Dept: February 27, 1990
Public Hearing re: Perea's case
Subject: involving non-conforming resi-
dence at 1040 1/2 West Baseline
Date:
1. 9/6/89 Perea's case set for Public Hearing be-
Synopsis of Previous fore Counei 1. (Applicant had waived notice of public hearing & ask
ed for this hearing date)-Council returned case to BBC to rehear.
2. 10/13/89 Board of Building Commissioners heard appeal. (No change in
BBe Order requiring demolition or conversion to commercial use.
3. 10/23/89 Council deferred appeal and referred to Legislative Review
Committee to look at non conforming building and use issues
and make a recommendation on amending municipal code.
4. 12/7189 LRC decided not to change the 50% destroyed by fire and 180 day
abandoned provisions of municipal code & asked staff to review
General Plan policies related to repealing the length of,time
for discontinuing out-of-zone buildings and uses.
5. 2/5/90 Council referred Ordinance amending Chapter 16.66 back to the
Legislative Review Committee.
6. 2/8/90 Legislative Review Committee requested City Attorney to revise
+hD nrn;n~n,...c 'Por '01::.""j1"'l') L Rn;ln;1"'I'J Ser'7i~e~ ""0""1"\ of T::IiT"',,::.r17 Q,
for the February 19, 1990 Council Meeting.
Recommended motion: 7. 2/22/90 Ordinance repealing SBMC 19.66.020 was laid over
over for final passage to March 5, 1990.
That the Perea appeal of the order of the Board of Building
Commissioners to demolish the structure at 1040 1/2 West Base-
line be continued to April 16, 1990.
cc: Marshall Julian, City Administrator
Jim Richardson, Deputy City Administr~rnr
;:::~~l:: ,4d
Contact person:
Larry E. Reed
Phone:
384-5281
Supporting data attached:
staff Report,
Ward:
All Wards
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
NIA
Source: (Acct, No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
COUNCIL:CA.REQUEST-16A
.,,,,_n?F;"
Aoenda Item No. .3.s-
CITY OF SAN BEFt..4ARDINO - REQUESl FOR COUNCIL ACTIO~
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND:
The Ordinance repealing SBMC 19.66.020 was initiated subsequent to
Perea's appeal of the Board of Building Commissioners Order to demolish
her house at 1040 1/2 West Baseline.
DISCUSSION:
The Ordinance repealing section 19.66.020 is now laid over for final
passage. This type of provision for phasing out older, non-conforming
buildings and uses, based solely on age, is not desireable given the
large number of non conforming uses and structures in the City of San
Bernardino. The repeal of 19.66.020 is to avoid having to demolish or
change the use of a building simply because it is out of zone for some
specific time (40 years for masonry buildings, 30 years for other fire
resistive buildings, and 20 years for wood frame buildings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation that the Mayor and Council continue the
hearing of the Perea Case, appealing the Order of the Board of Building
Commissioners to demolish the structure at 1040 1/2 West Baseline, to
April 16, 1990, the first Council Meeting after the effective date of
the repeal of this Ordinance, determine the Perea case solely on the
merits as to whether the house has been over 50% destroyed.
Prepared by:
~~z ~ ~<-eJ'
Larry ~eed, Director
Planning and Building Services
LER: nhm
CA.STAFF-16A
Page 1
75-0264
City of San Bernardino
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
9001-2704
17
",---'
"
FROM:
Larry E. Reed, Director of Planning
Services
L~t I
& Building tJ
TO:
James Penman, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Non-conforming Building/Use Dilemma - Mrs. Perea's
Case: 1040 1/2 West Baseline
DATE: January 8, 1990
COPIES: Jim Richardson, Deputy City Administrator: Marshall
JUlian, City Administrator: Council Members
I am recommending the following action plan to resolve the
non-conforming use dilemma as exemplified by the Perea case
concerning 1040 1/2 West Baseline.
1. Repeal section 19.66.020 of the San Bernardino Municipal
Code. This action is to avoid having to demolish or change
the use of a building simply because it is out of zone for
some specific period of time [forty (40) years for Masonry
buildings, thirty (30) years for other fire-resistive build-
ings and twenty (20) years for wood frame buildings.]
Modify section 19.66.030 by deleting the phrase "as
provided by section 19.66.020".
2. Second, have the Council act on the Perea case, i.e.
determine whether the house has been over 50% destroyed. I
have personally looked at the house, and I believe the house
is over 50% destroyed, however, I have no personal problems
for this one case if the Council finds the house is less than
50% destroyed. A Council action overturning staff and the
Board of Building commissioners action will allow me to issue
a building permit to rehabilitate Mrs. Perea's structure.
3. I have determined the house has not been voluntarily
vacant for more than 180 days, therefore section 19.66.040 is
not a a discontinuance of use meeting the intent of this
Section.
Please prepare the necessary Ordinance repealing Section
19.66.020 and modifying section 19.66.030 of the San Bernard-
ino Municipal Code. If you have any questions please don't
hesitate to call me.
Larry E. Reed, Director
Department of Planning and Building Services