HomeMy WebLinkAbout38-Planning and Building
~~,_._~----,..
Yo!
CITY OF SAN BERNOIDINO -
REQUEST lOR COUNCIL ACTION
Fro'!1: Al Boughey, Director
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Dau: October 31, 1991
Subject:
Ordinance Amendment (NO. 91-02) to
amend the Urgency Historic Structure
Demolition Ordinance (MC-694)
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
November 18, 1991
Synopsis of Previous Council ection:
On June 2, 1989, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the General
Plan which includes an Historical Archaeological Resources Element.
On December 18, 1989, the Urgency Historic Structure Demolition
Ordinance (MC-6941 was adopted.
On June 6, 1991, the Legislative Review Committee directed staff
to amend MC-694.
On October 23, 1991, the Historic Preservation Task Force reviewed
the Initial Study and the draft ordinance and recommended its
approval to the Mayor and Common Council.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Negative Declaration
and the Ordinance be adopted.
Contlct person:
Al Boughey
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting dIU attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
Citywide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
25.00
Source: (Acct. No.! 001-171-53150
(Acct. DescriDtionl Professional & Contractual Services
I' . j .-:'\
Finence:~ )~y...j J-),
Council Notes:
. Aoenda Item No 38
!!I.l
CITY OF SAN BERNODINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT
Historic Structure Demolition Ordinance Amendment
(No. 91-02)
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
November 18, 1991
REOUEST
This City initiated amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 15.37
(Urgency Historic Structure Demolition Ordinance, MC-694) is to
facilitate the review and processing of demolition permit
applications for buildings and structures fifty years old and
older.
BACKGROUND
Historical Preservation
Reconnaissance Survey
The General Plan, adopted June 2, 1989, includes a Historical and
Archaeological Resources Element which provides a basis for
historic preservation in the City and requires the development and
implementation of a Historic Preservation Program. The development
of a Historic Preservation Program involves following a number of
steps in accordance with State law. The first step in program
development is to locate and identify those buildings and
structures in the City that are fifty years old and older. On May
21, 1990, the Mayor and Common Council approved a Consultant
Contract Agreement Resolution for the firm Architect Milford Wayne
Donaldson, A.I.A., Inc. to conduct a Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survey (Survey) of the city. The Survey was
completed in May and the information and Survey document were
presented to the Historic Preservation Task Force on June 21, 1991.
Program
and
Historic
Resources
The Survey provides baseline information regarding the types and
locations of resources, representative architectural styles,
construction materials and contextual historical themes. It also
identifies areas eligible for Historical District and OVerlay Zone
designation and areas requiring future Survey consideration. This
information has given staff further direction with regard to the
development of the Historical Preservation Program by providing a
clearer perspective of the City'S historical resources.
urgency Historic Structure DemOlition ordinance (MC-694)
During the initial stages of program development, it was
determined that an interim'method of protecting potential
historical resources was needed since several buildings significant
75.0264
Historic structurec:temolition Ordinance Amen~t
Mayor and Common Council Meetinq of
November 18, 1991
page 2
to the city's history previously had been lost to demolition. On
December 18, 1989, the Urgency Historic structure Demolition
Ordinance (MC-694) was adopted. MC-694 established the Historic
Preservation Task Force and provided for the review of demolition
permit applications for buildings and structures fifty years old
and older. Since its adoption, MC-694 has been found to contain
a number of shortcomings that make the processing of demolition
permit applications difficult and cumbersome.
On June 6, 1991 the Legislative Review committee directed staff to
amend the ordinance. Staff revised MC-694 and first presented the
draft ordinance to the Historic Preservation Task Force for their
review on June 21, 1991. The Task Force continued the item on
their agenda for several meetings to discuss various revisions.
In August, it was determined that the condition of urgency no
longer existed and that the draft ordinance should be reviewed by
the Environmental Review Committee (ERC).
The Initial study, prepared by staff, was reviewed by the ERC on
October 10, 1991 at which time it was determined that the project
would not result in adverse environmental impacts. The ERC
recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted. The public
review period for the Initial study and the proposed Negative
Declaration began on October 17, 1991 and ended on November 6,
1991.
HISTORIC PRBSBRVATION TASK PORCB RBCOKKBNDATION
The Task Force reviewed and commented on the Initial Study and the
draft ordinance on October 23, 1991 and recommended that the Mayor
and Common Council adopt the revised ordinance.
ANALYSIS
The Amendment proposal
As stated, MC-694 has been found to contain certain shortcomings.
Some of the more important shortcomings are outlined, as follows:
MC-694 requires that all demolition permit applications
for buildings or structures fifty years old and older be
reviewed to determine potential historical significance
and environmental impacts resulting from demolition
Bi.~oric 8tructur~olition OrdinaDce Amen~t
Kayor aDd Common COUDcil Keeting of
November 18, 1991
Page 3
(Section 15.37.060). The ordinance was adopted prior to
completion of the Survey and therefore, does not use the
Survey information as a method of determining potential
historical significance for resources.
MC-694 contains detailed procedures which do not allow
for adjustments that may be necessary to achieve
conformance with changes in city Code and State law
(Section 15.31.060 - all).
MC-694 does not contain guidelines for preparing
Historical Resource Evaluation Reports when required for
submittal for a demolition permit application.
To address these shortcomings, staff proposes to amend MC-694, as
follows:
The draft ordinance establishes thresholds for the
evaluation of resources that identify levels of potential
historical significance. The thresholds are based upon
information contained in the Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survey (Section 15.37.045).
The draft ordinance describes the review process but does
not establish finite procedures thereby allowing for
change, as necessary (Section 15.37.060).
The draft ordinance establishes information requirements
for Historical Resource Evaluation Reports (Section
15.37.050).
The draft ordinance contains a provision for persons to
appeal submittal requirements to the Historic
Preservation Task Force (Section 15.37.070).
It should be noted that other changes to the ordinance have been
made and are included in this amendment. However, these changes
were done primarily for administrative purposes and to maintain
internal consistency in light of the more significant changes
previously described.
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the ordinance.
..~~;'.-""~~..
Historic 8tructure4;L.olition Ordinance Amen~t
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
Bovember 18, 1991
page 4
2. The Mayor and Common Council may direct staff to make changes
to the ordinance.
1. The Mayor and Common Council may deny the ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the
Negative Declaration and approve the Historic structure Demolition
Ordinance.
Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Al Boughey, Director
Planning and Building Services Department
Attachment 1: Initial Study
Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance (not included)
Attachment 2: Urgency Historic Structure Ordinance
- -
. -.
~
~ ..... -
-~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
lo..
,.
""ll
HISTORIC STRUCTURE DEMOLITION ORDIDlfCE (DEN ORD)
Pro;ect OescriDtion: An ordinance of the City of San Bernardino
repealing and replacing Chapter 15.37, establishing new policies
and provisions for review of Demolition Permit Applications for
potentially historic buildings and structures and providing for the
continuation of the Historic Preservation Task Force.
Pro;ect Location: citywide
Date: sept~er 25, 1991
Annlicant's Name and Address:
City of San Bernardino
201 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Initial studY prenared bY:
Deborah Woldruff
Associate Planner
ci ty of San Bernardino
Department of Planning and Building Service.
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
..
ATTACHMENT 1
~-===
PLAN-1.D7 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-10)
o
o
INITIAL STUDY FOR HISTORIC STRUCTURE DEMOLITION ORDINANCE (DEMO ORD)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as
an Initial Study which evaluates the potential
environmental impacts resulting from the Historic
Structure Demolition Ordinance (Dem Ord). A description
of the project is provided in Section 2.0 on the
following page.
As stated in Section 15063 of the California
Environmental Quality Act guidelines, the purposes of an
Initial Study are to:
1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as
the basis for deciding whether to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative
Declaration;
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a
project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR
is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify
for Negative Declaration;
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is
required, by:
(A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to
be significant,
(B) Identify the effects determined not to be
significant, and
(C) Explaining the reasons for determining that
potentially significant effects would not be
significant.
4. Facili tate environmental assessment early in the
design of a project;
5.
Provide documentation of the factual basis
finding in a Negative Declaration that a
will not have a significant effect
environment;
for the
project
on the
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
o
o
Initial study for Historic structure
Demolition OrdinaDce (D.. ordl
september 25, 1991
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could
be used with the project.
As stated in Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines,
Agencies are encouraged to tier EIRs which they prepare
for separate but related projects including general
plans, zoning changes and development projects. This
approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same
issues and focus the EIR on the actual issues which
require decision at ea~h level of environmental review.
Where an EIR has been prepared for a program, plan policy
or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this
section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to
or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or
ordinance should limit the EIR on the project, as
follows:
1. Evaluate those environmental effects which were not
examined as significant effects on the environment
in the prior EIR.
2. Evaluate those environmental effects which are
susceptible tQ substantial reduction or avoidance
by the choice of specific revisions in the project,
by the imposition of conditions, or other means.
3. Tiering under this section shall be limited to
situations where the project is consistent with the
general plan and zoning of the city of county in
which the project would be located.
4. The Initial Study shall be used to decide whether
and to what extent the prior EIR is still sufficient
for the present project.
5. When tiering is used, the later EIRs or Negative
Declarations shall refer to the prior EIR and state
where a copy of the prior EIR may be examined. The
later EIR should state that the lead agency is using
the tiering concept and that the EIR is being tiered
with the earlier EIR.
On June 2, 1989, the city of San Bernardino adopted a
General Plan which established the framework for the
future development of the city. An Environmental Impact
Report was prepared and certified by the city as part of
the review process prior to approval of the General
o
o
xnitial study for Historic structure
Deaolition ordinance (Dea Ord)
september 25, 1991 '
Plan. As required by CEQA, the General Plan EIR provided
a,broad overview of the future growth allowed within the
city in accordance with the Plan's vision. It is the
intent of this Initial study to tier this project with
the certified EIR prepared for the General Plan. The
Initial study will determine potential impacts if the
Historic Structure Demolition Ordinance is created and
whether they were addressed in the General Plan EIR.
The Initial study will determine the level of
significance for any ~mpacts identified that were not
addressed in the General Plan EIR.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTXOB
The Historic Structure Demolition Ordinance (Dem Ord)
would repeal and replace chapter 15.37, the Urgency
Historic structure Demolition Ordinance (MC-694) in the
San Bernardino Municipal Code (SBMC). This ordinance
would establish new policies and provisions for the
review of Demolition Permit Applications for potentially
historic buildings and structures and provide for the
continuation of the Historic Preservation Task Force.
(See Exhibit A, Draft Ordinance)
2.1 Area Characteristics and Background
The City has approximately 8,000 buildings and structures
that are fifty years old and older that are listed in the
Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey (Survey). These
resources generally are located in accordance with the
City's historical development patterns. The survey
evaluates concentrations of resources and identifies
areas eligible for either Historic District or Historic
Overlay Zone designation. It also identifies individual
resources deemed as having potential historical
significance for architectural style and/or cultural
considerations. The draft ordinance will establish
thresholds of review for the determination of historical
significance of resources based upon the survey
information.
0 0
.,..
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 15.37
Application Number: Hlstoric structure Der.,olition Ordinance
Project Description: Ordinance of tr.e City . . . amendino Chapter 15.37;
establishinq new policies and ~rov.isions. for revie~l of Demolition
Permit apCllica"::ions for potentially historical buildinr,s ana
structures; and, continuation of the Historic Preservation Task FOI
Location: Ci tV'vide
- Environmental Constraints Areas: 11/1'.
General Plan Designation: N/A
Zoning Designation: N/A
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet.
1. EIIrth Resources Will the proposal resutt in: Ves No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic
yards or more? X
b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater )(
than 15% natural grade?
c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0 - Geologic v
& Seismic, Figure 47, of the Cily's General Plan? ,-
d. Modnication of any unique geologic or physical
feature? ,.
^
e. Development within areas defined for high potential for
water or wind erosion as identnied in Section 12.0-
Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53, of the Cily's General
Plan? ,.
.,
f. Modnication of a channel, creek or river? X
....
e.
=:,&==r..u:.u
PL,AN-1lI6 PAGE 1 OF _ 111-90)
~
or- """"I
g. Development wtthin an area subject to landslides, Ves No Maybe
mudslides, liquelaction or other similar hazards as
identifl8d in Section 12.0 0 Geologic & Seismic, ~~
Figures 48, 52 and 53 of the Ctty's General Plan?
h. Other? X
2. Air RMources: Will the proposal resull in:
L Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient
air quality as defined by AQMD? "
"
The creation of objectionable odors? v
b. _.
c. Developmant within a high wind hazard area as ident_ied
in Section 15.0. Wind & Fire, Figure 59, of the Ctty's v
General Plan? ..
3. Water Re8OUrces: Will the proposal resull in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the
rate and amount of surlace runoll due to X
imparmeable surlaces?
b. Changes in the course or llow of llood waters? X
c. Discharge into surlace waters or any alleration v
of Sl'rlace water qualtty?
d. Cha''1lle in the quanttty of qualtty of ground water? ..
e. Exposure of people or proparty to flood hazards as
identilied in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, Communtty Panel
Number 060281 " and Section 16.0.
Flooding, Figure 62, 01 the Ctty's General Plan? y.
I. Other? "
-.
4. Biological Reaourcea: Could the proposal resull in:
L Development within the Biological Resources
Management Overlay, as ident_ied in Section 10.0
. Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the Ctty's
General Plan? .d.
b. Change in the number of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants or their habttat including X
stands of trees?
c. Change in the number of any unique, rare or v
endangered species of animals or their habitat? ..
d. Removal 01 viable, mature trees? (6" or grealer) ~.(
Other? v
e. .,
5. NoJae: Could the proposal resull in:
a. Development 01 housing, heal1h care facillties,lChooIs,
tibraries, religious facilities or other "noise" aensitive uses
in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an
Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior end an Ldn 01 45 dB(A) interior
as identilied in Section 14.0. NoIse, Figures 1<< end
14.13 of the Ctty's General Plan? .,
to.. ...,j
~~-~~ PL.AH-U6 PAGE 20F _ C11.eDl
.A n
.~ "'I
b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Ves No Maybe
commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on
areas containing housing, schools, heatth care facil~ies
or other sensttive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior X
or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior?
Other? "
c. "
6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in the land use as designated on the ,.
General Plan? ..
b. Development within an Airpon District as identffied in the
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Repon and X
the Land Use Zoning District Map?
c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A & B, or C as X
identffied on the Land Use Zoning Districl Map?
d. Other? X
7. Man""cIe Hazarda: Will the project:
a. Use, store, transpon or dispose of hazardous or
toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, ,.
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? -.
b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? ,-
...
c. Expose people to the potential heatthlsalety hazards? ..
..
d. Other? ,..
..
8. Houalng: Will the proposal:
a. Remove axisting housing or create a damand
lor additional housing? X
b. Other? X
9. Tranaportlltlon I CIrculation: Could the proposal, in
comparison with the Circulation Plan as identffied in Section
6.0 . Circulation of the City's General Plan, result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land
use designated on the General Plan? v
..
b. Use of existing, or demand lor new, parking
facilities/structures? X
c. Impacl upon existing public transponation systams? X
d. Atteration of present patterns of circulation? X
Impacl to rail or air traffic? ,-
e. ..
f. Increased safety hazards to vahicles, bicyclists or X
pedestrians?
g. A disjointed pettem of roadway improvements? X
h. Signfficant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways
or intersections? ..
..
j, Other? X
.... ....
CIIT'I' " _ ....-...0 PlAN.g.D8 PAGE 3 OF _ (11.10)
---
PLAN-I.D6 PAGE40F _ 111-10)
~~.!!~=
.A
o
-~
14. Mandetory Findings of Significance (Section 15065)
The CalHornia Environmental Quality Act states that H any of the following can be answered yes or
maybe, the project may have a signHicant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact
Report shall be prepered.
Yes No Maybe
a. Does the project have the potential to degrede the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitst of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wlldlle population to drop below seH llUS!aining levels,
threalen to eliminate a plant or animal oommunity,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminale important
examples of the major periods of CaIHornia history "
or prehistory? "
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short.
term, to the dlsadvantege of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short.term impact on the environment is one
which oocurs in a relalively brief, definnive period
of time while long-term impacts will endure well into
the future.) X
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually
limned, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more seperate resources where the
impact on each resource Is relatively small, but where
the e1fect of the total of those impacts on the
environment Is signHicant.) X
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
enher directly or indirectly? X
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(AIIach shaels as necessary.)
please refer to attached sheets.
..
=:'&~.~L.~.a.
PlAN-I.D6 PAGE50F_ (11-tO)
o
o
xnitial study for Historic structure
Demolition Ordinance (Dem Ord)
september 25, 1991
3 . 0 ERVXRONJlENTAL ASSESSMENT
As stated, this Initial study is tiered from the General
Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which identifies
impacts to historical resources related to General Plan
implementation. The EIR discusses the potential loss of
historical resources and states that every older and
potentially significant building in the developed areas
of the city can legally. be replaced by another. In
addition, overriding concerns such as public safety may
necessitate building demolition. The General Plan
policies pertinent to the preservation of historical
resources are evaluated in the EIR and found to provide
the maximal protection that can be considered legally
acceptable.
This draft ordinance proposes to continue the Historic
Preservation Task Force which was established in the
Urgency Historic structure Demolition Ordinance (MC-
694). Under the provisions of MC-694, the Task Force
assumes the advisory body role and oversees program
development and in a limited way, performs project review
by reviewing specified demolition permit applications.
No potential impacts regarding the continuance of the
Historic Preservation Task Force have been identified.
The demolition permit review process described in the
draft ordinance provides for the review of specified
resources and establishes evaluation thresholds based
upon information contained in the city's Historic
Resources Reconnaissance survey (Survey). (Refer to
Exhibit A, Draft Historic structure Demolition ordinance,
Section 15.37.045 Evaluation Thresholds and
Reauirements.) The adoption of this ordinance will not
create new impacts or intensify those impacts that
already exist.
Potential impacts resulting from demolition projects
would be evaluated in accordance with CEQA and the
provisions of this ordinance and mitigated on a case by
case basis.
3.1.10
MANDATORY FXHDXNGS OF SXGNXFXCANCE (Section 15065)
The project does not have the potential to eliminate
important examples of the major periods of california
history. Adoption and implementation of the draft
-
-
-
j
o
o
. xnitial study for Historic structure
Demolition Ordinance (D" Ord)
septeaber 25, 1991
ordinance would help to preserve the City's remaining
historical resources. This project will not create
impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable. Because the draft ordinance will provide
for the review of specified demolition permit
applications, any potential impacts can be mitigated on
a case by case basis.
.-
r
v
~
D. DETERMINATION
. On the basis of this in~ial study,
[2j'The proposed project COULD NOT have a sign~icant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION will be prepared.
O The proposed project could have a sign~icant effect on the environment, a~hough there will not be a sign~icant
effect in this case because the m~igation measures described above have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o The proposed project MAY have a sign~icant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Lo..,,~E. Reed (J~'::'i.;:/.nJ4f IY;IYO(,foy
Name a ,tie P{ti.I,tllI~/ltd. lJUi/r:ft,lc-/ SevtLe$
t Cky CyV
SignalUre ~
(!J c/ It) / '1/
I
Date:
...
.....
CfT'f'DI''' .........,
CIi"""","_r.:.-cIS
PLAN-l.os PAGE_Of=_ (11-10)
o 0
ORDINANCE NO. HC
1
2
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING CHAPTER
15.37 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING NEW
POLICIES AND PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW OF DEMOLITION PERMIT
3 APPLICATIONS FOR POTENTIALLY HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AND
PROVIDING FOR CONTINUATION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TASK FORCE.
4
5 The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino
do ordain as follows,
6
7
8
SECTION 1.
Chapter 15.37 of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 15.37
9
10
11
HISTORIC STRUCTURE DEMOLITION ORDINANCE
15.37.010
Findinas and PurDose.
The Mayor and Common
Council find and declare:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 IIII
A. The City of San Bernardino General Plan, adopted on June
2, 1989, includes an Historical and Archaeoloqical
Resources Element which provides a basis for historic
preservation in the City of San Bernardino.
B. An Historic Preservation Ordinance is required to be
completed as part of the development of the Historic
Preservation Proqram.
This ordinance will include a
section on demolitions.
C. Several buildinqs of histor"ical value have already been
demolished, includinq the Municipal Auditorium, Antlers
Hotel, Carneqie Library and Atwood Adobe and many others
which were an irreplaceable part of our heritaqe.
D. On December 18, 1989, the Urqency Historic Structure
Demolition Ordinance (MC-694) was adopted.
MC-694
provided for the establishment of the Historic
Preservation Task Force and for the review of Demolition
1
o
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Permit applications
structures.
E. Prior to the adoption of MC-694. the City had no
provision for the review of Demolition Permit
applications for potentially historic buildings or
structures.
F. For clarification. it is necessary to amend the
provisions for the review of Demolition Permit
applications for potentially historic buildings and
structures.
G. By imposing the requirements of the amended Historic
Structure Demolition Ordinance, the City will have a
provision which facilitates a more efficient and
effective method of review for Demolition Permit
applications while the Historic Preservation Program is
being completed.
for
bUildings
pre-194 1
and
15.32.020 Definitions. For the purpose of carrying out the
intent of this Chapter, the words. phrases and terms set forth
herein shall be deemed to have the meaning ascribed to them in this
Chapter.
Building -
Any structure having a roof and wall s buil t
and maintained to shelter human activity or
property.
Demolition - To destroy any building or structure so that
it is no longer standing or functional.
Historic Resource Evaluation Report, a report
that evaluates the historical significance of
2
Report -
o
o
1 a resource based upon established criteria.
2 Resource - A building or structure as defined in this
3 Chapter.
4 Structure - A structure is a work made up of independent
5 and interrelated parts that performs a primary
6 function unrelated to human shelter.
7 Survey - Histor ic Resources Reconnaissance Survey
8 (Volumes 1-5 and Attachments. April 30. 1991
9 and all subsequent revisions), a citywide
10 survey of buildings and structures constructed
11 prior to December 31, 1941 which provides
12 baseline information regarding the types and
13 locations of resources, approximate
14 construction dates. representative
15 architectural styles, construction materials.
16 and contextual historical themes.
17 Task Force - The Historic Preservation Task Force, a
18 committee appointed by the Mayor and Common
19 Council to oversee the Historic Preservation
20 Program and ordinance and to review all
21 Demolition Permit applications that require
22 their review in accordance with the provisions
23 of this Chapter.
24
25 15.37.025 Historic Preservation Task Force. The Historic
26 Preservation Task Force (Task Force) was established by MC-694 and
27 the Task Force members were appointed by the Mayor with the
28 concurrence of the Common Council. Under the provisions of this
3
o
o
1 Chapter, the Task Force shall continue to oversee the Historic
2 Preservation Program and Ordinance, review specified Demolition
3 Permit applications and perform other duties as established by the
4 Mayor and Common Council. This Task Force shall exist until the
5 Mayor and Common Council determine that it is no longer needed.
6
7 15.37.035 Demolition Prohibited. No building or structure
8 fifty (50) years old or older shall be demolished unless a valid
9 Demolition Permit has been issued in accordance with this Chapter.
10
11 15.37.040 Danaerous Buildinas ExemDted. The demolition of
12 any building or structure fifty (50) years old or older shall be
13 exempt from the provisions of this Chapter if findings have been
14 made by the Board of Building Commissioners pursuant to the
15 provisions of Chapter 8.30, Public Nuisances and Chapter 15.28,
16 Dangerous Buildings, of the Municipal Code. In such instances, the
17 building or structure is exempt from the provisions of this Code
18 and a Demolition Permit may be issued.
19 If the Buildinq Official makes a findinq that a buildinq is
20 dangerous pursuant to summary abatement procedures of Chapter 15.28
21 of the Municipal Code, the building is exempt from the provisions
22 of this Code and a Demolition Permit may be issued.
~
24 15.37.045 Evaluation Thresholds and Reauirements.
25 Buildinqs and structures fifty (50) years old or older shall be
26 evaluated to determine historical siqnificance in accordance with
27 the following thresholds and requirements which are based upon the
28 Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey (Volumes 1-5 and
4
o
o
1 Attachments, April 30, 1991 and all subsequent revisions),
A Historic Resource Evaluation Report (Report) shall be
required for any resource identified on a modified
California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPRI 523 Form
(Vol ume 3, Appendix B. Resource List and DPR Forms I or
located within an area identified as being potentially
eligible for Historic District designation and listed as a
contributing resource (Volume 3. Appendix C, Historic
Districts and Overlay Zones. Items 1. through 4.). Any
resource located in a new area identified by the Mayor and
Common Council as being potentially eligible for Historic
District designation and listed as a contributing resource
shall also be subject to the provisions of this subsection.
A Historic Resource Evaluation Report may be required for
any resource listed on the Tabular List and located within
the boundaries of an area identified in the Survey as being
potentially eligible for Historic Overlay Zone designation
(Volume 3, AppendiX C, Historic Districts and Overlay Zones,
Items 5. through 13.). Using the criteria established in
Section 15.37.055 of this Chapter, the Director of Planning
and BUilding Services shall evaluate demolition permit
appl ications for these resources to determine the
requirement for a Report. Any resource located in a new
area identified by the Mayor and Common Council as being
potentially eligible for Historic Overlay Zone deSignation
shall also be subject to the provisions of this subsection.
Demolition Permit applications for buildings and structures
which are listed only on the Tabular List or not included in
5
2 A.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 B.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 c.
28
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
o
o
the Survey shall not require a Report unless the Task Force
determines that further study is required based upon new,
histor ical or cultural information not contained in the
Survey.
When required, Historic Resource Evaluation Reports shall be
prepared in accordance with Section 15.37.050 of this Chapter.
At regular intervals (as determined by the Task Force and
prior to the expiration of the appeal period after a determination
is madel, the Task Force shall be notified in writing of all
determinations made in accordance with thresholds B. and c.
15.37.050 Historic Resource Evaluation Reoort. A Historic
Resource Evaluation Report required as a submittal for a Demolition
Permit application shall contain the following elements:
A. Purpose and Scope
B. Methods of Evaluation. Field and Archival
C. Location and Setting
D. Architectural Description of the Resource
E. Historical Background
20 F. Statement of Significance
21 G. Alternatives to Demolition (such as Retention,
22 Relocation, Rehabilitation, Restoration and Adaptive
23 Reuse)
24 H. Conclusions
25 I. Recommendations
26 J. Mitigation
27 K. Archival Documentation (Appendicesl
28 IIII
6
.
o
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Statement of Significance element (Item F. above) shall
be made using the criteria listed in Section 15.37.055 of this
Chapter and the National Reqister criteria for evaluation and shall
include a discussion of the related historical contextual themes.
The archival documentation (Item K. above) of the resource
shall include a completed DPR 523 Form and archival quality photo
documentation. This information shall be included as an appendix
to the Report.
Preparation and submittal of the Report shall be the
responsibility of the applicant. All Reports shall be prepared by
consultants who meet the professional qualification standards for
the field of Historic Preservation as described in the Federal
Register.
15.37.055
Criteria for Determination of Historical
Sianificance.
1. The building or structure has character, interest or
value as a part of the heritage of the City of San
Bernardino; or,
2. The location of the bUilding or structure is the site of
a significant historic event; or,
3. The bUilding or structure is identified with a person(s)
or group(s) who significantly contributed to the culture
and development of the City of San Bernardino; or,
4. The building or structure exemplifies a particular
architectural style or way of life important to the City;
or,
IIII
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 IIII
o
o
5. The building or structure exemplifies the best remaining
architectural type in a neighborhood: or,
6. The building or structure is identified as the work of a
person whose work has influenced the heritage of the
City, the State or the United States; or,
7. The building or structure reflects outstanding attention
to architectural design, detail, materials or
craftsmanship, or,
a. The building or structure is related to landmarks or
historic districts and its preservation is essential to
the integrity of the landmark or historic district; or,
9. The unique location or singular physical characteristics
of the building or structure represent an established and
familiar feature of a neighborhood; or,
10. The bUilding, structure or site has the potential to
yield historical or archaeological information.
15.37.060 Review Process.
1. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Review - An
Initial Study (pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act) shall be prepared for a Demolition Permit
application when a Historical Resource Evaluation Report
is required in accordance with Section 15.37.045,
Subsections A.- C. of this Chapter. The Report shall be
included as an attachment to the Initial Study.
The Initial Study shall be reviewed by the ERC for
an environmental determination. Following the ERC
a
o
o
1 review. the application shall be reviewed by the Task
2 Force.
3 2. The Task Force Review - The Task Force shall review a
4 Demolition Permit application to determine the historical
5 significance of the resource based upon the criteria set
6 forth in Section 15.37.055 of this Chapter. The Task
7 Force may also consider the National Register criteria
8 for evaluation. Based upon the criteria in Section
9 15.37.055. the Task Force may stay the issuance of the
10 Demolition Permit for a period of up to ninety (90) days.
11 During this time. the Task Force shall pursue methods of
12 retention through rehabilitation. relocation and/or reuse
13 or other alternatives to demolition.
14 The Task Force shall take action to grant or deny
15 the Demolition Permit within the stay period specified.
16 If the Task Force approves the Demolition Permit
17 application. the Demolition Permit may be issued in
18 accordance with the Task Force action and following
19 compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and all
20 other City requirements.
21
22 15.37.070 Aooeals. Any person may appeal the decisions
23 pursuant to this Chapter of the Director of Planning and Building
24 Services to the Task Force. Decisions of the Task Force pursuant
25 to this Chapter may be appealed to the Mayor and Common Council.
26 An appeal must be submitted in writing with the required
27 appeal fee (if applicable) to the Planning and Building Services
28 Department within fifteen (15) days following the final date of the
9
o
o
action for which an appeal is made. The written appeal shall
include the reason(s) why the potential resource should be exempt
from or subject to the provisions of this ordinance.
1
2
3
4
5 15.37.075 Inconsistent Provisions. Any section of the
6 Municipal Code or amendments thereto inconsistent with the
7 provisions of this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistencies
8 and no further is hereby superseded or modified by this ordinance
9 to the extent necessary to effectuate the provisions of this
10 ordinance.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15.37.080 Severability. If any section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase or any portion of this ordinance is for
any reason declared invalid or unconstitutional, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaininq portions of the
ordinance. The Mayor and Common Council, hereby, declare that it
would have adopted this ordinance and each and every section,
subsection, sentence, clause or portion thereof irrespective of the
fact that phrase, or any portion thereof would be subsequently
declared invalid or unconstitutional._
15.37.085 Penalty, Any person, firm or corporation.
whether as principal, aqent, employee, or otherwise, violatinq or
causinq the violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter is
quilty of a misdemeanor, which upon conviction thereof is
punishable in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.12.010 of
this Code in addition to any other civil or administrative
remedies.
10
o
o
1 15.37.090 Fees. Upon submittal of a Demolition Permit
2 application to the Planning and Building Services Department. the
3 applicant shall pay all applicable Planning Division fees as
4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council for an Initial Study and
5 for the Historic Preservation Task Force review. The applicant
6 shall pay all required Building Safety Division fees as adopted by
7 the Mayor and Common Council prior to issuance of a Demolition
8 Permit."
9 IIII
10 IIII
11 IIII
12 IIII
13 IIII
14 IIII
15 IIII
16 IIII
17 IIII
18 IIII
19 IIII
20 IIII
21 IIII
22 IIII
23 IIII
24 IIII
25 IIII
26 IIII
27 IIII
28 IIII
11
o
I
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ORDINANCE. ..ESTABLISHING NEW POLICIES AND PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW OF
DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR POTENTIALLY HISTORIC BUILDINGS
AND STRUCTURES AND PROVIDING FOR CONTINUATION OF THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION TASK FORCE.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foreqoinq ordinance was dUly
adopted by Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino
at a
meeting thereof, held on the
day of
, 1991 by the following vote, to wit:
Council Members
AYES
NAYS
ABSTAIN
ABSENT
ESTRADA
REILLY
HERNANDEZ
11
12 MINOR
MAUDSLEY
13
14
15
16
POPE-LUDLAM
MILLER
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Approved as to
form and legal content:
24
25
26
27
28
City Clerk
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this
day of
. 1991.
W.R. Holcomb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
JAMES F. PENMAN,
~~
B . 4. .
-
12