HomeMy WebLinkAbout28-Planning and Building
CITY OF SAN BER,QRDINO - REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Subject:
Historic Structures Demolition
Ordinance
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
March 16, 1992
Date: March 8, 1992
Synopsis of Previous- Council action:
November 18, 1991 - The Mayor and Common Council approved the Historic
Structure Demolition Ordinance and it was laid over for final adoption.
December 2, 1991 - The Mayor and Common Council tabled the Historic Structure
Demolition Ordinance for 30 days.
January 6, 1992 The Mayor and Common Council continued the Ordinance
so that staff and the Economic Development Agency could develop options for
simplifying the review process for demolition permit applications.
February 3, 1992 - The Mayor and Common Council continued this item so that
staff could prepare a detailed proposal to change the process for demolition
permit applications.
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council direct staff to change the review process as
proposed, prepare an ordinance and return to the May 4, 1992 Council Meeting.
"gnature
Contact person: Al Bouqhey
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting data attached:
None
Ward:
Citywide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
NIA
Source: (Acct. No.)
IAcct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No
~&
CITY OF SAN BERNODINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT
Proposed Changes to the Review Process for
Demolition Permit Applications
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
March 16, 1992
REOUEST
Staff is requesting that the Mayor and Common Council consider the
recommendation outlined in this Staff Report and direct staff to
change the proposed ordinance accordingly.
BACKGROUND
On November 18, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council approved the
proposed Historic structure Demolition Ordinance and it was laid
over for final adoption. During the second reading of the
ordinance on December 2, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council decided
to table the item for 30 days so that staff could work with the
Economic Development Agency (ECA) to determine methods for
simplifying the review process for Demolition Permit Applications.
Due to time limitations, staff and the EDA were unable to meet and
discuss the issues during December 1991. As a result, staff
requested that the item be continued from January 6, 1992 to
February 3, 1992. On February 3, 1992, staff again requested that
this item be continued. The Mayor and Common Council granted
staff's request with a continuance of six weeks which provided
staff the opportunity to prepare a more detailed proposal.
The proposed ordinance was prepared because of problems that were
identified in the existing Urgency Historic structure Demolition
Ordinance (MC-694). Those problems made the processing of
Demolition Permit Applications difficult and cumbersome. MC-694,
which would have been repealed by the adoption of the proposed
ordinance, is still in effect.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE REVIEW PROCESS
During joint meetings between the Planning Division and EDA, staff
members discussed a number of issues relating to the application
process, processing time frames and staff constraints. As a result
75-0264
!t!
o
o
proposed ChaDqes to the aeview Process for
Deaolition Permit Applications
Hayor and Common COUDcil xeetinq of
March 111, 1"2
paqe 2
of those discussions, some very specific chanqes are proposed. The
chanqes, which should simplify the review process for Demolition
Permit Applications, are as follows:
L The Planninq Commission would assume the project review duties
of the Historic Preservation Task Force for Demolition Permit
Applications.
2.
The Task
overseeinq
proqram.
Based upon
information,
thresholds.
Force responsibilities would be
the development of the Historic
directed at
Preservation
3.
the Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey
a new ordinance would establish evaluation
(See Attachment 2, Evaluation Thresholds)
4. Usinq the Evaluation Thresholds, staff would identify the
level of evaluation (historical review) required to determine
the historical siqnficance of resources proposed for
demolition.
5 Staff decisions relatinq to Evaluation Thresholds B. andC.
could be appealed to the Planninq Commission. Threshold A
could not be appealed. (See Attachment 2)
6. The Planninq Commission would approve or deny Demolition
Permit Applications based upon information presented.
7. The Planninq Commission would have the option to forward a
recommendation for further study to the Mayor and Common
Council when a permit is denied due to a finding of historical
significance.
8. Decisions of the Planning Commission could be appealed to the
Mayor and Common Council.
An alternative to Items Land 2. would be the appointment of a
Historic Preservation Commission. However, there are. certain
disadvantaqes to this alternative relatinq to time constraints.
The appointment of a Historic Preservation Commission would involve
a lenqthy process and new commissioners would require some time for
orientation and traininq. Providing the necessary staffing for a
new commission would be difficult based on the current budget and
staff constraints.
o 0
Proposed changes to the Review Process for
Demolition Permit Applications
Mayor and Common Council xeeting of
March 16, 1992
page 3
The establishment of the Planning Commission as the review
authority for Demolition Permit Applications would be advantageous
for a number of reasons. One is that the Planning Commission is
already established and does not require additional staffing.
Since the Planning Commission reviews land use issues and
development proposals and the related environmental documents, it
would provide a more balanced review for Demolition Permit
Applications. The Planning Commission is experienced in historic
review because it is the review authority when Demolition Permit
Applications are processed concurrently with other types of
development applications.
In accordance with the Urqency Historic structure Demolition
Ordinance (MC-694), the Historic Preservation Task Force was
established to oversee and quide the development of the Historic
Preservation Proqram. The Task Force review of Demolition Permit
Applications was to have been an interim duty. Upon completion of
the Historic Preservation Proqram, the Task Force was to have been
replaced by a Historic Preservation commission. This has not
occurred because of staff contraints and a shift in Department
priorities resulting from the current budget situation. For
consistency, the Task Force should continue in its role of quiding
the development of the Historic Preservation Proqram.
The'Evaluation Thresholds referred to in Item 3. would be based
upon information contained in the Historic Resources Reconnaissance
Survey (Survey), which was completed in May 1991. As indicated,
the Survey was completed at the reconnaissance level and does not
provide indepth information on individual resources or areas of the
city. It does identify, however, the City's buildings and
structures that are fifty years old or older and provides baseline
information concerning the types and locations of resources,
representative architectural styles, construction materials and
contextual themes. The Survey also specifies individual resources
that exhibit potential historical significance, areas eligible for
Historical District and OVerlay Zone desiqnation and areas
requiring future Survey consideration. A draft of the Evaluation
Thresholds (A. through C.) is attached (see Attachment 2).
Item 4. indicates that as a result of establishing the Evaluation
Thresholds, staff's role would be strengthened. This is essential
for streamlining the review process because it will allow projects
to move forward.
o
o
Proposed changes to the aeview Process for
Demolition perait Applications
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
Karch 1', 1"2
Page ..
Item 5. is straightforward and requires little description. The
resources described by Threshold A have been identified in the
Survey as having potential historical significance to a greater
degree than do other resources contained in the Survey. It follows
then that if these resources are proposed for demolition, a full
historical review should be required to evaluate any environmental
impacts resulting from their loss. In addition, alternatives to
demolition should be evaluated for resources that may be important
to the city.
As indicated by Item 6., the Planning Commission would approve or
deny Demolition Permit Applications based upon information
contained in a Statf Report. The Staff Report would include an
Initial Study a recommendation regarding an environmental
determination from the Environmental Review Committee.
Following denial of a permit, the Planning Commission would have
the option to forward recommendations for further study to the
Mayor and Common Council (Item 7.). Examples of "further study"
would be Environmental Impact Reports or fiscal analysis studies
that require funding by the city.
Item 8. continues the right of appeal by providing a mechanism
whereby decisions of the Planning Commission could be appealed to
the Mayor and Common Council.
AN ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION
The Mayor and Common Council may wish to have a Historic Resources
Evaluation Report prepared for all or some of the resources listed
in the Survey on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Forms
(Modified). The Report would determine the historical significance
of these resources and provide advance submittal information to
staff and the review authority for Demolition Permit Applications.
This would further streamline the review process for the resources
in question.
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may direct staff to change the
review process as proposed, prepare an ordinance and return to
the May 4, 1992 Council Meeting.
2. The Mayor and Common Council may make modifications, deletions
or additions to staff's proposed changes.
o 0
proposed Chanqes to the Review Process for
Demolition Permit Applications
Kayor and Common Council Ileetinq of
Karch 1&, 1992
paqe 5
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council direct staff to
change the review process as proposed, prepare an ordinance and
return to the May 4, 1992 Council Meeting.
Prepared by:
Attachments:
Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Al Boughey, Director
Planning and Building Services Department
Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey (not
included - previously distributed to the Mayor
and Common council in June 1991)
2. Draft Evaluation Thresholds CA. through C.)
1.
~ . . .,
o
o
BVJ.LUATIOIf '1'JIR!ISROLDS
Buildinqs and structures fifty (50) years old and older would be
evalua~ed usinq the followinq thresholds to determine the level of
historical review required. The thresholds are based upon the
Historic Resources Reconnaissance survey (Volumes 1-5 and
Attachments, April 30, 1991 and all subsequent revisions).
A. A Historic Resource Evaluation Report (Report) would be
required for any resource identified on a modified California
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Form (Volume 3,
Appendix B, Resource List and DPR Forms) or located within an
area identified as beinq potentially eliqible for Historic
District desiqnation and listed as a contributinq resource
(Volume 3, Appendix C, Historic Districts and OVerlay Zones,
Items 1. throuqh 4.). A Report would also be required for any
resource located in a new area identified by the Mayor and
Common Council as beinq potentially eliqible for Historic
District desiqnation and listed as a contributinq resource.
B. A Historic Resource Evaluation Report could be required for
any resource listed on the Survey's Tabular List and located
within the boundaries of an area identified in the Survey as
beinq potentially eliqible for Historic overlay Zone
Desiqnation (Volume 3, Appendix C, Historic Districts and
OVerlay Zones, Items 5. throuqh 13.). usinq the criteria
established in the existinq Ugency Historic Structure
Demolition Ordinance, Section 15.37.070 (MC_694), the Director
of Planning and Building Services would evaluate demolition
permit applications 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 desiqnation
shall also would be subject to the Director's evaluation.
C. Demolition Permit applications for buildings and structures
which are listed only on the Tabular List or not included in
the survey would not require a Report unless the Director of
Planning and Building Services or members of the Historic
Preservation Task Force or the Planning commission determine
that further study would be required based upon new,
historical or cultural information not contained in the
Survey.
Attachment 2
1
CITY OF SAN BERrliRDINO - REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION
From:
. . '.I.unfjfistoric Structure Demolition
Al Boughey, DJ.rector REC'O. - ..tsUDJlIIa' 6:i:dinance
2'" e~' 4t no
Planning & Building Servic~2 J~ AaYbr a~d Common Council Meeting
February 3, 1992
t.,._.:
Dau:
January 23, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
November 18, 1991 - The Mayor and Common Council approved the Historic
Structure Demolition Ordinance and it was laid over for final adoption.
December 2, 1991 - The Mayor and Common Council tabled the Historic
Structure Demolition Ordinance for 30 days.
January 6, 1992 - The Mayor and Common Council continued the
Ordinance so that staff and Economic Development Agency could develop
options for simplifying the review process for demolition permit
applications.
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council continue this item to March 16,
1992 to enable staff to complete a detailed proposal outlining
options and recommendations.
dZ B~ n.t
? Signature
Al Boughey
Contact person:
Al Boughey
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting data ettIched:
None
Ward:
Citywide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriDtion)
Finance:
Icil Notes:
2t'
.., ..,
... _~ #8_
A___-'_ 1....__ AI_ __
CiTY OF SAN BERNAfiblNO - REQUEST FcQ COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT
Historic structure Demolition Ordinance
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
February 3, 1992
REOUEST
Staff is requesting that the Mayor and Common Council continue this
item until March 16, 1992. At that time, staff will bring forward
a detailed proposal which will include options and recommendations
for the Mayor and Common Council's consideration.
BACKGROUND
On November 18, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council approved the
Historic structure Demolition Ordinance and it was laid over for
final adoption. During the second reading of the ordinance on
December 2, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council decided to table.
the item for 30 days so that staff could work with the Economic
Development Agency (EDA) determine methods for simplifying the
review process for Demolition Permit Applications. Due to time
limitations, staff and the EDA were unable to meet and discuss the
issues during December 1991. As a result, staff requested that the
item be continued from January 6, 1992 to February 3, 1992.
On Friday, January 17, 1992, the Planning Division and EDA staff
discussed several issues relating to the application process,
processing time frames and staff constraints. Also discussed were
issues related generally to the development of the Historic
Preservation Program and its implementation. The result is that
staff has tentatively identified some options for changing the
application process. However, further evaluation of these options
would enable staff to prepare a more detailed proposal with options
and recommendations for the Mayor and Common Council's
consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council continue this
item to March 16, 1992 to enable staff to prepare a detailed
proposal outlining options and recommendations for changing the
review process for Demolition Permit Applications.
Prepared by:
Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Al Boughey, Director
Planning and Building services Department
_"".1:."
o 0
ORDINANCE NO. HC
1
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING CHAPTER
2 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
4 PROVIDING FOR CONTINUATION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TASK FORCE.
5
6
7
8
The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino
do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1.
Chapter 15.37 of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 15.37
9
10
HISTORIC STRUCTURE DEMOLITION ORDINANCE
15.37.010
F indinas and Puroose.
The Mayor and Common
11 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 historical 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-6941 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 for pre-1941 buildings and
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.
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 -
J.L
.l.
.4
-
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 - Historic 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 pr ior 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 1501 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 1501 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 Building Official makes a finding that a building is
20 dangerous pursuant to summary abatement procedures of Chapter 15.28
21 of the Municipal Code. the buildinq 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 Buildings and structures fifty 1501 years old or older shall be
26 evaluated to determine historical significance in accordance with
27 the followinq thresholds and requirements which are based upon the
28 Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey IVolumes 1-5 and
4
o
o
1 Attachments, April 30, 1991 and all subsequent revisions I ,
2 A. A Historic Resource Evaluation Report (Report I shall be
3 required for any resource identified on a modified
4 California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPRI 523 Form
5 (Volume 3, Appendix B. Resource List and DPR Forms I or
6 located within an area identified as being potentiallY
7 eligible for Historic District designation and listed as a
8 contributing resource (Volume 3. Appendix C, Historic
Distr icts and Over lay Zones. Items 1. through 4. I . 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
applications 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
9
10
11
12
13
14 B.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 c.
28
o
o
1 the Survey shall not require a Report unless the Task Force
2 determines that further study is required based upon new,
3 histor ical or cultural information not contained in the
4 Survey.
5 When required, Historic Resource Evaluation Reports shall be
6 prepared in accordance with Section 15.37.050 of this Chapter.
7 At reoular intervals (as determined by the Task Force and
8 prior to the expiration of the appeal period after a determination
9 is made I, the Task Force shall be notified in writino of all
10 determinations made in accordance with thresholds B. and C.
11
12 15.37.050 Historic Resource Evaluation ReDort. A Historic
13 Resource Evaluation Report required as a submittal for a Demolition
14 Permit application shall contain the followino elements:
15 A. Purpose and Scope
16 B. Methods of Evaluation: Field and Archival
17 C. Location and Settino
18 D. Architectural Description of the Resource
19 E. Historical Backoround
20 F. Statement of Sionificance
21 G. Alternatives to Demolition (such as Retention.
22 Relocation, Rehabilitation. Restoration and Adaptive
23 Reuse I
24 H. Conclusions
25 I. Recommendations
26 J. Mitioation
27 K. Archival Documentation (Appendices I
28 IIII
6
o
o
1 The Statement of Siqnificance element (Item F. above) shall
2 be made usinq the criteria listed in Section 15.37.055 of this
3 Chapter and the National Reqister criteria for evaluation and shall
4 include a discussion of the related historical contextual themes.
5 The archival documentation (Item K. above) of the resource
6 shall include a completed DPR 523 Form and archival quality photo
7 documentation. This information shall be included as an appendix
8 to the Report.
9 Preparation and submittal of the Report shall be the
10 responsibility of the applicant. All Reports shall be prepared by
11 consultants who @eet the professional qualification standards for
12 the field of Historic Preservation as described in the Federal
13 Reqister.
14
15 15.37.055 Criteria for Determination of Historical
16 Sianificance.
17 1. The bUildinq or structure has character, interest or
18 value as a part of the heritaqe of the City of San
Bernardino; or,
2. The location of the bUildinq or structure is the site of
a siqnificant historic event; or,
3. The bUildinq or structure is identified with a person(s)
or qroup(s) who siqnificantly contributed to the culture
and development of the City of San Bernardino; or,
4. The bUildinq or structure exemplifies a particular
architectural style or way of life important to the City:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 IIII
or,
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 bUildinq or structure exemplifies the best remaininq
architectural type in a neiqhborhood; or.
6. The bUildinq or structure is identified as the work of a
person whose work has influenced the heritaqe of the
City, the State or the United States; or.
7. The buildinq or structure reflects outstandinq attention
to architectural desiqn. detail. materials or
craftsmanship; or.
a. The bUildinq or structure is related to landmarks or
historic districts and its preservation is essential to
the inteqrity of the landmark or historic district; or,
9. The unique location or sinqular physical characteristics
of the bUildinq or structure represent an established and
familiar feature of a neiqhborhood: or.
10. The bUildinq. structure or site has the potential to
yield historical or archaeoloqical 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. Followinq 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 siqnificance 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 Reqister criteria
8 for evaluation. Based upon the criteria in Section
9 15.37.055. the Task Force may stay the issuance of the
10 Demol i tion Permit for a period of up to ninety (90) days.
11 Durinq this time. the Task Force shall pursue methods of
12 retention throuqh rehabilitation. relocation and/or reuse
13 or other alternatives to demolition.
14 The Task Force shall take action to qrant 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 followinq
19 compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and all
20 other City requirements.
21
22 15.37.070 Appeals. Any person may appeal the decisions
23 pursuant to this Chapter of the Director of Planninq and Buildinq
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 writinq with the required
27 appeal fee (if applicable) to the Planninq and BUildinq Services
28 Department within fifteen (15) days followinq 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 Planninq and BUildinq Services Department. the
3 applicant shall pay all applicable Planninq 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 Buildinq Safety Division fees as adopted by
7 the Mayor and Common Council prior to issuance of a Demolition
8 Permit."
9 IIII
10 I I I I
11 IIII
12 IIII
13 I I I I
14 IIII
15 I I I I
16 I I I I
17 IIII
18 I I I I
19 I I I I
20 IIII
21 I I I I
22 IIII
23 IIII
24 IIII
25 IIII
26 IIII
27 IIII
28 IIII
11
o
o
1
2
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.
3
4
5
6
7 Council Members
8
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foreqoinq ordinance was duly
adopted by Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino
meetinq thereof, held on the
day of
at a
, 1991 by the followinq vote, to wit:
ABSTAIN
ABSENT
NAYS
AYES
ESTRADA
9 REILLY
10 HERNANDEZ
11
MAUDSLEY
12 MINOR
13
POPE-LUDLAM
14 MILLER
15
16
17 City Clerk
18 The foreqoinq ordinance is hereby approved this
day of
. 1991.
19
20
21
22
23 Approved as to
form and leqal content:
24
25
26
27
28
W.R. Holcomb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
JAMES F. PENMAN,
~
B . <4. J
-"
12