HomeMy WebLinkAbout43-Planning and Building
C1Tyf OF SAN BE~ARbINO - REQUESAOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director
Dept: Planning and Building Services
Date: April 16, 1992
Subject: Historic Building Demolition Ordinance
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
May 4, 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.
March 16, 1992 - The Mayor and Common Council directed staff to change the review process as
proposed, prepare an ordinance and return to the May 4, 1992 Council MeetinK.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed, that the Negative Declaration be adopted and that further
reading of the ordinance be waived and that said ordinance be laid over for final
adoption.
Contact person:
Al Boughey
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
Citywide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriDtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Anon..!. I.o~ !\In #'/3
C1TY~ OF SAN BE~ARDINO - REQUES.o:OR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance Amendment
(ORD DEM No. 91-02)
Mayor and Common council Meeting of
May 4, 1992
REOUEST
This City initiated amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 15.37
(urgency Historic structure Demolition ordinance, MC-694) is to
facilitate changes to the review process for Demolition Permit
Applications for buildings and structures fifty years old and
older.
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 (EDA) 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
the 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.
staff's new proposal was presented to the Mayor and common council
on March 16, 1992 at which time the item was continued and staff
was directed to change the review process and prepare an ordinance
for the May 4, 1992 council Meeting.
PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TASK FORCE
On March 25, 1992, staff presented the proposal to the Historic
Preservation Task Force. The Task Force discussed the proposal at
length and requested that they be provided copies of the draft
Staff Report and to the Mayor and Common council and the draft
Ordinance for discussion at their meeting of April 22, 1992.
75.0264
~
o
o
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance Amendment
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
May 4, 1992
Page 2
COMMENTS RECEIVED
On March 31, 1992, staff received comments from Dr. James
MUlvihill, AICP, Member of the Historic Preservation Task Force.
Dr. Mulvihill's comments are contained in Attachment 2, this
report.
Dr. Mulvihill is concerned with several aspects of staff's proposal
to change the review process for Demolition Permit Applications.
He has reservations with the reassignment of the review duties to
the Planning commission. He emphasizes in his letter that historic
preservation is a serious task that employs very extensive policies
and that "significance" is sometimes open to interpretation. Dr.
Mulvihill feels that the Task Force has the experience necessary
for making determinations of historical significance.
Staff recognizes that the Task Force is experienced in historic
preservation. For this reason, we would like to use the Task Force
more actively in the development of the Historic Preservation
Program. The Task Force would still be involved in the review
process but as an advisory body rather than as the principal review
authority. In this way, their experience could be more fully
utilized. Since the adoption of the Urgency Historic structure
Demolition Ordinance (MC-694), the emphasis on program development
has shifted almost solely to the review of Demolition Permit
Applications. This has occurred primarily because of budgetary and
staff constraints. The result is that program development is at a
standstill.
There are several benefits associated with establishing the
Planning commission as the review authority for Demolition Permit
Applications. As stated, the Task Force will be able to
concentrate its efforts on program development. The planning
Commission is an established review body that is well versed in
dealing with sensitive environmental issues such as historic
preservation. Because of the broad range of projects that the
commission reviews, Demolition Permit Applications will receive a
more balanced review. In addition, applications will be
mainstreamed into the Planning process and thus be provided more
expeditious processing since the Planning Commission meets twice a
month.
Dr. Mulvihill is concerned that staff is relying too heavily on the
Historic Resources Reconnaissance survey in developing the
Evaluation Thresholds that are contained in the draft ordinance.
Staff agrees with Dr. Mulvihill's assertion that the Survey is not
o 0
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance Amendment
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
May 4, 1992
Page 3
an exhaustive study and that a more intensive survey should be done
as a necessary part of an ongoing historic preservation program.
However, the Survey does provide baseline information that can be
used to establish review thresholds. Prior to formalizing the
Evaluation Thresholds, staff conferred with the Jan Wooley of the
California Office of Historic Preservation and with Wayne Donaldson
of Milford Wayne Donaldson, A.I.A., Inc. (The Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survey was done by the firm referenced). Both Ms.
Wooley and Mr. Donaldson felt that the Survey information
reasonably could be used to establish review thresholds that would
provide a more functional review process. However, both stressed
that an intensive survey would contain more indepth information on
specified resources which in turn, helps to validate a Historic
Preservation Program by providing credibility.
PROPOSED HISTORIC BUILDING DEMOLITION ORDINANCE
As stated, staff presented a proposal to change the review process
for Demolition Permit Applications for buildings and structures
fifty years old and older at the March 16, 1992 Council Meeting.
A copy of the Staff Report prepared for that meeting is attached
(Attachment 1). The proposed changes are incorporated in the draft
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance (Attachment 3).
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the ordinance.
2. The Mayor and Common Council may direct staff to make further
changes.
3. The Mayor and Common Council may deny the ordinance.
f
o
o
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance Amendment
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
May 4, 1992
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION
staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the
Negative Declaration and approve the Historic Building Demolition
Ordinance.
Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Al Boughey, Director
Planning and Building Services Department
Attachment l: Staff Report to the Mayor and Common Council (March
16, 1992)
Prepared by:
Attachment 2. Comments from Dr. James Mulvihill (March 31, 1992)
Attachment 3. Initial Study
Exhibit A - Draft Historic Building Demolition
Ordinance (Not included)
Attachment 4. Historic Building Demolition Ordinance
o /", r\ I
'CrT"i OF SAN BE:R~ARbINO - R5QUEM :-JR COUNC2L AC7JO;
. . .
Subject:
H~storic S~r~ctures Demolition
Or:iinance
.~~
From: Al Bcughey, Director
Dept: Planning &. Building Services
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
March 16, 1992
.':
..":..
Dau: March 8, 1992
.-
.'
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
November 18, 1991 - The Mayor. and Cammon Counc~l approved ~~e aistoric
S~:ucture Demolition Ordinance and it was laid over fer final adop~ion.
December 2, 1991- The Mayor and Cammon Council tabled the Sistoric Structur
Demolition Ordinance for 30 days.
January 6, 1992 The Mayor and Cammon Cjuncil continued ~~e Ordinance
so that staff and the Economic Development Aqency could deve:op options for
simplifying the review process for demolition permit applications.
Febr.lary 3, 1992 - The Mayor and C~~ Council continued this item so ~'lat.
staff could prepare a detailed proposal to change the process for demolition
permit applications.
::i
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council direct staff to change the review process a
proposed, prepare an ordinance and return to the May 4, 1992 Council Meeting.
~
"gnauue
~
ContaCt penon: AJ. Boucrhev
Phone:
384-5357
..
Supporting data .u....hed:
None
Ward:
Ci tvwide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
1111.
5au1'Cll: IAcct. No.1
I Acct. Descriotionl
Finance:
Council Nates:
7So028%
Agenda ; tern No
Attachment 1
2&
CITY OF SAN B~N-'::IDINO - REQUES:>(- R COUNC1L ACT10tl
STAFF REPORT
,
StJ&TECT
Proposed Chanqes to the Review Process for
Demolition Permit Applications
Mayor and Common Council Meetinq of
March 16, 1992
REOUEST
staff is requestinq that the Mayor and Common Council consider the
recommendation outlined in this staff Report and direct staff to
chanqe the proposed ordinance accordinqly.
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. ourinq the second readinq 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 Aqency CEDA) to determine _thods for
simplifyinq the review process for DeIIolltion Permit Applications.
Due to time limitations, staff and the EDA were unable to meet and
discuss the issues durinq December 1991. As a result, staff
requ_ted that the item l>>e continued from January 6, 1992 to
February 3, 1992. On February 3, 1992, staff apin requested that
this item })e continued. The Mayor and Comaon council granted
staff's requ_t with a continuance of six weeks which provided
staff the opportunity to prepare a more detailed proposal.
The proposed ordinance was prepared })&cause of prol>>lems that were
identified in ;he existinq orqency Historic structure Demolition
Ordinance 'CMC-694). Those pro})lems made the processinq of
Demolition Permit Applications difficult and cumbersome. MC-694,
which would have l>>een repealed })y the adoption of the proposed
ordinance, is still in effect.
PROPOSE!) CHANGES TO THE REVTEW PROCESS
ourinq joint :leetinqs l>>etween the Plannlnq Division and EDA, staff
members discussed a nwmer of issues relatinq to the application
process, proc_sinq time frames and staff constraints. As a result
75-02...
:....
....:.
; -:;
:--:
. .::~.
-::~.
.;~::~
....
-,
.:.
.~
.('
r.
o
(
,-~
\ --
.. ~:
;0
Proposed Changes ~o ~h. Kevi.~ Process for
n..01i~io~ Per.=i~ App1icatio~ .
Hayer and eommo~ cOUDcil. Kee~ of
Karch 1', 1992
Paqe 2
.
of those discussions, SClII8 very specific -changes are proposed. The
changes, which should simplifY ~e review process for Demolition
Per.:Lit Appl.ications, are as follows: - - -
,
1.
The Planning eommission voulJ assume the project review duties -
of the Historic Preservation Task Force tor Demolition Per2it
Applications.
2.
The Task
overseeing
Program.
Force responsibilities would be
the development of the Historic
-.
directed at
Preservation
3.
Based upon
infor=ation,
thresholds.
the Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey
a new ordinance would establish evaluation
(See Attac:hlllent 2, Evaluation Thresholds)
4. Using the Evaluation Thresholds, staff would identify the
1eve1 of evaluation (historica1 review) required to determine
the historical siqnflcance of resources proposed for
demolition.
staff decisions :relatiDq to Evaluation Thresholds B. and C.
c:ould be appealed to the Planninq 1"-"'I11III4 ..sion. Threshold A
c:ould not be appealed. (5_ Attacbment 2)
6. The Planninq l'"...-4....ion ~d approve or deny Demolition
Pendt Applications based upon inforlll&tion presented.
5
The Planning COlIIm.issioc would bave the option to forward a
reco_endation for ~er ~y to the Kayor and Common
Council when a permit is denied due to a finding of historical.
siqnificance.
8. Decisions of the Placninq CoIIIIIlission could be appealed to the
Kayor and Common eouncll.
7.
An alternative to xt_ 1. and 2. would be the appointment of a
Historic Preservation COmmission. However, there are certain
disadvantages to ':his alterDative relating to time constraints.
The appoint:llent of a Historic Preservation C,.""",ission would involve
a lengthy process and new ('.......i ssioners woul.d require SOllIe time for
orientation and traininq. Providing the necessary staffing for a
new commission would be difficu1t based on the carrent budget and
staff constraints.
y
0'.
Q.c
". :.
.,
."J'"
proposed c~anges to the ~eview Process for
Dem01itioD Pe~t App1ications
Kayor and Common COUDci1 HeetiDg ot
1Ia%ch 16, 1992
Page 3
.....
.,
The establishment of the Planning commission as the. review
aut.'1ority for Demolition per.llit Applications ~ould be advantageous
for a number of reasons. One is that t!1e ?lan:ti.::g COllllllission is
already established and does not require additional stazfing.
Since the Planning collllllission revie.s lacd use issues and
development proposals and the related environ::ental documents, it
would provide a more balanced review for Demolition per.nit
Applications. The ?lanning commission is experienced in historic
review because it is the review authority .hen Demolition per:it
Applications are processed concurrently with other types ot
developme~t applications.
:In accordance with the urgency Historic Structure Demolition
Ordinance (HC-694), the Historic Preservation Task Force was
established to oversee and quide the development of the Historic
Preservation P~"",,~..m. The Task Foroe review ot Demolition Permit
Applications was to have been an interha duty. Upon completion ot
the Historic Preservation Pr"",,~_, the Task Force was to have been
replaced by a Historic Preservation Commission~ This has not
occurred because of statt contraints and a shitt in Depart:llent
priorities resulting from the current budget situation. For
consistency, the Task Force should contiDue in its role ot quidinq
the development ot the Historic Prese~tion PrO':il~aJIl.
The' Evaluation Thresholds referred to in Item 3. would be based
upon infor.:aation contained in the Historic Resources lleconnaissance
Survey (Survey), which was completed in Hay 1991. As indicated,
the Survey was completed at the reconnaissance level and does not
provide ir.~epth intoClllltion on individual resources or areas ot the
city. :Io: does identity, however, the City's buildings and
structures that are fitty years old or older and provides baseline
intocaation concerning the types and locations ot resources,
representao:ive architectural styles, construction materials and
contextual ~emes. The Survey al.sa specifies individ~l resources
that exh.il:lit potential. historical. significance, areas elig.il:lle tor
Historica!. District and overlay Zone designation and areas
requiring tut".n-e Survey consideration. A draft ot the Eval~tion
Thresholds (A. throuqh C.) is attached (see At'"..achment 2)..
Item 4. L"1dicates that as a result at establishinq the Eval~tion
Thresholds, statt's role would be strenqthened. This is essential.
tor streaml.ininq the review process because it will al.low projects
to move forward.
. ".
.'
". ::!
,.
.'
. ,
,
OoC
O.
..0
. .:.
.
. ~ - .
0,
o .
Proposed ChaDqes ~o the .eview Process for
Deao1J. UOJl Pe%:IIi ~ App1J.catioJlS
Hayor IlJld Common COUDcil x_tinq of
Jlarch 16, 1992
1>aqe ..
:;:-
.'
"0
:It_ 5. is straiqhtforArd and req'.lires lie--..le descrip~iQn. The
resources descr~ed by Threshold A have been identified in the
Survey as having potential historical siqni~icance ~o a qreater
deqree than do other resources contained in the Survey. :It follows
then that if these resources are proposed for d_olition, a full.
historical review should 1::Ie required to evaluate any environmental
impacts resulting from their loss. :In addition, alternatives to
deJ:lOlition should be evaluated for resources that may be important
to the city.
As indicated by :It_ 6., the Planning c01lllllission would approve or
deny Demolition Permit Applications based upon information
contained in a~ Staff Report. The Staff Report would include an
:tnitial Study a reco_enc:lation reqarc:linq an environmental
deter.llination from the Environmental ~eview co-ittee.
.00
Followinq c:lenial of a per.Ilit, the Planning Commission would have
the option to forward rec..........enc:lations for further study to the
Hayor and C~___4 ~U (:tt_ 7.). Examples of .further stucly.
would be Envl..-o1lllleDtal. :tmpact Reports or fiscal analysis stuelies
that =equire tund.inq by the city.
Ztem 8. continues the riqht of appeal by provic:linq a mechanism
whereby decisions of the Planning C.........f "sion could be appealed to
the ~yor and Common Council.
All ADC-~ONAL COHSTDERA'l'YOR
The Mayor and Common Council may wish to have a lUstoric Resources
Evaluation Report prepared for all or SOllIe of the resources listed
in the survey on Depart:aent ot Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Forms
(Hoc:lJ.fiec:l). The Report would determine the historical siqnificance
of these resOll..'""Ces and provide advance submit:'"~l info:t:lllation to
staff and the review authority for O-Olition Per.llit Applications.
This would further streamline the review process for the resources
in question.
MAYOR .urn COMMON comrCYL OPTYOHS
1. The Mayor and ~"n Council may direct staff to chanqe the
=eview process as proposed, prepare an ordinance and return to
the Kay 4, 1992 Council Xeeting.
2. The Kayor and ,.........n Council may ..u modifications, deletions
or additions to staff's proposed changes.
proposed Changes to the lleview Process for
D_olition Permit Applications ~
JIlayor and Common COUDcll .eeting of
JIlarch 1&, 1"2
Page 5
".i
..
.;.;
';;-
.'::
""<:;
....
.
\
.
.
o
Q"
RECOMMENDATrOR
Staff reco_ends that the :1fayor and COIIIl:Ion Council direct sta::f to
change the review process as proposed, prepare an ordinance and
return to the Kay 4, 1992 council lleetinq.
>
::
:~
Prepared by:
:}:
.~
Attac:bments:
."
;:
;.
.,
::"
."
>
.;."
Deborah Woldruff, Asso<"iate Planner
for Al Boughey, Director
planning and Buildinq Services Department
Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey (not
included - previously distributed to the Kayor
and common Council in June 1.991)
2. Draft Evaluation Thresholds (A. through C.)
1.
'.
C(.:"
O;i
"'. .
BV7J.~Oll 'n!1lESJlOIJ)S
Buildinqs and structures fifty (50) years old and older would be
evaluated usinq the followinq thresholds to determine the level of
historical review requirecl. 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 1II0dified 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 e!iqible for Historic
District desiqnation and listecl as a contributinq resour.:e"
(Volume 3, AppendiX C, Historic Districts and overlay Zones, "
It8lllS 1. throuqh 4.). A Report would also be required for any
resource locatecl 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 bounclaries of an area identified in the survey as
beinq potentially eliqible for Historic OVerlay Zone
eesiqnation (Volume 3, Appendix C, Historic Districts and
overlay Zones, Items 5. throuqh 13.). Osinq the criteria
esta1:llished in the existinq Oqency Historic structure
DeIIIolition ordinance, Section 15.37.070 (MC 694), the Director
of planninq and Buildinq services would evaluate demolition
permit applications for these resources to determine the
requirement for a Report. Any resource located in a new area
identifiecl by the Mayor and Common council as beinq
potentially eliqible for Historic overlay Zone desiqnation
shall also would be subject to the Director's evaluation.
"'
c. DelIIolition PerlIIit applications for buildinqs and structures
which are listed only on the Tabular List or not ~clucled in
the survey would not require a Report unless the Director of
planninq and Buildinq services or 1II8l11bers of the Historic
Preservation Task Force or the Planninq commission determine
that further study would be required based upon new,
historical or cultural information not contained in the
Survey.
Attachment 2
.. .
.
. ~ ,
o
o
;
-,
0-
. . - MEMORANDUM
0'
::
FROli:
Hon. Michael Maudsley,
Councilmember, Ward Four and Chair
Historic Preservation Task Force
City of San Bernardino .
Dr. James Mulvihill, AICP, liemberd}2...
Historic Preservation Task Force ~
City of San Bernardino
TO:
~
SUBJECT:
Staff's Proposed Changes to the Review
Process for Demolition Permit Applications.
;.
DATE:
Ms. Deborah woldruff, Asso Planner; Mr. Henry
Empeno, Dpty City Atty,
March 31, 1992
CC:
I am greatly concerned with the implications of the
proposals made by planning staff regarding the process for
review of demolition permit applications. Essentially, the
permit review function now held by the Historic Preservation
Task Force, and presumably any subsequent Historic
Preservation Commission, would be given over to the City
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has my greatest
respect for the tremendous range of responsibilities they
have, and the expertise that is necessitated to meet these.
But historic ,preservation is no small task. Not only are
there a very extensive and subtle policies entailed, but
also, "significance" is sometimes open to interpretation. I
know you remember the controversy surrounding the Platt
Building. Many in city governance minimized ita historic
value, while the delay in issuing the de~lition permit
provided by the Historic Preservation Task Force proved to -
Attachment 2
I '
.'
"t.,
::
.,
,
o
o
-
Page Two
H~~O: Demolition of Historic Resources Review
March 31, 1992
be what was needed to prevent the City from making a very
great error. Even~ually, a highly regarded panel of experts
was brought in, which endorsed the Task Force's opinion that
the building should be preserved. In fact, the group was
quite adamant in their position.
This incident alone underlines the value of having
..
knowledgeable persons involved in the demolition review
process. In addition, Historic Preservation Commissions are
common in cities of all sizes throughout the country. I am
attaching a document of considerable importance, "Preparing
a Historic Preservation Ordinance," from the Planning
Advisory Service of the American Planning Association. I
know staff has its own copy, but I ask that you have
duplicates made for our Task Force, the Common Council, and
any others who will participate in this revision process.
I hope no one misUDderstands me. I do not see historic
preservation as limited and Wanobby.w If effectively
managed, historic preservation can enhance property values
and promote the renovation of mostly central city
neighborhoods. It is a program that, in our city, can be
aimed at improving housing and neighborhood conditions of
mostly lower income families. Some improvements have already
taken place through efforts up to this poin~.
.
..
o
o
Page Three
MEMO: Demolition of Historic Resources Review
March 31, 1992
~~~,~,~ R~~nmm~"d~~inn~.
Staff's recommendation, dated ~arch 8, 1992, emphasizes
the "current budget and staff constraints," (p. 2). These
are short-term considerations on whi:h long-term programs.
:;
and policies should not be based. This same transmittal
states that "orientating antt training" new Historic
Preservation Commissioners would be burdensome (p. 2). Tbe
"training" of the o~_~pn~ panel was hard17 burdensome. The
statement seems to overlook the great personal resources and
commitment possessed b7 citizens in our communitT.
,
Staff's transmittal also refers to time delaTs creating
a need to "streamline the review process," (p. 3). Tbe
suggestion that the Planning Co..ission be substituted for
the Preservation Task Force/Co..ission eliminates no steps,
and, unless staff provides less effort and research than it
does now, I do not see where significant reductions will
take place. This is especiallT true given the unique
expertise .tha~ the Task Force presentlT provides, and which
will be provided bT a future Preservation Commission.
I take particular issue with the statement on the
transmittal (p. 3) that states, "Tbe Task Force review of
Demolition Permit Applications was to have been an interim
duty." This is the first time I have heard this. The Task
Force is "interim" to a Historic Preservation Commission.
, .
o
o
- .
Page Four
MEMO: Demolition of Historic Resources Review
March 31, 1992
On the other hand, we have frequently discussed and
formulated how that body would review demolition permits. In
fact, the "Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey Report,"
Volume I, page 17, states, "...that the Historic Resources
Commission for San Bernardino be given adequate power to
protect landmarks. This will almost certainly require that
it have the power to forbid demolition or alteration, not
just delay it, even though such power may be exercised
infrequently." were they confused too?
No better justification for expert panel to review
demolition permits than the continuing over-reliance by
staff (in the Evaluation Thresholds, last page of
transmittal) on the DPR forms and those resources associated
with Historic Districts and Overlay Zones (Historic
Preservation Survey, Volume 3, Appendix C). Our consultants
frequently emphasized that: their survey, the st.ructures on
DPR forms, designated historic districts, etc. were ~
exhaustive, but rather exemplary. There are structures in
the City they .did not have time to do thorough evaluations
of. It seems though that staff knows this already, as stated
in the transmittal, "...the Su~.ey was completed at the
reconnaissance level and does not provide in-depth
information on individual resources or areas of the City,-
(p. 3).
. ...
.. . .
o
o
.
. .
Page Five
MEMO: Demolition of Historic Resources Review
March 31, 1992
Finally, as noted on staff's transmittal (cover sheet),
".
the Mayor and Common Council asked on January 6th that staff
and the Economic Development Agency develop options for
simplifying the review process for demolition permit
applications. Our Task Force took the lead on this issue
several times in the past by requesting planning staff and
EDA to work together in developing preservation policies.
Financing alternatives provide the basic incentive to
preserve. As is clear in the Planning Advisory Service
Report, for effective preservation there must be financial
assistance available. The neighborhood redevelopment and
housing preservation that occurs gives the EDA a central
,
role. The great misfortune is that it has taken this lon,
for EDA's role to become apparent. Kisunderstandings and "
missteps will continue as long as EDA remains outside the
process.
I think the Task Force has looked forward to addressing
preservation policy in an integrated fashion. However,
.,' .
simply shifting" review responsibility does not provide for
f
this integrated planning ~d policy making. In fact, such a
singular shift is a step toward elainating preservation as a
potentially effective redevelopment policy for the Cit7.
~ ,.,
,.
o
o
-
,..
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
.....
INITIAL STUDY
.. -...
....
"'I
F"
HISTORIC BUILDING DEMOLITION ORDINANCE (DEMO ORDl
PrQ;ect Descrintion: An ordinance of the City of San Bernardino
repealing and replacing Chapter 15.37, establishing new policies
and provisions for the review of demolition permit applications for
buildings and structures fifty years old or older and providing for
the continuation of the Historic preservation Task Force.
Pro;ect Location:
citywide
Date:
March 25, 1992
~'D'Dlicant's Name and A.ddress:
city of San Bernardino
300 North "On Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
:Initial stuav Prenared 'Bv:
Deborah Woldruff
Associate Planner
city of SaD BeJ:Dardino
Planning and Building Services Department
300 Horth "D" street
San BeJ:Dardino, CA 92418
~
ClTfOl'_~
---
PLNH.07 PAGE 1 OF 1 {..
Attachment 3
o
o
Historic Buildinq DemOlition Ordinance
(DEMO ORC): Initial Study
Environmental Review Committee meetinq of
April 2, 1992
1.0 IRTRODtJC'.rION
This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as
an Initial Study which evaluates the potential
environmental impacts resultinq from the Historic
Buildinq Demolition Ordinance (DEMO ORC). A description
of the project is provided in Section 2.0 on the
followinq paqe.
As stated in Section 15063 of the CAlifornia
Environmental Quality Act quidelines, the purposes of an
Initial Study are to:
1. Provide the Lead A:qency with information to use as
the basis for decidinq whether to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative
Declaration;
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Aqency to modify a
project, mitiqatinq adverse impacts before an EIR
is prepared, thereby enablinq the project to qualify
for Neqative Declaration;
3. Assist the preparation of an ErR, if one is
required, by:
(A) Focusinq the EIR on the effects determined to
be siqnificant,
(B) Identify the effects determined not to be
siqnificant, and
(C) Explaininq the reasons for determininq that
potentially siqnificant effects would not be
siqnificant.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the
desiqn of a project;
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the
findinq in a Neqative Declaration that a project
will not have a siqnificant effect on the
environment;
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
.
o 0
,.
Historic Building Demolition ordinance
(DEMO ORC): Initial Study
Environmental Review Committee meeting of
April 2, 1992
.,
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could.
De used wib the project.
As stated in Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines,
Agencies are enc:uraged to tier EIRs which they prepare
for separate DUO: related projects including general
plans, zoning changes and development projects. This
approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same
issues and foC'.1S 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 orcllnance 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 to substantial reduction or avoidance
DY the choice of specific revisions in the project,
DY the imposition of conditions, or other means.
3. Tiering under this section shall De limited to
situations where the project is consistent with the
general plan and zoning of the city of county in
which the project would De located.
4. The Initial study shall be used to decide whether
and to what extent the prior EJ:R 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 De 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 DY the City as part of
the review process prior to approval of the General
o
o
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial study
Environmental Review committee meeting of
April 2, 1992
Plan. As required by CEQA, the General Plan EIR provided
a broad overview of the futur~ growth allowed within the
City in accordance with t.'le Plan's '"ision. It is the
intent of this Initial St:c1y t~ tier this pr:ject with
the certified EIR prepared for t.'1e Gene:al i'lan. The
Initial study will determine potential :.mpacts if the
Historic structure Demolition Ordinance ~s cre4~ed and
whether they were addressed in :he General Plan EIR.
The Initial study will deteaine the level of
significance for any impacts identified that were not
addressed in the General Plan EIR.
2.0 PROJBCT DBSCRIPTION
The Historic Building Demolition Ord (DEMO 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 buildings and
structures fifty years old or older and provide for the
continuation of the Historic Preservation Task Force.
(See Exhibit A, Draft Ordinance)
2.1 area CIlarac:t:ertstics &Dc! BacltqroaD4
The City has approximately 8,000 buildings and structur_
that are fifty years old and older that are listed in the
Historic Resources Reconnaissance survey (survey). Th_e
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 havinq potential historical
significance for architectural s~yle anci/or cultural
considerations. The draft ordinance will establish
thresholds of review f'3r the 'determination of historical
significan:e of resources based upon the Survey
information.
,.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
"'"
P'" """"l
A. BACKGROUND San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 15.37
Application Number: Historic Buildinq Demolition Ordinance (DEMO ORD)
Project Description: Ordinance of the City. . . amending and replacing
Chapte:: 15.37: establishing new policies and provisions for
the review of Demolition Permit Applications for buildinqs and
structures fifty years old and older (specified): and, the contin
uation of the Historic preservation Task Force.
Location: CityWide
Environmental Conslrllinls Antas: N/A
General Plan Designlllion: N/A
Zoning Designlllion: N/A
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain -'S. where apprlIIlIiale, on a uparale attached shHl.
1. Earth R_ WiU the proposalresu. in: Yes No Maybe
a. Earth _nt (CUI andIor fiU) 0110,000 cubic
yanls or more? X
b. Development ancIIor grading on a slope greater
than 15% natural grade? X
c. Development within the A1quist.Priolo Spacial
Studies Zona as defined in SacIion 12.0 . Geologic
& Seismic, Figura 47, of the City's General Plan? X
d. Modfficalion of any unique geologic or physical
fe3ture? X
e. Development within areas defined for high poIentiallor
water or wind erosion as identffiad in Section 12.0 .
Geologic a Seismic, F'llure 53, of the Cily's GaneraI X
Plan?
f. Modfficalion of a channel, creek or river? X
to. ...
o
o
<<rr0l'...._
..............4"" I ~u
PL,ANoI.DI PMlE10F_ (".10)
r'J,
,
g. Dev.lopm.nt within an ar.. subjecllD Iandsid.s.
mudslid.s. liqu.'aclion or other similar uz.ds as
id.ntifred in Sedion 12.0. Geologic & Seismic,
FiguIU 48. 52 and 53 oIlhe City's General Plan?
h. Other?
2. AIr "-urcu: WiD th. proposal IIIsul in:
.. Substantial air .missions or an etI..:l upon ambient
air quality as d.finllll by AOMD?
b. The CNlation 01 oiIjec:lionllbl. ocloIs?
c. Developm.nt within . high wind hazard .,.. as identified
in Sec:lion 15.0 . Wind & F.... Fogura 59. 0I1he City's
Gen.rai Plan?
3. Water Re80urcu: WiD th. proposallllSUll in:
.. Chang.s in abso/J)lion rates. drainage ~_ or th.
rat. and amount 01 surface IUnotI due "
impsrrn.abIe surfaces?
b. Changes in the CIlurse or flow ClII100d -_?
c. [)lsc:haJg. into surface wat.rs or my .a.ratilIn
01 SL'rIace wat.r qualily?
do Cha.lll. in th. quantity of quaIily of gnlIlIId ~
.. Exposure 01 people or prapsl'ly III IIDad hIIDIlIs ..
identified in the FIIlIeraI Emergency u.n.g. .....
Agenc:y's Flood ~ Rate -. CamnuiIy P....
Number 060281 . _' _ ScIion 1&.0.
Flooding. FtgUN 62. 01 the Cily's Geneml ~1
t. Olher?
4. Biological Re8OUrces: Could the I"~.... in:
L Development wiIhin the BioIllg" :- ~
~_.nt 0verlIIy. as identIied in ScIion 10.0
. ~ Resawces. Figure .1. GIllie CiIy'I
Gen.rai Plan?
b. CMnge in the number ClI any unique. ... or
encIqerllll species 01 pIMls or their habUI indUlfmg
ands 0I_?
c. CMnge in th. number 01 any unique. ... or
endang...., species 01 animU or their ~
d. Removal 01 viable, malUre _1 (6" or,,-
.. Other?
5. No"': Could th. proposal resull in:
L Dewlopmenl 01 hausing. heaIIII_1 -Loa.do "
Iibrariea. religiDus fcilllies or Olhw..... - ti...-;;"
in .... where exisling or fulunI noise...... --' ..
Ldn 0165 dB(A) __ _.. ~ ClIGdII(A) irUrior
.. identified in Sec:Iion '..0. NaiM. Figl.- 1.... and
'~'3 01 the City's Gena P..?
0.,..
'" :
v.s
No
..
"
"
..
,
v
.-
v
..
y.
x
v
..
....
..
y.
v
~
~..
v
..
,.
..
'{
..
..
..
.~
Maybe
~
...
~... "MII20P'_ (1'"
fll"G'_~
---
"---'~;"
Or'
~
b. Development of n_:l' expansion 01 existing indUSlrial. Ves
camrnen:ial D' OllIe. ~ses wll;c, g_..e noise ""'els on
..... cantaining hlIuSlIlg. ~ls. hu1lh care IdIies
or ClIher sensilive uses aIlOV8 an Ldn 01 55 dB(A) exterior
D' an L.dn 0145 dB(A) interior?
Co Ofller?
I. ~d U..: WiD Ille proposal ..suB in:
L A chanlle in Ille land use as designal8d on Ille
Gene.. Pl8n?
L Hauslnll: WilIlle prapout
L Remove oisling houSing or ere- . demand
fa. addlional hDuSinll?
b. Otller?
t. TraMfHlttaUan I CIrculation: Could Ille III ~p~ -4. in
c:ampa1iIan willi Ille ClIcuIaIiDn Pl8n as idenIiIied in Sec:Iion
1.0 _ Cirl:uIaIion 0I1lle ClIy's GenerW Pl8n. ....1 in:
L An increase in traffIC lllal is grute. Illan Ille land
use design.ad on Ille Gene.. PI..?
b. Use 01 uisling. or demand lor n_. parlcing
Iacililia/SllUClW8S?
Co Impacl upon elisting public vansponalion systMIS? .
d. AIIeration 01 present pallems 01 circulalilln?
e. ImpacllD rail D' air trallic?
I. IncrUHd s8lety llaZaIds 10 vehicles. bi..,disIs or
peaeslrians?
g. A disjointed p8lIem 01 roadway i~n1S?
h. Signjf'anl i.len U. in lraKlC volumes on Ille IOadwayS
or interSeClions?
i. Otller?
....
r"..- -..
Q-'
""'I
No
~(
,.
...l. ,
,-
..
x
x
v
..
x
'r
:{
,-
..
y.
x
,.
..
x
Maybe
...
b. Oevelopmerl wil!lin an AirpCln Oislrid as idlllllifl8d in Ille
Air Installalilln c.vnpaullIe Use lone (AICUZ) Report and Y.
Ille Land Use Zoning Oislricl M.p?
Co Oevelopm8n1 wilhin FootlliD FA Zanes A & B. or C as
identiliad on Ille Land Use loning Oislric:l Map? v
"
d. Otller? X
7. JIm Made ~rd.: WiD Ille projed:
L Use. _. transJllln D' dispoSe 01 hazardous or
lDXic maI8riaIs (including but nCIllim3ad III oil.
pesIicides. c:hemicais D' radiation)? ,.
..
b. Involve Ille ..... 01 hazardous sullslanCU? ,.
..
Co Expose people tD Ill.. potentisllledh/S8l-'Y haDnIs? 'r
.
d. Otller? ,-
..
II\.AN-UII PMa& 'OF _ t11'"
"_.."._~~.,,",,
0..
r-
10. Public SeIYICH: WiD the propelS" inpaCI th8 tollawing
beyond the capaDilily to provide adeqUale .... al service?
.. F"e pnlledion?
b. Police pratec:tion?
Co Scheels (i.e~ atlltlldanc:e, bouncialies. ~ 8IC.)?
.d. PaJlcs or ather rec:realan.I facililiB?
... Medical _?
'f. Solid W_?
g. Other?
11. UtlDU_ WiltIle prapasaI:
L Imped the fallawing beyond 1M ~ II
ptIlYide adeqUllle 1__ of service or require the
canstnlClian al n_~?
1. NaIuraIgllS?
2. ElMJ>Uly?
3. W.er?
4. s-?
s. Other?
b. Aesul in . disjainl8Cl pdIm al UliIy---'
Co ~u..lhe canstrUdian at_.....,
12. AnIJIetIcr.
L Could llMI ... ~p nw ,.... in the abIIruClian al ."
.-uc ....?
b. Wil1IIe visual impacI alllMl prajecS be ...h........
to 1IIe SlIfIIlUIlllin9 -,
:. Other?
13. CUltural 1;'8-- ~.... CauId llMI JIftlIIOUI NUl in:
L The ......... or dalrUcIian at a... A' 1 ic or
hislOric an::hMOlagicalsa by ..... L 'J, -.. wiIhin ..
arcIlMaoOllical sensilift _ a ido.4'~ . in Sedlan
3.0. HistonCaI. Figure" atllle CiIy's GeMnII Plan?
b. AIl8l8lian or cIeslruCIilIn ata hbI&..~ .. sIrul:IIn
or abjec:Ia listed in the CiIy's HilDie ~
R.oOnn*_...,. SUIV8J?
c. ou.r?
Q':
Yes No
X .
y
v
..
...
A
V
'"
,.
-.
}~
x
:r.
..
.
,.
..
..
..
..
.
x
,.
'"
J-:
~.
.,
.-
x
..
.
....
Maybe
...
...tI'~===
.......... "1GI4011_ l1''''
Of
r
o
14. MIIndatary findings of S1gnll1can~ (Soic:lion 15065)
The ~ilamia EmriftlnmenW QuaIiIy ~ stales that W any of the following can be __red yes or
maybe. the pnljec:l may h.... a sign~icanl e1fec:l on the environment and an Environmenlal Impact
Report shall be pr."....
a. Ooes the prlljed have the poIentiallO degrade the
qualily of the emriRmmenl. sUllSlarmatIJ reduce the
hmilal 01 . fish or witdl!le species. cause . fish at
wildl1le pap -n :0 arap beIclw 58' sustaining levels,
lhre.en II eIim,nale . planl or animll aammunily.
reduce the lIUlIlber at rBIricIthe range 01 . rare or
endanllered plan! at animal or eiiminale impor1anl
exampleS 01 the major penadS 01 Calilamia hislDry
orprehisllry?
b. Does the prlljed h_the poIemia1lO ch.... shoIt-
term. ID the cIisadVIntage oIlang-term. envirantnenlaI
goals? (A 1hDrt-term impaCl on the -wanrnenl is one
which _ in . NI." .elf briel. definitive period
01 time whH long-term impCIS will endure well inID
the lulu...)
c. Does the pnljec:I haw impICIS which - indivicIudy
irnil... but c:umuIaIiWIJ CDlSideFlble? fA projec:t may
impact on two or mare separate __ where the
impec:l an e8Ch .- is rlllatively small. bul where
the eftec:l 0I1he 1IllIaI aI tIIIIIe impec:lS an the
environment is signi"art.)
d. Does the pnljec:I haw ..a.~_.....ntal etteelS which wiG
_ ....lIiaI.... -aeelS an human beings,
eilher direcdy or indirec:llJ?
Yes
No
Maybe
..
..
x
x
x
c. DlSCl./SSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUA110H AND MITlGA1lON -..""JRES
(Aach sheetS ... -y.)
~~.ase refe: eo attached s=eets.
""'--
....
~ PIGI5OF_ I"'"
o
Historic Building Demolition ordinance
(DEMO OROl: Initial Study
Environmental Review Committee meeting of
April 2, 1992
3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSJlENT
o
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.
The draft ordinance proposes to continue the Historic
Preservation Task Force in its advisory body role. The
Task Force's responsibilities .would be directed at
overseeing the development of the Historic preservation
program. The draft ordinance would establish the city's
planning commission as the review authority for specified
Demolition Permit Applications. No potential impacts
regarding the continuation of the Historic,preservation
Task Force or the utilization of the planning commission
for project review have been identified.
The Demolition Permit review process described in the
draft ordinance provides for the review of specified
resources by establishing evaluation thresholds based
upon information contained in the city's Historic
Resources Reconnaissance survey (survey). (Refer to
Exhibit A, Draft Historic Building Demolition ordinance,
Section 15.37.045 Evaluation Thresholds and Review
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.
-
o
o
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial study
Environmental Review committee meeting of
April 2, 1992
3.1 DJlDA'rORY J'J:BDJ:NGS OJ' SIGHJ:J'J:CUTCB (section 15065 of the
CBQA Guidelines)
The project does not have the potential to eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history. Adoption and implementation of the draft
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.
-
o
:0
~
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study,
o The proposed project COULD NOT have a signifant efleel on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION wm be prepared.
o The proposed projecl could have . significant eflllCl on the envitonment, akhough there will not be a sign~icant
efleel in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION wi! be prepared.
o The proposed projecl MAY have a significant effect on the envitonment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAl REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CAlIFORNIA
Larry E. Reed, Assistant Director
Planning and Building Services Department
Name and TIlIll
Signature
Date: April 2, 1992
==~s...:..:
~ PMIE_OF_ {"-tOI
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
....
r
.....
HISTORIC BUILDING DEMOLITION ORDINANCE (DEMO ORDl
Pro;ect oescrintion: An ordinance of the city of San Bernardino
repealing and replacing Chapter 15.37, establishing new policies
and provisions for the review of d_olition permit applications for
buildings and structures fifty years old or older and providing for
the continuation of the Historic Preservation Task Force.
Pro;ect Location:
Citywide
Date:
March 25, 1992
Annlicant's Name and Address:
city of San Bernardino
300 North -"0" street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
rnitial studY prenared Bv:
Deborah Woldruff
Associate Planner
ci ty of San Bernar4ino
Pl_WR'ftq and Building service. Department
300 North "1)n street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
""-
PLAN-&C7. DMJE 1 OF 1 t4-lOl
cm''''''~
..... T I 1 :&
o 0
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial study
Environmental Review Committee meeting of
April 2, 1992
1.0 IHTBODUCTIOR
This report is provided by the city of San Bernardino as
an Initial Study which evaluates the potential
environmental impacts resulting from the Historic
Building Demolition Ordinance (DEMO ORD). A description
of the project is provided in Section 2.0 on the
following page.
As stated in section 15063 of tlle california
Environmental Quality Act guidelines, the purposes of an
Initial Study are to:
1. Provide the Lead Xgency 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 enablinq the project to qualify
for Neqative Declaration;
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, . if one is
required, by:
(A) Focusinq the EIR on the effects determined to
be siqnificant,
(B) Identify the effects determined not to be
siqnificant, and
(C) Explaininq the reasons for determining that
potentially siqnificant effects would not be
siqnificant.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the
desiqn of a project;
5.
Provide documentation of the factual basis
findinq in a Neqative Declaration that a
will not have a siqnificant effect
environment;
for the
project
on the
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
.
o
o
Historic Building Demolition ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial study
Environmental Review Committee meeting of
April 2, 1992
<
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could.
be used with the project.
As stated in Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines,
Agencies are enc=uraged to tier EIRs which they prepare
for separate .-.:-: related projects including general
plans, zoning _.;anges and development projects. This
approach can eliminate repeti-:ive discussions of the same
issues and focus the EIR on the actual issues which
require decision at ea~ level of environmental review.
Where an EIR has been prepared for a program, plan policy
or ordinance consistent 'with the requir_ents of this
section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant t~
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 to suDstantial 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
qeneral plan and zoninq of the city of county in
which the project would be located.
4. The Initial Stuay shall be used to decide whether
and to what extent the prior En is still sufficient
for the present project.
5.. When tierinq is used, the later EIRs or Neqative
Declarations shall refer to the prior EIR and state
where a copy of the prior En may be examined. The
later EIR should state that the lead aqency is usinq
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
. "c_.__
Historic Building Demolition ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial study
Environmental Review committee meeting of
April 2, 1992
Plan. As required by CEQA, the General Plan EIR provided
a Droad overview of the futur!! growth llllowed wi thin the
city in accordance with the Plan's ~ision. It is the
intent of ~is Initial study t~ tier this pr~ject with
the certified EIR prepared for to'!e Gene:al ?lan. The
Initial Study will determine potential impacts if the
Historic structure Demolition Ordinance ~s cre~~ed and
whether 2ey were addressed in :he General Plan EIR.
The Initial study will determine the level of
significance for any impacts identified that were not
addressed in the General Plan EIR.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Historic Building Demolition Ord (DEMO ORD) would
repeal and replace Chapter 15.37, the Urgency Historic
structure Demolition ordinance (KC-694) in the San
Bernardino Municipal Code (SBKC). This ordinance would
estaelish new policies and provisions for the review of
Demolition Permit Applications for Duildings and
structures fifty years old or older and provide for the
continuation of the Historic Preservation Task Force.
(See Exhibit A, Draft Ordinance)
2.1 are. CJaaracteristic:a _4 BacklJr01Ul4
The City has approximately 8,000 Duildings and structures
that are fifty years old and older that are listed in the
Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey (survey). Th_
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 ZODe designation. It also identifies individual
resources deemed as having rotential historical
significance for architectural s~yle and/or cultural
considerations. The draft ordinance will estaelish
thresholds of review for the determination of historical
significan:e of resources based upon the Survey
information.
o
o
,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
r
A. BACKGROUND
San Bernardi~o Municipal Code Chapter 15.37
~1~ionNum~r. Historic Building Demolition Ordinance (DEMO ORD)
P~eaDe~~n: Ordinance of the City. . . amending and replacing
Chapter 15.37; establishing new policies and provisions for
the review of Demolition Permit AP~lications for buildinqs and
structures fifty years old and older (specified); and, the contin
uation of the Historic Preservation Task Force.
Location: ci tvwide
Environmental Constraints Areas: N I A
General Plan Designation: N I A
Zoning Designlllion: N I A
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain an.-... .... appropriate, on a separate aIlaChed sheet.
1. Earth Rnourcea WiD the pIOpllSlIllllSllll in: Ves No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) 0/10.000 cubic
yards or more? X
b. Development and/or grading on a slape glUIer
than 15% natural grade? X
c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone as defined in 5eaion 12.0 - Geologic
& Seismic, Figure 47, of the Cily's GenMaI Plan? X
d. ModKication 01 any unique geologic or physical
leature? X
e. Development within areas defined lor high pllIentiallor
water or wind erosion as identifllld in SecIiIln 12.0.
Geologic & Seismic. F''llure 53. oIlhe CiIy's General X
Plan?
I. ModKication 01 a channel, creek or river? X
crno_~""~
---
~
PlAN-I.OI PAGE' OF _ 11t.1O)
~.----_._-<--",""~:"
J.,..
0,
g. Develaplllent within an area subject to landslides.
mudSlicl'" Iiquet_ or ath<< similar haZfts as
idantitiad in Sac:liDn 12.00 Geologic & Seismic,
FIllU- 48. 52 and 53 at the City's General Plan?
h. 0Ihar?
2. Alr~: WiD the proposalresuft in:
L Substantial air ....isSions or an attacl upon ambient
air quality as defined by AQt.lD?
b. The c:rMIion 01 objactionable odors?
c. Development witht"'l a high wind hazard .... as idanlitiacl
in Saction 15.00 Wind & F.... Figura 59. oIlha City's
GaIln Plan?
3. Water RHDur-: WiD the pIOIlOsal reaut in:
L Changes in absorption rat... d,.;"age paIIams. or the
rate and amount 01 sulfaca NnoII due II)
imparmubla sud_s?
b. Changes in the Cl)ursa or tlow 0I11ood _e,.?
c. !;lSChaI;e into sulf_ walers or any abration
01 ....rtKa _r quality?
d. Cha.1gII in the quantity 01 quality 01 gmund -.r?
.. exp.-.,. 01 paopIa or JlIIlI*IY to IIood hazanIs as
idanIiIiad in the Federal EmalVan:y Management
Agancy's Flood InsInnCa RaIa Map. Community Pan"
Number 0611281 o. and SactilIn 16.0 .
Flooding. Fig_ 62. 01 the CiIy'. GanaQI Plan?
l 0Ihar?
4. BIoIagIllal Raeou_ Could the IU~: .' rasul in:
L Developmanl within the BkiIogil,. Alia .:as
~.. o-tay. as iclauliliad in SactilIn 10.0
o Natural R-. Fig_ "1. oIlha CIIy'.
General Plan?
b. ClIanga in the IIIIInbar 01 any unique. ,.. or
anclangered spacias 01 pIe/lIS or 1hair habiIaI including
__01_1
c. Change in the number 01 any unique. ,.. or
endangered spacias 01 animals or their MbiIal'1
d. RamovaI 01 WobIa. mature ltHI? (&" or graalar)
e. Q1har?
S. HolM: Could the '" a~ a." rasul in:
L OIlV" pmenI 01 hou8ing, haaIIh _,- -... .eM crl,
lb..... raIigiouI fdllial or otIlar...... ..... -
in _.... existing or fIIIIn noiu....... -- ..
Ldn oilS dB(AI IXlIIior .. .. Ldn of 45 dB(AI inlwior
as idalllifiad in Saclion 14.00 Noise. Figures 1.e ..
1""13 oI1ha Cly'. Gall... Plan?
... " ... -
---
0'
,-.
-
..,
Ve.
,.
No
..
,.
,-
.
..
,
v
..
v
..
x
x
...
..
Yo
...
..
o'
~..
v
'0
,.
..
..{
..
..
.,
-"
Maybe
~
~... '''ZOF_ C',..
0-
r
I.. . &:and U..: WiD th. pnlIXlsal resul in:
a. A chang. in the iand un as d.signilled an th.
~n.ral PIen?
tl. O_lopm.1'II wiI!lin an AiI!Xln Oiane:: as id.ntifled in th.
M Installalion C=pa\1lIIe Use ZlIne (AICUZ) Repart 8IlII
th. Land Use ZlIning Dislric:l Map?
c. O.".lopm.1'II wittm Foamil Fore ZlInes A & B. or C as
id.ntified an !he UncI Use ZlIning Oislricl Map?
d. OIher?
7. Man Made HazardE Wiltt:. plOjec:l:
a. Us.. sill,.. nnsparl or dispoSe cl huanlouI or
lDXic materillll (including bullllll fim~ed lD oil,
pesticid... chemic:ais or radiatian)?
tl. Involve the ",Ie... oIlIaZatdous subsl8nCII?
c. Expose peapIe tD!he JllIIenlW huIIIlIgIlly heDrdI?
d. OIlier?
L Houslng: W111he "'. ...
L Remove .Ilisling hDuIing or __ a demand
lor addiliDnal hauling?
tl. 0lIIer?
t. Tmnapanatlan I ClrcuIatIan: Could \he I" ~... in
camparilon wiIh !he CiIalIaIilln Plan as ido..4L.d in SedicIn
6.0 - CilculaliOll at !he ClIyI General Plan. -' in:
a. An inca_ in lndIiclllal is ~1han \he lend
UN designaled on lIle General Plan?
tl. UN at .xisting. or cIemancI far..... parking
tacililies/slnlClUl'-? ..
c. Impact upon .xisting public ~ syams? '
d. Alleralion at pruenl pall.... 01 cilcuIaIian?
.. Impact lD rd Or _lndIic?
t. lncreaIed safely hazardS ID vehiclel.llic:r~ or
pec....uialls?
g. A disjointed paa.n at raadway ~..p.IlIllllIllMll?
h. $ignific:anl incr.... in tnIIic WIlutneI on lIle raadwayS
or inlersec:tianl?
L OIlIer?
o.
"""l
No
'<
..
..
.-
-.
1.:
v
..
x
..
..
,.
..
....
.
,-
-.
x
x
v
..
x
'r
:{
,-
..
1.:
x
..
..
x
Maybe
Pl....AIMa P..:tOF_ (11-101
b. O.".lopmenl at n_ :r .xpansion at existing industrial. Y.s
camm.rciaI ar ather ..... wIlic:: g_. noise 1ev.1s an
__ aantaining hlIuIIIlg. ~II. heallh care Iacif"dies
or ather senulV. _ _ an Ldn at 05 dB(A) .xt.rior
ar an Ldn at 45 d8(A) interior?
c. OIlIer?
....
~-===
...j
~-~,~..."'.
Q.
,
10. Public Serv'-: Wi. the pnIIlOsal imp8CIthti following
beyond the C8fl8Ililily III pravide ad."osoa levels of service?
a. Fire JIIDIecliDn?
b. PoIicI JIIDIecIiDn?
c. ~ rLe~ lIIenda.-. baundmils. averlclad. 1Ic.)?
..c1. PIJks or oIher ~ioMl f8Cililils?
. L Medical aid?
f. Solid W_?
g. Olher?
11. uuau_ WiD the prapoAI:
a. Impecl1he Iollowing beyOnd 1he ~T4y lD
JWVide ..~ levels of service or Nquir81he
00/lSlIIIdi0n 01 n_ flIciIiIiIs?
1. NDnIgu?
2. e...a. ;dIy?
3. WlIIer?
4. s-r?
5. 0Iher?
b. ResuIIIn. disjointed pdiIIII oIldiIy _Iia,.?
c. Requn1he =nslIUCIiDn 01_1 .~U?
12. M8IIlet_
a. ~~lhe~r .__In1he~of~
.-uc view?
b. WiD 1he visual impecI oIlhe projIclbe cIIIrime...
III tile sunounding _?
:. Olhotr?
,3.. CUltUral ~..'_1."8:. CouIdthe~ r ....,....in:
a. The deration or ~ 0I.........k. or ,
hislDric M:!luologalsiUllly .t...lIQP 'IlIl1I wiIhIn m
~a1 sensiM __. idowllil"lIlIln SecIion
3.0 - HislDfD. Ftgtft" 0I1he Cily's ~ P1M?
b. AIlIllllion or deslnIc:Iilln of a ". ... .. slNCI1ft
or olljecI_ lisled in the City's HislDric Resoun:8s
Recannaissa1X8 S.....,?
c. Olher?
0.:
Ves
No
x
y
:t
....
A
v
.~
,-
..
>~
To
-
~.
_r
,r
..
...
..
,r
.
x
...
"
,.:
-r
'r
..
x
.r
.
Maybe
....
....
.......... __.01='_ 1"'"
~ClI'_===
a
O.
,
14. "'ndatary FIndings of SlgnlllcanClt (SoicIiDn 15065)
Th. CaIiIarnia EnviraM*IQJ Quality /iC. Slat.s that W any oIth. lollowing can be answered yes or
maybe. !he prajec:l may h.... a SJgfIiflCal1l 8flecl on the .nvironment and an EnviranmemaJ Impad
RepoIl sII8lI be prepar....
Y.s
No
Maybe
L 00.5 the pn:ljecl have the pclIentiaJ lIS degrade the
quality 01 the environment. sullIlanIially reduce !he
haDilat aI a fish or wildlile species. cause a fISh III
wildl.. p"p'.......n lIS dftlI) belaW .1 sustaining levels,
thr..... ID eimin.. a pIanI or animalaxnmunily.
reduce !he runbet or r-a !he range aI a rare or
_angered planllII ....... or aliminaIe im...... WII
examples a11he majar pariodS aI Cali1amia his1Dly
or pnoh. I 1?
..
..
b. Does !he pIajec:l have the pclIentiaJ III chieve shalt-
t.rm, ID the disad'o..t.". a11ang-tenn, MViranmenl&l
goalS? (A shaI1-tenn impIICI an the enviranlnenl is an.
which _ in a ,.aIiwlJ brieI. definilive perillcI
alliin. while Iang-Ienn impacts wiI endur. well inID
Ihe IuIurL)
x
c:. Does Ihe prajec:l have iqIacIs which - individudr
&miIed, but c:umulalMl1 CDlSiderabIe? (A projec:l may
imp&:ton _or men ff, _ ___ wheM1IIe
imp&:t an aach _ is f~ small. but......
Ihe e1fac:l a1111e IDI&I a1__ impac:lS on the
emrilQlllMlll is 1iIP..........)
d. Does the pnljacI have ...~_.memal eIleclS which wiI
_ ,,' IIiaI adwne eIleclS on human beings.
.ilher dirac:IIJ fit incIiNl:IlJ?
,
'lC
y.
Co DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUA110N AND InlGAnON MEASURES
(AIIach sheG _ n- 'Y.)
~~~ase re=e: to attachec s=eets.
....
-..-
-
,.".... 'IG&$OI=_ cn...
o 0
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial Study
Environmental Review Committee meeting of
April 2, 1.992
3. 0 ENVIRONHEN'l'AL ASSBSSMEN'l'
As stated, this Initial Study is tiered from the General
Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which iden~ifies
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.
The draft ordinance proposes to continue the Historic
Preservation Task Force in its advisory body role. The
Task Force's responsibilities would be directed at
overseeing the development of the Historic Preservation
Program. The draft ordinance would establish the city's
Planning Commission as the review authority for specified
Demolition Permit Applications. No potential impacts
regarding the continuation of the Historic Preservation
Task Force or the utilization of the Planning Commission
for project review have been identified.
The Demolition Permit review process described in the
draft ordinance provides for the review of specified
resources by establishing evaluation thresholds based
upon information contained in the City's Histor~c
Resources Reconnaissance survey (Survey). (Refer to
Exhibit A, Draft Historic Building Demolition Ordinance,
Section 1.5.37.045 Evaluation Thresholds and Review
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.
o
Historic Building Demolition ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial study
Environmental Review committee meeting of
April 2, 1992
o
3.1 lIABDATORY FINDINGS 01' SIGNIFICANCB (section 15065 of the
CBQA Guideline.)
The project does not have the potential to eliminate
important examples of the major periods of california
history. Adoption and implementation of the draft
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. .
o
o
~
""l
D. DETERMlNAnON
On the basis of this in~ial study,
0' The proposed project COULD NOT have a sign~icanl effect on the environment and a NEGA nVE DECLARA-
TION will be prepared.
o The proposed project could have a sign~icanl effect on the environment, although there will not be a sign~icant
effect in this case because the mitigation 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
Larry E. Reed, Assistant Director
Planning and Building Services Department
Name and Title
/7
-{ Lift..,
Signature i
,
Date: April
~~~/
.
2, 1992
~-~:~
..
...
PUlN-IJlI .ME _OF _ 11.....
o 0
ORDJ:NANCE NO. MC
ORDJ:NANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING AND
REPLACING CHAPTER 15.37 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE;
ESTABLISHING NEW POLICIES AND PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW OF DEMOLITION
PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR POTENTIALLY HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND
STRUCTURES.
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
IIII
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
HISTORIC BUILDING DEMOLITION ORDINANCE
15.37.010
Findinas and Puroose.
The Mayor and Common
Council find and declare:
28
A. The City of San Bernardino General Plan, adopted on June
2, 1989, includes an Historical and Archaeological
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 Program.
This ordinance will include a
section on demolitions.
C. Several buildings of historical value have already been
demolished, including the Municipal Auditorium, Antlers
Hotel, Carnegie Library and Atwood Adobe and many others
which were an irreplaceable part of our heritage.
D. On December 18, 1989, the Urgency 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
permit applications for pre-194l 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
Building 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
of this Chapter, the words, phrases and terms set forth
19 herein shall be deemed to have the meaning ascribed to them in this
20 Chapter.
21 Building - Any structure having a roof and walls built
22 and maintained to shelter human activity or
23 property.
24 Demolition - To destroy any building or structure so that
25 it is no longer standing or functional.
26 Report - Historic Resource Evaluation Report, a report
27 that evaluates the historical significance of
28 a resource based upon established criteria.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 intent
o
o
1 Resource - A building or structure as defined in this
2 Chapter.
3 structure - (1) Any structure having a roof and walls
4 built and maintained to shelter human activity
5 or property; or,
6 (2) a work made up of independent and
7 interrelated parts that performs a primary
8 function unrelated to human shelter.
9 Survey - Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey
10 (Volumes 1-5 and Attachments, April 30, 1991
11 and all subsequent revisions), a citywide
12 survey of buildings and structures constructed
13 prior to December 31, 1941 which provides
14 baseline information regarding the types and
15 locations of resources, approximate
16 construction dates , representative
17 architectural styles, construction materials,
18 and contextual historical themes.
19 Task Force - The Historic Preservation Task Force, a
20 commi ttee appointed by the Mayor and Common
21 council to oversee the Historic Preservation
22 Program.
23 15.37.025 Historic Preservation Task Force. The Historic
24 Preservation Task Force (Task Force) was established by MC-694 and
25 the Task Force members were appointed by the Mayor with the
26 concurrence of the Common Council. Under the provisions of this
27 Chapter, the Task Force shall continue to oversee the Historic
28 Preservation Program in an advisory capacity and perform other
3
o
o
1 duties as established by the Mayor and Common Council. This Task
2 Force shall exist until the Mayor and Common council determine that
3 it is no longer needed.
4 15.37.035 Demolition Prohibited. No building or structure
5 fifty (50) years old or older shall be demolished unless a valid
6 Demolition Permit has been issued in accordance with this Chapter.
7 15.37.040 Danaerous Buildinas Exemoted. The demolition of
8 any building or structure fifty (50) years old or older shall be
9 exempt from-the provisions of this Chapter if findings have been
10 made by the Board of Building commissioners or the Building
11 Official pursuant to other provisions of the Municipal Code
12 declaring that the building or structure is either a public
13 nuisance or a dangerous building. In such instances, a Demolition
14 Permit may be issued in accordance with all other city ordinances
15 and requirements.
16 15.37.045 Evaluation Thresholds and Review Reauirements.
17 Buildings and structures fifty (50) years old or older proposed for
18 demolition shall be evaluated to determine historical significance.
19 The level of review required shall be determined in accordance with
20 the following thresholds and requirements which are based upon the
21 Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey (Volumes 1-5 and
22 Attachments, April 30, 1991 and all subsequent revisions):
23 A. A Historic Resource Evaluation Report (Report) shall be
24 required for any resource identified on a modified
25 California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Form
26 (Volume 3, Appendix B, Resource List and DPR Forms) or
27 located within an area identified as being potentially
28 eligible for Historic District designation and listed as a
4
.
o
o
contributing resource (Volume 3, Appendix C, Historic
Districts and overlay Zones, Items 1. through 4.).
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 15.37.059 of this Chapter, the Director of Planning
and Building services shall evaluate demolition proposals
for these resources to determine the requirement for a
Report.
Demolition Permit Applications for buildings and structures
which are listed only on the Tabular List or not included in
the survey shall not require a Report unless the Director of
Planning and Building services determines that a Report is
required based upon new historical or cultural information
not contained in the survey.
19 When required, Historic Resource Evaluation Reports shall be
20 prepared in accordance with Section 15.37.050 of this Chapter.
21 15.37.050 Historic Resource Evaluation Reoort. A Historic
22 Resource Evaluation Report required as a submittal for a Demolition
23 Permit Application shall contain the following elements:
24 A. Purpose and Scope
25 B. Methods of Evaluation: Field and Archival
26 c. Location and Setting
27 D. Architectural Description of the Resource
28 E. Historical Background
1
2
3 B.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 c.
14
15
16
17
18
5
o
o
1 F. statement of significance
2 G. Alternatives to Demolition (e.g., Retention, Relocation,
3 Rehabilitation, Restoration and Adaptive Reuse)
4 H. Conclusions
5 I. Recommendations
6 J. Mitigation
7 K. Archival Documentation (Appendices)
8 The statement of Significance element (Item F. above) shall
9 be made using the criteria listed in.Section 15.37.055 of this
10 Chapter and the National Register criteria for evaluation and shall
11 include a discussion of the related historical contextual themes.
12 The archival documentation (Item K. above) of the resource
13 shall include a completed DPR 523 Form and archival quality photo
14 documentation. This information shall be included as an appendix
15 to the Report.
16 Preparation and submittal of the Report shall be the
17 responsibility of the applicant. All Reports shall be prepared by
18 consultants who meet the professional qualification standards for
19 the field of Historic Preservation as described in the Federal
20 Register.
21 15.37.055 Criteria for Determination of Historical
22 Sianificance.
23 1. The building or structure has character, interest or
24 value as a part of the heritage of the City of San
25 Bernardino; or,
26 2. The location of the building or structure is the site of
27 a significant historic event; or,
28 IIII
6
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 IIII
28 IIII
o
o
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,
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,
8. 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. Director Review - The. Director of Planning and Building
Services shall determine whether to issue a Demolition
Permit for an Application which does not require a Report
7
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
in accordance with Evaluation Thresholds B. and C. and
the requirements specified in section 15.37.045 of this
Chapter.
2. 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
review, the application and the environmental
determination shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
3. Planning Commission Review - The Planning Commission
shall review Demolition Permit Applications to determine
the historical significance of the resource based upon
the criteria set forth in section 15.37.055 o.f this
Chapter. The Planning Commission may also consider the
National Register criteria for evaluation. Based upon
the information provided, the Planning Commission shall
take action on the environmental determination and
approve or deny the issuance of the Demolition Permit.
When a Demolition Permit Application is denied
because of a determination of historical significance,
the Planning Commission shall forward that recommendation
to the Mayor and Common Council.
S
.
o
o
1 If the Planning Commission approves the Demolition
2 Permit Application, the Demolition Permit shall be issued
3 in accordance with the Planning Commission action and
4 following compliance with the provisions of this Chapter
5 and all other City requirements.
6 4. Effective Date of Permit - Demolition Permits shall
7 become effective 16 days following the final date of
8 action (i.e., approval) by the Director or the Planning
9 Commission unless an appeal has been filed pursuant to
10 section 15.37.070, which shall stay the issuance of the
11 Demolition Permit until after the Appeal is decided.
12 15.37.070 Aooeals. Any person may appeal the decisions of
13 the Director of Planning and Building Services pursuant to this
14 Chapter to the Planning Commission. Decisions of the Planning
15 commission pursuant to this Chapter may be appealed to the Mayor
16 and Common Council.
17 An appeal must be submitted in writing with the required
18 appeal fee (if applicable) to the Planning and Building Services
19 Department within fifteen (15) days following the fina~ date of the
20 action for which an appeal is _ made. The written appeal shall
21 include the reason(s) why the Historic Resource Evaluation Report
22 should or should not be required; or why the Demolition Permit
23 Application should be granted, denied or exempt from the provisions
24 of this ordinance.
25 15.37.080 Severabilitv. If any section, subsection,
26 sentence, clause or phrase or any portion of this ordinance is for
27 any reason declared invalid or unconstitutional, such decision
28 shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the
9
.
o
o
1 ordinance. The Mayor and Common Council, hereby, declare that it
2 would have adopted this ordinance and each and every section,
3 subsection, sentence, clause or portion thereof irrespective of the
4 fact that phrase, or any portion thereof would be subsequently
5 declared invalid or unconstitutional.
6 15.37.085 Penaltv. Any person, firm or corporation,
7 whether as principal, agent, employee, or otherwise, violating or
8 causing the violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter is
9 guilty of a misdemeanor, which upon conviction thereof is
10 punishable in accordance with the provisions of sections 1.12.010
11 and 1.12.020 of this Code in addition to any other civil or
12 administrative remedies.
13 15.37.090 Fees. Upon submittal of a Demolition Permit
14 Application to the Planning and Building Services Department, the
15 applicant shall pay all applicable Planning Division fees as
16 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council for an Initial study and
17 for the Planning Commission review. The applicant shall pay all
18 required Building Safety Division fees as adopted by the Mayor and
19 Common Council prior to issuance of a Demolition Permit."
20 IIII
21 I I I I
22 IIII
23 IIII
24 IIII
25 IIII
26 IIII
27 IIII
28 IIII
10
8 ESTRADA
9 REILLY
10 HERNANDEZ
11 MAUDSLEY
12 MINOR
13 POPE-LUDLAM
14 MILLER
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
o
o
1 ORDINANCE...ESTABLISHING NEW POLICIES AND PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW OF
DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR POTENTIALLY HISTORIC BUILDINGS
2 AND STRUCTURES.
3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly
4 adopted by Mayor and Common council of the City of San Bernardino
5 at a meeting thereof, held on the day of
6 , 1991 by the following vote, to wit:
7 Council Members AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
City Clerk
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this
day of
, 1991.
W.R. Holcomb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to
23 form and legal content:
24 JAMES F. PENMAN,
25 CitYnAttorney?
By: iJ,d.,...,. 1-. r e..",..,..........
(';/
."/
26
27
28
11