HomeMy WebLinkAbout42-Planning & Building
~:::$"'"",~""",'(:~'~'::-~f.~O:;;"''''c.c,,,~
CITY OF SAN BERtIlRDINO - REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION
F 1: Al Boughey, Director
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Subject:
Historic Structures Demolition
Ordinance
Mayor- and Common Council Meeting
March 16, 1992
Da~: 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
roposed, prepare an ordinance and return to the May 4, 1992 Council Meeting.
'-
\
"
'gnature
Contact person: Al BOuqhey
Phone: 384-5357
Supponing data attached:
None
Ward:
Citywide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct, Descriotion I
Finance:
C cil Notes:
~'IlIu./~ 5-1/-9",. "".
~
...
=' .-
CITY OF SAN BERNGRDINO - REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT
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. Durinq 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 (EDA) to determine methods for
simplifyinq 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 aqain requested that
this item be continued. The Mayor and Common Council qranted
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 existinq 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 meetinqs 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
13,1;;,:,'""::':,':',,"':'0:,,,,,,,
o 0
Proposed Changes to the Revie. Process for
nemolition Permit Applications
Kayor aDd common council xeeting of-
March 1., 1"2
page 2
of those discussions, some very specific changes are proposed. The
changes, which should simplify the review process for Demolition
Permit Applications, are as follows:
1. The Planning Co_ission would assume the project review duties
of the Historic Preservation Task Force for Demolition Permit
Applications.
2.
The Task
overseeing
Program.
Force responsibilities would be
the development of the Historic
directed at
Preservation
3.
Based upon
information,
thresholds.
the Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey
a new ordinance would establish evaluation
(See Attachment 2, Evaluation Thresholds)
4. Using 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 relating to Evaluation Thresholds B. and C.
could be appealed to the Planning co_ission. Threshold A
could not be appealed. (See Attachment 2)
6. The Planning co_ission would approve or deny Demolition
Permit Applications based upon information presented.
7. The Planning co_ission would have the option to forward a
recommendation for further study to the Mayor and Co_on
Council when a permit is denied due to a finding of historical
siqnificance.
8. Decisions of the Planning co_ission could be appealed to the
Mayor and Co_on Council.
An alternative to Items 1. and 2. would be the appointment of a
Historic Preservation co_ission. However, there are certain
disadvantages to this alternative relating to time constraints.
The appointment of a Historic Preservation co_ission would involve
a lengthy process and new co_issioners would require some time for
orientation and training. Providing the necessary staffing for a
new co_ission would be difficult based on the current budget and
staff constraints.
Oi.
o 0
proposed changes to the Revie. Process tor
Demolition Permit Applications
Kayor and Common council Meeting ot -
Karch 16, 1992
page 3
The establishment of the Planning Commission as the review
authority tor 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 Urgency Historic Structure Demolition
Ordinance (MC-694) , the Historic Preservation Task Force was
established to oversee and quide the development ot the Historic
Preservation Program. The Task Force review of Demolition Permit
Applications was to have been an interim duty. Upon completion of
the Ristoric Preservation Program, 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 Program.
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 designation 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.
;w-~<"--". -.'"--
o 0
Propo..d ChaDq.. to the Review Process for
D.-olition P.r.mit Applications
Hayor _d common COUDcil Me.tinq of -
Karch 11, 1"2
paq. .
Item 5. is straiqhtforward and requires little description. The
resource. d_cribed by Threshold A have been identified in the
Survey a. havinq potential historical siqnificance to a qreater
deqree than do other resources contained in the Survey. It follows
then that if th_e resources are proposed for demolition, a full
historical review should be required to evaluate any environmental
impacts resultinq 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 Planninq Commission would approve or
deny Demolition Permit Applications based upon information
contained in a Staff Report. The Staff Report would include an
Initial Study a recommendation reqardinq an environmental
determination from the Environmental Review Committee.
Followinq denial of a permit, the Planninq commission would have
the option to forward recommendations for further study to the
Kayor and Common Council (Item 7.). Examples of wfurther study"
would ba_Environmental Impact Reports or fiscal analysis studies
that requir. fundinq by the city.
Item 8. continues the riqht of appeal by providinq a mechanism
whereby decisions of the Planninq 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 siqnificance
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 chanqe the
review process as proposed, prepare an ordinance and return to
the Kay 4, 1992 Council Meetinq.
2. The Mayor and Common Council may make modifications, deletions
or additions to staff's proposed chanqes.
,!p,~,.,~..,
o 0
proposed chanqes to the Review Process for
D..o1ition per.ait App1ications
xayor and Common cOUDci1 Heetinq of -
Karch 14, 1"2
paqe 5
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and COlDlllon Counci1 direct staff to
chanqe the review process as proposed, prepare an ordinance and
return to the May 4, 1992 Council Meetinq.
Prepared by:
Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Al Bouqhey, Director
Planninq and Buildinq Services Department
Attachments:
Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey (not
included - previously distributed to the Mayor
and COlDlllon Council in June 1991)
2. Draft Evaluation Thresholds (A. throuqh C.)
1.
o
o
BVaLUATIOB TJIllBSBOLDS
Buildings and structures fifty (50) years old and older would be
evalua~ed using the following 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 being potentially eligible for Historic
District designation and listed as a contributing resource
(Volume 3, Appendix C, Historic Districts and OVerlay Zones,
Items 1. through 4.). A Report would also be required for 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.
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
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 the existing 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 designation
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
"
QITY OF SAN BIERP.RDINO - RIEQUIEST P)R COUNCIL ACTION
F '11:
. ".unPfistoric Structure Demolition
Al Boughey, Director REC'O. - ..!:St\1J)8a' 6i-dinance
. 2" C\! I+l 00
Planning & Building Serv1c~~2 J~ Mayor and Common Council Meeting
February 3, 1992
Oept:
Om:
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.
dl" B~. n.t
4 Signature
Al Boughey
Contact person:
Al Boughey
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting data attached:
None
Ward:
Citywide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.!
(Acct. DescriDtionl
Finance:
C leil Notes:
P~'nu,.~
z.....,z,. M ..
Y.;II'
~~
C:lrv OF SAN BERNP.DINO - REQUEST FPl COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT
Historic structure Demolition Ordinance
Mayor and Common council Meetinq of
February 3, 1992
REOUEST
staff is requestinq that the Mayor and Common council continue this
item until March 16, 1992. At that time, staff will brinq 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. Durinq 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 (EDA) determine methods for simplifyinq the
review process for Demolition 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 requested that the
item be continued from January 6, 1992 to February 3, 1992.
On Friday, January 17, 1992, the Planninq Division and EDA staff
discussed several issues relatinq to the application process,
processinq time frames and staff constraints. Also discussed were
issues related qenerally to the development of the Historic
Preservation proqram and its implementation. The result is that
staff has tentatively identified some options for chanqinq 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.
RECOMMENDATYON
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council continue this
item to March 16, 1992 to enable staff to prepare a detailed
proposal outlininq options and recommendations for chanqinq the
review process for Demolition Permit Applications.
Prepared by:
Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Al Bouqhey, Director
Planninq and Buildinq Services Department
o 0
ORDINAlfCE NO. )tC
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
9
10
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 STRUCTURE DEMOLITION ORDINANCE
15.37.010
Findinas and PurDose.
The Mayor and Common
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 IIII
Council find and declare.
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-694) was adopted.
MC-694
provided for the establishment of the Historic
Preservation Task Force and for the review of Demolition
1
","'A
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 bUildinqs 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 buildinqs or
structures.
F. For clarification, it is necessary to amend the
provisions for the review of Demolition Permit
applications for potentially historic bUildinqs and
structures.
G. By imposinq 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 Proqram is
\
beinq completed.
"
15.32.020 Definitions. For the purpose of carryinq out the
intent of this Chapter, the words, phrases and terms set forth
herein shall be deemed to have the meaninq ascribed to them in this
Chapter.
Buildinq -
Any structure havinq a roof and walls built
and maintained to shelter human activity or
property.
Demolition - To destroy any buildinq or structure so that
it is no lonqer standinq or functional.
Historic Resource Evaluation Report, a report
that evaluates the historical siqnificance of
2
Report -
".-~7
o
o
1 a resource based upon established criteria.
2 Resource - A buildinq -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 buildinqs and structures constructed
11 prior to December 31, 1941 which provides
12 baseline information reqardinq 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 Proqram 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 Proqram 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 lonqer needed.
6
7 15.37.035 Demolition Prohibited. No buildinq or structure
8 fifty (SO) 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 buildinq or structure fifty (SO) years old or older shall be
13 exempt from the provisions of this Chapter if findinqs have been
14 made by the Board of Buildinq Commissioners pursuant to the
15 provisions of Chapter 8.30. Public Nuisances and Chapter 15.28.
16 Danqerous Buildinqs, of the Municipal Code. In such instances. the
17 buildinq or structure i~ exempt from the provisions of this Code
18 and a Demolition Permit may be issued.
19 If the Buildinq Official makes a findinq that a building is
20 danqerous 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 (SO) years old or older shall be
26 evaluated to determine historical siqnificance in accordance with
27 the followinq thresholds and requirements which are based upon the
28 Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey (Volumes 1-5 and
4
o
o
1 Attachments, April 30, 1991 and all subsequent revisions),
2 A. A Historic Resource Evaluation Report (Report) shall be
3 required for any resource identified on a modified
4 California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Form
5 (Volume 3, Appendix B, Resource List and DPR Forms) or
6 located wi thin an area identified as beinq potential I y
7 eliqible for Historic District desiqnation and listed as a
8 contributinq resource (Volume 3. Appendix C. Historic
9 Distr icts and Over lay Zones, Items 1. throuqh 4.). Any
10 resource located in a new area identified by the Mayor and
11 Common Council as beinq potentially eliqible for Historic
12 District desiqnation and listed as a contributinq resource
13 shall also be subject to the provisions of this subsection.
14 B. A Historic Resource Evaluation Report may be required for
15 any resource listed on the Tabular List and located within
16 the boundaries of an area identified in the Survey as beinq
17 potentially eliqible for Historic Overlay Zone desiqnation
18 (Volume 3. Appendix C, Historic Districts and Overlay Zones,
19 Items 5. throuqh 13.). Using the criteria established in
20 Section 15.37.055 of this Chapter, the Director of Planninq
21 and Buildinq Services shall evaluate demolition permit
22 applications for these resources to determine the
23 requirement for a Report. Any resource located in a new
24 area identified by the Mayor and Common Council as beinq
25 potentiallY eliqible for Historic Overlay Zone desiqnation
26 shall also be subject to the provisions of this subsection.
27 C. Demolition Permit applications for bUildinqs and structures
28 which are listed only on the Tabular List or not included in
5
o
,.
o
the Survey shall not require a Report unless the Task Force
determines that further ~tudy is required based upon new,
histor ical or cuI tural information not contained in the
Survey.
When required, Historic Resource Evaluation Reports shall be
prepared in accordance with Section 15.37.050 of this Chapter.
At reqular intervals (as determined by the Task Force and
prior to the expiration of the appeal period after a determination
is made I, the Task Force shall be notified in wr i tinq of all
determinations made in accordance with thresholds B. and C.
15.37.050 Historic Resource Evaluation ReDort. A Historic
Resource Evaluation Report required as a submittal for a Demolition
Permit application shall contain the followinq elements.
\A. Purpose and Scope
B~ Methods of Evaluation. Field and Archival
C. Location and S~~tinq
D. Architectural Description of the Resource
E. Historical Backqround
F. Statement of Siqnificance
G. Alternatives to Demolition
Relocation, Rehabilitation,
Reuse I
H. Conclusions
I. Recommendations
J. Mitiqation
K. Archival Documentation (Appendices I
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 1111
( such as
Restoration
Retention.
and Adaptive
6
o
o
1 The Statement of Siqnificance element (Item F. above) shall
2 be made usinq the criteria ligted 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
19 Bernardino 1 or,
20 2. The location of the buildinq or structure is the site of
21 a siqnificant historic event 1 or,
22 3. The buildinq or structure is identified with a person(s)
23 or qroup(s) who siqnificantlY contributed to the culture
24 and development of the City of San Bernardinol or,
25 4. The buildinq or structure exemplifies a particular
26 architectural style or way of life important to the CitYl
27 or,
28 /III
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 1///
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,
1~. The bulldinq, 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 cr iter ia in Section
9 15.37.055. the Task Force may stay the issuance of the
10 Demolition Permit for a period of up to ninety (90) days.
11 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
1 action for which an appeal is made. The written appeal shall
2 include the reason(s) why the potential resource should be exempt
3 from or subject to the provisions of this ordinance.
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 15.37.080 Severabilitv. If any section, subsection,
13 sentence, clause or phrase or any portion of this ordinance is for
14 any reason declared invalid or unconstitutional, such decision
15 shall~ot affect the validity of the remaininq portions of the
16 ordinance. The Mayor and Common Council, hereby, declare that it
17 would have adopted this" ordinance and each and every section,
18 subsection, sentence, clause or portion thereof irrespective of the
19 fact that phrase, or any portion thereof would be subsequent 1 y
20 declared invalid or unconstitutional.
21
22 15.37.085 Penalty. Any person, firm or corporation,
23 whether as principal, aqent. employee. or otherwise, violatinq or
24 causinq the violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter is
25 quilty of a misdemeanor, which upon conviction thereof is
26 punishable in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.12.010 of
27 this Code in addition to any other civil or administrative
28 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 P1anninq 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 IIII
11 IIII
12 IIII
13 IIII
14 IIII
15 IIII
16 IIII
17 IIII
18 IIII
19 IIII
20 IIII
21 IIII
22 IIII
23 IIII
24 IIII
25 IIII
26 IIII
27 IIII
28 IIII
11
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Approved as to
form and leqal content:
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
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.
1
2
3
4
5 at a
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
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
, 1991 by the followinq vote, to wit:
Council Members
~
NAYS
ABSTAIN
ABSENT
ESTRADA
REILLY
HERNANDEZ
MAUDSLEY
MINOR
POPE-LUDLAM
14 MIJ,LER
15 \
"
City Clerk
The foreqoinq ordinance is hereby approved this
day of
. 1991.
W.R. Holcomb. Mayor
City of San Bernardino
JAMES F. PENMAN,
~
B . ~4 .
-"
12