HomeMy WebLinkAbout37-Planning and Building
~".
"CITY OF SAN BER~RDINO
- REQUEST 90R COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director
Subject: Historic Demolition Ordinance
De~: Planning & Building Services
D~~ July 30, 1992
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
August 17, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
July 20, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council continued this item to the
August 17, 1992 Council meeting.
June 15, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council continued this item to the
July 20, 1992 Council meeting.
June 1, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council continued this item to the
June 15, 1992 Council meeting.
May 4, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council continued this item to the
June 1, 1992 Council meeting.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed, that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Negative
Declaration; and further reading of the ordinance be waived and it be laid over
for final adoption.
ature
Contact person:
Al Boughey
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
Citywide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct, No.1
(Acct. OescriDtionl
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Aoenda Item No, :3 7
CITY OF SAN BERNORDINO - REQUEST OR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJBCT
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance Amendment\
(ORDDEM No. 91-02)
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
August 17, 1992
RBOUBST
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
This item was continued from the May 4, 1992 Mayor and Common
Council to the June 1, 1992 Council meeting. It was then continued
to the June 15, 1992 Council meeting and again continued to the
July 20, 1992. On July 20, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council
continued the project to the August 17, 1992 meeting so that staff
change the draft ordinance based upon concerns expressed during
preceding Council meetings. A summary of the changes is contained
in Attachment 1, (Staff Report to the Mayor and Common council,
July 20, 1992).
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.
!
,
o
o
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance Amendment
Mayor and Common council Meeting of
AUgust 17, 1992
Page 2
RECOMMl!lHDATION
staff recommends that the Mayor and Common council adopt the
Negative Declaration and approve the Historic Building Demolition
ordinance.
prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Al Boughey, Director
planning and Building services Department
Attachment 1: staff Report to the Mayor and Common council (July
20, 1992)
Attachment 2: staff Report to the Mayor and Common council (May
4, 1992) (Attachments not included)
Attachment 3: Initial study
Exhibit A _ Draft Historic Building Demolition
Ordinance (not included)
Attachment 4: Historic Building Demolition Ordinance
, ,
, /lSAN BERtu('.t>>INO
~OUghey, Director
t: Planning & Building Services
July 10, 1992
- REQUEST ~C'"" COUNCIL ACTION
........'
Subject: Historic Building Demolition
Ordinance
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
July 20, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
May 4, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council continued the ordinance to the
June 1, 1992 Council meeting.
June 1, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council continued this item to the
June'15, 1992 Council meeting.
June 15, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council continued this item to the
July 20, 1992 Council meeting.
Recommended motion:
That Planning Staff be directed to prepare an ordinance to be brought
back for the August 17, 1992 Mayor and Common Council meeting.
Al Boughey
Phone:
384-5357
Contact person:
Supporting data attached:
Sta~f Report
Ward:
Citywide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Soun:e: (Acct. No.1
(Acct. Descriotion I
Finance:
Council Notlls:
7!t-OZI2
Agenda Item No ~?I
Attachment "1"
-
"
O(
,"""" (
......,.1
SUBJBC'l'
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance Amendment\
(ORDDEM No. 91-02)
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
July 20, 1992
RZOm:S'l'
"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.
BAcJtGROmm
This it_ was continued from the May 4, 1992 Mayor and Common
Council to the June 1, 1992 Councilmeetinq. It was then continued
to the June 15, 1992 Council meeting and again continued to the
July 20, 1992. Based upon concerns, expressed durinq preceding
Council meetings, Staff proposes to revise the draft ordinance to
incorporate the following elements:
Establish specific mandatory timeframes for review and
decisions on Demolition Permit Applications. There is
uncertainty on the part of applicants as to how long the
review process will take. A complete Application must
have an environmental determination within 30 days and
scheduled for the Planning co_ission at the first
available meeting following the public review period
required by the California Environmental Quality Act.
Likewise, the Planning Commission review must be
completed within 30 days of the first public hearing or
the Application will be forwarded to the Mayor and Common
Council;
Modify ~e el_ents required for Historic Resource
Evaluation Reports. Some of t.').e it_s may not be
necessary for a determination of historic significance;
and,
Include a provision for the notification of the Historic
Preservation Task Force of DemOlition Permit Applications
so that they can make recommendations to the Planning
Commission regarding the historic significance of
resources and the approval or denial of applications.
(
~
6
d
/ "
aistoric Buildinq Demolition Ordinance Amendment
If4yor and Common Council Meetinq of
JUly 20, 1992
paqe 2
DYOR aJID CODOII COtJJfCrL 0P'l'rOH8
1. The Mayor and Common Council may direct staff to prepare the
draft ordinance as proposed.
2. The Mayor and Common council may direct staff to prepare the
draft ordinance with additional or other modifications.
RECOMMB1mATrOH
staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council direct staff to,
prepare the draft ordinance and brinq it back to the August 17,
1992 Mayor and Common Council Meeting.
Prepared by:
Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Al Boughey, Director
Planning and Building Services Department
C,TY.,.OF SAN BERk.QlDINO - REQUEST 1"C)t COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance Amendment
(ORD OEM 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 Counoil 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.
5-0264
Attachment "2"
, -".---
,.
'.
o
,--
v
Historic Bu~ldi~g Demolition Ordinance Amendment
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
May 4, 1992
Page 2
COMMENTS REC~IVED
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 on other important preservation issues such as the
establishment of Districts and Overlay Zones, resource designation,
design quidelines for restoration, funding sources and program
implementation.
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 ~~e draft ordinance.
Staff agrees with Dr. Mulvihill's assertion that the Survey is not
-t.
"
o
h
~
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 Hist~ric 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 J).
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 ~e ordinance.
. I
,
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.
Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Al Boughey, Director
Planning and Building Services Department
Attachment 1: Staff Report to the Mayor and Common Council (Marc~
16, 1992)
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
1._._._- ..~
"
-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
"""Ill
INITIAL STUDY
..
....
r
HISTORIC BUILDING DEMOLITION ORDINANCE (DEMO ORDI
Proiect Description: 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
Applicant's Name and Address:
City of San Bernardino
300 North liD" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Initial Studv Prepared Bv:
Deborah Woldruff
Associate Planner
City of San Bernardino
Planning and Building Services Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
l
c:tn'~__
---
PLAN-l.o7 PAGE 1 OF 1 (".SlO)
Attachment 3
, _0_.........._
,;
(0
-
v
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial study
Environmental Review Committee meeting of
April 2, 1992
1.0 INTRODOCTION
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 the California
Environmental Quality Act quidelines, the purposes of an
Initial Study are to:
1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as
the basis for deciding whether to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative
DeClaration;
2. Enable an applicant or. Lead Agency to modify a
project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR
is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify
for Negative Declaration;
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is
required, by:
(A) Focusinq the EIR on the effects determined to
be significant,
(B) Identify the effects determined not to be
significant, and
(C) Explaining the reasons for determining that
potentially significant effects would not be
significant.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the
design of a project;
5.
Provide documentation of the factual basis
finding in a Negative Declaration that a
will not have a significant effect
environment;
for the
project
on the
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
I ._~-..-
,.
'.
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, zoninq _.~anges and development projects. This
approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same
issues and foC".ls the EIR on the actual issues which
require decision at ea~h level of environmental review.
Where an EIR has been prepared for a program, plan policy
or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this
section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant ta
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
by the choice of specific revisions in the project,
by the imposition of conditions, or other means.
3. Tierinq under this section shall be limited to
situations where the project is consistent with the
general plan and zoning of the city of county in
which the project would be located.
4. The Initial Study shall be used to decide whether
and to what extent the prior EIR is 3,:ill sufficient
for the present project.
5., When tiering is used, the later EIRs or Negative
Declarations shall refer to the prior EIR and state
where a copy of the prior EIR may be examined. The
later EIR should state that the lead agency is using
the tierinq 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
.-
w
Historic Buildinq Demolition Ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial Study
Environmental Review Committee meeting of
April 2, 1992
Plan. As required by CEQA, the Genera!. Plan EIR provided
a broad overview of the futur~ growth allowed within the
City in accordance with t~e Plan's vision. It is the
intent of this Initial Study t~ t~ar this pr~ject with
the certified EIR prepared for ~e General ?lan. The
Initial Study will dete::1lline potential i::!pacts if the
Historic Structura Demolition Ordinance ~s cre~~ed and
whether they were addressed in :he General Plan EIR.
The Ini tial 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 (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 Characteristics an4 Backqroun4
The City has approximately 8,000 buildings and structures
that are fifty years old and older that are listed in the
Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey (Survey). These
resources generally are located in accordance with the
Ci ty' S historical development pat~erns. The Survey
evaluates concentrations of resources and identifies
areas eligible for either Historic District or Historic
Overlay Zone designation. It also identifies individual
resources deemed as having rotential historical
significance for architectural s-cyle and/or cultural
c~nsiderations. The draft ordinance will establish
thresholds of review for 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
r
~
A. BACKGROUND
San Bernardino ~unicipal Code Chapter 15.37
ApplicationNumber: Historic Buildinq Demolition Ordinance (DEMO ORD)
Project Description: Ordinance of the City. . . amending and replacing
Chapter 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 Constraints Areas: N / A
General Plan Designation: N / A
Zoning Designation: N / A
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers. where appropriate. on a separate attached sheet.
1. Earth Resources Will the proposal resutt in:
Ves
No
Maybe
a, Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic
yards or more?
x
b, Development and/or grading on a slope greater
than 15% natural grade?
c, Development within the Alquist.priolo Special
Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0 - Geologic
& Seismic, F'9ure 47, of the City's General Plan?
d, ModKication of any unique geologic or physical
feature?
x
x
x
e, Development within areas defined for high potential for
water or wind erosion as identKied in Section 12.0 -
Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53, of the CiIy's General
Plan?
x
X
I. ModKication of a channel, creek or river?
..
~
ern ~ _ .....-.a
---
PLAN-8.06 PAGE 1 OF" _ (11.90)
-.
-
" 0 0 ""'l
g. o.velopmenl within 1/1 area subjecllD landslides. Yes No Maybe
mudslides, IiqueIlIClian or Olh... sllllilar hazards ..
identified in Sec:lion 12.0 - Geologic & Seismic, ..
F'lgUres 48. 52 and 53 of lIle City's General Plan?
h. 0lIler? ,.
,
2. Air R_urces: WiD lIle pnlIXlsal resutt in:
L Substantial air ....issions or an effllCl upon ambient ..
air quality .. dllfined by "QMO? ,
The creation of objeclionable odors? OJ'
b. .,
c. O""elopmenl ,.;u,in a high wind hazatd area .. identified
in Sec:tJon 15,0 . Wond & Fire, F'Igure 59, of lIle City's X
General Plan?
3- WetIII' R..ources: WiD lIle pnlIXlsal resutt in:
L Changes in &OSOt:ltion rate.. :rainaqe pattems, or the
rate and amount oJ surface runoff due to
impermeable surfaces? X
b. Changes in the c:curse or flow of flood waters? X
c. Discharge imo surface _ers or any atteralion v
of Sl'rtace _er qualily? ..
d, Ch."ge in the quantity of quality of gltlund water?
e, Exposure of peoole or JlltlI)8rty ID flood hazards ..
identified in lIMl Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood lr.sul'l/lC8 Rate Map, Community Panel
Number 060281 _ - _' and Section 16.0.
Flooding, F'Igure 62. of IIle City's General Plan? ..
<,
f. Other? OJ'
..
4- BiOlogical Re.xlrces: Could the Pltlposal rasutt in:
a. Developmem within IIle Bi01ogicai Resources
Manag....... Overlay, as identified in Sec:lJon 10.0
. lUtural Reso-. Figure 41, of lIle City's
General Plan?
b. Change in tile number of any unique. rani or
endangered ~ of plants or lIleir habitat indueling X
stands of _?
c. Change in lIle number of any unique, rani 01' ,-
endangered species of animals or lIMlir habitat? ..
d. Removal 01 viable, mature trees? (6" or greater, '(
Other? ..
e. ..
S. No"': Could lIMlll/llllOsal resutt in:
a. Developmenl of housing. healh care 'wo;llt_,. schools,
libraries, religious facilities or OIlIer -noiH. sensitive .....
in are.. wIleN _isting or future noise 1e...1s exCHd an
Ldn 0165 d8(A' 8llIerior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior
.. identified in Sec:lion 14,0. Noise, F'tgures 1~ and
14-13 of lIle City's General Plan? ..
"'" ~
-,---- ~I.GI ~JGlZOF_ Itl.
---
,.
o
,..
o
" ~ '.
b. D....lopm.nt 01 n.w ~r .xpansion of existing induSlnat,
comm.rcial or o1II.r "HS wIlic:: g.n'n111 noisl 1",.1s on
areas comaining housong, schools, heaJlIl care facililies
or OlIler Slnsllive uses above an Lan of 05 d8(A) .Xl.riot
or ." Lan of 4S dB(A) int.rior?
c. Olher?
5. Land U..: Will Ih. proposal resun in:
a. A chang. in Ih. land us. as d.signaled on Ih.
Gen.ral Plan?
b. O....lopm.11l 'Nil!Iin an Airpon Cislricl as identified in Ill.
Air InSlallalion ~bI. Us. Zon. iAICUZ) Report and
th. Land liH Zanmg CislnCl Map?
c. O.velopm.nt within FoothiU Fire Zon.s A & 8, or C as
idlntified on th. Land Us. Zoning Oistnc:l Map?
d. Olher?
7. MIIn-Mad. Hazards: Will!!:e projld:
a. Us., store, transport or dispose of hazardous or
toxic mallrials (including but nCllim~ed to oil,
pesticid.s, chemicais or radiation)?
b, Involv.tlll r...as. 01 hazardous subslanclls?
c. Expos. people lolh. pollnlial h.allhJsalety hazards?
d. Olher?
8. Housing: WiD th. proposal:
a. R.mov. .xisting housing or Ctlalll a d.mand
lor additional housmg?
b. Olher?
II. Trmlsponallon I Cln:ulatlon: Could Ih. proposal. in
comparison w1lh Ih. Circulalion Plan as id.mifiId in Seclion
6,0 - Circulation oIlhI City's G.n.ral Plan, _uft in:
a. An incr.as. in traffIC lhaI is greaterlllan tII. land
use d.signated on lhI Gen.raI Plan?
b. Use of exiSling. or demand lor n_, parking
IciliIi.alsUUClUres?
c. Impact upon .xiSling public ltansponation syst.ms? .
d. Aft.ration 01 present pallerns 01 cilClllation?
.. Impactlo rail Or air traffic?
l. Increased safety hazards to v.hicles, bicyctists or
JlICIestnans?
II- A disjoinled pall.m 01 roadway improv.m.nts?
h. Significant iner.... in trallic volum.s on th. roadways
or int.rsec:lions?
l Olher?
...
11"'21' _.-.
---
v.s
No
~
..
..
-.
y.
V
.'110
x
,.
..
,.
,.
..
,-
x
x
v
..
x
'(
:{
.'
..
Yo
x
'0
"
x
"""I
Maybe
....
P\.AHoI. 'IGE 30F _ (1folQ
, ~
o
" pr.
10. Public Servlcn: Will 1II. proposal irnp8CIlIMi following
beyond the capaIlilily 10 pnMde w-q,'2I, levels 01 s.rvice?
L Fit. pftltection?
b. Police ptOleclion?
c. Schools Q,'~ lII.ndance, boundaries, overload, etc.)?
. d. Patks or OlIler recr'alionallacirllies?
., Medical aid?
I. Solid WUle?
9- OIher?
11. UtJDU.s: Willll. pRlposat
a. Impactlll. following beyond th. capabdily to
plOvid. adlKlUal. levels 01 service or rlKlui" th.
construClion 01 n.w lacililies?
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity?
3. WaI.t?
~, S_t?
5. Other?
b, R.sua in a disjoimed paIlem of uliily _ions?
c. RlKlUilll lIl. ccnSllUClion oInewlacililies?
12. Aesthstlca:
a. Could th. proposal r.-d in 1he obslrucIion 01 any
_rc vi_?
b. WiD th. visual impacllJl1he ptojed be dlllrim.ntaI
10 th. surrounding _?
:. OIher?
13. Cultural ~r. Could !he... 1 . resul in:
a. Th. ....... or deslruclion of a prehistoric or
hislari:: an:haeolOgical ... :If ....Iopmenl witI1in an
ateha_ogicaI s.n_ area as idemified in Seclion
3.0 . HislDncaI. F'lIUIlI8. of 1he Cly's General Plan?
b. Allsndion or cles1ruclion 01 a t'.1 ical sile, _'"~
or object as listed in 1he City's HisIIIric: Resources
Reconn~ SUN.,?
c. Other?
....
0
v.. No Maybe
X
y
X
'"
'"
v
'"
,-
"
X
Jo:
,.
<.
..
,.
..
v
..
,.
,
,.
-.
,-
...
}:
"
.,
.,
x
,
~
... 01' _ ___
---
~ "".QI'_ I"....
I __.~__
.,'
r
o
o
""III
14. MIIndatory findings of Slgnlflcance (SeC:Iion t 5065)
The Califomia Environmental Qualily Ad states that ~ any of the following can be answered yes or
maybe, the project may haw a signdicant eflec:l on the environmem and an Environmental Impact
Report shall be prepared.
Ves
No
Maybe
a. Does the pnlj8cl have the potential 10 degrade the
qualily of the environment. suostanllaJly reduce the
habitat of a fisfI or wildlife SJl8Cies, cause a fish or
wildlde population 10 o/llll belOw se~ sustaining levels,
thre.en 10 elimin.e a piMt or animal communily,
reclUCll the number or .-iclllle range of a rare or
enctangered plan! or animal or eliminate important
examples of lIle majOr penocIS of California history
or prehistory?
b, Does lIle pnljec:: have u. pctentiaJ 10 achieve short-
term, 10 the disadvantage of Iong.term, environmental
goalS? (A short.term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a rolllliv8ly bnaf, definitive period
of time while long-term impacts will endure well into
lIle tuturo,)
..
..
x
c. Does the pnlj8cl have impaclS which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable' (A pnljact may
impact on lWO or more sepatate resoun:es where the
impact on eadI resourca is relatively small, but whore
the ofIl1Cl of the lOtal of those impacts on the
environment is significanLl
d. Does the projllCl have enmmmemal eflllClS which wiD
cause substantial adv_ offllClS on human beings.
either dirllClly or inditllCllf'?
x
v:
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUAnON AND MIl1GAnON MEASURES
(Anach shHlS as necessary.)
O~~ase refe: to attachec s~eets.
.
"""CI'__
---
...
~
PUHoe.GI "IGE sOt: _ Ill-IUI
,.
,
o
o
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial Study
Environmental Review Committee meeting of
April 2, 1992
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
As stated, this Initial study is tiered from the General
Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which identifies
impacts to historical resources related to General Plan
implementation. The EIR discusses the potential loss of
historical resources and states that every older and
potentially significant building in the developed areas
of the City can legally be replaced by another. In
addition, overriding concerns such as public safety may
necessitate building demolition. The General Plan
policies pertinent to the preservation of historical
resources are evaluated in the EIR and found to provide
the maximal protection that can be considered legally
acceptable.
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
Reouirements.) 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.
1._-
._-~-------_.-
-~ -
"
10
o
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial Study
Environmental Review Committee meeting of
April 2, 1992
3.1 MANDATORY PINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (section 150&5 of the
CEQA 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.
"
(0
(0
..
D, DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study,
0' The proposed project COULD NOT have a sign~icant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION will be preparllcl.
o The proposed project could have a sign~icant effect on the environment, akhough there will not be a sign~ieant
effed in this case because the mkigation measures described above have been added to the proJect. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared,
o The proposed project MAY havtl 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
/.1
\..?-
i /'f,z..,
Signature /
//
,
r- j ./
::: ". h".Lc"/
Date: April 2, 1992
OTVcP_~
CoI.......-.....:J~
..
PLANoUl PAGE_OF_ (11.
"
1 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING AND
REPLACING CHAPTER 15.37 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE;
2 ESTABLISHING NEW POLICIES AND PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW OF DEMOLITION
PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR POTENTIALLY HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND
3 STRUCTURES.
4
5
6
7
"
o
1,",,\
'-I
ORDINANCE NO.
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:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 IIII
28
"CHAPTER 15.37
HISTORIC BUILDING DEMOLITION ORDINANCE
Council find and declare:
15.37.010
Findinas and Purpose.
The Mayor and Common
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
"
'.
Permit applications
structures.
E. Prior to the adoption of MC-694, the City had no
provision for the review of Demolition Permit
Applications for potentially historic buildings or
structures.
F. For clarification, it is necessary to amend the
provisions for the review of Demolition Permit
Applications for potentially historic buildings and
structures.
G. By imposing the requirements of the amended Historic
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.
15.37.020 Definitions. For the purpose of carrying out the
intent of this Chapter, the words, phrases and terms set forth
herein shall be deemed to have the meaning ascribed to them in this
Chapter.
Building -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 IIII
o
o
for
buildings
pre-1941
and
Any structure having a roof and walls built
and maintained to shelter human activity or
property.
Demolition - To destroy any building or structure so that
it is no longer standing or functional.
Historic Resource Evaluation Report, a report
that evaluates the historical significance of
Report -
2
..
'.
o
o
1 a resource based upon established criteria.
2 Resource - A building or structure as defined in this
3 Chapter.
4 structure - (1) Any structure having a roof and walls
5 built and maintained to shelter human activity
6 or property; or,
7 (2) a work made up of independent and
8 interrelated parts that performs a primary
9 function unrelated to human shelter.
10 Survey - Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey
11 (Volumes 1-5 and Attachments, April 30, 1991
12 and all subsequent revisions), a citywide
13 survey of buildings and structures constructed
14 prior to December 31, 1941 which provides
15 baseline information regarding the types and
16 locations of resources, approximate
17 construction dates, representative
18 architectural styles, construction materials,
19 and contextual historical themes.
20 Task Force - The Historic Preservation Task Force, a
21 committee appointed by the Mayor and Common
22 Council to oversee the Historic Preservation
23 Program.
24 15.37.030 Historic Preservation Task Force. The Historic
25 Preservation Task Force (Task Force) was established by MC-694 and
26 the Task Force members were appointed by the Mayor with the
27 concurrence of the Common Council. Under the provisions of this
28 IIII
3
"
"
o
o
1 Chapter, the Task Force shall continue to oversee the. Historic
2 Preservation Program and Demolition Permit Applications in an
3 advisory capacity and perform other duties as established by the
4 Mayor and Common Council. This Task Force shall exist until the
5 Mayor and Common Council determine that it is no longer needed.
6 15.37.035 Demolition Prohibited. No building or structure
7 fifty (50) years old or older shall be demolished unless a valid
8 Demolition Permit has been issued in accordance with this Chapter.
9 15.37.040 Danaerous Buildinas Exempted. The demolition of
10 any building or structure fifty (50) years old or older shall be
11 exempt from the provisions of this Chapter if findings have been
12 made by the Board of Building Commissioners or the Building
13 Official pursuant to other provisions of the Municipal Code
14 declaring that the building or structure is either a public,
15 nuisance or a dangerous building. In such instances, a Demolition
16 Permit may be issued in accordance with all other City ordinances
17 and requirements.
18 15.37.045 Evaluation Thresholds and Review Reouirements.
19 Buildings and structures fifty (50) years old or older proposed for
demolition shall be evaluated to determine historical significance.
The level of review required shall be determined in accordance with
the following thresholds and requirements which are based upon the
Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey (Volumes 1-5 and
Attachments, April 30, 1991 and all subsequent revisions):
A Historic Resource Evaluation Report (Report) shall be
required for any resource identified on a modified
California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Form
20
21
22
23
24
25 A.
26
27
28 /1//
4
i
"
1
2
3
4
5
6 B.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 c.
17
18
19
20
21
22
o
o
(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 Historic Resource Evaluation Report may be required for
any resource listed on the Tabular List and located within
the boundaries of an area identified in the Survey as being
potentially eligible for Historic Overlay Zone designation
(Volume 3, Appendix C, Historic Districts and Overlay Zones,
Items 5. through 13.). Using the criteria established in
Section 15.37.055 of this Chapter, the Director of Planning
and Building services shall evaluate demolition 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.
When required, Historic Resource Evaluation Reports shall be
23 prepared in accordance with Section 15.37.050 of this Chapter.
15.37.050 Historic Resource Evaluation Report. A Historic
24
25 Resource Evaluation Report required as a submittal for a Demolition
26 Permit Application shall contain the following elements:
A. Purpose and Scope
27
28 IIII
5
"
o
:)
1 B. Methods of Evaluation: Field and Archival
2 C. Location and Setting
3 D. Architectural Description of the Resource
4 E. Historical Background
5 F. Discussion of Eligibility for NR listing
6 G. Statement of Significance
7 H. Conclusions
8 I. Recommendations (may include proposed mitigation)
9 J. Archival Documentation (Appendices)
10 The Statement of Significance element (Item G. above) shall
11 be made using the criteria listed in Section 15.37.055 of this
12 Chapter and shall include a discussion of the related historical
13 contextual themes.
14 The archival documentation (Item J. above) of the resource
15 shall include a completed DPR 523 Form and archival quality photo
16 documentation. This information shall be included as an appendix
17 to the Report.
18 Preparation and submi ttal of the Report shall be the
19 responsibility of the applicant. All Reports shall be prepared by
20 consultants who meet the prOfessional qualification standards for
21 the field of Historic Preservation as described in the Federal
22 Register.
23 15.37.055
24 cance.
25 1. The building or structure has character, interest or
26 value as a part of the heritage of the City of San
Bernardino; or,
27
28 III
Criteria
for
Determination
of
Historical
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
28 III
o
-
J
2. The location of the building or structure is the site of
a significant historic event; or,
3. The building or structure is identified with a person(s)
or group(s) who significantly contributed to the culture
and development of the City of San Bernardino; or,
4. The building or structure exemplifies a particular
architectural style or way of life important to the City;
or,
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
or
design,
detail,
materials
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
7
,.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 IIII
o
o
Permit for an Application which does not require a Report
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 may be
included as an attachment to the Initial study or
referenced in the Initial Study.
The Initial Study shall be reviewed by the ERC for
an environmental determination within thirty (30) days of
the project being deemed complete. FOllowing the ERC
review, the application and the environmental
determination shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
3. Task Force Review The Task Force shall receive
notification of Demolition Permit Applications for their
review and make recommendations to the Planning
Commission regarding the historic significance of
resources and the approval or denial of applications.
4. Planning commission Review A Demolition Permit
Application shall be scheduled for review by the Planning
Commission within fortyfive (45) days of the ERC's
environmental determination. The Planning Commission
8
"-"
"
'.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 IIII
o
o
shall review Demolition Permit Applications to determine
the historical significance of the resource based upon
the criteria set forth in Section 15.37.055 of 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.
The Planning Commission's review must be completed within
30 days of the first public hearing before the Planning
Commission or the Application shall be forwarded to the
Mayor and Common Council.
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.
If the Planning Commission approves the Demolition
Permit Application, the Demolition Permit shall be issued
in accordance with the Planning Commission action and
following compliance with the provisions of this Chapter
and all other City requirements.
5. Effective Date of Permit - Demolition Permits shall
become effective 16 days following the final date of
action (i.e., approval) by the Director or the Planning
Commission unless an appeal has been filed pursuant to
Section 15.37.070, which shall stay the issuance of the
Demolition Permit until after the Appeal is decided.
9
"
"
o
o
1 15.37.070 Appeals. Any person may appeal the decisions of
2 the Director of Planning and Building Services pursuant to this
3 Chapter to the Planning commission. Decisions of the Planning
4 commission pursuant to this Chapter may be appealed to the Mayor
5 and Common Council.
6 An appeal must be submitted in writing with the required
7 appeal fee (if applicable) to the Planning and Building Services
8 Department within fifteen (15) days following the final date of the
9 action for which an appeal is made. The written appeal shall
10 include the reason(s) why the Historic Resource Evaluation Report
11 should or should not be required; or why the Demolition Permit
12 Application should be granted, denied or exempt from the provisions
13 of this ordinance.
14 15.37.080 Severabilitv. If any section, subsection,
15 sentence, clause or phrase or any portion of this ordinance is for
16 any reason declared invalid or unconstitutional, such decision
17 shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the
18 ordinance. The Mayor and Common Council hereby declare that it
19 would have adopted this ordinance and each and every section,
20 subsection, sentence, clause or portion thereof irrespective of the
21 fact that any phrase, or any portion thereof, would be subsequently
22 declared invalid or unconstitutional.
23 15.37.085 Penaltv. Any person, firm or corporation,
24 whether as principal, agent, employee, or otherwise, violating or
25 causing the violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter is
26 quilty of a misdemeanor, which upon conviction thereof is
27 punishable in accordance with the provisions of Sections 1.l2.0l0
28 IIII
10
"
"
o
o
1 and 1.12.020 of this Code in addition to any other civil or
2 administrative remedies.
3 15.37.090 Fees. Upon submittal of a Demolition Permit
4 Application to the Planning and Building Services Department, the
5 applicant shall pay all applicable Planning Division fees as
6 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council for an Initial Study and
7 for the Planning Commission review. The applicant shall pay all
8 required Building Inspection Division fees as adopted by the Mayor
9 and Common Council prior to issuance of a Demolition permit."
10 I I I I
11 IIII
12 I I I I
13 I I I I
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
.'
"
o
,~
1
2
RDINANCE...ESTABLISHING NEW POLICIES AND PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW OF
DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR POTENTIALLY HISTORIC BUILDINGS
o STRUCTURES.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the
3
4 adopted by Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino
5
6
7
foregoing ordinance was duly
t a
meeting thereof, held on the
day of
, 1991 by the following vote, to wit:
o
cil Members
~
NAYS
ABSTAIN
ABSENT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PE-LUDLAM
City Clerk
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this
day of
, 1991.
W.R. Holcomb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
as to
legal content:
12
'--.
CITY OF SAN BERlO.RDINO -
REQUEST 9)R COUNCIL ACTION
From:
, , . "",l"'Lnra~storic Structure Demolition
Al Boughey, D~rector REC D. - ........DJ'ICr. 6rdinance
2" "1' t.l rlO
Planning & Building Servic~~2 J~ .Aayor a~d Common Council Meeting
February 3, 1992
Dept:
Date:
January 23, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
November la, 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.
tl~ 13~. n..t
J Signature
Al Boughey
Contact penDn:
Al Boughey
Phone:
384-5357
SUPPDrting data attached:
None
Ward:
Citywide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
SDurce: (Acet, No,)
(Acet, DescriPtion)
Finance:
..nci! Notes: bfWl"...~
, . L.
A,;(U-V/ Med.. r
,
7"~.'Z. ~I~
7-2t;'1z..
'57
~-
CITY OF SAN BERNPDINO - REQUEST FOl COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT
Historic structure Demolition Ordinance
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
February 3, 1992
,
REOUEST
staff is requesting that the Mayor and Common council continue this
item until March 16, 1992. At that time, staff will bring forward
a detailed proposal which will include options and recommendations
for the Mayor and Common Council's consideration.
BACKGROUND
On November 18, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council approved the
Historic structure Demolition Ordinance and it was laid over for
final adoption. During the second reading of the ordinance on
December 2, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council decided to table'
the item for 30 days so that staff could work with the Economic
Development Agency (EDA) determine methods for simplifying the
review process for Demolition Permit Applications. Due to time
limitations, staff and the EDA were unable to meet and discuss the
issues during December 1991. As a result, staff requested that the
item be continued from January 6, 1992 to February 3, 1992.
On Friday, January 17, 1992, the Planning Division and EDA staff
discussed several issues relating to the application process,
processing time frames and staff constraints. Also discussed were
issues related generally to the development of the Historic
Preservation Program and its implementation. The result is that
staff has tentatively identified some options for changing the
application process. However, further evaluation of these options
would enable staff to prepare a more detailed proposal with options
and recommendations for the Mayor and Common Council's
consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council continue this
item to March 16, 1992 to enable staff to prepare a detailed
proposal outlining options and recommendations for changing the
review process for Demolition Permit Applications.
Prepared by:
Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Al Boughey, Director
Planning and Building Services Department
o 0
ORDIIlANCE NO. tfC
1
2
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING CHAPTER
15.37 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE: ESTABLISHING NEW
POLICIES AND PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW OF DEMOLITION PERMIT
3 APPLICATIONS FOR POTENTIALLY HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AND
4 PROVIDING FOR CONTINUATION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TASK FORCE.
5
6
7
8
The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino
do ordain as follows:'
SECTION 1,
Chapter 15.37 of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 15,37
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 IIII
HISTORIC STRUCTURE DEMOLITION ORDINANCE
15.37.010
F indinas and Purpose,
The Mayor and Common
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-694l was adopted,
MC-694
provided for the establishment of the Historic
Preservation Task Force and for the review of Demolition
1
II
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
II
o
.-
,.....)
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.
Report -
Historic Resource Evaluation Report, a report
that evaluates the historical siqnificance of
2
o
o
1 a resource based upon established criteria.
2 Resource - A building or structure as defined in this
3 Chapter.
4 Structure - A structure is a work made up of independent
5 a~d interrelated parts that performs a primary
6 function unrelated to human shelter,
7 Survey - Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey
8 (Volumes 1-5 and Attachments, April 30, 1991
9 and all subsequent revisions), a citywide
10 survey of bUildings and structures constructed
11 prior to December 31, 1941 which provides
12 baseline information regarding the types and
13 locations of resources, approximate
14 construction dates, representative
15 architectural styles, construction materials,
16 and contextual historical themes.
17 Task Force - The Historic Preservation Task Force, a
18 committee appointed by the Mayor and Common
19 Council to oversee the Historic Preservation
20 Program and ordinance and to review all
21 Demolition Permit applications that require
22 their review in accordance with the provisions
23 of this Chapter,
24
25 15,37,025 Historic Preservation Task Force, The Historic
26 Preservation Task Force (Task Force) was established by MC-694 and
27 the Task Force members were appointed by the Mayor with the
28 concurrence of the Common Council, Under the provisions of this
II
3
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
II
o
o
Chapter. the Task Force shall continue to oversee the Historic
Preservation ProO'ram and Ordinance, review specified Demolition
Permit applications and perform other duties as established by the
Mayor and Common Council. This Task Force shall exist until the
Mayor and Common Council determine that it is no lonO'er needed.
15.37.035 Demolition Prohibited. No buildinO' or structure
fifty (SOl years old or older shall be demolished unless a valid
Demolition Permit has been issued in accordance with this Chapter.
15,37,040 Danaerous Buildinas ExemDted. The demolition of
any buildinO' or structure fifty (SOl years old or older shall be
exempt from the provisions of this Chapter if findinO's have been
made by the Board of BuildinO' Commissioners pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 8.30, Public Nuisances and Chapter 15.28,
DanO'erous BuildinO's, of the Municipal Code. In such instances, the
buildinO' or structure is exempt from the provisions of this Code
and a Demolition Permit may be issued.
If the BuildinO' Official makes a findinO' that a building is
danO'erous pursuant to summary abatement procedures of Chapter 15,28
of the Municipal Code. the building is exempt from the provisions
of this Code and a Demolition Permit may be issued.
15.37,045 Evaluation Thresholds and Reauirements,
Buildings and structures fifty (SOl years old or older shall be
evaluated to determine historical siO'nificance in accordance with
the followinO' thresholds and requirements which are based upon the
Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey (Volumes 1-5 and
1
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 (DPRI 523 Form
5 (Volume 3, ARJlendix B, Resource List and DPR Forms I or
6 located within an area identified as beinq potentially
7 eliqible for Historic District desiqnation and listed as a
8 contributinq resource (Volume 3, Appendix C, Historic
9 Districts and OVerlay 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.). Usinq 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
'-.-.,., '.
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
o
,-"
V
the Survey shall not require a Report unless the Task Force
determines that further study 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 ~ettinq
D. Architectural Description of the Resource
E. Historical Backqround
F. Statement of Siqnificance
G. Alternatives to Demolition
Relocation, Rehabilitation.
Reusel
H. Conclusions
I. Recommendations
J. Mitiqation
K. Archival Documentation (Appendices I
(such as
Restoration
Retention.
and Adaptive
IIII
II
6
o
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Statement of Significance element lItem F. above) shall
be made using the criteria listed in Section 15.37.055 of this
Chapter and the National Register criteria for evaluation and shall
include a discussion of the related historical contextual themes.
The archival documentation lItem K. above) of the resource
shall include a completed DPR 523 Form and archival quality photo
documentation. This information shall be included as an'appendix
to the Report.
Preparation and submittal of the Report shall be the
responsibility of the applicant. All Reports shall be prepared by
consultants who Qeet the professional qualification standards for
the field of Historic Preservation as described in the Federal
Register.
15.37.055 Criteria for Determination of Historical
Sianificance,
1, The bUilding or structure has character, interest or
value as a part of the heritage of the City of San
Bernardino 1 or,
2. The location of the bUilding or structure is the site of
a significant historic event; or,
3. The building or structure is identified with a personls)
or groupls) 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,
1//1
II
.,
,
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 1/11
Q
o
5. The bUilding or structure exemplifies the best remaining
architectural type in a neighborhood; or,
6. The building or structure is identified as the work of a
person whose work has influenced the heritage, of the
City, the S~ate or the United States; or,
7. The building or structure reflects outstanding attention
..:-',
to architectural design, detail, materials or
craftsmanship 1 or,
B. The building or structure is related to landmarks or
historic districts and its preservation is essential to
the integrity of the landmark or historic district; or,
9. The unique location or singular physical characteristics
of the building or structure represent an established and
familiar feature of a neighborhood; or,
10. The bUilding, structure or site has the potential to
Yield historical or archaeological information.
15.37.060 Review Process.
1. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Review - An
Initial Study (pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act) shall be prepared for a Demolition Permit
application when a Historical Resource Evaluation Report
is required in accordance with Section 15.37.045,
Subsections A.- C. of this Chapter. The Report shall be
included as an attachment to the Initial Study.
The Initial Study shall be reviewed by the ERC for
an environmental determination. FolloWing the ERC
8
~
o
"'"'
v
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
6 significance of the resource based upon the criteria set
6 forth in Section 15.37.055 of this Chapter, The Task
7 Force may also consider the National Register criteria
8 for evaluation, Based upon the 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 (901 days.
11 During this time. the Task Force shall pursue methods of
12 retention through rehabilitation, relocation and/or reuse
13 or other alternatives to demolition.
14 The Task Force shall take action to grant or deny
16 the Demolition Permit within the stay period specified.
16 If the Task Force approves the Demolition Permit
17 application, ~he Demolition Permit may be issued in
18 accordance with the Task Force action and fOllowing
19 compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and all
20 other City requirements,
21
22 15.37,070 Appeals. Any person may appeal the decisions
23 pursuant to this Chapter of the Director of Planning and Building
24 Services to the Task Force. Decisions of the Task Force pursuant
25 to this Chapter may be appealed to the Mayor and Common Council,
26 An appeal must be submitted in writing with the required
27 appeal fee (if applicablel to the Planning and Building Services
28 Department within fifteen (151 days following the final date of the
^
II
o
,.-
v
action for which an appeal is made. The written appeal shall
include the reason(s) why the potential resource should be, exempt
from or SUbject to the provisions of this ordinance.
1
2
3
4
5 15.37.075 Inconsistent Provisions. Any section of the
6 Municipal Code or amendments thereto inconsistent with the
7 provisions of this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistencies
8 and no further is hereby superseded or modified by this ordinance
9 to the extent necessary to effectuate the provisions of this
10 ordinance.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15.37.080 Severabilitv. If any section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase or any portion of this ordinance is for
any reason declared invalid or unconstitutional, such decision
shall, not affect the val idi ty of the remaining portions of the
ordinance. The Mayor and Common Council, hereby, declare that it
would have adopted this, ordinance and each and every section,
subsection, sentence, clause or portion thereof irrespective of the
fact that phrase, or any portion thereof would be subsequently
declared invalid or unconstitutional,
15,37,085 Penalty. Any person, firm or corporation,
whether as principal, agent, employee, or otherwise, violating or
causing the violation of any of the proviSions of this Chapter is
guilty of a misdemeanor. which upon conviction thereof is
punishable in accordance with the proviSions of Section 1.12.010 of
this Code in addition to any other civil or administrative
remedies.
II
11)
.
-~ ~
o
'"'
\..J
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
"
15.37.090 Fees. Upon submittal of a Demolition Permit
application to the Planninq and BUildinq Services Department, the
applicant shall pay all applicable Planninq Division fees as
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council for an Initial Study and
for the Historic Pres~rvation Task Force review. The applicant
shall pay all required Buildinq Safety Division fees as adopted by
the Mayor and Common Council prior to issuance of a Demolition
Permit."
1111
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
q
,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II
o
o
1
2
ORDINANCE...ESTABLISHING NEW POLICIES AND PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW OF
DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR POTENTIALLY HISTORIC BUILDINGS
AND STRUCTURES AND PROVIDING FOR CONTINUATION OF THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION TASK FORCE.
3
4
5 at a
6
7
8
9
10
11
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
AYES
NAYS
ABSTAIN
ABSENT
ESTRADA
REILLY
HERNANDEZ
MAUDSLEY
12 MINOR
POPE-LUDLAM
MILLER
City Clerk
The foreqoinq ordinance is hereby approved this
day of
, 1991.
W.R. Holcomb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to
form and leqal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
~
B . ..4. .
-"
12