HomeMy WebLinkAbout51-Planning and Building
CITY OF SAN BERhARDINO
- REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director
SU~Kt:Historic Building Demolition
Ordinance
De~: Planning & Building Services
Date: July 10, 1992
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 Con~on 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
Contact person:
Al Boughey
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
Citywide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
lAcct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75.0262
Agenda Item No ,5/
--
o
o
SUBJBCT
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance Amendment\
(ORDDEM No. 91-02)
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
July 20, 1992
DOUBST
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.
BACltGROUlfD
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. Based upon concerns expressed during 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 Commission 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 the elements required for Historic Resource
Evaluation Reports. Some of the items 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.
-
00
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance Amendment
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
July 20, 1992
Page 2
MAYOR AND CODON COUNCIL OPTIONS
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.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council direct staff to
prepare the draft ordinance and bring 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
-ciTY OF SAN BER"RDINO - REQUES1 ~R COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Historic Building Demolition Ordinance
Dept: Planning and Building Services
Date: April 16, 1992
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
May 4, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
November 18, 1991 - The Mayor and Common Council approved the Historic Structure Demolition
Ordinance and it was laid over for final adoption.
December 2, 1991 - The Mayor and Common Council tabled the Historic Structure Demolition
Ordinance for 30 days.
January 6, 1992 - The Mayor and Common Council continued the Ordinance so that staff and the
Economic Development Agency could develop options for simplifying the review process for
demolition permit applications.
February 3, 1992 - The Mayor and Common Council continued this item so that staff could prepare
a detailed proposal to change the process for demolition permit applications.
March 16, 1992 - The Mayor and Common Council directed staff to change the review process as
proposed, prepare an ordinance and return to the May 4, 1992 Council Meeting.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed, that the Negative Declaration be adopted and that further
reading of the ordinance be waived and that said ordinance be laid over for final
adoption.
ture
Contact person:
Al Boughey
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
Citywide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
councilNotes:~fA."u, ,5./1"",,3 JJ.~8
Aaenda Item NO..i1IIa
CITY'OF SAN BE~ARDINO - REQUES,OOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance Amendment
(ORD DEM No. 91-02)
Mayor and Common council Meeting of
May 4, 1992
REOUEST
This city initiated amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 15.37
(urgency Historic structure Demolition ordinance, MC-694) is to
facilitate changes to the review process for Demolition permit
Applications for buildings and structures fifty years old and
older.
BACKGROUND
On November 18, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council approved the
proposed Historic structure Demolition Ordinance and it was laid
over for final adoption. During the second reading of the
ordinance on December 2, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council decided
to table the item for 30 days so that staff could work with the
Economic Development Agency (EDA) to determine methods for
simplifying the review process for Demolition permit Applications.
Due to time limitations, staff and the EDA were unable to meet and
discuss the issues during December 1991. As a result, staff
requested that the item be, continued from January 6, 1992 to
February 3, 1992. On February 3, 1992, staff again requested that
the item be continued. The Mayor and Common council granted
staff's reqUest with a continuance of six weeks which provided
staff the opportunity to prepare a more detailed proposal.
staff's new proposal was presented to the Mayor and Common council
on March 16, 1992 at which time the item was continued and staff
was directed to change the review process and prepare an ordinance
for the May 4, 1992 Council Meeting.
PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TASK FORCE
On March 25, 1992, staff presented the proposal to the Historic
Preservation Task Force. The Task Force discussed the proposal at
length and requested that they be provided copies of the draft
Staff Report and to the Mayor and Common Council and the draft
ordinance for discussion at their meeting of April 22, 1992.
75-026.
,..". -,
V .....I
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance Amendment
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
May 4, 1992
Page 2
COMMENTS RECEIVED
On March 31, 1992, staff received comments from Dr. James
MUlvihill, AICP, Member of the Historic Preservation Task Force.
Dr. Mulvihill's comments are contained in Attachment 2, this
report.
Dr. Mulvihill is concerned with several aspects of staff's proposal
to change the review process for Demolition Permit Applications.
He has reservations with the reassignment of the review duties to
the planning commission. He emphasizes in his letter that historic
preservation is a serious task that employs very extensive policies
and that "significance" is sometimes open to interpretation. Dr.
Mulvihill feels that the Task Force has the experience necessary
for making determinations of historical significance.
staff recognizes that the Task Force is experienced in historic
preservation. For this reason, we would like to use the Task Force
more actively in the development of the Historic Preservation
Program. The Task Force would still be involved in the review
process but as an advisory body rather than as the principal review
authority. In this way, their experience could be more fully
utilized. Since the adoption of the urgency Historic structure
Demolition Ordinance (MC-694), the emphasis on program development
has shifted almost solely to the review of Demolition Permit
Applications. This has occurred primarily because of budgetary and
staff constraints. The result is that program development is at a
standstill.
There are several benefits associated with establishing the
planning commission as the review authority for Demolition Permit
Applications. As stated, the Task Force will be able to
concentrate its efforts on program development. The Planning
commission is an established review body that is well versed in
dealing with sensitive environmental issues such as historic
preservation. Because of the broad range of projects that the
Commission reviews, Demolition Permit Applications will receive a
more balanced review. In addition, applications will be
mainstreamed into the Planning process and thus be provided more
expeditious processing since the planning Commission meets twice a
month.
Dr. Mulvihill is concerned that staff is relying too heavily on the
Historic Resources Reconnaissance survey in developing the
Evaluation Thresholds that are contained in the draft ordinance.
Staff agrees with Dr. Mulvihill's assertion that the survey is not
".--... -..........,
- ....,I
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance Amendment
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
May 4, 1992
Page 3
an exhaustive study and that a more intensive survey should be done
as a necessary part of an ongoing historic preservation program.
However, the survey does provide baseline information that can be
used to establish review thresholds. Prior to formalizing the
Evaluation Thresholds, staff conferred with the Jan Wooley of the
California Office of Historic Preservation and with Wayne Donaldson
of Milford Wayne Donaldson, A.I.A., Inc. (The Historic Resources
Reconnaissance survey was done by the firm referenced). Both Ms.
Wooley and Mr. Donaldson felt that the survey information
reasonably could be used to establish review thresholds that would
provide a more functional review process. However, both stressed
that an intensive survey would contain more indepth information on
specified resources which in turn, helps to validate a Historic
preservation Program by providing credibility.
PROPOSED HISTORIC BUILDING DEMOLITION ORDINANCE
As stated, staff presented a proposal to change the review process
for Demolition Permit Applications for buildings and structures
fifty years old and older at the March 16, 1992 Council Meeting.
A copy of the Staff Report prepared for that meeting is attached
(Attachment 1). The proposed changes are incorporated in the draft
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance (Attachment 3).
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the ordinance.
2. The Mayor and Common Council may direct staff to make further
changes.
3. The Mayor and Common Council may deny the ordinance.
. I"'" ..--.
"'-' ......J
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance Amendment
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
May 4, 1992
paqe 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 (March
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
C2~Y OF SAN BQ(~RbINO - REQUE~Q ~:-")R COUNC2L AC7:JO
" . .
Subject:
H~storic S~~~ctures Demolition
O=~inance
.,.~
From: Al Bct:ghey, Director
Dept: Planning.. 3uilding Services
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
March 16, 1992
Dau: March 8, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
November 18, 1991 - The Mayor" and Common Counc~l approved ~~e Historic
S~=ucture Demolition Ordinance and it was laid over fer final adop~ion.
December 2, 1991 - The Mayor and Common Council tabled ~"le :!istoric St=uctu;
Demolition Ordinance for 30 days.
January 6, 1992 The Mayor and Common Council continued ~"le Ordinance
so that staff and the Economic Development Age~cy could deve:op options for
simplifying the review process for d~~ition permit applications.
Febr~ary 3, 1992 _ The Mayor and Common Council continued t.~is item so t.'1at
staff could prepare a detailed proposal to change the process for demolition
permit applications.
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and COllllllOn Council direct staff to change the review process ,
proposed, prepare an ordinance and return to the May 4, 1992 Council Meeting
. gnatunl
~
Contact penon: Al Bouqhev
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting data ,otW1ed:
None
Ward:
Ci to_ide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
H/A
Source: IAcct. No.1
I Acct. Oescriotion)
Finance:
Council Nous:
7s..o2.2
Agenaa item No
Attachment 1
2~
CIT'{ OF SAN B~CH'::IDINO - REQUESQ(- R COUNC2L ACTJOI
STAFF REPORT
~
SUB..n.:CT
Proposed Changes to the Review Process for
Demolition Permit Applications
Mayor and Common c~uncil Meeting of
March 16, 1992
REOUEST
staff is requesting that the Mayor and Common Council consider the
recommendation outlined in this staff Report and direct staff to
chanqe the proposed ordinance accordingly.
BACKGROUND
On November 18, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council approved the
proposed Historic structure Demolition Ordinance and it was laid
over for final adoption. Durinq 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 Aqency (EllA) to determine methods for
simplifyinq the review process for Demolition Permit Applications.
Due to time limitations, staff and the EllA were unable to meet and
discuss the issues during December 1991. As a result, staff
requested that the item be continued from January 6, 1992 to
February 3, 1992. On February 3, 1992, staff again requested that
this item be continued. The Mayor and Common Council granted
staff's request with a continuance of six weeks which provided
staff the opportunity to prepare a more detailed proposal.
The proposed ordinance was prepared because of problems that were
identified in ~e existing Urqency Historic structure Demolition
ordinance (MC-694) . Those problems made the processinq 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.
PROPOSE!) CHANGES TO THE REVIEW PROCESS
During joint ::eetings between the Planning Division and EDA, staff
members discussed a nUJllber of issues relating to the application
process, processing time frames and staff constraints. As a result
75aOZ~
r.(
......., .
......,. / '.
--..I \ . >
~ ~:
proposed c~anqes ~o ~he Revie~ P=ocess for
n..01i~ioD Per.=i~ Applica~ioDS .
Kayar and CODIlIlOD council. llee~q of
llarch 16, 1992
Page 2
.,
..~
'.
.
of those discussions, some very specific 'chanqes are proposed. The
changes, which should simp1ify the review process for Demolition
Per.:U.~ Applications, are as follows: . .
,
l..
..
:;;~
2.
(.
3.
The Planning Commission woul.! assUlae the proje~ review duties.
of the His~oric Preservation Task Force for Demolition Per:ni~
Applications.
The Task
overseeing
Proqram.
Force responsibilities would be
the development of the Historic
directed a~
Preservation
Based upon
infor.nation,
thresholds.
the Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey
a new ordinance would establish evaluation
(See Attac:hlllent 2, Evaluation T:1resholds)
4. Using the Evaluation Thresholds, sta~f would identi~y the
1evel of evaluation (bistoricaJ. review) required to determine
the historical. signficance of resources proposed for
dem01ition.
sta~f decisions relating to Evaluation Thresholds B. and c.
coul.d be appeaJ.ed to the planning Camlission. Threshold A
coul.d no~ be app~ed. (S_ Atta..t....ent 2)
5
6. The Planninq Co-i ....ion would approve or deny l)emolitioD
permit App1ications based upon infoJ:lllAtian presented.
The Planning co-i..sioc would have the option to forward a
recOllllllendation tor further study to the Mayor and Common
Council when a permi~ is denied due to a finding of historica1
significance.
8. 1)eCisions ot the Plar.ninq Commission could be appeal.ed to the
Jlayor and Common Co1mCll.
7.
.~
An al.ternative to l:t_ 1. and 2. would be the appointment of a
Historic Preservation ecn-i..sion. However, there are certain
disadvantages to ':his al.ternative relating to time constraints.
The appoint::1ent of a Historic Preservation COlIIIIli.ssion would involve
a lenqthy process and new C""""i ssioners would require some time for
orientation and training. Providing the necessary staffinq for a
new commission would be difficult based on the =ent budget and
statt constraints.
c ( ,
~ , ,
..
......
proposed c~anqes ~o the ~eview Process for
n..o~ition pe:=it Applications
xayor and Common Counci~ xeetiDg of
Karch 16, 1992
Page 3
'.
:~
The estab~ishment of the planning CQ1:IIIIissicn as the. review
aut.'1ority tor Demolition per.:dt Applications ..,ouJ.d be advantageous
tor a number of reasons. One is that the ?l~~L~g commission is
already established and does not require additional sta::tinq.
Since the planninq Commission revie'",,;s lar.d use issues and
deve~opment proposals and the related envircn:ental documents, it
would provide a more balanced review tor Demolition per:nit
Applications. The ?lanning Commission is experienced in historic
review because it is the review authority ..,hen Demolition per:nit
Applications are processed concur=ently with other types ot
development applications.
Xn accorclance with the urqency Historic Structure Demolition
ordinance CMC-694) , the Hist::lric Preservation Task Force was
established to oversee and quide the development of the Historic
Preservation P.."",..~. The Task Force review of Demolition Permit
Applications was to have been an interia duty. Upon completion of
the Historic Preservation ProqraJl, the Task Force was to have been
replaced by a ltistoric Preservation CoIIIIIIi.ssion. This has not
occu=ed because of staff contraints and a shift in Depart::llent
priorities resultinq from the current budget situation. For
consistency 1 the Task Force should continue in its role of guiding
the development of the Historic Preservation Pl;..."...~.
The. Evaluation Thresholds referred to in xtem 3. would be based
upon infor:l&tion contained in the Historic Resources Reconnaissance
surrey (Survey), which was completed in Kay 1991. As indicated,
the Survey was completed at the reconnaissance level and does not
provide ir.~epth information on inc1ividual resources or areas of the
city. J:~ does identi~, however, the City's buildinqs and
structures that are fifty years old or ol~ and provides baseline
infor:aation concerning the types and locations of resources,
representa':ive architectural styles, construction materials and
contextual themes. The survey also specifies individual resources
that exhibit potential historical signilicance, areas eliqible for
HistoricaL District and overlay Zone designation and areas
requirinq tut'.u-e survey consideration. A draft of the Evaluation
Thresholds CA. through c.) is at-..ached (see Attachment 2)..
Xtem 4. indicates that as a result of establishing the Evaluation
Thrasholds, staff's role would be stren~ened. This is essential
for streamlining the review process because it ..,ill allow projects
to move forward.
...,:
.
-
.
c
y.'
~
.;:.
..-
Proposed ~&Dqes to the ~evi.w ~rocess far
l)amo~i.UOJl P8%2it App1icatioJlS
..yor aDd co_n COWlciJ. Heating o~
Jlarch 1&, 1"2
paqe 4
.
.
"
l:t_ s. is straightfor.rard and req'~ires li1:-..1e description. The
resources descr~ed by Threshold A have been identified in the
Survey as having potential h.istcrical siqni~icance to a qreater
deqree than do ather resources contained in the Survey. It follows
then that if thesa resources are proposed for demolition, a ful.l'
historical review should ';)e required to evaluate any environmental
impacts resulting fram their loss. In addition, alternatives to
del:l01ition should be evaJ.uated for resources that may be important
to the City.
As indicated by l:t_ 6., the Planning Commission would approve or
deny Dem01ition Permit Applications based upon information
contained in a Staff Report. The Staff Report would include an
Initial study a recommendation reqardinq an environmenta1
deter.:ination fram the Environmental ~eview Committee.
!'01J.owinq denial. of a permit, the P1anning CQmm; ssion would have
the option to forward recommendations for further study to the
Kayor and Co_ Council. (It_ 7.). Ev-"'Ples o~ .further study.
wou1d . be EnvL.ooonmenta1 l:mpact Reports or fiscal analysis studies
that require fundinq by the city.
Item a. continues the right o~ appeal by provicUnq a mechanism
whereby decisions of the PJ.anninq Com:dssion could be appeal.ed to
the ~yor and common Council..
AN AOO-'!'!:ONAL CONSIOERAT1:0N
The Mayor and common Counci1 may wish to have a itistoric Resources
Evaluation Report prepared for al.l or some of the resources listed
in the survey on Depart::llent of Parks and Recreation (CPR) 523 Forms
(Hodi.fied). The Report would determine the historical siqnificance
of these resou..-ces and provide advance submit"=al information to
staff and the review authority for Demo1ition per.:it Applications.
This wouJ.d further streamline the review process for the resources
in question.
MAYOR .urn COMMON COUNCIL OP'l'rONS
1. The ~yor and COllllllOn Council uy direct staff to chanqe the
review process as proposed, prepare an ordi..lance and return to
the May 4, 1992 Council Meetinq.
2. 'rha Mayor and common council may make modifications, deletions
or additions to staff's proposed chanqes.
proposed Changes to the Review Process for
D_o~ition peJ:lllit Applications ~
Kayor aDd common cOW1ci~ Keeting of
Karch 16, 1992
Page 5
'oi
"
...;
..;;
.~
\
..
~COMMENDAT1:0K
r.'
~
.,.""
>
Staff recommends that the ~yor and ComI:lon council direct sta::f to
chanqe the review process as proposed, prepare an ordinance and
return to the Kay 4, 1992 Council lIeetinq.
. :~
~;
Prepared by:
..;:
.
Attachments:
.'
>
.,
,
::".
'.'
>
Deborah Woldruff, As9"""iate P1anner
for Al Bouqhey, Director
planning and BuildinCJ Services Department
Historic Resources Reconnaissance survey (not
included - previously distributed to the Mayor
and Common councU in June 1991)
2. Draft Evaluation Thresholds CA. through C.)
1.
-
\....~
"-'"
--..,'.
rn.r.UATIOH orDESJlOLDS
Buildinqs and st--uctures fifty (50) years old and older ~ould be
evaluated using the following thresholds to cieter.:line the level of
historical review required. ':he 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
Deparblent 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 e!igible for Historic
District desiqnation and listed as a contributing resour.:e
(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 desiqnation and listed as a contributinq resource.
B. A Historic Resource Evaluation Report could be required for
any resource listed on the survey's Tabular List and located
within the boundaries of an area identified in the Survey as
being potentially eligible for Historic Overlay Zone
Desiqnation (Volume 3, Appendix C, Historic Districts and
overlay Zones, Items 5. throuqh 13.). Usinq 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 beinq
potentially eliqible tor Historic Overlay Zone desiqnation
shall also would be subject to the Director's evaluation.
c. Demolition Permit applications for buildinqs 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
planninq and Buildinq Services or members of the Historic
Preservation Task Force or the planninq commission determine
that further study would be required based upon new,
historical or cultural intormation not contained in the
Survey.
Attachment 2
~-"'.~
,~
.
. .
'-
,
-......I
..
.
,.
MEMORANDUM
;:
FRO~:
Hon. Michael Maudsley,
Councilmember, Ward Four and Chair
Historic Preservation Task Force
City of San Bernardino
Dr. James Mulvihill, AICP, ~emberd)1....
Historic Preservation Task Force .~
City of San Bernardino
TO:
SUBJECT:
Staff's Proposed Changes to the Review
Process for Demolition Permit Applications.
CC:
Ms. Deborah Woldruff, Asso Planner; Mr. Henry
Empeno, Dpty City Atty.
DATE:
March 31, 1992
I am greatly concerned with the implications of the
proposals made by planning staff regarding the process for
review of demolition permit applications. Essentially, the
permit review function now held by the Historic Preservation
Task Force, and presumably any subsequent Historic
Preservation Commission, would be given over to the City
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has my greatest
respect for the tremendous range of responsibilities they
have, and the expertise that is necessitated to meet these.
But historic .preservation is no small task. Not only are
there a very extensive and subtle policies entailed, but
also, "significance" is sometimes open to interpretation. I
know you remember the controversy surrounding the Platt
Building. Many in city governance minimized its historic
value, while the delay in issuing the demolition permit
provided by the Historic Preservation Task Force proved to
Attachment 2
.,
~
;
~
~~
-
Page T~o
MEMO: Demolition of Historic Resources Review
March 31, 1992
be what was needed to prevent the City from making a very
great error. Even~ually, a highly regarded panel of experts
was brought in, which endorsed the Task Force's opinion that
the building should be preserved. In fact, the group was
~
quite adamant in their position.
,
This incident alone underlines the value of having
,
knowledgeable persons involved in the demolition review
process. In addition, Historic Preservation Commissions are
common in cities of all sizes throughout the country. I am
attaching a document of considerable importance, "Preparing
a Historic Preservation Ordinance," from the Planning
Advisory Service of the American Planning Association. I
know staff has its own copy, but I ask that you have
duplicates made for our Task Force, the Common Council, and
any others who will participate in this revision process.
r hope no one misunderstands me. I do not see historic
preservation as limited and "snobby." If effectively
managed, historic preservation can enhance property values
and promote the renovation of mostly central city
neighborhoods. It is a program that, in our city, can be
aimed at improving housing and neighborhood conditions of
mostly lower income families. Some improvements have already
taken place through efforts up to this poin~.
.,
---
..--
....,
-
Page Three
MEMO: Demolition of Historic Resources Review
March 31, 1992
S~A~~'~ Rp~nmmp-~na~;n"~a
Staff's recommendation. dated ~arch 8, 1992, emphasizes
the "current budget and staff constraints,~ (p. 2). These
are short-term considerations on whi:h long-term programs.
and policies should not be based. This same transmittal
states that "orientating an~ training" new Historic
Preservation Commissioners would be burdensome (p. 2). The
"training" of the DrOq~nt panel was hardly burdensome. The
statement seems to overlook the great personal resources and
commitment possessed by citizens in our community.
Staff's transmittal also refers to time delays creating
a need to "streamline the review process," (p. 3). The
suggestion that the Planning Commission be substituted for
the Preservation Task Force/Commission eliminates no steps,
and, unless staff provides less effort and research than it
does now, I do not see where significant reductions will
take place. This is especially true given the unique
expertise .tha~ the Task Force presently provides, and which
will be provided by a future Preservation Commission.
I take particular issue with the statement on the
transmittal (p. 3) that states, "The Task Force review of
Demolition Permit Applications was to have been an interia
duty." This is the first time I have heard this. The Task
Force is "interim" to a Historic Preservation Commission.
"
r
""""
-
Page Four
MEMO: Demolition of Historic Resources Review
March 31, 1992
On the other hand, we have frequently discussed and
formulated how that body would review demolition permits. In
fact, the "Historic Resources Recon~aissance Survey Report,"
Volume 1, page 17. states, "...that the Historic Resources
Commission for San Bernardino be given adequate power to
protect landmarks. This will almost certainly require that
it have the power to forbid demolition or alteration, not
just delay it, even though such power may be exercised
infrequently." were they conlused too?
No better justification for expert panel to review
demolition permits than the continuing over-reliance by
staff (in the Evaluation Thresholds, last page of
transmittal) on the DPR forms and those resources associated
with Historic Districts and Overlay Zones (Historic
Preservation Survey, Volume 3, Appendix C). Our consultants
frequently emphasized that: their survey, the structures on
DPR forms, designated historic districts, etc. were ~
exhaustive, but rather exemplary. There are structures in
the City they ,did not have time to do thorough evaluations
of. It seems though that staff knows this already, as stated
in the transmittal, .....the Survey was completed at the
reconnaissance level and does not prOVide in-depth
information on individual resources or areas of the City,-
(p. 3).
.. .' '.
.
. .
,-
'-'
...........
Page Five
MEMO: Demolition of Historic Resources Review
March 31, 1992
Finally, as noted on staff's transmittal (cover sheet),
..
the Mayor and Common Council asked on January 6th that staff
and the Economic Development Agency develop options for
simplifying the review process for demolition permit
applications. Our Task Force took the lead on this issue
several times in the past by requesting planning staff and
EDA to work together in developing prese~.ation policies.
Financing alternatives provide the basic incentive to
preserve. As is clear in the Planning AdvisorT Service
Report. for effective preservation there must be financial
assistance available. The neighborhood redevelopment and
housing preservation that occurs gives the EDA a central
role. The great misfortune is that it has taken this long
for EDA's role to become apparent. Misunderstandings and '
missteps will continue as long as EDA remains outside the
process.
I think the Task Force has looked forward to addressing
preservation policy in an integrated fashion. However,
. ' .
simply shifting review responsibility does not provide ~or
this integrated planning ~d policy making. In fact, such a
singular shift is a step toward elminating preservation as a
potentially effective redevelopment policy for the City.
-
c 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
"""'I
.' ,.
INITIAL STUDY
..
"""'I
HISTORIC BUILDING DEMOLITION ORDINANCE (DEMO ORDl
Pro;ect DescriDtion: 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
A~nlican~'s Name and Address:
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Ynitial studY Prenared Bv:
Deborah Woldruff
Associate Planner
city of SaD Bernardino
Planning aDd Building Services Department
300 Horth "0" street
SaD Bernardino, CA 92418
CI'" QII ... -----
~.......
pL..AI'+&D7 PAGE 1 OF 1 t4-UO)
Attachment 3
~ -,
'-' --
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial study
Environmental Review Committee meeting of
April 2, 1992
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the city of San Bernardino as
an Initial study which evaluates the potential
environmental impacts resulting from the Historic
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 guidelines, the purposes of an
Initial study are to:
1. Provide the Lead Xgency with information to use as
the basis for deciding whether to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report (En) or a Neqative
Declaration;
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a
project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR
is prepared, thereby enablinq the project to qualify
for Negative Declaration;
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is
required, by:
(A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to
be siqnificant,
(B) Identify the effects determined not to be
siqnificant, and
(C) Explaininq the reasons for determininq that
potentially siqnificant effects would not be
siqnificant.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the
desiqn of a project;
5.
Provide documentation of the factual basis
finding in a Negative Declaration that a
will not have a significant effect
environment;
for the
project
on the
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
-----
--
- .....,I
Historic Building Demolition ordinance
(DEMO ORC): Initial study
Environmental Review Committee meeting of
April 2, 1992
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could
be used wib the project.
As stated in Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines,
Agencies are enc:uraged to tier EIRs which they prepare
for separate bu,: related projec~s including general
plans, zoning changes 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 to.
or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or
ordinance should limit the EIR on the project, as
follows:
1. Evaluate those environmental effects which were not
examined as siqnificant 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. Tiering under this section shall be limited to
si tuations where the proj ect is consistent with the
general plan and zoning of the city of county in
which the project would be located.
4. The Initial Study shall be used to decide whether
and to what extent the prior EIR is still sufficient
for the present project.
5.. When tiering is used, the later EIRs or Neqative
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
c
-......
.-....,1
Historic Building Demolition ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial Study
Environmental Review Committee meetinq of
April 2, 1992
Plan. As required by CEQA, the General Plan EJ:R provided
a broad overview of the futur~ qrowth sllowed within the
City in accordance with the Plan's vision. It is the
intent of this Initial St~dy t~ tiar this pr:ject with
the certi~ied EIR prepared for the Gene::oal Plan. The
Initial Study will determine potential ~~pacts if the
Historic Structure Demolition Ordinance ~s cre4~ed and
whether they were addressed in ~e General Plan EIR.
The Initial study will determine the level of
siqnificance 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 Are. Characteristics _4 BacJtqroaDd
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). Th_e
resources generally are located in accordance with the
ei ty' s historical development patterns. The Survey
evaluates concentrations of resources and identifies
areas eligible for either Historic District or Historic
OVerlay Zone desiqnation. It also identifies individual
resources de_ed as havinq potential historical
siqnificance for architectural s-::yle and/or cultural
considerations. The draft ordinance will establish
thresholds of review f~r the determination of historical
siqnifican:e of resources based upon the Survey
information.
r
...-..
\,..;
::;
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
....
...
...,
~
A. BACKGROUND
San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 15.37
ApplicationNumber: Historic Buildinq Demolition Ordinance (DEMO ORD)
Project Description: Ordinance of the City. . . amending and replacing
Chapte= 15.37; establishing new policies and provisions for
the review of Demolition Permit Applications for buildinqs and
structures fifty years old and older (specified); and, the contin
uation of the Historic Preservation Task Force.
Location: Ci tvwide
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 sheel
1. E8nh Re_ Win the proposal resuit in: Yes No Maybe
a. Earth ll1ClWllI8nt (cut and/or fin) 0110,000 cubic
yards or more? X
b. Developmenl and/or grading on a slope greater
than 15% n8lUral grade? X
c. Developmenl within the A1quist.priolo Special
Studies Zona as defined in Seclion 12.0 . Geologic
& Seismic. Figure 47, of the City's General Plan? X
d. Modilication of any unique geologic or physical
feature? X
e. Development within areas defined for high potential for
water or wind erosion as identilied in Section t 2.0 .
Geologic & Seismic. Fogure 53, of the Cily's General X
Plan?
f. Modilication of a channel, creek or river? X
~ ....
::.&"T~ PI.,AHoI.Ol P.ae10F_ (11.QO)
,
"" ,
-
-
g. o.velClpment within an ani. subjecllD Iandslidas.
mudslides. liquel8CIon or other similar hazards as
identified in Section 12.0 . Geologic & Seismic,
FiguNs .s, 52 and 53 of the CiIy's General Plan?
h. Other?
2. Air ReMurcn: WiD the proposal rasuit in:
L Subslantial air emissions or an ailed upon ambient
air quality as defined by AOMD?
b. TIle erealion of objectionable odors?
c. DevelClpment within a high wind hazard area as identified
in Section 15.0" Wincl & F.... F.gure 59. of 1he Qy's
Genaral Plan?
:L Water Reeo_: Win the proposaIlIIsull in:
L Changes in absorption rates. drainage paIl_ or the
rate and amount of surface runoff due "
impermeable surfaces?
b. Changes in tha oourse or flow aI flood _?
c. Discharge into surface watars or my aIIention
of Sl'rtace water quality?
d. C/la,'Ille in the quantity aI quality aI ground ~
.. Exposure aI people or prcpetty to flood .... ..
identilied in the Federal Emerg8llCJ Man-u__
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate -. Cammunity P.,..
Number 060281 " _' ad Sectian 11U1.
Flooding, F'lIulll 62. of the City's Geneml PlIn?
f. Other?
4. 8101oglcat Reeourcea: Could the "'........ .... in:
L Develapment within the BioIcgi!:ll R --
Managemem Overlay, as idenlilied in Sectian 10.0
" NaIural R8SOUIC8S. F9UlII ~ 1, vi the Qly's
General Plan?
b. Change in the number of my unique, ,.. or
endangered spec:ies of pIanls or !heir hebiIat including
stands aI_?
. .
c. Change in the number aI my unique. ,.. or
endMgered spec:ies of animals or !heir Ilsbial?
d. RemovlIl of viable, maturelrHS? (6'"...~
.. Other?
5. Noise: Could the proposal resul in:
L Develapmem aI housing. heaIIII caN I -......d '.
Iilnries. "'igious facililies or =-....... _..Ail.. -
in ..as where existing or future ......... --S ..
Ldn of 65 dB(AI eXIMlor ad snLdn vi ~ cfB(A) inl8rior
as idanIified in Section 1~.O" Noise, FigIns 1'" -
14-13 of !he City's General Plan?
,-.,
....)
,. .
..0.
Vas
No
..
"
,.
,
v
..
x
y.
x
v
..
Yo
v
."
~...
,.~
..
..
"(
"
..
..
Maybe
...
..
~I.QI PlGEzor:_ ,ii-iO)
_a<___
---
L Houalng: Wi) the ","Ilo,,~
L Re_ ellisting housing or ere.. a demand
far addiliDnal housing?
b. Other?
.. Tngportatlon I CIrculation: Could the '" r ... in
compariIon wiIh the CiR:uIaIion PllI/l as identiliecl in Sectilln
6.D _ Circulalion at the City's General Plan. resul in:
L All i__ in traffIC that is greater thlIIl the land
use designaled on tile General Plan?
b. U.. at exisling. or demll/ld for n_. paIking
facilitieslSll\lClllt8S ?
c. Impact upon existing public tranSIlOnation systems? .
d. Aiteration at present patlems at circulation?
.. Impact tD rail or air tralfic?
I. Incr....d safety hazaRls to vahiclas, bicycfists or
peall$Ul8l1S ?
g. A diIjointed plIII_ of ro8llway improvemenlS?
h. SiGndicant ;'lCI"a_ in traffIC vofumes on tile .oadways
or intersections?
i. Olhet?
~'.cI PllGE 30~ _ ~H.<<n
....
--.,~__ AI
x
x
v
..
x
'f
:{
.-
..
y.
x
..
..
x
..01
l} ,.
,-
10. Public Services: WiD the proposal irnpacl the following
beyond the capaDility to provide adequate IewIs '" slltVice?
&. Fife protection?
b. Police pralection?
c. Schcols (i.e~ 8IIendanCe. boundaries. ~ 4IlC.)?
d. PiI/ks or other rec:realionaI facililies?
e. Medical aid?
'I. Solid Waste?
g. Other?
11. UtIOUec WiI the ~. .>: .~
&. Impact the tollowing beyOnd lIIe ~~~ "
provide adeqUllle 1__ of service or requft the
ccnstnlClion '" n_ IKiIilies?
1. NalUral gas?
2. e..J> U1y?
3. WrIlet?
4. s-?
5. Other?
b. Resul in a disjointed pr4*n III IlIily --..?
c. Requn the oonstnldian 01 ... . -. ..?
12. Ae.u.tlca:
&. Could the prapouI ,.... in the abIIrucIiln III ..,
.-uc view?
b. WiD the visual impact III the projecllle ....--
to the SIIIIlIIlftding _7
:. Other?
13. Cuaurall;'e- ,.:. Could tile ............ ,.... in:
&. Thealleralianor~ofa"""""'ic..
historic ardlaeOloglCaI sU by ...~ wilhin ..
an:haeooagical ....... ... 85 wt..lIiI".ed in Sedilln
3.D - HislDncaI. Figure a. '" tile Cly's Genelal PlIn7
b. All8falion or deslruClian 01 a II.;caI .. sIIUCIIft
or Object as lisled in the City's If--= Raaun:es
Reconnaissance Surv",?
c. Other?
....
....G' _.-...
---
'"'"" ..
l ) ( .
-- ..
Yes
No
x
y
x
~-
A
v
.~
,-
..
x
To
..
~.
..
,
,.
..
..,
..
..
.
'V"
..
,-
,.
~:
-.
.,
..
x
,
Maybe
..
~ PIGi4($_ 11'''''
('\ ,.
.............. ,.
"""l
.../ .
r-
14. Mandatory findings of S1gnlnc.nce (Se"ction 15065)
The CaIiIomia Environmental QuaJity Ild states that iI any of the following can be ans_red yes or
maybe. 1he project may have a signifocant effect on Ihe environmem and an Environm,,"lallmpact
Repan shall be pr8l*ed.
Yes
No
Maybe
L Does the projecl have the potential \l) degrade 1he
qualily of 1he ,,"viranm8Cll suaslarmally reduce the
halliIat at . fish or w;1dBe species. cause a fish or
wildlile papthM" :0 arop beiOW .... SUSlaining levels,
t!'Ire.en 1D _male. pl.nt or animal oommunity.
Nduce the numll&t or ,.n:z the range of a rare or
endallgered pIanl or animal or eiiminale important
examples at the major penadS 01 Cali1amia history
or prehislalY?
b. Does the projec: have the potential \l) achieve sIlort-
term. \l) 1he ~ atlong-tenn. environmental
goals? (A sIal-tenn irnpacl an the environmem is -
wIlicll _ in . reI~ brief. definitive period
of time while Iong-lerm inpacIs will endure _I inID
the tuture.)
,.
..
x
c. Does the project Ilave irnp8CIS which are indivilually
&miled' but CUllIuIaIMly considerable' (A praject may
impacl an _ or mare Hf*lII8 resaurces wIlerethe
impacl an eacII _ is reIalMIy small. bul whale
the e1fect III the 1DlaI 1lIu-e impaclS an the
envi....lm8fIl is signi'anL)
d. Does the project Ilave environmental etI_ which will
cause I' ~ ... ... eff_ an huIIWI beings.
, eilher direCdJ or indiNcdy?
x
y.
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEA"'JRES .
(AItKII ~ as ..I_-Y.)
~~~ase re~e~ t~ attachec s=eets.
..,j
P\.NII-.... PIrGE5Cp_ lll-W.
..,.-~
---
("- '"""
1"",,1 .....J
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
Reauirements.) The adoption of this ordinance will not
create new impacts or intensify those impacts that
already exist.
Potential impacts resulting from demolition projects
would be evaluated in accordance with CEQA and the
provisions of this ordinance and mitigated on a case by
case basis.
I'" ~
v v
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial study
Environmental Review committee meeting of
April 2, 1992
3.1 DJl])ATORY PIWI!fGS 01' SIGNIPICANCE I section 15065 of tbe
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 an
a case by case basis.
.,>~
v
",-'
....,I
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis 01 this initial sludy,
o The proposed project COULD NOT have a signilicant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION will be prepared.
o The proposed project oould have a sigililicanleffect on the environment, aithough there will not be a signilicant
effecl in this case because 1he mitigation mellSures described above have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION wiD be prepared.
o The proposed project MAY have a signiicant eIIl1Ct on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALFORNIA
Larry E. Reed, Assistant Director
Planning and Building Services Department
Name and Tille
Signature
Date: April 2, 1992
'--
crl'9G''-_
---
.I
........... PMIE_OF_ <<11-tlOt
r
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
r'
HISTORIC BUILDING DEMOLITION ORDINANCE (DEMO ORD\
Pro;ect DescriDtion: 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
AD~lican~'s Name and Address:
city of San Bernardino
300 North ."D" street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Initial Study prenared Bv:
Deborah Woldruff
Associate Planner
ci ty ot San Bernardino
Pl~WR'ftq and Building Service. Department
300 North "1)" street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
cmo,,__
~~ call
....
PLN+&.C7 ClAGE 1 OF I {4-IDI
c
,..-,--...
.....,
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance
(DEMO ORC): Initial study
Environmental Review Committee meeting
April 2, 1992
of
1.0 IHTRODUCTIOR
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 ORe). A description
of the project is provided in Section 2.0 on the
following page.
As stated in Section 15063 of the california
Environmental Quality Act guidelines, the purposes of an
Initial Study are to:
1. Provide the Lead Aqency with information to use as
the basis for deciding whether to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report (E!R) or a Negative
Declaration;
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Aqency to modify a
project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR
is prepared, thereby enablinq the project to qualify
for Negative Declaration;
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, . if one is
required, by:
(A) Focusing the ErR on the effects determined to
be siqnificant,
(8) Identify the effects determined not to be
siqnificant, and
(C) Explaininq the reasons for determining that
potentially siqnificant effects would not be
siqnificant.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the
design of a project:
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the
finding in a Negative Declaration that a project
will not have a siqnificant effect on the
environment;
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs:
--
~ ',..-......
.....
......,1
Historic Building Demolition ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial study
Environmental Review Committee meetinq
April 2, 1992
of
7. DeterMine whether a previouslY prepared EIR could.
be used with the project.
As stated in Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines,
Agencies are enc:uraged to tier EIRs which they prepare
for separate '--:-: related projects including general
plans, zoning _.~anges and development projects. This
approach can eliminate repeti-:ive discussions of the same
issues and foC".ls the EIR on the actual issues which
require decision at ea~ level of environmental review.
Where an EIR has been prepared for a program, plan policy
or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this
section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant t~
or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or
ordinance should limit the EIR on the project, as
follows:
1. Evaluate those environmental effects which were not
examined as siqnificant 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
qeneral plan and zoning of the city of county in
which the project would be located.
4. The Initial Study shall be used to decide whether
and. to what extent the prior EIR is still sufficient
for the present project.
5.. When tiering is used, the later EIRs or Negative
Declarations shall refer to the prior EIR and. state
where a copy of the prior EIR may be examined. The
later EIR should state that the lead agency is usinq
the tierinq concept and that the EIR is being tiered
with the earlier EIR.
On June 2, 1989, the city of San Bernardino a~opted 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
,--.
'-'
""""
""".
.'...-
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial study
Environmental Review co_ittee meeting of
April 2, 1992
Plan. As required by CEQA, the Genera!. Plan EIR provided
a broad overview of the futur~ growth sllowed within the
City in accordance with the Plan's vision. It is the
intent of this Initial Study t~ ti9r this pr~ject with
the certified EIR prepared for t.'1e Gene:al ?lan. The
Initial Study will determine potential illlpacts if the
Historic structure Demolition ordinance ~s cre~~ed and
whether Uley were addressed in :he General Plan EIR.
The Initial Study will deter:lline the level of
siqnificance for any impacts identified that were not
addressed in the General Plan EIR.
2.0 PROJBCT DBSCRIPTIOII
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 ar.. Charaa1:enstics _4 BacJtqroaD4
The City has approximately 8,000 buildinqs and structures
that are fUty years old and older that are listed in the
Historic Resources Reconnaissance survey (survey). These
resources generally are located in accordance with the
city's historical development patterns. The Survey
evaluates concentrations of resources and identifies
areas eligible for e~ther Historic District or Historic
OVerlay Zone desiqnation. It also identifies individual
resources deemed as havinq I=otential historical
siqnificance for architectural s-eyle and/or cultural
considerations. The draft ordinance will establish
thresholds of review f::Jr the determination of historical
siqnificance of resources based upon the survey
information.
r'
'-'
::;
r-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
...
...
,
"""l
A. BACKGROUND
San Bernardi~o Municipal Code Chapter 15.37
ApplicationNumber: Historic Buildinq Demolition Ordinance (DEMO ORD)
P~ectDe~ion: 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: ci tvwide
Environmental Constraints Areas: N / A
General Plan Designation: N / A
Zoning Designa1ion: N / A
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers. ...... appropriate, on a separate atIached shaeL
1. Earth ResoUrces Will the proposal resul in:
a. Earth movement (cut and/or fW) 0/10.000 cubic
yards or more?
Yes
No
Maybe
x
b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater
than 15". naturat grade?
c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0. Geologic
& Seismic. Figure 47, of the City's General Plan?
d. Modilication of any unique geologic or p/lysIcaI
feature?
x
x
x
e. Development within areas defined for high potential for
water or wind erosion as identilied in Section 12.0.
Geologic & Seismic. F'!lure 53, of the CiIy's General
Plan?
x
X
f. Modnication of a channel. creek or river?
...
....
ClIft'17I1l11_
---
P\..M-UI PAGE' OF _ (11-1O)
-
(
.i'..:
-
g. Developm.1ll wilhin an area subjecl to landslides.
muds....s. liquefacllOll or OIlIer similar haZards as
idenlified in Section 12.0. GeolOgic & Seismic,
F'll- 4. 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan?
h. Other?
2. AIr R__: WiD the proposal resuit in:
L Subslamial air emissions or an effecl upon amtlient
811' qualily as defined by AOMO?
b. TIle craaIion of objectionable odors?
Co Development wilh.., a high wind hazard area as idelllilied
in Section 15.0. Wind & FA. F9ure 59, of the City's
Ge..... Plan?
3. Water~: WiD the proposal _Ill in:
L Changes in absorption rates. dninag. paIIems. or the
rat. and amaulll 01 surface runotl due III
impenneallle surfaces?
b. Changes in the oourse or flow 01 flood _en?
Co :'lSChatge into surface waters or any aIIeraIion
01 Sl.'flace _er quality?
d. Cha.'lg8 in the quantity 01 quality oIllround _r?
.. Exposure 01 peclIlIe or property to llaod haDnIs 88
ideIlliIied in the Fed.,. Em8IV&N:Y Manag.-nt
Agency's Flood Ins_ Rate -. Community Pan.1
Number 060281 . _' and SecIian 16.0.
Flooding, F'llUN 62. of the City's ~ Plan?
f. Other?
... Biological Reeoun:u: Could the "'.......... ....ua in:
L Development wilhin the Biolc..i<laI R_
Manll;ement o-tay, 88 idendied in SecIian 10.0
. Nalura1 R-. FigUN 41, 01 the City's
Gene" Plan?
b. CIIange in the number of any unique, ,.. or
endangered species of pIa/llS or their habiIaI including
ana 0I_?
Co Chang. in the number of any uniqu.. ,.. or
endq.red species 01 an..... or their habiIaI?
d. Re__ of vi8IlIe. malUre _? (6" orllrealer)
.. Other?
5. No"': Could 1he proposal rasu! in:
L Develapmenl of hou8ing. health en I -... A l ~~.
IIIIarie&. N1igious facilllies or ather............. -
in ... where exisling or fulura noise ...... -.ct .
Ldn of 65 d8(A) exterior -.I . Ldn 0145 dB(A) interior
88 idenlified in Section 14.0. Noise, Figures 1~ and
1"-1301 the City's General Plan?
........., ".:.
c , ,.
......, .
"'III
Yes
No
,.
,-
,
..
,
v
..
v
..
Yo
x
v
..
y.
...
..
..
...
~:
,.
..
'{
..
..
..
Maybe
.j
... CI' _ ____
---
:~U11 PAGE.%CF_ :.,~
,.
r,'-
--'.
'"-',
b. Developmenl of new ~ expansion at exisling indUSlrial.
cammen::ial or olller ;.SU wll;c, g_raIe noise levels on
_ oomaining 1lausIng. se-IS, ftufth care facilities
or olllet ....sdll/8 _ _ an LAn of as dB(A)exteriot
or an Ldn 01 45 dB(A) imerior?
Co Other?
I. . !,and U..: WiD the proposal rHU~ in:
a. A ctwlge in the land use as designlll8d on the
General Plan?
b. Developmenl wit!lin an AiIporl DisInc: as identif"1ed in the
Air InSlalla1ian ~ Use Zone (AICUZ) Report and
the Land Use Zoning DislricI Map?
Co Development wit!lin FaoIniII Fore Zones A & B, or C as
identified on the Land Use Zoning DisIncl Map?
d. Other?
7. Man-Made HaZlrdS: Willt:e projecl:
a. Use. 510"'. nnsporI or dispose d hazanIaus or
toxic materials (ilcIuding but narlimaed to oil.
pesticides. dlemicais or racliaIion)?
b. Involve the ",Ie_ of hazanIaus substInCH?
Co Expose people 10 1he poIentia1 heaIllIIafety hazards?
d. Other?
L Houelng: WII the...; ...
L Remove elliSling housing or _ a d."...id
far additional housing?
b. Other?
.. Transportation I ClraIIatIon: Could the plIlpoSld. in
camparison willi the Cln:uIaIian Plan as ..lliI"oed in Section
1.0 - Cilculalian of the CiIy's General Plan. __ in:
L An incre_ in trdi: thIIl is ~1llan the land
use design.ed on the General P.,?
b. Use of ellisling, ordemand tor new. parking
facilitiu/slnlCllll'-?
Co Impact upon uisli1g public tra. " ,..n.." systems? .
d. Alteration of ~ paIIWftS d";' .,--.?
e. Impact to IBiI or lIir nlIic?
f. Increased safety hazaftIs to vehides. bicydisIs or
peallSlrians?
g. A disjainled pIIIl.n aI raadw8y ~.....OAIII8IlIS?
h. Sqn;rocanl i,lae_ in nIflC 1lOIII.- on the IOlIdways
or inIerseclions?
l Other?
....
~~---
---
-, ~-
Yes
No
,(
..
..
,-
o'
Yo
v
..
x
..
o'
,.
..
'r
.
,-
..
x
x
v
..
x
'r
:{
..
-.
Yo
x
.r
-.
x
Maybe
....
"'~'.cI PllGE 3 OJ:'
~H.~
r
~..
10. Public ServIceS: WiD tile proposal impact tile following
beyond llle capmliIity II) plOVId8 -.lequa18 levels of servic8?
a. Fire plDlection?
b. Police protection?
c. ~1s rLe~ 8IlendanCe, tlOundmies. overtoad. etc.)?
..d. P8Jlcs or other recrutionallacililies?
... Medicallid?
l Soid W_?
g. Other?
11. UtlDUu: Willlle praposaI:
a. Impact the follclwing beyond the ~1Iy to
provide ~equ.e levels of ..Nice or requite llle
c:cnstnICIian of new facilities?
1. N.suraI gas?
2. EI-.I> U1?
3. Water?
4.. s-?
5. Other?
b. Result in a disjointed ~ of utIiIy _ions?
c. Requa. the ~ of.... ~"'-.,
12. Autlletlca:
a. Could the proposal ..... in the abIlruCIion at .".,
-uc view?
b. WiD the visual impact of the pIDjel:t be deIIinIenDI
III llle SUIIQIlnding _?
:. 0Iher?
13. CUIturaI~. Could the..., ' ..... in:
a. 'The der8lion or deslrucIian of . pAl,.. ic. or
historic aIdlaeOlagical sile by devllJ~ TalC within ..
archMOIOgical sensiIive ... .. ;del1Iified in Section
3.0 - HislIlnc3I. F'llW8 8. of the CiIy's General Plan?
b. Alteration or des1ruclion of a h~a1 siIe. SlJUClure
or objec: as lisIed in the City's Hislaric Raources
Reconnaissance Survey?
c. Other?
...
....CI'_~
---
~
'...J
Yes No Maybe
X
yo
'l
..
....
A
V
"
,-
..
X
Yo
..
I.
..
..
..
v
,.
,.
.
v
-.
,-
'"
}:
..
.,
..
x
.,
.
...
~iJ:lI PIGE"C~_ ;~~.;Q)
,.
./"".
-'
.....",
~
,
14. Mandatary findings 01 S1gnlllcance (Soiclion t S06S)
The CaIiIomia Environmental Quality Ad slates thai n any of the following can be ans_red yes or
mayDe. the projecl may have a S1gndicant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact
Repllft shall be praparacL
Yes
No
Maybe
a. Does the projecl have the potential to degrade the
quality 01 the envilanmenL sullItantiaIIy reduce the
hODilal aI a fish or wildlila species, cause a fish or
wiidlile ~ l P ....w.n lD cirop beloW ... sustaining .....Is,
!hr_en lD elininlle a p.tt or UIinW oommunily,
racsuc. the numbet or -a the range of a rve or
enaangllfWll pIanI or ..... or eIimillate impot1anl
u_pIes 01 !he major panods 01 CaIiIomia histoly
orpN~
b. Does the projecl have the potentiallD achieve shalt-
term. to the "'-~.._.L.w6 allong-tann, ~
goalS? (A shaIt-tenn impacl on the .....iRlnment is one
which occurs in a raIaIMIr brief. definitive period
of time while long-term inpacIs wiI endure well inID
the fututa.)
..
"
x
c. Does the project have iqIaca which ... incIividuaa,
timllad. but CIlIIIUlaIMlJ~? (A project may
impacton_or_~'- wh_the
impact on aach ,........ is relaIMly small. but where
the eIIecl 01 the lDI8I 01 those inpacIs 011 the
""':.I~JMI'II is ~"'w.'C.)
x
d. Does the project have ....;.DI........ etIeclS which wiI
_ subanIialad-. eff_ on human beings,
either direcdy or indiNcllJ?
11:
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND WTlGATlON MEASURES
(AIlach ~ as 1 .'1.)
'O~Aase re.ee:- to',attacnec s::.eets.
.....
~
",..""--
---
;::u.HoiJ:II PIGESCF_ ."--J
~
'-'
'-'"
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial study
Environmental Review Committee meeting of
April 2, 1992
3 . 0 ENVIRONHENTAL ASSESSMENT
As stated, this Initial study is tiered from the General
Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which iden~ifies
impacts to historical resources related to General Plan
implementation. The EIR discusses the potential loss of
historical resources and states that every older and
potentially siqnificant building in the developed areas
of the city can legally be replaced by another. In
addition, overriding concerns such as public safety may
necessitate building demolition. The General Plan
policies pertinent to the preservation of historical
resources are evaluated in the EIR and found to provide
the maximal protection that can be considered legally
acceptable.
The draft ordinance proposes to continue the Historic
Preservation Task Force in its advisory body role. The
Task Force's responsibilities would be directed at
overseeing the development of the Historic Preservation
Program. The draft ordinance would establish the City's
Planning Commission as the review authority for specified
Demolition Permit Applications. No potential impacts
regarding the continuation of the Historic Preservation
Task Force or the utilization of the Planning Commission
for project review have been identified.
The Demolition Permit review process described in the
draft ordinance provides for the review of specified
resources by establishing evaluation thresholds based
upon information contained in the City's Histor~c
Resources Reconnaissance Survey (Survey). (Refer to
Exhibit A, Draft Historic Building Demolition Ordinance,
Section 15.37.045 Evaluation Thresholds and Review
Reauirements.) The adoption of this ordinance will not
create new impacts or intensify those impacts that
already exist.
Potential impacts resulting from demolition projects
would be evaluated in accordance with CEQA and the
provisions of this ordinance and mitigated on a case by
case basis.
-
'-'
Historic Building Demolition Ordinance
(DEMO ORD): Initial Study
Environmental Review committee meeting
April 2, 1992
of
.......""
3.1 HAHDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (section 150&5 of the
CEQA GUidelin..)
The proj ect 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.
r'
--
u
-...,I
D. DETERMlNAnON
On the basis of this initial study,
0' The proposed project COULD NOT have a signilicant effect on the environment and a NEGAnVE DECLARA-
TION will be prepared.
O The proposed project oould have a signilicant effect on the environment. aithough there will not be a signilicant
effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o The proposed project MAY have a signilicant &lfect 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 Trtle
/7 ___ //
j /iYh ! _. A'.2.~"
Signature -!
Date: April 2, 1992
~
CIT\'.,.____
---
.oil
fIUNoI,.DI PIGE_OF_ (1'.
.....'''"'
'-'
MC
'-00.<1
ORDINANCE NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING AND
REPLACING CHAPTER 15.37 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE;
ESTABLISHING NEW POLICIES AND PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW OF DEMOLITION
PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR POTENTIALLY HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND
STRUCTURES.
The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino
do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 15.37 of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 15.37
HISTORIC BUILDING DEMOLITION ORDINANCE
15.37.010
Findinas and Purpose.
The Mayor and Common
Council find and declare:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 IIII
28
II
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
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
r"
........
....., .#'
Permit
applications
for
pre-1941
buildings
and
structures.
E. Prior to the adoption of MC-694, the City had no
provision
for the
review of
Demolition
Permit
Applications for potentially historic buildings or
structures.
F. For clarification, it is necessary to amend the
provisions for the review of Demolition Permit
Applications for potentially historic buildings and
structures.
G. By imposing the requirements of the amended Historic
Building Demolition ordinance, the city will have a
provision which facilitates a more efficient and
effective method of review for Demolition Permit
Applications while the Historic Preservation Program is
being completed.
15.32.020 Definitions. For the purpose of carrying out the
intent of this Chapter, the words, phrases and terms set forth
herein shall be deemed to have the meaning ascribed to them in this
Chapter.
Building -
Any structure having a roof and 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.
Report -
Historic Resource Evaluation Report, a report
that evaluates the historical significance of
a resource based upon established criteria.
2
;fI""c<o.,._,
"-'"
'.,
,.I
1 Resource - A building or structure as def ined in this
2 Chapter.
3 Structure - (1) Any structure having a roof and walls
4 built and maintained to shelter human activity
5 or property; or,
6 (2) a work made up of independent and
7 interrelated parts that performs a primary
8 function unrelated to human shelter.
9 survey - Historic Resources Reconnaissance survey
10 (Volumes 1-5 and Attachments, April 30, 1991
11 and all subsequent revisions), a citywide
12 survey of buildings and structures constructed
13 prior to December 31, 1941 which provides
14 baseline information regarding the types and
15 locations of resources, approximate
16 construction dates, representative
17 architectural styles, construction materials,
18 and contextual historical themes.
19 Task Force - The Historic Preservation Task Force, a
20 committee appointed by the Mayor and Common
21 Council to oversee the Historic Preservation
22 Program.
23 15.37.025 Historic Preservation Task Force. The Historic
24 Preservation Task Force (Task Force) was established by MC-694 and
25 the Task Force members were appointed by the Mayor with the
26 concurrence of the Common Council. Under the provisions of this
27 Chapter, the Task Force shall continue to oversee the Historic
28 Preservation Program in an advisory capacity and perform other
3
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
,-.....
~
~
-...J
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 longer needed.
15.37.035 Demolition Prohibited. No building or structure
fifty (50) 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 Exempted. The demolition of
any building or structure fifty (50) years old or older shall be
exempt from.the provisions of this Chapter if findings have been
made by the Board of Building commissioners or the Building
official pursuant to other provisions of the Municipal Code
declaring that the building or structure is either a public
nuisance or a dangerous building. In such instances, a Demolition
Permit may be issued in accordance with all other city ordinances
and requirements.
15.37.045 Evaluation Thresholds and Review Reauirements.
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. 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
(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
4
/''''''''
V
\.J
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 15.37.05g 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
prepared in accordance with section 15.37.050 of this Chapter.
15.37.050 Historic Resource Evaluation Reoort. A Historic
Resource Evaluation Report required as a submittal for a Demolition
Permit Application shall contain the following elements:
A. Purpose and Scope
B. Methods of Evaluation: Field and Archival
C. Location and setting
D. Architectural Description of the Resource
E. Historical Background
1
2
3 B.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 c.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II
5
("'>
\...0
...-'~.
"'-,."
1 F. statement of Significance
2 G. Alternatives to Demolition (e.g., Retention, Relocation,
3 Rehabilitation, Restoration and Adaptive Reuse)
4 H. Conclusions
5 I. Recommendations
6 J. Mitigation
7 K. Archival Documentation (Appendices)
8 The statement of significance element (Item F. above) shall
9 be made usi1'l'q the criteria listed in. section 15.37.055 of this
10 Chapter and the National Register criteria for evaluation and shall
11 include a discussion of the related historical contextual themes.
12 The archival documentation (Item K. above) of the resource
13 shall include a completed DPR 523 Form and archival quality photo
14 documentation. This information shall be included as an appendix
15 to the Report.
16 preparation and submittal of the Report shall be the
17 responsibility of the applicant. All Reports shall be prepared by
18 consultants who meet the professional qualification standards for
19 the field of Historic Preservation as described in the Federal
20 Register.
21 15.37.055 Cri teria for Determination of Historical
22 Sianificance.
23 1. The building or structure has character, interest or
24 value as a part of the heritage of the city of San
25 Bernardino; or,
26 2. The location of the building or structure is the site of
27 a significant historic event; or,
28 IIII
6
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 IIII
28 IIII
II
,<"""~'.
",,.I
,-..-"'"
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
Permit for an Application which does not require a Report
7
.
"';,.,
ro-'_
\..,..;
.~_~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
II
in accordance with Evaluation Thresholds B. and C. and
the requirements specified in Section 15.37.045 of this
Chapter.
2. Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Review - An Initial
Study (pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act) shall be prepared for a Demolition Permit
Application when a Historical Resource Evaluation Report
is required in accordance with section 15.37.045,
Subsections A.- C. of this Chapter. The Report shall be
included as an attachment to the Initial Study.
The Initial Study shall be reviewed by the ERC for
an environmental determination. Following the ERC
review,
the
application
and
the
environmental
determination shall be reviewed by the Planning
commission.
3. Planning Commission Review - The Planning commission
shall review Demolition Permit Applications to determine
the historical significance of the resource based upon
the criteria set forth in Section 15.37.055 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.
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.
8
,
"'"'
......,
,.-"......
....)
1 If the Planning Commission approves the Demolition
2 Permit Application, the Demolition Permit shall be issued
3 in accordance with the Planning Commission action and
4 following compliance with the provisions of this Chapter
5 and all other City requirements.
6 4. Effective Date of Permit - Demolition Permits shall
7 become effective 16 days following the final date of
8 action (i.e., approval) by the Director or the Planning
9 Commission unless an appeal has been filed pursuant to
10 Section 15.37.070, which shall stay the issuance of the
11 Demolition Permit until after the Appeal is decided.
12 15.37.070 ADDeals. Any person may appeal the decisions of
13 the Director of Planning and Building Services pursuant to this
14 Chapter to the Planning Commission. Decisions of the Planning
15 commission pursuant to this Chapter may be appealed to the Mayor
16 and Common Council.
17 An appeal must b~ submitted in writing with the required
18 appeal fee (if applicable) to the Planning and Building services
Department within fifteen (15) days following the final date of the
action for which an appeal is made. The written appeal shall
include the reason(s) why the Historic Resource Evaluation Report
should or should not be required; or why the Demolition Permit
Application should be granted, denied or exempt from the provisions
of this ordinance.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 15.37.080 Severabilitv. If any section, subsection,
26 sentence, clause or phrase or any portion of this ordinance is for
27 any reason declared invalid or unconstitutional, such decision
28 shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the
9
II
..
.
v
1 ordinance. The Mayor and Common council, hereby, declare that it
2 would have adopted this ordinance and each and every section,
3 subsection, sentence, clause or portion thereof irrespective of the
4 fact that phrase, or any portion thereof would be subsequently
5 declared invalid or unconstitutional.
6 15.37. OS5 Penal tv. Any person, firm or corporation,
7 whether as principal, agent, employee, or otherwise, violating or
8 causing the violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter is
9 guilty of a misdemeanor, which upon conviction thereof is
10 punishable in accordance with the provisions of Sections 1.12.010
11 and 1.12.020 of this Code in addition to any other civil or
12 administrative remedies.
13 15. 37 . 090 Fees. Upon submittal of a Demol i tion Permit
14 Application to the Planning and Building Services Department, the
15 applicant shall pay all applicable Planning Division fees as
16 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council for an Initial Study and
17 for the Planning Commission review. The applicant shall pay all
18 required Building Safety Division fees as adopted by the Mayor and
19 Common Council prior to issuance of a Demolition Permit."
20 IIII
21 IIII
22 IIII
23 IIII
24 IIII
25 IIII
26 IIII
27 IIII
28 IIII
10
II
.
.
/",
-~~.,
"-'
.....J
1 ORDINANCE...ESTABLISHING NEW POLICIES AND PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW OF
DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR POTENTIALLY HISTORIC BUILDINGS
2 AND STRUCTURES.
3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly
4 adopted by Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino
5 at a meeting thereof, held on the day of
6 , 1991 by the following vote, to wit:
7 Council Members AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
8 ESTRADA
9 REILLY
10 HERNANDEZ
11 MAUDSLEY
12 MINOR
13 POPE-LUDLAM
14 MILLER
15
16
17
18
19
20
City Clerk
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this
day of
, 1991.
21
22
23
W.R. Holcomb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to
form and legal content:
24 JAMES F. PENMAN,
25 CitYrAttorney ?
By: \..-d'l--'- I- 1 e",,-.,~
(/
-J
26
27
28
11
II
.CI1T OF: SAN BERP .RDINO - REQUEST 9 )R COUNCIL ACTION
From:
. .. uL_np:Iistoric Structure Demolition
Al Boughey, D~rector REC'O. - ..tsUlJ)8Cr. 6rdinance
Planning & Building ServicE\f.)2 JAM 2Aa~r~ a'i~ Common Council Meeting
February 3, 1992
Dept:
Date:
January 23, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
November 1B, 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~. iU:.
"1 Signature
Al Boughey
Contact person:
Al Boughey
Phone:
3B4-5357
Supporting data attached:
None
Ward:
Citywide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct, Description)
Finance:
Council Notes: N#'--"l-'~.L. 2...1-'12. ,IJ~
r I
Amlnri~ Itpm Nn
:.- 51
CITY. OF SAN, BERNP ,DINO - REQUEST to 1 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 opti~ns 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 CEDA) determine methods for simplifying the
review process for Demolition Permit Applications. CUe 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 apr... '.cation process,
processing time frames and staff constraints. A~so 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
n,,,..
o
.,-,
v
ORDIIIAIICE NO.
)fC
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
Findinas 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 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
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
-..
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
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
a resource based upon established criteria.
Resource - A buildinq or structure as defined in this
Chapter.
Structure - A structure is a work made up of independent
and interrelated parts that performs a primary
function unrelated to human shelter.
Survey - Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey
(Volumes 1-5 and Attachments, April 30, 1991
and all subsequent revisions), a citywide
survey of buildings and structures constructed
pr ior to December 31. 194 1 which provides
baseline information reqarding the types and
locations of resources, approximate
construction dates. representative
architectural styles, construction materials,
and contextual historical themes.
Task Force - The Historic Preservation Task Force, a
committee appointed by the Mayor and Common
Council to oversee the Historic Preservation
Program and ordinance and to review all
Demolition Permit applications that require
their review in accordance with the provisions
of this Chapter,
15.37.025 Historic Preservation Task Force. The Historic
Preservation Task Force (Task Force) was established by MC-694 and
the Task Force members were appointed by the Mayor with the
concurrence of the Common Council. Under the provisions of this
3
o
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~
~
24
25
26
27
~
Chapter, the Task Force shall continue to oversee the Historic
Preservation Proqram 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 lonqer needed.
15.37.035 Demolition Prohibited. No buildinq 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 Exemoted. The demolition of
any buildinq or structure fifty (SOl years old or older shall be
exempt from the provisions of this Chapter if findinqs have been
made by the Board of BUildinq Commissioners pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 8.30, Public Nuisances and Chapter 15.28,
Danqerous BUildinqs, of the Municipal Code. In such instances, the
buildinq or structure is exempt from the provisions of this Code
and a Demolition Permit may be issued.
If the Buildinq Official makes a findinq that a bUildinq is
danqerous pursuant to summary abatement procedures of Chapter 15.28
of the Municipal Code, the buildinq is exempt from the provisions
of this Code and a Demolition Permit may be issued.
15.37.045 Evaluation Thresholds and Reauirements.
Buildinqs and structures fifty (50) years old or older shall be
evaluated to determine historical siqnificance in accordance with
the followinq thresholds and requirements which are based upon the
Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey (Volumes 1-5 and
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
'""'
......)
Attachments, April 30, 1991 and all subsequent revisions),
A. 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
(Vol ume 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
Distr icts and OVer lay Zones, Items 1. through 4.). Any
resource located in a new area identified by the Mayor and
Common Council as being potentially eligible for Historic
District designation and listed as a contributing resource
shall also be subject to the provisions of this subsection.
B. 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
(Vol ume 3, Appendix C, Historic Districts and Over lay Zones,
Items 5. through 13.). Using the criteria established in
Section 15.37.055 of this Chapter, the Director of Planning
and Building Services shall evaluate demolition permit
applications
for these resources to determine the
requirement for a Report.
Any resource located in a new
area identified by the Mayor and Common Council as being
potentially eligible for Historic Overlay Zone designation
shall also be subject to the provisions of this subsection,
C. Demolition Permit applications for buildings and structures
which are listed only on the Tabular List or not included in
~
o
o
1 the Survey shall not require a Report unless the Task Force
2 determines that further study is required based upon new.
S his tor ical or cuI tural information not contained in the
4 Survey.
5 When required. Historic Resource Evaluation Reports shall be
6 prepared in accordance with Section 15.37.050 of this Chapter.
7 At reqular intervals (as determined by the Task Force and
8 prior to the expiration of the appeal period after a determination
9 is made I. the Task Force shall be notified in wri tinq of all
10 determinations made in accordance with thresholds B. and C.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 ~~ttinq
D. Architectural Description of the Resource
E. Historical Backqround
F. Statement of Siqnificance
G. Alternatives to Demolition
Relocation. Rehabilitation.
Reuse)
H. Conclusions
T. Recommendations
IIII
II
( such as
Restoration
J. Mitiqation
K. Archival Documentation (Appendices)
~
Retention.
and Adaptive
o
-
u
1 The Statement of Significance element (Item F. above) shall
2 be made usinq the criteria listed in Section 15.37.055 of this
3 Chapter and the National Reqister criteria for evaluation and shall
4 include a discussion of the related historical contextual themes.
5 The archival documentation lItem 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
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 /I /I
15.37.055
of
Historical
Criteria
for
Determination
Sianificance.
1. The bUildinq or structure has character, interest or
value as a part of the heritaqe of the City of San
Bernardino; or,
2. The location of the buildinq or structure is the site of
a siqnificant historic event; or,
3. The buildinq or structure is identified with a person(s)
or qroupls) who siqnificantly 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,
~
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 "/I
II
o
~
o
5. The buildinq or structure exemplifies the best remaininq
architectural type in a neiqhborhood; or,
6. The building or structure is identified as tha-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 outstandinQhattention
to
architectural
desiqn,
or
detail,
materials
craftsmanship; or,
8. 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 singUlar physical characteristics
of the bUilding or structure represent an established and
familiar feature of a neiqhborhood; 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. Followinq the ERC
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
II
o
-
.....)
review,
the application shall be reviewed by the Task
Force.
2. The Task Force Review - The Task Force shall review. a
Demolition Permit application to determine the- historical
siqnificance of the resource based upon the critaria.. set
forth in Section 15.37.055 of this Chapter. The Task
Force may also consider the National Reqister criteria
for evaluation.
Based upon the criteria i1l" Sect.ion'
15.37.055, the Task Force may stay the issuance of the
Demolition Permit- for a period of up to ninety' (9(H days.
Durinq this time, the Task Force shall pursue methods of
retention throuqh rehabilitation, relocation and/or reuse
or other alternatives to demolition.
The Task Force shall take action to qrant or deny
the Demolition Permit within the stay period speCified.
If the Task Force approves the Demolition Permit
application, t:he Demolition Permit may be issued in
accordance with the Task Force action and followinq
compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and all
other City requirements.
15.37.070 Aooeals.
Any person may appeal the decisions
pursuant to this Chapter of the Director of Planninq and BUildinq
Services to the Task Force. Decisions of the Task Force pursuant
to this Chapter may be appealed to the Mayor and Common Council.
An appeal must be submitted in writinq with the required
appeal fee (if applicable) to the Planninq and Building Services
Department within fifteen (15) days followinq the final date of the
o
o
act.ion for which an appeal is made. The written appeaL shall
include the reason(s) why the potential resource shoul~b.exempt
from or subject to the provisions of this ordinance.
1
2
3
4
5 15.37.075 Inconsistent Provisions. Any sect.iom of: the,.
6 Municipal Code or amendments thereto inconsistent w.ith the
7 provisions of this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistencies'
8 and no further is hereby superseded or mod.ified by this- ord.inance
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 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 guilty of a misdemeanor, which upon conviction thereof is
26 punishable in accordance with the provisions of Section L 12.010 of
27 this Code in addition to any other civil or administrative
28 remedies.
15.37.080 Severability. If any section, subsection,
sentence. clause or phrase or any portion of this ordinance is for
any reason declared invalid or unconstitutional, such decision
shall\ not affect the validity of the remaininq portions of the
ordinance. The Mayor and Common Council. hereby, declare that it
would have adopted thi.~ ordinance and each and every section,
subsection, sentence, clause or portion thereof irrespective of the
fact that phrase, or any portion thereof would be subsequent I y
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
'"
II
~
c
o
1 15.37.090 Fees. Upon submittal of a Demol.it.ion- Permit
2 application to the Planning and BUilding Services Department, the
3 applicant shall pay all applicable Planning Division fees as
4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council for an InitiaL study and
5 for the Historic Preservation Task Force review. Tha 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 /1/1
10 /I /I
11 /I"
12 /I"
13 /I"
14 /I"
15 /I"
16 /I"
17 /I"
18 /I /I
19 /I"
20 /I /I
21 /I"
22 /I"
23 /I"
24 ""
25 IIII
26 /I"
27 1/11
28 ,,/I
. ,
II
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
II
ORDINANCE. . . ESTABLISHING NEW POLICIES AND PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW OF
DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR POTENTIALLY HISTORIC BUILDINGS
AND STRUCTURES AND PROVIDING FOR CONTINUATION OF THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION TASK FORCE.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foreqoinq ordinance was duly
adopted by Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino
meetinq thereof, held on the
day of
at a
, 1991 by the followinq vote, to wit.
Council Members
ABSTAIN
AYES
NAYS
ABSENT
ESTRADA
REILLY
HERNANDEZ
MAUDSLEY
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 . i,4. .
-"
12