Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/20/1996, 8 - REVISIONS TO THE DEMOLITION REGULATIONS council v j acEn6a REpont It= C I T Y O F SAN LUIS O B I S F O FROM: Arnold Jonlommunity Development Director PREPARED BY: Jeff Hook, Associate Plannej�-- Tom Baasch, Chief Buildin Officia SUBJECT: Revisions to the Demolition Regulations CAO RECOMMENDATION: Introduce ordinance to print amending the City demolition regulations by (1) repealing Chapter 15.36 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, and (2) creating Appendix Chapter 1--DEMOLMON AND MOVING OF BUILDINGS to the Uniform Building Code. DISCUSSION Backvound Last year, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) initiated efforts to change the City's demolition regulations. Committee members were concerned that some changes to the code may be necessary to better protect threatened historic structures. In January, the Committee drafted revisions to the regulations and referred them to staff for review. Concurrently, Community Development Staff began its own update of the demolition regulations as a department goal. Because these two efforts were underway at the same time, staffs update process was modified to address issues raised by the CHC. Staffs update is complete and an annotated version explaining the changes is attached. The proposed ordinance addresses the CHC's concerns while clarifying and simplifying administration of the demolition process. As detailed below under"Concurrences",the CHC has been supportive of staffs efforts to revise and improve the demolition regulations. The Current Process Currently, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) determines the historic value of properties prior to acting on demolition requests. These requests reach the ARC two ways: 1) by referral from the Chief Building Official when a demolition permit application is received; or 2) when demolition is part of the review of a new development project. The ARC typically refers demolition requests to .the CHC to help determine historic or architectural significance. The CHC then evaluates the project and forwards a recommendation to the ARC on the demolition. The ARC then determines historical significance and approves or denies demolition. This process has, at times,proved unwieldy since it adds an unnecessary review step at the ARC. Since 1987, the CHC has been providing advice to the ARC and Community Development 8~� Council Agenda Report - Revisions to Demolition Regulations Page 2 Department staff on the historical importance of many of the buildings proposed for demolition. The CHC review is not currently required under the demolition regulations. The resolution that established the CHC (Council Resolution 6157, 1987 Series) did not specifically authorize the CHC to review demolition applications; however, the CHC's bylaws (Council Resolution 6593, 1989 Series) state that the Committee will, on request, °comment on the effects of public and private actions on community cultural resources." The Proposed Process Under the proposed rules, the CHC would have a "formal" role in reviewing demolition requests. There would be three types of demolition requests: 1) Historic Resources. For any structure located on a 12rol2e listed as a Contributing historic property or Master List property, applications for demolition would be referred to the CHC. There are 388 properties on the "Contributing Properties" list and about 170 properties on the "Master List of Historical Resources." The CHC would confirm that the structure or portion thereof to be demolished had historical, architectural or aesthetic significance, based on adopted standards in the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. For structures determined not to be significant, the CHC would authorize the building official to issue the demolition permit. For structures determined to be significant, the applicant would be required to submit plans for a replacement structure to the ARC. The ARC would evaluate plans for the replacement structure, and the demolition permit would be issued only if the ARC could make findings that the replacement structure is as, or more, compatible with neighboring development than the existing structure, and the applicant has submitted written documentation that it is financially infeasible to rehabilitate the structure. 2) Structures at least 50 years old but not historic resources For structures at least 50 years old but not on either the Contributing or Master List of Historic Resources, special noticing and photo-documentation would be required prior to demolition. The applicant would be required to advertise in a local newspaper the availability of the structure for relocation during a 90-day period prior to demolition, and to provide the City with photo- documentation showing the condition of the structure, architectural detailing, etc. The Building Official would notify the CHC Chair of the demolition request. 3)Structures less than 50 years old and not historic resources For structures less than 50 years old and not on a "listed" historic property, the Building Official could issue the demolition permit upon verification of code compliance, posting of guarantees, and payment of permit fees. No hearing or public notice would be required. 4) Hazardous buildings. When necessary to protect public health, safety or welfare from a dangerous building, as defined by the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Building Official could issue a demolition permit without a hearing or public notice, as is the case under current regulations. However, a new requirement in the proposed regulations requires that photographic documentation be submitted prior to demolition. 809- Council Agenda Report - Revisions to Demolition Regulations Page 3 The CHC and staff believe these features will help protect historic resources while making the demolition process more understandable and predictable for both applicants and staff. The CRC's role in evaluating historical and architectural significance is formalized, with the ARC continuing to have the final approval authority for demolitions in connection with its authority to approve new development. The review process would be streamlined because in many cases, it would reduce the number of public hearings on demolition requests. The proposed rules allow the CHC to authorize the Building Official to issue demolition permits without further review if the CHC finds that a structure is not historically, architecturally or aesthetically significant. On the average, the Community Development Department receives about 23 demolition permit requests per year. This number includes dwellings, commercial buildings, and accessory structures such as garages and storage sheds. Except for accessory buildings, the ARC now reviews all demolition applications. Most of these involve structures which are 50 years or older. Of these, the CHC reviews approximately one-third of the proposals — about 6 to 8 per year -- and forwards recommendations to the ARC. Under the proposed regulations, staff estimates that 10 to 12 demolitions per year would require special review. Summmy of the Proposed ChaWj Key features of the proposed regulations are: • The demolition regulations would become an appendix chapter to the Uniform Building Code adopted by the City, allowing use of the administrative rules and tools found in the Uniform codes, such as permit fees,permit issuance, stop-work notices, general definitions, etc.,without repeating these items in the demolition regulations. • Significant components of the current regulations, such as specific purpose, scope, appeals process,definitions,guarantees,insurance requirements,utility disconnection, public safety concerns, and completion requirements, that are specific to demolition projects are carried over. These items have been modified and/or refined to reflect staffs experience in applying and enforcing the current regulations, as well as legal evolutions that relate to these rules. • A definition of"Inventory of Historical Resources" clearly establishes the properties subject to special processing -- the City's most important historic structures and those of secondary importance which help define the historical or architectural character of a neighborhood or historical district • Demolition of any structure on a "listed' historic property would require CHC review to determine historic, architectural or aesthetic significance. Currently, the ARC reviews demolition requests to determine significance; CHC review is not required. In practice, however, the ARC and staff have routinely referred these requests to the CHC for comment. If the CHC determines that a structure to be 8.3 Council Agenda Report - Revisions to Demolition Regulations Page 4 demolished is historically, architecturally or aesthetically significant, it will direct the applicant to submit replacement plans to the ARC. • CHC review would be required for demolition permit applications involving any structure on a listed historic property, including barns, water towers,walls, fountains and other structures. Currently, such "accessory structures" are exempt from review. • Demolition of structures which are at least 50 years old, but not on the Inventory of Historical Resources would require photographic documentation and 90-day public notice period advising that the building is available for relocation prior to demolition. • Permit applications to move a building at least 50 years old or on a 'listed" property to a new location would require ARC approval. CONCURRENCES The Public Works Department reviewed the technical changes to the current regulations and concurs with the proposed regulations. On June 24, 1996, the CHC recommended that the ARC endorse staffs revised regulations for City Council adoption (minutes attached). On July 15, the ARC recommended that the City Council adopt the revised demolition regulations with three changes: 1) the addition of "demolition' to the definitions section; 2) the addition of a provision requiring that historically significant buildings be "secured" to prevent further deterioration; and 3) a requirement that written documentation be submitted when an applicant claims "financial infeasibility" for preservation of an historic building (minutes attached). FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with adoption of the proposed demolition regulations. ALTERNATIVE Council may choose not to proceed with the ordinance revisions. There is no specific action deadline on this item; nor is the revision "driven" by a specific project or legislation. If the revisions are not adopted, existing demolition regulations will continue in effect, which have worked reasonably well over several years. However, since applicants, staff, and advisory bodies members will not benefit from the additional certainty, streamlining, and technical update provided by the proposed changes, this alternative is not recommended. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Analysis of Proposed Demolition Regulations 3. Excerpt from CHC Minutes, June 24, 1996 4. Excerpt from ARC Minutes, July 15, 1996 Jul Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. (1996 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DELETING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 1536 (DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS) AND ADDING NEW DEMOLITION REGULATIONS AS AN APPENDIX TO THE ADOPTED UNIFORM BUILDING CODE WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee, Architectural Review Commission and the City Council have held hearings to consider the proposed changes to the Municipal Code regarding the demolition and moving of buildings; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission have recommended that the City Council revise said regulations to implement General Plan policies, which call for the protection of the City's historical resources; and WHERAS, the proposed amendments will streamline and improve the development review process by reducing the number of review steps required for demolition projects and by providing greater certainty for applicants during the review process; and WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the proposed ordinance changes will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The proposed ordinance changes have been evaluated according to the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines; and after review and consideration, the Community Development Director has determined that the proposed action does not constitute a "project" under said regulations since it consists of general policy and procedure malting, and that no further environmental study is required. SECTION 2. Chapter 1536 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 3. The Uniform Building Code, adopted under Municipal Code Chapter 15.04, is hereby amended to add Appendix Chapter 1, as follows. Appendix Chapter 1 DEMOLITION AND MOVING OF BUILDINGS SECTION 110 -- PURPOSE The purpose of this appendix is to establish minimum standards and procedures for the demolition and relocation (moving) of buildings and structures to safeguard life, property, health and public welfare. It is also intended to ensure that moved buildings are structurally sound, sanitary, habitable, and that they will harmonize with existing Ordinance No. (1996 Series) Page 2 development in the area to which they are to be moved. SECTION 111 -- SCOPE This appendix sets forth rules and regulations to control demolition and relocation operations, establishes the administrative procedures for review of an application to demolish or move a building, and provides for the issuance of permits. SECTION 112 -- APPEALS Any person aggrieved by a decision made under the terms of this chapter may appeal such decision. For matters concerning the technical provisions of this code, such appeal shall be subject to the provisions of the Uniform Administrative Code; for all other matters, the appeal provisions of Chapter 1.20 of the Municipal Code shall apply. SECTION 113 — DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this appendix, certain terms, words and their derivatives shall be defined as specified in this section. ARC means the Architectural Review Commission appointed by the City Council. CHC means the Cultural Heritage Committee appointed by the City Council. Demolition means the complete or partial removal of a structure. Foundation means the structure, usually of concrete, resting on or in the ground, including the footing, on which a building is erected. Foundation wall means the was of concrete or masonry which support a building. Inventory of Historical Resources is the Master List of Historic Resources and the Listing of Contributing Properties within Historical Preservation Districts approved by the City Council. Municipal Code means the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Slab means a flat piece of material, usually of concrete, placed on the ground for use as a building floor, patio, driveway, walk, ball court and/or similar uses. Structure means any human made site feature, including signs, walls, fences, buildings, monuments, or similar features. Ordinance No. (1996 Series) Page 3 Substructure means the foundation of a building or structure including the piers and piles. SECTION 114 -- PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 114.1 Permit Required. The demolition or relocation (moving) of any building or structure shall not commence until a permit has been issued by the building official,in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the Uniform Administrative Code. EXCEPTION: Temporary construction offices. A permit to move a building shall be a building permit when the building is relocated within the limits of the city. A permit to move a building shall be a demolition permit when the building is relocated to a site outside of the limits of the city. 114.2 Moving and Relocation of Buildings. 114.2.1 Inspection of buildings to be moved. All buildings to be moved into or within the city shall be inspected by the building official to determine compliance with this code and suitability for moving prior to permit issuance. 114.2.2 Transportation and building permits required. For moving projects, a transportation permit shall be obtained from the public works director subsequent to issuance of a moving permit. Building, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical permits shall be required for all work necessary for the placement of a moved or relocated building. 114.3 Procedure for Permit Application Processing. Upon receipt of a permit application to demolish or move a building or structure, the building official shall determine the nature of the proposed project and process the application as follows: 1. Demolition of Historical Resource. For any structure located on a property listed on the Inventory of Historical Resources, the building official shall refer the application to demolish the structure to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for placement on its next open agenda. The CHC shall review and process the application as follows: 1. If the CHC determines that the structure to be demolished has no historical, architectural, or aesthetic significance to the community, it shall refer the matter back to the building official with direction to issue the demolition permit. 2. If the CHC determines that the structure to be demolished has historic, 8"/ Ordinance No. (1996 Series) Page 4 architectural or aesthetic significance to the community, it shall direct the applicant to submit plans for Architectural Review Commission (ARC) review pursuant to Section 114.4 of this chapter and Section 2.48 of the Municipal Code. The owner shall secure the building to prevent further degradation, if necessary, to the satisfaction of the building official. 2. Demolition of Structure Not Designated Historical. For any structure constructed 50 years or more prior to the date of application for a demolition permit and not located on a property listed on the Inventory of Historical Resources, the building official shall, as a condition of permit issuance, require that the applicant provide the following: 1. Evidence that, for a period of not less than 90 days from date of permit application, the building was advertised in a local newspaper on at least three separate occasions not less than 15 days apart, as available to any interested person to be moved; and 2. Photographic documentation of the structure in accordance with criteria established by the community development director and the CHC. EXCEPTION: 1. A building or structure determined by the building official to be a dangerous building as defined in the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings which poses an imminent, serious threat to the health, safety or welfare of community residents or people living or worldng on or near the site, and for which photographic documentation acceptable to the community development director has been submitted. 2. Accessory buildings, sheds, garages and similar buildings. Upon receipt of the permit application, the building official shall notify the chairman of the CHC of the proposed demolition project. 3. Moving to New Site. For any structure constructed 50 years or more prior to the date of application for a permit to move a structure to a new site, the building official shall direct the applicant to submit an application for ARC review pursuant to Section 114.4 of this chapter and Section 2.48 of the Municipal Code. EXCEPTION: Accessory buildings, sheds, garages and similar buildings. 114.4 Approval Process for Demolition or Moving of Structures on Historic Properties. 114.4.1 General. ARC review shall be required for the demolition or moving of a struc- �'d Ordinance No. (1996 Series) 5 Page 5 ture when determined necessary by Section 1143 of this chapter. The application for ARC review shall include architectural plans, including plans for a replacement structure or structures in the case of demolition. The application, architectural plans and any applicable CHC recommendation shall be reviewed and acted on by the ARC. 114.41 Findings Required. The building official shall not issue the permit unless the ARC determines that: 1. For demolition of a structure, the proposed replacement structure is as, or more, compatible with neighboring development than the existing structure, consistent with ARC guidelines; and the condition of the structure poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the community residents or people living or working on or near the site, or the applicant has submitted written documentation that it is financially infeasible to rehabilitate the structure or preserve the historic nature of the site. 2. For relocation or moving of a structure, the structure to be moved will be compatible with the new site and other buildings in the neighborhood. 1145 Guarantee. Prior to issuance of a permit to demolish or move a building or structure, the applicant shall provide the city with a guarantee in such form and amount as may be deemed necessary by the building official to assure completion of demolition or moving, removal of all debris, cleanup of the site, repair of damage to public improvements, erection of barricades when required and filling of depression below adjacent grade. The amount of the guarantee for demolition shall be not less than one thousand dollars or twenty percent of the value of the demolition contract price, whichever is greater. The amount of the guarantee for moving a building or structure shall be twenty percent of the total value of all work to be accomplished and associated with moving of the building, but not less than five thousand dollars. Work required to comply with this section may be completed by the city after the time limits stated have expired and shall be paid from the deposit. The deposit shall not be released until such work is completed. EXCEPTION: 1. No guarantee will be required when the demolition permit is issued at the same time as a building permit for a redevelopment project. 2. When the structure to be moved is to be relocated outside the limits of the city, the amount of the guarantee may be reduced when approved by the building official, but in no case shall be less than one thousand dollars. 114.6 Indemnity. Every person, firm or corporation to whom permission has been granted under the terms of this chapter and other ordinances to utilize public property for the demolition or moving of any building or structure shall at all times assume 8' l Ordinance No. (1996 Series) 6 Page 6 responsibility for any damage to public property. Such permission shall be further conditioned that any person, firm or corporation shall, as a consideration for the use of public property, at all times release, hold harmless and indemnify the city and all of its agents and employees from any and all responsibility, liability, loss or damage resulting to any persons or property caused by or incidental to the demolition or moving work. Written indemnification in a form acceptable to the city attorney shall be provided. 114.7 Damage to Public Property. As a condition of obtaining a permit to demolish or move any building or structure, the permittee shall assume liability for any damage to public property occasioned by such moving, demolition, or removal operations. Applicants for demolition permits shall provide information and plans when requested for protection of public property. Information and plans shall be specific as to type of protection, structural adequacy and location. Approval to use or occupy public property shall be obtained before proceeding with demolition work. 114.8 Insurance. Prior to the issuance of a permit to demolish or move any building or structure, the permit applicant shall deposit with the building official a certificate of liability insurance naming the city as an additional insured party on the insurance policy. Such insurance shall be valid at all times during demolition or moving operations. The liability insurance coverage shall be in an amount of at least five hundred thousand dollars per occurrence for injuries, including accidental death to any one person. and subject to the same limit for each additional person, in an amount at least one million dollars on account of any one accident: and property damage in an amount at least five hundred thousand dollars. EXCEPTION: Demolition of a wood frame building not greater than two stories or twenty-five feet in height, measured to the top of the highest point of the roof; provided the building is not less than twenty feet from public property lines or, if less than twenty feet from public property lines, adequate protection is provided for pedestrians and public property to the satisfaction of the building official. 114.9 Disconnecting Service Lines. Prior to the issuance of a permit to demolish or relocate a building or structure, the permit applicant shall complete the following to the satisfaction of the building official: 1. Electrical Service. The power to all electric service lines shall be shut-off and all such lines cut or disconnected outside the property line. Prior to the cutting of such lines, the property owner or his agent shall notify and obtain the approval of the electric service agency. 2. Other Service. All gas, water, steam, storm, sanitary sewers, and other service lines shall be shut-off and/or abandoned as required by the public works director, utilities director, or other agency 4f-aq Ordinance No. (1996 Series) 7 Page 7 SECTION 115 -- PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 115.1 General. The demolition or moving of any building shall not commence until the structures required for protection of persons and property are in-place. Such structures shall conform to the applicable provisions of Chapter 33 of this code. Prior to permit issuance, a schedule of operations shall be submitted to the building official for review and approval, and shall set forth a sequence of work on the building, the need to barricade public streets, details of travel to and from the site for hauling operations, route of moving, estimated completion date, and any other significant work which may require inspection or coordination with city departments. 115.2 Dust and Debris. During demolition operations, all material removed shall be wet sufficiently or otherwise handled to control the dust incidental to removal. All adjacent streets, alleys and other public ways and places shall be kept free and clear of all rubbish, refuse and loose material resulting from the moving, demolition or demolition removal operations, except as allowed by temporary encroachment permits approved by the public works director. 115.3 Firesafety During Demolition. Fire protection and exit safety shall be maintained as required by the Fire Code. SECTION 116 -- REMOVAL OF MATERIALS 116.1 General. All building rubble and debris shall be removed from the demolition site to an approved point of disposal. 116.2 Foundations. All foundations, concrete slabs and/or building substructures shall be removed to the satisfaction of the building official. EXCEPTION: Foundations, concrete slabs on grade and building substructures may remain if the site is fenced to the satisfaction of the building official. 116.3 Completion. Upon completion of the removal of a building or structure by either demolition or moving, the ground shall be left in a smooth condition free of demolition debris. Holes in the ground, basements or cellars, shall be filled to existing grade. EXCEPTION: The filling of such excavation may not be required when a building permit has been issued for a new building on the site and the construction thereof is to start within sixty days after the completion of demolition or moving operations and the permittee provides a temporary barricade protecting the excavation on all sides to the satisfaction of the building official. Ordinance No. (1996 Series) 8 Page 8 SECTION 4. A synopsis of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this city. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of , 1996, on motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor Allen K Settle ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: *1tyI?ttey June 27, 1996 Attachment 2 Building & Safety Division ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEMOLITION REGULATIONS The text in italics following each Section explains the basis of the section and outlines a comparison to existing regulations. Appendix Chapter 1 DEMOLITION AND MOVING OF BUILDINGS SECTION 110 — PURPOSE The purpose of this appendix is to establish minimum standards and procedures for the demolition and relocation (moving) of buildings and structures to safeguard life, property, health and public welfare. It is also intended to ensure that moved buildings are structurally sound, sanitary, habitable, and that they will harmonize with existing development in the area to which they are to be moved. This is the existing 'Purpose"section with a slight modification to establish classification as an appendix to the Uniform Building Code. SECTION 111 -- SCOPE This appendix sets forth rules and regulations to control demolition and relocation operations, establishes the administrative procedures for review of an application to demolish or move a building, and provides for the issuance of permits. This section is substantially different than the existing section in that the text is expanded to be consistent with the code language used in other chapters of the Uniform Building Code. SECTION 112 — APPEALS Any person aggrieved by a decision made under the terms of this chapter may appeal such decision. For matters concerning the technical provisions of this code, such appeal shall be subject to the provisions of the Uniform Administrative Code; for all other matters, the appeal provisions of Chapter 1.20 of the Municipal Code shall apply. This is the existing "Appeals"section revised to reference the appeals procedures in the Uniform Administrative Code and the correct section in the Muni Code. SECTION 113 -- DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this appendix, certain terms, words and their derivatives shall be defined as specified in this section. /3 a ARC means the Architectural Review Commission appointed by the City Council. CHC means the Cultural Heritage Committee appointed by the City Council. Demolition means the complete or partial removal of a structure. Foundation means the structure, usually of concrete, resting on or in the ground, including the footing, on which a building is erected. Foundation wall means the walls of concrete or masonry which support a building. Inventory of Historical Resources is the Master List of Historic Resources and the Listing of Contributing Properties within Historical Preservation Districts approved by the City Council. Municipal Code means the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Slab means a flat piece of material, usually of concrete, placed on the ground for use as a building floor, patio, driveway, walk, ball court and/or similar uses. Structure means any human made site feature, including signs, walls, fences, buildings, monuments, or similar features. Substructure means the foundation of a building or structure including the piers and piles. Definitions for ARC and CHC are added to the current code for clarification. A definition for Inventory of Historical Resources is added to provide reference to proper documents. The definition of structure. as recommended by the CHC, is added A definition for Demolition, as recommended by the ARC, is also added SECTION 114 -- PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 114.1 Permit Required. The demolition or relocation (moving) of any building or structure shall not commence until a permit has been issued by the building official in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the Uniform Administrative Code. EXCEPTION: Temporary construction offices. A permit to move a building shall be a building permit when the building is relocated within the limits of the city. A permit to move a building shall be a demolition permit when the building is relocated to a site outside of the limits of the city. This section references the adopted Uniform Administrative Code (UAC) for permit application content and general permit issuance procedure. which precludes repeating this criteria in the main text, which is the case with current regulations. The last paragraph clarifies the permit category for a moving project, since "moving permit"is 3 not listed in the UAC 114.2 Moving and Relocation of Buildings. 114.2.1 Inspection of buildings to be moved. All buildings to be moved into or within the city shall be inspected by the building official to determine compliance with this code and suitability for moving prior to permit issuance. This section is found in the current regulations, and is intended to prohibit the relocation of unsafe structures and to provide the permit applicant with a checklist of code compliance issues that may impact the project. 114.2.2 Transportation and building permits required. For moving projects, a transportation permit shall be obtained from the public works director subsequent to issuance of a moving permit. Building, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical permits shall be required for all work necessary for the placement of a moved or relocated building. This section continues the current code provisions which coordinate transportation permits and moving permits, and clarify permit requirements for work done by various trades in preparing a moved building for occupancy at the new site or configuration. 1143 Procedure for Permit Application Processing. Upon receipt of a permit application to demolish or move a building or structure, the building official shall determine the nature of the proposed project and process the application as follows: 1. Demolition of Historical Resource. For any structure located on a property listed on the Inventory of Historical Resources, the building official shall refer the application to demolish the structure to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for placement on its next open agenda. The CHC shall review and process the application as follows: 1. If the CHC determines that the structure to be demolished has no historical, architectural, or aesthetic significance to the community, it shall refer the matter back to the building official with direction to issue the demolition permit. 2. If the CHC determines that the structure to be demolished has historic, architectural or aesthetic sigaifiicance to the community, it shall direct the applicant to submit plans for Architectural Review Commission (ARC) review pursuant to Section 114.4 of this chapter and Section 2.48 of the Municipal Code. The owner shall secure the building to prevent further degradation, if necessary, to the satisfaction of the building official. This section substantially revises current code provisions by stating the building official's responsibility and strengthening the role of the CHC for review of proposed demolition projects involving buildings on historic sites. The new language is 4 consistent with CHC suggested changes. 2. Demolition of Structure Not Designated Historical. For any structure constructed 50 years or more prior to the date of application for a demolition permit and not located on a property listed on the Inventory of Historical Resources, the building official shall, as a condition of permit issuance, require that the applicant provide the following: 1. Evidence that, for a period of not less than 90 days from date of permit application, the building was advertised in a local newspaper on at least three separate occasions not less than 15 days apart, as available to any interested person to be moved; and 2. Photographic documentation of the structure in accordance with criteria established by the community development director and the CHC. EXCEPTION: 1. A building or structure determined by the building official to be a dangerous building as defined in the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings which poses an imminent, serious threat to the health, safety or welfare of community residents or people living or worldng on or near the site, and for which photographic documentation acceptable to the community development director has been submitted. 2. Accessory buildings, sheds, garages and similar buildings. Upon receipt of the permit application, the building official shall notify the chairman of the CHC of the proposed demolition project. This is a new code provision that will create an opportunity for the City to accumulate more data about early buildings in San Luis Obispo, while at the same time providing building owners with a degree of certainty in the permit process AND achieving a greater likelihood that a building will be "reused"at another location. 3. Moving to New Site. For any structure constructed 50 years or more prior to the date of application for a permit to move a structure to a new site, the building official shall direct the applicant to submit an application for ARC review pursuant to Section 114.4 of this chapter and Section 2.48 of the Municipal Code. EXCEPTION: Accessory buildings, sheds, garages and similar buildings. This is a new code provision that replaces the current requirement to obtain a use permit for moving or relocating a building. This subsection would require that the ARC review process evaluate and determine compatibility of a moving proposal with the new neighborhood The ARC process could also prevent the relocation of a building or structure out of the city limits Under this proposa4 insignificant accessory structures would be exempt from the ARC process. if-16 5 In summmy: if a proposed demolition or relocation is not on the Inventory of Historic Resources or not 50 yews old, the building official u authorized to issue a permit, if 50 years or older, subsection 2 (advertising&photo documentation) or subsection 3 (ARC review) applies; if on the Inventory, CHC and ARC reviews are mquired 114A Approval Process for Demolition or Moving of Structures on Historic Properties. 114.4.1 General. ARC review shall be required for the demolition or moving of a struc- ture when determined necessary by Section 114.3 of this chapter. The application for ARC review shall include architectural plans, including plans for a replacement structure or structures in the case of demolition. The application, architectural plans and any applicable CHC recommendation shall be reviewed and acted on by the ARC. If ARC review of a demolition or moving project is required by Section 114.3, this section requires that plans for a replacement structure be submitted with the application for ARC review. Applicable CHC comments are to be forwarded to the ARC as a component of the application. 114.4.2 Findings Required. The building official shall not issue the permit unless the ARC determines that: 1. For demolition of a structure, the proposed replacement structure is as, or more, compatible with neighboring development than the eidsting structure, consistent with ARC guidelines; and the condition of the structure poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the community residents or people living or worldng on or near the site, or the applicant has submitted written documentation that it is financially infeasible to rehabilitate the structure or preserve the historic nature of the site. 2. For relocation or moving of a structure, the structure to be moved will be compatible with the new site and other buildings in the neighborhood. This section continues the required ARC findings currently found in the demolition regulations, and intends that the building official not issue a permit to demolish a structure on a property listed in the Inventory without ARC approval, regardless of condition. 114.5 Guarantee. Prior to issuance of a permit to demolish or move a building or structure, the applicant shall provide the city with a guarantee in such form and amount as may be deemed necessary by the building official to assure completion of demolition or moving, removal of all debris, cleanup of the site, repair of damage to public improvements, erection of barricades when required and filling of depression below adjacent grade. The amount of the guarantee for demolition shall be not less than one thousand dollars or twenty percent of the value of the demolition contract price, whichever is greater. The amount of the guarantee for moving a building or structure shall be twenty percent of the total value of all work to be accomplished and associated 8-�r 6 with moving of the building, but not less than five thousand dollars. Work required to comply with this section may be completed by the city after the time limits stated have expired and shall be paid from proceeds of the guarantee. The guarantee shall not be released until such work is completed. EXCEPTION. 1. No guarantee will be required when the demolition permit is issued at the same time as a building permit for a redevelopment project. 2. When the structure to be moved is to be relocated outside the limits of the city, the amount of the guarantee may be reduced when approved by the building official, but in no case shall be less than one thousand dollars. This section updates the existing bond requirements for demolition and moving projects by using the proper term 'guarantee"and combining the details into one section. The amounts of the various guarantees remain the same as existing code requirements. 114.6 Indemnity. Every person, firm or corporation to whom permission has been granted under the terms of this chapter and other ordinances to utilize public property for the demolition or moving of any building or structure shall at all times assume responsibility for any damage to public property. Such permission shall be further conditioned that any person, firm or corporation shall, as a consideration for the use of public property, at all times release, hold harmless and indemnify the city and all of its agents and employees from any and all responsibility, liability, loss or damage resulting to any persons or property caused by or incidental to the demolition or moving work. Written indemnification in a form acceptable to the city attorney shall be provided. This section remains the same as the existing code provision except for addition of the last sentence. 114.7 Damage to Public Property. As a condition of obtaining a permit to demolish or move any building or structure, the permittee shall assume liability for any damage to public property occasioned by such moving, demolition, or removal operations. Applicants for demolition permits shall provide information and plans when requested for protection of public property. Information and plans shall be specific as to type of protection, structural adequacy and location. Approval to use or occupy public property shall be obtained before proceeding with demolition work. This section remains the same as the existing code provision. 114.8 Insurance. Prior to the issuance of a permit to demolish or move any building or structure, the permit applicant shall deposit with the building official a certificate of liability insurance naming the city as an additional insured party on the insurance policy. Such insurance shall be valid at all times during demolition or moving operations. The liability insurance coverage shall be in an amount of at least five hundred thousand dollars per occurrence for injuries, including accidental death to any one person. and subject to the same limit for each additional person, in an amount at least one million O - f dollars on account of aby one accident: and property damage in an amount at least five hundred thousand dollars. EXCEPTION: Demolition of a wood frame budding not greater than two stories or twenty-five feet in height, measured to the top of the highest point of the roof, provided the building is not less than twenty feet from public property lines or, if less than twenty feet from public property lines, adequate protection is provided for pedestrians and public property to the satisfaction of the building official. Except for clarification that evidence of insurance is a condition of permit issuance, the content of this section is the same as existing code provisions. 1149 Disconnecting Service Lines. Prior to the issuance of a permit to demolish or relocate a building or structure, the permit applicant shall complete the following to the satisfaction of the building official: 1. Electrical Service. The power to all electric service lines shall be shut-off and all such lines cut or disconnected outside the property line. Prior to the cutting of such lines, the property owner or his agent shall notify and obtain the approval of the electric service agency. 2. Other Service. All gas, water, steam, storm, sanitary sewers, and other service lines shall be shut-off and/or abandoned as required by the public works director, utilities director, or other agency Except for clarification that evidence of utility disconnection and/or abandonment is a condition of permit issuance, the content of this section is the same as existing code provisions. Reference to specific approving authority is clarified for "other services" SECTION 115 -- PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 115.1 General. The demolition or moving of any building shall not commence until the structures required for protection of persons and property are in place. Such structures shall conform to the applicable provisions of Chapter 33 of this code. Prior to permit issuance, a schedule of operations shall be submitted to the building official for review and approval, and shall set forth a sequence of work on the building, the need to barricade public streets, details of travel to and from the site for hauling operations, route of moving, estimated completion date, and any other significant work which may require inspection or coordination with city departments. This section is similar to existing code language except for the deletion OSHA regulations found elsewhere in other code documents. 115.2 Dust and Debris. During demolition operations, all material removed shall be wet sufficiently or otherwise handled to control the dust incidental to removal. All adjacent streets, alleys and other public ways and places shall be kept free and 8 clear of all rubbish, refuse and loose material resulting from the moving, demolition or demolition removal operations, except as allowed by temporary encroachment permits approved by the public works director. This section is similar to existing code language except for the deletion of reference to regulations by other agencies that are printed elsewhere. 1153 Firesafety During Demolition. Fire protection and exit safety shall be maintained as required by the Fire Code. This is a new section which references the authority in the Uniform Fire Code to require a minimum level of building safety for workers during demolition. SECTION 116 -- REMOVAL OF MATERIALS 116.1 General. All building rubble and debris shall be removed from the demolition site to an approved point of disposal. This section is the same as current demolition regulations. 116.2 Foundations. All foundations, concrete slabs and/or building substructures shall be removed to the satisfaction of the building official. EXCEPTION: Foundations, concrete slabs on grade and building substructures may remain if the site is fenced to the satisfaction of the building official. This section modifies the current regulations by allowing the building official to establish the limit of foundation removal and to allow alternatives that preserve safety and aesthetic concerns. 1163 Completion. Upon completion of the removal of a building or structure by either demolition or moving, the ground shall be left in a smooth condition free of demolition debris. Holes in the ground, basements or cellars, shall be filled to existing grade. EXCEPTION: The filling of such excavation may not be required when a building permit has been issued for a new building on the site and the construction thereof is to start within sixty days after the completion of demolition or moving operations and the permittee provides a temporary barricade protecting the excavation on all sides to the satisfaction of the building official. This section is basically the same as the existing code section, but is modified to allow the building official to approve alternate barricades under the exception. tf'-02O Attachment 3 CHC Minutes, June 24, 1996 Page 2 Dan Krieger noted that interior photograph would only be necessary for those Master List properties marked with an asterisk, due the unique or historic interiors. He asked that the language from the bottom of Exhibit a added under VI.,1 to clarify this requirement. Tom Baasch expressed support r the guidelines, and suggested that the guidelines provide for alternates in case the Presery on Architect and Structural Engineer are not available during an emergency. The alternates ould need to meet the same qualifications as the principals. Committee members agr d with this suggestion and revised the wording under IV., 2 to read: "2. Members on the c mmittee may be represented by qualified alternates. The Restoration Committee shall m t on a regular basis, or on call as determined by the Community Development Director his/her designee." The CHC felt that the guidelines pr 'ded adequate guidance as to the qualifications of the Restoration Committee members, and a hasized that the City Council would select the Committee members. In response to a Alice Loh's question, a brief 'scussion followed on whether the Restoration Committee meetings would have to be public tings. In general, CHC members anticipated that the Committee would meet infrequently, bu on a "regular basis" to conduct business, and that those regular meetings would be public; but t meetings called by the Director under emergency conditions would probably not need to b public meetings under the Brown Act. The property owner would be entitled to attend the mergency meetings. Dan Krieger said that it was hi understanding that a "regular basis" could be as infrequently as once a year. The Committ decided that the frequency of meeting would be up to the City Council, or as determined n essary by the Community Development Director. In response to a question from Jef k, Committee members confirmed that it was their intent that with regard to Restoration Committe embers, "on retainer' meant that they would have a signed agreement with the City and be paid or their work as appropriate. On motion of Dan Krieger, secon by Astrid Gallagher, the Committee unanimously recommended that the City Coun ' adopt the Post-Disaster Historical Resource Preservation Guidelines with the revised wordinb suggested under Sections VI.1 and 2, above. 3. Review possible changes to Demolition Regulations. Jeff Hook introduced the item and explained that as part of its own workprogram, staff had prepared a revised draft demolition ordinance which addressed most of the CHC's concerns with the current ordinance. He recommended that the CHC adopt staff's version because it achieves CHC Minutes, June 24, 1996 Page 3 the broad objectives of historical preservation and makes the demolition process more predictable and understandable for applicants, staff and decisionmakers. He reviewed the changes in the staff- recommended version and compared them with provisions in the current ordinance. He noted that staff's draft maintains current roles of the CHC and ARC in the demolition process, and would encourage the CHC to expand its work in evaluating and listing historic properties, since in the past the CHC has relied primarily on the demolition process to update its listings of historical properties. In response to a letter from former CHC member Wendy Waldron, Committee members discussed criteria for historic photo-documentation of buildings to be demolished. Members noted that preliminary criteria had been discussed by the CHC several months ago but had not been adopted. They asked staff to bring the criteria back for discussion and possible adoption at the next CHC meeting. They would then be forwarded to the Community Development Director for use in the demolition permit process. In response to CHC comments, Jeff Hook suggested that the draft ordinance could be modified to say that the Community Development Director would establish criteria for photo- documentation, upon recommendation by rhe Cultural Heritage Committee. Committee members supported this approach. He explained that at the time an applicant applies for a demolition permit, he or she would be given a handout explaining the photo-documentation required prior to permit issuance. Dan Krieger stated that he found the staff-recommended version consistent with the intent of the CHC's draft and more succinct. He feels staff's version is a workable approach and supports approval at this time, with criteria for photo-documentation to return at the next CHC meeting. Steven McMasters suggested that a provision be added allowing the Director to refer a property to the CHC which was not on the Master List or Contributing List of Historic properties, when the Director feels it is potentially significant. He was concerned that the recommended ordinance might not protect for properties which, although not listed, are found to have historical value during the demolition permit review. Jeff Hook explained that a primary objective of the revision had been to improve the predictability of the ordinance. The current referral had, at times, led to uncertainty and some confusion for staff and applicants. He reiterated the importance of the CHC's role in evaluating properties' historic significance and keeping the Master List and Contributing List of Historic Properties up to date. He noted that the new 90- day "cooling off' period for properties older than 50 years would allow CHC members and citizens to contact property owners to work for preservation and/or relocation. In response to a question from Chairperson Gallagher, Tom Baasch said that a provision could be added to require notification of the CHC chair when an application for demolition of a building Af-42 CHC Minutes, June 24, 1996 Page 4 over 50 years was received. He suggested additional wording to clarify the public noticing procedures. Committee members supported Mr. Baasch's suggestions. On motion by Alice Loh, seconded by Dan Krieger, the Committee approved the staff- recommended draft demolition regulations, with the changes as recommended by the CHC, and with photo-documentation criteria to return to the CHC. AM: Loh, Krieger, Edmisten, Kornreich, Gallagher. NOES: McMaster. ABSENT: Wood. In response to a question from Dan Krieger, Staff said they would make the agreed upon changes and let the CHC see the revised draft at its July meeting. 4. Consideration of adding four new Historical Districts. Jeff Hook explained that this item had been placed on the agenda by Astrid Gallagher implement a program that was on the CHC's list of goals for 1995-97. Based on his 'an Margaret Lovell's 1992 historical survey report, four historic districts were recommend : 1) the Mount Pleasanton/Anholm District; 2) the Monterey Heights District; 3) the Little y District; and 4) the Brook Street District. Dan Krieger explained that he had to leave the meeting, but that he w to caution the CHC regarding possible creation of a Brook Street Historic District. He ted that earlier efforts to recognize the neighborhood's historic status and Japanese-Am e 'can heritage by changing the street's name back to "Eto Street" were unsuccessful. He a hasized that the neighborhood's Black-American heritage should also be addressed for t effort to be successful. He said he would be glad to work on the historic documentation fo a proposed Brook Street and Monterey Heights Historic Districts. With that caveat, Mr. K ' ger supported historic status for each of the four proposed historic districts. He felt Bill attaneo would be a good source for information on the "Little Italy" historic district. Jeff Hook explained that this eff would not necessarily involve a street name change. He explained that future land us anges in the vicinity of Brook Street made consideration of historic district status for t ' neighborhood timely, and said that the issue before the CHC this evening was whether to roceed with historic district nomination for one or more of these four neighborhoods. If t Committee supported the concept, staff would bring it back to the CHC for detailed revi and possible action. On motio y Garth Kornreich, seconded by Astrid Gallagher, the Committee voted to proceed withbushing four new historic districts, with priority given to the Brook Street and Little Italy n ' borhoods. The motion carried on a unanimous vote (5-0; Krieger had left the meeting). �-�3 =sy Attachment 4 draft ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Regular Meeting- July 15, 1996 PRESENT: Commrs. Curds Illingworth, Peggy Mandeville, Ron Regier, and Chairperson Woody Combrink ABSENT: Commr. Laura Joines-Novotny, James Aiken , Linda Day OTHERS PRESENT: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner and Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager PROJECTS:. 1. City-Wide:Consideration of a recommendation by the Cultural Heritage Committee to revise the City's Demolition Regulations; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, summarized the staff report explaining the Cultural Heritage Committee's efforts to review and develop the regulations. He also discussed the Building Division's role in the development of the regulations. Tom Baasch, Chief Building Official, indicated that Council review of the regulations was tentatively scheduled for August 20, 1996. Jeff Hook in response to ARC's questions, clarified which types of demolitions would be referred to the Commission for review. He pointed out to the ARC what mandatory findings need to be made when demolitions are reviewed. He also noted the new requirements for buildings more than 50 years old before approval of a demolition. Commr. Mandeville would like to see informational, rather than mandatory, wording added regarding recycling of the building materials from demolitions. Tom Baasch, stated that the regulations are intended to provide more certainty to applicants regarding the required review process for demolitions. Commr. Combrink said he would like to add that buildings determined to be significant also be secured to prevent further damage and deterioration, in addition to the requirement for ARC review. Tom Baasch, suggested that provisions for securing buildings be a condition of the ARC review. Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager, suggested adding wording to Section 114.3 regarding securing buildings. ARC Minutes July 15, 1996 Page 2 Commr. Combrink stated he would like to see"cultural' added to findings of significance. Jeff Hook pointed out that the reference to cultural is included in Exhibit C prepared by the Cultural Heritage Committee. Commr. Combrink expressed a concern with the ARC having to make a determination regarding "financial feasibility". Jeff Hook explained that this language was already in the regulations. He explained that staff did not want to attempt to specifically define"financial feasibility" to allow for more flexibility. He indicated that language could be added to better define what constitutes financial infeasibility. John Mandeville, Long-Range Planning Manager, explained staffs position for retaining the reference to financial infeasibility and explained that the ARC could retain or delete it. Commr. Illingworth felt that the language should be ambiguous. Commr. Combrink said he would like to see the reference deleted. Jeff Hook suggested adding the wording has "submitted written documentation' instead of "demonstrated"in Section 114.4.2 (1.)to clarify what needs to be submitted to verify that a project is"financially infeasible". Tom Baasch suggested adding a definition to Section 113 for a demolition "complete or partial removal of any structure". Commr. Mandeville asked if there would be a handout created to advise the public on demolitions. Tom Baasch indicated that there was plans to prepare an informational handout. There was no public comment. Commrs. Regier and Mandeville agreed with the suggested wording chanID ges. Commr. Illingworth clarified two of the wording changes. Commr. Mandeville suggested that staff prepare a handout regarding demolitions which includes a reference to recycling materials. Commr. Mandeville moved to recommend to the City Council that they adopt the ordinance with the following amendments: Aje� ARC Minutes July 15, 1996 Page 3 ■ Add a definition to Section 113 for a demolition - "the complete or partial removal of a structure." ■ Add ", and properly secure the building to prevent further deterioration" to the end of the sentence contained in Section 114.3 1.(2.) . ■ Add "has submitted written documentation" in place of"demonstrated" in Section 114.4.2 (1.) . Commr. Regier seconded the motion. AYES: Mandeville, Regier, Combrink, Illingworth NOES: None ABSENT: Aiken, Day, Joines-Novotny The motion passed. 2. ARC 32-96. 2238 Broad Street: Conceptual review of plans for a new grocery store shops; C-N zone; Albertson's, applicant. The item was continued to August 5, 1996, due to lack of a quorum (Commr. Man Ville indicated that she would have to refrain from participating due to a potential conflict of erest). 3. ARC 65-96; 204 Madonna Road: Review of a carwash gnage and landscaping at an existing service station; Shell Oil Company, applicants. Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff repo recommending final approval to the project, with items to return to staff for approval and to als pprove the project sign program, including and exception to allow the two fascia-mounted si on the canopy above the fuel pump islands. Rene Contreras, applicant, said she wo like to retain the proposed freestanding sign, but relocate it 10'back in the eastern planter. Commr. Illingworth stated he had no problem with the project, if the freestanding sign is moved. Commr. Mandeville id she wanted to keep the signage out of the setback. She felt that the metal on the carwash ould match the color of the brick veneer. d '�� 1 _ . 1 ------ --- - -. O �o�o