4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Review of Similar Regulations in Other Jurisdictions City staff reviewed how other communities respond to such illegal demolition or alteration of historic buildings, and found the following: Jurisdiction Limitations and Penalties Alameda No building permits for 5 years. Require restoration to prior appearance (if possible) Violations of Landmark Preservation provisions are a misdemeanor; $100 Berkeley fine for first code violation; then escalating to $200 for a 2nd violation and $500 for 3rd violation No building permits for 3 years; maintenance of lot; pay cost to investigate Glendale violation; misdemeanor; civil remedies; rebuild limited to same height, square footage and footprint Civil action in court to seek financial penalty equivalent to: "replacement Pacific value of the building in kind"; civil action to seek reconstruction; rebuild with Grove same floor area ratio (FAR) and density; 5-year limit on building beyond original structure Civil penalty "in sum equal to the replacement value of the building ...not to Palo Alto exceed ten thousand dollars."; 20-year restriction to rebuild with original FAR; criminal misdemeanor Monterey General misdemeanor penalty Oakland Financial penalty for illegal demolition $5,000 per living unit San General penalties: administrative citations $100 each day; civil penalties of Francisco $200 per day of on-going violation; criminal prosecution Ventura No building permits for 5 years; fine the greater of: (a) $10,000; or (b) appraised value before demolition minus appraised value after demolition Summary of Proposed Regulations The proposed new Section 18.140.030 (Exhibit A) would apply in those situations where the owner of a property with a historic building: 1. Demolishes all or part of a historic building without the proper approval from the City, or authorization from the Building and Safety Division due to a dangerous building condition; 2. Moves a historic building from its original site without City approval; 3. Demolishes a building by neglect or lack of maintenance; or 4. Alters the historic elements beyond granted approvals. Fines The proposed ordinance allows for the imposition of monetary fines that are based on "...an amount up to the appraised value of the building, or altered portions of the building, before Project No. P19-0342, Citywide Planning Commission 3 of 5 toric building. See Municipal Code §20.04.090 and Chapter 20.32. See Municipal Code §§9.28.025 and 18.74.200. Project No. P19-0342, Citywide Planning Commission 2 of 5 ome of the privacy issues we had raised. It seems in this design the width of the siding also encroaches a bit more into the setbacks on the side of the house. None of the other homes in our neighborhood have had large siding walls or overhangs like that put up and we are worried it would look out of place. During the design review hearing process it became very clear that no matter what we said or how it affected us, this was going to get approved. During the hearing we suggested an II at its closest point,a larger setback than the standards would require. The proposed addition would be built directly above the existing garage and would maintain the existing building setback. P19-0130 Planning Commission 11 of 15