Historic Preservation Advisory Committee

Attachment 1: HPAC Roster

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Two Year Terms

City Council Liaison Tom K. Butt 235 East Scenic Avenue Richmond, CA 94801 (510) 236-7435 (W) (510) 237-2084 (H) [email protected]

Design Review Subcommittee Ric Borjes Kimberly Butt Sandi Genser-Maack

NAME

TELEPHONE

HPAC Awards 2009 Subcommittee Rosemary Corbin Sandi Genser-Maack Judith Morgan

APPOINTED

TERM EXPIRATION

Rosemary Corbin, Chair 114 Crest Avenue, Richmond, CA 94801 [email protected]

(510) 235-5779

7/19/2005 7/31/2007

7/19/2007 7/31/2009

Judith Morgan, Vice Chair 5151 Simoni Court , Richmond, CA 94803 [email protected]

(510) 758-1879 (H) (510) 234-3512 (W)

7/19/2005 7/31/2007

7/19/2007 7/31/2009

Christopher Bowen 636 – 38th Street, Richmond, CA 94805 [email protected]

(510) 234-2325 (H) (925) 646-1740 (W)

12/6/2005 7/31/2007

7/19/2007 7/31/2009

Kimberly Butt 882 Bates Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94530 [email protected]

(510) 220-7145

7/19/2005 7/31/2007

7/19/2007 7/31/2009

Sandi Genser-Maack 521 – 32nd Street , Richmond, CA 94804 [email protected]

(510) 237-5670 (H)

7/19/2005 7/31/2007

7/19/2007 7/31/2009

Steven Cabella 737 Ocean Avenue, Pt. Richmond, CA 94801 [email protected]

(510) 237-2377 (H) (415) 456-3960 (W)

7/31/2007

7/31/2009

Ric Borjes c/o National Park Service 1401 Marina Way So., Richmond, CA 94804 [email protected]

(415) 892-6522(H) (510) 232-1544 (W)

9/16/2008

9/16/2010

Membership: 9 Vacancies: 2

Attachment 2: HPAC Resumes

Attachment 3: HPAC Meeting Minutes

APPROVED

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting Planning Conference Room October 9, 2007 6:00 p.m. MINUTES 1. Roll Call Chair Corbin called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present:

Chair Rosemary Corbin and Members Steven Cabella, Lucy Lawliss, Christopher Bowen and Sandi Genser-Maack

Absent:

Vice Chair Judith Morgan, City Council Liaison Tom Butt, Members Ethel Dotson, Charles Duncan and Kimberly Butt

Staff:

Lina Velasco

2. Approval of Agenda – The Committee approved the agenda. 3. Approval of Minutes – August 14, 2007 Member Genser-Maack referred to page 1 of the minutes and requested amendment: “Chair Corbin” be replaced with “Vice Chair Morgan”, who was present and actually called the meeting to order. Chair Corbin referred to Item 4, first paragraph, 4th line; “In December 2005 the building was re-located to Garrard Boulevard and West Richmond Western Avenue.” Chair Corbin referred to Item 4, second paragraph: “She Lina Velasco presented a diagram of it, said improvements of the site have been approved…” Chair Corbin referred to Page 3, first paragraph, “Ms. Velasco said there were two reports; one is to potentially designate a boundary aroundalong the area corresponding to the boundary which and it corresponds to the boundary here which would be the Nystrom Family FarmNeighborhood District. Chair Corbin referred to Page 4, first paragraph, and she asked if the Mexican Baptist Church was on Barrett Avenue. Ms. Velasco said the church should be listed as 483 B Street. “One of those identified is the former Mexican Baptist Church on 483 B Street Barrett Avenue.” Page 4, third paragraph; “Member Genser-Maack questioned whether it would be better for HPAC to provide direction to request that an ordinance be developed that makes

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007

1

APPROVED permits discretionary for buildings 50 under years or older, and Mr. Butt felt this could be done.” Chair Corbin referred to page 5, third complete paragraph; “Vice Chair Morgan questioned next steps, and Ms. Velasco said in terms of Nystrom, CouncilmemberCommittee member Butt identified some themes to focus on while the survey was being done to include the Home front story, the Pre-War, and the Maritime theme.” Ms. Velasco referred to page 4; “It was Boardmember (female) ____ questioned what the impact of this action would have on Nystrom Village as far as housing was concerned.” Chair Corbin referred to page 5, and asked to reword the 5th paragraph; “Though many neighborhoods in Richmond were home to shipyard workers, Nystrom is unique given its proximity to the Kaiser Shipyard and the prevalence of WWII era buildings that sites with integrity.” Chair Corbin referred to page 5, the next to the last paragraph, “However, Vice ChairMayor Morgan said the next paragraph states…” ACTION: It was M/S (Genser-Maack/Lawliss) to approve the minutes of August 14, 2007, as amended with changes and direct staff to reword the 5th paragraph on page 5; which carried by unanimous voice vote. 4. General Plan Historic Resources Element Working Draft PRESENTATION (6PM – 7PM) of the preliminary goals and policies for the General Plan Historic Resources Element for committee members feedback, input, and direction. Staff Contact: Lori Reese-Brown. Tentative Recommendation: No Action – Comments Only Elizabeth Fitzzaland of MIG said she attended the April HPAC meeting with the two members of the project team presented the vision framework; the first set of goals and policy direction where community input was requested, and feedback and direction was requested from HPAC. At that meeting they also asked and received confirmation that the HPAC would like to continue in its participation and serve as one of the review boards for the Historical Resources Element. Since that time, Ms. Fitzzaland said they have worked on a number of the elements of the General Plan and have been putting together a working draft, which is a skeleton of a General Plan Element and the very first-cut of an element format. Ms. Fitzzaland said after she provides a presentation, she will bring everyone up to date and then receive comments and further direction from the HPAC. She noted the Element is scheduled to go before the General Plan Advisory Committee in January along with the Rosie the Riveter Element. Since they last met, the GPAC has also elected to include a new element that is dedicated specifically to the project of the National Historical Park in Richmond, which they will work on and intermingle together with the work of the

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007

2

APPROVED neighborhood plan, general plan content and City policy. Another draft will be sent to the HPAC in November, and after review of the revised draft, final comments can be taken before it is sent to the General Plan Advisory Committee. Ms. Fitzzaland introduced Dan Drazen, a planner with MIG, who has worked with them on developing some of the elements. She discussed work to date which included gathering background data, assembly of analyses, development of land use alternatives, development of a preliminary draft document and presentation to the City Council for their consideration. The overall horizon date for the draft plan has been bumped slightly from January to March 2008 due to various delays. She said they are currently looking at land use alternatives and looking for direction on the preferred alternatives from the General Plan Advisory Committee and City Council. At the same time, there are elements that are not dependent on a preferred land use plan where they can move forward with content and once they have a preferred plan, they can return to make sure it is updated as necessary. She noted on October 18th, MIG was going to hold a meeting regarding planning in the El Sobrante Valley. MIG will also attend a meeting of the Arts and Culture Commission. They will also have a community workshop focused on equitable development for the General Plan on November 3, 2007. On November 6th they will go to Council to discuss and receive input on the range of alternatives for the EIR and will also present to them work thus far, and ideas and recommendations coming out of the GPAC meetings. On November 7th, they will meet with the Recreation and Parks Commission to review the Parks and Recreation Element. On November 28th, another GPAC meeting will look at the land use situation and the growth management element. On December 5th, the GPAC will discuss the Housing, Arts and Cultural and Parks and Recreation elements. And, in January 2008, they will look at the Historic Resources, Rosie the Riveter, Public Safety, and Noise Elements. She said they will provide an overview of the background and provide a strategic framework for the City of Richmond and how to approach development in the next 20 years. They will look at the economic development environment, the fiscal environment, and cultural environments and public safety, noise, art and recreation, and they will have a portion of the plan that will look specifically at implementing other alternatives for the City. Every element will have an overview, an existing conditions section, key findings and analyses, vision, topic areas and goals. Ms. Fitzzaland said today she wanted to bring forward the preliminary goals and policies. In the draft distributed, there is a draft list of possible implementation measures for HPAC to review and discuss. Dan Drazen reviewed the Historical Resources Element, presented a list of the documents he and Ms. Fitzzaland reviewed when they were developing the element which included the Issues and Opportunities Report, a Historic Resources Map, the Vision Framework, the Historic Structures Code, and documented comments from the April meeting of the HPAC, which included goals, issues, priorities, and strategies.

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007

3

APPROVED

Mr. Drazen presented a slide of the Historical Resources element’s three main goals and briefly discussed each. Goal A-Preservation and Conservation of Historical Resources; Goal B-Public Awareness and Education; and Goal C-Heritage and Cultural Tourism. Regarding Goal A; Preservation and Conservation of Historical Resources, Mr. Drazen said Richmond has a rich history and this goal emphasizes preserving and leveraging those resources. The first policy deals with the citywide approach. We know there are many resources and tools available in terms of programs and ordinances dedicated to historic preservation, but they want to ensure there is a comprehensive and innovative approach that identifies where there may be some gaps or holes and ways to fill those moving forward. He said the second policy has to do with reuse and restoration of historic buildings and we want to ensure that we can revitalize and breathe new life into historic buildings. Also, there is a policy to ensure that new development is compatible with the existing architectural framework. We want to be sure new buildings compliment and work within the structure that has already been established. A big part of this is ensuring the historic register and preservation ordinance are up to date and work as they should. Member Lucy Lawliss said she felt preservation and conservation, as a title, was redundant. To her, it is about preservation and rehabilitation of historical resources because the City’s goal is to preserve or put them back into use. Member Lawliss said the use of restoration has a very specific meaning in terms of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. Preservation is the overall treatment under which restoration, rehabilitation and reconstruction occurs, but we would never use the term because it is very prescriptive. Chair Corbin said the HPAC ran into this problem with the Plunge, the State Office of HP representative was questioning the restoration and the city thought the whole project might fall apart. When the representative came and met with them, he indicated it could simply not be called a restoration if it was not restoring what it was; you can call it rehabilitation, but restoration means it goes exactly back to what it was. Ms. Velasco referred to the key findings and the overriding goals and vision, and she questioned if the group would talk about what fundamentals HPAC intends to comply with, such as the Secretary of the Interior’s standards or any other goals. Ms. Fitzzaland said this is part of the background—what is the framework they are working within, and State and Federal standards should be part of it. This will also circle back when they talk about implementation measures. Compliance Ms. Velasco also requested that there be some mention of CEQA. Member Lawliss said it was important that terms stay as broad as possible in the goals and policies. The examples should also include other type of historic properties and not have it go immediately to buildings because there are other types of historic resources are important. In addition to Main Street and a commercial area there will be many

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007

4

APPROVED character-defining features along with residential neighborhoods that do not meet a Main Street policy, but are referenced in other documents. Ms. Fitzzaland said this was important because MIG realized that in working with other elements, items may need to be moved to another element, such as archaeological resources being moved to this element. Member Lawliss did not want to limit it to structures or buildings and she felt the term, “properties” was encompassing of the many types. Member Lawliss felt it would be great to include an example of an historical park because it would apply to recreation resources, as well. Ms. Velasco said she would like to tie adaptive re-use, to green building. Member Lawliss said this was alluded to in the last goal and she felt it was a good point. Chair Corbin noted she, Member Genser-Maack and Lina Velasco had just returned from a preservation conference in Minnesota where they stressed preservation as being green, and the group agreed this was an innovative way of approaching historic preservation. Member Cabella said he recently restored his home in Pt. Richmond, he did it green, recycled every scrap of concrete and wood, he reused it in landscaping, and there was practically no materials called for, and he felt it was extremely easy to do. Chair Corbin referred to the goal, said she did not want to be limited to suggest that the history is from the Pt. Richmond Historical District to the Rosie the Riveter Home Front National Historical Park. She suggested rewording it to say, “The Pt. Richmond Historic District and Rosie the Riveter/WW II Home FrontNational Historical Park are two good examples of the on-going Richmond story.” Member Lawliss asked to include a Native American project and felt there are archaeological resources associated with places in Richmond, and the group suggested encompassing more timeframes. Chair Corbin suggested adding it to the sentence as: “The Native-American community, Pt. Richmond Historic District, and Rosie the Riveter/WWII Home Site National Historic Parks are three good examples of ongoing Richmond Story….” Chair Corbin referred to Policy HR1, Discussion, it talks about, “Resources are a loose association of programs, ordinances and historic preservation groups”, felt it leaves out historical writings and documents and asked these be included, as well as archives. HPAC members asked to add the request after the word, “groups”….and historical writings and documents”. Ms. Velasco questioned whether to use the word, “historic preservation efforts” as well. Chair Corbin referred to the heading of HR2 and asked to put a period after the word, “buildings” and leave out the remaining words. Adaptive reuse was questioned, they asked to replace the restoration with preservation, add the word “properties” after “adaptive reuse of historic properties.” “Promote the preservation” instead of restoration.

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007

5

APPROVED Ms. Velasco said at some point, the HPAC will need to talk about whether it must be designated or not, and this may be going toward the discussion of definitions of what is a historic property. She felt there were many buildings that do not qualify for designation, but definitely can provide a reuse for property. Member Bowen said he disagreed to putting in the period where Chair Corbin suggested. He felt this is a policy, he agrees with the removal of “downtown”, was not sure it adds to the character of the city, but it enhances the character of the city. He said this is a policy, so they are not just doing it to “promote preservation and adaptive reuse of historic properties, period,” but we are doing it to a specific end. Ms. Velasco suggested this might be where the committee talks about the green portion, to promote the adaptive reuse of historic properties to conserve…” Chair Corbin suggested, “…to add to the character of the City.” Mr. Drazen said he will work on incorporating the green sustainable wording idea into the policy or separate it out on its own. Chair Corbin referred to the discussion under the policy regarding the “Ford Building could be reborn as a mixed use development.” She said it was being redone now, asked that this be omitted, and the committee agreed. Member Lawliss also suggested that it indicate that it has been reborn. It was stated that the Winters Building has been redesigned for a new use, there is also an example of a building being use as a reading room to now being converted to a bank, and other examples could also be referenced. Ms. Velasco said when doing preservation and rehabilitation, HPAC should also look at how it applies the Historic Building Code and how flexible it is, such as with examples of bungalows and second story additions. That possibly as a new policy, they could discuss how the Committee promotes the use of the California Historic Building Code to enhance preservation efforts. Mr. Drazen said when he was developing this he saw this idea of being incorporated into the third policy under new development and it being compatible with the character of the historic district. Ms. Velasco felt HR-3 was more infill development. Chair Corbin felt new development and restoration were two different things and it should be “are” and not “is”; “…ensure new development and rehabilitations are compatible with the character of historic districts.” Ms. Fitzzaland felt this could be made more unique as a policy on new construction and they could try and distinguish from infill because implementation measures are going to be different. Chair Corbin said one of the problems they have run into is people who want to build on empty lots in an historic district, which is a new development. And the other is rehabilitation with someone taking an old building and remodeling it. There is much debate on how one adds onto a historic building and whether you copy what is there or not. Chair Corbin referred to HR-3 and said the statement leaves out the building of new structures in historical districts and requested this either be added to HR-3 or to be a separate goal. She asked to also change the word, “restore” to “rehabilitate”.

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007

6

APPROVED

Chair Corbin referred to the next sentence and asked to change “fit within the existing architectural context” to “are compatible and fit within the existing architectural context”. Ms. Velasco said she would suggest saying context because it goes beyond architecture. For example Civic Center’s historic significance also related to setbacks and landscape, nit just the building’s architecture. HPAC members confirmed there were no other changes to HR-A. Regarding HR-B, Mr. Drazen said the goal focuses on education and awareness. In Policy 4, it talks about increasing the public’s knowledge of the history of the City and importance of historical resources which can take many different shapes, such as a signage system or school curricula. In HR-5, education is looked at through specific funding tools, grants, other technical areas of assistance and clear processes available to people for coming up with a way to let potential property owners know of these resources and programs. Ms. Fitzzaland said strong implementation measures will need to be developed and the HPAC can assist in this, as this will be the umbrella upon which those will happen. Member Lawliss asked if public education and awareness should be discussed first, and to use this as the first goal and then the preservation afterwards. Member Cabella agreed and asked that it not just focus on preserve but also identify historic properties. Chair Corbin and Member Lawliss suggesting changing the first paragraph from, “…preserve historically important buildings.” to “…identify and preserve historically significant properties…” Member Cabella questioned who would define the term “significant”. Mr. Drazen referred to the inventory and confirmed this would come under implementation. Chair Corbin referred to the discussion under HR-4, she noted the HPAC has absolutely no authority to do anything with the schools. It refers to Richmond Schools which are in the WCCUD. Member Cabella felt there were other ways to accomplish the same sort of education, and Chair Corbin suggested working with the school district to promote local history curriculum, but felt they would not incorporate this just for one city in the District. Member Cabella felt the outreach should be to homeowners and families, to obtain family histories and teach their children and this could be included in the verbiage. Chair Corbin suggested it say somewhere in the document that the City hold workshops to train homeowners about resources and what they can do to help them. Ms. Fitzzaland felt something could be placed in there that talks about looking for opportunities to work with the school district and identify other ways to get out information, such as workshops. Chair Corbin felt the City may be able to schedule workshops through the recreation department.

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007

7

APPROVED Member Lawliss noted the National Center for Preservation’s Training and Technology has an initiative to develop programs to teach preservation technology. They teach people how to preserve historic properties using the techniques of specific historical period. It was noted there was an entire paint industry that devotes itself to mixing historical period paints, and that many mid-century techniques were being lost and not used. Chair Corbin said she learned that the National Endowment for the Humanities has grants for interpreting local histories. Their restriction is that it cannot go toward any government salaries, so if a non-profit or private group wanted to interpret local history, they could probably obtain a grant and use it for things like interpretive materials. Ms. Velasco felt there is a real need to raise public awareness for HR-4 but it also refers to staff and commission education, which she felt were two separate entities. Ms. Fitzzaland said from a policy standpoint and as something that came up before in HR-5, they need to be able to provide clarity to people about how historic resources and properties are going to be dealt with in the City of Richmond and what their opportunities and processes, and part of that is having an educated staff with clear processes they understand. Member Bowen referred back to the education component and the way it was originally written, it should also encompass the fact that not all the students in Richmond go to public schools. Member Lawliss agreed and felt it should be reinforced in all levels of education, such as Contra Costa College. Member Cabella felt there needed to be access for people to tell their stories. He said what he has done in a neighborhood before is a postcard survey and suggested this be sent throughout the City which he felt could return a lot of historical information, open up avenues, provide resources. This could cause families to talk to their children about their homes and histories. Mr. Drazen asked for final comments about public awareness and education, and Member Cabella referred to the last sentence; “the City ought to also promote the benefits of owning historic property” and suggested it be changed to “owning and preserving historic property” or “continued preservation.” Member Lawliss questioned if there were any incentives which homeowners could apply for that would encourage one to preserve their properties such as a tax rebate. It was stated the Mills Act is a statewide tax program which has been successful in other communities and something that the State sets up as the structure and the City must elect and move forward with it. Ms. Velasco said much of the ownership in Richmond falls under pre-Proposition 13 and it doesn’t really benefit the owner. Chair Corbin felt the City should look to provide incentives, such as offering architectural or technical assistance. Ms. Fitzzaland said there are many cities in California that they can research to determine what is and is not working, best practices, technical assistance, etc. and identify these.

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007

8

APPROVED Member Lawliss felt there was opportunity for this section to reflect historic preservation, to maximize the use of legislation to benefit related resources, and she agreed to forward her suggested wording to Ms. Fitzzaland. Regarding HR-C, Mr. Drazen said the third area has to do with heritage and cultural tourism, and more specifically, using the historical resources of the City as an economic development tool. By bringing people to the City to see historical resources, it will encourage people to dine in downtown restaurants, shop, and provide spillover from historical resource tourism to benefit the City. In terms of policy itself, they are looking in Policy 6, using the significant, historical and cultural resources, the community fabric, the identity and the character to create a sense of place. The centerpiece of this is emphasizing Richmond’s diversity and its multi-cultural background. A term that they have used which has been used by various committee members is the idea of a living history and bringing Richmond’s history to life and showing people all of the accomplishments of Richmond residents and legacies in the City. It will encourage people to come and visit and but people who live here to stay in Richmond. It becomes a resource and an economic development driver for retaining people in the City. Mr. Drazen referred to Policy number 7; “promote historic preservation as an economic development tool….” He said this paragraph addresses the green approach, which integrates historical resources with natural resources, protection and conservation and it is clear that this should be brought further to the surface and make it a visible component of this element, and he asked for comments from members. Chair Corbin referred to the second section, HR-6, and said it talks only about the diversity which is very important, but the other important thing about Richmond’s history is that it is the birthplace of so many movements. It is where the child care movement got started, where managed health care got started, modern labor standards were developed, and it has a fabulous history in terms of development of popular music. Member Lawliss said the statement, “a national park has been established in Richmond” seems to have missed the point that the reasons people would come internationally to Richmond is because the park tells the story, but the themes are related. Ms. Fitzzaland questioned if this should be a new policy and members generally felt the policy needed refinement. Chair Corbin noted that much of the 1940’s furniture has been found as the child care center went through their various eras and this can be used to tell the story. Ms. Velasco said one of the other things they talked about was not only preservation being a tool for tourism but also for revitalizing distressed neighborhoods, emphasizing the identity of the neighborhoods saving resources to revitalize neighborhoods is important as well. Chair Corbin noted the keynote speaker at the plenary session was Garrison Keillor who was wonderful and he asked everyone to lighten up and remember buildings must have people in them. She said downtown St. Paul has beautifully restored buildings but there are not enough people in them. So, she felt it was important to remember the people part

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007

9

APPROVED of this. She struggled when she was mayor to try and get some of the historic buildings retrofitted so they can be re-used in the downtown. The Historic Building Code helps but it does not help get people into an un-reinforced masonry building that takes a lot of money to retrofit when it is sitting on very de-valued property. Ms. Velasco said they will be dealing with this with the Mechanics Bank Building and other buildings in downtown and this is probably where the incentives policy comes into play. She said one of the goals Utah Cultural Heritage Tourism’s mission goals is strategic partnerships. She felt that needs to be an overlying goal for Richmond. The problem is not that the city does not have the needed designations, but we weren’t using them to their max potential. She wanted to see how Richmond can tighten up some of its preservation efforts in this area. Member Bowen asked if some jurisdictions in the Bay Area have finished their retrofitting and Chair Corbin said the law has been in effect long enough now so that most un-reinforced masonry buildings have either fallen down or have been strengthened. However, Richmond has some important ones on Macdonald Avenue that have not been addressed. It is a problem because the property values are so low. Ms. Fitzzaland felt this came down to the City establishing a strong vision for that area and then attempt to reach those goals. If there are clear paths to follow and demonstrated success that they know about they are then more likely to use those tools to access resources. Ms. Velasco, in response to a question regarding the Nursery, said HPAC’s recommendation designating the Nursery as a historic resource. It was only certain buildings that were identified as eligible for listing under the National Register, but the Housing Division was already in ownership. Chair Corbin said whether or not the City makes the designations, the rules and regulations were in place and members discussed that as the General Plan update occurs, that they incorporate information as necessary. Ms. Velasco said the original survey identified every resource that the HPAC recommended be designated, which was about 42 structures. Separately a document was done which identified mitigation measures which would be the minimum structure that would be needed to tell the story. Chair Corbin discussed the fact that Japanese families who were selling the property would have to pay for any mitigations, which was what scared them and they have not been in favor of any of the HPAC efforts because of this. Ms. Fitzzaland said in moving forward with refining and expanding the historical resources element, she asked members to think about what things were not working today and what the things the general plan can do in order for these things to work better in the future. Ms. Fitzzaland said it would be helpful for the HPAC to provide written comments on the implementation plan via written comments so they can submit a revised draft along with a comment form which would guide their revisions before they take it to their January meeting.

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007

10

APPROVED Members Lawliss requested Ms. Fitzzaland send a Word document via email in order to provide their suggested changes and all felt it was valuable to discuss it. Member GenserMaack asked if a special meeting could be scheduled to continue general plan discussion. Ms. Velasco said she would need to set up a special meeting because at the next meeting Donna Graves will be presenting a report she did for the National Park researching WWII resources for inclusion in the National Historical Park. Ms. Fitzzaland noted the General Plan Advisory Committee will be reviewing the draft General Plan in January and they must send the element out, which pushes them out to the beginning of the year, so she asked for HPAC’s comments by December 11th or so. Members discussed valuable items brought back from the conference from other cities on historic preservation. Member Cabella referred to the description under Policy HR-6, the last sentence, “…creating a unique identity for the City.” He asked if the term should be changed to something other than unique and members suggested the word, “memorable” or “distinct” or “memorably distinct” or “distinctively memorable.” Chair Corbin questioned and confirmed with members that November 13, 2007 was agreeable for the next meeting date. Ms. Fitzzaland asked members to review and edit the Historic Resources Element and look for any inconsistencies, additions, changes, amendments, and provide edits, as she said it was important that items be updated so that they can properly look at historical items in their relationship to land uses and parks, transportation and access. Member Bowen asked regarding the historic resource maps and questioned if all resources recently designated were incorporated. Ms Fitzzaland asked that HPAC mark up the map and identify any changes. 5. Demolition Permit Process STUDY SESSION to discuss to potential changes to the City’s demolition permit process. Staff Contact: Lina Velasco. Tentative Recommendation: No Action – Comments Only Ms. Velasco noted that she provided an update in the packet, said at the last meeting the Committee had concerns about how a demolition permit is issued without planning sign off. They found the Municipal Code gives leeway to the Building Official to request any additional information. Therefore, staff is recommending a change in their checklist and she asked for Committee concurrence with the changes and said they would require planning sign-off for structures 50 years or older. Member Bowen asked if there was any kind of buffer to the 50 year rule and he provided the example of the Community Center and Library in Pt. Richmond which he felt was an important building. Member Genser-Maack noted there was a small group of people who wanted it torn down and move the library into a rental facility, and luckily it was not

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007

11

APPROVED approved. A statement was made once at a meeting that they had to hurry up because in a couple of years, it would be 50 years old and they would not be able to demolish it. Chair Corbin felt the HPAC should have the ability to designate properties that are historic whether they are 50 years old or not. There is going to be a lot of catch-up. Member Lawliss agreed and said she felt the interpretation should not be set in stone at 50 years or older rule. Member Bowen said looking at the legal side of it, there may be problems not being specific and suggested indicating “the year in which the original building permit was issued” and the Committee agreed. The Committee discussed the fact that HPAC has discretion with in-fill development or demolition of properties within a historic district. Ms. Velasco noted the demolition permit process will be a policy statement and not go before the City Council. She said the Building Official is requiring that Planning staff sign-off on permits. This provides enough ability to require the matter not going before Council. The HPAC members confirmed they wanted to review everything 50 years or older and thanked Ms. Velasco for her work on the demolition permit process. COMMITTEE BUSINESS

6.

Reports of Officers, Committee Members, and Staff a. Update on Council Items – Ms. Velasco said the City Council approved the designation of the Civic Center Historic District a couple of weeks ago. She said on October 22, 2007, the Council will be discussing the idea of moving the County Health Facility to the lot in front of the library, which is now in the historic district. b. Ms. Velasco said the HPAC’s annual report was presented and went well, it was recorded and noted that many HPAC members were in attendance. Ms. Velasco and Hector Rojas were also given great accolades for their work. c. Nomination of Chair, Vice Chair, and Design Review Subcommittee – Ms. Velasco said if HPAC wanted to keep the Board as is, the only person who would need to be replaced was David Blackburn on the Design Review Subcommittee. She said the subcommittee is a three-member subcommittee of HPAC who prepares recommendations to the Design Review Board for any in-fill projects, designated historic resource projects, rehabilitation or restoration projects. Chair Corbin said Charles Duncan and Kimberly Butt are on it who are preservation architects, but a third member is needed. They meet on an as-needed basis or about once every 4 months, staff schedules meetings with them once applications are received, and it is very streamlined and informal. Member Cabella agreed to serve on the subcommittee. Regarding Chair and Vice Chair nominations, HPAC members suggested maintaining the current Chair and Vice Chair, which would be voted on at the

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007

12

APPROVED next meeting. d. National Preservation Conference – St. Paul, Minnesota – HPAC members briefly discussed the conference highlights. Member Genser-Maack noted there is a National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, every other year they hold a conference and there are a lot of resources. She said she attended several of these workshops, they have a newsletter, website, available training, and she felt speakers could be retained to conduct community workshops. Member Cabella suggested contacting them to inquire as to whether or not they could hold a future conference in Richmond. Member Genser-Maack referred to a useful book and said she could not find it on Amazon, and Member Cabella suggested visiting www.addall.com and go to the used books link, as he was able to find many unavailable books on the site. d. Ms. Velasco said on January 9th, there will be a California Preserve America Communities Conference in Monterey. On January 10th and 11th they will do a California Cultural and Heritage Tourism Summit, as well. There will be some opportunities to hear what Monterey is doing with their cultural tourism. Member Cabella said he lives in Point Richmond on the shore in a 1935 building which he purchased and restored. He displayed photographs of the restoration work and said there were at least 10 historical mid-century homes along the shoreline done by international and national historic architects and referred to the Schindler property at Cozy Cove. Next door was the William Wurster house and on the other side is a Henry Hill house that has been disguised by someone in the late 1950’s. He said the property was purchased by Paige Poulos who received tentative map approval by the Planning Commission. He discussed the neighborhood trying to save the buildings and an incomplete report which was done that negates their historical importance. Members suggested that Member Cabella discuss the situation with Councilmember Tom Butt and nearby homeowner John Knox. He noted the matter would be heard by the City Council on October 16, 2007. Member Cabella was seeking support of the committee; however, Chair Corbin noted that the HPAC could not take action since the item was not agendized. e. Items for Next Meeting – December 11, 2007 – Ms. Velasco said there would be a special meeting scheduled for November 13, 2007 and noted Donna Graves would make a presentation at the December 11, 2007 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Committee adjourned at __8:35__ p.m. to special meeting on November 13, 2007. Submitted by: Lisa Harper, Minute Taker

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007

13

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting Planning Conference Room November 13, 2007 6:00 p.m. MINUTES 1. Roll Call Chair Corbin called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present:

Chair Rosemary Corbin and Members Christopher Bowen, Charles Duncan, Sandi Genser-Maack, Steven Cabella, Kimberly Butt, Lucy Lawliss (arrived late), and City Council Liaison Tom Butt

Absent:

Vice Chair Judith Morgan

Staff:

Lina Velasco

2. Approval of Agenda – The Committee approved the agenda. 3. Approval of Minutes – October 10, 2007 Member Genser-Maack requested the following corrections: Page 3, should read Arts and Culture Commission and replace “not far” with “thus far” Page 5 and “Policy HR-1, Discussion”. She requested the wording be improved. Page 6, 2nd paragraph, “Member Bowen said he disagreed with referred to putting in the period” and she asked this be amended to read, “he disagreed with putting in the period.” Page 8, 6th paragraph, “Member Lawliss questioned if there were any incentives which homeowners could apply for which would encourage one to preserve their properties as a tax rebate.” Page 9, 7th paragraph; change “Garrison Feelers” to Garrison Keillor”. Page 12, under Committee Business, 3rd paragraph, Nomination of Chair, Vice Chair, and Design Review Subcommittee – Ms. Velasco said if HPAC wanted to keep the Board as is, the only person who would need to be replaced is David Blackburn on the Design Review Subcommittee.”

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 11/13/2007

1

ACTION: It was M/S (Genser-Maack/Duncan) to approve the minutes of October 10, 2007, with corrections; carried unanimously. 4. General Plan Historic Resources Element Working Draft PRESENTATION of the preliminary goals and policies for the General Plan Historic Resources Element for committee feedback, input, and direction. Staff Contact: Lori Reese-Brown. Tentative Recommendation: No Action – Comments Only Elizabeth Fitzzaland of MIG said in the packet is a revised draft that incorporates comments staff received at the last meeting. She suggested going through the revisions and verify whether the Committee agreed with the goals and policies. She said GPAC would provide input first and given time, she asked the HPAC to also provide input on the Overview section. Member Genser-Maack requested correction of the “West Contra Costa County School District” to be changed to the “West Contra Costa Unified School District”. Dan Drazen, Planner with MIG, referred to page 9, which is the start of the Goals and Policy section and he highlighted some of the changes made based on the Committee’s comments last month. Member Genser-Maack referred to page 5 and requested her name be spelled correctly. She also referred to “Downtown Richmond” as being centered on 10th and Macdonald Avenue and the Civic Center has never been part of the downtown, and Chair Corbin agreed. Council Liaison Tom Butt said there was a lot of discussion regarding terminology from the minutes, such as restoration, rehabilitation, preservation, and he suggested that the last page incorporate a terminology section. He also confirmed with Ms. Fitzzaland that images, diagrams, maps, and graphics would eventually be added to the document to depict historic resources. Mr. Drazen referred to page 9. (tape ended due to technical difficulties). See the attached supplemental meeting notes, “City of Richmond Historic Preservations Committee General Plan Presentation and Discussion” dated November 13, 2007. COMMITTEE BUSINESS

5.

Reports of Officers, Committee Members, and Staff a. Election of Chair, Vice Chair, and Design Review Subcommittee

Chair Corbin, Vice Chair Morgan, and DRB Subcommittee: Members Duncan, Butt, Lawliss, Cabella (alternate)

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 11/13/2007

2

b. Items for Next Meeting – December 11, 2007 Donna Graves will be making a presentation on her report “Mapping Richmond’s World war II Homefront”. ADJOURNMENT The Committee adjourned at 8:00 p.m. to December 11, 2007. Submitted by: Lisa Harper, Minute Taker

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 11/13/2007

3

Meeting Notes City of Richmond Historic Preservation Committee General Plan Presentation and Discussion Planning Conference Room November 13, 2007 (rev. 3 - 12/12/07)

On November 13, 2007 the General Plan Team presented a revised draft of the Historic Resources Element to the Historic Preservation Committee. During the presentation, the committee members provided their feedback and asked questions of the General Plan Team. The following is a summary of the input received from the committee. Comments and Revisions to Historical Context and Existing Conditions:

ƒ Revise existing Historical Context section to include prehistory era and the Ohlone Indians. ƒ Page 5: Discuss Civic Center as separate from Downtown. ƒ Page 5: Correct spelling of “Genser-Maack” collection to “Genser-Maack” collection. ƒ Page 6: Replace “officially listed” with “nationally recognized”; spell-out full name of the National Register of Historic Places; remove last portion of the final sentence in paragraph one.

ƒ Page 6: Opening paragraph: Add “As of the adopting of the General Plan. “ ƒ Page 6: Include the Richmond Plunge as an historic resource; consider providing full list in appendix and not using partial lists within the text.

ƒ MIG will forward a MS Word version of the Historical Context section for HPAC members to provide direct comments and edits by 12-15-07. Comments and Revisions to Goals and Policies:

ƒ Demonstrate that the goals, policies and implementation measures are a framework to encourage preservation and reuse, and to help provide incentives, and will NOT create any financial burden for the City. Consider providing examples of how historic preservation has brought money into the City (i.e. grant for the Richmond Plunge, tax incentives for the Ford Building).

ƒ Incorporate language to describe how surveys serve an important role in reducing developer uncertainty.

ƒ Use term “historic”, not “historical.”

1

ƒ Instead of organizing new bodies and framework dedicated to historic preservation, empower existing advisory committee and make it a commission.

ƒ Use a more declarative tone and action words. Do not use “the City”., ƒ Consider having the document reviewed by a George Coles, a local Native American expert. ƒ HR-1: Encourage “streetscape” level historical amenities, such as storefront exhibits/exhibits in public spaces.

ƒ HR-1: Consider devoting a section of the City’s website to list specific resources. ƒ HR-1: Encourage library exhibits and museum programs throughout the community. ƒ HR-2: Encourage (and support) schools to teach historic architecture by positioning the City as a resource.

ƒ HR-B: State that the City will support the Secretary of the Interior standards, where appropriate.

ƒ HR-4: Rethink examples. Use “Pullman complex/Tradeway building, International Hotel” instead.

ƒ HR-6: Remove “numerous”; recognize and integrate in addition to protection; develop interpretive exhibits for resources should as the shellmound at the Ford Building.

ƒ HR-6: Use the term “interpret” not “provide a legacy”, replace the word “tribes” with “peoples.” Delete the reference to “numerous tribes,” the only Native Americans in Richmond were from the Ohlone tribe.

ƒ HR-6: Discuss how archaeological sites should be made part of the City’s historic fabric. ƒ HR-7: Historic restoration is inherently green – use this phrasing. ƒ HR-C: Revise the last part of the last sentence of the introductory paragraph with “as a tool for revitalization and enhancing the identity of the City.”

2

Comments and Revisions to Implementation Measures:

ƒ 12.7.1: Mention the Secretary of the Interior’s standards in last bullet point. ƒ Remove 12.7.3 and replace with an implementation measure to create a priority list and guidelines for frequency of updates.

ƒ 12.7.4: Remove first bullet point (this is already established through the City ordinance); leverage opportunities with National parks; include training and workshop opportunities for DRC, City Council, HPAC, Redevelopment and City staff; empower the HPAC with more authority and responsibilities; consider establishing an awards program.

ƒ 12.7.4: Add new implementation measure “ensure City Clerk records historic designations.” Delete second bullet item.

ƒ 12.7.4: Add new implementation measure: Identify resources that are going to become historic resources within a certain timeframe.

ƒ 12.7.4: Eliminate the word “County” from the bullet that references the West Contra Costa Unified School District.

ƒ 12.7.5: Utilize existing committee and staff instead of forming new bodies; remove fourth bullet point (already completed); consolidate last three bullets; review State statutes on retrofitting and financing opportunities.

ƒ 12.7.5: Add bullet that discusses establishing new guidelines for Community Development Block Grants.

ƒ 12.7.6: Remove first bullet point (already completed). ƒ 12.7.6: Revise the third bullet to read: “Educate the City’s residents about the City’s role in implementing the concept of the…”

ƒ 12.7.6: Delete the fifth bullet: Promote continued research on the history of Richmond. ƒ 12.7.6: Revise last bullet to be more targeted; remove list of resources. ƒ 12.7.6: Add implementation measure: Explore ways to effectively use the Mills Act. ƒ 12.7.6: Add implementation measure: Establish archive policy regarding historic resources. Mention the archive policy for the Bancroft Library at UC Berkeley.

ƒ 12.7.6: Add implementation measure: Develop training for Certified Local Government (CLG) ordinance.

3

ƒ 12.7.6: Add implementation measure: Continue requirements for CLG status. ƒ 12.7.6: Include language which reflects redevelopment agency’s role in training, education and decision-making.

ƒ Consider designating an “historic resources” planner and/or an institutionalized approach to preservation and reuse. Comments and Revisions to Glossary of Terms:

ƒ Add additional terms: National Historic Register, historic, historical. Requested Format Changes:

ƒ Include photos and images. ƒ Include implementation measures under their corresponding policies.

4

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting Planning Conference Room December 11, 2007 6:00 p.m. MINUTES 1. Roll Call Chair Corbin called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present:

Chair Rosemary Corbin, Vice Chair Judith Morgan, Kimberly Butt, Charles Duncan, Sandi Genser-Maack, Steven Cabella, Lucy Lawliss

Absent:

Member Christopher Bowen

Staff:

Lina Velasco

2. Approval of Agenda – The Committee approved the agenda. 3. Approval of Minutes – November 13, 2007 ACTION: It was M/S (Genser-Maack/Duncan) to approve the minutes of November 13, 2007; carried unanimously. 4. Mapping Richmond’s World War II Home Front PRESENTATION of the Historical Report prepared by Donna Graves identifying the social landscape of the World War II home front story in Richmond for committee feedback, input and comments. Staff Contact: Lina Velasco. Tentative Recommendation: No Action – Comments Only Donna Graves introduced herself, discussed the benefits of her research, said she had a contract with the National Parks Service and found there were limitations and gaps in research to answer some of the stories about the social landscape of the war home front. She presented an overview of various projects, stating the Post Office was finished in 1939 and was used for special census work done by postal workers. She discussed the architectural importance and pride of the civic center at the time and Shafer Lighting and its WWII connection, said National Oil Products had contracts with the military to supply items to soldiers, many of which were fish oil products. She also said the Chamber of Commerce was a central agency during the war, which developed publications throughout the country. They had a housing bureau for Richmond residents to sign up and also supported local businesses at the same time. Standard Oil developed new aircraft fuel and other military fuels, while they expanded their employee workforce, they were still relatively small with only about 1,000 workers. The American Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 12/11/2007

1

Radiator and Standard building in North Richmond also operated during the war, but Ms. Graves noted North Richmond was difficult to research because it was not incorporated. During the war, the Chamber of Commerce did not publish their business directories. Ms. Graves said legislation calls for other resources to be identified and the study concludes there were many places other than the park, and further work needs to be done. They will reference this in the general management plan to fulfill the point of the legislation, but nothing specific will be named, just a process by which things could be added to the park based on a list and meeting certain criteria. It was stated labor was also very difficult to find. Most of the union halls centered near Macdonald Avenue and 10th Street (Harbour Way). Richmond was a blue collar town and had organized segments with many unions. Ms. Graves said the shipyard union was segregated and she felt this was a story that needed to be told. Many people came to Richmond to staff industries but historic train stations are not present. She noted the Richmond Housing Authority administered a program and was the first to receive a large federal allocation to create housing projects, most were designed to be temporary but three developed in Richmond as permanent housing receiving money from a separate fund. The projects were Atchison Village, Easter Hill Village and Triangle Court. Atchison Village is the only permanent housing project remaining. She noted the Housing Authority has amazing archives including recreation programs administering out of the housing. She also said early in the war there was a lot of private development of housing to satisfy the onslaught of Richmond residents. The Planning and Building Department files will reveal streets that have 1941 and 1942 housing. She said she either found references in publications or found permits in the Building Department. Ms. Graves said she wanted to put the Easter Hill Village into the report which represented the only permanent housing that the Housing Authority built after the war to replace the thousands of temporary units. They were subject to local pressure by residents and the federal government wanted people to use the money to pay for permanent housing. Ms. Graves said there was a lot of commercial development to satisfy the population. MacGregor developed the store at 23rd and Marina Way South and within a couple of years, Jack Newell purchased it. Early in the war, automobile construction stopped because of steel, and at the end of the war, restrictions were being lifted and Auto Row on 23rd Street popped up caused by the desire to drive around. Also, while the Kaiser Health Care program was groundbreaking for those who worked at the Kaiser Shipyard, there were so many public health issues, and the county carried a lot of the slack. The county health offices were on 8th Street and Macdonald, which she felt was an interesting and important story. Many schools were added onto during WWII and much of the school district records indicate that rehabilitation was done. She discussed Lincoln

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 12/11/2007

2

School as having many uses, such as a civil defense station for air raid shelters, school, and meeting space. An active Red Cross station was built on City land which was part of the war effort, the Public Library which had extensive technical assistance and training programs for shipyard workers and they even began an after-school program. The Richmond Arts Center taught many shipyard workers different art forms and she found in the Library a proposal the Art Center had submitted to do an art program at the shipyard. Churches grew and were active, the Mexican Baptist Church precedes WWII, but it was an important place to help newcomers navigate where to get a job and where to live. Ms. Graves displayed Victory Liquors, Richmond Pool Hall, and she could not find recreation clubs that represented the blues clubs which are a big portion of Richmond’s history partly because North Richmond is not well documented. She presented pictures of the Richmond Meat Market and the Basement Bar and Hotel and she felt these businesses were very important. Chair Corbin said one problem with some of the old buildings/businesses was the cost of retrofitting them, and it would cost more to fix them up than they were actually worth. HPAC members thanked Ms. Graves for her presentation. Ms. Velasco said there has been progress made in mapping some of the resources for listing. In particular the Civic Center has been designated and the cannery building is coming in soon with a request to designate the site, which is being initiated by the owners. Committee members discussed local designations and national register designations and funding. Chair Corbin questioned if any attempts were being made to bring the Galileo Club and the school district headquarters forward. Member Duncan said they nominated the club and the owners were not interested in it. Vice Chair Morgan said there really are not that many historic buildings left and if more are lost, the potential is lost for having a neighborhood or district that really tells a story. Member Cabella said if a building can be identified by the architect, this is the first step or personal connection in identifying it and preserving it, other than identifying the name the building was named after. Similarly to building houses, he referenced the Clooney Building and he questioned whether someone should approach the owner and indicate who it was designed by, giving her a reason not to tear it down. He felt it was a step to educate people about preservation. Members discussed places in town and the identification of their recognition through signage. Ms. Velasco said the City of Monterey requires a standard plaque in recognition of site be installed as part of its designations and requires the sit be opened up for an annual tour. She wondered if this could be something implemented for Richmond. Members said the City should have money to survey Coronado, Santa Fe and the Iron Triangle, which will expand must of the mapping.

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 12/11/2007

3

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

5.

Reports of Officers, Committee Members, and Staff

Member Genser-Maack presented everything she found from the 2000 Historic Preservation Award when Rosemary Corbin was the City’s Mayor. She said it was a millennium project, she had the forms and felt they simply needed to be updated and for people to nominate projects. Each award is individualized, the Chamber received one in the past, Chuck Feathers’ house received an award, and two others. There was millennium money, donations, and she volunteered to be on a subcommittee to work on it. Chair Corbin said Historic Preservation Month is in May and she felt it would be nice to begin working on it after the holiday season, and asked for interested members to work on the subcommittee with Member Genser-Maack. a. Meeting Times & Dates for 2008 Chair Corbin noted Member Bowen cannot attend Wednesday meetings. Ms. Velasco said at times, the Tuesday meetings are the same day as Council meetings. The Committee agreed to meet the second Tuesday of every other month beginning in February. b. Items for Next Meeting Chair Corbin requested the Historic Preservation Awards be agendized. Member GenserMaack recommended reviewing the City’s pattern book, as it deals with styles and design. Ms. Velasco said the document was in its final stage, said they would hopefully conduct another citywide meeting in January and could invite the consultant to attend the meeting. Member Genser-Maack suggested one way to designate historic districts in Richmond would be to put them on street signs. Ms. Velasco reported she has been receiving calls from the Point Molate Casino consultant to do a presentation before the HPAC. The Port of Richmond will soon be releasing an RFP to propose reuse and rehabilitation of certain Shipyard No. 3 buildings including the cafeteria, the central warehouse, paint shop and other buildings. ADJOURNMENT The Committee adjourned at 7:45 p.m. to February 12, 2008. Submitted by: L. Harper, Minute Taker

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 12/11/2007

4

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting Planning Conference Room February 12, 2008 6:00 p.m. MINUTES

1. Roll Call Chair Corbin called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present:

Chair Rosemary Corbin, Vice Chair Judith Morgan, and Members Christopher Bowen, Kimberly Butt, Charles Duncan, Sandi GenserMaack and Lucy Lawliss

Others Present:

City Council Liaison Tom Butt, Michael Taggart, Analytical Environmental Services (AES) and John Salmon of Upstream Point Molate, LLC

Absent:

Member Steven Cabella

Staff:

Lina Velasco

2. Approval of Agenda Chair Corbin requested the Board hear Item 5 ahead of Item 4, and the Board unanimously approved the agenda, as amended. 3. Approval of Minutes – December 11, 2007 ACTION: It was M/S (Duncan/Lawliss) to approve the minutes of December 11, 2007; Vote: 7-0-1 (Cabella absent). 5. Cannery Designation PUBLIC HEARING to consider a request to recommend to the Richmond City Council the designation of the Cannery, former Filice and Perrelli Canning Co., Inc., buildings located at 1200 Harbour Way South and 1275 Hall Avenue (APNs: 560-260-043 & 560-260-044), as a local Historic Resource. Port/Maritime & R&D/Business Zoning District (Knox Freeway/Cutting Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan). DVK Realty Venture, LLC, owners; David Zaro, GLASS Architects, applicant. Staff Contact: Lina Velasco. Tentative Recommendation: Recommend Approval to the City Council

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 2/12/2008

1

ACTION: It was M/S (Duncan/Genser-Maack) to recommend approval to the City Council. Vote: 7-0-1 (Cabella absent). 4. Point Molate Update STUDY SESSION to discuss the proposed Point Molate Resort and Casino project; impacts the project will have on the Point Molate Historic District; potential mitigation measures that could be incorporated into the project to reduce its impacts; and HPAC’s role in the review process. City of Richmond, owner; Upstream Point Molate LLC, applicant. Staff Contact: Lina Velasco. Tentative Recommendation: No Action – Comments Only. Mike Taggart, AES, gave a presentation on the Point Molate Resort and Casino Project, discussed the regulatory framework at the State and Federal level, said Section 106 is the most stringent requirement for determining and evaluating resources and it assesses impacts to the resources which is the guiding regulatory framework for NEPA. He said anything that will qualify for National Registry status would most likely be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. There are other ways in which other resources and objects might qualify under CEQA, but this particular project is defined in terms of what the historic properties are. He presented a brief overview of the CEQA/NEPA process, said they are doing a hybridized document. He described the combination of the two processes to arrive at a single document that will look very much like a CEQA document but with a great deal of Section 106 language and NEPA language. He said the Notice of Preparation and Notice of Intent were published in 2005, the scoping meeting was held in March of 2005 and they are in the process of completing the Administrative Draft EIR along with subsequent steps. He discussed the efforts to set up a meeting with the State Historic Preservation Office to get concurrence on the area of potential effects and to conduct a resource inventory which will include identification of significant sites, buildings and districts that meet or potentially meet the definition of a historic property. Wine Haven or the district at large is already listed, they have a good sense of what makes the resource assessable, there are still sites to be evaluated, they are assessing affects and anticipate there will be several impacts. The final step will be resolution of those effects and they will put together a comprehensive treatment plan, the core of which will be the design guidelines for the restoration of Wine Haven. Actions specified would be memorialized in a Memorandum of Agreement or a Programmatic Agreement, both of which are legally enforceable documents. He discussed project alternatives, stating three of the alternatives involve a trust acquisition; the Bureau of Indian Affairs would take the property into federal trust for the benefit of the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians (Tribe); Alternative D involves a nontrust acquisition where the property would remain fee simple and would include a mixed use development, with residential and retail uses and other amenities. Alternative A is a destination resort with casino, retail, dining, a conference facility, entertainment venue, parking, a shoreline park, hillside open space, ferry service and restoration of Wine Haven. Alternative B is identical to A with the addition of a residential neighborhood in

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 2/12/2008

2

the southern portion of the project site. Alternative C is the reduced intensity alternative; it is similar to A, but has a much smaller footprint and a much smaller capacity. And, Alternative E is the no action alternative. He presented the project site which corresponds to the entire former Navy Fuel Depot located on the west side of the San Pablo Peninsula. He presented views to the northeast and Alternative A, with most development occurring in the southern and northern portion of the project site. He said some of the main project components include the Point Hotel with 25 associated cabanas or guest suites, an entertainment complex and retail village, a hotel with 800 rooms, the Wine Haven building which would be restored and used as a casino along with new construction, a parking structure with photovoltaic panels, a conference center integrated in the upper level, tribal offices, a round house facility and field area for cultural renewal events and ceremonial use which would be provided in the eastern hillside area. The 29 cottages and the winemaker’s house would be adaptively reused as guest suites. He presented Alternative B which is identical to A with the addition of a southern residential neighborhood of 240 units proposed of varying density. The reduced intensity alternative has no housing component, no Point Hotel, the retail center has been reduced from 300,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet, the resort hotel is reduced from 800 rooms to 400 rooms and most of the other components would be similar, but reduced. Under all alternatives, public access would be maintained by a shoreline park that runs along the entire bay front. The City would retain title to a 50-foot strip that would make up a portion of the park and park amenities would include a Bay Trail that would continue through the property, picnic grounds, restroom facilities, and other items. Alternative D is the most dissimilar of the four development alternatives and has the largest footprint. He discussed the Historic District which covers 71 acres; he said there have been some attempts in the past to constrict the boundary, and now the percentage of contributing elements in the District is somewhere above 50%. In the past, the State Historic Preservation Office has recommended the District be restricted in size; however, it was listed in 1976 and because of an archaic portion of the regulations, anything listed prior to a certain date in 1980 cannot be reduced in size unless there is a loss of integrity that affects the significance of the District. That is not the case here, so the District is considered the entire 71 acres. He presented the outline of the District boundary, said it covers a sizeable portion of the northern project area, the contributing structures are highlighted in orange and there are 29 residential structures. Other major structures include Wine Haven, an adjacent warehouse, Building number 6, the power house, a plane and milling shop used for storage, and the fire station. Regarding analyzing the existing conditions of the District and its resources, they assembled a team of architectural historians who performed a historic resources survey.

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 2/12/2008

3

They are also assisting in analyzing the impacts and mitigation measures for those impacts, an architectural/engineering firm located in Sacramento has performed a historic structure condition assessment. Based on this analysis, they estimated it would cost about $20 million to stabilize the structures in the condition they are in at present, which would not include any seismic retrofits and simply preserve the shells and stop continued deterioration. He presented representative photos of the state of some of the buildings in the district, described their historical features, construction, types and uses of the buildings. Regarding impacts, they have identified three primary impacts; physical destruction of a contributing element of the district, moving a contributing element from its historic location, and introduction of visual elements that would diminish the district’s integrity of setting. All impacts would be considered an adverse effect pursuant to Section 106 and a significant impact for CEQA and NEPA. He presented an overlay of the project footprint, said Building 6 would be demolished to make way for the new development, Building 17 would be dismantled and relocated on site close in proximity to the fire station and massing will introduce a new element which will need to be addressed. Impacts are identical in Alternatives B and C, and similar to Alternative D with introduction of new construction in and around the fire station. In development of the treatment plan, a core element will provide for long-term maintenance and specify the compensation for loss of the contributing elements, the centerpiece will be the design guidelines and HPAC could comment and make recommendations to the City based on review of those design guidelines, which are being put together. He said some attributes guiding the development include respecting the historic uses and unique architectural character of the district, holistic restoration of the entire project site, adaptive re-use of the buildings, use of appropriate materials, thoughtful integration of the new construction and responsiveness to input from the community and HPAC. He noted HPAC has an opportunity to participate in review of the draft design guidelines, act as a community liaison and provide recommendations directly to the City Council in the development of the final design guidelines. Chair Corbin said when the Citizens Advisory Committee was drawing up the Blue Ribbon Plan, HPAC had some sort of analysis of the conditions of the structures which was a lot more optimistic than what has been presented. She questioned whether there had been that much deterioration over the last 10 years. Mr. Taggart said the baseline environmental survey was reviewed and the conclusion was that everything is salvageable; there is nothing that is beyond repair but it is more of a question of how the resources get spent and what should be emphasized. He said there has been a significant change in condition over the last 10 years, but it is not to the point where buildings are not salvageable. There is a significant amount of water damage and joints in the mortar and it is recommended buildings be dismantled and reconstructed using modern materials and techniques, but the question of seismic retrofit was beyond the scope of the analysis at this time.

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 2/12/2008

4

Member Lawliss questioned if the period of significance was being brought up through WWII and questioned whether the significance of overlay at the site would be reviewed. Mr. Taggart said those buildings were analyzed at some point in the past, evaluated, found to not be significant and they have not revisited that issue. Member Lawliss believed that since the 50 year rule was adopted, WWII buildings should be considered especially given the fact that the City has been designated as home of the WWII Home Front National Historical Park. She thought the City would be interested in knowing the significance of the WWII layer and making sure it was considered in whatever plan is proposed. The Committee further discussed the cultural landscape created other than individual structures and believed the fact that the warehouse was placed in a particular location and served other buildings becomes critical to understanding the use and function of a particular place. And, something like Wine Haven and future use by the Navy would be a critical component of the significance of this landscape. Member Lawliss said she was not sure how many buildings were left that would stay as part of a formal Naval district which were centered around Building 6, but believed they should be salvaged and reviewed by someone. Councilman Butt said another issue is that one of the prohibitions in the City’s Historic Structures Code is demolition by neglect, and he did not realize the buildings were in such poor shape. The committee further discussed with Mr. Salmon, Upstream LLC, areas owned by the City and the Navy in the area and the work underway with the Navy to have the areas cleaned up. Ms. Velasco questioned when the draft design guidelines were expected to be prepared for HPAC to comment on, and Mr. Taggart said he anticipates they would be ready in the next couple of months. He said they are moving to have a document ready for the City, the BIA, and the cooperating agencies within one month and between the issuing of an Administrative Draft and getting the Final Draft out, there was a lot of work to be done on the cultural resources front. Work to be done included four archaeological sites that needed evaluation and a 90-day approval process to get permits from the Navy to do the surveying, and the group discussed the beachfront boundaries and capping by a significant amount of fill. Member Lawliss questioned whether or not areas from the last native prairie had been inventoried and whether they were in the plan. Mr. Taggart said there has been a thorough biological review and wetland delineation and because of the bloom periods for certain species, the surveys must be staggered. One round of survey has been completed and another bloom window is coming up between March-May, and it must be acted on quickly due to the deer population.

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 2/12/2008

5

Mr. Taggart and Salmon thanked the Committee for their time to present and discuss the project. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 6. Reports of Officers, Committee Members, and Staff

a. Meeting Times & Dates for 2008 Member Genser-Maack presented the Historic Preservation Awards nomination form, said it is located on the City’s website and Ms. Velasco will email all members the link and she will email a blurb she has prepared. The deadline for nominations is March 31, 2008. The Historic Preservation Award event will be held at the Museum from 4-6 p.m. on Friday, May 16, 2008 b. Items for Next Meeting on April 8, 2008 Member Genser-Maack said in the last edition of the National Preservation magazine, Richard Moe, President talked about historic preservation and asked members to go on their link; www.nationaltrust.org/preservation, and it talks about how preservation is recycling, how green it is, how it saves money and arguments that will be needed for everything we do in the future. Ms. Velasco said there are no current items scheduled for the next agenda, but many projects are in the planning stages such as the school district’s EIR related to the Nystrom School and some of the other school district buildings and ancillary buildings which are slated for demolition and some for renovation, and Committee members discussed EIR public hearing timelines and periods for comment. ADJOURNMENT The Committee adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. to April 8, 2008. Submitted by: L. Harper, Meeting Transcriptionist

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 2/12/2008

6

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting Planning Conference Room April 8, 2008 6:00 p.m. MINUTES

1.

Roll Call

Chair Corbin called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. Present:

Chair Rosemary Corbin and Members Christopher Bowen, Kimberly Butt, Sandi Genser-Maack and Lucy Lawliss

Others Present:

Cedric McNicol of Armstrong Windows

Absent:

Vice Chair Judith Morgan and Member Steven Cabella

Staff:

Lina Velasco

2.

Approval of Agenda

The Committee was in agreement with the agenda as proposed. 3.

Approval of Minutes – February 12, 2008

ACTION: It was M/S (Duncan/Lawliss) to approve the minutes of February 12, 2008; unanimously approved. 4.

Replacement Windows on Historic Structures - STUDY SESSION to discuss appropriate treatments and materials for replacement windows on historic structures. Staff Contact: Lina Velasco. Tentative Recommendation: Establish a Subcommittee and Provide Feedback.

Ms. Velasco said the City has received more than one request to replace windows at Atchison Village and the Historic Structures Code requires that any exterior alteration go through a formal process of design review. The HPAC Design Review Subcommittee would make a recommendation to the DRB; however, given it could be a larger issue than with just this one unit, she questioned what would be appropriate in terms of replacement windows. She said she found some units that have not changed out windows and some have vinyl replacements. Given that the review process of alterations to historic resources was not established until recently, there may have been permits issued for these replacement windows. The current issue is that an owner of one unit wants to change out their existing aluminum framed windows. Staff wants to address the issue for the entire village. She discussed the variety of designs of the existing windows throughout the village and said the current request of this owner is to put in dual paned vinyl windows and to add a grid pattern which is typical of the historic windows, but is proposed between the glass and not on the exterior. The existing wood trim would remain.

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 4/8/2008

1

Member Butt discussed the recent Carquinez Hotel’s request to replace the windows because of waterproofing issues and former Member Duncan’s being adamant about keeping them aluminum. Members discussed colors of frames, standard sizes of windows, original wood windows, contract work, issues of cost and possible offset through funding. Ms. Velasco confirmed the homeowners association signed off on the request and noted the CLG grant application due at the end of the month will request funds to do a Historic Structure Report for Atchison Village. Cedric McNicol discussed the need to obtain permits when changing out windows, noted the Richmond Master Plan Report of 1950 quotes that those permanent houses had a structural life of 40-60 years, Atchison Village had a Master CUP approved in 1968 that the Village is operating under and have expressed their desire to modify. Members of the village are putting up sheds that are affecting the landscape of this resource. The historic structures report will help address some of these bigger issues. It was noted that the owner has lived at the Village since the 1960’s and has a photograph of the windows that were there before. Ms. Velasco said it costs $2,075 to go through the Design Review process for changes to Historic Resources and she believed that either the Committee should approve one window style that can be approved administratively until the Historic Structure Report is completed. The subcommittee has discussed this and wants a more streamlined approach on village-wide issues. Staff is applying for a grant and may not start the work proposed in the grant until the end of this year. The Committee further discussed the number of units having wood vs. aluminum windows, the desire that aluminum windows be replaced in-kind and the owner wanting to replace the windows before the wet weather. It was determined that further research is needed on determining more energy efficient windows and possibly having a study session with the homeowners association and obtaining technical assistance from the NPS. Cedric McNicol said he met with Betty Marvin, a historic planner for the City of Oakland, and the compromise to putting vinyl windows in historic neighborhoods was a recess install, which sits inside the existing wood frame window, with a nice trim around the vinyl that offsets the starkness. It was suggested that other nearby communities be consulted for information. Members agreed the first goal would be to save any existing wood windows, finds funds that can help those who cannot afford to restore the original wood windows, replacing the existing aluminum in-kind, more research in terms of whether or not an aluminum window and the right glass can be found, whether or not the mutton detail that was part of the original window can be obtained, and that a subcommittee be established to begin to develop policies, and thereafter, a meeting be scheduled to go over recommendations. The item was held over to the next HPAC meeting and staff was directed to survey area cities regarding their window replacement polcies. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 5. Reports of Officers, Committee Members, and Staff a. 23rd Street Steering Committee – The Committee discussed and recommended Member Genser-Maack to sit on the Steering Committee along with Vice Chair Morgan. Hector Rojas will be alerted to contact both members as to the date of the

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 4/8/2008

2

next meeting. b. CLG Grant 2008 – Staff reported the City will submit an applicant for funding for a Historic Structure Report for Atchison Village. Member Lawliss will be contacted to get a letter of support from the National Parks Service. c. Preservation Awards – Member Genser-Maack reported the Committee met last week to select the awardees. Winners included Tom Butt as a Community Preservationist; Donna Roselius as founder of the Point Richmond History Association; Pt. Richmond Gateway Foundation for the Rehabilitation of the Trainmasters Building; Festival by the Bay for its historic ads promoting the festival; Richmond Convention and Visitors Bureau for its walking tour map of Point Richmond; and Donna Graves a Preservation Activist for the NPS Home Front Award. Ms. Velasco said she will contact everyone to determine if the 12th or 13th works best for the event. d. Discuss Design Review Subcommittee – Ms. Velasco reported that Member Duncan was the other voting member and Member Cabella is the alternate, and a replacement for Member Duncan was needed. She agreed to ask Member Cabella if he was interested in becoming the voting member. e. Items for Next Meeting on June 10, 2008 – Ms. Velasco said the Miraflores project EIR was moving forward. On Friday they are meeting with a consultant to look at the feasibility of the different preservation alternative. Members believed moving them to an off site location was not a preservation option. Member Genser-Maack suggested a proclamation be presented at the City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Committee adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. to June 10, 2008. Submitted by: L. Harper, Meeting Transcriptionist

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 4/8/2008

3

Motioned – Sandi Genser-Macck Seconded – Judith Morgan Absent – Steven Cabella

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting Planning Conference Room June 10, 2008 6:00 p.m. MINUTES 1. Roll Call Chair Corbin called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. Present:

Chair Rosemary Corbin, Vice Chair Judith Morgan (arrived late), Christopher Bowen, Kimberly Butt, Sandi Genser-Maack, Steven Cabella, Lucy Lawliss and City Council Liaison Tom Butt

Absent:

None

Staff:

Lina Velasco

2. Approval of Agenda – The Committee approved the agenda. 3. Approval of Minutes – April 8, 2008 Ms. Velasco noted the following amendments to the minutes: Charles Duncan and Tom Butt were not present. Member Genser-Maack referred to the last page of the minutes and asked to put a period after the word, “meeting” when referring to the drafting of a proclamation: “Member Genser-Maack suggested a proclamation be presented at the City Council meeting and she agreed to draft one for the May 22 agenda.”

ACTION: It was M/S (Genser-Maack/Butt) to approve the minutes of April 8, 2008, as amended; carried unanimously.

CONSENT CALENDAR Chair Corbin recommended removing all items from the Consent Calendar and first hear Item #2; the Westside Branch Library item first, and then Items 1 and 3. 2. Richmond Westside Branch Library - PUBLIC HEARING to discuss the recent remodeling of the Richmond Westside Branch library located at 135 Washington Avenue (APN: 558-121-001). C-1

(Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Staff Contact: Velasco. Tentative Recommendation: No Action

Lina

Ms. Velasco said this item was placed on the agenda by request of the Committee. The subject library branch building is not a contributing structure to the Point Richmond Historic District, and the building appears to have been constructed in 1950 and has not been individually evaluated for listing. The HPAC therefore has no official jurisdiction, but as a courtesy, staff from the Library can provide information on the Committee’s concerns. The lighting fixtures in the building were noted as a feature to keep through any further renovation of the space by members of the public. Monique LeConge, Director of Library Services, discussed their original desire to replace the light fixtures, but after discussion and interaction with City staff, they are willing to go ahead and maintain the existing lighting fixtures and instead supplement with new lighting. She discussed the fixtures are located in areas currently utilized for art and library materials. Member Steven Cabella said he attended a Council meeting and at the end of his comments, the Council indicated to the public that the building and its details would be maintained. He questioned what had happened. He noted original furnishings and other details have been removed, interior lights that lit up the dome at night were also removed as well as exterior lights that illuminated the landscaping, and high intensity lighting has replaced the original subtle lighting. Chair Corbin asked Tom Butt for comment on the issue, and Mr. Butt said he recollected the discussion was whether or not the City was going to move the Library into some other building, and suggested review of the Council minutes. Chair Corbin reiterated that the HPAC has no authority over the Library building, she agreed all of the details and items should have been saved, she wished something could have been done, but suggested moving forward because changes cannot be restored. Ms. LeConge said the Library does not control the building, the interior renovations were part of a larger public works design-build project. Mr. Butt voiced concern with the way the project was handled, agrees there was a lack of sensitivity and knowledge about how to handle a public project properly and it was rushed, but also agreed it was “water under the bridge.” Member Cabella asked that the HPAC ask that the murals on the concrete pillars be visible, bushes need to be lower so the building slopes, the dome was supposed to glow for the neighborhood, lights are covered up, and he suggested replacing lights with canister lights. Chair Corbin believed the HPAC should pursue identification of architectural structures that are either close to or 50 years old, and Member Genser-Maack suggested that

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 6/10/2008

2

moreover, when funds are available, features of the building be restored; and that if at some point the building is listed, future work should be considered. Mr. Butt said the charge of the Committee should be to try to get buildings in neighborhoods surveyed, he did not believe HPAC or Design Review Board had any jurisdiction or enabling legislation to get involved, and should not get in the middle of the discretionary review process. He suggested that the HPAC recommend the building for surveying, get the City Council to agree, and then make recommendations thereafter. Ms. Velasco suggested identifying this as an example of a problem, request the City Council to provide the Committee with funds to survey City-owned buildings, and those determined eligible for listing would go through the HPAC for a recommendation. She suggested first surveying those buildings built before 1965 and anything after that could be done later, given funding. Mr. Butt questioned whether the Library had to undergo CEQA review, and Ms. Velasco said she was not sure, but believed that interior work would qualify for an exemption. The Committee further discussed design work, renovated items and changes, consideration of future decisions, how the project should have better been handled, and there was agreement to pursue getting the Library branch surveyed. Chair Corbin suggested a motion to seek study of city buildings built before 1965 or to concentrate on this building and go to the City Council to seek funding. Member GenserMaack suggested a study be done for all city buildings to be referred to the HPAC and write the letter to the City Council requesting the HPAC be able to provide input for the Library. Member Bowen suggested first obtaining a list from staff on city owned buildings before the Committee requested funding. Member Lawliss suggested inviting the Public Works Director to a future meeting to raise their awareness on historic structures and the Committee’s role. ACTION: The Committee directed staff to provide a list at the next meeting of all pre1965 City and government-owned buildings; for HPAC to thereafter formulate a request for a study; and for staff to provide information regarding new lighting fixtures to Library staff. 1. Replacement Windows on Historic Structures - CONTINUANCE OF A STUDY SESSION to discuss appropriate treatments and materials for replacement windows on historic structures. Staff Contact: Lina Velasco. Tentative Recommendation: Establish a Subcommittee and Provide Feedback Ms. Velasco said this is a continuance of a study session relating to replacement of nonhistoric windows in historic structures, and the need to restore the original or at least inkind of what the originals would have been. Often times, cost is a huge factor and a

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 6/10/2008

3

policy is needed by the Council, with the Committee adopting guidelines that address important features, such as specifying materials for replacement given their original historic features. She researched some cities, stating Piedmont considers all of their housing to be historic, even though they do not have an established historic preservation program so they do not list anything on local registers. They simply treat all homes as historic and therefore any replacement windows must match the original, and staff spends a lot of time reviewing window replacement. Benicia also has a policy which is being updated and includes what types staff can approve administratively without having to go to the Landmarks Board. The City of Alameda has the benefit of having a specific architectural style and their Historic Society developed a list of acceptable window types, styles, and manufacturers that meet their guidelines. Staff’s recommendation is to establish a guidelines committee who can come up with guidelines that address windows and later in the agenda would also be appropriate infill development for historic districts. Regarding Atchison Village, the City received a CLG grant to do a historic structures report and this will hopefully provide answers to the larger window issue. Member Lawliss reported that she went with some members of the Atchison Village Board to the John Muir House, viewed in-kind replacement windows and felt there is a wonderful opportunity in Richmond for the National Parks Service and RichmondBuild to participate in providing training to Richmond youth in historic preservation techniques and training. She followed up with Tom McGraff, head of the Preservation Workshop in Maryland that if the City had funds, could someone be brought out to lead different workshops or adult classes. She said in 2010, the National Parks Service will receive more grant funding, and she believed some of the funding could be used toward a relationship with the City in preservation efforts and training. Chair Corbin noted San Francisco and Oakland did not respond to staff’s survey efforts, and Ms. Velasco noted she did speak with Berkeley’s secretary to their historic board whom indicated he is the one that directs the discussion because the City has no written policy. They recently dealt with the Shattuck Hotel where the owners wanted to replace their windows with vinyl, and eventually he recommended approval to the Board that the type of window proposed met the Secretary of the Interior’s standards. They deal with window changes on a case-by-case basis. The Board further discussed enabling legislation of the Committee, guidelines on heritage style homes, rehabilitation, restoration, the formation of recommendations which meet the Secretary of the Interior’s standards and future policy which may become an obligation of the owner versus guidance. Tom Butt believed the HPAC should be careful in not taking on design review responsibilities for the entire City, felt the Committee would spend a lot of time and work in developing guidelines.

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 6/10/2008

4

Chair Corbin noted a subcommittee needs to be established and she asked for volunteers, and Member Lawliss suggested holding off on forming a subcommittee until the Architect vacancy is filled. After brief discussion regarding the Preserve America grant, the requirement for a City match, the City’s budget status and expertise on the Committee, the Committee agreed to establish a subcommittee at the September meeting when the HPAC hopefully is at full membership. 3. In-fill Development in Historic Districts - PUBLIC HEARING to discuss recent in-fill projects in historic district and developing criteria for review. Staff Contact: Lina Velasco. Tentative Recommendation: Establish a Subcommittee and Provide Feedback Ms. Velasco said the Design Review Subcommittee is specifically reviewing one nonhistoric infill project on the border of the Pt. Richmond Historic District and there are issues surrounding the project, such as neighborhood council issues, design features and demolition of an existing non-contributing building. She said there is no preservation plan for Pt. Richmond, there are no principles guiding the Design Review Subcommittee and HPAC, and they are therefore reviewing the project on a street-by-street basis. She believed HPAC should go back and identify important features for infill development and also for any future historic district so that the Design Review Subcommittee has clear direction to evaluate project against. The Board discussed examples of homes which had been approved, the need for design guidelines within historic areas, topography, parking, and the suggestion to research, take photographs and present to the City Council examples of compatible designs. Ms. Velasco said staff is also recommending this subcommittee to be held over, as well, and the Committee agreed to establish a subcommittee at the September meeting when the HPAC hopefully is at full membership. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 4. Reports of Officers, Committee Members, and Staff a. Preservation Awards Ceremony – Committee members reported that the awards ceremony was very successful, hoped it would continue in the future, and suggested outside sponsor funding be considered and secured. b. Art Deco Society Award – Member Genser-Maack reported on her attendance to the Art Deco Society Ball and said the City was presented an award. Chair Corbin asked that an item be agendized on an upcoming City Council agenda in order for them to be apprised of receipt of the award. c. Membership Attendance – Ms. Velasco reminded members Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 6/10/2008

5

to alert staff if they are unable to attend meetings so that a quorum is established. d. Possible Retreat/Training – Ms. Velasco suggested October 18, 2008 be tentatively scheduled for a Retreat/Training to identify accomplishments of the Committee and future goals, and said the Committee’s Annual Report to the City Council was typically held in September. e. Items for Next Meeting on September 9, 2008 -

ADJOURNMENT The Committee adjourned at 8:30 p.m. to the next meeting on September 9, 2008. Submitted by: L. Harper, Minute Taker

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 6/10/2008

6

Attachment 4: City Council Resolutions

RESOLUTION No. 99-07 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND APPROVING THE DESIGNATION OF A CIVIC CENTER HISTORIC DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Richmond recognizes the importance of preserving and enhancing the City’s historical and cultural background; and WHEREAS, the Historic Structures Code, Chapter 6.06 of the Richmond Municipal Code, sets forth the criteria and procedures for the designation of a property as a Richmond “Historic Resource” or properties as a “Historic District”; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2007, the City of Richmond Historic Preservation Advisory Committee conducted a duly noticed public hearing, to consider recommending to the City Council designation of a Civic Center Historic District, more particularly described in Exhibit A, with map attached hereto, and incorporated herein and hereafter referred to as the “Civic Center”; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee unanimously voted (50-2) to recommend to the City Council the approval of the designation of Civic Center as a Richmond “Historic District”; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2007, the City Council of the City of Richmond held a public hearing and considered all comments from interested parties; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richmond finds that the Civic Center is historically significant because: 1) it exemplifies or reflects valued elements of the City’s cultural, social, political, aesthetic, or architectural history in the form of a comprehensive and modern civic center; 2) it reflects an important pattern of the City’s settlement and growth associated with WWII and its immediate aftermath; 3) it is representative of the notable work of a locally significant architect, Timothy L. Pflueger; and, 4) it embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, type, period Modernism. WHEREAS, the proposed Historic District Designation complies with the goals and policies of the City of Richmond General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richmond has determined that designation of the Civic Center as a Historic District is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines, Section 15308, Class 8, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment as the project proposes to preserve the historic features and building of the Civic Center. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richmond hereby designates the Civic Center as a Richmond “Historic District”. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the subject properties be placed on the Richmond Historic Register as contributors to a Historic District; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the City of Richmond is directed to: a.

Provide a signed copy of this resolution and written notice of the designation of the subject structure and its placement in the Richmond Register to all of the following: the applicant(s) for designation (if any); the owner(s) of the subject property(ies); the City Building Official; the Director of Planning & Building Services Department; the Richmond Museum Association; the State Office of Historic Preservation; and, the Contra Costa Historical Society; and

b.

Cause a copy of this resolution to be recorded with the Recorder of Contra Costa County as an amendment to the Richmond Historic Register.

---------I certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a meeting thereof held September 11, 2007, by the following vote: AYES:

Councilmembers Bates, Butt, Lopez, Marquez, Rogers, Sandhu, Thurmond, and Mayor McLaughlin

NOES:

None

ABSTENTIONS:

Councilmember Viramontes

ABSENT:

None

DIANE HOLMES CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND [SEAL] Approved:

GAYLE McLAUGLHIN Mayor Approved as to Form:

LOUISE RENNE, Interim City Attorney State of California County of Contra Costa City of Richmond

} : ss. }

I certify tha the forgoing is a true copy of Resolution No. 99-07, finally passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a meeting held on September 11, 2007.

EXHIBIT A Civic Center Historic District The proposed Civic Center Historic District boundaries would generally be Barrett Avenue to the north, Macdonald Avenue to the south, 27th Street to the east, and 25th Street to the west, including APNs 515-251-001, 515-252-001, and portion of 515-210001 (see Exhibit B). The Senior Center and Credit Union parcel are not within the proposed boundaries (APNs 515-262-001, 002, 004).

RESOLUTION No. 127-07 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND APPROVING THE DESIGNATION OF THE SANTA FE TRAINMASTER’S OFFICE AS A HISTORIC RESOURCE PURSUANT TO RMC CHAPTER 6.06 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Richmond recognizes the importance of preserving and enhancing the City’s historical and cultural background; and WHEREAS, the Historic Structures Code, Chapter 6.06 of the Richmond Municipal Code, sets forth the criteria and procedures for the designation of a property as a Richmond “Historic Resource” or properties as a “Historic District”; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007, the City of Richmond Historic Preservation Advisory Committee conducted a duly noticed public hearing, to consider recommending to the City Council designation of the Santa Fe Trainmaster’s Office located at 4 West Richmond Avenue and hereafter referred to as the “Trainmaster Office”; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee voted unanimously to recommend the designation of the Trainmaster’s Office as a “Historic Resource” to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Richmond finds that the Trainmaster’s Office meets the criteria for designation because: 1) it is associated with the arrival of the Santa Fe Railroad, an industry that helped shape the development and growth of Richmond; and, 2) is a unique type and style of building that maintains all of the architectural features common to railroad structures, yet the overall design and use of the building as a reading room makes it distinct in the broader sense of character defining rail yard type structures of the period; and WHEREAS, the proposed Historic Resource Designation complies with the goals and policies of the City of Richmond General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richmond has determined that designation of the Trainmaster’s Office is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines, Section 15308, Class 8, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment as the project proposes to preserve the historic features of the building. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richmond hereby designates the Trainmaster’s Office as a “Historic Resource”. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the subject structure be placed on the Richmond Historic Register as a Historic Resource; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the City of Richmond is directed to: a.

Provide a signed copy of this resolution and written notice of the designation of the subject structure and its placement in the Richmond Register to all of the following: the applicant(s) for designation (if any); the owner(s) of the subject property(ies); the City Building Official; the Director of Planning & Building Services; the Richmond Museum Association; the State Office of Historic Preservation; and, the Contra Costa Historical Society; and

b.

Cause a copy of this resolution to be recorded with the Recorder of Contra Costa County as an amendment to the Richmond Historic Register.

---------I certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held December 4, 2007, by the following vote: AYES:

Councilmembers Bates, Butt, Lopez, Marquez, Rogers, Sandhu, Thurmond, Viramontes, and Mayor McLaughlin

NOES:

None

ABSTENTIONS:

None

ABSENT:

None

DIANE HOLMES CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND [SEAL] Approved:

GAYLE McLAUGHLIN Mayor Approved as to Form:

LOUISE RENNE, Interim City Attorney State of California County of Contra Costa City of Richmond

} : ss. }

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. 127-07, finally passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a meeting held on December 4, 2007.

RESOLUTION No. 49-08 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND APPROVING THE DESIGNATION OF THE FORMER FILICE AND PERRELLI CANNING COMPANY BUILDINGS AS A HISTORIC RESOURCE PURSUANT TO RMC CHAPTER 6.06 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richmond (“City Council”) recognizes the importance of preserving and enhancing the City’s historical and cultural background; and WHEREAS, the Historic Structures Code, Chapter 6.06 of the Richmond Municipal Code, sets forth the criteria and procedures for the designation of a property as a Richmond “Historic Resource” or properties as a “Historic District”; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2008, the City of Richmond Historic Preservation Advisory Committee conducted a duly noticed public hearing, to consider recommending to the City Council designation of the former Filice and Perrelli canning Company buildings located at 1200 Harbour Way South and 1275 Hall Avenue and hereafter referred to as the “Cannery”; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee voted unanimously to recommend the designation of the Cannery as a “Historic Resource” to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2008, the City Council of the City of Richmond held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed amendment, and heard testimony in favor of, and in opposition to, the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the proposed Historic Resource Designation complies with the goals and policies of the City of Richmond General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richmond has determined that designation of the Cannery is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines, Section 15308, Class 8, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment as the project proposes to preserve the historic features of the building. WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Richmond finds that the Cannery meets the criteria for designation because: 1) it is associated with the canning industry, an industry that greatly contributed to the local and regional economy; 2) it played a vital role during World War II by supplying canned goods for the armed forced and leasing space to Kaiser for the storage of steel plates used in ship construction; and, 3) the main cannery building is a good representation of the Art Deco style of architecture; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richmond hereby designates the Cannery as a “Historic Resource”. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the City of Richmond is directed to: a.

Provide a signed copy of this resolution and written notice of the designation of the subject structure and its placement in the Richmond Register to all of the following: the applicant(s) for designation (if any); the owner(s) of the subject property(ies); the City Building Official; the Director of Planning & Building Services; the Richmond Museum Association; the State Office of Historic Preservation; and, the Contra Costa Historical Society; and

b.

Cause a copy of this resolution to be recorded with the Recorder of Contra Costa County as an amendment to the Richmond Historic Register. ----------

I certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on May 6, 2008, by the following vote: AYES:

Councilmembers Butt, Marquez, Rogers, Sandhu, Thurmond, Viramontes, and Mayor McLaughlin

NOES:

None

ABSTENTIONS:

Councilmember Bates

ABSENT:

Councilmember Lopez

DIANE HOLMES CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND [SEAL] Approved:

GAYLE McLAUGLHIN Mayor Approved as to Form:

LOUISE RENNE, Interim City Attorney State of California County of Contra Costa City of Richmond

} : ss. }

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. 49-08, finally passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a meeting held on May 6, 2008.