Historic Preservation Advisory Committee

8/14/2019 Historic Preservation Advisory Committee

1/68

Attachment 1: HPAC Roster


2/68

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Two Year Terms

City Council Liaison Design Review Subcommittee HPAC Awards 2009 Subcommittee

Tom K. Butt

235 East Scenic AvenueRichmond, CA 94801

(510) 236-7435 (W)

(510) 237-2084 (H)

[email protected]

Ric Borjes

Kimberly ButtSandi Genser-Maack

Rosemary Corbin

Sandi Genser-MaackJudith Morgan

NAME TELEPHONE 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

7/31/20077/19/2007

7/31/2009

Sandi Genser-Maack

521 32nd

Street , Richmond, CA 94804

[email protected]

(510) 237-5670 (H) 7/19/2005

7/31/20077/19/2007

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
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/68

Attachment 2: HPAC Resumes


4/68


5/68


6/68


7/68


8/68


9/68


10/68


11/68


12/68


13/68


14/68


15/68


16/68


17/68


18/68


19/68


20/68


21/68

Attachment 3: HPAC Meeting Minutes


22/68

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee MeetingPlanning Conference Room

October 9, 20076:00 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, 4

th

line; In December 2005 the buildingwas 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 NystromFamily FarmNeighborhood District.

Chair Corbin referred to Page 4, first paragraph, and she asked if the Mexican BaptistChurch was on Barrett Avenue. Ms. Velasco said the church should be listed as 483 BStreet. 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


23/68

permits discretionary for buildings 50 under years or older, and Mr. Butt felt this could bedone.

Chair Corbin referred to page 5, third complete paragraph; Vice Chair Morganquestioned next steps, and Ms. Velasco said in terms of Nystrom,

CouncilmemberCommitte

e member Butt identified some themes to focus on while thesurvey was being done to include the Home front story, the Pre-War, and the Maritimetheme.

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 5 th paragraph; Though many

neighborhoods in Richmond were home to shipyard workers, Nystrom is unique given itsproximity 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 DraftPRESENTATION (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. TentativeRecommendation: 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 wasrequested 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 aGeneral Plan Element and the very first-cut of an element format. Ms. Fitzzaland saidafter 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 theRiveter 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


APPROVED


24/68

neighborhood plan, general plan content and City policy. Another draft will be sent tothe 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 includedgathering 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 theGeneral 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 itis updated as necessary.

She noted on October 18

th

, MIG was going to hold a meeting regarding planning in the ElSobrante 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 themwork 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 atthe 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, inJanuary 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 forHPAC to review and discuss.

Dan Drazen reviewed the Historical Resources Element, presented a list of the documentshe 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 theHPAC, which included goals, issues, priorities, and strategies.


APPROVED


25/68

Mr. Drazen presented a slide of the Historical Resources elements 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. Drazensaid Richmond has a rich history and this goal emphasizes preserving and leveragingthose 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 thosemoving forward.

He said the second policy has to do with reuse and restoration of historic buildings andwe 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 withinthe 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, wasredundant. To her, it is about preservation and rehabilitation of historical resources

because the Citys 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 InteriorsStandards. Preservation is the overall treatment under which restoration, rehabilitation

and reconstruction occurs, but we would never use the term because it is veryprescriptive.

Chair Corbin said the HPAC ran into this problem with the Plunge, the State Office ofHP 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 itrehabilitation, 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 complywith, such as the Secretary of the Interiors standards or any other goals. Ms. Fitzzaland

said this is part of the backgroundwhat is the framework they are working within, and

State and Federal standards should be part of it. This will also circle back when they talkabout 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 areimportant. In addition to Main Street and a commercial area there will be many


APPROVED


26/68

character-defining features along with residential neighborhoods that do not meet a MainStreet 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 thiselement. 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. MemberLawliss 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 thehistory 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 goodexamples 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, theyasked to replace the restoration with preservation, add the word properties after

adaptive reuse of historic properties. Promote the preservation instead of restoration.


APPROVED


27/68

Ms. Velasco said at some point, the HPAC will need to talk about whether it must bedesignated 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 tothe 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 adaptivereuse 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, askedthat 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 ofbungalows 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 enhancepreservation 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 infilldevelopment.

Chair Corbin felt new development and restoration were two different things and itshould 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 andthey 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 otheris 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 aseparate goal. She asked to also change the word, restore to rehabilitate.


APPROVED


28/68

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 Centers historic significance also related to setbacks and landscape,nit just the buildings architecture. HPAC members confirmed there were no otherchanges to HR-A.

Regarding HR-B, Mr. Drazen said the goal focuses on education and awareness. In

Policy 4, it talks about increasing the publics knowledge of the history of the City andimportance 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 saidstrong 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, andto 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, preservehistorically 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 inthe 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 Corbinsuggested 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 withthe 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.


APPROVED


29/68

Member Lawliss noted the National Center for Preservations Training and Technologyhas 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 mixinghistorical 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 opportunitiesand 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 originallywritten, 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 accessfor 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 returna 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 historicproperty 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 wasstated 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 fallsunder pre-Proposition 13 and it doesnt really benefit the owner.

Chair Corbin felt the City should look to provide incentives, such as offering architecturalor 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.


APPROVED


30/68

Member Lawliss felt there was opportunity for this section to reflect historicpreservation, 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 economicdevelopment tool. By bringing people to the City to see historical resources, it willencourage 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 isemphasizing Richmonds 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 Richmonds history to life and showing people all of theaccomplishments 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 isclear 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 Richmonds historyis 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 toRichmond 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 1940s 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, emphasizingthe 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 thereare not enough people in them. So, she felt it was important to remember the people part


APPROVED


31/68

of this. She struggled when she was mayor to try and get some of the historic buildingsretrofitted 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 andother buildings in downtown and this is probably where the incentives policy comes intoplay. She said one of the goals Utah Cultural Heritage Tourisms 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 werent using

them to their max potential. She wanted to see how Richmond can tighten up some of itspreservation efforts in this area.

Member Bowen asked if some jurisdictions in the Bay Area have finished theirretrofitting 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 beenaddressed. 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 HPACs

recommendation designating the Nursery as a historic resource. It was only certainbuildings 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 Citymakes 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 thatwould 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 thefuture.

Ms. Fitzzaland said it would be helpful for the HPAC to provide written comments on theimplementation 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.


APPROVED


32/68

Members Lawliss requested Ms. Fitzzaland send a Word document via email in order toprovide their suggested changes and all felt it was valuable to discuss it. Member Genser-

Maack 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 meetingDonna 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 HPACs comments by December 11 th or so.

Members discussed valuable items brought back from the conference from other cities onhistoric 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 allresources recently designated were incorporated. Ms Fitzzaland asked that HPAC mark

up the map and identify any changes.

5. Demolition Permit ProcessSTUDY SESSIONto discuss to potential changes to the Citys 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 signoff. 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 requireplanning 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 animportant 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


APPROVED


33/68


34/68

next meeting.

d. National Preservation Conference St. Paul, Minnesota HPAC membersbriefly discussed the conference highlights. Member Genser-Maack notedthere is a National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, every other year

they hold a conference and there are a lot of resources. She said she attendedseveral 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, andMember 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 besome 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 therestoration 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 WilliamWurster house and on the other side is a Henry Hill house that has been

disguised by someone in the late 1950s. He said the property was purchasedby 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. MemberCabella 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 therewould 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


APPROVED


35/68


November 13, 20076:00 p.m.

MINUTES

1. Roll Call


Present: Chair Rosemary Corbin and Members Christopher Bowen, Charles

Duncan, Sandi Genser-Maack, Steven Cabella, Kimberly Butt, LucyLawliss (arrived late), and City Council Liaison Tom Butt

Absent: Vice Chair Judith Morgan

Staff: Lina Velasco


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, hedisagreed with putting in the period.

Page 8, 6th paragraph, Member Lawliss questioned if there were anyincentives 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 ifHPAC wanted to keep the Board as is, the only person who would need to

be replaced is David Blackburn on the Design Review Subcommittee.



36/68

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 DraftPRESENTATION 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 GPACwould 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 Committees

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 Corbinagreed.

Council Liaison Tom Butt said there was a lot of discussion regarding terminology fromthe minutes, such as restoration, rehabilitation, preservation, and he suggested that the

last page incorporate a terminology section. He also confirmed with Ms. Fitzzaland thatimages, 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 Staffa. Election of Chair, Vice Chair, and Design Review Subcommittee

Chair Corbin, Vice Chair Morgan, and DRB Subcommittee: Members Duncan, Butt,

Lawliss, Cabella (alternate)



37/68

b. Items for Next Meeting December 11, 2007Donna Graves will be making a presentation on her report Mapping Richmonds World

war II Homefront.

ADJOURNMENT

The Committee adjourned at 8:00 p.m. to December 11, 2007.

Submitted by: Lisa Harper, Minute Taker



38/68

1

Meeting Notes

City of Richmond Historic Preservation CommitteeGeneral Plan Presentation and Discussion

Planning Conference RoomNovember 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:

Revise existing Historical Context section to include prehistory era and the Ohlone Indians.

Page 5: Discuss Civic Center as separate from Downtown.

Page 5: Correct spelling of Genser-Maack collection to Genser-Maack collection.

Page 6: Replace officially listed with nationally recognized; spell-out full name of theNational Register of Historic Places; remove last portion of the final sentence in paragraph

one.

Page 6: Opening paragraph: Add As of the adopting of the General Plan.

Page 6: Include the Richmond Plunge as an historic resource; consider providing full list inappendix and not using partial lists within the text.

MIG will forward a MS Word version of the Historical Context section for HPAC members toprovide direct comments and edits by 12-15-07.

Comments and Revisions to Goals and Policies:

Demonstrate that the goals, policies and implementation measures are a framework toencourage 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 hasbrought money into the City (i.e. grant for the Richmond Plunge, tax incentives for the Ford

Building).

Incorporate language to describe how surveys serve an important role in reducing developeruncertainty.

Use term historic, not historical.


39/68

2

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

Use a more declarative tone and action words. Do not use the City.,

Consider having the document reviewed by a George Coles, a local Native American expert.

HR-1: Encourage streetscape level historical amenities, such as storefront exhibits/exhibitsin public spaces.

HR-1: Consider devoting a section of the Citys website to list specific resources.

HR-1: Encourage library exhibits and museum programs throughout the community.

HR-2: Encourage (and support) schools to teach historic architecture by positioning the Cityas a resource.

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

HR-4: Rethink examples. Use Pullman complex/Tradeway building, International Hotelinstead.

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

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.

HR-6: Discuss how archaeological sites should be made part of the Citys historic fabric.

HR-7: Historic restoration is inherently green use this phrasing.

HR-C: Revise the last part of the last sentence of the introductory paragraph with as a tool forrevitalization and enhancing the identity of the City.


40/68

3

Comments and Revisions to Implementation Measures:

12.7.1: Mention the Secretary of the Interiors standards in last bullet point.

Remove 12.7.3 and replace with an implementation measure to create a priority list andguidelines for frequency of updates.

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.

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

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

12.7.4: Eliminate the word County from the bullet that references the West Contra CostaUnified School District.

12.7.5: Utilize existing committee and staff instead of forming new bodies; remove fourthbullet point (already completed); consolidate last three bullets; review State statutes on

retrofitting and financing opportunities.

12.7.5: Add bullet that discusses establishing new guidelines for Community Development

Block Grants.

12.7.6: Remove first bullet point (already completed).

12.7.6: Revise the third bullet to read: Educate the Citys residents about the Citys role inimplementing the concept of the

12.7.6: Delete the fifth bullet: Promote continued research on the history of Richmond.

12.7.6: Revise last bullet to be more targeted; remove list of resources.

12.7.6: Add implementation measure: Explore ways to effectively use the Mills Act.

12.7.6: Add implementation measure: Establish archive policy regarding historic resources.Mention the archive policy for the Bancroft Library at UC Berkeley.

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


41/68

4

12.7.6: Add implementation measure: Continue requirements for CLG status.

12.7.6: Include language which reflects redevelopment agencys role in training, educationand decision-making.

Consider designating an historic resources planner and/or an institutionalized approach topreservation and reuse.

Comments and Revisions to Glossary of Terms:

Add additional terms: National Historic Register, historic, historical.

Requested Format Changes:

Include photos and images.

Include implementation measures under their corresponding policies.


42/68


43/68

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 thelegislation, 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 nearMacdonald 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 toRichmond to staff industries but historic train stations are not present.

She noted the Richmond Housing Authority administered a program and was the first toreceive 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 privatedevelopment of housing to satisfy the onslaught of Richmond residents. The Planning

and Building Department files will reveal streets that have 1941 and 1942 housing. Shesaid 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 byresidents 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 Rowon 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. Thecounty 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



44/68

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, thePublic Library which had extensive technical assistance and training programs for

shipyard workers and they even began an after-school program. The Richmond ArtsCenter taught many shipyard workers different art forms and she found in the Library aproposal 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 Richmonds

history partly because North Richmond is not well documented. She presented picturesof 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 iscoming in soon with a request to designate the site, which is being initiated by the

owners. Committee members discussed local designations and national registerdesignations 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 ChairMorgan 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 indicatewho 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 anannual 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 IronTriangle, which will expand must of the mapping.



45/68

C OMMITTEE BUSINESS

5. Reports of Officers, Committee Members, and StaffMember Genser-Maack presented everything she found from the 2000 Historic

Preservation Award when Rosemary Corbin was the Citys Mayor. She said it was amillennium 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 wasmillennium 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 workon the subcommittee with Member Genser-Maack.

a. Meeting Times & Dates for 2008Chair Corbin noted Member Bowen cannot attend Wednesday meetings. Ms. Velascosaid 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 inFebruary.

b. Items for Next MeetingChair Corbin requested the Historic Preservation Awards be agendized. Member Genser-

Maack recommended reviewing the Citys pattern book, as it deals with styles and

design. Ms. Velasco said the document was in its final stage, said they would hopefullyconduct 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 buildingsincluding 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



46/68


47/68

ACTION: It was M/S (Duncan/Genser-Maack) to recommend approval to the City

Council. Vote: 7-0-1 (Cabella absent).

4. Point Molate UpdateSTUDY 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 reduceits impacts; and HPACs role in the review process. City of Richmond, owner;Upstream Point Molate LLC, applicant. Staff Contact: Lina Velasco. TentativeRecommendation: 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 themost stringent requirement for determining and evaluating resources and it assessesimpacts to the resources which is the guiding regulatory framework for NEPA. He saidanything 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 whichother resources and objects might qualify under CEQA, but this particular project isdefined in terms of what the historic properties are.

He presented a brief overview of the CEQA/NEPA process, said they are doing ahybridized document. He described the combination of the two processes to arrive at asingle document that will look very much like a CEQA document but with a great deal ofSection 106 language and NEPA language. He said the Notice of Preparation and Noticeof Intent were published in 2005, the scoping meeting was held in March of 2005 andthey are in the process of completing the Administrative Draft EIR along with subsequentsteps. 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 resourceinventory which will include identification of significant sites, buildings and districts thatmeet or potentially meet the definition of a historic property. Wine Haven or the districtat 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 beseveral impacts. The final step will be resolution of those effects and they will puttogether a comprehensive treatment plan, the core of which will be the design guidelinesfor the restoration of Wine Haven. Actions specified would be memorialized in aMemorandum of Agreement or a Programmatic Agreement, both of which are legallyenforceable documents.

He discussed project alternatives, stating three of the alternatives involve a trustacquisition; the Bureau of Indian Affairs would take the property into federal trust for thebenefit of the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians (Tribe); Alternative D involves a non-trust acquisition where the property would remain fee simple and would include a mixeduse development, with residential and retail uses and other amenities. Alternative A is adestination resort with casino, retail, dining, a conference facility, entertainment venue,parking, a shoreline park, hillside open space, ferry service and restoration of WineHaven. Alternative B is identical to A with the addition of a residential neighborhood in



48/68

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 northeastand Alternative A, with most development occurring in the southern and northern portionof the project site. He said some of the main project components include the Point Hotelwith 25 associated cabanas or guest suites, an entertainment complex and retail village, ahotel with 800 rooms, the Wine Haven building which would be restored and used as acasino along with new construction, a parking structure with photovoltaic panels, aconference center integrated in the upper level, tribal offices, a round house facility andfield area for cultural renewal events and ceremonial use which would be provided in theeastern hillside area. The 29 cottages and the winemakers house would be adaptively re-used as guest suites.

He presented Alternative B which is identical to A with the addition of a southernresidential neighborhood of 240 units proposed of varying density. The reduced intensityalternative has no housing component, no Point Hotel, the retail center has been reducedfrom 300,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet, the resort hotel is reduced from 800rooms 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 runsalong the entire bay front. The City would retain title to a 50-foot strip that would makeup a portion of the park and park amenities would include a Bay Trail that wouldcontinue through the property, picnic grounds, restroom facilities, and other items.Alternative D is the most dissimilar of the four development alternatives and has thelargest footprint.

He discussed the Historic District which covers 71 acres; he said there have been someattempts in the past to constrict the boundary, and now the percentage of contributingelements in the District is somewhere above 50%. In the past, the State HistoricPreservation Office has recommended the District be restricted in size; however, it waslisted in 1976 and because of an archaic portion of the regulations, anything listed prior toa certain date in 1980 cannot be reduced in size unless there is a loss of integrity thataffects the significance of the District. That is not the case here, so the District isconsidered the entire 71 acres.

He presented the outline of the District boundary, said it covers a sizeable portion of thenorthern project area, the contributing structures are highlighted in orange and there are29 residential structures. Other major structures include Wine Haven, an adjacentwarehouse, Building number 6, the power house, a plane and milling shop used forstorage, and the fire station.

Regarding analyzing the existing conditions of the District and its resources, theyassembled a team of architectural historians who performed a historic resources survey.



49/68

They are also assisting in analyzing the impacts and mitigation measures for thoseimpacts, an architectural/engineering firm located in Sacramento has performed a historicstructure 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 wouldnot 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 inthe district, described their historical features, construction, types and uses of thebuildings.

Regarding impacts, they have identified three primary impacts; physical destruction of acontributing element of the district, moving a contributing element from its historiclocation, and introduction of visual elements that would diminish the districts integrityof setting. All impacts would be considered an adverse effect pursuant to Section 106 anda significant impact for CEQA and NEPA. He presented an overlay of the projectfootprint, 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 withintroduction of new construction in and around the fire station.

In development of the treatment plan, a core element will provide for long-termmaintenance and specify the compensation for loss of the contributing elements, thecenterpiece will be the design guidelines and HPAC could comment and makerecommendations to the City based on review of those design guidelines, which are beingput together. He said some attributes guiding the development include respecting thehistoric uses and unique architectural character of the district, holistic restoration of theentire project site, adaptive re-use of the buildings, use of appropriate materials,thoughtful integration of the new construction and responsiveness to input from thecommunity and HPAC. He noted HPAC has an opportunity to participate in review of thedraft design guidelines, act as a community liaison and provide recommendations directlyto the City Council in the development of the final design guidelines.

Chair Corbin said when the Citizens Advisory Committee was drawing up the BlueRibbon Plan, HPAC had some sort of analysis of the conditions of the structures whichwas a lot more optimistic than what has been presented. She questioned whether therehad been that much deterioration over the last 10 years.

Mr. Taggart said the baseline environmental survey was reviewed and the conclusion wasthat everything is salvageable; there is nothing that is beyond repair but it is more of aquestion of how the resources get spent and what should be emphasized. He said therehas been a significant change in condition over the last 10 years, but it is not to the pointwhere 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 reconstructedusing modern materials and techniques, but the question of seismic retrofit was beyondthe scope of the analysis at this time.



50/68

Member Lawliss questioned if the period of significance was being brought up throughWWII 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 buildingsshould be considered especially given the fact that the City has been designated as homeof the WWII Home Front National Historical Park. She thought the City would beinterested in knowing the significance of the WWII layer and making sure it wasconsidered in whatever plan is proposed. The Committee further discussed the culturallandscape created other than individual structures and believed the fact that thewarehouse was placed in a particular location and served other buildings becomes criticalto understanding the use and function of a particular place. And, something like WineHaven and future use by the Navy would be a critical component of the significance ofthis landscape.

Member Lawliss said she was not sure how many buildings were left that would stay aspart of a formal Naval district which were centered around Building 6, but believed theyshould be salvaged and reviewed by someone.

Councilman Butt said another issue is that one of the prohibitions in the Citys HistoricStructures Code is demolition by neglect, and he did not realize the buildings were insuch poor shape.

The committee further discussed with Mr. Salmon, Upstream LLC, areas owned by theCity and the Navy in the area and the work underway with the Navy to have the areascleaned up.

Ms. Velasco questioned when the draft design guidelines were expected to be preparedfor HPAC to comment on, and Mr. Taggart said he anticipates they would be ready in thenext 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 anAdministrative Draft and getting the Final Draft out, there was a lot of work to be doneon the cultural resources front. Work to be done included four archaeological sites thatneeded evaluation and a 90-day approval process to get permits from the Navy to do thesurveying, and the group discussed the beachfront boundaries and capping by asignificant amount of fill.

Member Lawliss questioned whether or not areas from the last native prairie had beeninventoried and whether they were in the plan. Mr. Taggart said there has been athorough biological review and wetland delineation and because of the bloom periods forcertain species, the surveys must be staggered. One round of survey has been completedand another bloom window is coming up between March-May, and it must be acted onquickly due to the deer population.



51/68

Mr. Taggart and Salmon thanked the Committee for their time to present and discuss theproject.

C OMMITTEE BUSINESS

6. Reports of Officers, Committee Members, and Staffa. Meeting Times & Dates for 2008

Member Genser-Maack presented the Historic Preservation Awards nomination form,said it is located on the Citys website and Ms. Velasco will email all members the linkand 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, 2008Member Genser-Maack said in the last edition of the National Preservation magazine,Richard Moe, President talked about historic preservation and asked members to go ontheir link; www.nationaltrust.org/preservation, and it talks about how preservation isrecycling, how green it is, how it saves money and arguments that will be needed foreverything we do in the future.

Ms. Velasco said there are no current items scheduled for the next agenda, but manyprojects are in the planning stages such as the school districts EIR related to the NystromSchool and some of the other school district buildings and ancillary buildings which areslated for demolition and some for renovation, and Committee members discussed EIRpublic 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



52/68


April 8, 20086:00 p.m.

MINUTES

1. Roll Call


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 discussappropriate treatments and materials for replacement windows on historic structures. StaffContact: Lina Velasco. Tentative Recommendation: Establish a Subcommittee andProvide Feedback.

Ms. Velasco said the City has received more than one request to replace windows at AtchisonVillage and the Historic Structures Code requires that any exterior alteration go through a formalprocess of design review. The HPAC Design Review Subcommittee would make arecommendation to the DRB; however, given it could be a larger issue than with just this oneunit, she questioned what would be appropriate in terms of replacement windows. She said shefound some units that have not changed out windows and some have vinyl replacements. Giventhat 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 framedwindows. Staff wants to address the issue for the entire village. She discussed the variety ofdesigns of the existing windows throughout the village and said the current request of this owneris to put in dual paned vinyl windows and to add a grid pattern which is typical of the historicwindows, but is proposed between the glass and not on the exterior. The existing wood trimwould remain.



53/68

Member Butt discussed the recent Carquinez Hotels request to replace the windows because ofwaterproofing issues and former Member Duncans being adamant about keeping themaluminum. Members discussed colors of frames, standard sizes of windows, original woodwindows, contract work, issues of cost and possible offset through funding. Ms. Velascoconfirmed the homeowners association signed off on the request and noted the CLG grantapplication 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 theRichmond Master Plan Report of 1950 quotes that those permanent houses had a structural life of40-60 years, Atchison Village had a Master CUP approved in 1968 that the Village is operatingunder and have expressed their desire to modify. Members of the village are putting up sheds thatare affecting the landscape of this resource. The historic structures report will help address someof these bigger issues.

It was noted that the owner has lived at the Village since the 1960s and has a photograph of thewindows that were there before. Ms. Velasco said it costs $2,075 to go through the DesignReview 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 HistoricStructure Report is completed.

The subcommittee has discussed this and wants a more streamlined approach on village-wideissues. Staff is applying for a grant and may not start the work proposed in the grant until the endof this year. The Committee further discussed the number of units having wood vs. aluminumwindows, the desire that aluminum windows be replaced in-kind and the owner wanting toreplace the windows before the wet weather. It was determined that further research is needed ondetermining more energy efficient windows and possibly having a study session with thehomeowners 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, whichsits inside the existing wood frame window, with a nice trim around the vinyl that offsets thestarkness. 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 canhelp those who cannot afford to restore the original wood windows, replacing the existingaluminum in-kind, more research in terms of whether or not an aluminum window and the rightglass can be found, whether or not the mutton detail that was part of the original window can beobtained, and that a subcommittee be established to begin to develop policies, and thereafter, ameeting 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.

C OMMITTEE BUSINESS

5. Reports of Officers, Committee Members, and Staffa. 23rd Street Steering Committee The Committee discussed and recommended

Member Genser-Maack to sit on the Steering Committee along with Vice ChairMorgan. Hector Rojas will be alerted to contact both members as to the date of the



54/68

next meeting.

b. CLG Grant 2008 Staff reported the City will submit an applicant for funding for aHistoric Structure Report for Atchison Village. Member Lawliss will be contacted toget a letter of support from the National Parks Service.

c. Preservation Awards Member Genser-Maack reported the Committee met lastweek to select the awardees. Winners included Tom Butt as a CommunityPreservationist; Donna Roselius as founder of the Point Richmond HistoryAssociation; Pt. Richmond Gateway Foundation for the Rehabilitation of theTrainmasters Building; Festival by the Bay for its historic ads promoting the festival;Richmond Convention and Visitors Bureau for its walking tour map of PointRichmond; and Donna Graves a Preservation Activist for the NPS Home FrontAward.

Ms. Velasco said she will contact everyone to determine if the 12th or 13th works bestfor the event.

d. Discuss Design Review Subcommittee Ms. Velasco reported that Member Duncanwas 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 wasinterested in becoming the voting member.

e. Items for Next Meeting on June 10, 2008 Ms. Velasco said the Miraflores projectEIR was moving forward. On Friday they are meeting with a consultant to look atthe feasibility of the different preservation alternative. Members believed movingthem to an off site location was not a preservation option.

Member Genser-Maack suggested a proclamation be presented at the City Councilmeeting.

ADJOURNMENT

The Committee adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. to June 10, 2008.

Submitted by: L. Harper, Meeting Transcriptionist



55/68

Motioned Sandi Genser-Macck

Seconded Judith Morgan

Absent Steven Cabella


June 10, 20086:00 p.m.

MINUTES

1. Roll Call


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


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 periodafter 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 hearItem #2; the Westside Branch Library item first, and then Items 1 and 3.

2. Richmond Westside Branch Library - PUBLIC HEARING todiscuss the recent remodeling of the Richmond Westside Branch

library located at 135 Washington Avenue (APN: 558-121-001). C-1


56/68

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

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 Committees

concerns. The lighting fixtures in the building were noted as a feature to keep throughany further renovation of the space by members of the public.

Monique LeConge, Director of Library Services, discussed their original desire to replacethe 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 hiscomments, the Council indicated to the public that the building and its details would bemaintained. 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 hasreplaced 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 otherbuilding, and suggested review of the Council minutes.

Chair Corbin reiterated that the HPAC has no authority over the Library building, sheagreed 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 wasrushed, but also agreed it was water under the bridge.

Member Cabell

Documents

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee