Historic Preservation Advisory Committee

Attachment 1: HPAC Roster
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Two Year Terms
City Council Liaison Design Review Subcommittee HPAC Awards 2009 Subcommittee
Tom K. Butt Ric Borjes Rosemary Corbin
235 East Scenic Avenue Kimberly Butt Sandi Genser-Maack
Richmond, CA 94801 Sandi Genser-Maack Judith Morgan
(510) 236-7435 (W)
(510) 237-2084 (H)
tom.butt@intres.com
TERM
NAME TELEPHONE APPOINTED EXPIRATION
Rosemary Corbin, Chair (510) 235-5779 7/19/2005 7/19/2007

114 Crest Avenue, Richmond, CA 94801 7/31/2007 7/31/2009
rdcorbin@sbcglobal.net
Judith Morgan, Vice Chair (510) 758-1879 (H) 7/19/2005 7/19/2007

5151 Simoni Court , Richmond, CA 94803 (510) 234-3512 (W) 7/31/2007 7/31/2009
judy@rcoc.com
Christopher Bowen (510) 234-2325 (H) 12/6/2005 7/19/2007

636 – 38th Street, Richmond, CA 94805 (925) 646-1740 (W) 7/31/2007 7/31/2009
barboncino@yahoo.com
Kimberly Butt (510) 220-7145 7/19/2005 7/19/2007

882 Bates Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94530 7/31/2007 7/31/2009
kimmartin40@hotmail.com
Sandi Genser-Maack (510) 237-5670 (H) 7/19/2005 7/19/2007

521 – 32nd Street , Richmond, CA 94804 7/31/2007 7/31/2009
esandi@comcast.net
Steven Cabella (510) 237-2377 (H) 7/31/2007 7/31/2009

737 Ocean Avenue, Pt. Richmond, CA 94801 (415) 456-3960 (W)
moderni@mindspring.com
Ric Borjes (415) 892-6522(H) 9/16/2008 9/16/2010

c/o National Park Service (510) 232-1544 (W)
1401 Marina Way So., Richmond, CA 94804
Ric_Borjes@nps.gov
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

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.

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

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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 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

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

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

November 13, 2007
6:00 p.m.
MINUTES
1. Roll Call
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
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.”

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

a. Election of Chair, Vice Chair, and Design Review Subcommittee
Chair Corbin, Vice Chair Morgan, and DRB Subcommittee: Members Duncan, Butt,
Lawliss, Cabella (alternate)

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

Meeting Notes
City of Richmond Historic Preservation Committee

General Plan Presentation and Discussion
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:
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 the
National 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 in
appendix and not using partial lists within the text.
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:
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).
Incorporate language to describe how surveys serve an important role in reducing developer
uncertainty.
Use term “historic”, not “historical.”
1
Instead of organizing new bodies and framework dedicated to historic preservation, empower
existing 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/exhibits

in public spaces.
HR-1: Consider devoting a section of the City’s 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 City
as a resource.
HR-B: State that the City will support the Secretary of the Interior standards, where
appropriate.
HR-4: Rethink examples. Use “Pullman complex/Tradeway building, International Hotel”

instead.
HR-6: Remove “numerous”; recognize and integrate in addition to protection; develop

interpretive 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 City’s 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 for
revitalization and enhancing the identity of the City.”
2
Comments and Revisions to Implementation Measures:
12.7.1: Mention the Secretary of the Interior’s standards in last bullet point.
Remove 12.7.3 and replace with an implementation measure to create a priority list and
guidelines 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 historic
resources within a certain timeframe.
12.7.4: Eliminate the word “County” from the bullet that references the West Contra Costa
Unified School District.
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.
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 City’s residents about the City’s role in
implementing 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.
3
12.7.6: Add implementation measure: Continue requirements for CLG status.
12.7.6: Include language which reflects redevelopment agency’s role in training, education
and decision-making.
Consider designating an “historic resources” planner and/or an institutionalized approach to

preservation 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.
4
December 11, 2007
6:00 p.m.
MINUTES
1. Roll Call
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
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

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

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.

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

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 Genser-
Maack 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

February 12, 2008
6:00 p.m.
MINUTES
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Rosemary Corbin, Vice Chair Judith Morgan, and Members
Christopher Bowen, Kimberly Butt, Charles Duncan, Sandi Genser-
Maack 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

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 non-
trust 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

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 re-
used 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.

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.

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.

Mr. Taggart and Salmon thanked the Committee for their time to present and discuss the
project.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS

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

April 8, 2008
6:00 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 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.

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

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

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

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

June 10, 2008
6:00 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 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: Lina
Velasco. 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 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

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 Genser-
Maack 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 pre-
1965 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 non-
historic windows in historic structures, and the need to restore the original or at least in-
kind of what the originals would have been. Often times, cost is a huge factor and a

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.

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 non-
historic 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
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

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

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 (5-

0-2) 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 : ss.
City of Richmond }
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 515-210-
001 (see Exhibit B). The Senior Center and Credit Union parcel are not within the
proposed boundaries (APNs 515-262-001, 002, 004).

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
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.

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

----------
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
[SEAL]
Approved:
GAYLE McLAUGHLIN
Mayor

City Attorney
City of Richmond }
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.

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
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

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
----------
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
[SEAL]
Approved:
GAYLE McLAUGLHIN
Mayor

City Attorney
City of Richmond }
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.

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Attachment 1: HPAC Roster

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Rosemary Corbin, Chair (510) 235-5779 7/19/2005 7/19/2007

Judith Morgan, Vice Chair (510) 758-1879 (H) 7/19/2005 7/19/2007

Christopher Bowen (510) 234-2325 (H) 12/6/2005 7/19/2007

Kimberly Butt (510) 220-7145 7/19/2005 7/19/2007

Sandi Genser-Maack (510) 237-5670 (H) 7/19/2005 7/19/2007

Steven Cabella (510) 237-2377 (H) 7/31/2007 7/31/2009

Ric Borjes (415) 892-6522(H) 9/16/2008 9/16/2010

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting

Chair Corbin called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

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:

Page 4, third paragraph; “Member Genser-Maack questioned whether it would be better

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007 1

ACTION: It was M/S (Genser-Maack/Lawliss) to approve the minutes of August 14,

4. General Plan Historic Resources Element Working Draft

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007 2

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007 3

Regarding Goal A; Preservation and Conservation of Historical Resources, Mr. Drazen

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007 4

Member Lawliss felt it would be great to include an example of an historical park

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007 5

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007 6

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007 7

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007 8

Mr. Drazen referred to Policy number 7; “promote historic preservation as an economic

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007 9

Ms. Velasco, in response to a question regarding the Nursery, said HPAC’s

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007 10

5. Demolition Permit Process

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007 11

6. Reports of Officers, Committee Members, and Staff

c. Nomination of Chair, Vice Chair, and Design Review Subcommittee –

Regarding Chair and Vice Chair nominations, HPAC members suggested

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007 12

d. National Preservation Conference – St. Paul, Minnesota – HPAC members

Member Cabella said he lives in Point Richmond on the shore in a 1935

Submitted by: Lisa Harper, Minute Taker

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 10/9/2007 13

Chair Corbin called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

Present: Chair Rosemary Corbin and Members Christopher Bowen, Charles

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 5 and “Policy HR-1, Discussion”. She requested the wording be

Page 6, 2nd paragraph, “Member Bowen said he disagreed with referred to

Page 8, 6th paragraph, “Member Lawliss questioned if there were any

Page 9, 7th paragraph; change “Garrison Feelers” to Garrison Keillor”.

Page 12, under Committee Business, 3rd paragraph, Nomination of Chair,

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 11/13/2007 1

4. General Plan Historic Resources Element Working Draft

Mr. Drazen referred to page 9. (tape ended due to technical difficulties).

5. Reports of Officers, Committee Members, and Staff

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Meeting 11/13/2007 2

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

City of Richmond Historic Preservation Committee

Comments and Revisions to Historical Context and Existing Conditions:

Page 5: Discuss Civic Center as separate from Downtown.

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

Use term “historic”, not “historical.”

HR-1: Encourage “streetscape” level historical amenities, such as storefront exhibits/exhibits

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

HR-6: Remove “numerous”; recognize and integrate in addition to protection; develop

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

12.7.6: Remove first bullet point (already completed).

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

Consider designating an “historic resources” planner and/or an institutionalized approach to

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

Include photos and images.

Include implementation measures under their corresponding policies.