Park and Recreation Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the April meeting of the cultural heritage board. I know I'm not sure it's me, Nancy. I'm trying. Welcome to the April meeting of the cultural heritage board. We adjourn this meeting at 03:31.

Let's start with the pledge of allegiance with vice chair is volunteered to do. Communications, if you could play the inclusion statement.

Pursuant to the city council rules of procedure in order of business resolution, the members of the city council and the public are reminded that they must preserve order and decorum throughout the meeting. In that regard, members of the city council and the public are advised that any delay or disruption in the proceedings or a refusal to obey the orders of the city council or the presiding officer constitutes a violation of these rules. The city of Riverside is committed to fostering a workplace workplace that provides dignity, respect, and civility to our employees, customers, and the public they serve.

Thank you for that. And we'll go into general public comments. So communications, if you could play that announcement for us, please.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call (951) 826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press 9. When called to speak, press 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Thank you. Do we have anyone in chambers for general public comment about all matters pertaining to the cultural heritage board that may or may not be on the agenda. Okay. Seeing none in chambers, is there any callers online? All right. Thank you. We will move on to consent calendar. So we have three items on the consent calendar. We have the minutes of the March meeting, the first quarter report of historic preservation activity, and we will excuse Board Member Ramirez from the March 18 meeting. Do I have a motion to either remove any of these for discussion or approve as submitted?

I'll make a motion to approve.

All right. Any second? Okay, that was seconded by Kern.

Thank you.

Took me a minute there.

You may vote. Okay, I just cleared the vote. Could you please vote again? Oh, wait, hold on. Okay, please vote.

The motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. That moves us into our public hearing which is item five on the agenda. It's planning case PC twenty twenty six-one 128. And we're gonna start with the presentation, and then we'll do public comment after that. Mr. Watson?

Good afternoon, Chair McDaniel, members of the board. Scott Watson, historic preservation officer. The item before you today is a request to de designate two structures of merit parcels on the modification of the Prospect Place Historic District boundaries. The parcels are located at 4478 and 4480 Orange Street, situated on the East Side of Orange Street between 14th Street and Prospect Avenues in Ward 1. As a matter of background, the original structure at 4480 Orange Street was approved for demolition in 1987, and a carport was built in its place.

In December 2023, the building at 4472 Orange Street caught fire and sustained severe damage. On 10/15/2025, the Culture Heritage Board approved a certificate of appropriateness request to demolish the fire damaged structure. In compliance with the conditions of approval for the certificate of appropriateness, the Riverside County Office of Education submitted a d designation and historic district boundary modification request in January. The demolition permit for 4472 was issued on March 10, and I've been informed that it is now completely demolished. As there are no original structures on the two parcels, they will no longer meet the criteria for structure of merit.

Therefore, the de designation request will have no impact on his excuse me, no impact to historic resources. Additionally, the subject properties will no longer provide historic context, historic architecture, historic association or historic value to the Prospect Place Historic District. As the parcels at 4472 And 4480 Orange Street no longer contribute to the historic district and are on the edge of the district, the removal of the parcels from the district will not impact the integrity of the district. The revised district boundary is shown here. With that, staff recommends that the Cultural Heritage Board recommend that city council determine that the project is exempt from CEQUA and approve planning case PC twenty twenty six-one 128, thereby de designating the parcels at 4472 And 4480 Orange Street and removing them from the Prospect Place Historic District.

This concludes my presentation and the applicant is available if you have any questions.

Thank you. We're gonna go into public comment right now. So communications, if you could play that announcement for us.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call (951) 826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press 9. When called to speak, press 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom.

Thank you. We'll let give people on online time to call in, and we'll do comments in chambers. And I have one, Nancy Cox.

Thank you, Madam Chairman and Board members. My name is Nancy Cox. I'm a native Riverside er, a preservationist at heart, and a living ward one. I have been here before with negative feelings about that whole project from beginning until now that I hear officially that the property in question was demolished. But now I am concerned that unless I am not understanding correctly the proposal for the board here to change previous board decisions in the past on historic districts and or their boundaries or the houses that one time qualified for structure of merit.

Anyway, I guess all I'm asking the board today is to consider the mission statement of the board and it's to preserve history in the houses whether it's the district, the structures of merit or the landmarks. So hopefully this won't be a precedent that will be followed. Also I would like to add to the Board of Education that I hope a sign will be erected where the house was demolished. I have a lot of history on the first owner and his connections to the family that was also very prominent in Riverside Building in the 1900s and so I'm available to help with a sign narrative if needed. Thank you.

Thank you Ms. Cox. Do we have anybody else in Chamber who would like to submit a public comment? Seeing none we'll move to any online callers. Callers. No callers. Okay. Okay, with that we're going to close the public comment. That also closes the public hearing as well, correct? You're right.

Thank you. Actually, we are gonna give the applicant time to speak to the point if you like or say anything. No? Yes.

Good afternoon board. We don't have a formal presentation today, but we're happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Stay right there, we may have one. Or nearby, at least. Okay. With that, we will close public comment and the public hearing. And we will open it up to the board for questions either for the applicant or Mr. Watson. Oh, and I see Mr. Vice Chairs. Go ahead.

Thank you. Would you be opposed to maybe a plaque, a sign of some sort, and maybe working with Mrs. York there to erect something?

Absolutely not. We already talked about getting her contact information after the meeting. Okay.

If I may also add, a commemorative plaque was included as part of the COA.

Anyone else? Mr. Kron?

Hey, Mr. Watson, I'm new here, as you know. What are the implications for the future use of those properties if that area is removed from this historic district?

The only thing that would change as far as the de designation or removal from district is any modifications to the property do not require a certificate of appropriateness anymore. As far as the use that is dictated by the zoning code, so that would not be under the historic district boundary. So basically the only change to this is a certificate of appropriateness is no longer required

were neighbors notified of this have you heard anything Yes.

A 300 foot radius notification was mailed out as well as put in the press enterprise and we received no comments.

Okay. Thank you.

I have a question. So Mr. Watson, if you could answer my question for me and the public just as far as process. So I know we did a demo request was received by this board before. We did approve a certificate of appropriateness for that with of approval. So all those I'm assuming all those conditions have been met or are in the process of being met.

That is correct. So part of the conditions of the approval was to provide opportunity for salvage. RCOE did provide evidence of that as well as the next step is the de designation of these two parcels was part of that. And they submitted that application for de designation prior to the issuance of the demolition permit.

So apparently it's not necessary to do today's vote before the demolition took place?

No, because the demolition was approved as part of the certificate of appropriateness. The condition was only to submit any de designation application.

Got it, thank you. That helps. Mr. Nelson.

So what will if we choose not to approve the desegregation, what what will happen to the property after that?

If the board chooses well, first off, let me remind you this is a recommendation to the city council. So the board would be recommending the city council not to de designate. Council If can choose either to follow the board's recommendation and not de designate. There would be just mainly, like I said, implications regarding certificates of appropriateness.

That was my only question. You.

And I think Ms. Cox reminded us about the sign and that you said that was a condition of approval. Did that include it was going to be about the entire neighborhood or just the structure itself or did we specify?

I'd have to go back and look at it, but I believe it was mainly the residents and some information about Prospect Place in general.

Okay. Thank you.

We're happy to do either. Okay.

Vice Chair? Yes.

You. Just out of curiosity, though, is a parking lot going to be built over it?

It's in design now. The idea is to expand the landscape and add minimal parking. There was some conversation early on about a shade structure. And we've heard from the neighborhood that they're not interested in a shade structure and would prefer more trees. So that will be our path forward.

Right. Is there any way to maybe the landscape of it, is there any way to make it time appropriate towards the structure that used to exist?

We tried to salvage My thoughts

on creativity.

So we tried to salvage the existing landscape. So there's some very nice palm trees that surrounded the building. We did not remove those. I'm not sure what time period appropriate would have been in the early 1900s, but we can certainly look at that and we're open to anything. This is not a position that we want to be in. We just want to move forward.

Okay. Board and yes, Mr. Crow.

Again, Mr. Watson. I'm assuming that if we approve this, and the city council approves this, then our purview on these properties is gone with respect to vegetation or any of the other kinds of questions that have been brought up. Is that correct?

Not necessarily because part of the conditions of approval was for RCOE to work with staff in regards to what would be there on the site. So we still retain a little bit of purview simply because of the conditions of approval.

I see. And then on on a this this is a related issue, but it doesn't really relate to this particular property, but just my education. You spoke to the point that two structures are no longer there. But to me, if you're talking about a historic district, it's beyond the structures. There's landscape, there's the internal integrity of the, you know, how the space feels to the community there.

You didn't have feedback from the community members, and and this is on the periphery, I understand. But what are the considerations of the landscape beyond what trees are there, but just as the feeling of the neighborhood as a historic neighborhood with its own vibe and self identity. How do those come into your consideration?

As discussed in the cultural resources report and I'm pretty sure it was attached to the staff report that for the original certificate of appropriateness much of the streetscape had been altered significantly over time this is one of the reasons that it was found to not be eligible for designation, which allowed the board to make that determination to demolish. So for example, the street has been widened. A lot of the or most of the original buildings on these two parcels at this point all of the original buildings on these two parcels are completely gone so most of the original features so really these two parcels do not contribute to the character of the district anymore

right yeah I understood that that 's why I said I'm not asking about this specific project, but I'm just asking generally, how do you consider those factors? They they would

be considered as let's say we're not talking about this as part project or a historic district or this historic district may be a different one. These factors would be considered. The main reason why these are being recommended to be removed from the district is because they are on the edge. If these properties were in the middle of the district, we would not be recommending to remove them obviously, because that would completely change the boundaries of the district in order to remove a single parcel. You don't do that. So in the future, if it's, let's say, in the middle of the district, it would still retain the historic designation. Any infill project would have to come in before the Cultural Heritage Board for review and approval.

Okay. But the initiative for this particular decision comes from the owner, the new owner, or I don't know if new or not, but their desire to just be able to move on without being part of the historic district.

So the initiative from this was included as part of the conditions of approval is that these properties no longer represent any historic character at all. They do not retain integrity, so there's really no purpose in keeping them in a historic district because there is no historic integrity for them.

Right. But it's the desire of the owners that this happened is my understanding. That's what we have.

Was staff that included the conditional approval to remove it. So it wasn't necessarily the owner's desire to remove it. It was staff that included those conditions approval and approved by the Cultural Heritage Board.

Correct. We understood this to be a condition of

Oh, okay.

So, okay. So that's important for me to understand. So staff preferred or thought it was wise to reduce the size of this just to reflect what's actually happening rather than to try to artificially maintain a border based on buildings that are no longer there?

And it's not best practices for historic preservation to retain vacant properties that would be on the edge. Normally when you create historic district, would remove anything that's on the peripheral that is not a contributor. So best practice for historic preservation would not generally include these properties at all.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments or discussion? Mr. Brown.

Thank you. I think this particular matter is a classic example of how times have changed and ethics about historic preservation has changed. This designation dates back nearly forty years when the neighborhood was much more intact. And, for those of you that have been kicking around Riverside as long as Nancy Cox has, there are some peculiarities about the neighborhood that really accelerated in the late 70s and early 80s. First of all, 14th Street developed.

The Bank of America building was erected. The building housing the original, the owner of the office building fronting on 14th Street, Thompson And Colgate was built subsequent to that. They as owners by the way, I think as all the members of the cultural heritage board know expressed their opposition to this designation back in the nineteen eighties. So not only was there a really changing character to 14th Street, sort of the southern perimeter of Downtown Riverside. But also this neighborhood was squeezed as between Riverside Community College District and the title buildings later converted to governmental uses directly across the street on 14th.

When I look back through this very very long file, I'm convinced that it's undoubtedly a very sad situation. The structures at 4472 and 4480 weren't particularly well kept. They were integrated into a parking lot for a busy office building. And I think in some instances, I reflect on all the blood, sweat, and tears that the Riverside County Office Of Education has into attempting to bring this all to a conclusion largely as a result of an arson. And I think that, I believe they've spent a tremendous amount of money evidencing that due to the arson, due to the degree of destruction, and they hired engineers.

They hired one of the leading land use law firms in California to assist them through the process. So, I want to applaud them in their efforts, not particularly to tear these structures down and see this matter to conclusion. But as I've said previously in discussing this matter, I hope that it might enlighten the elected board of the Riverside County Office of Education to consider once again their ownership of the property located at the corner of Tekaski and Brockton, which is the last of Riverside's remaining old Chinatowns. That parcel is a pertinent to a national historic landmark, Evergreen Memorial Historic Cemetery, and could easily be incorporated into Evergreen in a manner that would, I think, both honor Chinatown and the Chinese citizens and not necessarily serve as a below ground burial, but as an entrance to another historic landmark. I've encouraged our COE to look at that and I'm hopeful that this process might have taken the edge a little bit off of some of their comments about how they're in the business of educating kids and not so much in the business of shepherding historic structures.

So, balance, I'm convinced now that the structures are gone, now that there's gonna be some signings for someone walking down that Orange Street of what was there, that the community over a period of forty years really did try its best. It wasn't the land owner of the structures. It was a designee to avoid this kind of circumstance. I'm reminded and I was doing a little bit of research about other historic structures that were torn down subsequent to the designation of these two buildings as structures of merit. I won't mention them.

I get too upset. But they were historic landmarks of not only statewide significance but national significance. Ms. Cox certainly above all people remember the Loring Opera House, the Bank of America, guess we could go on and on, right? I'm prepared to move approval.

Okay. Let's let the Vice Chair speak and then we'll go on.

Just one more comment for, I guess, future reference. Mr. Watson, you mentioned that because the previous property was on the perimeter, we then pushed the perimeter a little farther inward. But in the situation similar to this where a house may have been burned down, for our future reference and for our knowledge, what would take place? How would that transpire?

If the property is on an edge If like this or

property is on the inside?

On the inside, it would generally if the property was red tagged part of the reason why this particular property went to the Cultural Heritage Board is it wasn't fully red tagged. If it was red tagged, it would go for demolition permit and then any new structures on it would come to the Cultural Heritage Board as infill. So we wouldn't be removing that from the district.

But the new structure if it needed to be built if a new right. If a new structure needed to be built, would it be built up to the standard not to the standard, but the same model? Would it look have to look the same way?

Not necessarily. It wouldn't have to match the structure that was originally there. It would just have to be consistent with the guidelines for the historic district for infill specifically. So it would have to be something that would be compatible with the historic district in general.

So an example of that is the infill that we approved last month or the month before on 11th Street next to the church that was an infill project?

That is correct. Yeah. That's a good example.

Mr. Nelson.

One more question for Scott while we're on April, sorry. As this district seems to be shrinking, when does it cease to be a district?

So this is only the first modification to this district. So it's not necessarily shrinking. The district will hold as long as it maintains full integrity, which we have things in place. This is just a rare situation. Normally, this would have occurred, but because this one was on the edge and was removed. So this is, like I said, a very rare instance.

Okay. So in your in your knowledge, if this can if it continues to shrink, when do is when I guess my question is is when does a district cease to be a district? Is there a number? Like, how many homes that need to be there?

Or

Again, there'd have to be a reason to modify the boundary again. So that's the only time that the boundary would be modified as it sits now. Part of the reason why this is being brought forward is because the property at 4480 was already demolished. So you had this freestanding residence and then a parking lot right next to it that just didn't fit the character of the district. So it's better to modify that boundary so that it is understood this is the complete district.

This property was just a weird outlier. If we have situations at a different district, let's say a property on the edge but then the property across the street and next to it are still intact, we wouldn't necessarily be saying to remove that particular property. This one was just again a very rare instance. So I don't foresee the modifications of the Prospect Place District in the future.

I was just making sure. Yeah. I guess my question was mostly kind of like we weren't setting a precedent as the district shrinks. It's just going to eventually vanish.

Yeah. This would not be setting a precedence because this is a case specific situation.

Thank you.

Right. Thank you for that. If there are no other comments, I believe Board Member Brown has a motion you wanted to make.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would move in keeping with the staff report the approval of planning case PC twenty twenty five-one 128 as presented in our public hearing agenda five matter.

I will second.

Okay. So, we have a motion by Board Member Brown and a second by Mr. Nelson. And just to clarify, this is removing the designation from these two lots right there. Any more comments or

questions I before I just wanted to comment once again, glancing at the map of the district To the east is the Press Enterprise parcel, which I think has been devoted to Press Enterprise uses since well before the designation of these structures. To the south are at least half a dozen apartment buildings, as I recall, Scott, especially along the Southern Street. And then immediately to the north is the Bank of America site, which I assume might been assembled out of single family lots, but I don't know. I haven't done the history.

I believe it was. Yes.

Nonetheless, there are some incredible gems in neighborhood. There's just a variety of different architectures, bungalows. There's a at at the corner of Orange Grove is a beautiful, beautiful I guess you'd call it Spanish Colonial Revival House. RCOE is blessed with some great neighbors.

Thank you for that. If there's no other comments, we are free to vote on the motion.

Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you to our applicant for, coming and answering questions. Thank you to Mr. Watson for answering all of our questions. Thank you to the board for asking good questions. The appeal period for this is, I believe, ten days if anyone would like to appeal this decision to city council. So that closes our planning case in item number five. Moving us to communications. Who wants to lead this one?

Good afternoon, chair and members of the board. Edgardo Caldera, acting city planner. Just a couple of things for the meeting in May. So, a certificate appropriateness for the Iron Loft project on Mission Inn. So that's coming in May as well as the certificate of excuse me. Certificate of appropriateness for the Herrata House rehab and also an update on the interpretive center. So those two items, and I believe Scott has a couple of other updates as well. I

just wanna remind everybody that the California Preservation Conference is coming up in a couple weeks. I did send an email. If you haven't reached back out to me and you're still interested in going, if you can let me know today as we're getting ready to register. I know Board member or Chair McDonell and Board Member Brown as steering committee, you get free conference. If you need help registering, just let me know. And then I apologize because I didn't get the information, but I will send it out to you. There is going to be a general plan workshop meeting for the public. Matthew told me to let you know but I forgot to get the information from him. So I will send that out to you as soon as I get it.

Excellent. And the Preservation Conference, which is happening in Downtown Riverside in May, is also looking for volunteers. So if you want to volunteer to work at the conference, they would love to have you.

Yeah. And if you can't make it to the full conference but want to volunteer for any the sessions, the President's Circle is at the Mackie House, which is I'm taking that one.

Yeah, Excuse there are a number of educational sessions and trips associated with it where you visit historic sites. If you volunteer, you get to go along with them. It's kind of fun. You might have to help load the bus, but you get to go. Anything else? Nothing. All right. Thank you all, and we will see you next month. So we will adjourn this meeting at 04:06. Thank you.