Park and Recreation Commission - Regular Meeting

To the June meeting of the Cultural Heritage Board, I call this meeting to order at 3.32. And we're going to start the meeting with, oh, actually, if we could play our inclusivity statement recording, please.

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

Thank you for that. And that'll bring us to item one, which is general public comment. So if we could have the recording for that, 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 star 9. When called to speak, press star 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Okay, so this is the general public comment time when members of the public can comment on anything under the jurisdiction of the Cultural Heritage Board. And I do have one comment card for item one, which is Ms. Parrish. I think I know that name.

Thank you. I had planned originally to just come and comment on one of the landmark status. But then I realized that if I broke it into two different sections, I could talk longer. And although the majority of the board has changed since I was on the Cultural Heritage Board, Scott does know that vinyl windows was one of my things that I wish had never come to fruition in this world. I'd like to request that the Cultural Heritage Board and the Historic Preservation Officer consider an educational series on window replacements in homes over 50 years. And I want to orient you that is 1976, for all of you that thinks that that's not old. A review of what the city policy is regarding window replacements. And consider my recommendation that all window replacements in homes over 50 years old require a building permit, which would improve consistency, avoid inappropriate windows in historic districts, and educate the public. and make sure that we don't hear things like, well, I didn't know we couldn't do that, or my contractor said we could do that, et cetera, et cetera. At this point in time, it always kind of irks me that the city requires a building permit to replace a water heater, but not a window. And I want to bring up that I did review the citywide residential historic district design guidelines, and they were done in 2002. So my request is that the city both the Historic Preservation Officer and his staff, as well as the CHB, bring this as an important point that needs to be discussed and perhaps changed. I'd like to see that change in the planning department. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Um, do we have any other people in chamber for general comments? See none. Okay. And there's no callers online, so that will, um, close pop, um, item one. And that moves us to the consent calendar, which is item two, which is, um, approval of the minutes from may. So if anybody has any questions, um, you could ask them now, or we can move to approve.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Thank you.

I'll second the motion.

Thank you. Okay, let's vote on that. Okay, that item passes all in the affirmative. Thank you for that. That brings us to the discussion calendar, which is items three and four, which are items Absence reports for Board Member Brown and Board Member Hudson. We need to take these one at a time, so we'll start with item three. Do you want to explain this, Mr. Watson?

Okay.

Both of these items are for the board to choose whether or not to excuse the absences. What I could say regarding the absence of Board Member Brown, he did apologize post the meeting saying that he had some health issues. So for the board's consideration on there. If you so choose, you can also continue these two items as neither of those board members are here.

Okay. So we'll start with item three. Does anybody have any comments about this or a motion?

I'd make a motion to approve.

Okay. So we would be approving an excusal of his absence? Yes. Okay. Anyone want a second? Yes. I always forget I have to do public comment. Before we vote...

is our we need to do public comment for item three um so let's do the 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 star nine when called to speak press star six to one mute you can also join via zoom the meeting id can be found on the agenda okay do we have anybody in chamber who would like to comment on item three

seeing none and there are no callers we will close public comment on item three and we have a motion on the floor but no second to approve to count mr brown's absence as excused i'll second thank you so we have motion in a second so we can vote on that okay the motion passes That takes us to item for which is the same discussion. I'm assuming we did not hear from Mister Hudson prior to the meeting. A motion or questions on item for. Oh, I did it two times in a row. Let's open public comment for item four. Can we hear the announcement, 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 star nine. When called to speak, press star six to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Watson, for keeping me on track. Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to comment on Item 4? Seeing none, there are no callers, so we will close public comment on Item 4. Back to you, would anybody have questions or comments or motions for Item 4?

I'll set a motion for approval.

Okay. We have a motion to approve. Anyone like to second? Okay.

Am I on? Yeah. Reading the text of this, I don't really see what we're approving. It just says discuss. So what exactly are we approving? What are the implications?

When someone contacts staff in advance to say they will not be here, we generally excuse that absence. We count that as an excused absence. When someone does not contact staff, it is considered unexcused unless we move to excuse it.

Okay, and it's like three unexcused absences that lead to action. That's what's going on. Is that true, Mr. McCoy?

Because that is correct, yes.

Okay, because it just says discuss, so I don't think we need to actually say what we're approving. That's the background. And do we have any information from this board member, Hudson? I was not provided any, no. Okay. Well, I would move that we push this to the next meeting until we have some information. Okay.

So let me go back. We have one motion on the floor to approve. So I'm assuming no one wants to second that motion. Is that correct? Okay. So we have no second on that motion. So that motion dies. So would you like to make a motion to push this to the next meeting? Yes, please. Okay. So would anybody like to second that motion?

I'll second. Second.

OK, Mr. Mr. Nelson seconded. So let's vote to continue this item to the next meeting. OK, that motion passes, so we will bring that up to discussion at the next meeting when hopefully Mr. Hudson will be here. That brings us to public hearings. The next three items, five, six and seven, are all planning case hearings. And Mr. Watson is going to start with item five.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the Cultural Heritage Board, Scott Watson, Historic Preservation Officer. The first item for you today is a historic designation request for landmark designation of Lionhead. The residence known as Lionhead is located at 2881 Rumsey Drive, situated on the east side of Rumsey Drive between Caramel Way and Victoria Avenue in Ward 3. Constructed in 1926, the property was designed by architect Henry L. A. Jekyll for developer and orchardist Howard G. Heinzler. Jekyll's work contributed significantly to the architectural development of Southern California during the early 20th century with numerous residential, commercial, civic, and institutional projects throughout Riverside, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties. He became particularly known for his Spanish-inspired architectural design during the 1920s. as a matter of information the staff report and designation application indicates that jekyll was born in germany however additional information has been provided to clarify that he was born in buffalo new york lionhead is eligible for designation under criteria 4 for its association with jekyll the estate includes a two-story spanish eclectic residence a detached gatehouse perimeter wall and and landscape grounds The residence displays the character-defining features of the Spanish Eclectic style through its asymmetrical massing, irregular composition of intersecting forms, low-pitched red clay tile roofs, smooth stucco wall surfaces, decorative carved wood detailing, exposed rafter tails, arched openings, ornamental ironwork, leaded glass, balconies, patios, pergolas, and integration of architecture into the surrounding terrace landscape. Additionally, still extant original interior character defining features to the architectural significance include but not limited to barrel ceilings with plaster beams, corbels, hand-painted frescoes, Wood beams and coffered ceilings with hand painted stenciling. Plaster wall finishes. Decorative wrought iron features. Original doors and windows hardware. Doors, windows and hardware. Walnut, bleached walnut, black walnut, bird's eye maple wood flooring and tile flooring. And the original bathroom tile fixtures and fittings. As the property represents an excellent example of high-style Spanish eclectic architecture and retains a high level of integrity, it is eligible for city landmark under criterion three. With that, staff recommends that the Culture Heritage Board recommend that City Council determine that Planning Case PC-2026-00388 is categorically exempt from CEQA and approve the historic designation request, thereby designating Lionhead as a city landmark. This concludes staff's presentation. The applicant is present, and the property owner is available online if you have any questions of us.

Thank you. And before we go to public comment, would the applicant or the applicant's representative care to share any additional information?

Thank you, Chair McDonnell and members of the Cultural Heritage Board. I don't need to share anything additionally, but just to let you know I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.

thank you ms vermillion um okay with that we will go to um public comment so if we could have the recording for that 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 star 9. when called to speak press star 6 to 1 mute you can also join via zoom the meeting id can be found on the agenda

Is there anyone in chamber who would like to comment on agenda item five? Okay, seeing no one, we'll go to online when there are no callers online. So with no public comment, we are going to close the public hearing on this particular planning case and move forward to the board. Do you have any questions for either Mr. Watson or Ms. Vermillion or the applicant who was online? I mean, sorry, the homeowner who's online. Mr. Crone, go ahead and unmute yourself. Is that what you're doing?

I'm just checking to see if I'm turned on or not. I don't have a question, but I have a comment. Go for it. If that's okay.

I'm just really excited to see this property here.

I visited it under two different owners, and the recent owner I really salute for putting a huge amount of effort into restoring this property, and I really think it deserves to be recognized. It's a beautiful place with a lot of history.

Thanks. Vice Chair?

Yes, just wanted to remark on the same thing, that it's a beautiful home, so we really wish you the best on preserving it. Just out of curiosity to the homeowner, are there any plans for the house?

For homeowners online, the question was, do you have any future plans or immediate plans for the house?

Yes. She's trying to talk, but she needs to unmute herself.

How about now? Yes, we hear you.

Hello. Hi, everyone. First, thank you very much for all your service. Thank you, Commissioner Caron. I heard your voice. Actually, we don't see you when we're on Teams, which I've never done at a public hearing before. our plans for the house is to maintain the house in the condition that it was once we improved upon what we were fortunately able to purchase it's a lot of work it was restored as much as possible to its original architectural design i want to make it very clear that we do not intend to take artifacts out of the house unfortunately the person who owned it before us removed Over 100 of the original light fixtures, we've been able to replace them. We view the items in the house as something that should remain with this historical structure and that our time here is just as in many respects as a caretaker. It's a lovely property. I'd be happy to show it to anyone at any point. And I appreciate getting the designation. And I very much want to thank Jennifer for all of her help. And if we're able to get this designation and the Mills Act designation, we will try to get it on the National Registry. So thank you very much for your time today.

Thank you very much for your time. I'm sorry to hear about your original Jekyll light fixtures. I know he had extreme attention to detail.

It was painful.

I wish you luck with your continued restorations.

Thank you.

Any other comments, questions from the board? My only question, which I believe I know the answer to, but I'm going to ask it anyway, for either Ms. Mermilliard or Mr. Watson, I believe the staff report states that, or the application, this home still retains a high degree of integrity? That is correct. Because I noticed there were some alterations over the years, like a rooftop was changed or expanded.

There has been some additions, but I'll go ahead and let Ms. Mermilli speak to that. Thank you.

Thank you for the question, Chair McDonnell. Yes, there have been a few alterations over time earlier before the restoration work by the current owners. The most notable one was the garage addition, the bedroom addition above the garage. It used to be a garden rooftop. And the addition was actually really well done. And it's considered to not necessarily to have gained significance in its own right, but it hasn't detracted from the significance of the property. So it was done in keeping an incompatibility with the original style. And in fact, when the current owners added an elevator and a gym addition on the rear, they extended the deck around the building and sort of recreated that garden rooftop, or at least a deck look to that. So in keeping a little bit with the original style.

All right. Thank you for that. That's helpful to understand all that. If there's no other comments or questions, I'll entertain a motion.

Move to accept this structure.

OK. So your motion is to approve as recommended. Thank you.

Approve as recommended, yeah.

Is there a second? I will second. Okay, Mr. Krohn made the motion. Mr. Idonelson seconded. So if there's no other comments, the board may vote. Okay, the motion passes with no no votes. So congratulations to our homeowners and our applicant for your landmark status. And then unofficially, we all expect an invitation over. Okay.

Maybe the next conference in 30 years. Right, right.

So now we're in item number six, Mr. Watson.

The next item before you today is the historic designation request for the Havens residence. The residence is located at 2139 Archdale Street, situated on the northwest corner of Archdale Street and Fielding Avenue in Ward 3. The Havens residence was constructed in 1960 and designed by local architectural firm Cohen and Bussey for Dr. Fred Z. Havens Jr. and Mrs. Barbara Havens. Cohen and Bussey was a prominent Riverside-based architectural firm active in in the Inland Empire approximately from 1958 to 1972. The firm designed a wide range of residential, civic, educational, religious, industrial, commercial, and medical buildings that contribute significantly to Riverside's post-war development. Notable projects include the Bourns Headquarters on Columbia, the office building at 6905 Brockton Avenue, Castle View Elementary School, and the residence at 5451 Glenhaven Avenue. Therefore, the residence meets landmark criterion four for its association with Cohen and Bussey. The residence embodies the distinctive characteristics of the mid-century modern residential architecture. Character defining features of the residence include long horizontal massing, post and beam construction, low pitched gravel roof, broad overhang eaves, clear stories, a large fixed pane glazing systems sliding doors and use of natural material including redwood siding and desert rock veneer the residence is also it also includes interior character defining features such as built-ins within the living room and the family room therefore the residence meets criteria landmark criterion three However, most of the operable windows and several fixed windows have been replaced with vinyl-framed windows at an unknown date. These replacements would not be considered appropriate under citywide residential historic district design guidelines, which prohibits vinyl-framed windows on historic structures. Additionally, many window sills shown on the original building plans were removed during the window replacement process. As a result, the historic integrity in the aspects of material and design have been diminished. City landmark designation requires a high degree of integrity. The Cultural Heritage Board may determine that despite the alterations, the residence retains the required level of integrity to qualify for city landmark designation. Alternately, the board could find that the property no longer possesses the high degree of integrity required for city landmark designation, but it may determine that the resident retains sufficient integrity to qualify for structure of merit. Therefore, staff recommends that the Culture Heritage Board determine whether the residence meets the high degree of integrity required for landmark designation. If CHB finds it meets the integrity requirement, then recommend the City Council to determine that planning case PC-2026-00397 is exempt from CEQA and approve the historic designation request designating the Havens residence as a city landmark. CHB can alternately recommend approval for designation as a structure of merit based on the findings included in the staff report. This concludes staff's presentation. The applicant is available online, and we are available if you have any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Watson. Like I said, our applicant is online, so do you have anything you would like to share before we go to public comment?

Hi. Thank you all for attending. accepting our application. I'm David Manning. This is my apartment in Alcanda. We just want to say we love the house. We're big mid-century modern and desert modern fans. We think this house really exemplifies everything about desert living in riverside we love the indoor outdoor aspect we basically live under the patio and have our screen and sliding doors original aluminum sliding doors open all the time and really just love the house we are the second owners we bought it from mrs havens before she passed away a couple of years ago and she was really vital in providing us with the blueprints from the architect the original spec sheets from the architects and just stories of how they use the house and how the formal living space was separated from the private living space upstairs. And like one of my favorite stories about the house is when we talked to their son uh fred who's like oh i was only ever in the formal living room like three times in in my life i was never allowed in there uh only in one of those times was for uh his sister's wedding which was uh formal photos for informal photos in that living room um so mrs havens really wanted to find a buyer who love the house and we love the house and not cut it up not not cut it up not change it uh we've also applied for the mills act so we're looking forward uh in that process to do some some upgrades including you know uh replacing those um interesting choice windows that miss haven's made probably in our late stages she was in 95 when she passed

All right. Thank you so much for that. Okay. Thank you for that. And the personal stories are fun to hear. That will move us to actually open the public hearing and open public comments. So let's have the recording for that, 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 star 9. When called to speak, press star 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Thank you. We do have a card for someone in chamber to comment on this item, and that's Nancy Parrish.

Hello again. My name is Nancy Parrish, and I'm the proud owner of landmark number 129, the James and Jessie Shaw House, an 1899 four-square home with Queen Anne embellishments in the Arlington Heights district of Riverside. I'd like to say thank you to you in advance for your consideration of my input regarding item number six on today's agenda, the consideration of historic designation for the Dr. Fred and Mrs. Barbara Haven's house located at 2139 Archdale Street. I've had my eye, so to speak, on this beautiful mid-century modern house since I first read about it in Riverside's Modernism Intensive Survey in 2013. I had the opportunity to speak to Mrs. Havens prior to her husband's passing in 2020 and several times afterwards. In my heart, I had hoped that she would let me place her home on our mid-century moment home tour. When I knew the house was up for sale, I held my breath, hoping that whomever bought it would cherish it as much as the Havens had. That being said, as time went on, I had the opportunity to share a few scraps of my knowledge about the architect, William Cowan, and the Havens with Niall and David, and encouraged them to seek landmark status for the home, not only for its iconic design, but for its architect and homeowner's contribution to Riverside. I would like for you all to support that landmark status on this home with emphasis on the HPO's notation that the home has a majority of its context intact, despite the fact that the aluminum windows were replaced by the previous original owner in years past. This is a perfect example of my request to have vinyl windows be discussed and have it be a definite item that would not knock future homeowners from seeking landmark status. And although structure of merit is okay, landmark status, let's be honest, is the one that when you put this much effort, and if you'd seen this, guys, these two apps, application, just the amount of research they did, actually I think the HPO needs to request it and put it on file regarding these architects and everything they did for the city. Anyhow, I hope that you do pass this and don't fault them. And I'm very excited. I was going to mention that perhaps that they could have, you have to list what you're going to do for your house each year when you're asking for the

costs to be reimbursed and replacing them one by one would give them probably ten years worth of passable bills thank you so much thank you miss Parrish is there anyone else in chamber that would like to comment okay do we have any callers for item six okay there's no color so we're gonna close public comment and the public hearing which takes us to board do you have any questions for staff or our applicant

I have a question mostly for Scott. What predicament will this put them in if we do approve this and the windows stay the way they are now?

So if you approve it as a landmark and the windows stay as they currently are, we can work with them. I mean, obviously they have the Mills Act and they're applying for the Mills Act and they're interested in replacing that so we can work with them over time. Alternately, like said in the staff report, if you so choose, you can go with the structure of merit and then they could reapply for landmark once those windows have been replaced.

So we could move ahead with a structure of merit but hold the landmark status.

THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

NOW, CURRENTLY, IF THOSE WINDOWS WERE REQUESTED, IF THE HOUSE WAS LANDMARK STATUS NOW AND THOSE WINDOWS WERE REQUESTED, THEY'D BE TOLD NO?

THAT IS CORRECT, YES.

SO WE WOULD IN ESSENCE BE ALLOWING SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE NOW?

CORRECT, YES.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

BOARD MEMBER RAMIREZ.

And this is a question for you, Scott. Is my mic on? Kind of to go along with my colleague here, is the only way that we can approve this is to go through the distinction, the building of distinction or whatever first, or can we approve as a landmark with the condition to revise or redo the windows?

We don't normally apply conditions as part of landmark designations, but if the board wants to, they can do a condition of approval, yes.

Thank you. Vice Chair?

For Mr. Watson, is there the possibility of setting a time frame for the applicants to have those aluminum windows installed?

It's possible. I would just be mindful of the cost because replacing windows are a very costly venture. And so if you should say like within the next year, you could be imposing a $20,000 project on them.

Can we ask the applicant how much time they might need?

You can.

Can we ask that for the applicant, how much time they might need? And that way we can approve the windows under conditions that the windows be changed.

So we have put that as one of the line items on the applications for the Mills Act. I believe in, I'm not quite sure, but not in the first couple of years. The house does require some other maintenance that needs tending to to keep the house in its historic set. For example, restaining and painting the original redwood paneling in it. And the windows are a lower priority for us in maintenance view because they are perfectly functional right now. And so we would rather apply other things to the house to bring it and preserve its historicness, including our original gravel rock roof, which will need some general maintenance and repairs in the coming future too.

Thank you for that. Board Member Ramirez.

And this is a question for the homeowners as well. In the event that you do not get approved for the Mails Act application, do you have a plan B in regards to restoration or modifying or construction?

Yes. Well, we hope that if we don't get approved for historic designation, that we would get approved for a structure of merit, which would also qualify us for the Mills Act. And we've already submitted our plan for that. So if we do get that structure of merit qualification, then the preservation plan would be part of the Mills Act requirement. I ALSO WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE HOUSE STILL DOES HAVE 21 ORIGINAL WINDOWS, SEVEN FIXED PAINTS AND 13 FIXED SINGLE PAINTS AND ONE ORIGINAL SLIDING AND SIX ORIGINAL ALUMINUM CLASS SLIDING DOORS WITH THEIR FIXED WINDOWS. UNFORTUNATELY, IT DOES HAVE THE 18 REPLACED WINDOWS AND THOSE ARE ON PREP PLACING OF THE HOUSE.

THANK YOU. MR. KRONE.

I think there's a lot of merit to this structure. I don't think anyone could question that.

Do you have questions or comments right now?

I have a question. Okay. Regarding the aluminum windows and if they're restored, I have old leaky wooden windows that I don't touch and I fantasize about energy efficiency solutions and have tried various things and it's Would it be satisfied? I just don't this is something of a new issue for me could somebody use double-paned windows with an aluminum frame and Satisfy what we're looking for so that you retain your energy efficiency but you have the you know, the heart of the issue is is addressed and

In this case, yes, because the windows do not have divided lights, so it's easy to have a dual-pane window that still has an aluminum frame meeting the original look.

And as a historic issue that's not a historic controversy, that would be perfectly acceptable?

That would not be an issue, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for that question. So similar questions, which may have been answered already, but this house is not currently in a historic district. Is that correct?

That is correct.

It is not in a historic district. It's correct that it is not. Do we know what year they were replaced?

Unfortunately, we don't, unless the applicant has some more information. I tried going through Google Street View, which went as far back as 2011, and they were there in 2011.

Is it? So without the historic district, so there was no requirement. This house is an historic district Therefore at the time they were replaced there was no it was acceptable. It was allowed to put the That's correct. And it could have been under 50 years as well. I

It could have been. However, as noticed, as pointed out by Ms. Parrish, this was identified in the modernism context statement in 2013. So it was replaced even before then.

Okay. And we've already heard the homeowner state that they do plan to replace them. So one under other clarifying question If the structure is if it is declared a structure of merit, they are still eligible from the Mills Act. Is that correct? That is correct Yes, okay Okay, those are all my questions you may have any comments questions for the board what are you thinking about things Okay I have been not losing sleep, but I've really been considering this application seriously because my views on vinyl windows are similar to what was expressed earlier in public comment. But at the same time, I agree that we do not want to penalize a homeowner who is trying to do the right thing and doing their best to maintain and even restore a structure that is significant. I agree there's some things we need to wrap our head around for the future to try to prevent people from doing damage to their homes, that then it decreases their integrity to where they can never be a landmark, and then they're not eligible for the help, which is the financial help of the Mills Act, to continue to maintain that home. So that's the quandary that we're in that I think we need to continue to talk about. My other reservation, and by the way, I haven't made a decision even yet what I'm thinking, so... I'm just sharing all of my fears. My other reservation is that if the board, if we approve a landmark status for a home with vinyl windows, then everybody else in the world is going to say, how dare you tell me I can't have vinyl windows? You approved a landmark with vinyl windows. Maybe that's not going to happen, and maybe we can share that, you know, well, these people have plans to fix that and so maybe the the timeline would help us you know quantify that um if we were going to give them a timeline i would make it really long i would be really comfortable with giving them you know i don't know 10 years whatever y'all think it would take if i may if i may add as they are applying for the the mills act it is a 10-year plan so it is within that 10-year time frame at least okay so um so those are some things i'm thinking

i don't know anybody else have any other thoughts you'd like to share um so i kind of share in your sentiment that i feel that you know my concern would be that if we approve landmark status that we're setting a precedent that maybe we kind of don't want to set moving forward um the other thing too and i know i asked i'm not sure if it was answered um specifically but If they don't get the Mills Act, if they don't qualify, right? Or have they already qualified for the Mills Act?

So they are eligible as long as it is designated. So if you choose structure of merit or if you choose landmark, one of those two options, they would be eligible for the Mills Act. And we only receive...

16 applications including theirs so therefore they would be getting the Mills Act as long as as long as you recommend some type of designation okay that was my my question so but I do share in that that I don't I would not want to set a precedent that we can't get away from in the future so that would be my only reservation not to say that I'm one way or the other yet either but that would be my reservation on that okay and vice chair

I SHARE THE SAME SENTIMENT. I'M INCLINED TO PERHAPS GIVE A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE ALUMINUM WINDOWS BE FIXED OR REPLACED WITHIN A GIVEN TIMELINE, MAYBE TEN YEARS, AS YOU SAID. I DON'T KNOW IF THE REST OF THE BOARD IS OPEN TO THAT. IT SEEMS LIKE WE WOULD BE SETTING A PRECEDENT BY SETTING IT AS HISTORICAL. SO I'M MORE UNDER THE CONDITION OF A MERIT.

I just would like some clarification. Are you saying that the structure of merit would be conditional?

We could set the certificate of merit under the condition that the windows be replaced.

Okay. I don't know. I think what he's trying to say is recommend designation as a structure of merit with a condition of approval that the windows be included as part of the Mills Act 10-year plan.

Thank you. Okay. So with respect to the Mills Act. And are we able to do that? Okay. Great. Thank you.

We could similarly do the same thing. We could approve landmark status with the same condition. We could approve the structure of merit and then invite the applicants to reapply once those windows are done. They could upgrade to landmark status.

Now, I have a Mills Act home, and the city's been very reasonable. It's an old home. Things come up, and we have to change our plans sometimes. Okay. How often do you actually enforce Mills Act plans? I'm not necessarily talking about this particular project, but I mean just this as a concept. If we were to put in some sort of a requirement like that, how would it be policed?

In this case, because it would be a condition of approval, we would review their tenure plan to make sure that it is included in that tenure plan. And then we would include that condition of approval as part of the Mills Act packet that they have, their file. so that in the future, let's say things change and they plan to do the windows on, let's say, year five, but something happens and now things need to change, we would make sure that windows are relocated to another time period within that 10-year plan. And to answer your broader question, when we review the annual reports that are submitted, we confirm them based off of the 10-year plan.

Okay.

So the way it is enforceable is it is a condition of approval of the status. Board Member Ramirez.

You just answered my question. Thank you.

okay um yeah i'm while we're discussing i'm thinking i'm hearing the voice of our former vice chair who said i want to get to yes you know there's always he always wanted to find a way to get to a yes answer so i think we're all trying to do that whether the yes is is structured merit or landmark i think is our is our question so anybody else have any comments or want to make a anyone have a motion vice chair

Certainly. So I'd like to set the motion. As you mentioned, Scott, could you give me the wording again?

Recommend that city council find that the case is exempt from CEQA. Yes. And approve a structure of merit designation with the condition of approval that the replacement of the vinyl windows with appropriate windows be included in the Mills Act 10-year plan.

Thank you. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Thank you. Would anyone like to second that? I will second. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions for either the person? I have a question.

The homeowner?

Wait just a sec.

Sure. Thank you.

Normally we do not entertain questions at this point from applicants, but yes, please go ahead and ask your question.

So with the structure of Barrett, I'm under... The assumption that that qualifies that there was a major alteration, but there's still a structure of merit. My concern is that we would just be also setting a precedent if this is with the condition of replacing the windows on the Mills Act with the structure of merit.

Okay. Thank you for sharing that. Any other board members have any questions, comments? Okay. If not, we will move to a vote. Okay, the motion as stated by Vice Chair Castellanos has passed. So congratulations, homeowners, on your structure of merit, and we very much appreciate your care and your future care of this potential landmark structure. Thank you. Oh, and appeal process. And I did not say this after number five. Actions by the CHB, including any environmental findings, may be appealed to city council within 10 calendar days after the decision. Appeal filing processing information may be obtained from the planning division by calling the planning division. And just as a point of information, all actions by the CHB are forwarded to council for final approval. So that leads us to item number seven, which is another landmark application.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair McDonnell and members of the board. Andrew Medrano, assistant planner. The next item before you today is a city landmark designation request for Edie. The residence is located at 5958 Edith Avenue, situated on the southeast corner of Lincoln and Edith Avenues in Ward 4. The residence was designed by architect E. Kurt Steinman for Dr. Robert R. Robinson and Margaret R. Robinson and was constructed between 1966 and early 1967. The home exhibits mid-century modern architecture and is an excellent high-style example of Steinman's work in residential design, featuring prominent horizontal lines, a sunken attached carport, a flat roof line with visible structural beams, and extensive floor-to-ceiling transom and high-set windows. Another character-defining feature of mid-century modern architecture is post and beam construction, highlighted in these images of Edie. ED is historically significant as it showcases core design elements that define the mid-century modern architectural style. Therefore, it is eligible for City Landmark designation under Criterion 3. Additionally, the residence was designed by E. Kurt Steinman, who worked on a variety of architectural projects in Riverside, including the Main Street Pedestrian Mall in 1966 and City Hall in 1975. Therefore, ED is eligible for City Landmark designation under Criterion 4, as it represents the work of a notable architect. The residence retains the high degree of integrity for City Landmark designation. Therefore, the City staff recommend that the Cultural Heritage Board recommend that the City Council determine that PC-2026-00544 is categorically exempt from CEQA and approve the historic designation request, thereby designating Edie as a city landmark. This concludes staff's presentation. The applicant is present, and we are both available if you have any questions. And also, the homeowner would like to give a statement.

Thank you for the presentation. And yes, if the applicant would like to share something, please feel free.

Hi, everyone. Thanks for having us. Thank you, Scott and Andrew, for your presentation and report. And thank you to the Cultural Heritage Board for taking the time to consider our application. This is my husband, Dominic, and I are the second and current owners of Edie, a home we love deeply. Edie's original owners, Robert and Margaret Robinson, had a dream to build a home in Riverside where they would raise their family. We are indebted to their ambition, vision, and courage. Their daughter, Joanne, has been an important resource as we have looked to learn about the house. She provided the historic photos in the application. We thank her as well. As architectural historian Jennifer Mermilliat of JM Research and Consulting notes in our application, Edie is a high-style example of the innovative work of master architect E. Kurt Steinman. The 1966 mid-century modern single-family residence features old-growth wood post and beam construction, knotty pine tongue and groove ceilings, flat tar and gravel roof, and aluminum and wood-framed windows. Swiss architect Eugen Kurt Steinman was the head of design at the local architectural firm Runau Evans and Steinman, where he spent two decades of his career. Steinman was the design architect of public spaces that continue to influence the city's civic, academic, and community identity, including City Hall, which received city landmark designation last year, and these very chambers. A character-defining feature of the room that you may already be aware of is the articulated lattice pattern brick behind the curtain, which I'm really excited about. Take a peek after this meeting. They're divine, if you haven't already. The Robinsons toured Steinman's 1963 Riverside Award-winning entry to the Portland Cement Association's Horizon Homes National Architectural Competition, which promoted the use of concrete in residential construction. After taking this tour, they commissioned Steinman to design Edie. We would like to thank Jen, our trusted expert here, who prepared our application for city landmark application. We are lucky to work with her and look forward to a lifelong relationship in service of Edie's historic preservation. Thank you for your time, and we welcome any questions. Thank you.

Before we get to questions, we're going to move into some public comment. Ms. Remilia, did you have anything to add before we? Okay. So at this time, we're going to open public comments. So can we have the recording for that?

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 star nine. When called to speak, press star six to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Okay, do we have anybody in chamber who would like to comment on item seven? Okay, seeing none, do we have anybody online? Okay, there are no callers online, so we will close the public comment and public hearing for this item. And that moves us into board questions. Anybody have questions for the applicant, the homeowners? Scott? Somebody ask a question.

Just out of curiosity for the homeowners, any particular changes you might have that you're looking forward to or you might have a priority list?

Yes, we're also applying for the Mills Act right now. Our priorities are kind of massive, not fun ones, which are our roof, re-roofing. We've also had a structural engineer out who has done a full inspection of the house and is giving us a report. And so those are our two major priorities for the house, is really making sure that we're not worried about leaks and everything's protected, and then we can do, you know, painting. That's fun. Yeah.

Yeah, we do it.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Or comments?

It's pleasant to see people that are excited about their home and furthering something that was well taken care of. And then to continue that, it sounds like you guys have good plans and are well-versed in everything. So it was a smart choice to have everything structurally looked at. And so thank you.

Mr. Cohn, did you have something?

Yeah, I just, maybe this is how things are done, but I don't see much discussion of the interiors. There's, for both of the homes, there was like one shot of one, you know, room. Yeah. But bathrooms and kitchens and those sorts of things.

So I'll answer that, and then Mr. Watson can correct me if I do it incorrectly. Please. So the only thing that is protected in a landmark is the public-facing exterior, right? So interiors are not protected under landmark status or structure of merit on any level.

If I can add to that. So they are, it's exterior only unless they're specifically called out in the resolution. Okay. So if you notice in the findings made for a lot of these, they'll say interior character defining features. These are the original features that are still extent that are important to preserve. Those will go into the resolution. So if in the future somebody wants to make modifications to those, they would have to come before the Cultural Heritage Board for that.

But those are not listed.

In actually the case of all... Three of the houses, there were interior features. So, for example, Archdale had original built-ins. Lionhead had the original bath fixtures. So staff did include those specifically.

I'm happy to be wrong about that.

So if there are features that a homeowner doesn't mention but that are in fact original, does anybody make an effort to include them?

Yeah, so in the review from staff, we do include those. Also, General Milliot is here, and she could speak to any of those original features on this particular building if you want. But in the review of staff, we do generally take site visits if we feel is necessary. Often, we'll rely on photos. Many homes have been altered over time and the interiors are no longer extant, but we just happen to have three before you that have a lot of original features.

Thanks. And just to add to that, Board Member Crone, the interior features of ED weren't very specifically listed in the application in this case because the most character-defining features here of this house really carry through from the exterior to the interior. So that post and beam construction, you know, we see those posts actually exposed on the interior as well. And same with the tongue and groove ceiling. So those are listed and they're talked about as exterior features in this case, but they actually do carry through the house. So we kind of check both boxes on those two features. And then I always say, you know, windows are that one unique feature of a home or any building where they're both an exterior and an interior feature. We can't really talk about the windows as only an exterior feature. So they're sort of inherently included in that way. But other than that, we don't have specific character defining features that are interior only listed for ED. It's just the nature of this architectural style primarily.

Well, I would think one could list cabinets and those sorts of things.

Yes, one could, although in the case of Edie, the kitchen has been remodeled. And actually, that was the case in my other first one, which was your item five. The kitchen had been remodeled, so in this case, they weren't listed for you.

Okay. Yeah, I just, I bring it up because, I mean, if somebody's centering into the Miller Act, they shouldn't be using that money to, you know, destroy things that just didn't happen to get listed in the approval process. So that's why I was just wondering.

Yeah. And in wider scale surveys, this is very specific in individual property specific survey work, but in some of our larger scale surveys, you know, we don't have access to interiors or rear yards sometimes too. So when new information comes to light on those properties, it's important to recognize, you know, when we find interior or rear yard features that are important as well.

Sure. But this is a landmark application. And so we have more access because we've got the cooperation of the owners. And so it's a real opportunity. I just want to make sure we make the most of all of our opportunities for historic preservation. That's really where I'm coming from. But thank you so much for explaining.

Don't go too far. Thank you, Mr. Crone, for those excellent questions. I want to play stump the expert. How many Steinman buildings and or homes are in Riverside?

Yeah, that's a great question. The property owner actually has done extensive research, so she may have a better answer than I do, but You probably noticed in the presentation and the application that Steinman is most known for his commercial and civic and community buildings. A residential property that Simon has designed in Riverside is really quite rare. The Horizon Home is his most probably well-known. And I don't know of, other than that one and this residence, I'm not sure of other residential properties that he's

Designed and constructed in Riverside, and I'm wondering if the property owner has found that in her research I Don't know of other homes he did in Riverside he moved to Cayuga's after The construction of City Hall and he did a lot of homes there But these are the two residences. I know of the Fairview which is the horizon homes and ours And in terms of the number of projects, I mean, he was pretty prolific working as the head of design at Runao, Runao being the principal of the firm. So I don't have like a quantified number, but I do have one project I think that is really great is the adaptive reuse of the Julia Morgan YWCA building into Riverside Art Museum. He was really instrumental in that project, which he knew a lot of the figures who were looking to make that change, and he just happened to have an idea. And then he read in the newspaper, oh, it happened. They secured that deal, and then he was on that project to adapt it into the Riverside Art Museum, but I don't have an inventory of Okay.

Thank you. It was really just mainly curiosity why I was asking that question. And also it does speak to the unique significance of the home, which is why I asked. So thanks for that. Let's see. Oh, my favorite question. Would you say the, I'm not sure I saw the exact words in the application or the staff report. It does retain a high degree of integrity. Staff is nodding yes.

Yes, it does.

Thank you. All right. Any other comments, questions? Anyone want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve.

Approve as presented? Yes, as presented. Any second? I'll second. Ramirez seconds. If there's no other comments, we'll vote. Everybody do it again. Okay, everybody vote again. She wants to punch the correct button. Thank you. The motion passes with no dissension. And again, the appeal process actions of the CHB can be appealed to city council within 10 calendar days. Contact the city planning department. Thank you, Mr. Watson. We are now on number eight. Yep. Oh, wait. Congratulations, homeowners. Now we're on number eight.

The next item before you today is a workshop to discuss and provide feedback on a potential ordinance to amend Title 19 of the Riverside Municipal Code to prohibit the use of chain link fencing on historic properties. Some background information, at the February 9th, 2026 Land Use Committee meeting, Council Member Falcone introduced a proposal to amend the zoning code to prohibit chain link fencing for city landmarks, structures of merit, historic districts, and neighborhood conservation areas. The intent of the proposal is to improve compatibility between fencing materials and the historic character. The Land Use Committee also discussed the potentials to work with local advocacy groups to provide grants for replacement of the existing chain link fences. The following discussion, the committee directed staff to seek feedback from the Cultural Heritage Board on the potential amendment prior to taking it to Planning Commission. And a matter of clarification, because this is a zoning code amendment, it would not come back to CHB and it would go straight to the Planning Commission. That's why we're asking for your feedback now. As a matter of information, the existing citywide residential historic district design guidelines indicates that the chain link fence should not be used when visible from the street. Based on the feedback from the Land Use Committee, staff has prepared the following potential amendment text to aid CHB's discussion. The amendment would include provisions for post World War II historic districts as chain link fence was common, excuse me, was common during that time period and for larger lots where the fencing is not visible from the public right away. Also, this amendment would only apply when somebody proposes to change their fencing or install new fencing. With that, STAC recommends that the Culture Heritage Board hold a workshop and provide feedback on the potential ordinance.

Thank you. We're going to go to public comment, so can we play the recording for that?

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 star nine. When called to speak, press star six to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Okay, we do have a speaker card for one comment in chamber, and that is for Anna Geisert.

I'm back. Hello again. My name is Anna Geiser. I live in Ward 4. The near blanket prohibition of the installation of new chain link fences on historic properties dismisses the value and merit of a major category of fencing material that represents an enduring and affordable solution for many property owners, historic and otherwise, revealing an aesthetic and cultural bias against the historic material. If the objective is preserving neighborhood character and these restrictions were not in place historically, what is the code preserving? The memo, a document evaluating the historic appropriateness of the material, ends with what I consider to be the most important information, chain link fencing history. As the section states, chain link fencing is a historic material that has been part of the American built environment for well over a century. My takeaway from this information is that the prohibition itself is historically inappropriate, meeting beautification goals, but not those of historic preservation. The first exceptions of only two relegates Chainlink to a post-World War II period of significance, ignoring the historic appropriateness of its use both before and after this era. The second favors large property owners while discriminating against small property owners. The following is what I find to be the most problematic about the prohibition, which treats all historic properties as though they were the same. Prohibiting chain-link fences confuses aesthetics with historic preservation. There's a difference between perceived beauty and historic character. As you all know, perceiving a feature as attractive or ugly is not what makes it historic. One may dislike chain link because they deem it cheap, industrial, or out of character, but aesthetic dislike alone is not evidence that a material lacks historic significance. If the goal is to preserve the neighborhood character within historic areas, the code should protect the options that were historically available to property owners, not erase them. The prohibition privileges wealthier preservation outcomes. Chain link became popular partly because it was affordable, one of the material's merits. Replacing it with masonry walls, custom wood fencing, or wrought iron will cost property owners orders of magnitude more than installing chain link. Thus, a prohibition will disproportionately burden working class homeowners and historically diverse neighborhoods, creating a preservation system that favors affluent property owners. I cannot see how the city can responsibly and in good conscience adopt the prohibition without a study on the economic hardship that it would inflict on everyday Riversiders. The prohibition may conflict with the Secretary of Interior's preservation philosophy. The city of Riverside would need to justify why Chainlink is categorically incompatible with historic preservation when national preservation guidance typically relies on case-by-case evaluation. No one in Riverside is against beauty. Rather than rejecting it, the city might consider getting creative with Chainlink. If beauty is the central concern, Chainlink can function as a structural trellis that can support the growth of landscaping such as Creeping Jasmine. The visual effect is an impressive living wall. Here, Chainlink is simply an invisible armature. You don't even know it's there. I have more to say, but I'll end there since my time is up. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else in chamber?

Chair, I also failed to mention that we did receive two e-comments that were provided to you, both in opposition.

Thank you. Is there any callers online for this item? Okay, no callers online, so we'll close public comment. So for the board, I want to just clarify, make sure we all understand that this is merely a request for feedback from the Land Use Committee. Council members Falcone and Mill and Cervantes make up the Land Use Committee. And this is a proposal that they wanted to seek feedback from. And they didn't have to send this to us. So I appreciate that committee sending it here for our input since it does impact historic districts. So anybody with that? Anybody have any comments? Maybe future things you would like that committee or planning to keep in mind? Board Member Ramirez.

a question I guess to send back to them. I know it says here that they would be providing grants. Is there a timeline for these replacements if the ordinance does go through? Is there a timeline for those to be replaced and what happens if the homeowner does not receive a grant, are they now responsible solely for that entity to go up and be replaced? And I ask because I'm actually going through this project myself, and I have a family discount, and it's still an extraordinary amount to pay. So I would like to know that ahead of time as well, and just for feedback, I don't know what more we have at hand.

Yes, and I did get word that your mic was not on, but I can go ahead and summarize.

You can summarize.

I can summarize for you. Being the question of regarding, you know, is there a timeline, the Land Use Committee chose not to do an amortization to require the removal, so this would only be any replacement in the future. And then as far as any grant opportunities, it was a suggestion that maybe that the city could speak to an outside organization to provide opportunity that if somebody would like to replace their fence. So it wasn't necessarily a requirement to replace them.

Okay. So if they currently have a chaining fence, they do not have to replace if the ordinance goes by. They can keep the chaining fence. Correct.

This would only be for future fencing.

Got it. Thank you.

Mr. Idelson. Currently, how many historic districts in Riverside already don't allow chain link fence?

Per the citywide residential historic district design guidelines, chain link fences only allowed when not visible from the street. So for example, if you have, and this applies to all the 13 historic districts throughout the whole city. So for example, if you have a property in the wood streets and you have a fence that is running along the back of the property that's not visible from the street, it would be allowable in those cases.

But not in their front yard. But not in the front yard. So the historical districts, including mine palm heights already disallow chain link currently correct for any new for any new new fencing yes okay and um now and does that carry all the way to all of the other homes to landmark status structures of merit yes all of those homes currently would not be allowed to have chain link fence as we stand now

Correct, because even though the historic district design guidelines are for the districts in themselves, we apply the concepts of those in reviewing them on city landmarks or structures of merit that aren't in historic districts.

Excellent. Thank you. And is there a reason they did not include the vinyl fencing? Because almost every single one of the cities that were provided in the presentation, almost all of those cities also disallow vinyl fencing as well.

So the current historic district design guidelines were completed in 2003. So vinyl fencing really was not a thing at that time period and has since become more popular. Just an advisement of we will be taking up probably within the next year of revising those historic district guidelines as part of our general plan update. And that could be something that is considered added into the design guidelines.

So it's likely that vinyl fences will also be added then, as it's a non-acceptable?

It's a potential.

Yeah, because if we don't allow the vinyl window, then we'll probably move on down to the fences.

Yeah, we would be seeking CHB feedback, and if that's something that CHB would like to see, that's something that we can consider including, yeah.

Excellent.

I'm going to ask a clarifying question before we move on. The current guidelines for historic districts that don't allow chain link fencing, is that only for contributors of the historic district? And would this ordinance be all buildings within the historic district? I'm trying to figure out the difference.

I just pulled up the wording, so I'm double checking. It doesn't specify. So generally, when people have applied for chain link fence within a historic district, we would say no if it's within the front yard, whether it's a contributor or not. Though, however, do also recognize that neighborhood conservation areas, non-contributors do not require a certificate of appropriateness. So somebody could do it without our knowledge because it's not required.

Right, so in neighborhood conservation areas, non-contributors could put up a chain link.

Correct.

But this would make it to where no one in the neighborhood conservation area would. No one within the, correct, yes. Okay, thanks. That helps.

Is there any notification given to new homeowners that they are moving into a historical neighborhood that you might know of?

So this has been an ongoing situation that we've been trying to work through. One of the most recent as far as that is the historic district signage that has been going on. So that's identifying those historic districts. If you have not seen them, they are going up. As well as we do everything we can to try and notify, but we do not monitor home sales. So we do not know when a home is sold. So we are unable to send out like notices when people purchase.

So just to clarify, so in this case, if somebody comes to the city hall and they're asking for a permit to change their fence or build a new fence, they're then being told, hey, you just can't, you can have any kind of fence except chain link fence.

correct so so we often get calls all the time because there are some district uh there are some jurisdictions that require a building permit for a fence or some something of that nature so we get calls all the time that somebody you know i'd like to build x fence we look up the property we identify that it's an historic district therefore you know andrew and i will review what type of fence that they would do so this is pretty standard practice that we we deal with all the time okay thank you mr watson yeah

So just to clarify, it seems like this is kind of, in regards to the historical district, this is kind of falling in the same problem as the vinyl windows, where there is no permit required to change your window in most instances. So people are doing it, and then we're ending up with the vinyl window being placed instead of the original. It seems like that's currently an issue as well with the fencing. And is that Mr. Falcone's and this board's, like, is that where they're headed? Is that they're trying to head off that same issue or... By doing this?

That could be a consideration that the council member is thinking about. In general, it does put the onus on the property owner to reach out to the city because even if you don't know that this ordinance exists, but that's pretty similar to a lot of other situations because we deal with unpermitted additions, et cetera, et cetera, all the time as well.

Okay.

And just to clarify, so currently Windows, you do require a permit for Windows if you're changing the size of the existing window. Opening size, correct, yeah. But if you're taking out and putting in like size, then we're not catching those. Correct.

mr uh just uh sorry i forgot castellan's first and then um for one you know notification to the homeowners perhaps as a recommendation for the council they can include something on the property tax form uh that way the homeowners know every year hey you're living in a historical district there's a lot of responsibility in with residing in that district so please you know that that that would then give them the notification that they then should not be building chain link fences or adding vinyl windows to their homes uh to clarify that the county is the one that handles the property tax so we don't even have any ability to add that to the property tax

These historic designations are recorded. So when somebody pulls the title report, it should be there. And so it should identify it as being a historic property. Those of us that have purchased homes have seen that disclosure form that does identify is this property within a historic district. So hopefully the current property owner discloses it as well. Yeah.

Those are good questions, because we've been fighting with that forever. We'd love more information and solutions to that. Mr. Cronin.

Thank you. The comment about historicity versus aesthetics is interesting. I'm not sure I completely agree with the comment, but I'm really thinking about the comment. It's very interesting. I'm not sure I disagree. But If you have a chain link fence, and it was available in 1920, but nobody around here ever used them in 1920, how would we think about what's historical? To me, I would think it's what people actually did. It's not what was possible for a product that was probably mainly used for industrial purposes.

That is generally the way that the design guidelines are written. So for example, yeah, you can see here it does talk about that front yard fences should match the appropriate architectural style. So for example, a wood picket fence would be appropriate for a craftsman or a Victorian style versus a wrought iron fence would be appropriate for a Victorian. And then also wrought iron would be appropriate for Spanish colonial. So the design guidelines are based off of what architectural style would generally have what type of fence.

But I mean, it was a good point. So suppose somebody shows you a picture from their 1934 home and it has a chain link fence in 1935.

then what do we do generally if somebody is able to provide evidence of something that existed historically at the time of construction we would generally approve it for example using a different type of material there are some homes throughout riverside that have metal barrel roofs So they weren't clay tile. They were actually metal. And so property owners have provided evidence showing that they are the original metal roof that's still on there and want to replace it with metal roof to match. We would consider that appropriate.

Okay.

And then the cost, I mean, as a different example, if somebody used to have brass gutters but they can only afford aluminum now, do we say, no, you can't put it in a gutter because it's not brass? I mean, we make accommodations, don't we?

Right. We generally do make accommodations to maintain the original look and feel. Or copper gutters. And so if they are putting on gutters, they would need to match the original look and feel. So if they are not copper, maybe they are a material that can mimic the look of the copper and so on and so forth. That would be okay.

Yeah. Last question. You talk about... the facing appearance, a lot of our homes are built on alleys. Is the alley considered facing? The public can actually go in there, but it's kind of a private area, so how do you consider the alley?

So the current design guidelines say from the street, so it would not consider the alleys. However, if you use the term public right away, then the alley is considered.

Okay, what are we using here?

So in the current guidelines, it only says street. But what is being proposed, like, for example, on the large lots exemption, it would be not visible from the public right-of-way. So, for example, if one of the sides of the property runs against an alley, that would be considered the public right-of-way versus the other property lines that are not, would not be considered that.

What about...

view from the top of a hill for a home that's built down in a valley and it's not the public right-of-way because we're looking at where the public can go what the city owns basically is the public right-of-way okay thanks for the clarification remember remember Ramirez just to be clear I just want to make sure it's on record I guess and to be clear we're not asking current

Homeowners with chaining fences to remove or replace their fence. This is simply for those in the future that request offense

That is correct, yes.

Okay. And for those, because, you know, I have family members that have been living in Riverside for generations after generation after generation, right? And so they've been in these homes, and this is the only home they know. So they may not, to the public comment that was made, may not have the financial ability to put these required fences moving forward. For those, either they don't put a fence if they so choose to in the future because there won't be any grounds available for them. So the option is no fence or figure out a way to pay for the fence.

Correct, yes.

Thank you.

Board Member Nelson.

I apologize, I'm back again. But everybody keeps breaking up excellent questions, and that reminds me of other things. I should have written everything down. First, currently, as you said, currently chain link fence is not allowed in historic districts. If those chain links exist currently, what's... I guess why? Why are those chain links currently there now?

They would have been installed prior to the designation.

Which was 2000? It depends on the district. And the newest district?

yeah so for example if we're talking about like your district which was in the mid-2000s they would have been installed prior to that if we're talking about the wood streets historic district we would have been talking early 90s late 80s and so it really just kind of depends on the district So for example, there was a photo that was included that does show two homes with chain link fence. Those were installed prior to this, which is the St. Andrew's Terrace neighborhood conservation area before it was identified and designated as such.

So if the chain link fence was installed after your house was added to the district, technically now speaking, it is against city.

That is correct. Yes.

And what is the ramification of that currently?

If a cut enforcement complaint is issued, they would be required to replace the fence with an appropriate fence.

Or remove it.

Or remove it, yes.

So I'm hearing maybe include vinyl fencing if we're talking about inappropriate fencing for the future. I'm hearing we need to consider financial considerations.

What else am I hearing?

Oh, there was a question in the committee's questions about a carve-out for mid-century districts. So does anybody have any feedback on – you'd be okay with – chain link fence in a mid-century district as appropriate, as opposed to, you know, like the Fankers Road, that's not a district. What's the name of the one downtown? Mount Rubidoux Historic District, which is like 1800s. Any thoughts on that for the committee? Remember, everything we're saying is going to the Land Use Committee.

No. Okay. You don't have to. I think you did a very good job of condensing everything that was discussed.

Okay. All right. Any other feedback for the committee? All right. Thank you for the good discussion. Oh, Mr. Watson, this is going to, is Planning Commission also going to discuss this as a workshop?

The intent was that this would go ordinance, but I'll talk with Taryn because Taryn's working on this for the city attorney's office. So we'll have some conversations and see what the next path would be.

You could just keep us up to date just on the process in case we want to participate at the other meetings. That'd be helpful. Oh, yes, Vice Chair.

Mr. Watson, so you mentioned, I think, in the report after the 1950s when chain links started being used more frequently.

Correct. Because of industrialization post-World War II, it became a cheap, easy material that could be mass-produced.

Including for residential areas? Correct, yes. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Thank you.

Okay. So the charge for this item was just to hold a workshop? Correct. Anything else we need to do?

I think I have enough feedback. I think we're good. And then we can circle back.

Thank you. So that completes item eight, which brings us to the final item, which is number nine. I don't know which of you would like to start with that, which is communications items for future board meetings, items of concern.

Do you want...

Apologies. I wasn't sure who goes first. So for the next July CHB meeting, we will be presenting a quarterly update on the certificates of appropriateness reports, and we will also be doing the ethics training. Okay.

And then I believe Taryn has an update regarding the mission and artifacts item that was discussed last week, last month.

Yes, I have a quick note for the board. I just wanted to update the board that the city council has the mission in item currently before them. There was a closed session. So I do want to point out that the city charter section 406 provides that all powers of the city are vested in the city council except as otherwise provided. And that's where CHB comes in in Title 20. The Municipal Code Section 20.10.020 enumerates 14 powers and duties of the Cultural Heritage Board. Among them are recommending to the City Council designations such as landmarks like you did today as well as having the discretionary authority over approval of applications to alter relocate and demolish cultural resources, which is the certificate appropriateness As well as consulting with and advising the City Council about the board's duties and functions HOWEVER, THE ENFORCEMENT IS, THE AUTHORITY FOR ENFORCEMENT IS STILL MAINTAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AND BECAUSE IT IS CURRENTLY WITH THE CITY COUNCIL, I will not be presenting on facts of the mission in items that have been in the newspaper as well as during public comment here. That's really as a safeguard in case there is a process that comes before this board. We don't have any due process issues of the board discussing the facts before they are before the board.

Can you clarify that in non-attorney space? Sorry.

So if a certificate of appropriateness for moving or a D designation application is brought before the Cultural Heritage Board for any of those items, we don't want you to have already discussed facts about the items.

Oh, I get it. So we don't want to discuss what is current events unless those items come to us under the Certificate of Appropriateness process. Correct. Does that make sense to the board? Clarifying questions for our city attorney? Okay. Thank you for that report. Is there anything else that you wanted to add before I asked for that clarification? No.

Just if you have any questions, I can answer as best I can.

Okay. Thank you for that. Oh, Vice Chair. No. No, I just didn't clear your speaker card from earlier. All right. Anything else? Go ahead.

Two things. We were asked to do what we could on this issue with respect to the properties associated with the Mission Inn that you're referring to. And I looked into it a little bit and was told that it's the City Council's policy that committees such as ours don't offer opinions unless we're asked to. Is that correct? By the City Council.

Yes, I believe that's in the City Council rules and the handbook you found That as I mentioned before your powers and duties do include consult with and advise the City Council on The board's duties and functions The way to become agendized in the City Council a meeting would be for a City Council member the mayor or a city charter officer to add an item to the agenda. I don't know that a discussion item on the mission in would be appropriate since they are currently reviewing and discussions on enforcement. But if there was a different discussion that the board would want the council to have regarding your duties and powers, that might be appropriate.

OK, thank you very much. Yeah, I mentioned last time that I thought we should work to support our community members who are engaged on this issue. And the reason I'm not pursuing it is because this is my understanding that it's not our role. So I just wanted to explain that and get verification from the city attorney, because I haven't heard it from somebody from your office. Second, we have another citizen here who mentioned that she would like us to pursue a workshop. And again, this is a rich subject. Would it be appropriate to have Ms. Parrish work with staff, maybe our chair, to come up with a proposal for us to consider of such a workshop?

Staff can work on that and bring it back a workshop for a cultural heritage board regarding vinyl windows and window replacements in general. In fact, I've been toying with an idea of having Dan Coco from the Old Riverside Foundation, who's known as Mr. Window, talk about window replacement in general to the board. So we can look at doing that at a future date. Yeah.

Okay. Well, I was asking you to bring us, if you, the chair can put things, you can put things on, and that's great. So if you choose to do that, great. If you don't choose to do that, you can just bring it back as something for us to think about. Either way. Sounds great. Thank you.

Yeah, a lot of times we'll do that as like an information item, like maybe it's something that we need to understand better so we can come back as this is the process. Yeah, so we'll definitely be in touch about following up on that.

Thank you so much.

And Vice Chair?

For the City Attorney, so as I understand you, we sort of, in other words, need permission from the City Council to discuss the mission, correct? Or have we already had the door closed on us?

It's just it's not within the powers and duties of the Cultural Heritage Board to address enforcement issues. So it's just not in the purview of the board.

Is there any leeway on whether or not we could discuss the topic broadly?

You can discuss when it's agendized. We can have a workshop or an informational item on the process of designations and certificates of appropriateness. We can even go over the Title 20 if you have any questions on it. But when it pertains to facts on a case that could, yeah.

Okay. Perhaps that could be something, a topic that we can discuss because it may or may not hit us again in the future. So preserving particular items within a historical structure, it's of particular importance and I think it just helps out with our own knowledge base.

As just a matter of information, it does look like we are going to be getting a small CLG grant this year, and we are planning on using that for trainings. One of those would be the designation process, et cetera, et cetera. So that is definitely something that we'll be doing. Unfortunately, that won't start until August, so it would be sometime in the fall, most likely, that we would be doing that.

It's gonna mr. Board member Nelson and then yeah, I as it's been brought up several times it there does seem to be an information Transfer issue between the public and what isn't isn't allowed in the historical districts as it as it is now do we have a something planned for that some informational meeting or a way to communicate with the because I'm saying a lot of turnover I mean a lot of these homes are coming up for sale they're transferring ownership and it does it has been mentioned to me on more than one occasion that They were not aware that they were aware that the home was a historical home or there was a historical district, but not to the full extent. So I was I was I guess my question is, is that do we have anything on the agenda for the public to to increase that opportunity for for knowledge to pass that along?

Simply put, yes. Staff has been working on doing community workshops regarding historic districts, identifying them, so on and so forth. The challenge there is you can advertise as much as you want and people still don't attend. So staff is definitely doing as much as we can to notify people and that's why the historic district signage is Also part of this so that you see it on every street corner now in a historic district. So I Will say that people are always going to fall back on I didn't know One this may be relevant I

I bought my home. It was a repo. It had been thoroughly stripped. We heard about one of the homes that we approved tonight was thoroughly stripped, and I know the person that stripped it, and I know the person that bought it and what they had to do to bring things back. When we talk about what's inside of a home, and it came up earlier, what's inside of a home in the context of another property, the mid-century modern property, what can we do to protect those legally? Because it really does impact a property when somebody takes everything that isn't nailed down and then pries a few things extra off the walls for good measure that are nailed down. It has a real impact on the property and its historic value. So what do we do to protect that? And could that be part of the workshop that we've been talking about?

I know of four different items for future training.

Well, it's related.

I don't want to diminish that. Yes, if we're asking questions, it is a good idea for us to fully understand how are we protecting and what is the enforcement and what can this board do, what can we recommend to council. The people doing the training are listening to us right now, so they will be working on incorporating and answering those questions. Yeah.

We don't even know if we're actually protecting that stuff.

And as you think of more questions, send them to Mr. Watson.

Well, we had a comment earlier about discussion and an apology, but this is what discussion's for. Absolutely.

And I'm not trying to shut you down. I'm trying to assure you that just because we may not have an answer at this moment doesn't mean there's no answer coming. I think that's what I'm trying to say anyway. Because I'm also trying to respect agendizing. And we can't have long, protracted discussions without it being on the agenda. So getting it on the agenda. Right. I'm talking about adding to that. Yes.

Just making sure that the agenda, asking if the agenda item could include that in a natural way.

I appreciate that. Anything else? All right. Mr. Watson, do you have anything else? All right. Well, thank you for those great discussions today, for all your work on our landmark status. And we will see you next month. And we close this meeting. We adjourn this meeting at 5.10, 12 p.m. Thank you.