Chapter 2:

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Oakland needs a broader, better coordinated and more multifaceted historic preservation program. Since World War II, Oakland has lost large numbers of historically or architecturally significant properties, either through demolition or insensitive alteration. These include hundreds of Victorian houses, most of downtown’s pre-1900 commercial buildings and several large churches and civic buildings.

The City believes historic preservation is integral to Oakland’s continued maintenance and revitalization. About half of Oakland’s buildings date from before 1946. Within deteriorating areas, the proportion is much higher and includes Oakland’s greatest concentrations of significant older properties. The City believes that historic preservation activities will help stabilize these areas and encourage rehabilitation. Conversely, the City believes that in the absence of a broad historic preservation program, deterioration will continue and many developmental and promotional opportunities presented by significant older properties will continue to be lost.

⬚ figure

Buildings lost since World War II (clockwise from upper left): Alexander House, 16th and Filbert Streets; demolished early 1970s by Oakland Redevelopment Agency for Oak Center Project. Sacred Heart Church, 40th Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way; demolished 1993 due to 1989 earthquake damage. Earle C. Anthony Packard Showroom, 21st Street and Lakeside Drive, Bernard Maybeck, architect; demolished early 1970s for parking lot.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

HISTORIC PRESERVATION GOALS

The City’s commitment to a broad historic preservation program is expressed in the following goals:

GOAL 1: To use historic preservation to foster the economic vitality and quality of life in Oakland by:

(1) Stressing the positive community attributes expressed by well-maintained older properties;

(2) Maintaining and enhancing throughout the City the historic character, distinct charm, and special sense of place provided by older properties;

(3) Establishing and retaining positive continuity with the past thereby promoting pride, a sense of stability and progress, and positive feelings for the future;

(4) Stabilizing neighborhoods, enhancing property values, conserving housing stock, increasing public and private economic and financial benefits, and promoting tourist trade and interest through preservation and quality maintenance of significant older properties;

(5) Preserving and encouraging a city of varied architectural styles and environmental character reflecting the distinct phases of Oakland’s cultural, social, ethnic, economic, political, and architectural history; and

(6) Enriching the quality of human life in its educational, spiritual, social, and cultural dimensions through continued exposure to tangible reminders of the past.

Goal 1 is expressed more specifically by Goal 2:

GOAL 2: To preserve, protect, enhance, perpetuate, use, and prevent the unnecessary destruction or impairment of properties or physical features of special character or special historic, cultural, educational, architectural or aesthetic interest or value.

Such properties or physical features include buildings, building components, structures, objects, districts, sites, natural features related to human presence, and activities taking place on or within such properties or physical features.

These goals are inclusive and ambitious and seek to maximize the City's exposure to historic preservation benefits. The goals mean that any physical environmental feature related to human activity that enhance Oakland’s quality of life through historical, aesthetic, or educational value should at least be considered for preservation. Such features could include: an older building with a superior architectural design; a bridge representing a notable engineering achievement; a park which was designed by a noted landscape architect or which has unusual aesthetic value; or even a piece of vacant land which is an archeological site or is associated with a notable event.

The property types or features listed in Goal 2 are defined in Table 2-1, shown on the following pages. Table 2-1’s definitions of "building", "structure", "object", "district" and "site" are derived from the National Register of Historic Places.

THE BENEFITS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION

There are many benefits to be derived from a historic preservation program consistent with the goals stated above. Such benefits include:

▪ Enhanced quality of life and urban revitalization

Most of the leading instances of large scale urban revival in the United States have involved places of historic or architectural interest. Well known examples include Greenwich Village, Soho, Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope, and parts of the Upper West Side in New York; Beacon Hill and Quincy Market in Boston; Pioneer Square in Seattle; and Larimer Square in Denver. California examples include major portions of Pasadena and Alameda and Jackson Square, Ghirardelli Square, and most of the Victorian neighborhoods in San Francisco. A striking feature of most of these revivals was that they involved minimal public funding.

Urban revitalization’s association with historically or architecturally distinguished areas is not coincidental. These areas frequently offer a higher quality of life. People are attracted to older buildings because of their distinctive architecture, solid construction, and other amenities. Even deteriorated or poorly remodeled but potentially attractive buildings can gain the attention of those who are able to look beyond the property’s decay or defacement and see its potential.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

Liberty Hall (originally Western Market Building) 8th and Chester Streets. A neighborhood eyesore (top) transformed by 1989-1990 rehabilitation (bottom). Local headquarters for Marcus Garvey's Universal Negro Improvement Association and Father Divine's Peace Mission. Oakland Landmark No. 107. On National Register of Historic Places.

TABLE 2-1: DEFINITION OF PROPERTY TYPES LISTED IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION GOAL 2

As used in Historic Preservation Goal 2, the terms "building", "building component", "structure", "object", "district", "site", "natural feature related to human presence", and "activity" have the following specific meanings:

(1) A building is a nonmovable construction created to shelter any form of human activity.

<u>Examples:</u> houses, commercial buildings, warehouses, industrial plants, schools, libraries, churches.

(2) Building components are functionally, historically, or aesthetically distinct parts of an individual building, including interior components of publicly-operated buildings and privately-operated interiors normally accessible to the public.

<u>Examples:</u> Storefronts, individual windows, and other exterior elements which are individually distinctive and aesthetically distinct from the building's overall exterior design, (e.g. a stained glass window on an otherwise undistinguished building), including individual rooms and other interior spaces. Examples of privately-operated interiors normally accessible to the public include: store interiors, office building lobbies, and interiors of churches, temples, theaters, auditoriums, and other similar assembly buildings.

Building Component: Interior of Dahlke's, 7th and Broadway, ca. 1889-90. Well preserved Victorian saloon inside a totally remodeled, undistinguished shell.

⬚ figure

(3) A structure is a relatively large or complex movable or nonmovable functional construction made primarily for purposes other than creating shelter; or a movable construction created to shelter any form of human activity.

<u>Examples:</u> Bridges, dams, tunnels, highways, rail lines, footpaths, transportation vehicles, telescopes, fuel storage tanks, street lights.

⬚ figure

Structures: Left: Posey Tube, Harrison Street south of 6th Street, 1925-28. Underwater tunnel with monumental portals housing ventilation equipment. Oakland Landmark No. 110.

Right: "Path of Silver" Beaux Arts street lights, Grand Avenue and other streets. Originals installed 1925-30; some recently restored and new fixtures added.

TABLE 2-1: DEFINITION OF PROPERTY TYPES LISTED IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION GOAL 2 (continued).

⬚ figure

Object: Lakeshore Highlands Portals, Longridge and Trestle Glen Roads at Lake Shore Avenue, 1918. Beaux Arts entries to residential subdivison, influenced by City Beautiful Movement. Oakland Landmark No. 20.

(4) An object is a relatively small and simple movable or nonmovable functional construction or a movable or nonmovable construction which is primarily artistic in nature.

<u>Examples:</u> Sculptures, fountains, murals, signs, hitching posts, tombstones, monuments, fences.

(5) A district is a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of buildings, structures, objects, sites, natural features related to human presence; or activities united historically or aesthetically by plan, appearance, or physical development.

<u>Examples:</u> Residential, commercial, or industrial neighborhoods; civic areas, cemeteries, landscaped parks, estates, institutional complexes or campuses, transportation networks.

(6) A site is the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, commemorative, or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing building or structure.

(7) A natural feature related to human presence is an individual living or nonliving element of nature introduced or significantly influenced by human activity or associated with significant persons, events, or historical patterns.

<u>Examples:</u> Trees, small gardens, creeks, lakes.

Natural Features Related to Human Presence: Arbor Villa Palm Trees, 9th Avenue and adjacent streets north of East 24th Street. Border planting for Borax Smith’s now-demolished estate. Oakland Landmark No. 23.

⬚ figure

(8) An activity is a store, business, institution or other ongoing land use typically characterized by distinctive or unusual merchandise, materials, or manner of operation or by special historical or cultural associations. Activities are evaluated independently from the buildings or other premises they may occupy.

Employment opportunities

Rehabilitation, and particularly historic building restoration, is generally more labor intensive than new construction and therefore creates more jobs for the same investment. This is especially significant since old buildings needing rehabilitation are often concentrated in neighborhoods with high unemployment. New York, Chicago, Baltimore, and other cities have job training programs which specifically focus on old building rehabilitation and emphasize skills which maintain historic fabric and reduce rehabilitation costs.

Cost-effective preservation of affordable housing

Much of Oakland’s low cost housing is located in historically or architecturally significant buildings. Examples include West Oakland’s Victorians and downtown Oakland’s residential hotels and older apartment buildings. Retaining these structures in their present use preserves both affordable housing and historical and architectural resources.

Many of these structures are deteriorated, but well managed rehabilitation projects generally cost less than new construction.

Economic development opportunities

Older buildings frequently provide retail and commercial space for the small businesses which are vital to downtown and neighborhood economies. Investment in these buildings leads to an enhanced tax base, greater public revenues, and permanent job creation. The special character and atmosphere of well-managed old buildings sometimes helps attract customers and can act as a catalyst for investment in neighboring properties. For example, Oakland’s opulent 1920’s Grand Lake Theater not only attracts two to three times as much partronage as a conventional new theater, but its success has stimulated new businesses which serve both residents and visitors.

Community identity, public relations and "image"

Preservation of older buildings encourages knowledge and respect for a community’s character, history, and culture. The distinctive designs of older buildings, especially those of special visual prominence, often make them important symbols of the community, help give it a special identity, and avoid the anonymity and uniformity of much new development. The special character and imagery of the world’s great cities, such as San Francisco and Paris, are often due to their older buildings.

Oakland has numerous prominent older buildings which serve as community symbols. These include: the Tribune Tower, City Hall, Broadway Building, Paramount Theater, the Safeway tower on East 14th Street, St. Elizabeth’s Church in Fruitvale, the Claremont Hotel, the old University High School campus in North Oakland, and West Oakland’s Victorians. Retention and respectful maintenance of these symbolic buildings can stimulate rehabilitation of surrounding older structures and inspire improved design quality for new buildings.

Educational, cultural, and artistic values

Historic Preservation helps maintain a record of diverse building types, cultural traditions, and architectural styles, materials, and crafts not generally found in new construction. The ongoing exhibition of this record as part of the public streetscape has an important educational function in its illustration of local historical development and past ways of life.

Similarly, preserving buildings with high artistic value preserves and exhibits the most conspicuous part of a community’s artistic heritage.

⬚ figure

Historic preservation helps maintain a rich diversity of architectural styles, materials, crafts and artistic values. Clockwise from upper left: Victorian Italianate millwork; rock-faced Colusa sandstone arches; sheet metal sidewalk canopy; Beaux Arts style monumental entry with marble columns and polychromed terra cotta trim; glass door with decorative wrought iron frame, flanked by Verde marble bases; clinker brick with leaded glass arched window; 1920s storefront with recessed entry, angled butted glass corner, molded copper window borders and polychromed tile base; Craftsman style river rock column. Lower left: Baroque terra cotta clock tower.

Tourism

Tourism is one of California's largest industries and historic properties are a major factor in its growth.

Restored old towns are among California's attractions. In 1982, for example, Old Sacramento received 798,026 visitors and Old Town San Diego had 4,105,280 visitors. Studies in South Dakota and Oregon indicate that historic site tourists stay longer and spend more money than general tourists¹. Older cities are generally more attractive to tourists partly because they contain building types and neighborhoods different from the suburban communities where many travelers live.

Oakland's large collection of interesting and potentially attractive older structures makes it well positioned to take advantage of tourism. The Old Oakland area, when fully developed, will be comparable to other California old towns. Sympathetic development of Lower Broadway's 1850's and 1860's buildings and of the neighboring Produce Market, could help support Jack London Square. Uptown Art Deco architecture, with the Paramount Theater as its crown jewel, already attracts a small but steady stream of tourists. Lake Merritt, Lakeside Park, and the Camron-Stanford House are resources unique to Oakland which, in recent years, have attracted numerous visitors for special fairs and festivals.

Filmmaking

Many films use historical settings. Cities like Oakland are invaluable as historical backdrops for these films. Filmmakers often employ large crews and casts whose patronage benefits the community's travel accommodation industry.

Oakland has already taken significant advantage of filmmaking. In 1990, 49 films used Oakland for locations; of these, 27 used the special settings provided by older buildings. During 1987, 1988, and 1989 it is estimated that filmmaking contributed at least $15 million to Oakland's economy.

The City has recognized the importance of filmmaking by creating a special filmmaking assistance unit within the City Manager's Office of Marketing and Public Information.

EXISTING HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS

The most significant existing historic preservation programs applicable to Oakland are summarized below. See Technical Report, Chapter 4 for a more complete listing and description.

National Register of Historic Places, National Historic Landmarks and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

The National Register is the federal government's list of properties warranting preservation. Properties may be added to the National Register at either the national, state or local level of significance. Properties listed at the national level of significance are eligible for designation as National Historic Landmarks. About 38 Oakland properties are currently on the National Register (see Figure 2-1 and Appendix B), and several hundred have been officially determined eligible. Several thousand more may be eligible, either individually or as part of National Register districts.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires review by the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and/or the State Historic Preservation Officer of any federal actions (including federally-assisted grants or loans) which may adversely affect properties on, eligible for, or potentially eligible for the National Register.

California State Historical Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest

California State Historical Landmark designation criteria are highly restrictive. In order to be eligible, a property must, among other things, be of statewide historical importance and be the first, last, only, or most significant example of a type in a region.

Points of Historical Interest are properties of countywide and regional importance which are not eligible as State Historical Landmarks.

Neither designation has direct regulatory protection, but State Historical Landmarks are eligible for official landmark plaques and highway directional signs. There are eleven State Historical Landmarks in Oakland, and one Point of Historical Interest. The State Historical Landmarks include the Paramount Theater and the original site of the University of California.

California Register of Historical Resources

The California Register was created in 1992. It is intended as an authoritative guide for identifying the state's historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. The Register presently includes:

1. properties on or officially determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; and
2. State Historical Landmarks Nos. 770 and higher.

Additional properties can be placed on the California Register by the State Historical Resources Commission. Substantial adverse changes to properties on or determined eligible for the Register are considered "significant effects" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and require either an Environmental Impact Report or mitigation to a nonsignificant level. (See Chapter 5, Policy 3.8 discussion of CEQA, and Technical Report, Chapter 4, Section E.2).

Oakland Landmarks

Properties eligible as Oakland landmarks are defined at Section 2002(p) of the Zoning Regulations as those having "special character or special historical, cultural, educational, architectural, aesthetic, or environmental interest or value." This definition is more specifically interpreted in the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board's "Guidelines for Determination of Landmark Eligibility" (see Appendix D). There are now over 110 landmarks (see Figure 2-2 and Appendix B). At least several hundred additional properties appear eligible as landmarks.

Demolition of a landmark can be postponed for up to 240 days and City Planning Department approval is

required for any exterior alterations after a recommendation from the Landmarks Board.

S-7 Preservation Combining Zone

This is Oakland's preservation district zone. Areas eligible for S-7 designation are defined at Section 6400 of the Zoning Regulations as those having "special importance due to historical association, basic architectural merit, the embodiment of a style or special type of construction, or other special character, interest or value". About 40 properties are located within five existing S-7 Zones (see Figure 2-2).

Demolition and design regulations for S-7 properties are the same as for landmarks.

Preservation Study List

The Preservation Study List is defined at Section 7005 of the Zoning Regulations as "a study list of facilities under serious study . . . for possible landmark designation . . . or for other appropriate [preservation] action . . . " Properties can be added to or removed from the study list by the Landmarks Board, the City Planning Commission, or the Director of City Planning, but, in practice, this has mostly been done by the Board. About 300 properties are now on the study list.

Demolition of study list properties can be postponed for up to 60 days by the Director of City Planning.

Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey

This is an ongoing comprehensive historical and architectural survey conducted by the City Planning Department since 1979. All individual properties are thoroughly researched, documented and evaluated according to an A-B-C-D-E rating scale. Possible historic districts and other historically significant property groupings are identified and ranked either as "Areas of Primary Importance" (APIs) or "Areas of Secondary Importance" (ASIs). The Survey evaluation system is in Appendix C.

State Historical Resources Inventory forms providing detailed descriptions and historical information are prepared for all properties the Survey believes are eligible for the National Register, either individually or as part of possible National Register districts. All A-rated properties and most "B's" are considered individually eligible for the Register; APIs are considered eligible as districts.

The Survey assists National Register nominations and Section 106 reviews. The Survey has also been used by the Landmarks Board to assist Oakland landmark designations and as a basis for adding properties to the preservation study list.

The Survey has completed a sampling of properties in several small selected areas throughout the City, and all properties in the Central District, Adams Point and West Oakland. About 8,000 properties have been surveyed and about 2,200 have been documented on State Forms. Areas documented by the Survey are shown on Figure 2-3 along with generalized locations of individual properties the Survey or similar methodology considers eligible for the National Register and APIs and ASIs.

Inclusion of a property in the Cultural Heritage Survey has no direct regulatory impact, except for properties subject to the Earthquake Repair or Unreinforced Masonry Building Ordinances described below.

Oakland Citywide Preliminary Historical and Architectural Inventory

This is a "windshield" survey covering most of the City conducted by the City Planning Department in 1986. The preliminary inventory is primarily intended to prioritize future areas to be covered by the Cultural Heritage Survey and to preliminarily identify properties which may be eligible for National Register, Oakland Landmark, or S-7 designation. The inventory also assists environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

⬚ figure

Prepared by Oakland Office of Planning & Building

September, 1993

Figure 2-1: Properties on the National Register of Historic Places

• Properties on the National Register of Historic Places

1 Mile

NOTE: This map was prepared in September 1993, based upon data available at that time. It may contain errors and may not be complete. Circumstances may have changed since 1993. Updated information is available from the Planning and Zoning Division of the Community and Economic Development Agency.

⬚ figure

Existing Oakland Landmarks and S-7 Preservation Districts (Citywide)

September, 1993

Prepared by Oakland Office of Planning & Building

NOTE: This map was prepared in September 1993, based upon data available at that time. It may contain errors and may not be complete. Circumstances may have changed since 1993. Updated information is available from the Planning and Zoning Division of the Community and Economic Development Agency.

⬚ figure

Figure 2-2: Existing Oakland Landmarks and S-7 Preservation Districts (Downtown) Sheet B

September, 1993

NOTE: This map was prepared in September 1993, based upon data available at that time. It may contain errors and may not be complete. Circumstances may have changed since 1993. Updated information is available from the Planning and Zoning Division of the Community and Economic Development Agency.

⬚ figure

Prepared by Oakland Office of Planning & Building

Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey:

• Properties appearing individually eligible for the National Register (including some properties on or officially determined eligible for the Register)
• -- Survey Area Boundaries

1 Mile

September, 1993

Figure 2-3: Areas of Primary or Secondary Importance and Sheet A Properties Appearing Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places According to the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey or Similar Methodology

Note: Areas of Primary Importance appear eligible for the National Register as districts

NOTE. This map was prepared in September 1993, based upon data available at that time. It may contain errors and may not be complete Circumstances may have changed since 1993. Updated information is available from the Planning and Zoning Division of the Community and Economic Development Agency.

⬚ figure

Prepared by Oakland Office of Planning & Building

Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey:

• Areas of Primary Importance
• Areas of Secondary Importance
• --- Survey Area Boundaries

Other Methodology:

• Areas of Primary Importance

1 Mile

September, 1993

Figure 2-3: Areas of Primary or Secondary Importance and Properties Appearing Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places According to the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey or Similar Methodology

Sheet B

Note: Areas of Primary Importance appear eligible for the National Register as districts

NOTE: This map was prepared in September 1993, based upon data available at that time. It may contain errors and may not be complete. Circumstances may have changed since 1993. Updated information is available from the Planning and Zoning Division of the Community and Economic Development Agency.

⬚ figure

Prepared by Oakland Office of Planning & Building

September, 1993

Figure 2-4: Preliminary Citywide Historical and Architectural Inventory – Areas of Primary or Secondary Importance

Note: Areas of Primary Importance appear eligible for the National Register as districts

1 Mile

NOTE: This map was prepared in September 1993, based upon data available at that time. It may contain errors and may not be complete. Circumstances may have changed since 1993. Updated information is available from the Planning and Zoning Division of the Community and Economic Development Agency.

The inventory has preliminarily identified several thousand properties which may be eligible for Oakland Landmark, National Register, or S-7 designation and uses the same A-B-C-D-E and API/ASI ratings as the Cultural Heritage Survey. Areas with high concentrations of properties preliminarily rated "C" or higher by the Inventory or identified as possible S-7 Zones are shown on Figure 2-4.

Inclusion of a property in the Preliminary Inventory has no direct regulatory impact.

Earthquake Repair Ordinance and Unreinforced Masonry Building Ordinance

The Earthquake Repair Ordinance, adopted in 1990 following the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, governs the repair, rehabilitation, alteration, and demolition of earthquake-damaged structures. The Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Building Ordinance, adopted in 1993, governs the seismic retrofit of URM structures. Both ordinances have similar regulations applicable to "historic structures". The ordinances define "historic structures" as stuctures which fall into any of the following five catagories:

1. Structures on the National Register of Historic Places;

2. State Historical Landmarks or Points of Historical Interest;

3. Oakland landmarks;

4. Structures contributing to an S-7 Preservation Combining Zone; or

5a. Earthquake Repair Ordinance: structures which have received an "A" or "B" rating from the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey and are also on the preservation study list;

b. URM Building Ordinance: all structures which have received an "A" or "B" rating from the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey.

Structures which are "historic structures" as defined in the ordinances have regulatory controls on demolitions and exterior alterations very similar to those for landmarks (see "Oakland Landmarks" section above). In addition, repair or retrofit work on these structures may be performed according to the State Historical Building Code (See Technical Report, Chapter 4, Section D.3) rather than being required to meet prevailing code.

EXISTING HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM DEFICIENCIES

Despite the ongoing historic preservation activities described above and existing widespread rehabilitation efforts, many of Oakland’s older buildings continue to deteriorate, experience adverse alterations, or be demolished, sometimes as a result of direct action by the City. This has resulted in unfortunate losses of important architectural and historical resources, affordable housing stock, and potential economic development opportunities.

Rehabilitation and demolition of buildings damaged in the 1989 earthquake, and the seismic retrofitting of unreinforced masonry buildings and other older buildings (see preceding section and Technical Report, Chapter 4, Sections E.4 and F.3) may accelerate these trends.

Major deficiencies in Oakland’s existing historic preservation programs include:

(1) Lack of a formally-adopted method for identifying which older properties are worthy of at least some preservation effort and for determining which types of efforts should be applied to which types of properties and situations.

(2) Weak demolition controls for landmarks and preservation districts.

(3) Inadequate definition of the property owner’s role in landmark and other historic property designations.

(4) Unnecessary delays, burdens and uncertainties in landmark and preservation district permit requirements.

(5) Inadequate economic or other incentives to encourage property owners to accept preservation regulations or to initiate preservation activities.

(6) No policies or other methods for balancing historic preservation with other potentially conflicting concerns, such as property owner interests, blight abatement, economic factors, and facilitating housing, economic development, and other projects important to the City.

(7) Inadequate procedures to protect and enhance significant older properties as part of ongoing City activities, including City-sponsored or assisted projects, programs, and regulatory activities.

(8) Need for more effective code enforcement and other methods to stabilize, adequately secure, and rehabilitate significant older properties which are severely deteriorated, vacant, or abandoned.

(9) No Citywide database of potentially significant archeological sites and inadequate procedures for protecting significant sites.

(10) Lack of broad community awareness and appreciation of Oakland’s history and architecture and of the value of preserving significant older properties.

(11) Insufficient technical knowledge by many property owners and developers of cost-effective maintenance, rehabilitation, and development financing for older buildings.

(12) Inadequate availability and dissemination of historic preservation information, including existing historical and architectural survey information, among City departments and the public.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION STRATEGY AND OBJECTIVES

The City’s Historic Preservation Strategy, intended to correct the above deficiencies, consists of the following five objectives:

OBJECTIVE 1: IDENTIFYING PROPERTIES POTENTIALLY WARRANTING PRESERVATION

To adopt an objective, consistent, well-documented, and widely-accepted method for identifying which properties warrant, or may warrant, preservation effort and for determining the relative importance of each of these properties so that preservation efforts may be appropriately gauged.

Use identification criteria that allow significant Citywide exposure to preservation benefits and recognize Oakland’s unusual array of significant older properties, while also recognizing that, after balancing preservation with other concerns, preservation of many of these properties may not be warranted. Structure the identification process to comprehensively address the entire City, at least preliminarily, in the shortest possible time. Present identification results in a clear and comprehensive manner that allows broad community dissemination.

OBJECTIVE 2: PRESERVATION INCENTIVES AND REGULATIONS

To develop a system of preservation incentives and regulations for specially designated significant older properties which (i) enhances economic feasibility for preservation; (ii) provides a predictable and appropriate level of protection, based on each property’s importance; (iii) reasonably balances preservation with other concerns; and (iv) operates efficiently, avoiding unnecessary regulatory procedures and review periods.

Link preservation regulations with preservation incentives to encourage owner acceptance of the regulations and compensate public investment in the incentives.

Reserve the strongest regulations for the most important properties. Strengthen existing demolition postponement provisions where justified by the property’s importance so that demolition is not permitted unless certain findings are made. Ensure that the views of property owners and users receive adequate attention when considering regulatory designation.

Develop clear standards and design guidelines for approving projects involving regulated properties. For proposals adversely affecting these properties, weigh the public benefit in preserving the property with such factors as the public benefit in approving the proposal, the proposal’s design quality, and any hardship or difficulties preservation may impose on owners or users.

During demolition postponements, ensure that owners and other interested parties are provided information on demolition alternatives.

OBJECTIVE 3: HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND ONGOING CITY ACTIVITIES

To establish administrative procedures and criteria to promote preservation of significant older properties as a routine part of City-sponsored or assisted projects, programs, and regulatory activities.

Ensure that City actions do not adversely affect significant older properties unnecessarily.

Emphasize repair and rehabilitation rather than demolition for damaged, hazardous, or abandoned buildings and investigate ways to expedite rehabilitation.

Develop and implement effective building security methods. Ensure that zoning and other land use regulations do not unnecessarily promote adverse changes to significant older properties. Preserve City-owned significant older properties as an example to others.

OBJECTIVE 4: ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

To develop databases identifying existing and potential archeological sites and adopt procedures for protecting significant archeological resources.

Apply the procedures to projects requiring discretionary City approval.

OBJECTIVE 5: INFORMATION AND EDUCATION

To provide and encourage informational and educational programs to enhance public and City staff appreciation of older properties and increase the level of technical knowledge to preserve these properties in a cost-effective manner.

Ensure that information on the City’s historic property identification methods, preservation incentives, preservation regulations, and historic preservation policies are widely disseminated and clearly understood.

Use markers, walking tours, school programs and publications to enhance public awareness of Oakland’s history and architecture.

* * * * *

These objectives are the basis for the policies and actions presented in Chapters 3 through 6.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION STRATEGY AND OBJECTIVES

The City’s Historic Preservation Strategy, intended to correct the above deficiencies, consists of the following five objectives:

OBJECTIVE 1: IDENTIFYING PROPERTIES POTENTIALLY WARRANTING PRESERVATION

To adopt an objective, consistent, well-documented, and widely-accepted method for identifying which properties warrant, or may warrant, preservation effort and for determining the relative importance of each of these properties so that preservation efforts may be appropriately gauged.

Use identification criteria that allow significant Citywide exposure to preservation benefits and recognize Oakland’s unusual array of significant older properties, while also recognizing that, after balancing preservation with other concerns, preservation of many of these properties may not be warranted. Structure the identification process to comprehensively address the entire City, at least preliminarily, in the shortest possible time. Present identification results in a clear and comprehensive manner that allows broad community dissemination.

OBJECTIVE 2: PRESERVATION INCENTIVES AND REGULATIONS

To develop a system of preservation incentives and regulations for specially designated significant older properties which (i) enhances economic feasibility for preservation; (ii) provides a predictable and appropriate level of protection, based on each property’s importance; (iii) reasonably balances preservation with other concerns; and (iv) operates efficiently, avoiding unnecessary regulatory procedures and review periods.

Link preservation regulations with preservation incentives to encourage owner acceptance of the regulations and compensate public investment in the incentives.

Reserve the strongest regulations for the most important properties. Strengthen existing demolition postponement provisions where justified by the property’s importance so that demolition is not permitted unless certain findings are made. Ensure that the views of property owners and users receive adequate attention when considering regulatory designation.

Develop clear standards and design guidelines for approving projects involving regulated properties. For proposals adversely affecting these properties, weigh the public benefit in preserving the property with such factors as the public benefit in approving the proposal, the proposal’s design quality, and any hardship or difficulties preservation may impose on owners or users.

During demolition postponements, ensure that owners and other interested parties are provided information on demolition alternatives.