CORRESPONDENCE
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
IRENE ALBECK
Thursday, May 22, 2025 8:35 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Roosevelt School
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
-earn why this is important at
[ ! ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
As a former parent, after many years I consider Roosevelt was a beacon of light, guiding parents of special needs children to a path of hope. It (PUSD) was a forerunner and a visionary of education for all children as it continues that goal today.
Please help to preserve the integrity of such a beautiful legacy. guiding
Sent from my iPhone
1 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Deborah Aschheim <i
Tuesday, May 27, 2025 4:12 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Roosevelt School landmark status
>
[ ! ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
Dear City Council,
I regret that I am unable to attend the City Council meeting next week.
I am writing to let you know of my strong support for landmark designation for Roosevelt School.
In this time when public education, particularly support for students with special needs that rely on federal funding, is threatened and even under attack, it sends an important signal of Pasadena's values of access to quality education for all to make Roosevelt School a monument. As you know, Roosevelt School was one of the first in the nation purposely designed to serve kids with special needs.
I am proud that PUSD has been supporting the rights of students with special needs for over 70 years.
We need to make sure our commitment to ALL students is reinforced and carried forward into the future. I understand the need for affordable housing in Pasadena, and the pressure to close neighborhood schools due to declining enrollment (even though closing neighborhood schools can creates challenges to educational access for some children.
But there is a strong argument for preserving Roosevelt as both a significant site in the history of PUSD and a symbol of Pasadena's commitment to building an inclusive community that recognizes the needs of all of our residents, particularly the most vulnerable.
I know friends and colleagues in Pasadena have worked incredibly hard on this grassroots effort to preserve Roosevelt, and to fight for opportunity for students with special needs. Some fought hard against the school's closure.
I think landmark designation for Roosevelt sends a powerful message of who we want to be.
Thank you,
Deborah Aschheim
District 1 resident
1 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Denise Hornick <
Thursday, May 29, 2025 8:18 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Roosevelt School
Some people who received this message don't often get email fromTI. Learn why this is important [ t; ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
Roosevelt School is a unique example of architecture while being significant to Pasadena's educational heritage.
Please do not redevelop this historic gem.
Denise Hornick
District 4
1 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Susan Zucker <
Thursday, May 29, 2025 9:55 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Roosevelt School
[Some people who received this message don't often get email frorr, important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] . Learn why this is
[ !' ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
Yes, landmark designation.
Also, our other important landmark is Julia Morgan's YWCA. Please make that structure available to the public again.
Susan Zucker
District 7 resident
Sent from Susan's <•' @
1 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Linda Koci <i
Thursday, May 29, 2025 11:12 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
As a Member of Pasadena Historic
Some people who received this message don't often get email fromLearn why this is important [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
PRESERVATION REPORT
I support the landmark designation of Roosevelt School.
Cheers,
Linda Kod-Biondolillo
1 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
David Bruder
Thursday, May 29, 2025 2:05 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Roosevelt Elementary School - Landmark Designation
Some people who received this message don't often get email fromLearn why this is important ^] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
To whom it may concern:
I urge you to vote for landmark designation of Roosevelt Elementary School. I have been a neighbor for over 25 years and I've always thought the school should be preserved and restored from its present dilapidated state. The renderings I've seen for the PUSD housing project are entirely inappropriate for the site. The main school building should be restored and incorporated into the project in a meaningful way.
Thank you for your consideration.
David Bruder
Pasadena CA91103
1 Gao, Beilei
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Claudia Llanos CPA
Thursday, May 29, 2025 2:12 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Roosevelt School
sSome people who received this message don't often get email fromLearn why this is important [A] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you /enow the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
To whom it may concert at Pasadena city council,
Please accept this email and proof of my deep support for the landmark designation of Roosevelt School.
It is important to our community.
Thank you.
Claudia L. Llanos, CPA
/ never lose. I either win or learn. - Nelson Mandela
1 Jomsky, Mark
Subject:FW: PUSD Roosevelt - Historical Report from Preservation Architecture From: Joanna Julian
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 11:32 AM
To: Johnson, Kevin; Cisneros, Stephanie
Cc: Bruce Dorfman; Stan Barankiewicz
Subject: PUSD Roosevelt - Historical Report from Preservation Architecture Hi Kevin and Stephanie,
On behalf of PUSD, we'd like to share the following materials for the City Council's consideration ahead of the June 2 meeting, in addition to the previously circulated HRG report.
Mark Hulbert of Preservation Architecture has prepared the materials linked below. Can you confirm if staff will distribute these materials to Councilmembers, or if the District should do so? Will the Historic Resources Group (HRG) report also be circulated? Let us know if we should resend. 1-Roosevelt-MH eval-052725.pdf
2-Roosevelt-MHRraphics-052725.pdf
3-MHPA-Quals-2025.pdf
4-Roosevelt-re-Crit.A-052725.pdf
Secondly, would it be possible for the District to have more than 15 minutes to present? An extra 5-10 minutes would be helpful, if possible.
Thank you,
Joanna Julian
Education Housing Partners
1 r&^i^v^ip^
May 27, 2025
Roosevelt School, Pasadena
Historic Architectural Evaluation
This supplemental historical evaluation draws upon previous assessments1, expanded archival research, and detailed architectural analysis to evaluate and substantiate conclusions regarding the site and its buildings' potential as a historic resource.
Evaluation Summary
The focus of this historical evaluation is generally on historic architectural considerations, yet specifically on the extent to which the Roosevelt School campus and its partly surviving mid-20th century building have been altered with extensive removals and additions. Such quantifiable changes are necessarily addressed as part of each and every historical evaluation, yet they were predominately unacknowledged and completely unanalyzed in the Padres' landmark application for the 1953 Roosevelt School building. One stark example is the lack of mention of the 1960-70s freeway construction that massively changed this campus and its buildings. That pivotal change is carefully addressed herein, as are the full range of changes to this campus and its buildings.
The Roosevelt School has a relatively long history- 1905-2019. From its origins to the near present, periodic subtractions and additions have been made to the school campus. Presently, nothing remains of the original or early (i.e., pre-c1950) campus. While portions of the 1953 building remain, the campus otherwise consists of landscape spaces and building additions dating from 1972 to 2014, including a relatively large new building with associated landscapes completed in 2003. The changes made to this campus were episodic and without the direction of any overall campus plan.
Moreover, pivotal changes to the Roosevelt School were imposed by the 1933 Long Beach earthquake, in the aftermath of which the original school building was removed, and then followed by the large-scale d 970 freeway construction directly across the front of the campus, which changed it from a neighborhood-oriented school to an insular and isolated one.
The substantial extent of change directly counters the Padres' landmark application. At the crux of that application are pronouncements that the extant school "retains its original campus plan" (p9) and that the 1953 building "is virtually unchanged," "highly intact," with "few visible alterations" (pp.3,5,9). These misleading conclusions were repeated by the applicant at Historic Preservation Commission hearings. Nonetheless, having heard and seen the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, in the course of their deliberations the Historic Preservation Commission (MFC) stepped back from the presumption that this campus and building retain historic integrity. Additionally, remarkably, at their most recent hearing, the HPC made no reference to the Padres landmark application or its purported findings.
The 1953 building is not separable from its campus, to which functioning school it was added. As readily concluded, no potential historic campus exists. In this multiple-resource campus setting, although an individual resource could be considered for potential individual significance, such consideration would be based on unchanged and outstanding character. Again, as detailed herein, the 1953 building has experienced substantive subtractions and additions to and from each of its original parts, so there is no individual building part that is unchanged and intact. As the building as a whole has been greatly altered, it is clearly lacking unchanged and outstanding character. 1315 Walnut St., Berkeley, CA 94709
510 418 0285 [email protected]
Neither, as the landmark applicant asserts, is this one building individually distinctive. A second crux of the Padres' application is the repeated statement - asserted 11 times in the application - that this individual building is a "textbook" example of its architectural type and period. The building is, in fact, merely an example, which is exactly what the textbook analogy indicates. One of many.
The 1953 structure is a common mid-20th century school building. In contemporaneous design and construction literature, earlier examples abound — all one has to do is turn the pages of such periodicals. In doing so, this author found a plethora of examples, including earlier and better mid- century California schools. In fact, also at random, I found a Fresno school designed and built between 1949 and 1952 for special needs students that in 1951 received an American Institute of Architects award and which Sunshine School remains in use today. No evidence has been found that the Roosevelt School received any architectural attention at or since its origins and its special ed use was ended in 1989. That the Roosevelt School's 1953 addition is not unique is most easily demonstrated by another of the schools designed by the architects of the 1953 addition. The Madison Elementary School in Pomona, which remains in use, was constructed in the same year, 1953, with the same building forms, same windows, same brickwork, same covered walkways, same rooflines. Without question, the 1953 Roosevelt School architects not only based their designs on precedent, the design and construction of their schools were, for logically economic reasons, repetitive. This reality undermines the HPC's assertion that the 1953 Roosevelt School building was or is somehow unique and therefore somehow distinctive.
In conclusion and as detailed in the following documentation, the 1953 Roosevelt School building does not exhibit historic landmark potential as either a contributor to any potential historic campus or as an individual built resource.
Summary History
Building on prior evaluation efforts, this evaluation provides a complete analysis of the overall Roosevelt School site, as the school is a campus rather than a single building. While the main building of the existing campus is the 1953 construction, that building was introduced into the previously existing Roosevelt School, the original elementary school property and building of which dated to 1905-07. In its very early years, the campus was changed by the need for growth, with the addition of two parcels and a kindergarten building in 1909 (fig. 1). The campus was further changed by an historical event, the Long Beach Earthquake of 1933, in the immediate wake of which the 1907 elementary school building was deemed unsafe, demolished and replaced by several new school buildings that then stood alongside the surviving 1909 kindergarten bungalow, and to which small campus the 1953 building was added 20 years later. Neither did the campus remain fixed thereafter. As new property was acquired and added to the site, other buildings were both added and removed including, consequentially, as a result of the development of the 210 freeway that since the early 1970s has directly fronted the school property. Even since, a relatively targe new building has been added to the school, altogether resulting in the current Roosevelt School campus as further detailed in the chronology below.
Roosevelt School Campus Chronology (based on previous records and PUSD facilities records):
1905-07 Original Roosevelt Elementary School building constructed and opened 1908-09 Kindergarten school bungalow added
1910-11 Elementary school building fire, repairs and reopening 1911 2 adjacent residential lots purchased and added to site
ROOSEVELT SCHOOL, PASADENA
MHPA- HIST. EVAL - 052725 - P2
1929 Programs for "handicapped children" added to Roosevelt Elementary school and kindergarten
1933-34 Long Beach Earthquake, original 1907 elementary school building demolished, 2 classroom buildings added
1953 One 1934 classroom building demolished, new Roosevelt School building added 1961 School property expanded to north, residential structures removed from acquired sites 1967 1909 kindergarten bungalow and the second 1934 classroom building demolished 1967-75 210 Freeway construction
1968 Two new portable buildings added on north portion of site 1971-72 New infill addition at 1953 building
1973 New portable building added at north portion of site 1977 1968 portable buildings relocated to west side of site 1988 Roosevelt School reverts to general elementary education school 2000-03 Offices, classrooms, library and cafeteria at 1953-72 building altered; west classroom buildings with covered walkways and west portable building added; west drive improved with added parking
2019-20 Roosevelt School closed
2025 Tree damage
The Roosevelt School's history spans from its origins in 1905 to the present. While no original or early buildings remain -the 1905 school building was demolished in 1933, the 1909 kindergarten bungalow in 1967 - the original site and to which additional property was incrementally added has continuously supported a Roosevelt School campusof functionally interrelated built resources - i.e., landscapes and buildings.
Historic resource considerations rest not on an individual piece of the school but on the overall campus. Relative to the Roosevelt School campus and its setting, two events of historic consequence occurred:
1. The 1933 Long Beach Earthquake resulted in the removal of the original, earthquake damaged school building - last depicted in the 1931 Sanborn map (fig.2) - and in the wake of which the school campus minimally recovered as the school was housed in several small buildings for the succeeding two decades, as the 1951 Sanborn map indicates (fig.3).
2. A second event of historic consequence was the development of Interstate 210, the Pasadena section of which was completed in the mid-1970s. As that freeway's path crossed directly in front of the Roosevelt School, the school's neighborhood setting and orientation, both inward and outward, were dramatically altered. That reality is demonstrated by U.S. Geological Sun/ey (USGS) maps of the period, the 1968 map as yet depicting the neighborhood school located at the juncture of Vernon Ave. and Villa St. and with the Union Pacific railroad passing across the Vernon frontage (fig.4). The subsequent 1975 map presented the reality of freeway development, which was then not yet depicted as complete, yet its path was a stark void and with the Roosevelt School cut off from the neighborhood towards which it previously faced (fig.5).
In the next USGS map iteration dated 1988, the new reality of the Roosevelt School was present, the campus by then given a new address, the former on North Vernon Ave., the latter on North Pasadena Ave. (fig.6). During this period of freeway development, salient changes to the campus were made, evidently in response to the intrusive presence of the freeway. These 1 https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE210.html
ROOSEVELT SCHOOL, PASADENA
MHPA- HIST. EVAL - 052725 - P3
changes included modifications to the frontage and a reorientation towards the rear of the property, with the former open entrance made opaque and with new infill construction added at the rear - which did not follow the design premise of openness to the landscape, and which resulted in the removal of the then-earliest surviving building of the campus.
Mid-century Modern Architectural Context
Post WWII modern architecture has been, in part, labeled Mid-century Modern, which identified a period spanning from the war's conclusion in 1945 into the mid-to-late 1960s. While so labeled, the style is not discrete as it was a part of a continuum of modern design and was not the only modern substyle of the postwar period.2
The subject mid-century addition to the Roosevelt School campus was designed in 1951, funded and built in 1953. As such, it was not an early Mid-century Modern style building, many examples of which were designed and built in the preceding postwar years locally, regionally, statewide and nationally.
That the institutional architectural design of the 1951-53 Roosevelt School building was a typical design can be readily demonstrated by referencing architectural periodicals of the postwar period.
Such periodicals were ubiquitous to architectural practices in that flourishing age of print media, with both regional and national titles such as Arts + Architecture (A+A), Architect & Engineer (A&E), Architectural Record (AR), Progressive Architecture (PA), and the Journal of the American Institute of Architects (JAIA). Throughout, such modern building designs - and equally relevantly, the products with which they were assembled - are in plain evidence.
For example, upon picking up a bound volume of the 1950 A&E, the first page the present author randomly opened to was a full page advertisement for modem school windows that included images of completed buildings that were direct examples of the modern design elements and character deployed in the 1953 Roosevelt School building addition (fig.7). Another example of such modern building design and construction is found in the March 1952 AR, wherein more ads for exemplar building products fill the pages prior to the lead article on postwar modern school buildings and titled "Some Trends in School Design." In addition to presenting peri:inent examples of completed postwar modern buildings that predated the postwar Roosevelt School building, one such article presented a postwar modern Austin Texas school completed in 1949 and designed, as its title stated, for "Normal and Handicapped Children Together" (pp. 135-141), providing plain evidence of both a design and a programmatic example of the future Roosevelt School building. Per the introduction to the present evaluation, several other readily accessed, earlier examples of Mid-century Modern school buildings add to the recognition of precedents, including the Sunshine School, a 1949-52 special education campus in Fresno (fig.8)3 and, even closer, the Madison School in Pomona (fig.9), which was also built in 1953 and designed by the Roosevelt School's architects.
The pages of those architectural periodicals provided the Roosevelt School architects both with practical building designs as well as products on which to base their own designs. Such examples, 2 Historic Resources Group & Pasadena Heritage, Cultural Resources of the Recent Past Historic Context Report - City of Pasadena; Oct. 2007, pp.60-71 ; City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning Office of Historic Resources, Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement - Context: Architecture and Engineering Sub-Context: LA.
Modernism, 1919-1980; fwg.202/\.
3 See referenced figs. for periodical citations.
ROOSEVELT SCHOOL, PASADENA
MHPA-HIST. EVAL-052725-P4
several others of which are provided herein, readily illustrate the prevalence of modern schools in the years prior to the realization of the 1953 Roosevelt School building addition (figs.10-11).
Evaluation
The following provides evaluation of the potential historic significance of the Roosevelt School based on previous documentation along with the additional historical information presented herein and per the City of Pasadena's Landmark eligibility criteria,4 specifically architectural criterion c, under which a City of Pasadena Landmark shall:
c. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, architectural style, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a architect, designer, engineer, or builder whose work /s of significance to the City or possesses artistic values of significance to the City.
Re: design and construction, the 1953 building of the Roosevelt School is not distinctive relative to its Mid-century Modern design and construction period. Based on the extant record along with the additional research summarized herein, the 1953 building is typical of that period and which conclusion is easily documented. Relative to the many identifiable mid- century design precedents, the 1953 building - itself not a standalone building but a part of a school campus - is not a distinctive or singular example, so there is no potential historic architectural importance on the basis of individual design or construction distinction. Attesting to its diminutive character, neither was the 1953 building published or referenced in any architectural or design publication. While there are a few available historic photos of the original and early campus along with several campus photos from 1971, no overall exterior photos of the 1953 building have been located.
Altogether, there is no basis on which to establish that the 1953 Roosevelt School building has historic landmark potential as an individually distinctive (i.e., singular or outstanding) exemplar of Mid-century Modem building design or construction.
Moreover, the Roosevelt School campus has experienced extensive inward and outward changes from its 1905 origins to the present, including the removal of original and other early buildings along with more recent site and building additions and deletions that has resulted in an ad hoc campus plan and design (fig. 12). With the loss of the early campus and its buildings and the extent to which the site has been affected by substantial outward changes, there is no potential to comprehend the historic setting or feeling or associations of this former neighborhood school (fig.13).
Additionally, the 1953 Roosevelt School building's construction was not unique. In fact, its brick masonry construction and cladding were standard. Other original design elements included aluminum school windows yet, as demonstrated, those were typical of this period of school construction, as were flat roof and canopies as well as open walkways. As clearly indicated in the original elevations, a dominant and unique exterior design element was the use of continuous architectural louvers that hung at the outside edge of roof overhangs, all of which were removed in 1972, when the open walkways were enclosed. As illustrated in an original rendering of the front, which also depicted the original front entry design, the subsequent 4 Pasadena Municipal Code Ch.17.62.040 - Criteria for Designation of Historic Resources; Sec.D.2 - Landmarks.
ROOSEVELT SCHOOL, PASADENA
MHPA - HIST. EVAL - 052725 - P5
removal of the architectural louvers and infilling of the high, transparent entry way adversely effected the building's design and construction (see figs.14-17 - which substantial alterations the Padres' landmark application did not identify).
While the 1953 building is the one surviving structure from a potential historic period, it has been extensively altered and added to - its original quasi-finger-plan infilled, its original glazed and transparent entry way replaced with an opaque entry way, its open plan obliterated, its open walkways enclosed, the once extensive system of architectural louvers removed, thereby changing the building's originally open extra- and intra-relationships and design characteristics.
Figure 18 depicts all of the exterior elements that were subsequently removed from the 1953 Building; Figure 19 depicts all of the exterior elements that were subsequently added to the 1953 Building; and Figure 20 shows the combination of both removals and additions. These changes were consequent to the adjacent freeway development that substantially altered the overall site along with its orientations. Since, the school's use has ended, its exterior deteriorating and now, in part, severely damaged. The potential historical design of the campus has therefore been lost, the design of the 1953 building permanently and detrimentally changed, to the extent that its original architectural design character is missing. Figures 21 through 24 show the substantial interior alterations; Figures 25 through 27 are current pictures of exterior views of the campus buildings; and Figure 28 is a photograph showing the road approach to the campus.
Re: the architects of the postwar building, Weston and Marston, who briefly partnered to produce a number of local school buildings, there is no evidence that either was creatively exceptional or important, together or independently. In the Pasadena modern context, neither architect is given a biographical brief, whereas other members of their own families were individually recognized. And none of their projects, again individually or together, are identified in the Pasadena context, including the subject building. Marston was also the architect of the 1972 addition, a windowless brick clad volume that infilled the original play yard and eliminated the original open plan. As Marston is not an identified or identifiable architect of historic importance, his association to that addition is also without import.
In conclusion, the subject resources are not potentially historic landmark eligible under City of Pasadena criterion c.
In conclusion, the 1953 Roosevelt School building does not exhibit historic landmark potential as either a contributor to any potential historic campus or as an individual built resource, which conclusions reflect and reinforce those of both the 2024-25 City of Pasadena evaluations and the 2023 Historic Resource Evaluation by Historic Resources Group, who as authors of the Pasadena Recent Past Historic Context Statement (whose Pasadena educational context statement is in progress) are exceptionally qualified.
Signed:
a^ ^—
Mark Hulbert
Preservation Architect & Historic Resources Consultant
attached: figs.1-28 (pp.7-20); Historical Evaluation Addendum (2 pages); MH Qualifications (4 pages)
ROOSEVELT SCHOOL, PASADENA
MH PA-HIST. EVAL-052725-P6
...^
^:
d1.
D
.1 .',-
•i •».
c-
I.
', iR^..s
••./ \s
mI . ! SB
Wt
03,i
-1--.GI
IL^J,' a»'
Ii fp-^ — 1
•^
13 ^
.^f
:&
a-i <^g
m
s A
m
v:.^
a-
'< •
h. -;.^
'•^1
m.<
.»•
•I
'.
d
in
g
Wt
K
r.
;•
B
@(4
^
w
f'f.;
^'t^..-
^ I
"':
:J U;!
1,
mnITSL.^-.'-
a^ri
yl
•:K^'rjii'ii
i l^'.^t I), ^ ^?;'i|T'^.S}^?uMM^w'!'iM^ili.
^
».;»' ' 4- "< •-
f^.l t;»
I iM.t11 IIIA'^ty!i:eM:ri:£ MM(y'm^K'^^''
I
2 £
€"I
IIit
I
co
? v\, i%s h;0 I.'D; It •^c
E S •<t: 2 S
'K^t-:-:t'<cil,^1. '.'•-^.
!;ir.V--.'.i;'r
M!-^ • :t!'il.i'!S::"81'
'iii|s':l. ?'
! U
' ;I':f'^';- '/: )-j':i
- il! t
'"c"1-1^
ii?
IS.I
•tliIll
P£~g
l&l
£s,"
y.11
15111£
3: 0
(0
I
/
E
§11
01 - £• ?.A.,s ^.,s
V-;
0 i irE
i S '-I0a?
." .,<3:® IS0
"aiCO& f ^t':n
^ jt -r:t0)
A
H.;?fiLll5 >
l.f^s Lll If ..<.r^ico
.10
!l;'fli:^-0
i'tfil>'i.mQ;
^ fM I•^— ft- g;^CT
Sy
^
•'1, •fl
,i i 3.<1-.^ i, . ^11;
f-I(! It^-(
•I't1,,
•M^'M^uf?
¥
w.".
S£
li
II
1^ii§5
NONU3A N
a
^J
^i-flCT
y^^i
•!tj
B sp
£J
iQiB
i!
^a-
Bl
t-::3 ^-iii -...cr3ri^E.-
.pjij "i i-@3inJB:S:!!Li.-U1L^-' ^-4-^"
"QB
Nl-^
u
3 |J FT]
B|Q|
ll^[
E_
G
M
^|B|
.El
u
El
^K.
!-[?i
ft-i. I ^JQlB'
s ! yrtT-i .!~<==hta] Ci@ -r^ ^J^
E3^
r^l ^
^u
., Lid
^1^
J_
-?-
a4n 1^ -^1
Qis| I
••E-w?'
4:
IE
1^ Bf i §1^1
•lOil
___J:_J-_
^
!.Q
^if'
W 4 t
njnlK:|3-l^! :^?-V'|lB@|Jr|B^i[3iB
i!S]
"E\
Wl
I
m
I !ig
I
0 i
^
LU
> ±NOW3SO
SE-^LU r-r^-T---?
Ri^saa
m
l@[S|a
0 -J!^:i^.^0
v/^Q;
m
CT
s^fi
' ^ •••••^ IT'SCT^m B! 3 L£S
p....-^I ^.^^
3Q --i
D.•»:5-
B \ SbEl-EElBlUlaBia
^.
B, BIGB.?.?
5 ®
^s
W VN30VSVd 'N3
^ ^
•^
11IIw S
^«
II
i|is
U)
E'2
••s '\f\F~-'s.
B-IQEC•Q.ro
0)5
a-S '1
< (U
•I£ ® GO
W CD NQNU3A
OJz sa:
0-g .^
DC'g. .rs.. @QE
CD <a
B-r"\^B•RB f1U)
^
< (D wa' -s.
w ^ ?q £
.-*.' B^ Q
B^ -.--
sI,
Uls0
u
n^ j= B
1B
^ T-1 Pp
1 -s a dT^ ^!LJ^^^ -ip=1 2
Q% rk"-^
B Q.110-^
Q
0 j.]M
^1
>..T.
1»u£
"?
M j-Nonasoy
? ^if@U5
3iqQ'PS-l?iGiQ^iSl^
K
0^GB
>% 11]
w
rHs
p.6^ B
^ JJ ffis^ ^\Ds LJIS0 S ^!
,\^^^a: ^..\ \c^L.'1 s ^ \9CM ^
^.g> ^-
^
0)
^ 0
m
AtIlA'W "W.' '
^a
i
s£
1 liII
iiII
^
II
V.
^ "p5
'•'^^'^
S A Q!<^ .m- ^Q-,LU
\^
'sL \*
^
s
';.<>>
sl< ••;
p-u
'^
3 ^-?0
^a i
s;'/ ••:?ma :/• ^•^UJ
<^ -;0> f
^
•^<U LL
^0
"\
>- ^
•^.-><
^•»
gi ^-^•^UJ
^LIJ K
.^"^°sa$ •;•o9<zl-
k<-
^sI-
]^ ^.^T
ys y^ ^i"^
03 CIS^^?rid Nu
^'s'g
cn
"^. \, VA. * ^fr
^^f,s"?p<^',a<-: ^-5^\ i^
'•^^-^wi
.^"w,^*
/>|-- « " " ~^"' ' E.^ '^'f
^
§ii
-»>f
^l.\
.^ IN^<s
\-
>\.- p-
^ ~7_il \ '0^
•<\-<- ^.^' \\<sLU
\'.^ \v
\^
CL /?'
0 ri ^< ^^>
&\
LU
^Q
JS>-
^
^'^^
< '4. .^'g 3^^,:-^UJ
Q;
u-
x<"^!<$<y
Serbs'
^-a-
"
0 &
a
10 1«-
0»
.^
^
K
^
3 37^^--c
v JS
^
K
^^ \<
B
.sNt \
^
/•• p- •Ju /;
< ~74s
^fc^u 4:\ ^1j v
^\^
£ ^^
€.
OT s/;
^ Aa
<^ ^s' \^0
T0 ^^3'*I
^^^ ^'^^
EC.
0 0CD >. ^I •^
<fc" 's•^ >!UJ \z x ^9r^
I yb ^p-<vy ? Cfl//.-••
.^
co ...'
<s a>/ f0)
^
p'M^•g^
Q:
in
I
I
M
QM
3 I
I
g
-c
CT
I
^
§
LU
3s
5s
!i
iiIsii
II
iiiHiiIes-
"
ijiil)
§l!jjJI
a ki -5
sg« •" § «
111111
JESS"
* p j i Ii
®<0 ") ^ ^ Ib^ 5
j s s•od. !sa. 5
s si.*(s au ^I 0s01
r 111—
•oIg> s 0) ri< 1.1 I
-J
?» a
Ks t1^- &i5 ise.'
1 0
igJ?- ^1u. '(
< 0-^IS^
.My ^
s 0
s YI.ES.S^
liilf
ls'^i1'
A
0s '» 1^-.
i -1
UIHJ!tlili
t^lpl
tsll'ii
iliiii
'«•!
s-s Ig ^^ 0u>
31/( iIf w£ <a)
Si
r!^ .t^ 5-5
r i^
t
ril« I iu
M?' —™i--r—co
Ul!
',
L-^-s
l^iu^
^'£ -s
M
^ F
iji
J
3 IIsi;
w
H^11s "itt Sl81g
w
CT
LL
's ^s? 5?sa. I
-5g
"0>
t £
-w£ £• ?y >--.;
s ^;- k0(0 •ss <°.E ^.^%11 ^ s 5-5 IE»N•s
St I
<0
I £/.^
^ •§>
-:-v-:
n ^6
i^^£c
^ nssUJ t, £-•?°a C ^J
iI 2-S •Is s s.•s ^5S£
^ 9< me •s
w^s
^
n.
wi;:t
^
L ffi;
3 •c
L&J3
-fl^g8
•Vs£^ ^ $.•sco
I-5?1.2 5, ?f.
Js^-<- E ^-^ -Kli-2 f& §<(
-ssro w in "d
^^ ^!
~;<rt ^s -10
•s11
•S; 0
-»AaMEW?iatW.«^«W,'*^:'S-s 0(3
Is- ^-J^iso xx^CT CO
e
I
gs
0 s s-0)
liHT- tO
I.
<4
U CD
in
1 d.
gs &•is ^
MS
\i
n
Q-®
r E 4•s5
s.0
•> »u
^
-Iws if£-5
s "
«S.I
^:
E fy £<!: ID
I
I
s 's'-§ c7 -3^ s0
i3s
s'
.s c
s£
3 £^.s (0 B
' J-l^
E co t
^5 ^<t
-fc^-L,
i^r-ni-^
(0
E
g^ 2 ^1.°>& ». •sWfu- (D
§
augasu.aiH3
§
s? EfciCM 0
Q-^.
•\
s
•o §§ -5s V)tQ:
^£-< sy .*
^
~<»/•<
^E
^in ^
01 pffUJ^1
c-••^
s
f
ri
g gy
's(0
E
°.
&
03 r^J»-^s CT
1 0}
< 3
^0
TO
lim^ ^ ;'a
1 > .!«-
%
I, ^ •!')»8 H;?-5 ;'
1 ^ *iw
ii *(
&' I^s * vc
%"u(D
^.%E
•i^.»
-.).»;&r
LU
s ^: ^'.,^(0
'!> ^ t,
^
:•-*, ^r,»?^ ^1^0
^4CT
¥^u-
^^
*f's
£E
II
!1
1^
I!
II
ss ! !I I I
^ 3 !
1 wOT
z
0 Q ffl ffl <2 ^ ^]
!11! 11
m nu3 3 q-
3 ^ rri= °°
sill I! 11
1 K*
^-
N
',.
.«**'*
..••""
^»
-*. i
>t3
^^i
•V
<s ^ '»
0)
c:
s
%u
/s
^S*^t?:3i-•/y*;,5^ --"h»5
\.
ws
^•..AQ.
-ffiE
<».*^s
^ ^^
A-
.^ ^
...^
F ^'s '* «•-:
:.':SfS•s .as.s:s
'-''w'^SKy*-. ^ -
.^;rr::-lsv^^"\ • .^•-•^
g
^a
",
I ...^-? ^
.-\s--<= >w •••
f-ys^f-..'f*'
2 ^•••ss «..»• •*.
K^^"'^-^'"'..***' ' ^^E
••sw
*«
*:'•W.'*%
\ -..-^•^y
^ s;
%•-^i \
. ^'^; ^ .<?.*
"^'^
a, -*.'.»
«* ^^-SF1-^•t <> .;
»• < **
^ tt.^,^ :•• \sS. ^
*.
•M
^,!
\.«• *s
^''. .**\ ,*^ .<*..*.*• >&1,^..?* .«•.'.* **^!•
h.* v
..* v.»' \:.**..** if^
^ ^' .\
^i^; ..**" -.
•^ ^^
*»
4-.»:.••^ ^ ^.'
-;.'•.'*t ^.»t .* .••I.•'.<• 3ft'/W~-,%N
(A. ».«* ^*..? •s.»*
•,.•'*
«*
\y «*
fc>^-SSs
.•*&t .<•••',s
^ •y,
y ^»'
!;l
!- 1 k'
1 d•y-
y .«<*^r;' Si".^>fe. ^ :!
f 1%*3<^^
w,
t \n
A
f%;^.^^
fe--1,
^f*
-*•<
"^»yy-*«
^. ^ ^r ;^H^'•A^W*..^' ' /^,."a
^
Q:
LU
<
i
CN
I
^
UJ
s
I
CM
0}
,£
Is
III
9'»^K
v \
^ ^r';»!i i'.'/-^
»-£;
^ '.' ^
-K ^:-'.--'-^ *',//"• .-•;
^/' ',
^
:l
/N
k.
^<t.i.1
•)
s If^
f
^s-
4 %ii <•
!
s
ri^S i <v'
^
,".2 'k-';
^
g
^
^
??•
^;-< s
t :'
TO
yLU
s. /*. -t
§' •A-«»• \ X;
.w0
&
§
^
^ i
^
<Ill
:'s
I<.
^s^
1<--D; \ ^'»Ill
^ \f< *
in 9-•^g sN
\-•0 A.
» \0
I
0 Vsw ••X
\
!v «^»UJ ^z^
\^^> •"
*
t -«
LU
m
0 Y0 ^sQ:
^
<
7:
co
1K ^ro *
».Nu.
**li*^ /-.y <»
IS s:'•tt
•>s
^^.•.•
^ ^1(.
s?4 i? rf
^tl
sr »i^.1^ <
£E
IIIIs
^
II
[
^
~"i^~'
h
" i —.'.1
;1
v
f
a
* >•
EC
w
£1
I
Ill
^.!h-
v
00 a
§a
1U
%u m
5 s
a.
UJ
u.
0«a
3;Q
ul UJ
5 Stiiiy
S IIIW
i ^ e as 0>
1]
0 %
Ig
5 s
s I
•>.
ff
:« :•*.
St
z
"s
i3i?«I Q
a3 => s?0
u.
^Q >
^ s?
3 I
I
00 ofl1U
V. >-
a°s
>-
^BC »:1U
£ I-
!|0
ya:
0 ,,.^. ^=> ^i-a 0
c.
0 £ sm• u tt:
1U Q
0 Igs5 s.' a:
SSE^
UJ
oc
•t
0 s
UJ
5 s
s
t
I
LU
^
8 ^
§
LU
I
I
I
I
j
1^.
4 U)
<
a
!8liII
Si
«-•]
r~i^ r
IFff<
}ri ^
012••^!
-\-
:^Q II B3iNLU
J ;1Q; MK II',z ^ -i-H^ ; .1
Si^m
UJ
ri —Zl
11^•r-i.LU
UJ
:!'iliiQ: ^I:
0 ^ec
LU ^
!nx
a-. fi ^
3:I, „.. :1.
i.11
5 <;
^°1
ia ^»' -,-.?DC. ;*i" 0 ?^ 33E? I-'"5
?1[S!iJJ'S 0 °,z^:Sil-r- -! 1;s ^< luir
0 i,.
!1 Jzill
^ca i-
•«u "> .1
^ N3p ^ '—]•A '-•<< -?i"i;>ec i';
^^ ';
m y?? ^1it^3 •, «3
CJ lit;ys; ¥ ill!Iw & K
-^
;
^ il0 !! ^mBiF ill! Ill,;:1!1< s HB> ,'
mLU
u.%.;II, ttiUJ !• iJI 1..i:;C5 I! IIJ. <
It
s
tirQ
f,1:.^ II^ -..:f: 11-13
HCD
, l^'i'^ -y!ll!l(K
m~ ^ ius'0
^ec: 32LU
,] r'
M
E
s T^
s ij<; ^Oi
It^ ii!
I;
^fla ,
5; ^ B0 i;^ 1 /; \0 !:
3:
I i-0 K3 4w
-II 35ii! I B:i ^ I?;»>u
m.n i: 't.-i. TJ~"
" 'u> .,LU
I !: Hi ji>:co •<'
0 iv [.-.-—0 !'
^
^ :s\;'D;
ii[^00
m ^.">
11-u. s
J]2,1II I 3I.
~5 IU!
I.
^
°'s
gs
ris
I
II
s
ir^^]E<-]',
:f,'f
R^
-^
JE€i.11
; 1?1i.<
INt
ril fn
^
IMu'ii^ tll.^
SNtl;! 1, |j|N^SHI3> il> :'i iliiN^-If- Jl
-u.;\-.
^
<;i
j ^^ jhfrfiftt
i-a—j
^itU-l •Ii -ii^;
5 T].l.•r-f
fiCTrt
I^T-1!IFi.V
il.Ill
^
3 i4-+-S!co
-Wf
.rT]§i
r-g-^-^^
14-—(1
M
ffl
y,
^0
B—^^;Tb
ri!!
IJlii;
Q
"tl.-^—r;;ri 3
:i
!••
!?^
'—'-
rl ais z
t
<
'ViU ^
iti
T1
0;;u-
;ilir£ o -?t
!i3
;.^4-1 ^ .1,-.... ^ ^1tji;t^lH•&
.'li==(,Ill
<5_,
c..'uI-
I
^
tKx
tl ,''s^
UJ
1;>!- -ILU
^x ->!.!3:
?s u^1[I-
;i npm-1 :'! !<);
0 '?;.:
1't^^L..z
s ^ n
•^
^ s; K
s^ K-^ e
<s.M ^
co
iS .i
^^=)
;*',
'.^'^ LI ^ m-1,Da
imJ%
co
m i;it i;|Ui?;;t?0
mN' yj ^
<
>
-, ~.,...tU
k :.;
I,1
UJ
I*u>
G
NH 1;
lCl^lt-43;
:iE
Q
Iff—
@3
II
s^J
ir ^
=>
^
'3
JiiUm
B.:-liahi'i
;'ja: 51
^0
Nr-^-i
Q:
s JJIBaIJrin ^;-1LI
LU
^T^
^
lit |Hsw^
LU
&2
1 s x (I'}"
In-l
;:
"1
01 I!;;
r', w"t
01 ^l-fe---,
l!i;lt£—3CT
..3 /
\L
u
^ ,s ii / I?;>
f J3-R- h:>L
ini ."T1 Cu;%i3
i;• I J3 8
^•ii}u
l&^•^
mrv
•2 £,-T
3f. Ft"i
ij 14^n"Iis
I.
£i
I
ii
II
II!
*^ ^Hjn s
II
3G/!; "•^;'-r
-;i?*-:
-I I^ 3?, *i "is| 11s i. I >i 4-11 !\:l '..'I ?i
i!:1-< i.s
OT
<Rz
si0
[-I.
J!h;
Q ""!Q
•L. ^t*-1< 1-iira
°~<'d ^1
<
M
ji<
> ^
^0
5LU
J 1:1Q:
:!;-;^;•' u-
^ IT0 •^ ^ Id
»?s°',I-
^ 4-.;:
1;:LU ^
•^ i1^ !^"j
LU
c
tlU u,J: ^•1 ^ I-.;j "«
f""
->0 ;1
^ u^•A ;,'; :? ^<
Q; r,^^.
7.^m
:i i.r^i!K3 "s li ii^
^^ ^.M
Kl!"lll^"
nt.
0 ^p
h iilli'm^ ^:1< S In>
ESn,i,3'IU
^ tiLU
. -^ &:' uu
II.11-
li
:<
I.Q
1;-J ^ -II3
^CD
';Li«s s>0)
;;*^ I?
!
EJ
0 s . i0 ;i3:
<; Jis^0
liif wi;V)
it;•
s^LU ?/L.l|>
FLU a •>-(•
£S;m
ET30 -s0
J?i ,D; II i! s: I?;>
I :i '0 KlN
inii li !!;!CT
S3';
^
^ I. ! 33
r"<f
a •J.u ' 1': 1-1 •I81; "
rlr~~3 UI^
I.
£i
li!s
IIII
^^ •bi
^
J
^
7 m
?1
I
a: £.0
E
• ti^
LU
\
< "
Iw Q ,(
$ ^0
^>•
,1
>-<
3Q;
LU 'Ia.
^
"< «.
0 < Q
rr3 ^ •s.
t
!?^=i<
ww
4 .1.^ m 0
^s 0M •f«*j I"u: »I]U)LL
OT0
5Q03 fc u§ Q; QLJ
t s
^
1U
^i
^-' s
I0 ta•fK
0 I
0 E°BCfl
'f- ;•:
I
LU ^>
LU
=! f-v(^w
0 s
0 m 2 »••
^
s.
<
s&
\\g i '•;
>-2E IU0
s ^4= 0
^s >-
"s
•V-sa•g 0
s
s^.
•^- os
N 1?^I 0 0ui
aB
^
CT o9;01 Q
IUw
^0 t-0
^
a0 u
5 yIU
u
I
s;
II
III
(S
z
s ^s> '*,1U
1U
ft'su
;lis i'lii"
i;if
ill !.' ^<
III! s.IU
(S •-^i!:-'.'(./'.'
m "lt.,<&fe<
^;?!s^s «1fi ».&ss'^ m
.<i
N
&, i;(^
§•: »-
TT
ainiii
tl fe
<•
? • •
f?i* (S
^••-<s
s ^hv m
^
(0f
^mi
•^^....'<•;
.,^"is
*t
m
s
^s
m !M
0 ^n
*^
^
u
?..
.-.<', -I -1
ti 1—Ws
•^
*,' sy^ t.l.lJ
^
t .^
m
mm
ilS
l'u';;i;s"
0 -..%13
;" ••. •,-'lls.
a 1--
AJ
1=i
^•y^.-^'•y »3
^»' II
,{ '. U;.' s(••:Ct
0 s ¥f
m.!!
^ ^ ^.A^
6)'-, ^^'.3 . ?
mvmi'
i^a j
t.:
w^ ^1 ••;
•
^I;
{
h.4;,
OT
D
a-
s
I
LU
>
in
N
I
I
0 OT
LU
^
s
I
I
I
s
h-
cr
s
i
s
_; i
Is
gs
5^I
0 §1
t
f;i^
-<
•^s wV s
ff
^
t.^
.( .'•;;<7
I s/
/ sa
'-.s 1
^g .is 'I
6 U)
a,1-
? •3
^•s. •y ^0
t^ »•
;•<(•^
§
<
\?2
'.»
•g •«
p^
m
s§
\D.
\•5
s 's- >.}
E
ai
/
E
13s. s
'i
a>
0)
^s
§ \.-!=
•o ?^ \s. x1,.:S» 1 ^ s
sv ss's
s
.s
I>
^
CM
0 CM
\
'•;.:s..
0 Ss
0 ^*.
1 .-*/.
u
^.a «w s
I- M ^-'-
iu
>
LU ••s
m03
0 ^;?0
•^"^0; .-;••
€ •...00
CNi < •y
0)
LL ^."„
'^ ;!«;.\
^ A^t.&. •.* '-. ••!.••
E. V. •i;^•t,"
m.<•
, i
;t
:rf» <
?£
Is
jl
w
Ms
FK^^ifiN
Mark Hulbert
Preservation Architect
With forty years of professional preservation experience - including, since 2002, as an independent historical and cultural resources consultant with offices in Oakland - 1 have been privileged to work on many important historical projects as a consultant, planner, architect and author. The range of my work includes:
Preservation and rehabilitation consultation to property owners, project sponsors and their project teams; The preparation of historic structures reports, landscape reports, and preservation plans; Cultural and historical resources evaluation and consultation specific to local, state and national criteria; Historic preservation tax credit applications.
My professional qualifications exceed the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in the fields of History, Historic Architecture and Architecture; 1 am listed by the State of California Historical Resources Information System [CHRIS] as a CEQA qualified historical architect and historic preservation consultant; additionally hold a Certificate in Architectural Conservation from UNESCO'S International Centre for the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Property [1CCROM] in Rome, Italy; am serving a second term as a member of Marin Count/s Frank Lloyd Wright Civic Center Conservancy; and have been a registered Qlifornia Architect since 1989.
Professional Experience
2002- Mark Hulbert Presen/ation Architecture, Oakland, CA 1998-2002 Associate/Preservation Architect, C David Robinson Architects, San Francisco 1990-1998 Architectural Conservator/Preservation Architect, Page S. Turnbull, San Francisco 1986-1989 Architect, Michael Rex Associates, Sausalito, CA 1984-1985 Architecture S Preservation, Buttrick, White S. Burtis, NY, NY 1982-1984 Retail Planning, Architectural fi? Industrial Design, Milton GIaser, NY, NY 1981-1982 Architecture St Preservation, William A. Hall fi; Associates, NY, NY Professional Education
International Centre for the Conservation of Cultural Property, Rome, Italy; ARC, 1996.
North Carolina State University School of Design, Raleigh, NC: B-Env.Des.-Arch., 1980-81.
Boston Architectural Center, Boston, MA; 1979-1980
Mercer College, Trenton, NJ: A. Arch./1977-1979
Professional Registration/Affiliation
Certificate, Architectural Conservation, 1CCROM, 1996
California Architect C 21014,1989
Member fi? Chairperson [current]. The Frank Lloyd Wright Civic Center Conservancy, Marin County Selected Preservation & Rehabilitation Project Experience Pier 70/20th Street Historic Buildings [1886-1945], San Francisco Brickyard Landing Masonry Structures, Point Richnond
Mare Island Sentry Houses, Mare Island, Vallejo
Tomales Town Hall, Tomales
Napa Post Office [William Corlett, 1933], Napa
Sherwin Factory [The Austin Co., 1920-1938], 1450 Sherwin Ave. Emeryville General Storehouse Building 8 [1939], Naval Station Alameda Hawk Hill/Battery Construction 129, Marin Headlands, GGNRA 1315 Walnut St., Berkeley, CA 94709
510 418 0285 [email protected]
www.preservationarchitecture.com
Selected Preservation & Rehabilitation Project Experience-cont.
H]K/Oakland Auditorium [John J. Donovan, 1914], Oakland La Bahia Hotel/Casa del Rey [William C. Hays, 1926], Santa Cruz BPR Hotel/Petaluma Silk Mill [C. Havens, 1892; Brainerd Jones, 1922], Petaluma Borreo Building [1877], Napa
Eschol/Trefethen Winery Building [Hamden Mclntyre, 1886], Napa 471 Throckmorton Ave. (Harvey Klyce, cl892], Mill Valley The Chalet, [Bernard Maybeck, 1904] Sonoma County
The Marshall Houses [CM. Cook, 1900; Cunningham Bros., 1903], Berkeley Archer Hotel/1212-1221 First Street [1929], Napa
Phoenix Lake Log Cabin [1893-94], Marin Municipal Water District Qrdiff House [1864J, UC Santa Cruz
Mill Valley Lumber Co. [d892-1926], Mill Valley
Gamble Building [d850], Big Oak Flat
Buildings 45 and 223, Mare Island
Saint Mary's College [John ). Donovan, 1928; Milton T. Pfleuger, I960], Moraga Marin County Civic Center Chambers [Frank Lloyd Wright, 1962], Marin County Filbert Street Cottages [1906-1946], San Francisco
Shattuck Hotel [Benjamin McDougaI, 1909-14; Walter Ratcliff, Jr., 1927], Berkeley The Valhalla [1893], Sausalito
Demmel Boathouse, Inverness
Petaluma £>;: Santa Rosa Railroad Trestle [1922], Petaluma Highland Hospital [Henry H. Meyers Arch., Howard Gilkey Landscape Arch., 1926], Oakland CIaremont Branch Library [James Plachek, 1924], Berkeley Richmond Civic Center [Pflueger St Pflueger Arch., H. Leland Vaughan Landscape Arch., 1948], Richmond San Joaquin Experimental Range [1934], Madera County
Ford Assembly Building [Albert Kahn, 1929], Richmond
dark Kerr Qmpus Buildings and Landscape [Alfred Eichler, 1930-1950], UC Berkeley Building 165/BayIink Ferry, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo Chi Theta Chi House [W. Corlett, 1935-1950], Stanford
Municipal Boathouse [John G. Howard, 1907], Oakland
Los Gatos High School Theatre [William Weeks, d925], Los Gatos Marshall General Store/Hog Island Oyster Co., Marshall
Cryer Ranch, Hayward
Kingman Hall (Drysdale & Thomson, 1914], Berkeley
YWCA [Julia Morgan, 1914], Oakland
Studio One Arts Center, Oakland
William Colby House [Julia Morgan, 1905], Berkeley
Keeler Residence [Bernard Maybeck, 1902], Berkeley
SummerHiII Historic Homes, [904-932 Bryant St., 264-270 Channing Way], Palo Alto Edwards Stadium, UC Berkeley
Pier 40, San Francisco
Boudrow Residence Julius Krafft, 1881], Berkeley
Heritage Theatre/Campbell High School Auditorium (William Weeks, 1925], QmpbeII Lucie Stern Community Theater (Birge dark, d921], Palo Alto Hearst Memorial Mining Building [John G. Howard, 1907], University of California, Berkeley Geary Theater [Bliss & FaviIIe, 1910], San Francisco
Pacific Gas S Electric Company [Bakewell St Brown, 1922; Bliss fi; FaviIIe, 1925), San Francisco MHPA - QUALIFICATIONS - P2
Selected Historical Resource and Project Evaluations
Sausalito Yacht Club
Mallard Point, Belvedere
CA Qpitol Annex, Sacramento
100 E. Grand Ave., South San Francisco
Laflin Residence, Berkeley
1897 QIIe Arroyo, Diablo
170 Bridge Rd., Hillsborough
Dwight/MiIvia Properties, Berkeley
Alexandria, San Carlos
2526 Hawthorne, Berkeley
Hayward Plunge, Hayward
12/14 Onyx Street, Larkspur
2115 Broadway, Oakland
Ladera Winery, Angwin
Kennedy Park House, Napa
Qmbrian Park Plaza, San Jose
Stanford Financial Square, Palo Alto
Trefethen Winery, Napa County
Sausalito City Hall, Sausalito
Point Reyes Lodge, Olema
Saint Mary's College, Moraga
94th £.!: International, Oakland
1212-1222 First Street, Napa
1945 Broadway, Oakland
Demmel Boathouse, Inverness
Mill Valley Lumber Co., Mill Valley
450 Hayes Street, San Francisco
565 Throckmorton Avenue, MilIValley
The Valhalla, Sausalito
167 LoveII Avenue, Mill Valley
Wheeler Plaza, San Qrlos
1538 3rd Street, Napa
1501 Third Street, Napa
94th St International, Oakland
136 Ord Street, San Francisco
University/Shattuck Properties, Berkeley
466 Missouri Street, San Francisco
352 Richland Ave., San Francisco
1531 Oak Park Blvd., Pleasant Hill
12 Laurel Way, Kentfield
St. Matthew School, San Mateo
2 Glenwood Avenue, Ross
Claremont Branch Library, Berkeley
Horseshoe Hill Ranch, Bolinas
Menlo Park Fire Station 2, East Palo Alto
Yolanda-Hurd Ranch, Danville
Lick Mansion, Santa Clara
Laurel Ranch, CIayton
401 Taylor Blvd., Pleasant Hill
350 Bella Vista, Belvedere
Fire Station 66, Richmond
Masonic Homes, Union City
280 Divisadero Ave., San Francisco
660 Bridgeway Blvd., Sausalito
24829 Palomares Road, Qstro Valley
Richmond Public Library, Richmond
San Antonio Hills Neighborhood, Oakland
30935 Vallejo Street, Union City
1 Culloden Park Road, San Rafael
1500 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley
2600 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley
St. Brigids Church, San Francisco
2255 Lyon Street, San Francisco
216 Corte Madera Avenue, Mill Valley
Armstrong School Building, Berkeley
First Congregational Church, San Francisco
412 Monte Vista Avenue, Oakland
1849 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco
Backer T. Washington Center, San Francisco
SF Boys fi>i: Girls Club, San Francisco
430 Main S 429 Beale Street, San Francisco
Town St Country Village, Palo Alto
Winters Building, Richmond
3900 Adeline Street, Emeryville
323 University Avenue, Palo
Alto Spring Estate, Berkeley
592^30 Foothill Blvd., Oakland
Mazda Lamp Works, Oakland
461 Baker Street, San Francisco
Berkland Baptist Church, Oakland
Pier 40, San Francisco
1505 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley
Harrison Street Properties, San Francisco
2121 AIIston Way/Magnus Museum, Berkeley
45 Lansing Street, San Francisco
401 Alice S. 420 Third Streets, Oakland
Pier 23, San Francisco
1919 Market Street, Oakland
Clayburgh Building, San Francisco
Terminal One, Richmond
Saratoga Lanes, San Jose
Macdonald Avenue, Richmond
MHPA - QUALIFICATIONS - P3
Historic Structure Reports and Preservation Plans
Maybeck Chalet, Sonoma
Phoenix Lake Log Qbin, MMWD
Hawk Hill/Battery 129, GGNRA
Girton Hall, UC Berkeley
The Pelican Building, UC Berkeley
Sea Scout Base, Palo Alto
Municipal Boathouse, Oakland
SummerHill Historic Homes, Palo Alto
Petaluma Silk Mill, Petaluma
Richmond Civic Center, Richmond
CIoyne Court Hotel, Berkeley
dark Kerr Campus, UC Berkeley
323 University Avenue, Palo Alto
Qmera Obscura, San Francisco
Ahwahnee Hotel, Yosemite
Geary Theatre, San Francisco
California State Office Building, San Francisco
Qsa Amesti, Monterey
U.S. Court House, Los Angeles
U.S. Court of Appeals, Pasadena
U.S. Customs House, San Francisco
U.S. Appraiser's Building, San Francisco
U.S. Court of Appeals, San Francisco
Presidio of Monterey
Awards
Pier 70, 20th Street Historic Buildings, San Francisco:
Governor's Historic Preservation Award, 2023
Pier 70, Building 102, San Francisco:
Traditional Building's Palladia Design Award, 2022
Pier 70, Buildings 113-116, San Francisco:
ASCE-SF Historical Renovation Project of the Year, 2019 Qlifornia Preservation Foundation, Preservation Design Award, 2018 • Engineering News Record, Best Project Award, 2018
Trefethen Winery Building, Napa:
California Preservation Foundation, Preservation Design Award, 2017 Filbert Street Cottages, San Francisco:
QIifornia Preservation Foundation, Preservation Design Award, 2017 Ford Assembly Building, Richmond:
QIifornia Governor's Historic Preservation Award for 2013 QIifornia Heritage Council, Award of Recognition, 2013
National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Honor Award, 2008 Qlifornia Preservation Foundation, Preservation Design Award, 2009 AIA East Bay Chapter, Citation Award, 2009
A1A San Francisco Chapter, Historic Preservation and Innovation Award, 2010 Highland Hospital, AIameda County:
Design/Build Institute of America, Western Pacific Region, Award of Distinction, 2012 Richmond Civic Center, Richmond:
• Qlifornia Governor's Historic Preservation Award, 2011 California Preservation Foundation, Preservation Design Award, 2010 A1A San Francisco Chapter, Historic Preservation and Innovation Award, 2010 Design/Build Institute of America, Western Pacific Region, Regional Award, 2010 City of Richmond, Historic Preservation Award, 2010
Qlifornia Construction Award, Overall Top Project, 2009 Municipal Boathouse, Oakland:
California Preservation Foundation, Preservation Design Award, 2011 Studio One Arts Center, Oakland:
AIA East Bay Chapter, Citation Award, 2011
MHPA - QUALIFICATIONS - P4
F^^Y^ifiN
May 27, 2025
Roosevelt School, Pasadena
Historical Evaluation Pursuant to Pasadena Landmark Criterion A Given the possibility that the applicant and/or the Pasadena City Council may consider the applicant's original application that sought to nominate the Roosevelt under the City of Pasadena's landmark criterion a, this report provides a peer review and evaluation of the Roosevelt School pursuant to criterion a with further historical research and documentation.
This supplemental evaluation focuses on historic events and historic contexts. Historic events are pivotal. A significant event causes change. As indicated under the City of Pasadena's Landmark criterion a, an historic event would have made "a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the City. " The example of the incursion of the freeway is again directly pertinent to the Roosevelt School, as that event was an historical pivot between before and after. Historic context is otherwise. Historical contexts are, literally, history. Contextual histories provide a basis for evaluating a given resource. Within the established historic context(s) associated with a given property or resource, an historic event must be found to have significant cause and effect.1 The 1953 Roosevelt School building served as a school for "handicapped" children yet was only one part of and what was in fact added to a pre-existing "handicapped" school campus, which campus was not unique in its special educational context either before or after the addition of the 1953 building. Neither has the insular Roosevelt School campus or buildings made an identified or potentially significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the City.
Educational Context
Current Roosevelt School evaluations appropriately cite the 2014 LAUSD Historic Context Statement (LAHCS), which addresses the LAUSD's development from the 1870s through the 1960s.2 In that extensive study - the LAUSD is a public school system of 800 campuses - the identified historic educational context encompasses state and national development patterns of public education. To the point, the LAHCS has usefully provided "a framework for evaluating school plants not only in Los Angeles but in other school districts throughout California and beyond" (p.4), which regional and statewide context is in turn applicable to the pattern of educational development of the directly abutting City of Pasadena.
A further historic educational context is the education of special needs students. In addition to being a typical school building of its period, though designed to serve "handicapped" children, as easily demonstrated, it was neither alone nor early in doing so. As stated, the 1953 building was an addition to an existing school for "handicapped" children with origins d 930. Even then, the Roosevelt School was one of a number of southern California schools with such educational purposes, the earliest of which dated to the late 1900s.3 1 For the application of historic contexts and events, see National Repister Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1997, pp.7-13. 2 Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Los Angeles Unified School District Historic Context Statement, 1870 to 1969: March 2014.
3 Bri McKenna, A Well-intentioned Start: The Earliest Special Education Programs at LAUSD and The Rocky Road to the Present: Expansions and Limitations in LAUSD Special Education. Oct. 22 and Dec. 5, 2022, respectively. 1315 Walnut St., Berkeley, CA 94709
510 418 0285 [email protected]
Evaluation
The following provides evaluation of the potential historic significance of the Roosevelt School per the City of Pasadena's Landmark eligibility criteria,4 specifically architectural criterion a, under which a City of Pasadena may landmark a resource if:
a. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the City.
The Roosevelt School is a small, local campus, its own development having spanned the course of the 20th century and into the 21st. No sites or buildings of the original or early campus remain. Consequently, no original or early sites or buildings of the campus are available for historical consideration, limiting an understanding of the site to the postwar period.
While several historic events affected the subject property, including the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake and the 1970s freeway development, those significant events had far-reaching effects so are not individually associated with this individual property.
The 1953 Roosevelt School building served as part of a school for "handicapped" children yet was only one part of and what was in fact added to a pre-existing "handicapped" school. As noted, all previous buildings of the campus, including the original, 1909 bungalow school building, were removed d 970, at which time the campus and its 1953 building were heavily altered, leaving the 1953 building on its own until 2003. It is additionally noteworthy that the school's special educational use ended in 1988, just 25 years after the construction of the 1953 building, so that building's purpose did not sustain no less contribute to any broad historical pattern.
In conclusion, in the applicable context of educational and special educational history, which historical context spanned the late-19th and the entirely of the 20th centuries, the small, heavily altered and thus insular Roosevelt School campus and its 1953 building have not made any identified or potentially significant contribution to broad patterns of the history of the City of Pasadena. Consequently, the Roosevelt School and its partially extant 1953 building are not landmark eligible under Pasadena criterion a.
Signed:
a^. l^—
Mark Hulbert
Preservation Architect & hlistoric Resources Consultant 4 Pasadena Municipal Code Ch.17.62.040 - Criteria for Designation of Historic Resources: Sec.D.2 - Landmarks.
ROOSEVELT SCHOOL, PASADENA
MHPA - CRIT.C EVAL - 052725 - P2
Gao, Beilei
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Philip Taylor
Thursday, May 29, 2025 4:22 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Public comment
I
<Some people who received this message don't often get email fromLearn why this is important CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Philip Taylor, and I live in district 4.1 urge you to deny the application for landmark status for the old Roosevelt school site. We are in a severe housing crisis, and we need more homes to be built. Delaying projects only increases their costs and reduces their feasibility. We should not delay or deny housing projects in this city.
The staff report states that the Roosevelt school site does not meet the criteria for landmark status. Almost none of the original distinctive architectural features remain.
Many people have been recently displaced by the wildfires. We need more housing now, more than ever. New housing projects should not be delayed, and every consideration should be made by this local government, to ensure that projects are started and progress in a timely manner.
Thank you,
Philip Taylor
Pasadena,CA91104
1