Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norco demands stronger Navy consultation after plans to demolish Building 509
Summary
After public testimony and preservation-commission input, the council approved staff recommendations and directed a letter to the Navy asking that Building 509's exterior be preserved or the new building be relocated; the council also asked that the Navy be noted as having not acted in good faith under Section 106 and requested a qualified historian for future consultations.
The Norco City Council unanimously approved staff recommendations asking the Navy to revise plans for Building 509 on the Naval Weapons Station Norco campus and instructed staff to send a letter pressing for stronger Section 106 consultation.
Bill Wilkman, the city's cultural resources consultant, told the council the Navy proposes to demolish Building 509 and replace it on the same footprint with a taller structure that lacks the site's historic exterior character. Wilkman reviewed the Section 106 consultation timeline, said representatives from the Navy have often not attended local meetings or been able to answer technical questions, and recommended one of three options: (1) redesign the undertaking so new uses fit within the existing inner walls leaving the exterior unaltered, (2) build a replacement elsewhere in the compound that matches the original architectural character, or (3) if either of the first two approaches are adopted, return plans to the Historic Preservation and Agricultural Heritage Commission for review.
Several members of the public and commission members urged the council to press the Navy to retain the exterior character. Sue Bacon, a longtime local preservation advocate, told the council: "This is a proposed demolition of a building, a historic building." Diane Markham, who submitted materials for the record, urged that scale, proportions and roof lines be preserved because the site is listed on the National Register. Michelle Heasley, a member of the Historic Preservation and Agriculture Commission, said the design "is not an apt adapt and reuse project" and recommended keeping the exterior while limiting work to interior modifications.
Councilmembers criticized the level of Navy engagement in local consultations, questioned the Navy's claim that retrofit would require substantial demolition, and supported adding language to the mayor's letter that the city believes the Navy did not act in good faith under Section 106. The council also requested that future Section 106 work include a qualified historian who can respond to technical questions. The motion to adopt the staff recommendation with those additions carried unanimously.
