On May 4, 2026, Charles Enchill, Senior Planner for the City of Richmond made a PowerPoint presentation to the Historic Preservation Commission entitled “Proposed Partial Demolition
of Bldg. 1 Due to Weather Damage.” The title should have been, “Proposed Partial Demolition of Bldg. 1
Due to Failure of the City of Richmond to Maintain It.”

 

Enchill was on the right track to bring it to the Historic Preservation Commission, but he skipped some key points. It’s not clear whether Enchill was seeking the HPC’s approval
to demolish, or whether this was just a “heads up,.” But under RMC 15.04.303.130, a demolition permit for a historic structure is “discretionary, subject to review under CEQA.” A formal demolition application
must be filed following a CEQA review. In any event, the application has to filed by the
owner, which is the East Bay Regional Park District, not the City of Richmond.

 

More importantly, there was no mention of the failure to follow RMC 15.04.303.140, which requires the property owner to, “maintain structures
and premises in good repair.”

 

… no owner shall permit the building, structure, or object to fall into a serious state of disrepair so as to result in deterioration of any architectural
feature that would, in the judgment of the HPC, produce a detrimental effect upon the character of the Historic District or the life and character of a Landmark. Structures and premises shall be considered in good repair if they do not present material evidence
of disrepair or material variance in condition from surrounding structures that are in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.

RMC 15.04.303.140.E describes “Demolition by Neglect,” which appears to be the cause of the collapse.

1.
General Obligation. The owner, lessees and any other person in actual charge or possession of an historical resource shall prevent demolition by neglect.

2. Approval of Demolition with Showing
of Extreme Hardship. If the applicant for an alteration or demolition permit presents facts clearly demonstrating to the satisfaction of the HPC that failure to approve an application will cause an immediate extreme hardship because of conditions peculiar
to the particular structure or other feature involved, the Commission may approve or conditionally approve such application even though it does not meet the standards set forth in this article. In determining whether extreme hardship exists, the Commission
shall consider evidence which demonstrates that:

a. Denial of the application will diminish the value of the subject structure or property so as to leave substantially no value.

b. Sale or rental of the property is impractical, infeasible, or uneconomic, when compared to the cost of holding such property for uses permitted in this zone.

c. Improvement of the property in a manner which would preserve its character defining features is impractical, infeasible, or uneconomic.

RMC 15.04.303.150 incudes severe penalties for demolition by neglect:

A. Any person who violates a requirement of this article or fails to obey an order or permit issued pursuant thereto shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

B. Any person who constructs, alters, removes or demolishes a historic resource or Landmark in violation of this article shall be required to restore the building,
object, site or structure to its appearance or setting prior to the violation to the extent such restoration is physically possible. Any action to enforce this provision may be brought by the City or any other interested party. This civil remedy shall be in
addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal prosecution and the penalty or other remedy provided by law.

Figure 1 – Portion of Building 1 being considered for demolition

Figure 2 – Collapsed portion of Building 1

Figure 3 – Portion of Building 1 prior to collapse.

This seemingly isolated incident raises the issue of the future of Winehaven, which is the 100 plus-year-old former winery located at Point Molate. Once the world’s largest winery,
having replaced vast wine storage and distribution infrastructure destroyed in San Francisco by the 1906 earthquake, Winehaven lasted less than two decades before Prohibition closed it in 1920. In WW II, it became a Navy fuel depot for the Pacific Fleet.

 

Figure 4 – Winehaven in the heyday of the California Wine Association

Figure 5 – Winehaven before 1910. Before cottages were bult, workers lived on a converted ferry.

Figure 6 – A novel set at Winehaven

In 1978, the Winehaven complex was placed on the National Register of Historic Places, becoming Richmond’s first historic district. It represents not just one period in Richmond
history but several, including native American occupation, a Chinese shrimp camp, the early 20^th Century winery boom and World War II.

 

The Navy closed Point Molate, including Winehaven, in 1995 and began the process of transferring it to the City of Richmond, during which time it became the focus of bitter fights
over its future and extensive litigation, which still continues. From the mid-1990s until it was sold to the Guidiville Tribe pursuant to a federal court ordered settlement, the City was responsible for maintenance and security of Point Molate, including Winehaven.
Even after transfer to the Tribe, the City remained contractually responsible for maintenance, and when it was later sold to the East Bay Regional Park District, the City remained contractually responsible for maintenance – and remains so today.

 

Although most people would consider Winehaven to be an historical treasure that could generate tourism, economic opportunities and enhance Richmond’s image and unique history,
the RPA dominated City Council has been ambivalent about it for years with some RPA members advocating simply bulldozing it. Winehaven does not fit into an RPA social justice priority receptor. The RPA purports to have achieved the object of their obsession
of turning Point Molate into a park, which may take decades to come to fruition, if at all. Meanwhile, the RPA sees Winehaven as simply an impediment to the park they envision.

 

The City of Richmond has not been a good steward of Winehaven over the years. The buildings have experienced minimal maintenance for the last 30 years, and only the threat of
a lawsuit by the Winehaven Trust motivated the City to take limited measures to protect the former workers’ cottages, built 1917-1919, from rainwater damage. In 2023, the City Council voted to spend $438,000 to install tarps on the roofs. No significant protection
was provided for the other historic buildings.

 

Figure 7 – Failed roof tarp at a Winehaven cottage

The once spiffy “Winemaker’s Residence,” which was also the Navy installation commander’s home, along with the other smaller cottages is badly deteriorated.

 

Figure 8 – The Winemakers Residence in the 1990s

Figure 9 – Interior of the Winemaker’s Residence in the 1990’s

Figure 10 – The Winemaker’s Residence today

Figure 11 – Interior of the Winemaker’s Residence today

Figure 12 – Deteriorated cottage

Figure 13 – Deteriorated cottage

Figure 14 – Deteriorated cottage

Figure 15 – Steel bands holding brick masonry together on Building 1

The recently collapsed portion of Building 1 is not the first to fail due to “demolition by neglect.” Portions of Building 6 failed 20 years ago.

Figure 16 – Building 6 in 2009

The City of Richmond is not just a poor steward of the buildings at Winehaven;, the City has allowed invasive exotic plants, specifically pampas grass and French Broom to take
over most of the uplands and displace the native coastal prairie that the RPA has cited as their primary reason for converting Point Molate to a park

 

Andean pampas grass, jubatagrass (Cortaderia jubata)

Large infestations threaten California’s native coastal ecosystems by crowding out native plants, particularly in sensitive coastal dune areas (Cowan 1976). In addition
to its effect on native plant diversity, jubata grass can reduce the aesthetic and recreational value of natural areas. In cut-over coastal redwood forests in northern California, jubata grass suppresses reestablishment of seedling conifers (Madison 1992).
It is a significant weed problem in forestry operations and conservation areas in other countries, particularly New Zealand and Australia (Gadgil et al. 1984, Harradine 1991). In forests, jubata grass can outcompete seedling trees and retard their establishment
and growth. It creates a fire hazard with excessive build-up of dry leaves, leaf bases, and flowering stalks. Large clumps can complicate fire management activities by blocking vehicle and human access and by becoming fire hazards themselves. The sawtoothed
leaves can cause injury to humans.

 

French broom (Genista monspessulana C (=Cytisus monspessulanus; G. racemose)) French broom currently occupies approximately 100,000 acres in California (D. Barbe,
pers. comm.). It displaces native plant and forage species and makes reforestation difficult. It is a strong competitor and can dominate a plant community, forming dense monospecific stands. In an experiment in New Zealand French broom had a higher growth
rate than any other broom species found in California, reaching an average height of more than 4.5 feet (141 cm) in two growing seasons. Since it can grow more rapidly than most trees used in forestry, it shades out tree seedlings in areas that are revegetated
after harvest. French broom foliage and seeds are toxic, containing a variety of quinolizidine alkaloids, especially in young leaves (Montlor et al. 1990). In some livestock, ingestion of plant parts can cause staggering followed by paralysis (McClintock 1985).
Foliage can cause digestive disorders in horses (Parsons 1992). Infestations of broom degrade the quality of habitat for wildlife by displacing native forage species and changing microclimate conditions at soil levels. French broom is believed to be responsible
for reducing arthropod populations by one-third in Golden Gate National Recreation Area (Lanford and Nelson 1992). It burns readily and carries fire to the tree canopy layer, increasing both the frequency and intensity of fires. French broom along roadsides
obstructs views, requiring expensive ongoing road maintenance. This species establishes a dense, long-lived seedbank, making it difficult to eradicate.

 

Figure 17 – French broom and pampas grass cover most of the Point Molate Uplands.

More on Winehaven. Despite dominating the Point San Pablo Peninsula, it is surprising how many people have no clue about Winehaven’s history. I frequently run into people at
The Sailing Goat or East Brother Light Station wo ask about Winehaven. I have given a speech about it hundreds of times. Here is a short history:

 

By the late 19th Century, the California wine industry was well established, having begun with viticulture practiced at the California missions. It had actually
begun and flourished first in southern California before moving to the now famous regions of Sonoma, Napa and Alameda County.

 

But there was trouble in the industry. The economic panic of 1893 created a glut of grapes, severely depressing the price of fruit and wine alike. The timing
was right for someone to dominate the market in order to stabilize it.

 

In stepped Isaias Hellman, a Jewish immigrant who arrived in California in 1859 with very little money in his pocket and his brother Herman by his side. By
the time he died, he had effectively transformed Los Angeles into the modern metropolis we see today. His influence, however, was not limited to Los Angeles. He controlled the California wine industry for almost twenty years and, after San Francisco’s devastating
1906 earthquake and fire, calmed the financial markets there in order to help that great city rise from the ashes. With all of these accomplishments, Isaias Hellman almost single-handedly brought California into modernity.

 

Hellman controlled the California wine industry for almost twenty years and, after San Francisco’s devastating 1906 earthquake and fire, calmed the financial
markets there in order to help that great city rise from the ashes. With all these accomplishments, Isaias Hellman almost single-handedly brought California into modernity.

 

Founded in San Francisco in 1894, the California Wine Association (C.W.A.) was owned by the biggest and most successful wine merchants in the city, who had
their hands in everything from the ownership of vineyards across the state to wineries and distributorships.

 

Before the 1906 earthquake, the California Wine Industry storage and shipping infrastructure was mostly in San Francisco.

 

In 1906, the San Francisco earthquake destroyed 25 of 28 San Francisco wine warehouses, including the five owned by C.W.A. Being smart bankers, Hellman and
the C.W.A. owners were insured to the hilt and prepared for a quick recovery. They didn’t even miss a dividend to shareholders, although the C.W.A battled its insurance companies all the way to the Supreme Court, eventually prevailing in 1910.

 

Because of the inefficiency of working from scattered infrastructure, C.W.A had already been searching for a location to consolidate its operations. The earthquake
damage accelerated that that search, and in 1906, the C.W.A bought what is now known as Point Molate and began to quickly rebuild. The site had rail and water access to both suppliers and world’s markets.

 

Soon, Winehaven had become the world’s largest winery. “Winehaven was the largest and most up to date winery plant in existence” (Ernest P. Peninou and Gail
G. Unzelman, The California Wine Association and Its Member Wineries 1894-1920 (Santa Rosa: Nomis Press, 2000).

 

At its peak, Winehaven had a 10-million-gallon capacity, employed 400 workers, shipped 500,000 gallons of wine a month, including sending 40 ships annually
to New York alone, and crushed 25,000 tons of grapes. It was a self-contained company town, with homes, a hotel, a school and a power plant.

 

In addition to producing wine, Winehaven became an excursion destination for the Bay Area, where people traveled for picnics, tours and recreation.

 

The
Eighteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution
was ratified on January 16, 1919, and spelled the end of the glory that was Winehaven. “Prohibition agents forced the winemakers, who were finding ingenious ways to skirt the law, to knock the stoppers off their
barrels. More than 240,000 gallons of perfectly good wine flowed into the Bay ‘on that black day’ according to historical reports.” Shut down by Prohibition in 1919, C.W.A sold off its assets to avoid bankruptcy.

 

Winehaven went mostly unused from about 1920 until 1941, when the Navy bought the site and converted it into a Naval Fuel Depot.
Thousands of drums of fuel were stored in huge buildings. The old Winehaven Hotel was pressed into service as barracks and mess hall The workers’ houses were renovated for the use of naval personnel. The Commanding Officer was assigned the largest house on
the bluff overlooking the others, which previously had been the home of the winery superintendent.

 

In 1978, Lucretia Edwards successfully nominated Winehaven to the National Register of Historic
Places as a historic district that includes 35 buildings, constructed between 1907 and 1919 that contribute to the historic district. Among these are the Winehaven Building (Building 1) with crenellated parapet and corner turrets, the Winemaster’s House (Building
60), which became the Commanding Officer’s residence and a row of turn-of-the-century cottages used to house Winehaven and military families.

Sadly, the City of Richmond has neglected the priceless historic buildings of Winehaven for the last 30 years.