body,date,page,text,path
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-01-06,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Vice Chair McPherson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Secretary Altschuler called
the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Board Members McPherson, Anderson, Lynch, & Tilos
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Board member Miller arrived at 7:20 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Altschuler, Elizabeth Johnson, Development Services
Department, Recording Secretary Debbie Gremminger.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
Staff is requesting Item #2 be continued to a future meeting.
Approval of minutes and Election of Officers will move to the end of the Agenda when full
Board is present.
MINUTES:
Moved to the end of the Agenda. (see Agenda Changes and Discussions).
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Moved to the end of the Agenda (see Agenda Changes and Discussions).
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
None.
ACTION ITEMS: (Discussion/Action)
1.
Adoption of 2005 Historical Advisory Board Calendar.
M/S to adopt the 2005 Historical Advisory Board Calendar. Anderson/Lynch 4-0-1..
Ayes: 4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1 (Miller); Motion carries.
ACTION ITEMS: (Discussion/Action)
2.
Certificate of Approval CA04-0013- Helena Liang - 1104 Oak Street. The applicant
requests a Certificate of Approval for an unauthorized demolition of a one-story residential
structure built prior to 1942. A two-story residence in the same style was approved by Design
Minutes of January 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-01-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-01-06,2,"Review (DR04-0003). The site is located within the R-5, General Residence District. (continued
from 9-9-04) Applicant & staff request a continuance to future meeting.
M/S (Anderson/Tilos) to continue this item to a future meeting. 4-0-1.
Ayes:
4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1
(Miller); Motion carries.
Boardmember Miller arrived.
3.
Alameda Point Update. Presentation of the ongoing planning process for Alameda Point.
Elizabeth Johnson, Development Services Department, summarized the information provided in
the staff report. Ms. Johnson indicated that there had been two community workshops and that
there will be three more. Staff will give the Board regular up-dates of the planning process after
each Community Workshop. The next workshop will be held on March 3, 2005 which will be
hosted by the Planning Board. Staff would also like the Board to consider co-hosting one of the
remaining Community Workshops with the Alameda Point Advisory Committee.
Melissa Gaudreau and Chris VerPlanck from Page and Turnbull gave a presentation giving a
brief history of the site, and outlined the Historcal District at NAS. Mr. Plank stated that the
buildings and structures within Alameda Point reflect three distinct periods of development: Pre-
war, War and Post-war. Most of the Pre-war buildings were constructed during 1940-1941 of
reinforced concrete in a styling typical of commercial and industrial design from the 1930's.
This style is known as ""Moderne"".
A comprehensive inventory of pre-1946 buildings and structures was done in 1992 by S.B.
Woodbridge, which focused on determining whether any buildings at Alameda Point qualified
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The report concluded that while
no individual building qualified for listing in the NRHP, an area in the Civic Core sub-area
appeared to qualify for listing as a historic district. The identified area includes 87 buildings and
structures that contribute to the area's historic significance, 35 non-contributing major buildings
and many temporary or minor buildings, which do not contribute to the Historical District.
Vice-Chair McPherson opened the floor for public comment.
Birgitt Evans, AAPS, stated that AAPS is very interested in the 86 buildings. She encourages
the Board to become involved in the planning process. She is also concerned why the Tower
Bldg was not included in the 86 buildings.
Richard Rutter, 2329 Santa Clara Ave., informed the Board that he once lived on the base and is
also surprised that the Tower Bldg. is not included. He felt that Bldg. 400 was also worth taking
another look at. He wants the Board to be cautious when approving buildings for demolition.
Vice-Chair McPherson closed public comment.
Elizabeth Johnson stated that at the time that the inventory was done, there was an addition to the
Control Tower that has since been removed.
Minutes of January 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-01-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-01-06,3,"Ms. Altschuler asked the Board if they would be interested in hosting a community workshop?
There will be more opportunities in the future for the Board to give their comments. This will
be a standing agenda item, so staff can give the Board updates and also allow the public to have
access to the Board if they have any questions. The next community workshop is scheduled for
March 3, 2005. Staff will reschedule the Regular March meeting so the Board may attend the
workshop.
Staff will provide the Board with a copy of the Historical Architectural Resources Inventory for
NAS, and the Guide to Preserving the Character of the Naval Air Station Alameda Historic
District.
MINUTES
Minutes of the Special Meeting of October 28, 2004. (continued from 12-02-04).
M/S (Tilos/Anderson) to approve minutes as corrected; 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
2
(Lynch, Miller);
Motion carries.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 2, 2004.
M/S (Tilos/Miller) to approve minutes as corrected; 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Abstain: 2 (Anderson,Lynch); Motion carries
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
M/S (Lynch/Anderson) to nominate Vice-Chair McPherson as Chair. 5-0-0.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0.; Motion carries.
M/S (Lynch/Miller) to nominate Boardmember Anderson as Vice-Chair. 5-0-0.
Ayes:
5;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
0.;
Motion carries.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Rosemary McNally asked why Item 2, 1104 Oak was continued. She also thanked the Board and
Staff for all of their hard work on this item. Ms. Altschuler advised that staff was continuing to
work with property owner to resolve issues.
Boardmember Tilos will be on vacation until March 17, 2005.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Altschuler informed the Board that the Planning & Building Director has resigned. Staff is
not certain when that position will be filled but will update the Board as needed. Ms. Altschuler
Minutes of January 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-01-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-01-06,4,"also stated that she would be training another member of staff to take over her position as
Secretary.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Judith Altschuler, Secretary
Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNING\HAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.04\12-2-04 MIN.doc
Minutes of January 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-01-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-02-03,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Vice Chair McPherson called the meeting to order at 7:08 pm. Secretary Altschuler called
the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair McPherson, Boardmembers Miller & Lynch.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Vice-Chair Anderson, Boardmember Tilos.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Altschuler, Leslie Little Development Services
Director, Recording Secretary Debbie Gremminger.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
Remove Item 1 from agenda per the City Attorney's office. (see below.)
MINUTES:
M/S (Miller, Lynch) to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 6, 2005 with
corrections. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3;
Noes: 0; Absent: 2. (Anderson, Tilos.) Motion carries.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
None.
ACTION ITEMS:
(Discussion/Action)
1.
Certificate of Approval CA04-0013- Helena Liang - 1104 Oak Street. The applicant
requests a Certificate of Approval for an unauthorized demolition of a one-story residential
structure built prior to 1942. A two-story residence in the same style was approved by Design
Review (DR04-0003). The site is located within the R-5, General Residence District. (continued
from 9-9-04)
Ms. Altschuler advised the Board that the City Attorney's office contacted the State Historic
Preservation Office for guidance regarding the listing of the property and procedure of
processing the Certificate of Approval. We were advised that it was inappropriate for the
Historical Advisory Board to list the site on the Historical Building Study List, or consider a
Certificate of Approval for demolition because the building was already demolished and no
longer meets any of the criteria for being considered as a historic resource. Thus, rather than
being a historical preservation issue for Historical Advisory Board consideration, the scope of
work permitted under the issued building permit is in question. Staff requests that the Board
remove this item from the agenda.
Minutes of February 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-02-03,2,"M/S (Miller, Lynch) to remove this item from the agenda. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2. (Anderson, Tilos.) Motion carries.
2.
Study Session for a proposal to rehabilitate the Alameda Theatre and construct a new 7
screen Cineplex and 350 space parking structure on the Video Maniac site. This site is located
at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC - CCPD, Community Commercial and Special Planned
Development Districts.
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, informed the Board that Staff would like direction
from the Board regarding the proposed rehabilitation and construction of the 2 story multiplex
and the 352 space parking structure. She expects the project should be ready for a Planning
Board public hearing in mid March.
Michael Stanton, consultant, gave a presentation which included a brief history of the theater
and showed the Board what is proposed. He informed the Board that the lobby and auditorium
of the Alameda Theater will be restored to look as it did in 1939 when it opened for the first
time. The second floor of the lobby, will also be restored. The balcony area is not included in
this first phase. The marquee will be restored as well.
In designing the new Cineplex, it is noted that, according to the guidelines from the Secretary of
Interior, new construction should be clearly differentiated from the existing historic building.
There will be retail on the street level corner of Central Ave. and Oak Street. There are four
theaters proposed on the second level and three theaters proposed for the ground floor.
The proposed 352-parking garage will not only serve the Theater, but all of Park St. It is
designed so that it can be easily expanded in the future.
Chair McPherson opened the floor for public comment.
Richard Rutter, AAPS, felt that the design should emphasize a vertical articulation, not
horizontal. The materials used should be high quality such as pressed brick or terra cotta. The
parking garage should not look like a parking garage. AAPS felt that the previous parking
garage proposal prepared for the Long's Drug Store site was headed in a better direction.
Although windows are probably not possible on the upper floors of the new theater at the
Oak/Central corner, it should not be treated as a blank wall. Some suggestions include surface
articulation (such as on the existing Alameda Theater), and false windows. The design should
not be too modernistic. He also showed the Board pictures of other projects including the
Livermore Theater which might be good prototypes for the new Alameda Theater annex. He
feels that the corner of Central and Oak St. should be set back from the corner as the Twin
Towers Church across the street is.
Birgitt Evans, AAPS stated that the corners should be rounded to mimic the original structure.
Chair McPherson closed the floor for public comment and opened the floor for Board
communication.
Minutes of February 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-02-03,3,"Leslie Little stated that the DDA would be ready for hearing sometime in March. The City
Council has taken action to allow staff to purchase the Video Maniac's parcel.
Ms. Altschuler informed the Board a request for Certificate of Approval for the structural
alterations relating to the seismic strenghthening of the front façade, the new openings between
the theatre and the new Cineplex, and the new opening for the concession stand. Ms. Altschuler
also noted that the community would also have chance to speak at the Planning Board hearings.
The Board thanked Leslie Little and her team for a nice presentation and they all look forward
for this project to begin.
REPORTS:
3.
Review and consider possible modifications of Section 30-15 of the Alameda Municipal
Code regulating Work Live Studios.
Ms. Altschuler informed the Board that the City Council directed staff to agenize a review of the
Work/Live Ordinance by the Planning Board, the Historical Advisory Board and the Economic
Development Commission. The Council asks the Historical Advisory Board to review the
Ordinance in general, with specific focus on whether the ordinance protects historic buildings,
and whether the Ordinance should be changed to expand the geographic limitations on work/live
studios to include other portions of the City such as the Park Street or Webster Street
Commercial Districts, more of the Northern Waterfront area, or Alameda Point.
Chair McPherson opened the floor for public comment.
Dick Rutter, AAPS, feels that the Ordinance should state that the kitchens should not be located
near the work area. He feels that this Ordinance is a good tool in preserving Historical
Buildings, and that it should be extended to include the former Navy Base. He also stated that
Measure A is an issue that the community should be educated on.
Chair McPherson closed the floor for public comment and opened Board discussion.
Boardmember Miller feels that the Work/Live Ordinance is not a threat to Measure A, and has
no problem expanding this to Alameda Point.
Chair McPherson stated that Board needs to ask themselves if there is anything that the
Work/Live Ordinance could do to threaten Historic Preservation. She does not feel that the
Board should recommend that the area be expanded to any commercial buildings on Park St. or
Webster St. Chair McPherson also feels that the current ordinance may have too many
limitations on developers. She would like to see this item on a future agenda so that Staff can
outline all of the current limitations for the Board.
Ms. Altschuler agreed that Staff can create a list or a table listing all of the limitations such as
zoning, density, parking and specific uses. Staff will try to have this ready for the April meeting.
Minutes of February 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-02-03,4,"Board member Lynch asked staff to find out how much the Work/Live permit would cost, how
the permit would be enforced and would the occupant be advised of any limitations.
Ms. Altschuler informed the Board that the Work/Live permit fee has not yet been determined.
There would be an individual use permit required for each project, as well as a business license
for each use. A deed restriction would also be required. If an applicant is in violation of the
conditions of their use permit, it can be revoked by the Planning Board.
M/S to continue this item to a future meeting for further discussion. (Miller/Lynch) 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
2.
Motion carries.
4.
Consideration and possible recommendation to the City Council to revise the definition
of demolition in the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Ms. Altschuler began by informing the Board that it has become more difficult for Staff to
determine whether a project meets the Historic Preservation Ordinance's definition of demolition
which states that demolition occurs when 30% of the value of the building is removed. This
definition has been challenging to administer because the meaning of ""value of the building"" can
have many interpretations, thus there is no clear indication when a proposal includes a
demolition and when it does not. For example, if the value of the building is based upon
assessed value, two identical buildings could have a different assessed value (depending upon
when it was last sold or whether it has Proposition 13 protection), and a larger portion of a
building with a higher assessment could be removed before a demolition would occur. If value
was dependent upon the cost of the work or materials, then more of a well-maintained, well-
constructed property could be removed than a deteriorated one before the removal would meet
the definition of demolition.
Staff has reviewed the definition of demolition for a number of jurisdictions. Most have
language similar to that for the City of Davis which states:
""Demolition"" means for the purpose of this article, any act or failure to act that destroys,
removes, or relocates, in whole or in part a historical resource such that its historic character and
significance is materially altered.
This approach depends upon the discretion of staff rather than a qualitative method to determine
when demolition has taken plan. The current Alameda definition is a better attempt at providing
a more objective determination. However, even this definition is not sufficiently clear to allow
both staff and the property owner to know when a structure is proposed to be demolished
according to the Code. The Cities of San Jose and Los Gatos take a very objective approach. In
San Jose, demolition is defined as"" the removal of more than fifty percent of the exterior walls
of a building.' In Los Gatos the definition is the ""removal of more than twenty-five (25) percent
of a wall(s) facing a public street(s) or fifty (50) percent of all exterior walls.""
Minutes of February 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-02-03,5,"Staff has prepared two Alternatives for the Board to consider. Ms. Altschuler informed the
Board that this would require a recommendation to City Council to change to the Historic
Preservation Ordinance
Allen Tai, Planner II, presented two different examples of projects for the Board to review and
determine which they feel should be considered a demolition under the current definition.
Chair McPherson wished to remind the community that this Board is not saying no to all
demolitions, but would like applications to come before the Board so they can have the chance to
look at it prior to demolition.
Chair McPherson opened the floor to public comment.
Birgitt Evans, AAPS, stated that she feels that as a result of 1025 Fair Oaks and 1104 Oak St; the
30% (of the value) rule is not fair to anyone involved. 30% of a home worth $800,000.00 is
$240,000.00 which could be a huge demolition. She is in favor of Alternative #1.
Rosemary McNally stated that she is leaning more towards more that 5% of the front of the
building. She also stated that it should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Francie Farinet. AAPS, is in favor of Alternative #2. She is not sure what the solution should
be.
Chuck Miller stated that it is obvious that there needs to be clear guidelines. He feels that the
front should be separate percentage from the rest of the house. In most houses the front façade is
only around 20% of the house. He also feels that the roof is very important architecturally and
should be taken seriously.
Chair McPherson closed public comment and opened Board discussion.
Board member Miller asked which alternative would be best for staff.
Ms. Altschuler stated that the purpose of either alternative is to have a better discussion with the
applicant regarding if a demolition permit is necessary.
Chair McPherson stated she is leaning towards Alternative #1 but would like staff to add
verbiage to include roof removal as part of the definition.
M/S (Miller/Lynch) to continue this item to a future meeting for further discussion. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
2.
Motion carries.
Minutes of February 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-02-03,6,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Boardmember Lynch informed the Board that she received an e-mail from Elizabeth Johnson
regarding the Alameda Point Community Workshop that will be held on March 3, 2005, which is
the same time as the Regular HAB meeting. Ms. Altschuler informed the Board that this
meeting will be hosted by the Planning Board and that Staff will look for an available night to
hold a Special HAB meeting.
Chair McPherson stated that she spoke to Bill Norton, Interim City Manager, regarding specific
interests that the Historical Advisory Board might have. She would also like to staff to agenize
permit fee'e relating to Historic Preservation for a future meeting.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Altschuler informed the Board that her last official meeting as their Secretary would be
April 7, 2005. She also stated that we are currently in the process of interviewing for the Planner
III position and hopes that it will be filled prior to her leaving. Ms. Altschuler will be devoting
most of her remaining time to working on the Development Code revisions and completing the
Guide to Residential Design. Ms. Altschuler also thanked AAPS for helping with the graphics
for the Guide. She stated that Allen Tai would most likely be the ""Interim"" Secretary to this
Board until the Supervising Planner position is filled.
ADJOURNMENT:
M/S (Lynch/Miller) to adjourn the meeting at 10:48 pm.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Judith Altschuler, Secretary
Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNING\HAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05/2-3-05 MIN.doc
Minutes of February 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-03-10,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING OF THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Vice Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Secretary Altschuler called
the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vice-Chair Anderson, Boardmembers Miller & Lynch.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Chair McPherson, Boardmember Tilos.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Altschuler, Allen Tai, Planner III,
Recording Secretary Debbie Gremminger.
MINUTES:
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 3, 2005 with
corrections. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
None.
ACTION ITEMS: (Discussion/Action
1.
CA05-0003 320 Pacific Avenue - The applicants request a Certificate of Approval to
removal a Coast Live Oak tree. The tree has a 24"" diameter and large low-angled trunks that
extend across the property line. The application also includes a request to partially demolish an
existing 622 square-foot, pre-1942 building as part of a new proposal to construct a single-family
residence on the property. The site is located at 320 Pacific Avenue, within an R-4,
Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Allen Tai, Planner III, was present and briefly reviewed the staff report as presented. He
informed the Board that the property owner is requesting a Certificate of Approval for two items.
The first is to allow the removal of a Coast Live Oak tree that is located along the western edge
of the property. The second request involves the partial demolition of the existing single-family
dwelling.
Minutes of March 10, 2005
Special Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-03-10.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-03-10,2,"Mr. Tai stated that the applicants are proposing to raise the existing structure in order to integrate
a new single-family dwelling into the existing structure. The construction will involve removal
of the existing front façade of the building as well as the front portion of the roof. This matter is
brought before this Board because it involves partial demolition of a structure built prior to 1942.
Staff feels that there is no evidence that the structure exhibits any architectural or historical merit
and that the proposed project will be more consistent with the adjacent homes than the existing
building. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Board approve the Certificate of Approval as
stated in the draft Resolution.
Vice Chair Anderson opened the floor for public comment.
Ivan Chiu, Architect, stated that the tree should be removed because one trunk is leaning over the
fence toward the adjacent property while another is leaning toward the existing structure. At the
recommendation of the arborist, the applicant wishes to remove the existing Oak in order to
eliminate the possibility of the tree causing damage to the neighboring property. Mr. Wong also
informed the Board that the proposed design intends to keep the Craftsman style appearance and
to preserve salvageable portions of the existing building by incorporating the structure into the
rear of the new building.
Vice Chair Anderson closed public comment and opened Board discussion.
Boardmember Lynch stated that she visited the property and feels that the tree does look sick.
She also feels that the existing structure should not be considered a historic resource. She also
feels that this structure should not be referred to as a ""craftsman"" style because there are no
""craftsman"" style elements on the existing or proposed structure.
Vice Chair Anderson asked if the old house is structurally sound enough to support the proposed
new house.
Mr. Chiu stated that the detail of the design has not yet been looked into. He does not anticipate
any problems.
Mr. Tai stated that lifting and moving the house is considered necessary to comply with setback
standards. If the house were completely demolished then several variances would be required.
Mr. Miller asked if the neighbors were ok with this project.
Mr. Tai stated that there were no comments as of yet.
Vice-Chair Anderson stated that one of the conditions of the Resolution states that the applicant
must replace the removed tree with two new trees. She is concerned that the lot cannot support
two 15 gallon Oak trees. Would it be possible for the Board to require the applicant plant one
Oak tree and another type of tree?
Minutes of March 10, 2005
Special Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-03-10.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-03-10,3,"Mr. Tai explained to the Board that the reason for replacing one Oak tree with two Oak trees is
that most likely only one will survive.
Ms. Altschuler added that the requirement of two Oak trees was a decision of this Board many
years ago. Not every tree will survive. This just ensures that each tree that is removed will be
replaced.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval, for the removal of one Coast Live
Oak Tree as stated in the draft Resolution. 3-0-2.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
2;
Motion carries.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval, for the partial demolition of an
existing 622 sq. ft. residence at 320 Pacific as stated in the draft Resolution. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries.
REPORTS:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Boardmember Lynch attended the Special Planning Board workshop on March 3rd regarding
Alameda Point and she is concerned that the Flight Tower is not included in the Historic District
and would like staff to agendize this for a future meeting.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
M/S (Lynch/Miller) to adjourn the meeting at 7:53 pm.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Justice
Judith Altschuler, Secretary
Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNINGHHAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05/2-3-05 MIN.doc
Minutes of March 10, 2005
Special Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-03-10.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Vice Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm. Secretary Altschuler
called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Boardmembers Lynch, Miller & Tilos.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Chair McPherson, Vice-Chair Anderson.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Altschuler, Recording Secretary Debbie
Gremminger.
MINUTES:
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to continue the minutes of the Special meeting of March 10, 2005 due to
lack of quorum. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3;
Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
Staff requested that Item 4 be heard 1st prior to items 1, 7 2, & 3.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to hear Item 4 first. 3-0-2.
Ayes:
3;
Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
Secretary Altschuler informed the Board of the Historical Preservation Conference in
Riverside.
ACTIONITEMS (Discussion/Action)
4. Transportation Master Plan Policies - Review and comment on the draft TMP policies,
and recommend a set of final draft policies to the City Council for approval.
Barry Bergman, Public Works Department, stated that in 2004, the City Council approved
the development of a citywide Transportation Master Plan
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,2,"The TMP will consist of six individual plans: 1) multimodal circulation, 2) motor vehicle, 3)
transit, 4) bicycle, 5) pedestrian, and 6) transportation system management/ transportation
demand management.
A subcommittee was established to oversee the development of circulation policies for the
TMP These polices were to address all transportation modes on a general level, while
policies for the mode-specific plans (e.g. the bicycle plan and transit plan) will include more
detail.
Staff would like the Board to review the Draft Policies and give comments, and recommend a
set of final draft policies to the City Council for approval.
The Draft Policies were not included in the packet. Staff will forward a copy of this
document to the Board and they can submit their comments via e-mail.
1. Adoption of Resolution Commending Judith Altschuler, Secretary for the Historical
Advisory Board, for her Contributions to the City of Alameda.
Debbie Gremminger, Recording Secretary, read the Resolution and presented it to Ms.
Altschuler.
Board member Tilos opened the floor to public comment.
Scott Brady, former president of HAB, would like to thank Judith for all of her time and
effort she has put in over the time of his tenure on the Board. Mr. Brady feels they got a lot
of things accomplished in terms of advancing preservation here in Alameda. And Judith did
a lot of the behind the scenes work. We have very good amendments to our Preservation
Ordinance largely due to her efforts.
Rosemary McNally, would like to encourage the Board to pass this resolution.
Board member Tilos closed the floor to public comment and opcned Board discussion.
Board member Tilos would also like to thank Judith for her work on this Board. She has
been very helpful.
M/S (Miller/Lynch) to approve the Resolution as presented. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent: 2; Motion carries.
Ms. Altschuler thanked the Board and the members of the community.
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,3,"2. Review of the Landscaping Plan for planting two Coast Live Oak trees (Quercus
agrifolia) on the vacant property at 301 Spruce Street. The submittal of a Landscaping Plan
(as part of new development proposals on the site) was required as a Condition of Approval
by the Historical Advisory Board under Resolution HAB 01-08, which approved the removal
of one Coast Live Oak tree in 2001, The site is located within an R-4 Neighborhood
Residential District.
Ms. Altschuler gave a brief history of the project. In 1988, the previous owner damaged an
Oak tree through extensive trimming. The owners were required to preserve the tree despite
it being severely pruned. In 2001 the tree showed signs of deteriorating health, and the
Board approved a new owner's request to remove the damaged tree in order to allow a
proposed residential development, with the condition that two new oak trees be planted on
the property. The Board also required the submittal of a landscaping plan for review and
approval by the Board when new construction is proposed on the site. The Board's approval
was subsequently appealed to the City Council, where the Board's decision was upheld upon
the Council's finding that there was no merit to the appeal.
The applicants have secured the services of a Landscape Architect as required by the Board
in 2001 to prepare a landscaping plan and recommendations for the location of the two new
trees. The applicants have also secured services of a certified arborist who has provided
recommendations for protecting the existing trees during construction.
Board member Tilos opened the floor for public comment.
Patrick Lynch, 305 Spruce St., spoke in opposition of this project. He has several issues with
this application. He stated that the Board should be aware that the conditions contained in
CA-01-08 have not been complied with and his requests to the City for enforcement have
been ignored. In 2002 a grading permit was issued for the development project at the site
without requiring replacement trees. He is concerned with the recent changes to Alameda's
Historical Preservation Ordinance that allows Oak Trees with a trunk diameters less than 10""
to be removed without a Certificate of Approval. The proposed replacement trees will not
likely have trunk diameters of this size for 10 to 20 years, and could be removed at the end of
the period required for the landscape maintenance agreement. He therefore requests that the
replacement trees have a diameter greater that 10"" at 4,5 ft. above the ground. He also
disagrees with staff's decision that this project is categorically exempt from the CEQA
guidelines. The tree removal together with the proposed single-family home project may
cumulatively cause additional and substantial adverse change in the condition of the
remaining oak trees.
Ms. Altschuler addressed Mr. Lynch's concerns as followed:
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,4,"1. Mr. Lynch's concern with the issuance of the grading permit does not fall under the
prevue of the Historical Advisory Board.
2. To resolve Mr. Lynch's concern regarding the size of the trunk diameters of the
replacement trees, the Board can extend the landscaping maintenance agreement to five years
and require the replacement tree to be larger than 10"" diameter.
3. His issue with staff's decision that this project is exempt from CEQA guidelines do not
fall under the prevue of this Board and should be addressed during the design review process.
4. According to city records, the Certificate of Approval CA01-08 was valid on the day the
tree was removed. The Board approved the request with the condition that two new oak trees
be planted on the property. The Board also required the submittal of a landscaping plan for
review and approval when new construction is proposed. The current owners have submitted
a proposal to construct a single-family residence on the site. A landscaping plan for the
planning of two new Oak trees has been prepared in conformance with Resolution HAB-01-
08. The plans for the new construction are currently under review by Design Review staff.
Conditions of approval for the Design Review will require protection of the existing trees per
the arborist and landscape architect's recommendations, as well as the recordation of a
Landscape Maintenance Agreement to ensure maintenance of the oak trees on the property.
Staff understands that Mr. Lynch has enjoyed living next to a vacant lot, but the owner is
entitled to develop his lot.
Ms. Altschuler advised the Board that the decision before this Board tonight is to approve the
location of the replacement trees as stated in the Landscaping Maintenance plan.
Board member Tilos opened the floor to Board discussion.
Board member Miller is in favor of extending the Landscaping Plan to 5 years. He is also in
favor of requiring the replacement trees to be bigger than a 10"" diameter.
The Certified Arborist, Chris Bowen was present. He suggested that the replacement trees be
24"" box, which would be close to 8 ft tall when planted. He feels this would improve the
property value.
M/S to approve the Landscaping Maintenance Plan with the following revisions: (1) Change
the replacement trees from two 10-gallon trees to two 24"" box trees. (2) Extend the
Landscape Maintenance Agreement from 3 to 5 years.
REPORTS
3. Consideration and comments on design of proposed 352 space parking structure to be
constructed as part of the rehabilitation of the Alameda Theatre and construction of a new
Cineplex. The parking structure would be built at 1416 Oak Street within the CC,
Community Commercial District. (continued from 2-3-05mtg.)
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,5,"Jennifer Ott, DSD, informed the Board that this project consists of three parts: the
rehabilitation of the Alameda Theatre; the construction of a seven screen, two story Cineplex
with retail at the ground floor; and the construction of a 352 space, 60+ foot high parking
structure. Tonight staff would like the Board to provide comments on the parking structure
and Cineplex.
CINEPLEX:
The Henry Architects Inc, design team gave a presentation on the proposed Cineplex and
proposed parking structure. The presentation included various pictures of the proposed
Cineplex from different views of Central Ave. to address the concern that the Cineplex
would block the view of the Twin Towers Church. Mr. Henry concluded that in order to see
both towers of the church, over half of the upper levels of the new Cineplex would need to be
eliminated.
Another concern Mr. Henry spoke of is the 20 ft. overhang element on Central Ave and Oak
St. Mr. Henry stated that in order to provide a viable Cineplex it is critical to have the
proposed overhang. Without this overhang auditorium #7 would suffer greatly, losing 28
seats and reducing the screen size significantly. This will have a severe impact on the quality
of the presentation and reduce the ability to compete effectively with Jack London Square.
In addition to the severe economic impacts, deletion of the overhang. would be detrimental to
the architecture. The overhang provides a clear separation of stories and materials thus
reducing uninterrupted wall would create.
The last concern Mr. Henry addressed was the corner element. Mr. Henry stated that this
design included a great deal of surface articulation to eliminate the box like effect. Vertical
recesses continuing the line of the columns from the ground level have been added to the
upper sections at the auditoriums along with the horizontal elements to reduce the tallness of
the building. They have also rounded the corner ""tower"" on Oak St. and Central Ave. to
match the curved corners of the historic theater and the Starbuck building on Park St. This
will also reduce the box like effect shown in previous plans and adds more set back to the
corner for better visibility of the church.
Lastly Mr. Henry briefly went over the three different ideas for the color of the proposed
Cineplex.
Boardmember Lynch stated she was not in favor of the proposed sign on the new Cineplex.
Mr. Henry responded by stating he had no problems eliminating the proposed sign.
Boardmember Tilos opened the floor to public comment.
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,6,"Ann Rutter stated she likes the new proposed design. She would like to see the Oak St.
elevation. She feels this project has been forced on the community. She would like to see
more handicap parking spaces closer to the elevators for easier wheelchair access.
David Baker, 939 Taylor Ave., feels that the new proposal is not compatible with the
historical qualities of Alameda. He stated that the art deco is missing.
Richard Knight, 1372 Versailles Ave., feels that the primary goal of this project is for the
Historic Alameda Theatre to be back in operation. He is concerned with what would happen
if this Cineplex went out of business in the future.
John Sargent, 3105 El Paseo, stated he was concerned when he saw the proposed design in
the Alameda Sun. He feels that the parking lot should be located on the corner of Oak St.
and Santa Clara Ave. The parking garage should include more art deco style and not look so
much like a parking garage. He stated that housing should be included on the upper two
stories of the parking garage.
Scott Brady, AAPS, feels that in general the design is good. He feels that the vertical
elements should be stressed more. The proposed design has impressions of columns, but
does not read very strong. This is a very good start.
Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline St., stated that the proposed design still feels to ""boxie""
looking. He stated that he feels that Oak St. is too narrow to support such a huge Theatre and
Parking Garage. He does not currently go to movie theaters. He would prefer to rent a
movie or download from computer. These days modern technology may prevent huge Multi-
plex Theatres to be successful.
Doreen Soto, DSD, responded to some of the comments made tonight as follows:
1. Currently Long's Drugs is not willing to participate in this project. The City has to move
forward with this project.
2. The City has hired the best economist to work on this project. He has determined that
based on the population and demographics, this project will succeed. The parking
structure will attract more business to Park St.
3. The proposed Cineplex is not an addition to the Historic Theatre. She feels the new
Cineplex will compliment the Historic Theatre.
Board member Lynch requested that the Board hold a special meeting to submit comments
on the proposed Cineplex, as she would like more time to review the items submitted tonight.
The Board agreed and instructed Staff to schedule a Special meeting to hear comments on the
Cineplex only. Staff will forward a copy of the PowerPoint presentation to the Board. The
Board will only submit comments on the Parking Structure tonight.
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,7,"PARKING STRUCTURE:
Mr. Michael Stanton, architect, gave a brief summary of what was presented to the Planning
Board on March 28, 2005. Mr. Stanton informed the HAB of the comments they received
from the Planning Board. The Planning Board preferred the lighter color brick, simplify the
lines (on top) of Cineplex behind Longs, more lighting on the disabled bike access of parking
garage, stair tower should either be all open or have the same openings as the parking garage,
eliminate the on-street parking on Oak St. to extend the sidewalk and add street trees.
Board member Tilos opened the floor to Public comment.
Don Cunningham, Twin Towers Church, is in favor of the lighting and the color. He stated
that Twin Towers was built long before automobiles were in use. Not in favor of losing the
on-street parking on Oak St. He is concerned with the travel pattern.
Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Ave., stated that for safety reasons the on-street parking should
be eliminated. All construction should fit in to the surrounding area. He would like to know
what the HAB's role in this project is?
In response to Mr. Millar question, Ms. Altschuler stated, there are three items that require
approval from the HAB. First, Certificate of Approval for the structural alterations relating
to the seismic strengthening of the front façade, second, the new openings between the
theatre and the new Cineplex, and third, the new opening for the concession stand.
The Planning Board will give final design approval for the Cineplex and Parking Garage.
Staff is just asking for comments from the HAB.
Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline St., is not in favor of the exterior design He feels it is out of
place with surrounding buildings.
Don Sargent, is not in favor of façade. He feels the open banks can be treated architecturally.
He feels that it might be necessary to take away the on-street parking on the opposite side of
the street as well.
Richard Knight is not in favor of design. He feels there are no historical elements. Is not
compatible with surrounding area.
Ann Rutter commended Michael Stanton for his work on this project. She would like to see
free parking on Sundays. She is in favor of the lighting design, but would like to see more
art deco.
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
7",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,8,"Scott Brady, AAPS, feels the Oak St. façade looks to jumbled. The lower level does not tie
in with the upper levels. Stair tower should have more glazing. Arches should be increased.
He is in favor of the buff colored brick. More attention should be placed on the blank wall
facing Long's
Rob Ratto, PSBA, is in favor of project. He likes the idea of a mural on the blank wall facing
Long's He likes the new proposed design for the Cineplex. The loss of on-street parking
spaces will make it more pedestrian friendly. There will be metered parking spaces in the
parking garage. Five-hour time limit Monday - Saturday, 9 am - 5 pm, free on Sundays. He
stated that this project has limited funds. There will have to be some compromises. It is hard
to hide the fact that this is a parking garage.
M/S (Miller, Lynch) to extend the meeting to 10:30 pm. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2: Motion carries.
Boardmember Tilos closed floor for public comment and opened Board discussion.
Boardmember Miller is in favor of the poster boxes because he feels that there will be a
maintenance issue with the planting of vines. He is in favor of the glazing on the tower, and
is not in favor of the canopy.
Boardmember Lynch does not feel this design is compatible but understands this project
needs to move forward. She is in favor of the buff color and prefers the posters to the vines.
She likes the idea of free parking on Sundays and is in favor of the mural.
Boardmember Tilos stated that the columns above the main entrance do not blend together.
He is in favor of the design for the Cineplex.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to continue only the Cineplex portion of this item for comments to a
Special Meeting. (date to be announced.) 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2: Motion carries.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Boardmember Lynch stated that representatives from Alameda Point will be meeting with
AAPS on April 19, 2005 to address the Historic Preservation concerns. Boardmember Lynch
would like to be a representative for the Historical Advisory Board if a committee is formed.
Staff took note of this request.
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
8",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-04-07,9,"STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Altschuler introduced Doug Garrison, Planner III. There will also be another new
planner starting on Monday, April 11, 2005.
ADJOURNMENT:
M/S (Miller, Lynch) to adjourn meeting at 10:38 pm.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jerry Cormack,
Interim Planning & Building Director
G:PLANNINGHHAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05\4-7-05 MINUTES_HAB.doc
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
9",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair McPherson called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Secretary Eliason called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair McPherson; Vice-Chair Anderson; Boardmembers Lynch
and Miller
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Boardmember Tilos (arrived at 7:30 p.m.)
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Eliason, Acting Recording Secretary Rosemary Valeska
MINUTES:
Consensus by Chair and Boardmembers to continue minutes of the Special Meeting of March 10,
2005 to the next meeting in order to allow more time for review.
Consensus by Chair and Boardmembers to continue minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 7,
2005 due to the lack of a quorum present for these minutes.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
None
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
M/S (Lynch/Miller) to elect Vice-Chair Anderson as Chair. 4-0-1.
Ayes: 4;
Noes: 0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
M/S (McPherson/Anderson) to elect Boardmember Miller as Vice-Chair. 4-0-1.
Ayes: 4;
Noes: 0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
ACTION ITEMS (Discussion/Action)
1. Consideration of Independent Consultant's Findings and Issuance of Certificate of Approval
CA-05-0012 - City of Alameda (DSD) - Alameda Theatre- 2317 Central Avenue.
Jennifer Ott of Development Services gave an overview of this item and introduced Naomi
Miroglio of Architectural Resources Group (ARG), who gave a PowerPoint presentation
regarding the Historic Alameda Theatre Rehabilitation.
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,2,"*
Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the
Planning & Building Department, at 510.747.6850 or 510.522.7538 (TDD
number) at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.
*
Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs)
is available.
Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
Audiotapes of the meeting are available upon request.
Please contact the Planning & Building Department at 510.747.6850 or
510.522.7538 (TDD number) at least 48 hours before the meeting to request
agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of
the meeting.
G:\PLANNING\HAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05\09-01-05 draft Agenda. HAB.doc",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,3,"Chair McPherson opened the floor to public comment.
Richard W. Rutter commended Bruce Anderson's Section 106 Findings Report. He explained
that there was a process called ""jacketing"" that could be used to make the window columns
appear smaller. He stated that he would like to see more detail on the proposed automatic movie
ticket dispensing machines - wants to be sure that they don't look like BART ticket machines.
He also noted that there are companies back East that specialize in salvaging vitolight from old
buildings.
Ani Dimusheva stated concern that the Historic Theatre Rehabilitation portion of the project
could bear the burden of a budget shortfall.
Christopher Buckley stated that he was speaking for himself and not on behalf of the Alameda
Architectural Preservation Society. He recommended the HAB approve the Certificate of
Approval with the conditions that the details of the storefront, ticket booth and concession stand
are brought back for further review and that the HAB should request material and color samples.
Birgitt Evans criticized the design of the cinema multiplex. She commended Bruce Anderson's
Section 106 Findings report and agreed with the finding recommending redesign of the ticket
booth for the Historic Theatre. Secretary Eliason noted that the ticket booth would be redesigned.
Chair McPherson closed public comments and opened the floor to Boardmember comments.
Vice-Chair Anderson stated that even though the HAB could not turn its back on the Theatre's
historic status, we need to move forward on retrofitting for seismic safety. Automatic ticket
booths are the wave of the future but these will need to be redesigned. The concession stand is
OK to be in the center of the lobby but should have architectural features with Art Deco
elements.
Chair McPherson stated her concurrence with Vice-Chair Anderson.
Vice Chair Anderson summarized the need for the HAB to see: 1) material samples, 2) storefront
details, 3) material colors, and 4) further detail regarding the ticket booths.
Boardmember Miller asked about the suggestion regarding column jacketing. Ms. Miroglio
stated that would follow up with her engineer regarding this item.
Judith Altschuler, who was in attendance in the audience, addressed the Board, stating that the
HAB's purview was for the exterior only - not the interior design. Exterior elements could come
back to the HAB and that could be part of the overall design approval. HAB's advice to staff
would be taken into consideration regarding the structural changes and exterior design, only.
Chair McPherson stated that she wanted the details of the ticket machine and the window and
door system to come back to the HAB. The HAB wants to see a finished sample of the
Vitrolight.
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,4,"Secretary Eliason noted that staff would craft into the conditions of the Resolution: 1) final
design of ticket machines and 2) return with storefront window details, including finished
samples and materials.
M/S (Tilos, Miller) to approve per the staff recommendation with conditions as noted. 5-0-0.
Ayes: 5;
Noes: 0;
Absent:
0;
Motion carries.
2. Review and Comment on Independent Consultant's Findings regarding Proposed Cineplex -
City of Alameda (DSD) - 2305 Central Avenue.
Secretary Eliason stated that the HAB's purview was to provide comments for the Planning
Board's Final Design approval.
Ms. Ott addressed the Board and noted that the City does not agree with the consultant's findings
regarding aluminum door and window systems.
Chair McPherson opened the floor to public comment.
Richard W. Rutter noted that the consultant was only referring to the aluminum color. Alcoves
for the recessed entry doors should be required. Consistency of column treatments would unify
the building façade.
Ani Dimusheva stated that the proposed new buildings ""bully"" the surrounding historic buildings
and were examples of ""disposable architecture.""
Kevin Frederick stated that the original vision of the multiplex has been blown out of proportion.
This is not what Alamedans expect. The Planning Board was pressured by the developer.
Christopher Buckley stated that he was representing the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society. He gave an overview of AAPS comments to the Planning Board regarding Section 106
and read from Item 2, page 9 of the consultant's report. Mr. Buckley stated that he endorsed the
consultant's recommendations. The Chair granted Mr. Buckley additional public speaker time in
order for him to show samples of other architecture on the projector. One of the examples shown
was a theater in Livermore designed by Rob Henry, the architect for the cineplex.
Chair McPherson closed public comments and opened the floor to Boardmember comments to
recommend to the Planning Board regarding exterior design elements of the cineplex.
Boardmember Miller stated that he agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments. He doesn't think
we're there yet. Asked how much room there was for change.
Boardmember Lynch stated that people at Twin Towers were concerned about looking at a blank
wall. In fact some church members have discussed taking slides of their own historic art glass
church windows and projecting the images onto the blank surface of the Oak Street façade.
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,5,"Vice-Chair Anderson stated that there was too much of a difference between the Historic Theatre
and the proposed cineplex and parking structure - not compatible with historic standards. A
stronger connection is needed - cited the Livermore example.
Secretary Eliason stated that the Planning Boards May 9 preliminary design approval was to
provide consistency for the Section 106 findings study.
Boardmember Tilos stated that the vertical elements needed work.
Chair McPherson suggested making a recommendation requiring clear anodized aluminum.
Vice-Chair Anderson would like to ask the architect to design an alternate façade.
Chair McPherson stated that the Oak Street façade needs to be looked at.
Boardmember Miller stated that it would be a good idea to ""Send it back to the drawing board. ""
Chair McPherson stated that she did not think it was awful but it could be reworked.
Boardmember Lynch stated that we began with the preliminary massing design that was a
building with a refrigerator box at the corner and now we are presented with a building with a
grain silo on the corner. It is still not compatible. She recommended telling Rob Henry to take a
look at his design for Livermore.
Chair McPherson stated that greater design detail on the façade was needed and the vertical
elements needed to be more consistent.
Boardmember Lynch stated that true Art Deco moldings and details could be introduced and
cited the example of the apartment building on the corner of Shattuck and Haste in Berkeley.
Chair McPherson summarized as follows: 1) more attention to the Oak Street façade; 2) use
elements like Livermore; 3) use clear anodized aluminum framing; 4) more attention to vertical
elements; 5) more Art Deco details; 6) the architect needs to revisit the Livermore project
elements for an alternative design.
Ms. Ott noted that the Livermore project had been brought up at a previous Planning Board
meeting. Mr. Henry had cited the Alameda projects' site constraints compared to Livermore.
Chair McPherson noted that Art Deco elements could complete with the Historic Theatre and be
at odds with the Federal standards.
Vice-Chair Anderson stated that you don't have to repeat the Alameda Theatre but more
elements are needed on the façade so it won't read as a blank wall.
Boardmember Miller stated that the design competes with and overwhelms the Historic Theatre.
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,6,"Boardmember Tilos stated concern with the horizontality of lobby windows.
Secretary Eliason noted that the Planning Board wants the mezzanine ""punch out.""
Vice-Chair Anderson stated that the architect should revisit the design and incorporate elements
from the Livermore theatre.
Secretary Eliason stated that the Board had provided quite a bit of direction.
3. Review and Comment on the Independent Consultant's Findings regarding Proposed Civic
Center Parking Garage - City of Alameda (DSD) - 1416 Oak Street.
Secretary Eliason stated that the HAB's purview was to provide comments for the Planning
Board's Final Design approval.
Ms. Ott gave an overview to the Board.
Chair McPherson opened the floor to public comment.
Kevin Frederick stated that he was concerned about potential traffic and circulation problems
along Oak Street and stated that the garage would have been better sited on the Elks property. He
also stated that the garage drawing did not look proportional.
Richard W. Rutter stated that he supposed that the reason there were no architect's comments in
the Section 106 Findings report was due to the garage being a design/build project. He agrees
with the recommendations regarding lighting and signage in the 106 Report, but with a caveat
that there should be an emphasis on the lights being easily accessible for effective maintenance.
He also agrees with the recommendation for a graphics consultant.
Christopher Buckley stated that he was representing the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society. He stated that he had made a recommendation to the Planning Board to ""dress things up
a
bit."" The design looks massive - maybe moldings would help. It is obvious that there are
budget concerns with this project.
Ani Dimusheva stated concerns with traffic issues - ingress and egress on Oak Street. Asked if
the drawing proportions were correct - the height to width ratio did not look right.
Chair McPherson closed public comments and opened the floor to Boardmember comments to
the Planning Board regarding exterior design elements of the parking garage.
Chair McPherson stated that there needs to be a focus on signage and lighting.
Vice-Chair Anderson explained the concept of ""design/build.""
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,7,"Ms. Ott noted that if the façade did change, the project would be required to go back to the
Planning Board.
Chair McPherson stated that more needs to be done on the street level - They can do better than
four movie posters. Secretary Eliason noted that the Planning Board did require additional
framing around the posters.
Chair McPherson asked about landscaping. Secretary Eliason stated that there would be street
trees along Oak St. Ms. Ott noted that landscape design would be required as part of the
design/build and that sidewalks would be widened.
Chair McPherson stated that the detailing on the façade needs revisiting - too vanilla, not
consistent with the architecture in the area. The whole thing needs revisiting with special
emphasis on the public walkway.
Boardmember Tilos asked how HAB's previous comments would be incorporated. Ms. Ott
stated that at this meeting, HAB was being requested to comment only as it related to the Section
106 Findings.
Secretary Eliason stated that a recommendation could be made for a signage and lighting
program to go back to the Planning Board for approval and this condition could be added to the
cineplex recommendations, also.
REPORTS: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Boardmember Miller asked about the status of the code enforcement action against the house
demolition at 616 Pacific Avenue. Secretary Eliason took this opportunity to introduce Emily
Pudell, a new member of the Planning Staff. Ms. Pudell stated that she is preparing the agenda
report for this item. The property owner is appealing the five-year stay imposed by Code
Enforcement. The owner states that he intends to re-use architectural elements from the original
structure.
Chair McPherson directed that discussion of 616 Pacific Avenue be agendized for the next HAB
meeting.
Vice-Chair Anderson thanked Chair McPherson for her service to the HAB.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
ADJOURNMENT:
M/S (Lynch/Miller) to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,8,"Respectfully submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason, Secretary
Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNINGUHAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05\06-02-05 minutes.do
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
7",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm. Secretary. Eliason called the
roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Member Lynch.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Board Member Tilos.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Eliason, Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner,
Allen Tai, Planner III, Emily Pudell, Planner II, Jennifer Ott,
DSD, Recording Secretary Debbie Gremminger.
MINUTES:
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the minutes of the Special meeting of March 10, 2005. 3-0-1.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
M/S (Lynch/Miller) to continue the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 2, 2005. 3-0-1.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to continue the minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 7, 2005 due to
lack of quorum. 3-0-1.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
None.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,2,"ACTION ITEMS:
(Discussion/Action)
1.
CA05-0008, 1305-1311 Park Street, Applicant: Italo Calpestri for Anita Ng. The
applicants request a Certificate of Approval for demolition of previous additions, including an
un-reinforced masonry addition, at the rear of an existing one and two story commercial
building. The demolition is part of a proposal to replace the previous additions with a new two-
story rear addition. The proposed demolition exceeds 30% of the value of the structure
and requires a Certificate of Approval pursuant to AMC Subsection 13-21.7. The building is
listed as a Contributing Structure in the Park Street C-C, Community Commercial Zoning
District. (AT) (continued from 7-7-05 mtg.)
Allen Tai, Planner III, briefly reviewed staff report as presented. At the request of the Board at
the last meeting staff conducted further research regarding the addition. Staff found no evidence
that the addition located at the rear of 1311 Park St. was associated with any significant events in
Alameda History. The appearance of the addition does not contribute to the character of the
streetscape nor does it possess unique visual characteristics to be considered an important part of
the Park Street Historic District.
Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Approval to demolish two additions, including
an un-reinforced brick addition at the rear of the property as stated in draft Resolution.
There are no speaker slips submitted for this item. Chair Anderson opened Board
communications.
In response to Chair Anderson's question if there would be any changes to the Park St. façade,
Mr. Tai answered no. In response to Chair Anderson's question if the tenants and storefronts
will remain as is, Mr. Tai answered in the affirmative.
Board Member Lynch complimented staff for the additional information provided in the staff
report. In response to Board Member Lynch's question if the parking spaces in the rear remain,
Mr. Tai answered in the affirmative.
In response to Board Member Lynch's question of what is proposed at the rear of the property,
Mr. Tai responded that a commercial space is proposed on the ground floor, with two residential
units on the upper floor.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval to remove two rear additions,
including a reinforced masonry addition and a single story addition at the rear of the property
with conditions stated in draft Resolution. 3-0-1.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent: 1;
Motion carries.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,3,"2.
CA05-0010, 1815 Sherman Street, Applicant: Jules Garabaldi. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent (30%) of the historic
structure, located at the above address, for the purposes of remodeling the existing single-family
dwelling. The site is located at 1815 Sherman Street, within an R-2, Two Family Residence
Zoning District. (EP) (re-hearing from 7-7-05 mtg.)
Ms. Pudell, Planner II, briefly reviewed the staff report as presented. On July 7, 2005 the HAB
denied this application, in part, because they did not like the design of the new construction. Per
the City Attorney Office, the Historical Advisory Board does not have purview over the design
of new construction; however, the Board may provide their comments to staff to consider during
the Design Review approval process.
Ms. Pudell informed the Board that the original plans have been revised to maintain the first
fifteen feet of the building. Although this structure does have some local significance, it does not
warrant its inclusion on the State Historic Research Inventory. Staff recommends approval of the
Certificate of Approval for the partial demolition of a single family residence located at 1815
Sherman St. with conditions as stated in the draft Resolution.
Chair Anderson opened the Pubic Hearing.
Jeff Hamon, contractor, informed the Board that the design has been revised according to the
comments made at the July hearing.
Christopher Buckley - AAPS, spoke in favor of the revised design. He stated that AAPS would
like to submit comments during the design review process.
There were no speakers opposing this project. Chair Anderson opened the floor to Board
discussion.
Board Member Lynch stated that it is important for this Board to see what is being proposed in
order to make an informative decision whether the historical character of the building will be
altered, and the new development will be harmonious with existing buildings and neighborhoods.
Board Member Miller stated that he understands that design issues are not the purview of this
Board, but feels without the knowledge of what is being proposed, he would most likely deny
any application for demolition.
Ms. Pudell stated that currently staff is working with the City Attorney's office on possible
revisions of the Historical Preservation Ordinance, which will be on a future agenda.
The Board may provide any comments on the proposed design to staff for consideration in the
Design Review approval process.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,4,"Board Member Lynch responded by stating that she would prefer to submit her comments during
a public hearing so it can be part of the public record.
Chair Anderson stated she visited the site and is concerned that the structure will be altered more
that thirty percent.
Ms. Pudell stated that there would be very little change to the overall appearance of the existing
dwelling. The demolition and addition will occur at the rear of building. The front façade will
not be changed, and the visibility of the additions would be minimal.
M/S (Miller, Lynch) to approve the Certificate of Approval for the partial demolition of an
existing single family dwelling at 1815 Sherman St with conditions as stated in draft Resolution.
3-0-1.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 1; Motion carries.
3.
CA05-0015, 862 Cedar Street, Applicant: Donald & Nancy Olney. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval for the removal of a Coast Live Oak Tree (Quercus
Agrifolia) deemed to be an imminent hazard by a Certified Arborist. The site is located at 862
Cedar St. within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Ms. Pudell briefly reviewed staff report as presented. Staff has confirmed that the tree has
already been removed. A Certified Arborist report was submitted and determined that the subject
tree was in close proximity to human activities and items of value and should be considered an
imminent hazard. Staff recommends that although the tree has already been removed, the Board
should still require the standard conditions of approval as stated in draft Resolution.
Chair Anderson read a letter submitted to the Board from Mr. Lou Baca, neighbor, in opposition
of removing the tree.
There are no speaker slips submitted for this item. Chair Anderson opened the floor to Board
discussion.
Board Member Lynch visited the site, and learned that the tree had fallen down prior to this
hearing. She would like the Board to be advised of when and where the replacement trees have
been planted. She would also like information on what happens to the money once it is donated
in lui of planting replacement trees. Staff noted the request.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval to remove one Oak Tree at 862
Cedar St. with the conditions as stated in the draft Resolution. 3-0-1.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,5,"4.
CA05-0016, 1501 Buena Vista Avenue, Applicant: Encinal Real Estate. Certificate of
Approval for structural alterations to be made as part of the rehabilitation of the Del Monte
Building. Review and comment on findings regarding the consistency of the proposed alterations
with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration). The Del Monte
Building is located at 1501 Buena Vista Avenue within the M-2 General Industrial District. (AT)
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, briefly reviewed staff report as presented. The applicant
and building owner, Mr. Peter Wang, is requesting a Certificate of Approval for repairs and
alterations to the building to facilitate adaptive reuse of the structure. The building is currently
being used as a warehouse and trucking facility. Mr. Wang is proposing to modify the building to
accommodate a variety of retail, commercial and office uses, consistent with the existing zoning
regulations for the site and consistent with the proposed Northern Waterfront General Plan
Amendment for the area.
In June 2002, the HAB reviewed Mr. Wang's preliminary proposal for the renovation of the Del
Monte building located at 1501 Buena Vista. At that time the HAB was very positive about the
project and encouraged Mr. Wang to move forward. The current proposal differs from the 2002
proposal in that the work/live component has been eliminated from the project, a large exterior
addition for a restaurant has been eliminated from the proposal, and a proposal to open up the
roof for an interior ""open air"" passageway through the building has been eliminated.
Given the extremely large size of the building and the high commercial vacancy rates currently
in the Bay Area, Mr. Wang is anticipating that the building will transition from
warehouse/trucking to retail/commercial/office in stages over a period of several years. The pace
at which the transition occurs will be determined by the demand for space within the building
and Mr. Wang's ability to attract tenants.
To facilitate the rehabilitation, repair, and preservation of the City Monument and enable the
applicant to make changes necessary to attract new tenants, the applicant is requesting a
Certificate of Approval for alterations to the building to accommodate the desired new uses.
Staff believes that the proposed changes to the Del Monte building are consistent with the
Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of a historic property and that the proposed
changes will facilitate the long term preservation and maintenance of this unique and important
Alameda property.
Staff recommends that the Historical Advisory Board approve the Certificate of Approval with
conditions as stated in draft Resolution.
Chair Anderson opened the floor to public comments.
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, spoke in favor of the project moving forward. He submitted his
comments to the Board in writing at the hearing. Staff noted his comments.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,6,"Lil Arnerich, Elizabeth Krause, Birgitt Evans and Dick Rutter spoke in favor of project. The
main concern was the removal of the canopies.
There were no public speakers opposing project.
Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened Board comments.
In response to the concerns of the public and the Board Members with removing the canopies,
Peter Wang, owner, stated that the canopies were not part of original building. He feels that the
removal of the canopies will not alter the historical character of the building.
In response to Board Member Lynch's question regarding timeline of this project, Mr. Wang
stated he intends to start as soon as they receive approval from this Board. The entire project
should be completed by 2008.
Board Member Lynch stated that she is in favor of this project moving forward. She feels that
due to the historical significance of this building, this Board should be advised of the progress of
this project periodically.
Chair Anderson stated that it is their duty as a Board to preserve the Historical integrity of all
listed resources. She stated that the removal of the canopies, opening in every bay, and leveling
the loading platform will change the historical character of this building. Not in favor of
approving a ""blanket"" Certificate of Approval She would like this project to come back before
this Board for all exterior changes.
Board Member Miller feels that the three foot gap between the canopies will disappear when you
look at the entire building. Feels for safety reasons the leveling of the loading dock makes sense.
He would also like periodic updates on this project.
Mr. Thomas explained to the Board the ""blanket"" Certificate of Approval makes it easier for the
applicant to get financing for this project. This building is a Historical Monument so any
changes made would have to comply with the Secretary of Interior's standards. If Staff has any
questions regarding any changes proposed in the future they will come before this Board for
guidance.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval with the additional condition that
staff returns for a periodic review so the Board may be advised of the progress of renovations
and be able to provide their comments on such things as replacement window materials,
storefront colors and materials, lighting, signage & landscaping. 2-1-1.
Ayes:
2;
Noes:
1;
Absent:
1.
Application denied.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,7,"(Following the meeting, Staff reviewed the HAB by-laws in the City Charter Sec. 28-6.-B which
states: Three (3) members shall constitute a quorum and a decision of the Board shall be
determined by a majority vote of those members present at the meeting.) Staff informed the
Board that the Certificate of Approval CA05-0016, for 1501 Buena Vista is approved by a
majority vote.
5. Consideration of penalties for unauthorized demolition at 616 Pacific Avenue.
Emily Pudell briefly reviewed staff report as presented. Ms. Pudell stated that an application for
Major Design Review was approved in 2004. The description of work that was provided on
application stated that the scope of work would affect a significant portion of the existing
structure; however demolition of the structure was not specifically called out in the project
description. The applicant felt that he had obtained all necessary permits to ""dismantle"" the
house. Staff feels that there was a miscommunication with the applicant. Although this building
was listed on the Historical Building Study List with an (H) designation, which means that it
may have Historical importance because of it's age or location or similarity to other buildings
done by important architects or builders, staff was unable to find any historical significance to
warrant the inclusion of 616 Pacific Ave. on the list.
Staff has received several letters from the neighbors opposing the 5-year stay in development.
Staff is recommending waiving the 5-year stay in development with conditions stated in draft
Resolution.
Chair Anderson opened the Public Hearing.
Birgitt Evans, Kevin Frederick, Nancy Hird, spoke in opposition of waiving the 5-year stay in
development.
Bill Smith spoke on penalties of unauthorized demolition occurring in the City of Alameda.
Paul Rezucha, spoke in favor of waiving the 5-year development stay.
There were no more speakers. Chair Anderson opened the floor to Board discussion.
Ms. Pudell informed the Board that staff is currently undergoing revisions to the Historical
Ordinance, most importantly the Interim Review section and penalties section. They intend to
bring this to the Historical Advisory Board for public hearing very soon.
In response to Chair Anderson's question regarding the process of modifying a structure on the
Historical Building Study List, Ms. Eliason responded that Staff would evaluate the application
with the Building Official to determine if it meets the criteria for a Certificate of Approval for
demolition. Currently the definition of a demolition is set at 30% of the value. If so, it would
need to have HAB approval as well as Design Review.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
7",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,8,"Chair Anderson feels that the Board should have been notified in the beginning of this process.
This is something that the Board seriously needs to look at with staff and reiterate the Boards'
purpose. She spoke in favor of the five-year stay, would like the owner to submit a landscaping
plan as stated in the notice sent to him from Code Enforcement. Although she concurs with the
neighbors regarding the blight of a vacant lot for five years, she does not approve of waiving the
5 year stay in development.
Board Member Miller stated he has difficulty with the term ""dismantled"" He stated the
demolished house does not resemble the new house at all. He was on the Board when they
worked on 5 year stay, and feels if not enforced in this case, then it will send the wrong message
to the public. Board Member Lynch concurred with Board Member Miller's statement.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
8",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,9,"In response to Board Member Lynch's question regarding why the landscaping plan has not been
submitted, Ms. Pudell stated that once staff receives direction from this Board, they will know
how to proceed.
M/S (Miller, Lynch) to waive the five year stay in development for the unauthorized demolition
at 616 Pacific Ave. as stated in the draft Resolution. 0-3-1.
Ayes:
0;
Noes:
3;
Absent:
1.
Application is denied.
REPORTS:
6.
Review and comment on the final design of the storefront as part of the rehabilitation of
the historic Alameda Theatre including review of a color and materials board. The historic
Alameda Theatre is located at 2315 to 2323 Central Avenue within the C-C-T (Community
Commercial Theater Combining) District.
Jennifer Ott, Development Services Department, reviewed staff report as presented. She
informed the Board that the plans for rehabilitation have been submitted for permits to the
Planning & Building Department on August 3, 2004. There has been inspections done on the
marquee and it is in very good shape. In response to the HAB June 2, 2005 conditions of
approval, the City's architect for the rehabilitation of the Alameda Theatre, Architectural
Resources Group (ARG), has provided a detailed submittal of the proposed storefront designs for
the Historic Theatre for the Board to review. Sample materials and color boards were also
provided to the Board for review.
Ms. Ott began the presentation by responding to a number of issues raised at the June 2, 2005
meeting. In response to the HAB's concern regarding why spandrel glass was used in lieu of
Vitrolite, Ms. Ott stated that there is a very limited supply of this historic material available.
In response to the HAB's concern regarding the visibility of the new structural supports in the
replaced storefronts of the Theatre, the design team has opted to add visual interest to void these
areas by furring out the walls in from of the piers and introducing movie poster cases in these
locations.
In response to the public's concern regarding the idea of ""column jacketing"" to help reduce the
size of the columns, Ms. Ott stated the design team explored this idea with the project engineer
and found that column jacketing is not applicable for this project. Staff would like the Board to
review the sample boards and provide comments on the proposed storefront design for the
rehabilitation of the Alameda Theatre. There is no action required at this time.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Chris Buckley spoke in favor of the material and colors shown tonight.
Birgitt Evans would like the interior structural support to be either painted or stuccoed.
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
9",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,10,"Dick Rutter, AAPS, brought a picture of a 1943 storefront in San Rafael. He pointed out the
detail on the floor and the ceiling and the use of Vitrolite.
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson opened the floor to Board discussion.
Chair Anderson would like to have more information on the restoration of the ceiling. Ms. Ott
stated she was not sure of the extent of the restoration of the ceiling.
Board Member Lynch spoke in favor of the materials and colors shown tonight. She would like
the storefront doors to be recessed.
Board Member Miller had no comment.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
AAPS has submitted a written request to add Naval Air Station Resources to the Historical
Building Study List. The letter lists several resources which merit consideration for their
historical significance and associations before they are affected by the proposed redevelopment
the Alameda Point or by any other project. The purpose for listing these resources is to give the
HAB and the public an opportunity for future consideration of preservation before the buildings
are proposed for demolition or alteration. In addition, they further request that the City begin
proceedings to add these resources to the City Monument designation of NAS Historic District.
Birgitt Evans, AAPS, reviewed the letter that was provided to the Board in their packet which
included a picture and brief description of each resource
M/S (Miller/Lynch) to agenize this item for a future meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch would like the Board to consider placing two train station sidewalk
markers on the Historical Sign list. She would also like the Board to consider recommending the
nomination of 2320 Lincoln Ave. be considered a Historic Monument.
Staff is aware of the request and has begun research. This will be on a future agenda.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 pm
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
10",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-08-04,11,"Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason,
Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNINGIHAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05\8-4-05 HAB minutes.doc
Minutes of August 4, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
11",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-09-01,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Vice-Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. Secretary Eliason called the
roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members Lynch & Tilos.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Chair Anderson.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Eliason, Emily Pudell, Planner II, Dennis Brighton,
Planner II, Recording Secretary, Debbie Gremminger.
MINUTES:
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 2, 2005. (continued from the 8-4-05 mtg.)
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to approve the minutes of the Regular meeting of June 2, 2005. 3-0-1.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 7, 2005. (continued from the 8-4-05 mtg.)
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to approve the minutes of the Regular meeting of July 7, 2005. 3-0-1.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 4, 2005.
A quorum to consider these minutes was not present. They will be considered at the next
meeting.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
Minutes of September 1, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-09-01,2,"ACTION ITEMS:
(Discussion/Action)
1.
Appointment of a Historical Advisory Board member to the Transportation
Subcommittee.
--
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to continue this item until there is a full board. 3-0-1.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
2.
Certificate of Approval CA05-0024 - Applicant: Mark Haskett - 1715 Encinal Avenue.
(DB). The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval for demolition of more than thirty
percent (30%) of a residential structure built prior to 1942, located at the above address, for the
purposes of remodeling the existing single-family dwelling. The site is located within an R-4,
Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Mr. Brighton presented staff report. He informed the Board that this structure is not listed on the
Historical Building Study List, but was built prior to 1942, so a Certificate of Approval for
demolition is required. The building consisted of several different architectural styles and had
been severely altered over the years. None of the alterations appear to have improved the
architectural characteristics of the structure.
Mr. Brighton also stated that on February 23, 2005, the applicant had received Major Design
Review approval. This application received extensive coordination with members of AAPS
throughout the review process including a public meeting with the architect, neighbors, members
of AAPS, and City Staff. Plans were submitted to the Planning and Building Department that
incorporated the requested design alterations from the January 11, 2005 public meeting.
Mr. Brighton concluded by stating that the structure did not represent the work of a master or
possesses high artistic values. There are no events or persons of historical interest associated
with the property. Therefore, staff recommends the Board approve the Certificate of Approval
with conditions stated in draft Resolution.
In response to a question from Board Member Tilos, Ms. Eliason stated that since this is a pre-
1942 structure, that is not on the study list, the Board can either approve the Certificate of
Approval, so the applicant can move forward with project, or they can deny the Certificate of
Approval, and applicant will have to pay a fine and the investigative fees for doing work without
proper permits.
Vice-Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Joanne Gibson, Ellen Gomez, Ruth Tillman and Rosemary McNally spoke against this
Certificate of Approval.
Minutes of September 1, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-09-01,3,"Bill Smith spoke about the demolition process and the fact that the public is unaware of the
penalties stated in the Ordinance.
Peter McDonald spoke on behalf on applicant. He informed the Board that the applicant was
unaware of the requirement for a Certificate of Approval. He informed the Board of the steps the
Hasketts went through to obtain the permit.
Dave Teeters, architect, spoke in favor of approving the Certificate of Approval. He reviewed
the pictures of 1715 Encinal Ave, which were provided to the Board in their packet.
There were no more speaker slips. Vice-Chair Miller closed the public hearing and opened the
floor to board discussion.
Board Member Lynch stated that the entire process should be amended. She would like to deny
this Certificate of Approval so it will get up to City Council level. She also stated her concerns
with the staff report regarding maintaining the historical integrity of the building.
Board Member Tilos is in favor of approving the Certificate of Approval. Currently, there are
too many requirements involved with getting an approval.
Vice-Chair Miller stated that the applicant should have had the proper permits prior to
demolishing the structure.
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to approve Certificate of Approval CA05-0024, for the partial demolition of
an existing residence at 1715 Encinal Avenue as stated in draft Resolution. 1-2-1.
Ayes:
1;
Noes:
2;
Absent:
1;
Motion is denied.
3. CA05-0018, 812 Paru Street, Applicant: John Miller/Kathleen Egan (EP). The applicants
request a Certificate of Approval to remove a Coast Live Oak tree (Quercus Agrifolia) located at
the rear of the property. The tree is greater than 24"" in diameter and is only 5' from the main
building. Per an Arborist, the tree is in poor health and has structural flaws. The site is located
at 812 Paru Street, within an R-1, One Family Residence Zoning District.
Ms. Pudell presented staff report. The applicant is requesting removal of an Oak Tree to
eliminate the potential damage the tree may cause to the site and neighboring properties. An
arborist report was submitted which states the tree should be removed at the earliest possible date
due to its close proximity to the property owners home, its failing health, and structural flaws.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the Certificate of Approval with conditions as stated in
draft Resolution.
There were no speaker slips for this item. Vice-Chair Miller opened the floor for Board
discussion.
Minutes of September 1, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-09-01,4,"Board Member Lynch feels that tree is in poor health and should be removed.
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to approve the Certificate of Approval CA05-0018, for the removal of one
Coast Live Oak tree at 812 Paru Street with conditions stated in draft Resolution. 3-0-1.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
4.
CA05-0020, 1415 Union Street, Applicant: Julie Cowell (EP). The applicant requests a
Certificate of Approval for the removal of a Coast Live Oak tree (Quercus Agrifolia) that was
located along the left side of the driveway. The tree was promoting hazardous conditions due to
its proximity to the leaves of the building. The site is located at 1415 Union Street, within an
R-5, General Residential Zoning District.
Ms. Pudell presented staff report. The tree was removed in July 2005 because it posed a health
and safety hazard to the apartment building located on the property. A six foot tall portion of the
stump still remains. Typically staff would require two replacement trees be planted, but a
landscape plan was submitted by the applicant indicating that there does not appear to be a
suitable location for the replacement trees. Staff is requesting that the applicant pay fees equal to
the cost of the two replacement trees to be collected by the Recreation and Parks Department.
There were no speaker slips submitted for this item. Vice-Chair Miller opened the floor to Board
discussion.
Vice-Chair Miller is in favor of approval, but would like staff to notify the Board when the fees
are collected.
Board Member Tilos feels there should be a penalty for removing an oak tree without proper
approval.
Ms. Eliason informed the Board that Staff is currently working on revisions to the Historical
Preservation Ordinance and can include a section on penalties for removing Oak trees without a
permit. As it is now, the only way to impose penalties would be if the application came in as a
code enforcement complaint, then investigative fees would apply.
M/S (Tilos, Lynch) to approve Certificate of Approval CA05-0020 for the removal of one Coast
Live Oak Tree at 1415 Union Street with conditions as stated in draft Resolution. 3-0-1.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1.
Motion carries.
Minutes of September 1, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-09-01,5,"5.
CA05-0021, 1705 Eagle Avenue, Applicant: Gregory & Anna Sanford (EP). The
applicant requests a Certificate of Approval for the removal of a Coast Live Oak tree (Quercus
Agrifolia) that was located on the property. The tree was promoting hazardous conditions due to
its proximity to utility wires and the roof of the building at 1705 Eagle Avenue. The site is
located at 1705 Eagle Avenue, within an R-2, Two Family Residence Zoning District.
Ms. Pudell presented staff report. A large Coast Live Oak tree that was located between the
property line and the back of the sidewalk in front of 1707 Eagle Avenue was removed in late
July 2005. According to the applicant, the tree posed a hazard to the house and the utility lines.
It is unclear whether the applicant knew the tree was located on City property. Given that this
tree was not removed from the applicant's property, staff is recommending that fees, equal to the
cost of two replacement trees be collected from the Recreation and Parks Department. Staff
recommends approval of CA05-0021, with conditions as stated in draft Resolution.
Vice-Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
John Miller, 812 Paru St., stated that the current Ordinance should be rewritten. There should be
penalties imposed when an Oak tree is removed without a permit.
Greg Sanford, applicant, informed the Board that he did have permission from the adjacent
property owner. He was not aware that Oak trees were protected.
Vice-Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to approve the Certificate of Approval CA05-0021, for the removal of one
Coast Live Oak tree at 1707 Eagle Ave with conditions as stated in draft Resolution. 3-0-1.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
6.
CA05-0022 and CA05-0023, 818 and 1706 Lincoln Avenue, Applicant: City of
Alameda (EP). Review proposal to designate two signs as historical signs. The signs,
completed in 1891, were cast into the concrete to mark the locations of the train station waiting
rooms. These sites are located in the sidewalk in front of 818 and 1706 Lincoln Avenue within
the R-4 and C-1 (Neighborhood Residential and Neighborhood Business) Districts.
Ms. Pudell reviewed staff report. This item is being brought to the Board at the request of Board
Member Lynch at the July 7, 2005 meeting. Staff is asking the Board to review the Historical
Sign checklist and evaluate each sign for inclusion on the Historic Sign List.
The Board evaluated each sign and found that both signs at 818 & 1706 Lincoln Avenue were
eligible for placement on the List.
Minutes of September 1, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-09-01,6,"M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to approve Certificate of Approval CA05-0022, for the designation of two
Historic Train Station Waiting Room signs at 818 and 1706 Lincoln Avenue as stated in draft
resolution. 3-0-1.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 1; Motion carries.
REPORTS:
7.
Replacement of Historic Entrance Lights at the Posey Tube.
Ms. Pudell presented staff report. Staff is asking that the Board review the photographs and
specifications, and give their comments. Staff will forward the comments to the Public Works
Department.
Vice-Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Richard Rutter & Chris Buckley spoke in favor of restoring the lights to look like the original
fixtures.
Vice-Chair Miller closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion.
The Board submitted the following comments to staff:
1. Caltrans should restore the lights to the original style.
2.
Caltrans should investigate recasting as an economic option. One suggested company
was the ""Spring Company"".
3. Caltrans should consider to piggyback with other communities such as San Leandro and
Oakland on replacement lighting.
4. The new lights should be adequate to meet lighting needs.
5. The cobra heads should be removed.
6. HAB requested to see the final design.
Ms. Eliason stated that this is a Caltrans project, but staff will request them to return the final
design to the HAB for final approval.
Staff noted the Board's comments and will forward them to the Public Works Department.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
Ms. Eliason noted an Off-Agenda report and Resolution approving handicapped ramp addition to
351 Corpus Christi Road, Alameda Point.
Minutes of September 1, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-09-01,7,"STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Eliason informed the Board that the City Council will hear the appeal of 616 Pacific on
September 6, 2005.
Ms. Eliason informed the Board that all pre-1942 plans submitted to the Planning & Building
Department will be stamped in big red letters that says:
NOTE:
BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO 1942 SHALL NOT HAVE MORE THAT 30% OF
THE VALUE OF THE BUILDINGS REMOVED OR DEMOLISHED WITHOUT FIRST
OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OF ALAMEDA'S
HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD.
Staff feels that this should help control any future unauthorized demolitions.
Ms. Pudell informed the Board that staff has not received an application for 500 Central Ave.
She has been in contact with the applicant and hopes to have something for the October meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to adjourn meeting at 8:58 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason,
Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNING\HAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05\8-4-05 HAB minutes.doc
Minutes of September 1, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
7",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-10-06,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. Secretary Eliason called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members Lynch &
Tilos.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None.
STAFF PRESENT: Secretary Eliason, Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, Emily
Pudell, Planner II, Elizabeth Johnson, DSD, Debbie Gremminger, Recording Secretary.
MINUTES:
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 4, 2005. 3-0-1.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Abstain:
1 (Tilos);
Motion carries.
M/S (Tilos,Lynch) to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 1, 2005.
3-0-1.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1 (Anderson);
Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
ACTION ITEMS
1.
Appointment of a Historical Advisory Board member to the Transportation
Subcommittee. (Continued from the 9-1-05 mtg.)
This item will be continued to the November 3, 2005 meeting when a full Board is present.
2.
CA05-0027 - Certificate of Approval - 2255 Clinton Avenue -Applicant: Dan Thebeau
-
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent (30%) of
the historic structure, located at the above address, for the purposes of converting the existing tri-
plex to a single-family dwelling. The site is located at 2255 Clinton Ave. within the R-4,
Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Emily Pudell presented staff report. She informed the Board that the applicant received Design
Review approval on August 17, 2005 and building permits have been issued. During the
Minutes of October 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-10-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-10-06,2,"construction process, dry-rot was discovered in the front bay window. The siding and trim
boards were removed and set aside. Because the repair of the bay window was not specifically
identified in the Design Review application or building permits, and because the project was
approaching the 30% threshold for demolition, staff informed the applicant he must stop-work
and apply for a Certificate of Approval. The applicant has also identified that the front staircase
would also be repaired ""in-kind"".
Staff recommends the Board approve the Certificate of Approval CA05-0027, for the partial
demolition of an existing dwelling at 2255 Clinton Ave with conditions as stated in draft
Resolution.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Norman Sanchez, architect, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He informed the Board that the
goal is to convert the existing triplex to a single-family residence while preserving the
architecture character of the house.
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the Public hearing and opened the
floor to Board discussion.
Board Member Lynch is in favor of approving the project, but has concerns with the replacement
of front stairs.
Chair Anderson is also in favor of approving the project, with the added condition that the posts
and handrails be replaced with materials that are reminiscent of the building's original
architecture.
In response to Board Member Tilos question if the Housing Authority has any objections to
changing a triplex to a single family dwelling, Ms. Eliason stated that the Housing Authority
does not have jurisdiction over non-public housing properties and that the triplex was not legal.
M/S (Tilos, Lynch) to approve Certificate of Approval CA05-0027 for the partial demolition of
an existing dwelling at 2255 Clinton Avenue with conditions as stated in the draft Resolution,
with the added condition that the front staircase, including the handrails, balusters, and newel
posts, shall be replaced with materials that are reminiscent of the building's original architecture
and shall be similar in appearance to those found on the landing portion of the front staircase.
The design of the staircase shall be approved by Planning Division staff. 4-0-0.
Ayes:
4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
0.
Motion carries.
REPORTS:
3.
Update on the NAS Alameda Historic District - Presentation and Discussion of the
Preliminary Development Concept Process for Alameda Point.
Minutes of October 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-10-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-10-06,3,"Elizabeth Johnson, Development Services, presented staff report. She informed the Board of the
two public processes currently underway that involve historic properties at Alameda Point. First
is the development of the City's Preliminary Development Concept (PDC), which informs the
public of potential trade-offs between historic preservation and viable redevelopment of the
former Naval Air Station. The second process is the re-initiation of consultation under Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act between the Navy, the Advisory Council for
Historic Preservation, and the State Historic Preservation Officer. There have been a total of six
community meetings to gain input from residents of Alameda. Historic preservation was
identified as a critical issue for discussion at each meeting.
One of the major items the Navy is responsible for under the MOA is the nomination of the NAS
Historic District to the National Register. The Navy is currently contracting a qualified
consultant to complete this task. The Navy anticipates that preparing the nomination and
submitting it through the Secretary of the Interior's process will take up to two years. The HAB
will then have a chance to review the Navy's nomination. After reviewing the information and
studies conducted by the Navy, and National Register's nomination, the Board may consider
whether any additional structures that have not been determined to be eligible for the National
Register, are eligible for listing on the City of Alameda Historic Building Study List or Historic
Monument List.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Krase, AAPS, expressed her concern with waiting two years. She stated that AAPS has
already met and discussed this issue with the Navy and they have no objections to the City listing
any structures on the Study List prior to their National Register nomination.
Birgitt Evans, AAPS, is also not in favor of waiting to list the structures. She would like to
reiterate that AAPS has already done research on these buildings and can assist staff on further
research if necessary. She would like to see this item on a future agenda as an action item.
There was no more speaker slips submitted. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and
opened the floor to Board discussion.
Board Member Lynch would prefer not to wait for the Navy. She stated that AAPS has already
done extensive research on the buildings and would like to proceed with listing the properties
they recommended in their letter submitted to the Board.
Ms. Johnson informed the Board that the reason that Staff is recommending waiting for the
Navy's nomination is because the Navy is already funding the cost for the consultant. Mr.
Thomas added that there is no need to rush to list any buildings, because there will not be any
demolition until the CEQA process is completed.
Minutes of October 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-10-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-10-06,4,"Ms. Eliason stated that currently there aren't any individual buildings located at Alameda Point
listed on our study list. Alameda Point is designated as a Historic District with contributing
structures.
Vice-Chair Miller approves of Staff's recommendations.
Board Member Tilos stated that since the City does not own the property yet, it would be a waste
of time to list any structures.
Chair Anderson recommended that the Board accept the staff recommendations, but with the
revision that we not wait to add the structures the Board feels are eligible for listing on the City's
Historical Building Study List. She would like to enlist the services of AAPS to help staff with
the research needed.
Ms. Eliason stated that Staff can provide Board updates as they move forward, but due to current
work loads in the Planning and Building Department, staff cannot commit to a date certain.
M/S (Lynch, Anderson) to accept staff's first two recommendations and amend the third by
proceeding with listing eligible buildings to the City Historical Building Study List. (3-1-0).
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
1 (Miller);
Absent:
0;
Motion carries.
4.
Workshop on possible changes to the Historical Preservation Ordinance.
Ms. Eliason presented staff report. In 2002, the Historical Advisory Board held several
workshops and public hearings regarding revisions to the Historical Preservation Ordinance,
which primarily focused on the Interim Review Section of the Ordinance. The HAB
recommended that any building built prior to 1942 must first obtain a Certificate of Approval
from the HAB prior to demolishing more than 30% of the structure. The City Council adopted
the recommended revisions made by the HAB in 2003.
Since that time, implementation of the Ordinance has resulted in identifying a few areas of
concern, particularly relating to penalties and enforcement sections. Staff would like direction
from the Board on several sections of the Ordinance.
First area of concern is the definition of demolition. Currently the Ordinance reads: ""Demolition
shall mean the removal within a five (5) year period of more than thirty (30%) percent of the
value of any designated structure or building, as determined by the Building Official."" The
problem with this definition is that valuation has nothing to do with saving the character-defining
elements of a structure.
In most recent cases, once a building permit has been issued and demolition begins, the
contractor has run into wood rot or other damage that must be removed. It is the natural
inclination to simply remove that wood without consideration of the historical implications.
A
Minutes of October 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-10-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-10-06,5,"demolition that was first assessed at less than 30% of value may unintentionally grow into a
larger demolition without knowledge that additional approvals are required.
There are also areas of concern in the Penalties section of the Ordinance. In the recent months
there have been several unauthorized demolitions that have come before this Board. Currently
the Ordinance only provides one remedy for each type of unauthorized demolitions. For
example, pre-1942 unauthorized demolitions are only a violation of the Alameda Municipal
Code, which would result in the issuance of an administrative citation or fine. This inflexibility
regarding penalties provides no administrative relief nor does it allow for extenuating
circumstances regarding individual situations. In some cases, the penalty may be too harsh and
in other cases it may not be enough.
Other areas of concern are the section on Historic signs and the penalty, or lack there of, for
unauthorized removal of protected Oak trees.
Staff is requesting the Board review the options provided by in the staff report and submit their
comments and recommendations. Staff will then create a revised ordinance and seek HAB
recommendations to the City Council for approval around the first of the year.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Birgitt Evans, AAPS, spoke in favor of revising the Ordinance. She stated the current Ordinance
limits the Board's ability to impose conditions of approval on Certificates of Approval. Also the
penalties are too limited. She agrees with Board Member Miller statement at the previous
hearing regarding 616 Pacific Ave. ""Why do we have a moratorium, if it is not imposed."" She
agrees with AAPS's recommendations regarding different penalty options
Nancy Hird, AAPS, is concerned with the 5 year stay of building permits. What would happen if
the property changes ownership within those five years?
Dick Rutter, AAPS, stated his concerns that once dry rot is discovered, the initial scope of work
can change. Staff should provide better documentation to contractors and home owners
regarding what should be done on pre-1942 houses that are on the border line of demolishing
more that 30%. The current definition of 30% of value does not work.
Ms. Eliason informed the Board that all pre-1942 submittals are now being stamped in big red
letters informing the applicant of the Certificate of Approval process and the 30% demolition
rule.
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened the
floor to Board discussion
Board Member Lynch agrees that there should be more options for imposing penalties.
Minutes of October 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-10-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-10-06,6,"Chair Anderson recommended that the HAB be informed of all permits issued on pre-1942
buildings, not just the demolitions. Too many applications are coming before this Board ""after-
the-fact"". She stated that there is a disconnect between the design review process and the
Certificate of Approval process.
Vice-Chair Miller stated that previously they were informed by the City Attorney's office that
design was not the purview of the HAB.
Board Member Lynch stated that in the AMC it states that they are able to look at proposed
design of new buildings as well as historic ones, to determine whether the proposed new design
is compatible with the surrounding areas. She would also like to see a better definition of
demolition.
In response to Board Member Tilos question regarding who determines if demolition is
exceeding 30%, Ms. Eliason responded that the Building Official makes the determination.
Chair Anderson would like to be informed of all application submittals, prior to any permits
issued on pre-1942 structures, so that the HAB may look at the scope of work, such as window
replacements. The HAB needs to be in the loop early on. She would like staff to provide the
Board a list on a regular basis of all project submittals.
Staff has noted the Boards recommendations.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
Staff has provided the Board with a copy of Resolution HAB-05-27. Staff also provided a copy
of an Off-Agenda report from the City Manager regarding a Community Needs Survey for their
information.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch would like certain districts of Alameda designated as Historic Districts
beginning with LeonardaVille, followed by Park Ave.Station, Bay Station, and Burbank-Portola
Station Staff noted her request.
Board Member Miller asked Staff what would have happened to the approved Design Review
permit if the City Council denied the appeal of 616 Pacific Ave. Ms. Eliason stated that the
applicant would of had to submit a landscape plan to the Planning & Building Director. After
the five year stay was over, a new Design Review application would need to be submitted.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
The Mayor has not nominated anyone to fill the vacant seat on this Board.
Minutes of October 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-10-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-10-06,7,"ADJOURNMENT:
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to adjourn meeting at 8:35 pm.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason,
Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
::\PLANNING\HAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05\8-4-05 HAB minutes.doc
Minutes of October 6, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
7",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-10-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-11-03,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. Secretary Eliason called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members Iverson
& Lynch.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Board Member Tilos.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Eliason, Emily Pudell, Planner II, Debbie
Gremminger, Recording Secretary.
Chair Anderson welcomed new Board Member Janet Iverson to the Historical Advisory
Board.
MINUTES:
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 6, 2005 with
corrections. 3-0-1-1.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Abstain:
1 (Iverson): Absent: 1 (Tilos);
Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
ACTION ITEMS
1.
Appointment of a Historical Advisory Board member to the Transportation
Subcommittee. (Continued from the 10-6-05 mtg.)
At this time, the Board has declined the invitation to serve on the Transportation Subcommittee.
Ms. Eliason will inform the Board of any upcoming information that would be of interest to this
Board.
Minutes of November 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-11-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-11-03,2,"2.
Certificate of Approval, 500 Central Avenue, Applicant: Tony Wong. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval for the unauthorized removal of more than thirty percent
(30%) of the value of the historic structure, located at the above address. According to AMC
Section 13-21, removal of more than 30% of the value of the structure, is defined as demolition.
Without prior approval of a Certificate of Approval, the property is subject to a five year stay in
the issuance of any building or construction-related permit. The site is located at 500 Central
Ave. within the R-5, General Residential Zoning District. (Applicant is requesting this item be
continued to the December 1, 2005 mtg).
Ms. Eliason informed the Board that the applicant has requested a continuance to the December
1, 2005 meeting. Mr. Wong is currently working with Staff to develop a compliance plan to
resolve the outstanding historic preservation issues that are associated with this site.
Board Member Lynch fears the structure will continue to deteriorate if left untouched for another
month.
Ms. Eliason advised the Board that staff is currently working with the applicant to stabilize the
building to prevent any further deterioration
M/S (Miller, Anderson) to continue this item to the December 1, 2005 meeting. 4-0-1.
Ayes:
4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1; (Tilos).
Motion carries.
REPORTS:
3.
Historical Advisory Board's consideration of whether to recommend to the City Council
that it designate the structure at 2320 Lincoln Avenue as a Historical Monument. (EP).
Emily Pudell presented the staff report. This item is before the Board at the request of Board
Member Lynch. In 2003 a historical evaluation of 2320 & 2322 Lincoln Avenue was performed
by the Architectural Resources Group (ARG). The report concluded that neither building
maintains all aspects of integrity as set forth by the National Register of Historic Places.
In addition, this property has also been evaluated in the New Alameda Free Library Project
Property Acquisition for Parking EIR, and researched by members of Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society (AAPS). Based on the information provided, the building at 2320 Lincoln
Avenue has been determined to be the oldest commercial structure in Alameda that is still intact,
and was believed to be part of Alameda's former Chinatown district.
Because the structure is listed on the Historical Building Study list, it is subject to demolition
control protection under the Historical Preservation Ordinance. Staff has recently met with the
property owners and they have indicated that they do not support the recommendation
to
Minutes of November 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-11-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-11-03,3,"designate their property a Monument due to a lack of financial incentive and delays in the public
hearing process for the proposed structural alterations they have planned.
Based on the conclusion of the ARG report, the existing demolition controls, and the owner's
opposition, Staff cannot support the recommendation to designate the property at 2320 Lincoln
Avenue a Historical Monument.
Chair Anderson opened the Public Hearing.
Jeffrey Ow, spoke in favor of the recommendation and has done further research on the property
which he included in a letter submitted to the Board.
Kevin Frederick, AAPS, spoke in favor of the recommendation.
Board Member Lynch read an article by Woody Minor, which indicates that the structure located
at 2320 Lincoln Avenue, formally known as the ""Encinal Saloon"", was erected in the late 1860's
and is oldest and most intact surviving commercial building.
In response to Chair Anderson inquiry about whether the proposed project plans would come
before this Board for approval, Ms Eliason stated that a Certificate of Approval from this Board
will be required for the proposed demolition of more than 30% of the structure. The application
is tentatively scheduled for the January 5, 2006 meeting.
In response to Vice-Chair Miller's inquiry regarding the level of protection for a monument, Ms
Eliason stated that the HAB has purview over any structural modifications for all designated
monuments. There are also stricter penalties for any unauthorized demolition.
In response to Vice-Chair Miller's question regarding whether the owner's consent is needed
recommendation, Ms. Eliason answered in the affirmative.
Board Member Iverson advised the Board that she would like more time to consider this. She
asked that the Board continue this item to a future meeting.
M/S (Iverson, Miller) to continue this item until the January meeting for further consideration.
4-0-1.
Ayes:
4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Invitation to the Webster Renaissance Completion Celebration to be held on Friday, November
4th at Hawthorne Suites on Webster Street.
Minutes of November 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-11-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-11-03,4,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch would like to place Andy Pagano name on the City's street naming list.
Staff noted her request.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Eliason informed the Board that comments and review for the Section 106 report for the new
design of the Cineplex and Parking Garage is scheduled for the December 1, 2005 agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
M/S (Miller, Lynch) to adjourn meeting at 7:36 pm.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason,
Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNING\HAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05\11-03-05 min
Minutes of November 3, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-11-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-01-05,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JANUARY 5, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Secretary Eliason called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members Iverson,
Lynch & Tilos.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Eliason, Emily Pudell, Planner II, Jennifer Ott,
Development Services Department, Debbie Gremminger,
Recording Secretary.
MINUTES:
A motion and a second was made to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 1,
2005 with corrections. 5-0-0.
Ayes:
5;
Noes: 0;
Absent:
0.
Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
ACTION ITEMS:
1.
Historical Advisory Board's consideration of whether to recommend to the City Council
that it designate the structure at 2320 Lincoln Avenue as a Historical Monument. (EP).
(Continued from the 11-03-05 meeting).
Emily Pudell presented staff report. This item was before this Board on November 3, 2005 at the
request of Board member Lynch. In November, the Board continued the discussion to allow
more time for Board member Iverson to become familiar with the history of this building. Staff
does not support the recommendation to nominate 2320 Lincoln Avenue a historic monument.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in favor of recommendation.
There were no more speaker slips submitted. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing, and
opened the floor to Board discussion.
Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-01-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-01-05,2,"Board member Lynch requested that this item be tabled to a future meeting to allow time for the
property owner to complete the proposed renovations to the building.
M/S (Iverson, Lynch) to table this item until the proposed work has been completed. 2-3-0.
Ayes:
2 (Iverson, Lynch); Noes: 3 (Anderson, Miller, Tilos); Absent: 0; Motion
failed.
M/S (Miller, Anderson) to accept Staff's recommendation not to recommend the designation of
2320 Lincoln Avenue as a historic monument. 3-2-0.
Ayes: 3 (Anderson, Miller, Tilos); Noes: 2 (Iverson, Lynch); Absent: 0; Motion
carries.
2.
CA05-0035 - 2320 Lincoln Avenue - Applicant: Li-Sheng Fu for Jim Hom. Applicants
request a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent of the value of a historically
designated commercial structure. The proposed work includes a new foundation and restoration
of the existing siding and windows, where possible, and reconfiguration of the interior spaces for
the purposes of establishing a new commercial use. The site is located at 2320 Lincoln Avenue
within an C-C-T Community Commercial Theater Zoning District. (EP)
Emily Pudell presented the staff report. On July 15, 2005, an application for Minor Design
Review was received by the Planning and Building Department to restore the building at to
commercial/office use. The plans propose to restore the interior and exterior of the building,
including a new foundation, interior staircase, and restoration of the building's existing siding
and windows. A Certificate of Approval is required from this Board because the interior and
exterior modifications to the building exceed the 30% threshold for demolition. Staff is
recommending that the Board approve the Certificate of Approval for removal of more than 30%
of the value of the structure with the conditions stated in draft Resolution.
There were no speaker slips submitted. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened
the floor to Board discussion.
The Board had several questions regarding the plans. Ms. Pudell stated that she has not begun
the Design Review because she needed a decision from this Board regarding the demolition. The
exterior of the building will remain as is.
In response to Board member Lynch's questions regarding the front door, Ms. Pudell informed
the Board that she has not seen any historical pictures of the original door; however, the
applicant will be required to provide a door schedule as part of the design review requirements.
M/S to (Miller, Anderson) to approve the Certificate of Approval, CA05-0035, to alter more than
30% with conditions as stated in draft resolution. 5-0-0.
Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-01-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-01-05,3,"Ayes:
5;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
0;
Motion carries.
3.
CA05-0033 - 2708 Lincoln Avenue - Applicant: Minxi Liu for Alvin and Lai Wong.
Applicants request a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent of the value of a
historically designated single family residence. The proposed work includes the addition of
approximately 1,100 square feet first story and new second story, removal of 2/3 of the exterior
rear and side walls, and removal of the roof. The site is located at 2708 Lincoln Avenue within
an R-1, One Family Residence Zoning District. (EP)
Emily Pudell presented staff report. She informed the Board that this project has already received
design review approval by the Planning Board on August 8, 2005, with the condition that prior to
approval of the final plans for the building permit; the property owner shall apply for and obtain
approval for a demolition permit from the Historical Advisory Board.
According to available resources, the small, cottage-style dwelling was constructed in 1906. The
building, however, is not listed on the Historic Building Study List. The approved plans indicate
that the modifications would not only change the architectural style of the building, but would
add approximately 1,100 square feet to the existing building and change the location of the front
entry and staircase. The approved Design Review indicates that similar siding and window
materials will be utilized for the new additions and remodel. Staff is recommending the Board
approve the Certificate of Approval, with conditions as stated in draft Resolution.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Lili Rollins, 1607 Pearl St., spoke in favor of this project.
Minxi Liu, architect, was present and available for any questions the Board may have.
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing.
Vice-chair Miller commented on the fact that after this project is complete, there won't be any of
the original house remaining.
Chair Anderson spoke in favor of the proposed project, however requested that wood windows
be required as a condition of approval.
Ms. Eliason stated that the design review has already been approved by the Planning Board, so
the conditions of Design Review approval cannot be changed.
M/S (Tilos, Miller) to approve to approve Certificate of Approval to alter more that thirty percent
of the value of the structure located at 2708 Lincoln Avenue with conditions stated in the draft
resolution. 5-0-0.
Ayes: 5;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
0;
Motion carries.
Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-01-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-01-05,4,"REPORTS:
4.
Review and Comment on Section 106 Findings Regarding Revised Designs for the 350-
Space Parking Garage and Cineplex at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue within the
C-C T (Community Commercial Theater) Zoning District. (JO). (Continued from 12-01-05
meeting).
Jennifer Ott, Development Services presented the staff report. She informed the Board that the
City has retained a new architect, Komorous-Towey Architects (KTA) to develop revised
designs for both the Cineplex and parking garage based on direction from the City Council on
August 16, 2005. Revisions to the façades include reduction of scale and bulk, greater evocation
of Art Deco style, additional vertical articulation, greater design consistency and symmetry, as
well as greater articulation of blank surfaces.
The City Council accepted and authorized Section 106 review of the revised designs on
November 1, 2005. Mr. Bruce Anderson, the City's Section 106 consultant, has reviewed the
revised designs for compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and
Restoration and has prepared a supplemental report to his initial Section 106 Report, considered
by this Board on June 2, 2006. Staff requests that the Board review and comment on the revised
design and supplemental Section 106 report. Staff will forward the Board's comments along
with the draft minutes from this meeting to the City Council to consider before taking a final
approval action on the revised design.
Chair Anderson opened the Public hearing.
Susan Denault, 1416 Willow St., spoke in opposition to the new design. She stated that it is still
too big for the proposed location. The proposed design does not fit into the neighborhood.
Nina Rosen, 1045 Island Dr., spoke in opposition of the size of the building.
Monica Penya, 1361 Regent St., stated the report does not address the size and scale of this
project and does not think it will be compatible with the surrounding buildings. She believes
there is a better alternative.
Nancy Hird, 1519 East Shore Drive., spoke on behalf of AAPS and commended the new
architect on the revised design; however, the project is way too large for the area. She would
like the City to further pursue the Longs parking lot site.
Ani Dimishiva, 2911 Calhoun St., is not in favor of revised design. It still has the box- - like mass
feeling of the Cineplex, which has been a major concern of the community. The question is
whether the massive box fits in it location. It must be compatible with surrounding buildings.
The report does not address if the proposed construction protects the environment. There should
be no further action taken until there is a three dimension model of project provided.
Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-01-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-01-05,5,"Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow St., spoke in opposition of the project. She would like an
Environmental Impact Report done. She read into the record a statement by Woody Minor
opposing the bulk and massing of the proposed project.
Rayla Graber spoke in opposition of the size of the project. The present plan is an improvement
to the original design but it is still too large.
Scott Brady, 1812 Encinal Ave., spoke on behalf of AAPS and briefly reviewed a November 1,
2005 letter from AAPS to the City Council, which was distributed to this Board in their meeting
packet. He stated that his main concerns are with the size of the project, and that it is not
compatible with the surrounding area. The north wall of the parking structure has not been
addressed adequately. He would like to see a physical model done and be required as part of the
approval process. This would allow for a better understanding of the size and scope of the
project with regards to the surrounding area.
Chris Buckley, 1017 San Antonio Ave., spoke on behalf of AAPS and further reviewed the
above mentioned letter. He stated that AAPS feels that although the new design is an
improvement, they still have concerns with the 20-inch projection of the Cineplex. He stated
that the projection is adding too much bulk and is not sure why it is necessary. He also stated
that the upward angle of the bay windows of the second floor lobby should be increased, and a
more vertical mullion pattern be used for the mezzanine windows.
Dick Rutter, 2205 Clinton Ave., agreed with Chris Buckley that the 20-inch projection should be
eliminated. He reviewed the drawing that was attached to the letter submitted by AAPS. He
stated that a more substantial material should be used for the tile on base of the storefronts.
AAPS would like to review materials and color samples when they become available.
Leslie Fishback, 1334 Burbank St., spoke in opposition of the project. She does not feel that the
historic theatre is being restored. She is also concerned with the size of the Cineplex and feels
the parking garage has too few spaces.
Susan Batailia, 1351 Burbank St., stated that the size and scope are too large. The majority of
citizens agree that the historic theatre should be preserved. The Twin Towers church will not be
visible if this is built. There will be more traffic problems. The alternative has been brought to
the City, by contracting with existing parking lots. She is not as concerned with the color as
much as the size.
Russ Button, 2711 San Jose Ave., is opposed the size and scale of the project. He stated that
traffic would be increased on Park Street. The rents will go up and the ""mom and pop""
businesses such as Ole's, La Pinata, and Tuckers Ice Cream would disappear. This will change
Alameda in a major way. He stated that this Board's job is too keep Alameda the way it is.
Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio Ave., also opposed the size of the project. She would
also like to see a model. She urged the Board to inform the City Council that the size of the
Cineplex and parking garage will ruin the historic character of Park Street.
Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-01-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-01-05,6,"Irene Deeter stated her main concern is the location of the parking garage. The Elk's site would
be a much better location and it would allow for the height and bulk of the Cineplex to be scaled
down. The people of Alameda want a fully restored historic Theatre. She would like an
agreement from the developer that he will completely restore the Historic Theatre.
Charles Kasdorf stated that the proposed structure is too large. He would also like to see the
historic Theatre completely restored.
Paula Rainy, 556 Palace Ct., agreed that the size and scope of the project will have a detrimental
effect on the neighborhood and the quality of life in Alameda. She would also like to see a
model.
Kristianne Koenen, 1360 Pearl Street, spoke in opposition of project. The thing that attracted her
to Alameda was its uniqueness. She wants Alameda to hold the unique charm that draws people
to it. She agreed that the garage is misplaced. She has joined the group Citizens for a Mega-
Plex Free Alameda (CFMFA), who have worked hard to come up with an alternative plan. They
have come up with ideas that would allow this area of Alameda to be a Civic Center.
Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline St., spoke against the project as proposed. He would like to have
more of a setback on the corner of Oak St. and Central Ave. He agrees that a model should be
done. He stated the Elks Lodge would be a better location for the parking garage, and added
that this suggestion has been ignored by City staff. The people should have a say, and have taken
a lot of abuse. He would like an Environmental Impact Report done.
Rob Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), would like to address a comment made by
one of the previous speakers who indicated that the project would raise rents on Park Street and
run out ""mom and pop"" businesses. He would like to say for the record that the owners of Oles',
Tuckers, and La Pinata support this project as do most of the businesses on Park St.
Robert Wood stated that his primary objections to this project have been scale. He agrees that
this project is on a site that is too small. He would like to blame Longs for not making their site
available. He stated that if this project goes ahead, it will establish precedence for the rest of the
block. There is no Master Plan for the Civic Center in this City. He has asked the Planning
Board to direct Staff to prepare a Master Plan for the Civic Center and its surrounding blocks. He
agrees there should be a model done which should include the new Library and the Elks Club.
Linda Kibler, 1625 San Antonio Ave., moved to Alameda because of the historic quaintness.
She is fearful where this project will take our town in 20 years from now. It is too large and out
of place for the downtown area.
David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Ave., would first like to thank Staff and Board members for all of
their work on this project. He stated that this has been difficult because of the division that is
being created between the business owners and the community. He stated that Oak Street is too
Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-01-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-01-05,7,"narrow for the entrance to the parking garage and it would be very unsafe. This Board should
preserve the historic quality of Alameda.
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened the
floor to Board discussion.
Board member Lynch stated how difficult this is. She feels the Board is being pressured to push
this project through. A year ago this Board was shown a design that looked like a ""refrigerator
box"" that was too big. The new design has improved, but it is still too big. She was not aware
that there could have been an alternative location for the parking garage. She stated that she
would like a three dimensional model made so she would have a better idea of the size and scale
of the new Cineplex and parking garage.
Board member Tilos agreed that the parking garage should be built on an alternate site and thinks
the Council should further consider the Elk's parking lot as a possible site. He agrees with Board
Member Lynch that the Cineplex is too large for its current location.
Vice Chair Miller stated that he has always said that this project is too large, as well as his fellow
Board members. He stated that the City Council has ignored the community. He agreed that
there should be a model to better visualize the size and scale of the project. He stated that AAPS
has good suggestions. The colors for the garage should have less contrast.
Board member Iverson acknowledged the amount of work put into the presentations. She stated
that the size and scale is incompatible to the area. She is interested to learn more about the
different parking locations. She stated that the comments submitted by AAPS are good. The
mechanical enclosure at top of the building is too high. The 70-ft. wall should be more detailed.
This would be a good opportunity for public art. She would also like to see a model of the Civic
Center. The detailing at the street level of the Cineplex is not keeping with the style of the
parking garage.
Chair Anderson would like to reiterate what the people are saying. When she first learned that
Theatre was going to be restored she was excited. She feels they have been made hostage by the
proposed Cineplex and Parking Garage. She does not think that Alameda can support eight
screens. The revised size and scale is an improvement to previous design but does not think that
it is proportioned to the site. It is too massive. This project would be a mistake. She feels that we
do need the parking structure in the downtown area to keep the businesses viable. She is opposed
to the Cineplex and the parking garage as it is designed but is in favor of the restoration of the
historic Alameda Theatre.
Staff thanked the Board for their comments.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 7",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-01-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-01-05,8,"AAPS submitted a letter regarding their request to list several buildings located at Alameda Point
on the Historical Building Study List. Ms. Eliason stated that the ARRA has directed Staff to
present them with language that will be added to the preferred development concept.
Board member Lynch asked staff if there the City is still planning to create a committee
regarding the future plans for Alameda Point.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun St., thanked the Board for their comments on Item 4.
Irene Dieter, thanked the Board for their comments on Item 4. She also informed the Board of
the 2002 Park Street Streetscape Plan, which indicated there should be no traffic on Oak Street.
Ms. Eliason stated that this document was the basis for the grants that the City has received for
the Park Street Streetscape. Staff will provide the Board with a copy.
Chris Buckley, AAPS, would like to clarify what the ARRA Board requested. He stated that
they were concerns that the plans were not set in stone before all of the historic buildings be
identified. They asked staff to put together a schedule of how the various steps of dealing with
historic buildings would occur. Staff was supposed to return to ARRA with the schedule in
February 2006.
Board member Lynch would like information on 500 Central Ave. Ms. Eliason stated that the
applicants were required to weatherize the building and will be ready for public hearing in
February.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Staff would like to remind the Board of the open house for the new Planning & Building
director, hosted by the Planning & Building Department on Monday, January 9th
ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason,
Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNING|HAB\AGENMIN\Agenmin.06/01-05-06 min.doc
Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 8",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-01-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-01-05,9,"Minutes of January 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 9",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-01-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-03-02,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Acting Chair Tilos called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Secretary Eliason called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Board Members Iverson, Lynch & Tilos.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Eliason, Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building
Director, George Carder, Supervising Building Inspector,
Emily Pudell, Planner II, Stefanie Hom, Planning Intern,
Debbie Gremminger, Recording Secretary.
MINUTES:
M/S (Iverson, Lynch) to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 5, 2006 with
corrections. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3;
Noes: 0;
Absent:
2;
Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
The Secretary of the Historical Advisory Board requests that Report #4, 500 Central Avenue be
considered first.
M/S to consider Report #4, 500 Central prior to Action Items. 3-0-2.
Ayes:
3;
Noes: 0;
Absent:
2;
Motion carries.
REPORTS:
4.
Preliminary Restoration Review; Applicant: Duane P. Jensen for Tony Wong - 500
Central Avenue. The applicants are seeking comments regarding the design for the proposed
restoration of 500 Central Avenue.
Emily Pudell reviewed staff report as presented. Staff is requesting comments on the
preliminary plans submitted for the restoration of 500 Central Ave. Staff will then work to
ensure that the Board's comments are incorporated into the plans for final major design review.
No action will be taken tonight.
Acting Chair Tilos opened the public hearing.
Minutes of March 2, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-03-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-03-02,2,"Chris Buckley, AAPS submitted a letter to the Board with AAPS comments. Mr. Buckley
reviewed the comments stated in the letter and said that he is looking forward to the restoration
of the building. His main concern is with the front elevation on the proposed design. AAPS
would like the storefronts and front elevation to be retained as it was originally. They would also
like the wood shingles retained on the front elevation. He would like the restoration to include
the reconstruction of the sloped window hood over the east side entry to match the hood shown
in the 1979 photo. He would like staff to be aware of the inconsistency in plans. The proposed
plans do not show original stairway and existing historic storefronts. The plans should note what
is existing and what is proposed.
Dick Rutter, AAPS, stated the building should be restored to look as it did in the 1979 photo.
The shingles are important because that was the way buildings were modernized in 1908.
Colleen Leong, 478 Central Ave., reviewed an article dated October 22, 1993 about the 5th Street
station and gave a brief history of the building. As a neighbor she has been concerned about
preserving certain elements for her tenants. Mr. Wong began construction on this property in
2004 when he purchased the property. He began demolition without receiving the proper
permits. As result of this demolition, the rear cottage has since collapsed. She has made several
complaints with the City, but feels that they have done very little to stop Mr. Wong from
continuing this illegal construction and demolition. She also has concerns with amount of debris
left from the collapsed rear cottage.
There were no more speaker slips. Acting Chair Tilos closed the public hearing and opened the
floor to Board discussion.
Applicant, Duane Jensen of City Shapers and Architect Richard Vaterlaus, AIA were present
representing the owner, Mr. Wong. Mr. Jensen informed the Board that his team is seeking
guidance from this Board and the community for the best possible restoration plan. He stated
that the proposed plan is preliminary. He informed the Board that he is seeing the photos for the
first time today.
Board member Lynch confirmed the importance of the restoration of this building. She would
like the storefronts to remain as original. She also has concerns with the proposed windows.
Board member Iverson confirmed that now that they have this information the drawings will be
amended to match the front and side façades.
In response to Board member Lynch's question regarding whether this application will come
before this Board again, Ms. Eliason stated that this will not come before this Board again. It
will go through the design review process with the Board's comments and will be approved at
staff level.
Minutes of March 2, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-03-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-03-02,3,"Board member Lynch does not feel that they have had enough time to review the plans. She
would like to see this item before this Board one more time, so they may comment on the final
plans.
Ms. Pudell stated that staff will be proceeding with design review process with the
recommendations given by this Board tonight. The Board is welcome to submit further
comments during the 10-day public notice period during the Design Review process.
Ms. Eliason stated that if applicant agrees, this item can be brought back before this Board. The
Brown Act prohibits any private conversations with the applicant and the Board members.
Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director, expressed staff's concern with delaying this
project any further. She informed the Board that staff does understand the importance of
restoring the building to match the original and will take the comments of this Board very
seriously when reviewing the final Design Review plans.
Mr. Jensen stated that he would like to see this project move forward. He does not want to leave
the building exposed to the weather any longer.
Board Lynch stated that she would like to continue this item, until there is a full Board present.
M/S (Lynch, Iverson) to continue this item to April 6, 2006 meeting for review of revised plans
that incorporate the Board's comments made tonight. (Lynch, Iverson) 3-0-2
Ayes:
3;
Noes: 0;
Absent:
2;
Motion carries.
ACTION ITEMS:
1.
Certificate of Approval, CA06-0006, Applicant: Buttrick Wong for Donald Ousterhout,
1511 Gibbons Drive. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval for demolition of
more than thirty percent (30%) of a residential structure built prior to 1942, located at the above
address, for the purposes of remodeling the existing single-family dwelling. The site is located
within an R-1, One-Family Residence Zoning District.
Stefani Hom reviewed the staff report as presented. Staff has determined that demolishing 30%
of the structure is a necessary step of the overall renovation and would not affect the basic
architectural integrity of the structure. Staff has determined that bringing this structure to current
building standards will improve its usefulness and overall value. Staff recommends the Board
approve the Certificate of Approval with conditions as stated in draft Resolution.
Acting Chair Tilos welcomed Cathy Woodbury, our new Planning & Building Director and
Stefanie Hom our planning intern, and opened the public hearing.
Don Ousterhout, owner, spoke in favor of the project.
Minutes of March 2, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-03-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-03-02,4,"Mr. Wong, architect, also spoke in favor of this project.
There were no more speaker slips. Acting Chair Tilos closed the public hearing and opened the
floor for Board discussion.
Board member Lynch confirmed that the front façade would not be changed.
M/S (Iverson, Lynch) to approve Certificate of Approval, CA06-0006, with conditions as stated
in draft Resolution. 3-0-2.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
2.
Motion carries.
2.
Certificate of Approval; CA06-0001; Applicant: Scott Brady for Douglas and Maria
Love - 2253 San Antonio Avenue. The applicants request a Certificate of Approval to alter
more than thirty percent (30%) of the value of a historically designated structure, located at the
above address, for the purposes of remodeling a single-family dwelling. The site is located at
2253 San Antonio Avenue, within the R-5, General Residential Zoning District.
Stefanie Hom reviewed the staff report as presented. Staff has determined that the proposed
addition and modifications, which were approved as part of Major Design Review DR05-0120,
will not affect the historic significance of the existing structure. All proposed construction will
be limited to the rear and interior of the building with the existing exterior features of the front
façade to remain unaltered. The proposed addition will use materials that will match the existing
architectural details. Staff recommends approval of Certificate of Approval with conditions as
stated in draft Resolutions.
Acting Chair Tilos opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dileo, AAPS, spoke in favor of the Certificate of Approval.
Scott Brady, architect, spoke in favor of approval.
There was no more speaker slips. Acting Chair Tilos closed the public hearing and opened the
floor for Board discussion.
Board member Lynch commended staff on a very thorough staff report and packet.
The Board had no further questions on this application.
M/S (Lynch, Iverson) to approve Certificate of Approval, CA06-0001, with conditions as stated in
the draft Resolution. 3-0-2.
Ayes:
3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2. Motion carries.
Minutes of March 2, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-03-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-03-02,5,"3.
Certificate of Approval, CA06-0002; Applicant: Frank Do for Alice Young - 1813 St.
Charles Street. The applicants request a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent
(30%) of the value of a historically designated residential duplex, located at the above address
for the purposes of legalization of remodeling work. The site is located at 1813 St. Charles
Street within an R-2, Two-Family Residence Zoning District.
Emily Pudell presented the staff report. She informed the Board that this structure is not listed
on the Historical Building Study List; however, it is before this Board because it was built prior
to
1942. Staff found that the proposed ""Colonial Revival Cottage"" design of the remodeled
home would be more characteristic of and compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood.
Staff is recommending approval of Certificate of Approval, CA06-0002, with conditions as
stated in draft Resolution.
Acting Chair Tilos opened the public hearing.
Chris Buckley stated that the plans are inconsistent, which has been an ongoing problem. He
feels that this building has craftsman elements, not colonial revival as the staff report states.
There were no more speaker slips. Acting Chair Tilos closed the public hearing.
Board member Iverson does not feel that the bay window or the columns have any historic style.
In response to Board member Lynch's question regarding the handrails, Ms. Pudell stated that
the Major Design Review process has not been completed. A letter of incompleteness which
addressed the issues which have been brought up tonight has been mailed to the applicant.
Board member Lynch feels that the proposed design is an improvement. She would also like to
make sure that the Oak tree will be protected as a condition of approval.
Acting Chair Tilos approves of the proposed design.
Ms. Eliason stated that the Board's comments will be considered in the design review process.
M/S (Lynch, Iverson) to approve Certificate of Approval, CA06-0002 with conditions as stated
in draft Resolution. 3-0-2.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
2.
Motion carries.
5.
Review and Comment on Proposed Revisions to the Historical Preservation Ordinance.
Staff is requesting this item be continued to the April 6, 2006 meeting to allow staff time for
further research.
M/S (Iverson, Lynch) to continue this item to the April meeting. 3-0-2.
Minutes of March 2, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-03-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-03-02,6,"Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
2.
Motion carries.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
Staff has provided the Board with a resolution for a garage demolition approved by the Secretary
for 1831 Nason St.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Board member Lynch invited the Board members and staff to the Alameda Museum lecture
series.
Board member Lynch requests further information regarding their comments given on the Posey
Tube entry lights.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Staff gave the Board information on upcoming workshops and conferences.
ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cirllis Eleaser
Cynthia Eliason, Secretary
Historical Advisory Board
:\PLANNING\HAB\AGENMIN\Agenmin.06\approved minutes03-02-06approved min.doc
Minutes of March 2, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-03-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-04-06,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. Secretary Eliason called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members Iverson
and Tilos.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Board member Lynch.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Eliason, Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building
Director, Emily Pudell, Planner II, Debbie Gremminger,
Recording Secretary.
MINUTES:
M/S to continue the March 2, 2006 minutes to the May 4, 2006 meeting due to a lack of a
quorum. 4-0-1.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: 1; Motion carries.
ACTION ITEMS:
None.
REPORTS:
1.
Preliminary Restoration Review - Applicant: Dwane P. Jensen for Tony Wong - 500
Central Avenue. The applicants are seeking comments regarding the design for the proposed
restoration of 500 Central Avenue. (Item continued from 3-02-06 meeting).
This item was continued from the March 2, 2006 meeting per the Board's request. The applicant
has incorporated the Board's comments received at the March 2, 2006 meeting and has
submitted a revised set of drawings for review. Staff is seeking comments from this Board to
assist in the Design Review approval.
Chair Anderson opened the pubic hearing.
Chris Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), submitted their comments
in a letter which was distributed to the Board.
Minutes of April 6, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-04-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-04-06,2,"There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened the
floor to Board discussion.
Board member Tilos is in favor of the new design.
Chair Anderson is in favor of staff's conditions of approval noted in the staff report.
Additionally, she would like an investigation of the rear addition, and would like staff to require
the applicant to apply for a lot line adjustment. She does not agree that the windscreen on the
side elevation is original as AAPS has suggested; therefore it should not be a condition of
approval.
Vice-Chair Miller would like to incorporate AAPS recommendations with the comments made
by the Board tonight, with the exception of the windscreen.
Board member Iverson agreed that the windscreen was not original and is not necessary.
2.
Review and Comment on Proposed Revisions to the Historical Preservation Ordinance.
(Continued from the March 2, 2006 meeting).
Staff has made several revisions to various sections of the Historical Preservation Ordinance.
Staff would like the Board to review the proposed revisions, and submit comments. Staff will
then incorporate the comments made by the Board and from the public and bring this item back
for final review and recommendation to the City Council.
Definition of Demolition:
Staff proposes that the definition of demolition be easier for property owners and staff to
calculate and should be equal to all properties.
The Board did not have any comments regarding this section.
Protected Trees:
Ms. Eliason stated that staff is proposing stricter penalties for the unauthorized demolitions of
protected trees.
Chair Anderson stated that a landscape plan should only be required when replacement trees are
located on the property. She would also like the ordinance to be clear that the applicant is
responsible for the payment of the arborist.
Ms. Woodbury stated that staff will revise the language to read that when only one tree is being
replaced, the applicant may submit a site plan in lieu of the landscape plan.
In response to Vice-Chair Miller question regarding the fine for unauthorized removal of a
protected tree, Ms. Eliason responded staff is proposing that the fine be equal to twice the
Minutes of April 6, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-04-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-04-06,3,"appraised value of the original tree which will be determined by the Planning and Building
Director.
The Board had no further comments.
Historic Signs:
Ms. Eliason reviewed the proposed revisions to the Historic Signs and designation process.
The Board did not have any comments regarding this section.
New Application Process:
Ms. Eliason reviewed the proposed revisions to New Application Process. To prevent further
unauthorized demolitions, the requirements for Certificate of Approvals should be very clear.
Chair Anderson stated that section (a) should be revised. A structural report can only be
prepared by a structural engineer, not an architect. Staff concurred and will make the revision.
The Board had no further comments.
Penalties:
Ms Eliason reviewed the proposed revisions to the Penalties section. She informed the Board
that the revisions to this section are important due to the recent problem of several unauthorized
demolition of listed buildings and buildings built prior to 1942. The present ordinance only
provides one remedy for each situation. For properties listed on the Historic Building Study List,
unauthorized demolition is subject to a five (5) year stay in the issuance of any building permit
or construction-related permit for any new construction at the site previously occupied by the
historic resource. For pre-1942 unauthorized demolitions, the applicable penalty reads: ""Any
violation of this section or failure to comply with a condition of approval of any certificate of
approval or permit issued pursuant to this section constitutes a violation of the Alameda
Municipal Code."" This inflexibility regarding penalties provides no administrative relief nor
does it allow for extenuating circumstances regarding individual situations.
Staff has proposed new language that provides additional flexibility for handling demolitions of
Historical Monuments, structures on the Historical Building Study List and Pre-1942 dwellings,
as well as Protected Trees. The proposed revision strengthens the overall penalty from $250.00
to $500.00 under the Alameda Municipal Code. It retains the potential of an up to 5-year
moratorium on development also allows for the requirement to reconstruct, as determined
appropriate by the Historical Advisory Board. The Pre-1942 provisions have been clarified to
first determine if the property should have been on the Historical Building Study List.
Minutes of April 6, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-04-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-04-06,4,"Vice-Chair Miller would like the penalties to be very clear that it is not ok to demolish historical
structures. He would like Alameda to set the standard for strict penalties. He would like staff to
consult with the City Attorney's office regarding charging as a misdemeanor offense.
Chair Anderson would like to see guidelines within the Ordinance stating who is responsible for
overseeing that the property is maintained in the event of the five year moratorium.
Board member Iverson inquired if the monetary penalties could be assessed periodically though
non-compliance, possibly on a quarterly basis. Board member Iverson also would like to see an
additional penalty imposed if the property is sold within a certain amount of time after the illegal
demolition.
The Board had no further comments.
Appeals and Call for Review:
Staff has proposed the standard language used for all Boards regarding Appeals and Call for
Review.
The Board did not have any comments regarding this section.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, would like to see very strict penalties for unauthorized
demolitions.
Dick Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, stated that the entire structure should be considered in the
demolition process, not only the front façade. He stated that the fine should start at $10,000.
Denise Brady, president of AAPS, stated the current ordinance does not give enough penalty
options. She also feels the $500.00 penalty is too low. She would like to see the contractors who
are doing the unauthorized demolitions be penalized as well as the homeowners.
Chris Buckley, AAPS, reviewed the comments submitted in a letter from AAPS. He would like
more time to consider all of the different options and scenarios which might occur. He would
like the HAB to have more authority over the proposed design and construction plans. On tree
provisions, with regards to trees, the International arborist formula is appropriate.
Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose, read the letter to the Board from Birgitt Evans. He stated that the
fine should be based on the degree of the offense and be high enough to prevent any further
unauthorized demolitions
Scott Brady, former president of the HAB, spoke on the background of the revisions that were
adopted in 2002. He stated that the Board was rushed to make a recommendation, as staff
wanted to take both the Zoning Ordinance revisions made by the Planning Board and the
Minutes of April 6, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-04-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-04-06,5,"revisions to the Historical Preservation Ordinance to the Council at the same time. He supports
the recommendations made by AAPS. There should be various scales of penalties. He concurs
with Denise Brady's comment to penalize the contractor. Item 3 under new application process,
issuance should lie with the general contractor's role, not the architect.
Elizbeth Krase, 2520 Chester St, would like to see stricter penalties. She stated that a $500.00
fine will not be very effective.
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. The floor was
opened again for additional Board comments.
Chair Anderson would like this item to be continued to allow further discussion and to give the
Board more time to review. She would also like staff to provide the entire ordinance rather than
just the revised pieces.
Chair Anderson requested that a review of the Historical Building Study List be on a future
agenda.
M/S to continue this item to a future meeting for further discussion. 4-0-1.
Ayes: 4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
3.
Discussion and recommendation to City Council regarding support for National Historic
Preservation Month.
Ms. Woodbury informed the Board that each year the National Trust for Historic Preservation
promotes preservation efforts across the country by designating May as National Preservation
Month. Thousands of communities showcase their unique historic buildings and landscapes and
honor their local heritage through a variety of activities that increase the public's awareness and
appreciation of protecting the nation's rich history.
National Preservation Month provides an excellent opportunity to celebrate historic preservation
in Alameda. Staff has provided several activities suggested by The National Trust to celebrate
National Preservation Month.
Staff recommends that the Historical Advisory Board recommend that the City Council proclaim
May 2006 as National Preservation Month at the May 2, 2006 City Council meeting.
Chair Anderson has agreed to attend the City Council meeting to accept the proclamation.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Chris Buckley, AAPS, would like to thank Ms Woodbury for her efforts in getting the Council to
issue this proclamation. He also stated that the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
(AAPS) currently sponsors several of the different activities suggested in the staff memo. On
Minutes of April 6, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-04-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-04-06,6,"June 4, 2006 AAPS will be giving out preservation awards. He stated the more publicity the
better.
M/S to recommend to the City Council to proclaim May 2006 as National Preservation month.
4-0-1.
Ayes: 4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
Correspondence addressed to Rick Jones, PM Realty Group, from Leslie Little, Development
Services Director, clarifying the process regarding proposed exterior alterations to buildings
within the Naval Air Station Alameda Historic District at Alameda Point.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
None.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason,
Supervising Planner.
G:\PLANNING|HAB\AGENMIN)Agenmin.06/04-06-06/04-06-06 DRAFT min 1.doc
Minutes of April 6, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-04-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-05-04,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Recording Secretary Gremminger
called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members Iverson
and Lynch.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Board member Tilos.
STAFF PRESENT:
Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director, Emily
Pudell, Planner II, Miriam Delegrange, Development
Services (DSD), Debbie Gremminger, Recording Secretary.
MINUTES:
M/S to approve the April 6, 2006 minutes as presented. 4-0-1.
Ayes:
4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
ACTION ITEMS:
1.
Certificate of Approval - CA06-0007 - Applicant: The New Zealander - 1400 Webster
Street. The applicants request approval to relocate the historically designated Croll's sign by
lifting it approximately 12-inches. The sign is being raised to accommodate the addition of the
tenant's business signage. The site is located at 1400 Webster Street within a C-C, Community
commercial Zoning District.
Emily Pudell summarized the staff report. Ms. Pudell informed the Board that he applicant has
informed staff that he is not proposing to restore the existing sign as it states on the application
for the Certificate of Approval. He has discovered that doing so could possibly damage the
historic sign and would be too expensive. Staff is recommending approval of the Certificate of
Approval.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Sherri Steig, WABA spoke in favor of the Certificate of Approval.
Nolan Steig spoke in favor of the Certificate of Approval.
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened the
Minutes of May 4, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-05-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-05-04,2,"floor to Board discussion.
In response to Board Member Lynch's inquiry regarding if a historic sign survey has ever been
done, Ms. Pudell stated no.
Ms. Pudell stated that the proposal to raise the existing Croll's 12-inches from its current position
so that the new tenant signage can meet the current height requirements.
M/S (Miller, Lynch) to approve Certificate of Approval, CA06-0007, for the alteration of a
historically designated sign at 1400 Webster Street. 4-0-1.
Ayes:
4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1.
Motion carries.
2.
Certificate of Approval - CA06-0008 - Applicant: Dan Adams for Dale and Kay
Emerson - 1150 Bay Street. The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to alter more than
thirty percent (30%) of the value of a historically designated residential building located at the
above address for the purpose of remodeling a 1970's addition. The site is located at 1150 Bay
Street within an R-1, One-Family Residence Zoning District. (EP) Item 2
Ms. Pudell summarized staff report. Staff is recommending approval of Certificate of Approval,
CA06-0008, with conditions as stated in the draft resolution.
There were no speaker slips. Chair Anderson opened the floor for board discussion.
The Board is in favor of approving the Certificate of Approval with the following revised
conditions:
1. Revise the proposed roofline above the dwelling's main entrance to a style that is more
compatible with the building's architectural style, subject to review and approval by
planning staff as part of the Major Design Review process.
2.
Revise the plans for the second-story rear deck to include supporting posts, columns, or
decorative brackets to establish a more substantial feeling to its appearance, subject to
review and approval by Planning staff as part of the Major Design Review process.
3. Revise your plans to use a more appropriate material and design for the front landing,
including the guardrail, handrail, and balustrade, subject to review and approval by
planning staff as part of the Major Design Review process.
M/S (Lynch, Anderson) to approve Certificate of Approval, CA06-0008, with the revised
conditions. 4-0-1.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: 1. Motion carries.
Minutes of May 4, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-05-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-05-04,3,"3.
Certificate of Approval - CA06-0009 - Applicant: Mohamed Elhashash - 1530 & 153 2
Ninth Street. The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent
(30%) of the value of three historically designated single-family homes, located at the above
addresses for the purposes of remodeling and restoring the buildings. The site is located at 1530
and 1532 Ninth Street within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. (EP)
Ms. Pudell summarized staff report. Staff is recommending approval of Certificate of Approval
CA06-0009, with conditions as stated in draft resolution.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing
Li-Shung Fu, Architect, spoke in favor of the Certificate of Approval.
Dick Rutter, 2205 Clinton Ave., stated that the golden mean has not been properly applied. He is
not in favor of approving the Certificate of Approval.
Birgitt Evans, AAPS, concurs with Dick Rutter. She is not in favor of approving the Certificate
of Approval.
Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline St., is not in favor of approving the Certificate of Approval.
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson opened the floor to board discussion.
Board Member Lynch stated that there should be more detail around the windows to match other
Victorian cottages built around the same time. She would like the new siding to match the
existing. She is not in favor of approving this application.
Vice-Chair Miller stated that if this was a restoration, then they should restore it back to original.
He stated that raising the house would drastically change the appearance of the building. He is
not in favor of approving this application.
Board Member Iverson is not in favor of approving the application.
Chair Anderson would like all windows replacements to be wood. She agrees with the Board
and is not in favor of approving this project.
Ms. Woodbury requested the Board re-open the public hearing to allow Miriam Delegrange,
DSD, to speak.
M/S to re-open the public hearing. 4-0-1.
Ayes: 4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1.
Motion carries.
Minutes of May 4, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-05-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-05-04,4,"Ms. Delegrange, project manager, informed the Board that this project will be providing much
needed affordable housing. She also stated that the reason for raising the house is to provide
ADA access. The reason why they are proposing vinyl windows on the sides of the house is so
they can be energy efficient, however she does not have a problem with changing them all to
wood.
Chair Anderson closed the public hearing.
M/S to approve the Certificate of Approval, CA06-0009, to alter more than thirty percent (30 %)
of the value of three historically designated single-family homes at 1530, 1532 and 1532 1/2 9th
Street. 0-4-1.
Ayes: 0; Noes: 4; Absent: 1.
Motion denied.
REPORTS:
None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch would like to invite the Board to the Alameda Legacy Home Tour. Also,
docents are needed.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Woodbury informed the Board that staff would like to schedule a study session to review the
Design Guidelines.
On May 2, 2006 the City Council proclaimed May 2006 as National Preservation Month.
Staff has hired a consultant to assist with the revisions to the Historical Preservation Ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cathy Woodbury
Planning & Building Director
G:\PLANNING|HAB\AGENMIN\Agenmin.06/04-06-06/04-06-06 DRAFT min 1.doc
Minutes of May 4, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-05-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-07-06,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. Recording Secretary Gremminger
called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members Irons
and Iverson
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Board member Lynch
STAFF PRESENT:
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, Doug Vu,
Planner III, Debbie Gremminger, Recording Secretary.
MINUTES:
M/S (Miller, Iverson) to approve the May 4, 2006 minutes as presented. 4-0-1.
Ayes:
4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
This item will be continued to the next meeting a full board is present.
ACTION ITEMS:
1.
Certificate of Approval - CA06-0011 - 2629 Central Ave. Applicant: Hwan Kim. The
applicant requests a Certificate of Approval for the removal of two coast live oak trees (Quercus
agrifolia) that are located along the right side of the property. The trees are causing a potentially
hazardous condition due to their proximity to the eave of the house. The site is located at 2629
Central Avenue, within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, introduced Doug Vu, Planner III, who was
recently hired to the Planning & Building Department.
Staff member Doug Vu briefly summarized the staff report. Mr. Vu stated that both the
applicant and Elite Tree Service, Inc. are concerned about the location of the trees and their
potential to cause damage to the foundation of the two homes located at 2629 and 2633 Central
Ave. AMC Section 13-21.7(c) requires that any protected oak tree that is removed shall be
replaced with a minimum of two oak trees of ten gallon size or larger. Since there is a lack of
sufficient space on the applicant's property to replace these trees, the Planning & Building
Director recommends that a $375.00 fee, equal to the cost of three fifteen gallon trees, be
Minutes of July 6, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-07-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-07-06,2,"collected on behalf of the Recreation & Parks Department for the purchase and planting of these
trees in a City park. Staff recommends approval of CA06-0011, with conditions as stated in draft
resolution.
There were no speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened the floor to
Board discussion.
Vice-Chair Miller stated that he agrees with the staff recommendation.
In response to Vice-Chair Miller's question regarding why an arborist report was not submitted
with this application, Mr. Vu stated that according to the Ordinance, a report from a certified
arborist is required only if the health of the tree is in question.
Chair Anderson stated that the Board should discuss this section of the Ordinance when the
revisions to the Ordinance are reviewed by the Board in the near future.
Board Member Irons stated that he agrees with staff recommendation.
Board Member Iverson stated that she appreciates that this is being brought before the Board
prior to removing the trees.
M/S (Iverson, Miller) to approve Certificate of Approval, CA06-0011, at 2629 Central Avenue
with conditions as stated in draft resolution. 4-0-1.
Ayes:
4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
2.
Proposed Addition to the Official Naming List for City Facilities and Streets. Request by
the City Council to add the name ""Willie Stargell"" to the City's Official Naming List for
Facilities and Streets.
Staff member Doug Vu summarized the staff report and informed the Board that the the City
Council has inquired about the possibility of renaming a west-end street to honor Willie Stargell
pursuant to requests from the Encinal High School Alumni Association. The Street Naming
Policy currently states that the Historical Advisory Board must approve additions or deletions to
the List based on written documentation of the historic importance of the name in Alameda
history. As a prominent sports figure in Alameda's history, Staff has determined that Willie
Stargell is eligible to be added to the List.
M/S (Iverson, Miller) to approve the addition of Willie Stargel to the Official Naming List for
City Facilities and Streets as stated in draft Resolution. 4-0-1.
Ayes:
4;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
Minutes of July 6, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-07-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-07-06,3,"REPORTS:
None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
The following Written Communications were distributed to the Board. No action was taken.
Letter dated June 29, 2006 from Dian Coler-Dark, President, Alameda Museum, to the Mayor
and Council Members regarding the Carnegie Library Building.
Updated Historical Advisory Board Member phone number list.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Ciplin Eleaser
Cynthia Eliason, Secretary
Historical Advisory Board
S:\PLANNING\HAB\AGENMIN\Agenmin.06\approved minutes07-06-06 approved min.doc
Minutes of July 6, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-07-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-07-07,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Vice Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:07 pm. Vice-Chair Miller called
the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Miller, Boardmembers Lynch & Tilos.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Chair Anderson.
STAFF PRESENT:
Acting Planning & Building Director Greg McFann, Allen
Tai, Planner III, Emily Pudell, Planner II, Recording
Secretary Debbie Gremminger.
MINUTES:
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to continue the minutes of the Special meeting of March 10, 2005 due to
lack of quorum. 3-0-1,
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
l;
Motion carries.
M/S (Tilos/Lynch) to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 7, 2005 with
corrections. 3-0-1.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
M/S (Lynch/Tilos) to continue the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 2, 2005 due to
lack of quorum.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
Boardmember Lynch has provided additional information regarding the constructions dates
and historicial significance of the projects to be heard tonight for the Board's review.
Minutes of July 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-07-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-07-07,2,"ACTION ITEMS: (Discussion/Action)
1.
CA05-0008, 1305-1311 Park Street, Applicant: Italo Calpestri for Anita Ng. The
applicants request a Certificate of Approval for demolition of previous additions, including an
un-reinforced masonry addition, at the rear of an existing one and two story commercial
building. The demolition is part of a proposal to replace the previous additions with a new two-
story rear addition. The proposed demolition exceeds 30% of the value of the structure
and requires a Certificate of Approval pursuant to AMC Subsection 13-21.7. The building is
listed as a Contributing Structure in the Park Street C-C, Community Commercial Zoning
District.
Allen Tai, Planner III, briefly reviewed staff report as presented. Mr. Tai stated that the
proposed demolition is part of a project to build a new two-story addition that will replace the
two existing additions at the rear of the property. No changes are proposed to the façade or sides
of the main building; the historical fabric will not be disturbed.
In order for these additions to be considered historical resources, they must possess and retain
enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources. There
is no evidence that these structures exhibit any architectural or historical merit. Furthermore,
these additions are incompatible with the design of the existing main building. Staff recommends
that the Board approve the Certificate of Approval as stated in draft Resolution.
Vice-Chair Miller opened the floor to public comment.
Chris Buckley, 1017 San Antonio stated that a state historic resources inventory form was done
for this property. The property as a whole including the addition is part of the Park Street
National Register District. The reference period extends from the late 1800's to 1900. The brick
addition does have historical significance. He stated that staff has been applying the National
Register Criteria to all of the properties before the Board tonight. This criteria should only be
used if it is designated as a monument. He feels this property does fall under criteria B, from the
Historical Building Study List which states ""A resource which, due to its scale, massing,
materials, style, and other features, is similar to a nearby ""N"" or ""S"" resource and serves as
Background support for it.""
Italo Calpestri, architect, stated the proposal is to build a new two-story addition that will replace
the two existing additions at the rear of the property. The front façade will not be affected.
Parking that currently exists in the rear will also remain as it is. Mr. Calpestri informed the
Board that a Building Inspection Report has been submitted which concluded the existing
additions are structurally inadequate under current seismic safety standards and require
significant alterations in order to render the structures safe. Mr. Calpestri thanked staff Planner
Allen Tai for his work on this project.
Minutes of July 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-07-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-07-07,3,"Boardmember Lynch would like clarification on the Environmental Determination in staff report.
Allen Tai stated that staff determined this project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption because
the portion of the building to be demolished is an accessory structure and is not historically
significant therefore, this project qualifies for a Catorgial Exemption from CEQA Guidelines per
Section 15301 (1)(3).
Boardmember Lynch asked Mr Calpestri if any thought was given to saving the structure?
Mr. Calpestri responded by stating that the existing rear building was constructed with
unreinforced masonry and does not blend with the front of the building. He also stated the the
current space is unsuitable for tenant use and would not be financially viable to keep.
Vice-Chair Miller closed public comments and opened Board discussion.
Boardmember Lynch would like staff to revise the draft resolution so it is clear that it refers only
to the two rear accessory buildings and not the front façade. Staff noted the revision.
Boardmember Tilos feels the accessory structures are as historically significant as the main
building and does meet the criteria to be a historic resource.
Motion (Lynch) to approve Certicate of Approval CA05-0008, as stated in draft resolution with
the correction that staff revise the language so it is clear that this applies only the accessory
buildings in the rear of the building.
Motion failed due to lack of a second.
M/S (Tilos, Lynch) to continue this item until such time there is a full Board. 3-0-1,
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
2.
CA05-0011, 1013 Fair Oaks Avenue, Applicant: Derwin Cheung/David Deng. The
applicants request a Certificate of Approval to remove a Coast Live Oak tree (Quercus Agrifolia)
located along the western edge of the property. The tree has a 24"" diameter and is only 30"" from
the main building's brick foundation. Per an Arborist, the tree is interfering with the proposed
foundation reconstruction and would become unstable as part of that process. The site is located
at 1013 Fair Oaks Avenue, within an R-1, One Family Residence Zoning District.
Emily Pudell, Planner II briefly reviewed staff report as presented. Per the arborist report
submitted by the applicant, removal of this tree, located on the western side of the property, will
stabilize their property and eliminate the potential of the tree causing damage to the neighboring
property. Staff recommends approval Certificate of Approval CA05-0011 with conditions as
stated in draft Resolution.
Minutes of July 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-07-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-07-07,4,"Vice-Chair Miller stated there where no speaker slips submitted, and opened the floor for Board
discussion.
Boardmember Lynch informed the Board she visited the property. The tree appears to be in bad
shape and is in favor of removing the tree for health and safety reasons.
Vice-Chair Miller is also in favor of removing the tree.
Staff informed the Board that the Recreation & Park Department has been accepting fees in lui of
replacement trees. They have not found locations for the replacement trees as of yet. Staff will
notify the Board when and where a replacement tree has been planted.
M/S (Tilos, Lynch) to approve Certificate of Approval CA05-0011, to remove a Coast Live Oak
tree (Quercus Agrifolia) located along the western edge of the property at 1013 Fair Oaks as
stated in in draft Resolution. 3-0-1.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
3.
CA04-0006, 826 Lincoln Avenue, Applicant: Cindy Li. The applicant is requesting a
Certificate of Approval to demolish the existing single-family dwelling, located at the above
address, for the purposes of clearing a dilapidated structure from the site and constructing a new
residential duplex. The site is located at 826 Lincoln Avenue, within an R-4, Neighborhood
Residential Zoning District.
Emily Pudell, Planner II, briefly reviewed staff report as presented. Applicant wishes to
completely demolish a single-family dwelling. This building is not listed on the Historical
Building Study List but was built prior to 1942. The condition of the existing building is poor
according to a building inspection report letter prepared in 2004. Permit records indicate the
building has been significantly altered over time.
Staff feels the existing building is not historically significant and does not meet the criteria to be
considered a historical resource. Staff recommends approval of CA04-0006.
Vice-Chair Miller opened the floor for Public comment.
Ivan Chiu, designer with Bill Wong Engineers, who spoke on behalf of the applicant informed
the Board that they are ready to proceed with proposed project upon approval. Applicants plan
to construct a new duplex on this site.
Boardmember Lynch asked Mr. Chiu if there are parking spaces provided in rear of proposed
siteplan. Mr. Chiu answered in the affirmative.
Christopher Buckley, 1017 San Antonio Ave., agrees with staff that this property does not have
historical significance but feels staff is applying the wrong criteria to this property as well. Staff
Minutes of July 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-07-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-07-07,5,"should not be applying the National Register Criteria. In the Ordinance, the National Register
Criteria is sited in the definition, Sec 13-21-2, as part of the definition as Historical Monument.
It is not referenced in the definition of a Historical Building. Study List. Currently there is no
specific criteria in the Ordinance stating what is or what isn't eligible for the Study List. He
feels this should be addressed in a future meeting. However, he feels the building does not meet
the criteria of the study list. He also stated that he feels that the design quality of the replacement
structure should be of the same quality of what it is replacing. He is in favor of the proposed
design, with minor changes.
Staff noted his changes, and informed Mr. Buckley that he may submit his comments during the
design review process.
Vice-Chair Miller opened the floor to Board discussion.
Boardmember Lynch stated this building does not have any historic value, but would like staff to
work closely with the applicant on the design of the proposed project.
M/S (Lynch, Tilos) to approve Certificate of Approval,CA04-000 to approve the demolition of
an existing residence at 826 Lincoln Ave. as stated in draft Resolution. 3-0-1.
Ayes: 3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
4.
CA05-0010, 1815 Sherman Street, Applicant: Jules Garabaldi. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent (30%) of the historic
structure, located at the above address, for the purposes of remodeling the existing single-family
dwelling. The site is located at 1815 Sherman Street, within an R-2, Two Family Residence
Zoning District.
Emily Purdell reviewed staff report as presented. She would like the Board to omit paragraph 2
of Section III due to a staff error. The demolition plan that was submitted shows retention of the
majority of the dwelling's exterior walls; including all of the first-floor front elevations and the
majority of the first-floor side and rear elevations. The proposal does not include any changes to
the existing porch area. Staff used the same criteria as prior application, and concluded that
although there is some local history associated with this property, it is not significant enough to
consider this building a historic resource.
Staff feels the proposed additions and remodel of this single family home are restricted to the
rear elevations and maintains the character of the existing structure, therefore staff recommends
approval of the Certifiate of Approval as stated in the draft Resolution.
Vice-Chair Miller opened the floor for public comment.
Jules Garibaldi, owner, informed the Board that he grew up in this house, would like to expand
the upper level bedrooms and feels the best way to do this is to dismantle and reconstruct. There
Minutes of July 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-07-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-08-03,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. Secretary Eliason called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members Lynch,
Irons and Iverson.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None.
STAFF PRESENT:
Cynthia Eliason, Secretary, Doug Garrison, Planner III, Doug
Vu, Planner III, Miriam Delegrange, Development Services,
Debbie Gremminger, Recording Secretary.
MINUTES:
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 2, 2006.
M/S and unanimous to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 2, 2006 as
presented. 5-0-0.
Ayes:
5;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
0.
Motion carries.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 6, 2006.
M/S and unanimous to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 2, 2006 as
presented. 5-0-0.
Ayes: 5;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
0.
Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS: (Item continued from the July 6, 2006 Meeting).
Board Member Lynch nominated and the Board voted unanimously to re-elect Nancy Anderson
as Chair and Randall Miller as Vice-Chair.
Minutes of August 3, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-08-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-08-03,2,"ACTION ITEMS:
1.
Certificate of Approval - CA06-00012 - 1530 & 1532 Ninth Street. Applicant: Mohamed
Elhashash. The applicant is requesting a new Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty
percent (30%) of the value of three historically designated single-family homes. The site is
located at 1530 and 1532 Ninth Street within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner, presented staff report. On May 4, 2006, the Historical
Advisory Board acted to deny a Certificate of Approval CA06-0009. The applicant has since
been working with Staff and representatives of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
(AAPS) to revise plans to address design concerns raised at the May HAB meeting. Staff is
recommending the Board approve the Certificate of Approval CA06-0012, with conditions as
stated in the draft Resolution.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Miriam Delagrange, Project Manager, Development Services, spoke in favor of the revised
design.
Dick Rutter, AAPS, reviewed a letter submitted by AAPS and is in favor of approving the
Certificate of Approval.
Li-Sheng Fu, architect, spoke in favor of revised design. He informed the Board that he is
willing to incorporate AAPS's suggestions into the plans. He informed the Board that the plans
for the rear building have not changed and that all the exterior doors will match the existing
doors.
Chris Buckley, AAPS, spoke in favor of approving the Certificate of Approval with the
conditions stated in letter submitted by AAPS.
Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline St. spoke in opposition of the revised design.
There were no further speaker slips, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened the
floor to Board discussion.
Board Member Lynch thanked the applicant for his attempt to incorporate the Board's
suggestions into the revised plan. She feels that the revised plans do not include enough of the
original design details. She would like to see the details match a photograph of a similar house
built around the same time which is located down the street.
Board Member Irons is in favor of approving the revised plans. He asked for clarification from
Board Member Lynch as to what details she is referring to. He stated that it was his
understanding that design details does not fall under this Board's purview.
Minutes of August 3, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-08-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-08-03,3,"Ms. Eliason stated that the Board should only be considering the partial demolition of the
existing structure, not the proposed design. Board Member Lynch disagreed with staff and read
from the Municipal Code that the HAB is charged with the responsibility ""to encourage new
building and developments that will be harmonious with existing buildings and neighborhoods""
Board Member Lynch added that the Board can't encourage harmonious designs if it doesn't see
those designs.
Vice-Chair Miller is not in favor of approving the Certificate of Approval. He feels this project
would create parking issues in the neighborhood.
Board Member Iverson also thanked the architect for revising the plans. She would like to see
the front detail match an existing house which is located down the street.
M/S (Irons, Miller) to approve Certificate of Approval CA06-0012, to alter more than thirty
percent of the value of three historically designated single-family homes located at 1530 & 1532
1/2 Ninth Street. 1-4-0.
Ayes: 1 (Irons); Noes: 4; Absent: 0; Motion failed. Item deemed denied.
M/S (Lynch, Iverson) and unanimous to continue this item to a future meeting to allow the
applicant to incorporate the Board's comments into the plans. 5-0-0.
Ayes: 5;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
0.
Motion carries.
Secretary Eliason stated that staff will inform the Board if the applicant chooses to revise the
plans.
2.
a.
Certificate of Approval - CA06-0017 - 2020 Oak Street. Applicant: Richard
Hornberger. Applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to move an existing, pre-1909 dwelling
from its existing site to the corner of Oak Street and Blanding Avenue. Both sites are within the
M-2, General Industrial Zoning District. and;
b.
Certificate of Approval - CA06-0018 - 2319 Clement Avenue. Applicant:
Richard Hornberger Applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to permit the demolition of a
vacant pre-1909 industrial building. The site is located within the M-2, General Industrial
(Manufacturing) Zoning District.
Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner presented the staff report. The Board will be considering
two separate Certificates of Approval. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval to
move an existing residence from a site at 2020 Oak Street to the corner of Oak Street and
Blanding Ave. Further, the applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to permit the demolition
of the industrial building located at 2319 Clement Ave. These requests are part of a project to
expand the Perforce Software facility located at 2320 Blanding Ave. Staff is recommending
approval of CA06-0017 and CA06-0018 with the conditions as stated in the draft resolutions.
Minutes of August 3, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-08-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-08-03,4,"Chair Anderson opened the Public hearing.
Ken Carvallo and Christopher Buckley, AAPS, spoke in favor of approving both Certificates of
Approvals.
There were no further speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened the
floor to Board discussion.
The Board had no concerns with either proposal.
M/S (Iverson, Lynch) and unanimous to approve CA06-0017, to move an existing, pre-1909
dwelling from its existing site to the corner of Oak Street and Blanding Ave. and CA06-0018, to
permit the demolition of a vacant pre-1909 industrial building located at 2319 Clement Ave. with
conditions as stated in draft resolutions. 5-0-0.
Ayes:
5;
Noes:
0;
Absent: 0;
Motion carries.
3.
Certificate of Approval - CA06-0015 - Applicant: Phong T. & Lieu Dinh - 1343
Fernside Blvd. The applicants request a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent
of the value of a pre-1942 single family residence. The proposed work includes the addition of
approximately 1,450 square feet first story and new second story for an attached garage and
living space, removal/replacement of the exterior siding, windows, interior walls and roof. The
site is located at 1343 Fernside Blvd. within an R-1, One Family Residence Zoning District.
Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner, presented the staff report. In 2006, the applicant received
several permit approvals for repair and replacement work to the structure, which cumulatively
have resulted in exceeding the thirty percent (30%) removal provisions within a five (5) year
period. In addition, the applicant is requesting further demolition to the roof system as well as a
new addition to the structure to add a two-car garage and additional second-story living area.
Staff is recommending that the Board 1) include 1343 Fernside Blvd. on the Historical Building
Study List as an ""H"" designation, 2) deny the portion of the Certificate of Approval for
demolition associated with the proposed addition of a two-car garage and living area and 3)
approve the portion of the Certificate of Approval associated with window and siding
replacements and new roof with conditions as stated in draft resolution.
Ms. Eliason informed the Board that all comments made by the Board will be forwarded to the
Planning Board.
Chair Anderson commended staff on their report and opened the Public Hearing.
Andy Anderson, 1348 Fernside, spoke in favor of the project and read a letter from Sylvia
Hudson, Heather and Erin Lambert, who were also in favor of moving this project forward.
Minutes of August 3, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-08-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-08-03,5,"Richard Rutter, AAPS, spoke in favor of staff's recommendation to deny the Certificate of
Approval for the addition.
Gary Longoria, 3292 Briggs, opposes the proposed addition. He stated that it will block his
windows in living room dining room and bedroom. He is also concerned with the dead oak tree
on the rear of the property.
Tom Pavao, 1337 Fernside, spoke in favor of staff's recommendation to deny the addition.
Chris Buckley, AAPS, commended staff on their report. He reviewed comments submitted by
AAPS and would like them incorporated into the draft Resolution.
Betsy Matheson, 1185 Park Ave., is not in favor of proposed addition. She would like to see this
property included on the Historic Building Study List.
Phong Dinh, applicant/owner, informed the Board that prior to purchasing the property, he was
told by Staff that the addition would be approved. Once construction began, he discovered
additional damage done by a previous fire. He noted that he has tried to comply with all of
staff's requests.
Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline St., commended staff on their report. He is not in favor of the
proposed addition.
There were no further speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened the
floor to Board discussion.
Board Member Irons commended staff on their report. He noted that as a contractor,
he
understands the cost of restoring this building would be very high.
Board Member Iverson also commended staff on their report. She would like the building
restored to the way it looked in the 1979 photo.
Vice-Chair Miller spoke in favor of staff's recommendations. He would also like to see the
house restored to the way it looked in the 1979 photo.
Board Member Lynch spoke in favor of including the property on the Historic Building Study
list. She would like a 1979 photo be provided to all property owners of listed houses. She noted
that she is not in favor of the proposed addition. She pointed out that the staff report mentioned
the shutters as a signature detail of the Craftsman style. However those particular shutters are
not original, nor are shutters a Craftsman style hallmark.
Chair Anderson noted the unique detailing that is replicate of that craftsman style cottage. She is
in favor of including to the Historic Building Study List as an H designation. She would like to
see the property restored to the way it was in 1979. She stated the dormer windows on the front
façade should not be changed as they are a very important characteristic of this style of house.
Minutes of August 3, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-08-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-08-03,6,"In response to Board Member Irons inquiry regarding whether the proposed addition is within
the purview of this Board, Ms. Eliason stated that the demolition of the side walls for the
proposed addition is under the purview of this Board because the applicant has exceeded 30 %
over a period of five years.
Board Member Irons noted that if this Board requires the applicant to restore this back to the way
it looked in 1979, then the applicant may again apply for an addition, without coming before this
Board. That would be very costly to the property owner, and he is within his rights to build an
addition on his property.
After separately reviewing each condition, the Board approved staffs recommendation for
conditions one and three. The Board would like conditions two, four, five and six be revised to
incorporate AAPS's comments.
M/S (Lynch, Iverson) and unanimous to include 1343 Fernside Blvd. to the Historic Building
Study List as an H designation. 5-0-0.
Ayes: 5;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
0;
Motion carries.
M/S (Irons, Miller) to approve the portion of the Certificate of Approval CA06-0015, associated
with window and siding replacements with revised conditions submitted by AAPS. 5-0-0.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Motion carries.
M/S (Miller, Lynch) and unanimous to deny the partial demolition associated with the proposed
addition of an existing dwelling at 1343 Fernside. 5-0-0.
Ayes:
5;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
0;
Motion carries.
Board member Lynch stated that she would like staff to give updates on this project as it moves
forward.
Chair Anderson called a 10 minute recess.
Chair Anderson reconvened the meeting.
4.
Certificate of Approval CA06-0014 - Applicant: Sebastian Martinez for Raul Reyes
Tapia, 1534 Buena Vista Avenue. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval for
demolition of the remainder of a residential structure built prior to 1942, located at the above
address, for the purposes of constructing a new single-family dwelling. The site is located within
an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Doug Vu, Planner III, presented the staff report. He informed the Board that the applicants are
requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow demolition of the remaining thirty-five (35) percent
Minutes of August 3, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-08-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-08-03,7,"of a residential structure at 1534 Buena Vista Avenue that was destroyed by two fires. The
building was constructed in 1909, but is not listed on the Historical Building Study List.
Mr. Vu stated that the proposed project is brought before the Board because it involves partial
demolition of a structure built prior to 1942. Given the amount of damage already sustained to
the building, the applicants are proposing to remove the remaining garage and three storage
rooms on the ground floor in order to construct a new single-family dwelling. Staff will continue
to work with the applicants to ensure the new residence is consistent with the intended design
approach and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff is recommending approval
of Certificate of Approval, CA06-0014, to allow the demolition of the remainder of the structure
at 1534 Buena Vista Ave., with conditions as stated in draft Resolution.
In response to Board Member Lynch's inquiry regarding the proposed new single-family
dwelling, Mr. Vu stated that staff will consider any comments made by this Board tonight during
the Design Review process.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline St., requested that the owner try to salvage any of the historic
materials during the demolition.
Sebastian Martinez, architect, stated that he will make every effort to match original house.
There were no further speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened the
floor to Board discussion.
The Board thanked the applicant for reviewing the plans for the new single-family dwelling.
M/S (Irons, Lynch) and unanimous to approve Certificate of Approval, CA06-0014, for the
demolition of the remainder of an existing dwelling at 1534 Buena Vista Ave. 5-0-0.
Ayes:
5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Motion carries.
5.
Certificate of Approval - CA06-0022 - Applicant: Fargo Farnesi Inc. - 2427 Clement
Ave. The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to demolish more than thirty percent
(30%) of a commercial structure, portions of which were constructed prior to 1942, located at the
above address for the purpose of expanding the existing business. The site is located at 2427
Clement Ave. within an M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District.
Doug Garrison, Planner III, presented the staff report. Due to the scope of existing structural
problems, it may be necessary to completely demolish and then rebuild the entire building. The
reconstructed building would incorporate the important design elements and building materials
of the original structure. The front façade of the building contains the architectural details that
are of most interest stylistically and as an historic resource. These details will be preserved or
rebuilt with similar materials.
Minutes of August 3, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 7",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-08-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-08-03,8,"Mr. Garrison stated that staff along with the applicant, held a neighborhood meeting and
redesigned the original proposal to meet the concerns of the neighbors.
Staff is recommending approval of Certificate of Approval CA06-0022, for the demolition of a
commercial structure, located at 2427 Clement Ave.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Dick Rutter, AAPS, is not in favor of this project because of the 100 ft height limit. He would
like to see the community try to lower the height limit.
Shawn Smith, architect for the owner, spoke in favor of project.
In response to Chair Anderson inquiry regarding the use of the new structure, Mr. Smith stated
that currently this property houses a commercial wood cabinet shop.
Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline St., is also concerned with the height limit.
There were no further speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened the
floor to Board discussion.
Chair Anderson is in favor of approving this project, with the exception of the height and the
clapboard siding.
M/S and unanimous to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m. 5-0-0.
Board Member Iverson spoke in favor of rebuilding the front façade to match original storefront.
She also noted that the proposed height will be too large for the surrounding area.
Board Member Irons spoke in favor of staff's recommendation to grant the Certificate of
Approval for the demolition.
In response to Board Member Iron's inquiry regarding whether the height limit and proposed
design of the new building falls under this Board's purview, Ms. Eliason stated that this Board
should only be considering the demolition of the existing structure. Ms. Eliason stated that staff
would consider their comments during the Design Review process.
Board Member Lynch does not think the front façade should remain. She would like Condition 3
be removed from the draft Resolution. She also stated that the proposed project is too big for
the surrounding area.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve Certificate of Approval CA06-0022, for the demolition of a
commercial structure, subject with conditions one and two only, and delete condition three from
draft Resolution. 4-1-0.
Minutes of August 3, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 8",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-08-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-08-03,9,"Ayes: 4; Noes: 1; (Iverson); Absent: 0; Motion carries.
REPORTS:
6.
Review and Comment on Proposed Revisions to the Historical Preservation Ordinance.
Staff is requesting this item be continued to the Regular meeting of September 7, 2006.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch presented the Board a copy of the book ""Taking Care of Business,
Historic Commercial Buildings of the Island City"" by Woodruff Minor.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason, Secretary
Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNING|HAB\AGENMIN)Agenmin.06/08-03-06/08-03-06 DRAFT min.doc
Minutes of August 3, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 9",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-08-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-09-07,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:06 pm. Recording Secretary
Gremminger called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Member lrons.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Board Member Iverson, Board Member Lynch absent
for Roll Call. She arrived to the meeting at 7:58 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT:
Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director, Terri
Highsmith, City Attorney, Andrew Thomas, Planning
Services Manager, Vincent Marsh, Planner, Simone
Wolter, Planner I, Debbie Gremminger, Recording
Secretary.
MINUTES:
M/S to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 3, 2006 as corrected.
3-0-2.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
2.
Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
ACTION ITEMS:
None.
REPORTS:
1.
Review and Comment on Proposed Revisions to the Historical Preservation
Ordinance. Staff is requesting this item be continued.
2.
Overview of the Ralph M. Brown Act, presented by City Attorneys office.
Terri Highsmith, City Attorney, gave a presentation on compliance with Brown Act, or
Open Meeting Act. She began with a brief history of the concept behind the Brown act
which is meetings should be held in public. The people have a right to speak at every
meeting and to know what is on the agenda. There are four different kinds of meetings.
Regular meetings, set by Resolution, with a specific starting time and ending time.
Regular meeting agendas must be posted 72 hours prior to the meeting. Special
meetings are any meeting that is not a regular meeting and require 24 hour posting prior
Minutes of September 7, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-09-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-09-07,2,"to the meeting. An Emergency meeting, a situation of dire emergency in which the City
Council can call as early as one hour notice. And finally a Dire Emergency meeting
(terrorist attack) which does not need any notice.
In response to Chair Anderson's inquiry regarding where closed sessions fall, Ms.
Highsmith responded, that important exceptions to the open meeting act are done in
closed session such as, real property negotiations. Another example of a closed
session is a discussion with the City Attorney's office for matters which are already in
litigation or threats of lawsuit or threats that have come to us. Labor negotiations are
another exception. However closed sessions must be identified on the agenda with the
topic and the government code that applies. Once the closed session meeting is
adjourned, the Mayor must report action taken, if any. Once an item is completed,
everything that was discussed in closed session, except attorney-client privileged
information, must be disclosed to the public.
In response to Vice-Chair Miller's inquiry regarding examples of Emergency meetings,
Ms. Highsmith responded, earthquake, fire, city-wide emergency.
The three basic principles (or purpose) of the agenda are getting the public to the
meeting, (i.e., date, time, place), know what items will be discussed or required action,
and encourage participation. For the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) Regular meetings
must be posted 72 hours in advance. The agenda language should be stated such that
anyone reading it will know what is being discussed. Anything that is not in their
purview should not be on the agenda. For example, if a speaker comes before the
Board and begins to speak to something that the local body can't do anything about
such as a matter in a different city, the Chair should advise the speaker that they can't
do anything but take the issue to the appropriate venue.
Chair Anderson stated that the HAB is frequently told that they are discussing things
that are not in their purview.
Ms. Highsmith stated that the Board should not spend time discussing things that are
not in their purview, or worse take action on things that another Board might have
already acted upon. It is o.k. to refer them to another body. Rather than relay it to the
other venue for them. Ms. Highsmith noted that the Board should never take an action
on something that wasn't on the agenda. That will be a void action. Ms. Woodbury
added that the Board may ask staff to place an item on a future agenda.
The public may speak on any item on the agenda. Before the Board begins deliberation
the public has the right to speak so that it can be included in the Boards deliberation.
The public may speak on any item that is within the Board's jurisdiction that is not on the
agenda, during Oral Communications. You can not require the speaker to give their
name. The public has the right to have a copy of the meeting packets. In addition
if
someone wants to submit documents to the Board they must make a copy for the public
as well.
Minutes of September 7, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-09-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-09-07,3,"Chair Anderson inquired whether they, as a Board, have the right to refuse lengthy
documents which are distributed at the hearing. She does not think it is fair to comment
or use this in their deliberation if they don't have time to read it. Ms. Highsmith stated
that yes, you do have to let it come into the record, what you can say is ""Is there
something you would like to say for the record, or you may state for the record that this
was passed out at the meeting and are unable to take this in account when making my
deliberations."" What some jurisdictions do, is have rules as to at what point someone
can walk a document in before it will not be taken into the record. This must be a policy
change.
Chair Anderson asked if that can be established in our Historical Ordinance. Ms.
Highsmith stated she will look into that.
Ms. Highsmith stated that a Legislative Body has to comply with the Brown Act. In
Alameda, there are various citizens groups that work for the City Manager. A legislative
body is created and appointed by the City Council. Any Legislative Body can form a
Sub Committee of the Legislative Body, which must be less than a quorum, such as two
members. A portion of the Legislative Body can create a sub-committee to do the
research outside of the Legislative Body and not violate the Brown Act. The reason why
this is o.k., is because they are going to report back to the Board. If they are not a
decision making body, they usually meet prior to the decision making group. You may
only create a sub-committee in a pubic hearing so the public will know that it has been
created. They must have specific duties or be assigned to gather their data. The sub-
committee cannot make any decisions. They must report back to the Board at a time
that is noticed, and is on the agenda.
A meeting is anytime a quorum gets together and talks about matters within their
jurisdiction. All meetings have to be done in public with an agenda that has been
posted 72 hours in advance. To take action on any item, there must be at least 3
members (or a quorum). Three or more members may not get together for breakfast
and talk about matters that are within your jurisdiction. This includes e-mails. It is ok for
one member to send another member an e-mail, but then if the e-mail is forwarded to
another member then that is a violation of the Brown Act. Or if you are knowingly
sending separate e-mails to more than two Board Members, then that is a violation.
The public can always contact you to talk about anything that is coming up in the future
and try to persuade you to lend your support. Then they may go to another Board
member and so on and do the same thing. As long as they don't tell anyone that they
are making the rounds, it is not a Brown Act violation because you didn't know there
was a consensus building. In these situations, it might be a good idea to ask who else
they have talked to.
In response to Vice-Chair Miller's inquiry whether any discussion with the applicants,
or
site visits should be disclosed at the hearing, the answer is yes.
Minutes of September 7, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-09-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-09-07,4,"The applicant is entitled to understand, and have it put into record how and why the
Board made their decision, or what the findings were. If appealed then everything gets
put into the record, for the City Council and if the City gets sued, then all discussions
must be disclosed.
There are statutory exemptions, such as social occasions that more than three board
members may attend, as long as you don't talk about any items which fall under your
jurisdiction. You may also attend conferences together and meetings held in other
jurisdictions.
Board Member Lynch arrived at 7:58 p.m.
Chair Anderson stated that when a project is appealed to the City Council, are they (the
HAB) allowed to become part of the public in making comments if all of them got up at
individual times to reiterate what happens at their meeting? Ms. Highsmith stated that
you should get up and identify yourself as a board member but are speaking as a
citizen. You don't give up your right as a citizen by serving on a Board.
Board Member lrons stated that he was asked by the City Council, when he went to a
meeting and identified himself as an HAB member, but speaking as a citizen, what was
said at the HAB meeting. Ms. Highsmith stated that it is perfectly ok to refer them to the
minutes for a more accurate account. If you do go to another meeting and represent
yourself as an HAB member, be careful that you are properly saying what actually
occurred, because you are then speaking for the whole body. It is important to be really
true to your board.
When you violate the Brown Act, any action that was taken on that evening becomes
void. Such as, if an item wasn't properly described on the agenda you must re-notice
the public hearing. Another example is if the meeting was not properly advertised.
If
you refuse to re-do the meeting, then the person who is challenging may go to court for
a civil injunction stating the Brown Act was violated and you will have to pay Court
costs. It is better to just re-do the meeting within 30 days to be on the safe side.
The Board thanked Ms. Highsmith for her informative presentation.
3.
Overview of the Historical Advisory Board's roles and responsibilities, as
specified in the Alameda Municipal Code.
Ms. Woodbury, Planning & Building Director, gave the presentation. She began by
emphasizing that the HAB's purpose is to investigate and make recommendations to
the City Council on the use of grants from Federal and State agencies, private
foundations, or individuals; identify and protect historical resources in the city; review
the building study list, which includes updating, expanding or removing any buildings.
Another element is participating and developing a pubic outreach program for historical
preservation so they may get a better understanding of preserving a historic building.
Minutes of September 7, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-09-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-09-07,5,"When an application for a Certificate of Approval is before this Board, this board should
be looking at is whether or not this application is consistent with the Secretary of Interior
Standards and Adopted Design Guidelines. You must state the findings very clearly
when approving or denying a Certificate of Approval.
Board Member Lynch stated the HAB is also charged with the responsibility to
encourage new buildings and developments that will be harmonious with the existing
buildings and neighborhoods.
Ms. Woodbury stated that it is the purpose of Chapter 13-21 of the Municipal Code to
ensure that new buildings are harmonious with the existing buildings and
neighborhoods. Approving the design details is not under the purview of the Historical
Advisory Board. That is the jurisdiction of the Planning Board.
Chair Anderson stated that if the purpose of this HAB is to maintain the historical
character of the building, and there is no way of reviewing a design to see if those
issues have been incorporated, then it becomes useless.
Board Member lrons stated that for a Certificate of Approval for structures built prior to
1942 how can they determine if they are altering a historic structure if they don't know
what is proposed.
Ms. Woodbury stated that there is some guidance in the code as to what they may
consider when making the decision. If the building is already designated a historic
structure such as a monument, or listed on the Historical Building Study List, then the
Board may review what is proposed, to determine that it meets the adopted criteria. For
buildings (not designated as an Historical Monument) that were constructed prior to
1942, the Board is only looking at the building that is there to determine the value of that
structure, for the purposes of demolition. The Board may not get into the detail of the
proposed site plan or details.
Ms. Woodbury informed the Board that it is very important to state the findings which
support the Board's decision clearly for the record so it is clear how the Board came to
this decision in case of an appeal.
Chair Anderson stated she would like the process of applying for a Certificate of
Approval to be stated in the Historical Preservation Ordinance.
The Board thanked Ms. Woodbury for her informative presentation.
4.
AB 1234 Mandatory Ethics Training Requirements.
Ms. Woodbury informed the Board of the new law, AB 1234 Mandatory Ethics Training,
which requires elected and appointed officials to receive a minimum of two hours of
ethics training every two years. The deadline for this training is January 1, 2007
Minutes of September 7, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-09-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-09-07,6,"5.
Overview of the City of Alameda's responsibility as a Certified Local Government
(CLG) and the specific responsibilities of the Historical Advisory Board under the CLG
program.
Ms. Woodbury introduced Vincent Marsh, who is a contract planner. He gave a brief
history of his background in which he has extensive training in Historical Preservation.
Mr. Marsh gave a presentation on the requirements for the CLG program. CLG's must
comply with the five basic requirements as follows:
Enforce appropriate state and local laws and regulation for the designation and
protection of historic properties.
Establish an historic preservation review commission by local ordinance.
Maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties.
Provide for public participation in the local preservation program.
Satisfactorily perform responsibilities delegated to it by the state.
Ms. Woodbury would like the Board to develop a work program for the rest of the year.
Staff will agendize a workshop for a future meeting to discuss ideas.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch informed the Board of the upcoming Hometown Tour this month.
She would also like to begin to collect data on each of our Historical Monuments, for
posting on our City website. She will bring more information to the October meeting.
Board Member lrons would like information and background on the Golden Mean.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Woodbury introduced Simone Wolter, Planner I.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:17 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Éliason
Secretary Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNING\HABVAGENMINVAgenmin.06\09-07-06\09-07-06 FINAL min.doc
Minutes of September 7, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-09-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-10-05,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Recording Secretary
Gremminger called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Member lrons,
Iverson & Lynch.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None.
STAFF PRESENT:
Doug Garrison, Supervising Planner, Dennis Brighton,
Planner III, Debbie Gremminger, Recording Secretary.
MINUTES:
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 7, 2006.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the minutes of September 7, 2006 as amended. 5-0-0.
Ayes: 5;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
0; Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
ACTION ITEMS:
1.
Certificate of Approval - CA06-0027 - 2445 Encinal Avenue. - Applicant:
Emerson Brown - The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval to alter more
than thirty percent (30%) of a residential structure on the Historical Building Study List,
for the purpose of remodeling the existing single-family dwelling. The site is located at
2445 Encinal Avenue, within an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Dennis Brighton, Planner III, presented the staff report. On June 7, 2006, staff
approved an application for Major Design Review. The action was conditioned upon the
approval of the Certificate of Approval by the Historical Advisory Board. The building is
identified as a Background (B) resource in the Historical Building Study List.
The demolition involves the removal of later, non-contributory additions to the
residence. Therefore, the portion of the structure that would be demolished is not
original to the structure and does not represent the work of a master or possess high
Minutes of October 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-10-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-10-05,2,"artistic values. There are also no events associated with this property that make a
significant contribution to the history or cultural heritage of local or regional history.
Finally, the property is not associated with persons important to local, state or national
history. Staff is recommending approval of CA06-0027.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Emerson Brown, property owner, informed the Board that he was present if the Board
had any questions for him.
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and
opened the floor to Board discussion.
Chair Anderson requested to see a copy of the plans for the new addition. She stated
that in order for this Board to make an informed decision on the demolition Certificate of
Approval, the Board has to see what is being proposed. Board Member Lynch
concurred.
Chair Anderson stated that to approve a Certificate of Approval for demolition, the
Historical Advisory Board must find that the portion of the house that is proposed to be
demolished has no historical merit. But they may impose conditions of approval, which
pertain to the proposed new addition, which is why it is necessary to review the plans.
Mr. Garrison stated that if the Historical Advisory Board determines that the portion of
the structure, which is proposed for, does not have any historic merit, then you may
approve a Certificate of Demolition. If you do make the finding that the portion of the
structure proposed for demolition does have historical significance, then it may be
appropriate to impose conditions regarding the design review.
Chair Anderson advised the Board that this matter can be further discussed when the
revisions to the Historical Preservation Ordinance is before them.
M/S (Miller, Iverson) to approve Certificate of Approval, CA06-0027, for the demolition
of more than 30% of an existing dwelling at 2445 Encinal Avenue with the conditions
stated in draft resolution. 2-3-0.
Ayes:
2; (Miller, lrons);
Noes:
3; (Anderson, Iverson, Lynch); Absent:
0;
Motion is denied.
M/S (Anderson, Lynch) to approve the Certificate of Approval for demolition for 2445
Encinal with the revised condition that the proposed addition will be designed to be
architecturally similar to the existing bungalow style building and compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, subject to approval by the Planning staff as part of the Major
Design Review process, and to request Staff to forward the following suggestions to the
applicant.
Minutes of October 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-10-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-10-05,3,"1.
Details should be consistent with the original style of the building.
2.
Rafter tails need not be exposed. However the applicant wishes to handle the
gutters will be acceptable.
3.
Hip roof on garage,
4.
All windows that are visible from the street should be visually consistent to the
original structure.
Ayes:
5;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
0;
Motion
carries.
Mr. Garrison stated the Board's suggestions will be presented to the owner and if the
owner agrees he will incorporate their suggestions into the final design.
2.
Certificate of Approval - CA06-0030 - Grand Marina - Corner of Grand Street
and Fortman Way contained within Tract 7723 - Applicant: David Day for Warmington
Homes, California. The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval for 100% demolition
of eight existing pre-1942 accessory buildings. The site is located within an M-2,
General Industrial (Manufacturing) District.
Chair Anderson would like to recuse herself from this item due to a conflict of interest
with her employer.
Simone Wolter, Planner I, presented the staff report. Ms. Wolter informed the Board
that the 3.51-acre site of the proposed demolition is part of a larger 8.36-acre area that
would be covered by a new Master Plan encompassing the entirety of the Grand Marina
facility.
The review of city records shows that only two out of eight structures have obtained
building permits. It is reasonable to assume that all buildings were constructed prior to
1942. During a site visit to the property, staff noted that the structures at 2041-2051
Grand Street are severely dilapidated and other than 2051 Grand Street, none of the
structures appeared to be in active use.
Staff has determined that these structures lack integrity and would not qualify for local,
state or national registers.
Staff is recommending approval of Certificate of Approval CA06-0030, for the demolition
of eight existing pre-1942 accessory buildings located at Grand Marina, Tract 7723.
Vice-Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Andy McKinley, 2219 Grand St., spoke in favor of project. He stated that the buildings
are not only run down, but are unsafe.
Minutes of October 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-10-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-10-05,4,"There were no more speaker slips. Vice-Chair Miller closed the public hearing and
opened the floor to Board discussion.
In response to Vice-Chair Miller's inquiry regarding the number of homes that are
proposed, Ms. Woltter informed the Board that there are approximately 40 homes
proposed for this site.
The Board agreed with the staff report that none of the buildings have any historical
significance.
M/S (Lynch, Iverson) to approve Certificate of Approval CA06-0030, to demolish eight
commercial buildings built prior to 1942, located at Grand Marina. 4-0-1.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 1; Abstain: 1 (Anderson); Motion carries.
REPORTS:
None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (Discussion only)
Board member Lynch would like the Historical Monument page on the City website
updated. She has written articles telling the history of each Monument and would like
the articles linked to the Monument list. She is requesting the Board's input, and would
like to see this on a future agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Garrison introduced Zach Seal, Planner I.
ADJOURNMENT: 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason
Secrétary Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNINGIHABIAGENMIN\Agenmin.06/10-05-06/10-05-06 FINAL min.doc
Minutes of October 5, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-10-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-11-02,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Secretary Eliason called
the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Member lrons,
Iverson & Lynch.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None.
STAFF PRESENT:
Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director, Cynthia
Eliason Supervising Planner, Douglas Vu, Planner III,
Dennis Brighton Planner III, Latisha Jackson, Recording
Secretary.
MINUTES:
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 5, 2006.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the minutes of October 5, 2006 with corrections. 5-0-0.
Ayes: 5;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
0; Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
ACTION ITEMS:
1.
Certificate of Approval CA06-00012 - Li-Sheng Fu for Mohamed Elhashash
- 1532 1/2 (1534) 9th Street. The applicants are requesting a Certificate of Approval to
alter more than thirty percent (30%) of the value of one historically designated single-
family home, located at the above addresses for the purposes of remodeling and
rehabilitating the building. The site is located at 1532 1/2 (1534) Ninth Street within an
R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff has found that
despite the apparent age of the residence the building has no historical merit and
should be considered to the Historical Building Study List. Staff is recommending
approval of Certificate of Approval CA06-0012.
Minutes of November 2, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-11-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-11-02,2,"Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Thomas Towey, architect, spoke in favor of the project and made himself available to
answer any questions the Board may have.
Chair Anderson closed the public hearing, and opened the floor to Board discussion.
Board Member Lynch spoke in favor of the new design. She commended the architect
and Development Services for doing such a good job.
Chair Anderson agreed with Board Member Lynch.
M/S (Miller/Iverson) to approve the Certificate of Approval, CA06-0012, to alter more
than thirty percent of the assessed value of 1532 1/2 (1534) Ninth Street with the
conditions as stated in draft Resolution. 5-0-0.
Ayes:
5;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
0;
Motion carries.
2.
Certificate of Approval - CA06-0029 - 1373 Mound Street - Applicant: Diane
Bustos. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval for the removal of one
coast live oak tree (Quercus agrifolia) that is located in the front yard of the property.
The tree is promoting hazardous conditions due to its proximity to the house. The site is
located at 1373 Mound Street, within an R-1, One-Family Residence District. (DV)
Doug Vu, Planner III, presented the staff report. Staff is recommending approval of
CA06-0029.
There were no speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened the
floor to Board discussion.
Board Member Lynch asked about the fee that is charged for these applications and
who keeps track of it. Ms. Woodbury stated that a fee of $250.00, equal to the cost of
two replacement Coast live oak trees, must be submitted to the Planning & Building
Department, on behalf of the Recreation and Parks Department for the purchase and
planting of these trees in a City Park. Planning Division staff will advice the Historical
Advisory Board, in writing when the fee has been paid.
Chair Anderson was in favor of approving this application.
M/S (Anderson, Iverson) to approve the Certificate of Approval, CA06-0029, for the
removal of one Coast Live Oak tree at 1373, with conditions as stated in draft
Resolution. 5-0-0.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Motion carries.
Minutes of November 2, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-11-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-11-02,3,"3.
Certificate of Approval - CA06-0031 - 433 Taylor Ave. - Applicant: Sally Harman.
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval to demolish more than thirty
percent (30%) of a residential structure that was built prior to 1942 but is not on the
Historic Building Study List. The site is located at 433 Taylor Avenue within an R-3,
Garden Residential Zoning District. (DB)
Dennis Brighton, Planner III presented the staff report. Staff has received two letters
regarding this application, which were included in the packet. Staff is recommending
approval of CA06-0031.
Board member Lynch provided a page from the George Gunn book, Buildings of the
Edwardian Period, which stated that the building was constructed in 1906.
Chair Anderson stated that the letter from the neighbor, which was included in their
packet, refers to the concerns she has with the proposed plans, and questioned why
there were no plans with the packet. How can this Board review the letter and listen to
her concerns without reviewing the plans?
Ms. Woodbury stated that according to the City Attorney, people who attend public
hearings often want to speak about a number of different things, which are outside of
the Boards purview. In this case, the Board may direct staff to take this information and
use it in the consideration of the Design Review.
Board Member Lynch stated that she had a different recollection of the conversation
with the City Attorney. The Municipal Code states that the Historical Advisory Board
charge is to ensure that new construction is harmonious with the surrounding
neighborhood. The Historical Advisory Board is being asked to allow this demolition,
without even knowing what is being proposed.
Chair Anderson stated that in order to make an intelligent decision, she would like to
recommend that this item be continued until they receive more information.
Ms. Woodbury stated that when there are changes to a potentially historic building, then
the Board is looking at the rehabilitation to make sure it is consistent with the guidelines
that are in place. When it is a complete demolition, the Board is starting from scratch,
and what is proposed is not a historic building. In this case, it is not the rehabilitation of
an historic building, but completely new construction, which would be under the purview
of staff or the Planning Board.
Board Member Irons stated that it is his understanding that Design Review is never
under their purview.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Minutes of November 2, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-11-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-11-02,4,"Belva Short, 439 Taylor Ave., is not in favor of this project. Her main concern is with the
landscaping plan, and the location of the trees.
In response to Vice-Chair Miller's question if she has concerns with the size of the
proposed new structure, Ms. Short answered in the affirmative.
Sally Harmon, was present, and informed the Board that the right side of the structure
would have very minimal demolition. Because it is a redwood structure she would like
to preserve as much of the wood as possible. She informed the Board that staff said it
was 100% demolition, because there was nothing historically worth saving.
Mr. Brighton stated that 100% demolition means that once the project is complete,
nothing visible or recognizable will remain of the original house.
In response to Board Member Lynch's inquiry regarding how much of the original house
will remain, Mr. Brighton stated approximately 20% of the structural elements will
remain.
Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion.
Vice-Chair Miller stated that since it is a 1906 colonial revival the age makes it historic.
He stated that this house is historically significant.
Board Member Irons stated he is going to act within this Board's purview. He doesn't
find any historical significance in this structure.
Board Member Lynch stated that she does not have enough information to make a
decision.
Board Member Iverson stated that the house does have historic significance. She
would like more information regarding what is proposed.
Chair Anderson stated that it is a historically significant house. She would like to see it
restored to look like the original. She would also like to have more information on what
is proposed.
Ms. Woodbury stated that the Board should have been provided the information that
shows what would be remaining after the demolition.
M/S (Lynch, Iverson) to continue the discussion on Certificate of Approval, CA06-0031,
for the demolition of more that 30% of an existing dwelling at 433 Taylor Avenue to the
December 7, 2006 meeting, so that staff may provide the Board with further information.
3-2-0.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 2 (Miller, Irons); Absent:
0;
Motion carries.
Minutes of November 2, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-11-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-11-02,5,"REPORTS:
4.
Discussion regarding updating the City's Historical Monument webpage. (Board
Member Lynch).
Board Member Lynch stated that one of the Board's responsibilities is to educate the
public about the historic and architectural resources we have in Alameda. She has
been writing articles for the Alameda Sun about the history of each of our Monuments
and would like those articles, along with images linked to the Monument page on our
City website. She has submitted two examples of her articles and is asking for the
Board's input.
Secretary Eliason stated that staff will look into linking her articles to the website and if
there are any costs involved.
Chair Anderson thanked Board Member Lynch for bringing this before the Board. She
hopes that this will make more people aware of the importance of our neighborhoods.
Chair Anderson would also like to see the Historical Building Study List updated.
Secretary Eliason stated that staff is aware that the study list should be updated. This is
a huge job, and would need to be outsourced. It is not in our funding right now. Once
the revised Historical Preservation Ordinance is adopted, then we can work on
additional preservation projects.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
Chair Anderson received a letter from Carlo Ramos regarding restoring or replacing the
historic streetlights in Alameda.
Secretary Eliason stated she would forward a copy of the letter to AP & T.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Chair Anderson would like to have the Historical Advisory Board consider restoring the
station signs.
Board Member lrons stated that we should not continue items because we don't agree
with what is in our purview. He does not want the applicant to incur any additional costs
on appeal fees and additional time.
Chair Anderson stated that her concern was that she did not have adequate information
in the packet and the owner stated that they were going to retain the structure but
change the outer appearance and demolish the garage. She would like clarification of
the design review process and why some applications come before this Board prior to
Minutes of November 2, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-11-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2006-11-02,6,"design review approval, and some come after design review has already been
approved.
Chair Anderson would like to see a Historical Design Review Board established.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Woodbury stated that the Historical Preservation Ordinance may be ready for the
Board's review after the first of the year.
Ms. Woodbury stated that she would like to agendize a work program to discuss how to
increase the public's awareness of historical preservation in Alameda. Historic
Preservation month is coming up and staff would like the Historical Advisory Board to be
on the forefront of this.
Ms. Woodbury reminded the Board that the Ethics training must be completed by the
end of this year. The Certificate must be filed with the City Clerk's office.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthja Eliason
Secretary Historical Advisory Board
FINAL min.doc
Minutes of November 2, 2006
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2006-11-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-01-04,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. Recording Secretary
Ebster called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Member lrons,
Iverson & Lynch.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None.
STAFF PRESENT:
Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director, Tony Ebster,
Recording Secretary.
MINUTES:
Board Members lrons and Iverson came during the minutes discussion. Some Board
members are unidentified. Mr. Rutter's and Ms. Evan's name are misspelled.
Alternates for Ad HOC committee were clarified. Chris Buckley with AAPS had changes
to add. Minutes will be corrected and resubmitted at the regular meeting of February 1,
2007 for approval.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
ACTION ITEMS:
4-A. Adoption of 2007 Historical Advisory Board Calendar
Motion(Anderson)/second(Lynch) to accept 2007 meeting calendar.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0 Motion Carries
4-B Certificate of Approval CA06-0031- - Sally Harman - 433 Taylor Ave. In regards
to a demo of more than 30% of a residential structure built prior to 1942 but is not on the
Historic Building study list. Staff requested a continuance to a date to be determined.
lotion(Lynch)/second(Anderson) to continue to date to be determined.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0 Motion carries
4-C. Proposed addition to the Official Naming List for City Facilities and Streets
Minutes of January 4, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-01-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-01-04,2,"Recommendation to add the name 'Don Grant' to the City's Official Naming List for
facilities and streets. A request to rename a portion of 3rd Street to 'Don Grant' is not
possible since street names cannot change across intersections according to City
ordinance. It is staff's recommendation that the Board approve the addition of the name
'Don Grant' to the Official Naming list for future consideration for facilities or street
names.
Motion(Anderson)/second(Miller) to add 'Don Grant' to Official Naming List
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Motion Carries
An oral status report regarding the Historic Advisory Board Ad HOC Committee was
given. After many emails, a meeting time was agreed upon for January 16th
Ms.
Woodbury stated that a chair needs to be elected and roles and responsibilities need to
be determined. Some ideas need to be developed for preservation month.
Board member Lynch (inaudible)
Chair Anderson suggested that all HAB members should be part of the email listing
regarding the Ad HOC committee and its plans.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
The certified local government annual report was brought to the attention of the Board.
Ms. Woodbury wanted to make the Board aware of this annual report. Chair Anderson
requested a copy for each Board member. This report captures all that was done by the
City for historic preservation over the past year as well as the Board's activities. A copy
will be distributed at the February 1, 2007 meeting.
Board member Lynch (inaudible)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Ms. Woodbury asked Board members about the progress of the Ethics training.
Ms. Woodbury brought up the Carnegie building and mentioned the Council's
appropriation of funds for a feasibility study.
Board member Lynch (inaudible)
Minutes of January 4, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-01-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-01-04,3,"Ms. Woodbury mentioned that a tour of the Carnegie Building for Board members will
be arranged when possible.
Board Member Lynch (inaudible) Asked about reports from the Alameda theater
project(?)
Board member lrons asked about the seismic work done to the Carnegie building and
the funds for the feasibility study for potential uses.
Board member Lynch (inaudible) asked about a tour of the Carnegie building(?)
Board member Iverson brought up the historical and art combination for plaques and
distributed the list of San Francisco's art monuments.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cathy Woodbury,
Secretary Historical Advisory Board
:PLANNING\HABVAGENMIN\Agenmin.07/01-04-07/1-4-07  HAB Draft Minutes.doc
Minutes of January 4, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-01-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-02-01,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. Recording Secretary
Garcia called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members,
Iverson, Irons & Lynch
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Board Members lrons and Lynch absent
STAFF PRESENT:
Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner, Erin Garcia,
Recording Secretary.
MINUTES:
Motion(Miller)/Second(Iverson) to accept minutes of December 7, 2006
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: lrons and Lynch Motion Carries
Motion(Anderson)/Second(Miller) to accept minutes of January 4, 2007
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: lrons and Lynch Motion Carries
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
Oral Status Report on Alameda Theater Restoration (Continued to Meeting March 1,
2007)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
ACTION ITEMS:
Certificate of Approval CA07-0001 - Derek Pavlik for Hermelinda Blume and
Selinda Antill - 2618 Lincoln Avenue. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of
Approval to alter more than thirty percent (30%) of the value of a pre-1942 single-family
residence. The proposed work includes additions to the first and second stories, new
porch and trellis structures, relocation of garage doors and replacement of windows.
The property is located within an R-1, One-Family Residence Zoning District.
Minutes of February 1, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-02-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-02-01,2,"Mr. Zach Seal presented the staff report for 2618 Lincoln Ave.
Chair Anderson asked about requirements for Design Review versus Historical Advisory
Board approval.
Ms. Eliason responded by stating that for regular design reviews that have a demolition
of less than 30%, there is no requirement for a demolition plan. If the demolition is over
30%, a demolition plan is required.
Chair Anderson asked if the wood shingles would be retained.
Mr. Derick Pavlick responded by stating that due to aging the roof would be replaced if
the budget allows.
Chair Anderson commended Mr. Pavlick for the design.
Board member Iverson thought it was a very well designed addition.
Board member Miller concurred.
Motion(Anderson)/Second(Miller) to approve Certificate of Approval with conditions.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: lrons and Lynch Motion Carries.
REPORTS:
Ms. Eliason presented the draft certified local government annual report.
Chair Anderson requested some factual corrections and wondered about term lengths
and why some are different.
Ms. Eliason will look into the term information.
Chair Anderson questioned if the public is made aware of local incentives.
Ms. Eliason stated that the City must endorse incentives for them to be allowed.
In response to a question by Chair Anderson, Ms. Eliason provided information
regarding the ad hoc committee.
BOARD COMMENTS:
In a response to a concern by Board Member Miller, Ms. Eliason responded with
information regarding the Certificate of Approval for 2708 Lincoln.
Minutes of February 1, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-02-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-02-01,3,"Board Member Miller brought up 717 Paru and was worried about the project and
mentioned that the neighbors are concerned.
Ms. Eliason responded by stating that she would relay additional concerns to Code
Enforcement.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion(Miller)/Second(Iverson) to adjourn
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: lrons and Lynch
The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia
Eliason
Secretary Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNINGIHABVAGENMINVAgenmin.07/02-01-07/2-1-07 HAB FINAL Minutes.doc
Minutes of February 1, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-02-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-03-01,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm.
1.
Roll Call:
Present: Chair Anderson, Board Members, lrons and Lynch.
Absent: Vice Chair Miller and Board Member Iverson.
Also present were, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner Doug
Garrison, Planner III Douglas Vu, Planner III Dennis Brighton, and Recording Secretary
Latisha Jackson.
2.
MINUTES:
Motion (Miller)/Second (Iverson) to accept minutes of December 7, 2006
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: lrons and Lynch. Motion Carries
Motion (Anderson)/Second (Miller) to accept minutes of January 4, 2007
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: lrons and Lynch. Motion Carries
3.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
4.
SPECIAL REPORT:
a.
Oral Status Report on Alameda Theater Restoration
Ms. Jennifer Ott gave an update on the Alameda Theater. The contractor began
in July 2006. They are preserving historic elements such as the chandelier other
lighting fixtures, other features such as handrails and doors. A piece of the
original carpet will be put back in. After historic elements were removed and/or
protected demolition began. Non-historic storefronts were removed to allow for
seismic upgrades. The first structural footings have been poured.
Ms. Lynch asked who was working on the light fixtures.
Minutes of March 1, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-03-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-03-01,2,"Ms. Lynch asked about a theater memorabilia café and where it would be. Ms.
Ott responded by saying that the café will be in the mezzanine balcony and that it
will have memorabilia.
Ms. Lynch asked about and opening date for the theater. Ms. Ott said that the
construction would go through the end of 2007, they are hoping for an early 2008
opening.
5.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
6.
ACTION ITEMS:
6-A.
Certificate of Approval CA07-0003 - Applicant: Simon Kwan for Kwan Li -
2006 Buena Vista Avenue (DV). The applicants request a Certificate of
Approval for the demolition of a residential structure built prior to 1942 for the
purpose of constructing a new single-family dwelling. The site is located within
an R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Mr. Douglas Vu presented the staff report and recommended approval of this item.
Chris Buckley spoke to the demolition of the structure and the AAPS had no objection to
the proposal. He felt that the new structure would tie the buildings of the neighborhood
together and maintain consistency.
Member Lynch could not find any historical significance in the current structure. She
wanted to make sure that the new structure would make a good contribution to the
street and fit in with the neighborhood.
Mr. Vu responded by saying that staff is working with the applicant to make sure the
design is consistent with the City's residential guidelines.
Motion (Anderson)/Second (Irons) Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2 (Miller and Iverson)
Motion Carries
6-B.
Certificate of Approval CA06-0034 - Applicant: David Deutsch - 2233 San
Antonio Avenue (DB). The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to
demolish more than thirty percent (30%) of a residential structure that is listed as
a historical resource on the Historic Building Study List. The site is located within
an R-5, General Residential Zoning District.
Mr. Dennis Brighton summarized the staff report and recommended approval of this
item.
Minutes of March 1, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-03-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-03-01,3,"In a response to a question by Ms. Lynch, Mr. Brighton responded by saying that the
pocket doors will be saved.
Mr. lrons commented on the elevations and would like to have seen an existing
elevation next to the new ones to compare. He expressed concern over the current
stair configuration. Also, he mentioned the windows and wanted to make sure they
present well from the street.
Mr. Brighton responded by saying that the porch and staircase are not original. He said
that the designer is trying to replace the stairs and front porch and use trim that is more
consistent with the Queen Anne Style.
Ms. Lynch was puzzled by the description. She was curious about the handrails and
wondered where the information came from regarding the handrails and ballast.
Mr. Norman Sanchez spoke on behalf of the property owner and was available for
questions from the Board. He acknowledged Ms. Lynch's comments about how it was a
strange remodel for 1954 and was not typically done. He stated that the goal was to
make it as seamless as possible. He referred to AAPS' comments on the windows. He
said that the smaller windows are meant to accentuate the bay window. They are going
to try to salvage the front porch.
Ms. Lynch asked about how the elevation meets the golden mean and how it meets the
guidelines.
Mr. Sanchez responded by saying that the lower floor has a taller ceiling than the upper
floor. They wanted to maximize the height at the bottom to create a more even feel and
avoid the home feeling top-heavy.
Mr. Brighton added that the golden mean is associated where there is a stair where
there is a high basement. It minimizes the mass created from a stair element.
Mr. lrons stated that there is another house nearby that is an original two-story house.
Ms. Anderson asked about why the bay wasn't continued at the study on the side. She
feels it looks top-heavy.
Mr. Sanchez responded by saying that it is a cantilevered bay and keeping it that way is
more consistent with the home and it would require a variance because of its proximity
to the neighbor's property line. Also, that bay is not as prominent from the front.
Mr. Chris Buckley was wondering if they could get a copy of the new resolution with new
conditions and wanted to review it for comment. He wanted to walk the board through
the AAPS letter.
Minutes of March 1, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-03-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-03-01,4,"Mr. Dick Rutter mentioned the porch and roof slope. He passed out a post card of a
house. He also presented an architecture book. He feels that in demolition situations,
there should be drawings of the existing conditions to compare to the new drawings. He
mentioned that dimensions are not actual size. Wood is cut smaller than it indicates.
Ms. Lynch stated that the project troubles her. She said that they are taking a small
house and inflating it and to her it doesn't seem right. Also, She didn't see the porch
work reflected in the drawings. She concurred with the comment regarding a before
and after drawing.
Ms. Anderson mentioned that the issue had been brought up at previous meetings.
Mr. lrons concurred that it is good to have drawings. He again mentioned the two-story
near by.
Ms. Anderson has no problem with the design. She looked at the neighbors and she
expressed that Mr. Sanchez did a good job with the design. She had two problems; the
porch details were not in the drawings. She felt it had been well presented. She would
condition the project to go back to the review board to clarify the details regarding the
front porch. She researched the rating of the house. AAPS indicated that the proper
forms were not included in the packet. The property is an 'S' designation.
Ms. Anderson asked about AAPS' comments and if they are allowed.
Ms. Eliason responded by saying that AAPS can write anything they want in their letters
but staff or Planning Board makes final determination on design reviews.
Motion (lrons)/Second (Anderson) to accept Certificate of Approval for more than 30%
demolition of residential structure.
Ayes: 2; Noes: 1; Absent: Miller and Iverson
Motion Carries
6-C. Certificate of Approval CA05-0003 - Applicant: Bill Wong/Ivan Chiu for Tho
A. Ly - 320 Pacific Avenue (DG). The applicants request a Certificate of
Approval for the demolition of an existing 622 square-foot, pre-1942 residence as
part of a proposal to construct a two story single-family residence. This is a
resubmittal of an earlier application that was approved by the Historical Advisory
Board, on March 10, 2005, which allowed the partial demolition of this structure.
Based on review of Building Permit plans and the current condition of the existing
building, the proposed alterations would potentially constitute a one hundred
Minutes of March 1, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-03-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-03-01,5,"percent demolition. The site is located at 320 Pacific Avenue, within an R-4,
Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Mr. Doug Garrison presented the project and summarized the history of the project. He
recommended amending original certificate of approval from partial demolition to
complete demolition.
Ms. Lynch asked about the report on the tree.
Motion (Lynch)/Second (Anderson) to amend original Certificate of Approval from 30%
demolition to 100% demolition.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: Miller & Iverson
Motion Passes
7.
REPORTS:
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
9.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Lynch presented some reference material for historic preservation season. She
mentioned the lectures and due to the museum flooding the lectures will be held
upstairs.
Ms. Lynch reminded everyone about the ""Secret Spaces"" tour with Mr. Rutter.
10.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Eliason mentioned the Veterans building and its nomination to the National Register
of Historic Buildings. She wanted to include the Board and will compose a letter to be
signed by the chair of the Board endorsing and supporting the nomination.
Ms. Lynch pointed out that some of the descriptions were not correct.
Mr. Rutter spoke to the retrofit and remodel of the building.
Ms. Eliason clarified that staff will write the letter to the state for the chair of the Board to
sign for a national designation.
Motion (Anderson)/Second (Lynch) to direct staff to compose a letter for a national
designation of the Veterans building.
Minutes of March 1, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-03-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-03-01,6,"Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: Miller & Iverson
Motion passes
11. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason
Secretary Historical Advisory Board
G:IPLANNINGIHAB\AGENMINIAgenmin.07/03-01-07/03-01-07 HAB FINAL Minutes.doc
Minutes of March 1, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-03-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-05-03,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm.
1.
Roll Call:
Present: Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members Iverson,
lrons and Lynch.
Also present were, Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner, Dennis Brighton, Planner III and
Latisha Jackson, Recording Secretary.
2.
MINUTES:
Motion (Lynch)Second (Anderson) to accept minutes of March 1, 2007
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Motion Carries
3.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
4.
SPECIAL REPORT:
5.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
6.
ACTION ITEMS:
A. Certificate of Approval CA06-0031 - Sally Harmon - 433 Taylor Avenue. The
applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval for a complete (100%) demolition of
a residential structure that was built prior to 1942 but is not on the Historic Building
Study List. The site is located at 433 Taylor Avenue within an R-3, Garden
Residential Zoning District. (DB)
Mr. Dennis Brighton presented the request for the Certificate of Approval for a complete (100%)
demolition. He summarized the staff report and stated that despite being built around 1906, the
house has lost its historical value due to several devastating improvements. Staff recommends
approving the request. This is a continued item from November 2006. The item was continued
due to confusion regarding the amount of demolition.
Board Member Lynch asked if there would be an architect and was wondering about the plans,
specifically one of the drawings and was curious to know if the drawing was the current house
or the new house. She feels the drawing is mislabeled.
Ms. Elizabeth Krase spoke on behalf of the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS).
The plans were reviewed in November 2006 by the AAPS and they had no objection to the
demolition as long as the new structure is compatible with the neighborhood. They feel that the
Minutes of May 3, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-05-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-05-03,2,"revised drawings of the replacement structure are further removed from the styles of the
neighborhood. They feel that a more successful plan would incorporate traditional design
elements of the 20's and 30's and the interior architecture should be reflected in the exterior
design. Ms. Krase feels that the approval should be contingent on approval of drawings of the
new structure.
Ms. Belva ""Elaine"" Short read a statement consisting of concerns regarding 433 Taylor Ave.
Her statement cited concerns regarding the demolition such as privacy, noise, dust and possible
hazardous materials becoming airborne. She is concerned about losing open space and
sunlight and expressed concern regarding the proposed courtyard on the property line and the
potential for noise problems.
Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened up board discussion. She expressed
concern with the proposed structure and worries that it does not fit in with the styles of the
neighborhood. She feels the drawing of the design of the exterior is not detailed enough.
Board Member Lynch expressed concern regarding the open space and feels that they are
trying to cram too much building into the property and that the open space requirements are met
with balconies. She asked if staff is supposed to be working with the guidelines from the AAPS.
Board Member Miller spoke to the historical value of the structure and feels that just because it
was built in 1906 it is historically significant. He feels the house could be restored. He thinks
the neighbors should be considered.
Board Member Iverson agreed that the proposed structure doesn't fit in with the neighborhood
cohesiveness. She feels that changes could be made that would be agreeable to the owners
and still keep the fabric of the neighborhood.
Board Member Irons agreed with staff that the building had been degraded and the loss of the
existing house isn't the issue. He questioned where the Board's purview begins and ends.
Ms. Eliason clarified that demolitions are in the Board's purview and not the design of the new
structure.
Board Member lrons spoke to the issue of the neighbors and how they will be affected. He feels
that the demolition is short lived and the construction of the new structure is a greater source of
noise and dust. He feels the new structure will have an effect on sunlight and shadowing.
Chair Anderson entertained a motion to deny the Certificate of Approval for demolition of 433
Taylor Ave.
Board Member Lynch seconded the motion
Ayes: 4; Noes: 1 (Irons) Motion carries to deny
Minutes of May 3, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-05-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-05-03,3,"7.
REPORTS:
Ms. Eliason offered a tour of the Carnegie building. Board Members Miller, Lynch and Iverson
toured the Carnegie with Mr. Dennis Brighton and Ms. Cynthia Eliason.
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
9.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch reported on Historic Preservation Season. They have received great
response and reminded the board of the tour that Woody Minor will be hosting. She mentioned
that they are working with Bike Alameda. She asked about posting stories about monuments.
Board Member Miller stated that the he is involved with a remodel and understands why people
do things without permits. He feels the process is unbelievable.
10.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
11.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:27 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Coollin Choson Eliason,
Secretary Historical Advisory Board
::\PLANNINGIHABIAGENMINVAgenmin.07/05-03-07\5-03-07 HAB Final Minutes.doc
Minutes of May 3, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-05-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-06-07,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
1.
Roll Call:
Present: Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members
Iverson, lrons and Lynch.
Also present were: Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner, Dennis Brighton, Planner III,
Simone Wolter, Planner I, Laura Ajello, Planner I.
2.
MINUTES:
Board Member Lynch noted that in the middle of page 2, she had asked if staff was
working with the Residential Design guidelines, rather than the guidelines from AAPS.
She also requested the citation from the City Attorney's opinion with respect to
demolitions being included in the purview, but not the design of a new structure.
Chair Anderson noted that it was Alameda Architectural Society rather than
""Architecture"" in paragraph 1 of page 2.
Motion (Miller)/Second (Lynch) to accept minutes of May 3, 2007, as amended.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
Ms. Eliason advised that a revised agenda had been provided in order to add the report
regarding the review and comment on the Veterans' Building under ""Reports.""
4.
SPECIAL REPORT:
None.
5.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
6.
ACTION ITEMS:
A.
Certificate of Approval CA06-0031 - Sally Harmon - 433 Taylor
Avenue. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval for a
complete (100%) demolition of a residential structure that was built prior
to1942 but is not on the Historical Building Study List. The site is located
at 433 Taylor Avenue within an R-3, Garden Residential Zoning District
(DB).
Minutes of June 7, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-06-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-06-07,2,"Mr. Dennis Brighton presented the request for the Certificate of Approval for demolition.
He noted at the last meeting that the Board chose to deny the Certificate of Approval,
but did not provide the appropriate findings. The HAB needed to make any one of the
three findings cited in the staff report to support the denial.
Ms. Eliason advised that the public hearing for this item has already been held, and that
staff wished to properly prepare the Resolution of Denial.
Chair Anderson noted that this house had lost quite a few of its historical elements, but
it was surrounded by homes that were eclectic in nature, and which provided the
identifying fabric of the neighborhood. She denied the Certificate of Approval because
she believed that surrounding homes had historical elements, and that there was
potential for this house to have it as well. She did not believe that the house should be
demolished so it may be replaced it with a very new building that would not blend with
the rest of the neighborhood.
Mr. Brighton noted that the findings provided by staff were consistent with previous
findings. He recommended that the findings should be consistent. He suggested that
the Board examine the definition in Section 13-21.2 and determine whether there was
any other wording that could be utilized to make one of the three findings.
Board Member Lynch inquired whether this house could be added to the Study List. Ms.
Eliason replied that staff requested the findings for the denial of the Certificate of
Approval; if the Board wished to add it to the Study List, that would be a separate
action, and that the findings must still be made to provide justification in anticipation of
an appeal.
Vice Chair Miller confirmed his belief that this house embodied distinguishing
characteristics of an architectural type specimen, although some of the detail had been
removed.
Board Member Lynch requested a photo of the subject house.
Board Member Iverson agreed with the comments of the other Board members, and
hoped that part of the house that faced the street and most enhanced the neighborhood
could be saved, with the potential to make an addition as allowed by the City by a
professional.
Ms. Eliason noted that this item was originally brought as a more than 30% demolition,
and that there was some confusion at the original meeting with respect to the amount of
demolition. The item was readvertised as a complete (100%) demolition, which was
subsequently denied by the Board.
Minutes of June 7, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-06-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-06-07,3,"In response to an inquiry by Board Member lrons whether the Board should consider
the proposed replacement in making its determination, Ms. Eliason confirmed that was
not part of the process, and that the Design Review had not yet been approved. Staff
was still working with the applicant on the design, and added that the Board had seen
the working drawings.
Chair Anderson believed that the existing property contributed to a cultural or historical
fabric of the neighborhood, and that it could be brought up to a significant level of
contribution to the neighborhood if the owners were to remodel or improve the exterior.
It was the consensus of the four previously voting Board members that even though this
residence does not show identifying marks, it should be saved as completing the fabric
of the neighborhood. It is surrounded by homes that are eclectic by nature, and are
historic. This house has potential to embody the characteristics of a historic home, and
could be remodeled and returned to its original Colonial Revival style.
Ayes: 4; Noes: ; Abstain: 1 (Irons)
B.
Certificate of Approval CA07-0006 - Lourdes and Thomas Hartrick -
131 Maitland Drive. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval
to demolish more than thirty percent (30%) of a residential structure that
was built prior to 1942 but is not on the Historic Building Study List. The
site is located at 131 Maitland Drive within an R-1, One-Family Zoning
District. (SW)
Ms. Simone Wolter summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the
Certificate of Demolition for this property.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Iverson where the date of 1924 came from,
Ms. Wolter replied that staff recorded the building permit, which stated it was built in
1924, although that may be a typo. Board Member Iverson noted that she had never
heard of a ranch-style house that early.
Ms. Eliason advised that the Design Review for the additions to the residence had
already been approved.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Minutes of June 7, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-06-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-06-07,4,"Chair Anderson noted that she would abstain from voting on this item because she felt
the submittal was not complete. She believed the plans indicated what was existing,
rather than what was approved for being added to the house.
Ms. Wolter advised that the architectural design for the new building was very much in
keeping of the existing building, and that it was slightly larger.
Chair Anderson noted that the Board could not see that information.
Board Member Iverson noted that one of the Board's goals was to encourage new
building that is harmonious with its surroundings, and that they could not evaluate those
criteria if they could not see the new design.
Board Member Lynch agreed with the previous comments, but believed the request
seemed reasonable. She was concerned that the Board did not have information about
the new design.
Ms. Wolter offered to show the plans to the Board. Chair Anderson noted that she
wanted to review the plans beforehand.
Board Member Lynch agreed with the Chair that more time was needed to evaluate the
plans. She inquired whether it would be appropriate to continue this item.
Ms. Eliason understood the Board's concerns, but noted that continuing the item
because the findings could not be made would be unfair to the applicants and placed
them in an awkward situation. Board Member Iverson believed that it would have been
appropriate to include the plans in the Board packet.
Chair Anderson entertained a motion to approve the Certificate of Approval for this
project.
Board Member lrons moved to approve the Certificate of Approval for 131 Maitland
Drive.
Board Member Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 1 (Lynch); Abstain: 1 (Anderson). Motion carries to approve.
C.
Certificate of Approval CA07-0007 - William and Rebecca Paden -
1239 Hawthorne Street. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of
Approval for Demolition of more than 30 percent of a single-family
residence built in 1939. Demotion consists of the removal of a single-story
garden room that was added to the original structure in the 1950s,
replacement of existing windows throughout the building, and replacement
of the roof. The garden room will be replaced with a two-story addition.
Minutes of June 7, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-06-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-06-07,5,"Building materials will be consistent with original elements of the structure.
This property is not listed on the Historic Building Study List. The site is
located within an R-1, One-Family Zoning District. (LA)
Ms. Laura Ajello summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this
project.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speaker slips.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Lynch regarding the definition of a
""ramada,"" Mr. Italo Calpestri, project architect, replied that it was a kind of covered
porch. He noted that the second story provided an overhang to the porch. He detailed
the background of this application, and noted that they suspected there was dry rot by
the south wall near the entry. At that point, Mr. McFann suggested sending this
application to the HAB.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Chair Anderson entertained a motion to approve the Certificate of Approval for 1239
Hawthorne Street.
Board Member Iverson seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Abstain: 0. Motion carries to approve.
7.
REPORTS:
Historic Preservation Commission Review and Comment on the
Nomination of Alameda Veterans' Memorial Building to the National
Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Eliason provided the staff report, and noted that the Office of Historic Preservation
has requested a second comment on this nomination. She noted that the Letter of
Support could be reissued, or a new letter could be provided.
Chair Anderson complimented staff on a thorough and informative report. Ms. Eliason
noted that Ms. Jean Sweeney prepared the report.
Board Member Lynch noted that this was a thrilling building, and wholeheartedly
supported the application.
Chair Anderson noted that there was a typo on the form, which read ""be listed"" instead
of ""by listed."" Ms. Eliason took note of that correction.
Minutes of June 7, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-06-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-06-07,6,"Chair Anderson believed the building was representative of the architectural mixture of
styles in Alameda, in the Spanish Colonial Revival vernacular. She added that it was
designed by a renowned Alameda architect. For those two reasons, she highly
recommended that it be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places.
Board Member Iverson noted that because of the prominence of the military in
Alameda, this building holds a special status in Alameda for all those who served, and
those who benefited.
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
9.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch noted that she had made a booklet addressing the Rug Works
(also known as the Clamp Swing Building) and distributed them to the Board.
Board Member Lynch proposed that the sign on the Alameda Rug Works be added to
the Historic Sign Ordinance. She noted that almost two years ago, the two station signs
were added. She noted that the sign list had not been updated. Ms. Eliason noted that
she would check that.
Chair Anderson inquired about the status of 1343 Fernside Boulevard and mentioned it
looked like a stucco house with three round arches at the front porch. She added that it
had plywood attached all around the house, and that the top floor had been completely
removed. Ms. Eliason advised that she would send out Code Enforcement because that
house had to comply with a very specific design review that was extensively developed.
She would request that a Stop Work Order be issued if necessary.
Board Member Iverson inquired about the house on Broadway and Santa Clara. Ms.
Eliason noted that was a bungalow where the stucco was removed down to the lathe;
the lathe was subsequently removed and that area was sheathed in plywood.
Vice Chair Miller noticed that house in each stage, and had thought it was an extensive
termite job; he added there was a similar house with tapered columns on Central
Avenue that was being rebuilt in kind. Ms. Eliason noted that she would check on that
house.
Chair Anderson noted that in October, staff had brought to the HAB's attention the
historical building ordinance, which was to be reviewed.
Ms. Eliason noted that item was on the Planning and Building Director's desk.
Minutes of June 7, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-06-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-06-07,7,"Chair Anderson inquired whether there was a way for the HAB to have more meaningful
and effective responsibilities, either through ordinance or City Charter. She sometimes
felt as though it was a waste of her time to review projects that had already gone
through design review, and that the scope of the HAB's abilities was limited to stating
whether a building could be torn down, or which portion of the building could be
demolished. She did not feel that the HAB had any power or ruling over how a building
could be preserved; she believed that the reason for the existence of the HAB was to
state how buildings could be kept intact.
Vice Chair Miller echoed Chair Anderson's comments, and noted that was the reason
he joined the Board.
Ms. Eliason noted that she could examine the HAB's charter, and that the City was
working under the present ordinance. Staff will continue to examine revisions, most of
which were related to penalty sections and dealing with properties such as 1343
Fernside and similar demolitions. She suggested bringing the concern to City Council,
especially in defining where the HAB's authority stopped, and where the Planning
Board's authority started. She acknowledged that tensions between the purviews of
other Boards, such as the Economic Development Commission and the Transportation
Commission, with the Planning Board in terms of authority. She noted that those
questions are appropriately addressed by the community.
Chair Anderson suggested that it may be appropriate to call in the HAB prior to the
Design Review Board to review the actual design that would take place in a demolition
and restoration of a building. She believed that there were several homes in Alameda
that should be preserved without having to be historical monuments. She believed that
in some instances, the Planning Board, Planning staff and City Council, as well as the
other authorities in Alameda take the recommendations by the Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society first over the recommendations of the HAB. She added that the
HAB has been selected by the Council and the Mayor to serve on the Board, and that
they were part of the City. She was disturbed to see a private organization to have so
much power, which sometimes undermined the HAB's role.
Vice Chair Miller noted that the pair of buildings on Ninth Street had great potential to be
brought back, and that it was appealed to City Council. He noted that he attended that
Council meeting, and that the item was brought back to the HAB. Before that occurred,
it went to the Planning Board, which he viewed as a misconception by the Council of the
HAB's purview. He added that many of the HAB's determinations did not go to other
boards.
Board member Lynch noted that as work continued on the theater, she had fielded
questions by residents regarding its progress. She inquired whether there was a tour
Minutes of June 7, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 7",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-06-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-06-07,8,"available for the HAB members. Ms. Eliason replied that private tours could be
arranged, or she could work with Jennifer Ott of Development Services to have a tour
before the next meeting. She noted that staff may need to advertise the tour to comply
with the Brown Act. The first choice would be July 5, 2007, and August 2, 2007, would
be the second choice.
10.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Eliason noted that the next meeting would be July 6, 2007.
11. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Anderson entertained a motion for adjournment.
Vice Chair Miller moved to adjourn the meeting.
Board member Iverson seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0. Motion carries to adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason
Cynthis
Ehara
Secretary Historical Advisory Board
HAB Final Minutes.doc
Minutes of June 7, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 8",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-06-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-09-06,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 6, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm.
1.
ROLL CALL:Present: Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members
lrons and Lynch. Iverson - Absent
Also present were: Cathy Woodbury, Planning and Building Director, Laura Ajello,
Planner I, Shana Nero, Administrative Assistant.
2.
MINUTES:
Motion (Anderson)/Second (Lynch) to approve minutes for May 3, 2007, regular meeting as
amended.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Motion Carries
3.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None
4.
SPECIAL REPORT:
5.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
The Board reviewed and discussed the Design Review Notice for 500 Central Ave.
Planning and Building Director Woodbury informed the Board that the Major Design
Review will be completed by staff and if anyone wishes to see the plans they should
contact Cynthia Eliason on Friday.
6.
ACTION ITEMS:
A.
Approval of the Historic Preservation Work Program and Dissolution of
the Historic Preservation Work Program Ad Hoc Committee. Director
Woodbury introduced the Draft Historic Preservation Work Program 2007-
2011 for the Board's review, input and approval. The
Minutes of September 6, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-09-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-09-06,2,"Board was also asked to disband the Historic Preservation Work Program Ad
Hoc committee.
The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society submitted a letter of support
and recommendation for the Work Program to be discussed and reviewed by
the Board.
Public Speaker - Chris Buckley, representing Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society, discussed the letter from the AAPS and recommended
that with Phase 1 being slightly overloaded the Historical Plague Program be
moved from Phase 1 to Phase 2 and Board Members agreed with this
recommendation.
Chair Anderson entertained a motion to approve the draft of the Historical
Preservation Work Program as amended; with the recommendation that the
Historical Plaque Program be moved from Phase 1 to Phase 2 and separate
the City's rehabilitation assistance program and the façade renovation grants
program into two items, under Phase 4 also the dissolving of the Ad Hoc
committee.
Motion (Lynch)/Second (Miller) to approve the draft of the Historical
Preservation Work Program as amended and the dissolving of the Ad Hoc
committee.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Motion Carries
7.
REPORTS:
A.
Presentation of Historic Plaque Program. Laura Ajello, Planner
I
presented a slide show presentation. Planner Ajello explain the different
material that could be used to create the plaques and funding sources.
There was also discussion on the basic that needed to be answered;
application, standard design, set timelines and select vendor. The promotion
of the program can be done by using a number of City and County website,
the museum, The AAPS. The Board also discussed anti-theft for the
plaques and ceremony suggestions.
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, stated that he would hope that the plaque program
would be pro active with the older buildings. Mr. Buckley also discussed different
types of material that could be used for the plaques and the best material to stand
up to the weathering
Minutes of September 6, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-09-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-09-06,3,"9.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch asked if the Permit Manager would be available to come in
and give a report to explain how the Building Official makes the determination on
whether a building is over or under the 30% demolished. Director Woodbury stated
that she would have Greg McFann, Building Official, give a presentation to the
board at a later meeting.
Board Member Lynch discussed 1815 Sherman St. and the Board's
recommendations that were made for the building and questioned whether they
were completely followed. in addition Member Lynch proposed that the 5 Board
Members divide the island into 5 separate territories and each member volunteer to
canvas that section on a regular basis. Director Woodbury suggested that Board
members contact staff or come into the office to discuss questions or concerns
about projects under construction and code enforcement issues.
10.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
11.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason
Secretary Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNINGIHABVAGENMINIAgenmin.07/09-06-07/09-06 HAB Final Minutes. .doc
Minutes of September 6, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-09-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-10-04,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY OCTOBER 4, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE- - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:08 pm.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Present:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board
Members
Iverson and Lynch.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Board Member lrons
STAFF PRESENT:
Gregory McFann, Building Official, Cynthia Eliason,
Supervising Planner, Zach Seal, Planner I, Shana Nero,
Administrative Assistant.
MINUTES:
Motion (Lynch)/Second (Iverson) to approve minutes for September 6, 2007, with
corrections.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
SPECIAL REPORT:
Gregory McFann, Building Official, discussed the determining factors that are used to
calculate the 30% demolition. Chair Anderson requested information for 2927 Marina and
3011 Marina as part of the record and would like staff to research the two addresses and
respond to the Board by next week.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
WORKSHOP:
6-A. Study Session on the Carnegie Restoration and Preservation Project Applicant:
1
Minutes of October 4, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-10-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-10-04,2,"City of Alameda - 2264 Santa Clara Avenue & 1429 Oak Street (Former Children's
Library) Review and comment on potential restoration elements alteration and additions to
the Carnegie building and potential relocation of the former Children's Library. Alen
Dreyfuss with Wiss, Janney Eistner Associates, Inc. and Rosemary Muller with Muller and
Caulfield Architects presented a slide show. Ms. Muller explained the proposed designs
for the interior of the building and different options for the renovations.
Public Speaker - Chris Buckley, discussed the outside connection between the two
buildings and the preliminary options for the original patterns and stacks.
ACTION ITEMS:
7-A. Certificate of Approval CA07-0021 Applicant: Carmen Hall - 1244 Saint
Charles Street. (DV). Cynthia Eliason, Planning Supervisor presented the Board with a
report identifying the need for the removal of two mature Coast live oak trees (Quercus
agrifolia). The Board reviewed the staff report and conditions.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Motion Carries
Motion (Miller)/Second (Iverson) to approve with conditions as stated in the draft resolution.
7-B. Certificate of Approval CA07-0016 - Applicant: City of Alameda - 2515
Blanding Avenue (The Clamp-Swing Building.) (ZS) Zach Seal, Planner I presented a
Power Point proposal to place the Alameda Rug Works sign at 2515 Blanding Avenue,
also known as the Clamp-Swing Building, on the Historic Study Sign list. The Board
discussed and reviewed the checklist to determine whether it would be put on the Historical
Sign List. Board Member Lynch indicated that the there is no capitol M in the middle of
Rythmics and the building should not be called the Clamp-Swing Building, but rather the
Alameda Rug Works Building. This will be noted in the minutes.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Motion Carries
Motion (Lynch/Second (Anderson) to approve as stated in the draft resolution
7-C. Certificate of Approval CA07-0017 Applicant: Alameda Power & Telecom
-
2000 Grand Street. (DV) The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to replace 40-60
deteriorated decorative streetlights along sections of Lincoln, Buena Vista, and Encinal
Avenues with new decorative streetlights. The streetlights are listed as significant
streetlights in Appendix A in the Historic Building Study List. Staff requests a continuation
to the meeting of November 1, 2007
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Motion Carries
2
Minutes of October 4, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-10-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-10-04,3,"Motion (Miller/Second (Anderson) to continue item to the November 1, 2007 meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason
Secretary Historical Advisory Board Meeting
S:APLANNINGIHABIAGENMINAgenmin.07/10-04-07/10-04 HAB Final Minutes.doc
3
Minutes of October 4, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-10-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-11-01,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members
Iverson, Lynch and lrons.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner;
Simone Wolter, Planner I; Shana Nero, Recording
Secretary.
MINUTES:
M/S (Lynch, Anderson) to approve the minutes of the regular meeting for October 4,
2007 with corrections. 4-0-1.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Abstain: 1; Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None
SPECIAL REPORTS:
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
The Board received a letter from the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
regarding Item 7-A and a Certificate of Approval for the demolition of an accessory
structure at 152 Maitland Drive.
WORKSHOP:
N/A
ACTION ITEMS:
7-A. Certificate of Approval CA07-0017; Applicant: Alameda Power & Telecom -
2000 Grand Street. (DV) The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to replace 40
Minutes of November 1, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-11-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-11-01,2,"to 60 deteriorated decorative streetlights along sections of Lincoln, Buena Vista, and
Encinal Avenues with new decorative streetlights. The streetlights are listed as
significant streetlights in Appendix A of the Historic Building Study List. Staff requested
a continuation to the meeting of November 1, 2007.
Simone Wolter, Planner I, presented the staff report to the Board. Juan Ulloa of
Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) responded to questions regarding the replacement
program, the survey of existing lights, and the cost of new poles.
Chair Anderson opened the item for public comment.
Christopher Buckley discussed the specifications, standards and maintenance of the
streetlights.
Richard Rutter discussed material options for streetlights and stated that cast iron was
the best replacement option for the streetlights.
Woody Minor provided input regarding the historical aspect of the streetlights, noting
that the focus should be more on the retention.
Kevin Frederick stated that he opposed the use of fiberglass.
Birgit Evans commented that there should be some way to reuse the old streetlights,
rather than selling the parts for scrap metal.
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and
opened the floor for public discussion.
Board Member Lynch expressed concern that staff did not understand that the
streetlights were historical monuments and was very concerned that Alameda Power &
Telecom had gone ahead and changed 20 of the streetlights without any authorization.
The Board requested a complete cost comparison from Alameda Power & Telecom for
different casting companies including the use of different materials and a complete
listing for Phase 1 and Phase 2 for repair and replacement of existing streetlights. In
addition, the Board requested information on how to correct the existing 20 streetlights
that have been replaced to date.
Chair Anderson entertained a motion to continue the item to the February 7, 2008
regular meeting.
M/S (Miller/Lynch)
Ayes: 5;
Noes: 0;
Motion carries.
Minutes of November 1, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-11-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-11-01,3,"7-B. Certificate of Approval; CA07-0020; Applicant: Frank Ardourel - 1455 Fourth
Street. The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval for a more than thirty percent
(30%) demolition of a residential structure that was built prior to 1942, but is not on the
Historic Building Study List. The site is located at 1445 Fourth Street within an R-1, One
Family Residential Zoning District.
Simone Wolter, Planner I, presented the staff report to the Board. She noted that the
recommendation was for denial of the Certificate of Approval.
The Board opened the item for public comment.
Marsha Broquedis provided input on her design work at 1445 Fourth Street and her
concerns regarding the condition of the property.
Frank Ardourel expressed to the Board how detrimental the present condition is for his
family and requested he be allowed to move forward with repairs to his property.
There was no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and
opened the floor for Board discussion.
The Board discussed the important design features and requested the applicant to
redesign the addition keeping in mind the following concerns: larger casings on the
windows, the roof over the bay window on the first floor and the reconsideration of the
""pop out"" on the 2nd floor.
The Board also suggested looking at the proportions of the building and to consider
another material - either lap siding or maybe shingle for the front façade.
Chair Anderson entertained a motion to continue the item to the January 3, 2008 regular
meeting.
M/S (Miller/Iverson)
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0
Motion carries.
7-C. Certificate of Approval, CA07-0008;
Applicant: Yong Liang - 1611 Walnut
Street St. The applicants request a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty
percent (30%) of a residential structure that is listed as a historical resource on the
Historic Building Study List. The proposed work includes additions to the first and
second stories, the replacement of windows and doors, and the replacement of the
foundation and basement. The site is located within an R-5, General Residential Zoning
District.
Minutes of November 1, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-11-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-11-01,4,"Staff requested a continuation of the item to the meeting of December 6, 2007 regular
meeting.
Chair Anderson entertained a motion to continue the item to the December 6, 2007
meeting.
M/S (Miller/Iverson)
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0
Motion carries.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board member Lynch discussed a presentation given by Phil Tagami regarding
Alameda Point.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff gave the Board information on upcoming workshops and conferences.
ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason,
Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
Minutes of November 1, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-11-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-12-06,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
1.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members
Iverson, Lynch and lrons.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None.
STAFF PRESENT:
Planning & Building Director Cathy Woodbury; Secretary
Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner; Zach Seal,
Planner I; Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager; Sue
Russell, Development Services; Tony Ebster, Recording
Secretary.
2.
MINUTES:
Board Member Lynch requested that staff review the audiotape for consideration of the
minutes of September at the next meeting. Ms. Eliason noted that the meeting had not
been taped, and because the minutes were produced from her notes, she suggested that
Board Member Lynch provide any further detail that she recalled. She noted that the
corrected minutes were put into the files when the Certified Local Government (CLG)
Annual Report was presented.
Board Member Iverson noted that Dick Rutter had made many interesting points about the
materials for street lights and monuments, as well as their life expectancy and care. She
believed that this was very important, and inquired whether Mr. Rutter could discuss those
matters again since the meeting had not been taped. Ms. Eliason replied that she had
requested that the item be continued to the February 2008 meeting, and suggested that
Mr. Rutter discuss those matters at that time.
Ms. Eliason noted that the issues addressed in February would be considered part of that
meeting. She would add further detail about the monuments.
Board Member Lynch did not believe the minutes of October 4, 2007, could be considered
until the outstanding issues were resolved. The minutes for October 4, 2007 would be
continued to the February 2008 meeting.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the minutes of the regular meeting for November 1, 2007
with corrections. 5-0-0.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Abstain: 0; Motion carries.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
Minutes of December 6, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-12-06,2,"None
4.
SPECIAL REPORTS:
4-A.
Introductions of New Staff
Planning & Building Director Cathy Woodbury introduced new staff member Jon Biggs,
who came to Alameda from the City of Pacific Grove. He would staff the HAB meetings in
the future, and brought considerable historic experience to the City from his previous post.
She added that Ms. Eliason had been working with the Climate Protection Task Force for
the past year, and that the plan will be ready to go to City Council; she will move into that
realm in the near future. She noted that a new administrative staff member would be
introduced at the next meeting.
Mr. Biggs introduced himself and noted that he looked forward to helping the City achieve
its historic goals.
4-B. 2007 CLG Annual Report - Presentation of the Certified Local Government (CLG)
Annual Report for the reporting period of October 1, 2006, to September 3, 2007. (Code
Enforcement)
Ms. Eliason presented the staff report, and summarized the contents of the CLG Annual
Report. She noted that some of the minutes were still in draft form, and would be finalized
before being sent to the State.
Board Member Lynch noted that she did not see the pre-1942 non-monument, non-study
list buildings listed in Attachment 3 of the report. She noted that the section describing the
goals for 2008 read, ""Continuing the development of a plan for adoption for reuse of
historic buildings."" She did not know the City was involved in that plan. Ms. Eliason replied
that was being undertaken by the Navy, assisted by the City with a new Section 106
consultation. Because of the timing between the initial plan and the new one, the Navy
would like to review it.
Chair Anderson noted that page 6, paragraph 2 of Attachment 3, should be corrected to
read, ""The City is took-has taken its first steps
Chair Anderson noted that page 6, paragraph 3 of Attachment 3, read, ""The City of
Alameda has been able to successfully implement its guide to residential design which
was adopted by the City Council in February 2005. She requested that if it was adopted
in 2005, that each member of the Board should have a copy with that date on it. Ms.
Eliason advised that it was on the City's website, and that staff would provide copies to the
Board members.
Minutes of December 6, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-12-06,3,"Chair Anderson wished to make a correction on ""Members of the Historical Advisory
Board,"" and noted that her information should reflect that she has practiced more than two
years as an architect.
M/S (Anderson, Miller) to accept the report.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0
Motion carries.
5.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None.
6.
WORKSHOP:
None.
7.
ACTION ITEMS:
7-A. Certificate of Approval CA07-0008; Applicant: Yong Liang - 1611 Walnut
Street. The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent
(30%) of a residential structure that is listed as a historical resource on the Historic
Building Study List. The proposed work includes additions to the first and second stories,
the replacement of windows and doors, and the replacement of the foundation and
basement. The site is located within an R-5, General Residential Zoning District.
Zack Seal, Planner I, presented the staff report to the Board. Staff recommended that the
replacement windows be either wood, wood-clad or fiberglass, and that they must meet
the City of Alameda Residential Review Guidelines.
Chair Anderson noted that the Proposal Summary indicated that the living space would be
expanded by 594 square feet, and that Mr. Seal had quoted figures between 1,500-2,100
square feet. The plan indicated that both units were increasing by a total of 1,156 square
feet. She would like to confirm the correct figures. Mr. Seal replied that the numbers were
accurate, and that the 1,156 square feet was not the net number. He noted that the square
footage included all of the floor area as part of the two-story addition; the floor area of the
existing first story rear addition would have to be subtracted. The total net gain in floor area
would be approximately 650 square feet. He noted that he would confirm that the numbers
were accurate.
Board Member lrons did not believe the Board should micromanage the paint job, and
noted that the front appeared radically different than the idea of somebody burning paint
on the same property. He would like clarification, but was not highly concerned about that
issue. He noted that the pony wall and the section of the building below the first floor was
not very tall, which he did not believe was typical for similar buildings. He preferred a nicer
Minutes of December 6, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-12-06,4,"railing treatment that would be more integrated to the historic feel, but he was not very
familiar with what would have been typical in 1883.
Mr. Seal noted that staff had not seen any plans indicating what the style of the new side
rails would be, nor have they seen plans for the new sidewalls that would be installed on
either side of the staircase. He noted that the review of these plans would be part of the
design review that would occur after the certificate of approval is issued, if the application
is approved.
Member Lynch wanted to ensure the details of the five-sided bay windows and the
collonettes were saved, and noted that the details did not appear on the drawings. Mr.
Seal replied that the applicant had not proposed the elimination of those details, and noted
that a condition of approval could be added directing that the details of the bay windows
not be altered in any way.
The Board opened the item for public comment.
Richard Rutter, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), believed that the
proposed project would upgrade the neighborhood, and would be a good example of
improvement. He agreed with staff's report, and believed the proper handling of the doors
and transoms could make this building a jewel box. He submitted two photos of a East
Lake Stick building on Waller Street in San Francisco, designed by John Gash, a prolific
Victorian architect. He noted that the treatment of the double doors would be of interest
with respect to this project.
Elizabeth Krase, AAPS, requested clarification about the windows, and noted that page 2
of the staff report stated, ""The removal of the existing wood windows, and replacement with
IWC vinyl windows, could affect the integrity of the structure."" Also, page 4, Item 5, read,
""New/replacement windows shall be wood, wood-clad or fiberglass windows.' She
believed there seemed to be a discrepancy in window materials. She suggested that the
old windows slated for removal be rehabilitated if possible. She noted that an Italianate
stairway railing with heavy, urn-shaped balusters would be appropriate for this kind of
building. She suggested checking the Alameda Museum for early period photos of this
building, or similar styles, to get ideas for what the stair railing ought to look like. She said
that she generally liked the project.
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened
the Board discussion.
Vice Chair Miller stated that Item 13 of the staff report's recommendations read, ""Applicant
shall make every attempt to salvage the existing rear wall and additional elements, including
stair, molding, brackets, borders and siding. He inquired why that language was not
included in the resolution, and whether it should be added. Mr. Seal noted that it was
included in the resolution at the top of page 3.
Minutes of December 6, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-12-06,5,"Chair Anderson noted that a tall, vertical element was characteristic of the Italianate style,
and she liked the idea of seeing what was underneath. She would like to see the vertical
element strengthened in the front, and would like Condition F to be changed to include the
installation of a transom so that it assumed its original proportions.
Board Member Iverson requested clarification on the actual proposed material on the
windows. Mr. Seal replied that the preferred material was the extruded vinyl window
material of the homeowner. Staff recommended that the Board add as a condition of
approval that the windows not be extruded vinyl, and that they be either wood, wood-clad
or fiberglass, which was consistent with the residential design review guidelines for historic
homes (Condition E).
Board Member Iverson thanked Planning staff for a good, thorough job on this application,
and emphasized that a quality job will enhance the appearance and add value to the
property and to the neighborhood.
A discussion of siding alignment techniques ensued.
Board Member Iverson noted that it was possible to match the siding and that is the
intention of the Code, and suggested that the old and new siding be interlocked if the
dimensions were the same. She proposed that maintaining the overall aesthetic and
integrity of the building be the goal,
Board Member lrons suggested changing the wording from ""exact match"" to ""a visual
match.""
Board Member Lynch complimented staff on an excellent staff report, and inquired whether
final inspections were performed to ensure the conditions of approval were followed.
Mr. Seal replied that discussions had been held at the staff level to have the staff planner
go out in the field, and performing a final inspection to ensure that the project as
constructed was in line with what the Board or staff had required. Another layer of review
would be triggered if that was not the case. Staff could include a condition stating that prior
to the installation of the siding, staff would verify that the new siding would verify the
existing siding.
Chair Anderson advised that Condition G required that ""a sample of the proposed siding
will be provided to staff prior to the issuance of building permits.""
Chair Anderson entertained a motion to approve the Certificate of Approval with the
conditions, stating each condition individually.
Board Member Lynch suggested that instead of using the language ""an Italianate
structure,"" that the wording ""the Italianate style"" be used.
Minutes of December 6, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-12-06,6,"A discussion of window materials ensued. Chair Anderson emphasized that she did not
want to see a fiberglass window next to an existing wood window.
Mr. Seal noted that the conditions stated that the windows must be a visual match.
Vice Chair Miller noted that cost may be a factor for the owners, and if they could
accomplish the visual match with fiberglass window, he believed it would be adequate to
accomplish the design aesthetic.
Board Member Lynch noted that the quality of the molding of the fiberglass windows was
an important factor.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Eliason regarding the number of new windows, Mr. Seal
noted that there would be three replacement windows, as well as eight new windows on
the addition, for a total of 11 new windows. All the windows would be placed on the side,
and the rear had no windows.
The following conditions would be added:
1. The balcony to be consistent with the Italianate style, non-cantilevered, such
as in the provided graphic material;
2. Side walls, new railing and posts are to be added to the front porch
consistent with the Italianate style, in order to restore the design integrity of
the front entry;
3. All existing windows shall remain with the exception of the two kitchen and
bathroom windows on the north side, and the one second-story window on
the south side;
4. The window trim, including drip sill, on all new windows shall match the style
and dimensions of the window trim on the existing windows, excluding the
bay window on the north right and south left sides of the structure;
5. Replacement windows shall provide a visual match.
6. The applicant will be encouraged to repair and maintain existing wood
windows;
7. The replacement front doors shall be consistent with the Italianate style, add
transoms or other trim to restore the original entry proportions;
8. The bay window shall not be altered.
Chair Anderson entertained a motion to approve the Certificate of Approval with the
conditions, stating each condition individually.
M/S (Miller/Anderson) to accept Resolution No. HAB-07-24 as prepared by staff, with the
following modifications to the conditions of approval as follows:
1. The design review approval shall incorporate the following conditions:
Minutes of December 6, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-12-06,7,"A.
The proposed railing and posts for the rear entry and second story balcony
be made consistent with the Italianate style, non-cantilevered;
B.
Side walls and new railing and posts are to be added to the front porch,
consistent with the Italianate style, in order to restore the design integrity of
the front entry;
C.
All existing windows shall remain except the kitchen and bathroom windows
on the north, right side of the structure, and one second-story window on the
south, left side of the structure. Encourage the applicant to repair existing
wood windows;
D.
The window trim, including drip sills on all new windows shall match the style
and dimensions on the existing windows, excluding the bay window on the
north, right and south, left sides of the structure;
E.
The new replacement windows shall be wood, wood-clad or fiberglass
windows that provide a visual match to the existing original wood windows on
the structure;
F.
The replacement front doors shall be consistent with the Italianate style,
adding transom window or panel to restore the entry proportions;
G.
The new siding shall exactly match the material (wood) style, texture and
dimensions of the existing siding. A sample of the proposed siding will be
provided to staff prior to the issuance of building permits;
H.
The new roof shall exactly match the style and material of the existing roof;
I.
Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that characterize the Restoration period will be
preserved;
J.
Materials, features, spaces and finishes that characterize time periods other
than the historical period of the subject property will be documented prior to
their alteration or removal, such as the concrete steps, stair railing, etc.;
K.
Deteriorated features from the Restoration period will be repaired rather than
replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a
distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture
and, where possible, materials;
L.
Replacement of missing features from the Restoration period will be
substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of
history will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other
properties and by combining features that never existed together historically;
and
M.
Bow windows and second-story front windows and trim shall not be altered.
2. The applicant shall make every attempt to salvage the existing rear wall and
second-story elements, including exterior molding, eave brackets, frieze borders,
and siding. A graphic presentation will be provided by staff to the applicant to aid in
this endeavor.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0
Motion carries.
Minutes of December 6, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 7",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-12-06,8,"7-B. Certificate of Approval PLN07-0006; Applicant: Peter Yeh - 1222 Park Street
(Bernardi Cleaners Historic Signs). The applicant requests approval to alter the three
historically designated Bernardi Cleaners signs by replacing the words ""Bernardi"" with
""Amazon""; ""Cleaners"" with ""Tropical Fish""; and ""Tailors"" with ""Supplies.' The applicant also
proposes to change the color of the neon tubing from red to blue and pink, and add a
tropical fish logo above the ""Amazon"" sign. The site is located within a C-C/T (Community
Commercial/Theatre Combining) Zoning District. (ZS).
Mr. Seal noted that Sue Russell from Development Services would answer questions for
the Board.
The Board opened the item for public comment.
Sue Russell, Development Services, noted that the applicants were well aware of the
historical significance of the building. She added that the owner received a Development
Services grant to redo the glass in front of the building, which had been in very bad shape.
She noted that the owner was very respectful of the sign, and valued the architecture of
the building. She emphasized that the owner needed accurate signage for his business,
and noted that he still has people bringing laundry and tailoring in to his business because
of the inaccurate signage.
Board Member Lynch noted that she was disturbed by this, and did not see it as respecting
the design guidelines for the preservation of the signs. She had called Jerry Lynn of the
sign company several days prior, and discussed her concerns with him. She had pointed
out that the font was not the same, and she had been told that he would try to get a more
similar font.
Peter Yeh, Direct Sign Outlet, distributed a handout to the Board members, and pointed
out that two fonts were similar to the letter forms currently on the sign. He described the
noticeable differences between the two fonts, and noted that the current signage was
based on the two fonts but that creative license had been taken when the sign was
created. He noted that it would be impossible for them to create a 100% match of the sign
because that font did not actually exist. The similar fonts were called Futura Display and
Tourist Gothic.
Board member Lynch noted that two letters in ""Bernardi"" could be used in ""Amazon,' and
that 12 letters in ""Cleaners and Tailors"" could be used in ""Tropical Fish Supplies.' She did
not oppose the sign being changed, but would like the sign to look as much like the original
as possible.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Lynch regarding the proposed colors, Mr. Yeh
replied that the colors they chose were still true to the era of the signage, and that the
proposed blue and pink would better match the business.
A discussion about the fabrication of the neon letters ensued.
Minutes of December 6, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 8",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-12-06,9,"Board Member Lynch would like the font to be matched to the original sign as closely as
possible aesthetically by the sign company. She also understood the need to be as
descriptive of the business as possible.
There were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened
the Board discussion.
Board Member Lynch wished to discuss the changes in the neon colors.
Mr. Yeh noted that the fish was in blue neon, as would the word ""Amazon""; ""Tropical Fish
and Supplies"" would have either pink or red neon, depending on the appropriateness of
the color.
Vince Ng, owner, displayed a picture of the neon signage.
Board Member Lynch would like the original colors to be used, as cited in the ordinance.
Chair Anderson did not know whether the colors had changed over the course of time, and
believed it would be overly restrictive by the ordinance to state that they must follow those
colors.
Vice Char Miller noted that he owned several neon signs, and had observed a change in
the fluorescence over time; one white sign had changed to pink because of deterioration.
Board Member Iverson suggested asking the applicant to return with a font that was more
square.
Chair Anderson suggested that since the original font could not be duplicated exactly, that
the applicant be encouraged to match certain aspects of the font.
Ms. Russell noted that the ordinance read, ""Should it not be possible for any historic signs
to be modified according to the requirements above, any changes to the signs must be
reviewed and approved by the Historical Advisory Board.'
In response to an inquiry by Chair Anderson, Mr. Yeh replied that the font was not
available in the computer; also, it did not exist inside the Encyclopedia of Typefaces.
Board Member lrons suggested that Condition 1 read, ""The font for the new letters shall be
Tourist Gothic of the same, size, placement
""
Mr. Yeh indicated that would not be a problem.
Board Member Lynch inquired whether the neon fish on the sign could be animated. Mr.
Yeh replied that he would like to be able to do that, but the budget would not allow it.
Chair Anderson entertained a motion to approve the Certificate of Approval.
Minutes of December 6, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 9",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-12-06,10,"M/S (Miller/Lynch) to accept Resolution No. HAB0720 as prepared by staff, with the
following modifications to Condition 1: ""The new letters shall be Tourist Gothic of the same
shape, size, placement, color, material.. ""
Ayes: 5;
Noes: 0;
Motion carries.
7-C. Certificate of Approval; CA06-0020; Steve Rynerson for Barry Hemphill and
Judy Freed - 951 Pacific Avenue. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval
for demolition of more than 30 percent of an Italianate style single-family residence built in
1879. The demolition would result from the proposed removal of the façade and expansion
of the entire structural footprint to fully encase the original building, changing the structure
from a simple Italianate farmhouse to a more monumental mansion form. This property is
listed on the Historic Building Study List as a historic resource distinguished by its
architectural, historical, or environmental significance, eligible for inclusion in the State
Historic Resources Inventory, and of secondary priority for inclusion on the list of Alameda
Historical Monuments. The site is located within an R-2, Two-Family Residential Zoning
District. (DB)
Ms. Eliason indicated that this applicant has withdrawn their application.
7-D. 2008 Meeting Schedule.
Chair Anderson proposed eliminating the July 3, 2008, meeting.
Chair Anderson moved to accept the 2008 meeting schedule, with the deletion of the July
meeting.
M/S (Anderson/Lynch)
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0
Motion carries.
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
9.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Chair Anderson noted that the Alameda Point Task Force meeting was cancelled in
November. The next scheduled meeting will be December 13, 2008, at the O Club at 6:30
p.m.
Board Member Lynch distributed a story she wrote for the Alameda Sun about signs. She
also noted that Historic Preservation season was coming, and added that she had a draft
of the various activities.
Minutes of December 6, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 10",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2007-12-06,11,"10.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Biggs gave the Board information on upcoming workshops and conferences.
Board Member Iverson inquired about the status of historic plaques. Mr. Biggs noted that
he would report back to the Board with that information.
Vice Chair Miller requested that staff provide a list of future projects coming before the
HAB.
11. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason,
Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
Minutes of December 6, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 11",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-01-03,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm.
1.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board
Members Iverson, and lrons.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Board Member Lynch
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Supervising Planner; Tony Ebster and
Dora Mairena, Recording Secretaries.
2.
MINUTES:
January 3, 2008
3,
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
Item 6-A canceled
4.
SPECIAL REPORTS:
None
5.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
The letter from AAPS is available to the
public upon request
6.
ACTION ITEMS:
6-A.
Study Session on the Carnegie Restoration and Preservation Project,
Applicant: City of Alameda - 2264 Santa Clara Avenue & 1429 Oak Street
(Former Children's Library) - Review and Provide Feedback on a Proposed
Design for the Connection between the Carnegie Library and the Children's
Library. Continued to the meeting of February 7, 2008
6-B. Work Program Review and Discussion
Mr. Biggs - I will like to bring forward the Work Program that the Board had
worked in the pass. I looked at the comments of the AAPS and they do bring
some things that aren't and should be included in the Work Program, such as
categorizing, and numbering the items. We bring the Work Program to your
attention to discuss and determine what accomplishment the Board is expecting
in the future.
Chair Anderson - A question raised by the AAPS, was that under additional
recommendations to write a letter to the different departments. Has the letters
being done yet?
Mr. Biggs - Not to my knowledge.
Minutes of January 3, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-01-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-01-03,2,"Board Member Iverson - I have a question regarding the plaques; do you know
what happened?
Mr. Biggs - I did a research and a follow-up, the Planner working in the project is
Laura Ajello and she prepared the background information that was provided to
you. I will give Laura directions in preparing a report for the Board Members on
the next meeting, including the presentation on the September 2007 meeting.
Board Member Iverson - How can we do a pamphlet on the process to request
permits.
Chair Anderson - There is a check list available, but does not include any
information on historical building, pre-1942 or a list of buildings to alert the
owners is additional steps are necessary.
Mr. Biggs - The City Counsel and Planning Director are reviewing the processes
and a way to improve customer service. We can add to the Work Program to
advise the public if additional steps are needed.
Boar Member lrons - When the public gets to the front desk and/or meet with the
Planner a check list and specific information about Historical buildings should be
given to them.
Boar Member Iverson - People find out much further down the road that they
have a historical building.
Chair Anderson - In the Work Program draft, there aren't timeline.
Mr. Biggs - The information provided by AAPS is breakdown by faces and
priorities; that is an example of what we should include in the Work Program.
Chair Anderson - The listing in Work Program of priorities is correct, but no the
faces. If work need to be generated at the staff level, I would recommend to form
a committee that include staff, board members and individuals from AAPS and
go in groups and start categorizing properties in a volunteer bases, if we can't get
funding.
Boar Member Iverson - We can find volunteers with the Historical Society and
local American Institute Architects (AIA), like students.
Mr. Buckle - The recommendations are related to Alameda Point, item 1, 2, 5
and 6 should be priority in Face 1.
In George Guns' book he has a comment ""standing in 1880"", the first step is to
field survey and identify those building (including altered and remodel properties).
The key is to verify how old the properties are, since the standard public records
Minutes of January 3, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-01-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-01-03,3,"are not available; it's necessary to go to the title records. About 15 - 20 years
ago an analysis was completed by a Title Company; need to get our hands on
that research, the documents were in Oakland office and now the research is in
Alameda County.
7.
WORKSHOP:
7-A. Historical and Cultural Resources Ordinance Workshop
Mr. Biggs - The updated Historical Preservation Ordinance with include your
comments is dated September 2006. We propose that the Board appoint a sub-
committed and start a process to review and modify the Historical Preservation
Ordinance, in order to do a better job defining an inventory by conducting a
survey and researching at records in the City Hall.
Chair Anderson - The underlined revisions refer to other cities Ordinance; when
we started this process we talk about other historical places; we set time line to
be completed by June 2008. Once the sub-committed has a solid establishment
we can bring it to a formal HAB mtg.
Jon, do you have other staff members helping you?
Mr. Biggs - Right know I'm considering doing it on my own, carrying forward the
experience I have from the City of Pacific Grove. The biggest task is defining
inventory in Alameda that we want to protect, once we locate this documents we
will identify them and protect the right properties.
Demolish and penalties are going to be very difficult to deal with; we need to be
very careful at the time we look at the part of the Ordinance; because it can be
very expensive for the legal and code enforcement divisions.
Board Member lrons - We had looked very intense at the penalties.
Chair Anderson - There are several option and we need to make decisions. The
other concern is the timing of the workshop.
Mr. Biggs - We can accommodate it to your schedule.
Board Member Iverson - Is fundamental to alert the public if they have a
historical building.
Vice Chair Miller - Is there a disclosure law in real state?
Boar Member Iverson - Generally, it is disclosed if you have a historical building.
Boar Member lrons - In our books there is a cut-off date in 1943, anything before
that, what it means to the potential buyers?
Minutes of January 3, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-01-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-01-03,4,"Board Member Iverson - It is a general disclosed written by attorneys and it the
same wording for everybody.
Chair Anderson - It goes back to definition, what constitute demolition,
renovation, historical?
The AAPS wrote a letter addressing certain items that we should consider for
review. Chris do you want to go thru does items?
Mr. Buckley - The main comment is that AAPS request to participate in the sub-
committee and discussions. As a group AAPS is not yet prepare to make
recommendations in how this issue should be handle. AAPS thinks that the guide
residential design approached it's fine and in some ways it's better.
The item 2, it is a strait forward to handle.
Item 3: Altered properties in a way need the most help and attention. The study
list is excluding properties with significant alterations and that is a problem with
the list.
Penalties, AAPS' position is that penalties need to really hurt and strong enough
to discourage alterations. Also, if a contractor is working with out permit in
Alameda, this needs to be reported to the Contract Business Bureau or banish
the contractor from working in Alameda, it is an effective remedy.
Item 6-B: AAPS' concern is that HAB often hasn't being giving adequate authority
to take a look at the properties after a certificate of approval is issued for
demolition.
Chair Anderson - I will like to explore the idea, lets start Judith and I, setting a
preliminary meeting with the staff in the next two weeks and then review it with
AAPS and HAB.
Board Member Iverson - What I will like to do is to go back and find the resource
person who reviews things. Someone who has a different view can bring a lot to
the discussion.
Board Member lrons - Should we include AAPS?
Chair Anderson - Not initially.
Board Member Iverson - I will like to encourage to review the results of the
meeting it in advance.
Chair Anderson - I will like to be able to communicate the conclusion of the
meeting to the Board for review immediately.
Mr. Biggs - I think we can place it on your regular monthly agenda as designated
discussion on the Historical Preservation Ordinance, that way the sub-committed
can share information with the other Board Members, also we keep the public
inform as well.
Minutes of January 3, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-01-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-01-03,5,"8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Buckley - We mentioned before that is possible to replace wood window and
it is relatively cheaper. We did a price survey a couple years age and I will e-mail
it to you for comparison.
9.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Iron - It a big deal with the Brown Act, I am not clear on what we
are allow to tell people. I will prefer to make it visual list that are really strict but in
terms of weighting the impact in an applicant to be able to execute, the applicant
may not understand all available methods of material; but I think it will useful if
we have some example of product to help people understand and retain the
historical integrity. I hope in the future I may be able to draw some diagram.
Chair Anderson - My concern is that there is not a manufacture that does make
wood windows like the ones in the Italian A House.
Mr. Biggs - There are option on windows and the public needs to take time to
educate themselves and not take only what someone is tells.
Board Member lrons - The Planning Department has stronger guidelines
regarding window replacements.
Mr. Biggs - We try to make sure the applicant install the windows that are
appropriate to the architecture.
Chair Anderson - On December 13, I attended the Alameda Task Force meeting
with regards to the developer process for Alameda Point. About 200 + members
of the community attended, and it was well received.
Another item: I visited an open house on Broadway; I was surprised that is not on
the resource inventory list, this house was build in 1893, and it has so much
qualification of a Victorian house.
Mr. Biggs - Every property build before 1943 gets review if the owner wants to
demolish 30% or more; that gets caught there. What it is less clear is, were it fit
in the list of historic resource that the city has; if deserve some form of
designation? We need to make sure that the list is complete and have properties
that should be in it.
Chair Anderson - One of the items during the discussion of the Ordinance thru
AAPS is a proposal for the HAB to review all alteration pre-1942, and I approved
it. It is a possibility to put on the 10 days notice for mayor design review?
Minutes of January 3, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-01-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-01-03,6,"Mr. Biggs - Will check with Cathy
Board Member Iverson - Is there any update on 1343 Feirnside and 500
Central?
Mr. Biggs - We can look into that and get back to you.
10.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Biggs - Just as a reminder that the Preservation Season is coming up and
we will have an item on the next agenda to get a proclamation from the City
Counsel.
We are looking at the opportunity for grand; I am doing some research to see if
we are able to apply for a grand with the National Indiamen Humanities.
We are working in to getting the most recent copy of the Alameda Residential
Design.
Chair Anderson - I have one dated March 2005, is that the most recent one
Chris?
Mr. Buckley - You can download it from the city website.
Chair Anderson - I notice that the last HAB meeting on the website is January
2007.
11.
ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jon Biggs
Planning Manager
Minutes of January 3, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-01-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-02-07,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, and Board Member
Iverson, lrons and Lynch - 5
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Douglas Garrison, Supervising Planner/Secretary to HAB;
Dora Mairena Intermediate Clerk/Recording Secretary;
Simon Wolter, Planner I.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of December 6, 2007.
Motion (Anderson)/Second (Miller) to approve as amended.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0. Motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
SPECIAL REPORT:
(4-A): Alameda Point Preservation Presentation.
Phil Tagami presented the qualifications of California Capital Group, to participate as a
developer with Sun Cal on the Alameda Point Development.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
ACTION ITEMS:
(6-A) Certificate of Approval PLN07-0087 Applicant: Buestad Construction, 2531 Clement
Avenue. The applicant requests approval to demolish an addition to a structure built in 1874
and listed on the Alameda Historic Study List. They also propose to relocate the remaining
building to the southwest corner of the site, and replace all vinyl windows with wood
windows. The site is located within a M-2, General Industrial zoning district.
Minutes of February 7, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-02-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-02-07,2,"Ms. Simone Wolter presented the staff report for the 2531 Clement Avenue.
Mr. Ken Carvalho from Buestad Construction, stated the goal is to move the historical structure
and renovate it back to its original state as a two-room house.
Mr. Chris Buckley from the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), expressed his
concern that other residential houses will be affected by zoning.
Mr. Adam Garfinkle, an interested member of the public, disagreed with the development of a
business building, stating that it takes away from preserving historical properties.
Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened up board discussion.
Chair Anderson asked if the zoning of the property is M-2, General Industrial (manufacturing);
which Mr. Garrison confirmed.
Motion (Lynch)/Second (Irons) to approve Item 6-A Certificate of Approval PLN07-0087 as
amended (the amendments to the findings are incorporated into Resolution No. HAB 08-02).
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0. Motion passed unanimously.
(6-B) Work Program Review and Discussion
Motion: (Iverson)/Second (Anderson) to continue item to the meeting of March 6, 2008
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0. Motion passed unanimously.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Buckley commented that the City could be more proactive in getting the Alameda Point
buildings leased. He suggested that the City revisit the zoning for areas M-2 and C-M
(Commercial-Manufacturing) that have a high concentration of historical buildings to reduce
the 100 ft height limit.
Mr. Garrison extended an invitation to the community charrette meeting in mid-March
regarding the Park Street Design Studio development in the area.
BOARD COMMENTS:
Board Member Lynch communicated that she and Chair Anderson have been meeting with
Jon Biggs on a weekly basis to work on the definition of terms.
Board Member Lynch distributed the Historic Preservation Season schedule and Proclamation.
Minutes of February 7, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-02-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-02-07,3,"STAFF COMMUNICATION:
Mr. Garrison stated that the City began a project that involves re-zoning the Ranch House
neighborhood - East End/ Fernside (across from Lincoln school).
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Douglas Garrison
Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
Minutes of February 7, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-02-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-03-06,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: Acting Chair lrons called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Board Members lrons, Iverson and Lynch - 3
ABSENT:
Chair Anderson and Vice Chair Miller - 2
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Supervising Planner/Secretary to HAB; Dora
Mairena Intermediate Clerk/Recording Secretary; Simone
Wolter, Planner I
MINUTES:
None
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
SPECIAL REPORTS:
None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
ACTION ITEMS:
(6-A) Certificate of Approval PLN08-0054 - Peter Braun - 2841 Marina Drive. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval for demolition of more than 30-percent of a single-family
residence built in 1939. Demolition consists of a partial roof removal and replacement of the
foundation. The second story will be expanded to cover the whole house. Building materials
will be consistent with original elements of the structure. This property is not listed on the
Historic Building Study List. The site is located within an R-1, One Family Residential Zoning
District. (SW)
Ms. Simone Wolter presented the staff report for the 2841 Marina Drive.
Board Member Lynch asked the applicant if he had heard any complaints from the neighbors.
Minutes of March 6, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-03-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-03-06,2,"Mr. Tom Squire, the applicant, responded that only the neighbor to the west of the property
asked for a copy of the plans.
Motion (lrons)/Second (Iverson) to approve Item 6-A Certificate of Approval PLN08-0054.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2. Motion passed unanimously.
(6-B) Proclamation of Historic Preservation Month.
Jon Biggs requested that the Board ask the City Council to proclaim a Historic Preservation
Season.
Motion (Lynch)/Second (Iverson) to accept the Draft Proclamation of the Historic Preservation
Season to be presented to the City Council as amended.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2. Motion passed unanimously.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
BOARD COMMENTS:
Board Member Lynch commented on the following items:
A question regarding the City's Work/Live ordinance
A reminder to the Board members about the sacred spaces walk on May 10, 2008
Discussion regarding co-sponsorship for Historic Preservation Season
Mention of a book that she is working on with historian Woody Minor
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Biggs informed the Board that the minutes for all 2007 HAB meetings have been posted on
the City's web site.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jon Biggs
Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
Minutes of March 6, 2007
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Page 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-03-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-04-03,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice Chair Miller, Board Members
Lynch, lrons and Iverson - 5
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to
the Historical Advisory Board; Tony Ebster,
Intermediate Clerk/Recording Secretary
MINUTES:
None
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None
SPECIAL REPORT:
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None
ACTION ITEMS:
(6-A) Historic Preservation Work Program
Mr. Richard Rutter addressed the Board. He stated that the Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society (AAPS) is willing to help the Board implement the Work Program
by providing resources such as money or people.
The Board discussed the work program and felt that some minor changes needed to be
made.
Motion (Lynch)/Second (Miller) to adopt the Historic Preservation Work Program with
changes.
Minutes of April 3, 2008
1
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-04-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-04-03,2,"Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: 0. Motion passed unanimously.
WORKSHOP:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch reported on Historic Preservation issues of relevance to the
Historical Advisory Board.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 7:45 pm
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jon Biggs
Planning Services Manager/
Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
Minutes of April 3, 2008
2
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-04-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-05-01,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Chair Anderson, Vice Chair Miller, Board
Members lrons, Iverson and Lynch
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary
to the Historical Advisory Board; Tony Ebster,
Intermediate Clerk/Recording Secretary
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of January 3, 2008
Motion (lrons)/Second (Anderson) to accept the minutes
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0 Abstain: 1 (Lynch) Motion passes
Minutes from the meeting of February 7, 2008
Motion (Miller)/Second (Iverson) to accept the minutes with
corrections
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0 Motion passes
Minutes from the meeting of March 6, 2008
Motion (lons)/Second (Miller) to accept the minutes
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0 Motion passes
Minutes from the meeting of April 3, 2008
Motion (Anderson)/Second (Miller) to accept the minutes with
corrections
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0 Motion Passes
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
Staff requested that item 7-A and item 7-B be continued to the meeting of June 5, 2008
Motion (Lynch)/Second (Anderson) to continue items 7-A and 7-B to the meeting of
June 5, 2008
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0 Motion passes
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Minutes of May 1, 2008
1
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-05-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-05-01,2,"Mr. Christopher Buckley spoke to the corrected minutes not appearing on the City's
website. He also commented on the Oral Communications section of the agenda being
moved and suggested it be moved back to the end of the agenda.
Mr. Biggs replied by saying that the department is attempting to achieve consistency
between the agendas of the boards and commissions staffed by the Planning and
Building Department.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
REGULAR ITEMS:
The Board continued Items 7-A and 7-B to the meeting of June 5, 2008.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch reiterated that Historic Preservation Season is in full swing. She
also mentioned the Kids and Queen Victoria event, and that Mr. Richard Rutter is
leading a Sacred Spaces walk. She noted that there are a limited number of tickets
available for the walk. Board Member Lynch also mentioned lack of recent efforts
toward historic preservation at Alameda Point. Finally, she noted that the findings from
the North of Lincoln study are now available.
Chair Anderson reported on her work in conjunction with Ms. Lynch and Mr. Biggs
regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Board Member Miller said that he would not be able to attend the meeting of June 5,
2008.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff reported.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 7:33 pm.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jon Biggs
Planning Services Manager/Secretary to the Historical Advisory Board
Minutes of May 1, 2008
2
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-05-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-06-05,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Vice Chair Miller, Board Members lrons, Iverson, and Lynch
ABSENT: Chair Anderson
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/ Secretary to
the Historical Advisory Board; Tony Ebster, Permit
Technician I/ Recording Secretary
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of May 1, 2008
Motion (lrons)/Second (Iverson) to approve the minutes with
corrections
Ayes; 4: Noes; 0; Absent: Chair Anderson
Motion Carries
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Brendan Meyer addressed the Board regarding the July 3, 2008 Historical Advisory
Board Meeting. He requested that the Board honor the meeting schedule posted on the
City's website and hold the meeting on July 3, 2008.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
(7-A) Certificate of Approval - PLN08-0035 - 1150 Bay Street. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval to demolish more than thirty percent (30%) of the
value of an historically designated residential building for the purpose of remodeling a
previous addition and adding a front porch. The site is located at 1150 Bay Street within
an R-1, One-Family Residence Zoning District. (DV) Staff requests that this item be
continued to the meeting of August 7, 2008.
Minutes of June 5, 2008
1
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-06-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-06-05,2,"Motion (Lynch)/Second (Iverson) to continue Item 7-A to the meeting of August 7,
2008
Ayes: 4; Noes 0: Absent 0
Motion Carries
(7-B) Certificate of Approval for Alterations to a Historical Monument - PLN08-0185 -
1501 Buena Vista Avenue. The Applicant is proposing structural alterations, including
minor changes to the building's exterior, for the rehabilitation of the Del Monte Building.
Review and comment on findings regarding the consistence of the proposed alterations
with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration. The Del
Monte Building is located within an M-2, General Industrial District. (JB)
Mr. Jon Biggs presented the staff report for 1501 Buena Vista Avenue for consideration
of the Certificate of Approval for exterior alterations for future uses of the Del Monte
Building, which is an historic monument. Staff recommends approval of the application.
Vice Chair Miller invited the architect to speak to the item.
Mr. Michael Rockhold addressed the board regarding the Certificate of Approval and
reviewed the phases of the rehabilitation process and spoke to the first steps to be
taken in the first phase of the construction. He briefly talked about the historical status
of the Del Monte Building.
The Board requested that all the windows be reinstalled by a certain date and that all
openings be water tight to prevent weather damage.
The Board also asked for clarification regarding the sandblasting of the existing brick.
Mr. Christopher Buckley was happy to see the project moving forward. He was
surprised that the Board would be presented with only one phase without a status of the
overall project. He expressed concern that the Board is being asked to make a decision
without knowing how the project will turn out as a whole. He was concerned that this
would be an ""open ended"" approval and suggested that the board set a date as to when
the windows would be reinstalled.
Mr. Stuart Rickard asked about the roofing material and wanted clarification regarding
the solar panels. He also expressed concern about the covers for the roof openings
and wanted to make sure they will seal the openings.
Board Member Iverson wanted to make sure that the updates from the National Park
Service (NPS) were provided. She also expressed concern as to how the building
would be secured during construction. She wanted one of the conditions of approval to
be that sandblasting would not be done on the brick or any other porous surfaces.
Ms. Melissa Gaudreau clarified that sandblasting would not be done on any brick or
porous surfaces.
Minutes of June 5, 2008
2
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-06-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-06-05,3,"The Board agreed that sandblasting would not be done on any brick, masonry, and
porous or sensitive surfaces.
The Board also wanted to be clear that this approval is only good for the first phase of
the construction project and any future approvals would have to come before the
Historical Advisory Board.
Board Member Lynch expressed concern with the grammatical errors in the conditions
of approval. She said that the line that reads ""Planning Director or their designate""
should be ""Planning Director or his or her designate"".
Board Member Iverson expressed concern that if the project does not proceed as
planned, there is no language that obligates the architect to make the building watertight
and wanted to include that in the conditions of approval.
Mr. Rockhold offered to return to the Historical Advisory Board periodically to update the
board on the progress of the construction of the project.
Motion (Irons)/ Second (Iverson) to approve the Certificate of Approval with
conditions.
Ayes: 4; Noes 0; Absent: Chair Anderson
(7-C) Certificate of Approval - PLN08-0156 - 970 Pearl Street. The Applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval for the demolition of more than thirty percent (30%)
of the value of a single-family residence built in 1937. Exterior alterations including
additions and window replacement are also proposed. The site is located within and R-
1, One-Family Residence Zoning District. (LA)
Mr. Jon Biggs presented the staff report for a Certificate of Approval for 970 Pearl
Street. He gave a brief summary of the project. Staff recommends approval of the
application with conditions.
Mr. Tim Banuelos spoke to the project and gave a brief history of the current status of
the project. He mentioned the condition of the house and pointed out the need for
repairs due to dry rot and upgrades from outdated materials to more modern, efficient
materials.
Board Member Lynch expressed concern with condition number 4 and wanted
clarification regarding the replacement of the windows. She also asked about the
awning and what was going to happen with it.
Mr. Christopher Buckley addressed the windows and the muntins. His concern was
with the projection of the muntins and that it should project out 3/8 of an inch from the
glass surface and it was difficult to tell if it did, and stated that it should be consistent
with the design review guidelines.
Minutes of June 5, 2008
3
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-06-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-06-05,4,"Mr. Jon Biggs clarified that the window muntins should be closer to the requirement and
are a little on the thin side.
Motion (Iverson)/ Second (Lynch) to approve the Certificate of Approval with
conditions.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: Chair Anderson
Motion Carries
(7-D) Study Session on the Carnegie Restoration and Preservation Project, Applicant:
City of Alameda - 2264 Santa Clara Avenue & 1429 Oak Street (Former Children's
Library) - Review and provide feedback on a proposed design for the connection
between the Carnegie Library and the Children's Library.
Mr. Jon Biggs presented the staff report for the Carnegie Restoration and Preservation
Project and introduced the architects for the project.
Ms. Rosemary Muller presented her PowerPoint presentation to the Historical Advisory
Board to illustrate how the structures are going to be used and went through the basic
concepts of the design for the connection between the Carnegie building and the former
Children's library. She also gave a brief history of the Carnegie structure and pointed
out that the architectural firm had decided to focus on a specific time period of
significance to base the new designs on. She spoke to various elements that will be
recreated. She also talked about many of the design elements and some of the
materials that will be used. The presentation included many pictures and drawings of
the finished project.
Mr. Christopher Buckley asked about the original furnishings and if there was an
inventory. He also asked about the external materials and the framing for the glass
wall. He noted option three that showed a treatment that was similar to what was
presented. He wanted to see material samples to get an idea of how it was going to
look. He also asked about the west side and what materials are going to be used and
what colors for the interior walls and connector will be.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
The Board asked about what projects are required to go before the Historical Advisory
Board and how it is determined. They also asked who is responsible for notifying the
applicant when Historical Advisory Board approval is required.
Mr. Biggs clarified that staff is diligent about letting the applicant know when they are
required to get Historical Advisory Board Approval and necessary permits.
Board Member Lynch reported on her activity regarding the North of Lincoln Historic
Buildings and suggested that the Italianate Style be put into the design guidelines.
Minutes of June 5, 2008
4
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-06-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-06-05,5,"Mr. Christopher Buckley spoke to the work Board Member Lynch did regarding the list
and expressed appreciation. He mentioned that Alameda Architecture Preservation
Society is willing to help create and maintain the database.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Jon Biggs reported on the project at 3327 Fernside and the Streetlights Project on
Buena Vista Avenue between Grand Street and Sherman Street, Encinal Avenue
between Post Street and Fernside Boulevard, and Lincoln Avenue between Fifth Street
and Constitution Way.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:58 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jon Biggs
Planning Services Manager/Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
Minutes of June 5, 2008
5
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-06-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-07-03,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JULY 3, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: 7:12 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Vice Chair Miller, Board Members Iverson and Lynch
ABSENT: Board Member lrons
STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to the
Historical Advisory Board; Tony Ebster, Permit
Technician/Recording Secretary; Laura Ajello, Planner I
MINUTES:
None
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
(7-A) Certificate of Approval - PLN08-0244 - 1327 Sherman Street. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval for demolition of more than thirty percent (30%) of
the value of a single-family residence built in 1905. Exterior alterations including a 123
square foot addition, roofline changes, and new and replacement windows are also
proposed. The site is located within an R-1 One-Family Residence Zoning District.
Ms. Laura Ajello presented the staff report and various aspects of the project. Staff
recommended that the Board refer the project back to the architect for redesign.
Mr. Jon Biggs provided an overview of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and how this project fit into that review process. He also explained how exemptions to
Minutes of July 3, 2008
1
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-07-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-07-03,2,"CEQA review were considered and why the project as proposed, did not qualify for an
exemption.
The Board asked about the timeline of redesigning project and when it would be back in
front of the Board. They also asked about the options for the project and how they
should go about determining the outcome of the decision.
Ms. Dorothy Frantz, property owner, addressed the Board.
Mr. Brendan Meyer contractor for the project, addressed the Board. He gave a brief
history of the permit process.
The Board discussed the new drawings submitted by the applicant, but stated they
needed more time to consider them. After discussing concerns with the design issues,
they concluded that the project needed to be referred back to the designer for revisions.
Motion (Lynch)/Second (Iverson) to refer the project back to the
applicants/architect and continue the item to the meeting of August 7, 2008.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: lrons
Motion Carries
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch reminded the board of the report she provided at the June 5,
2008 meeting. She noted that fifty buildings were not on the Historic Building Study
List, but should be.
Vice Chair Miller expressed concern regarding a project at 700 Paru Street and the
removal of a roof and the addition of a 4th floor.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff reported on the upcoming National Preservation Conference, its date and location.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jon Biggs
Planning Services Manager/Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
Minutes of July 3, 2008
2
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-07-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-08-07,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Vice Chair Miller, Board Members lrons and Lynch
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to the
Historical Advisory Board; Doug Vu, Planner III; Tony
Ebster, Permit Technician I/Recording Secretary
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of June 5, 2008
Motion (Lynch)/Second (Irons) to Approve with changes
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: None
Motion Carries
Minutes from the meeting of July 3, 2008
Motion (lrons)/Second (Lynch) to Approve with changes
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 0
Motion Carries
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Stuart Ricard addressed the Board regarding the Del Monte building.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
(7-A) Certificate of Approval - PLN08-0244 - 1327 Sherman Street. The applicant
requests a Certificate of Approval for demolition of more than thirty percent (30%) of the
value of a single-family residence built in 1905. Exterior alterations including a 123
square foot addition, roofline changes, as well as new and replacement windows.
Minutes of August 7, 2008
1
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-08-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-08-07,2,"Mr. Jon Biggs presented the staff report and noted the changes made to the project in
response to Board comments.
Board Member Lynch reminded the Board of the gable issue.
Board Member lrons commended the designer and applicants for their flexibility.
Motion (Lynch)/ Second (Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval with conditions.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 0
Motion carries.
(7-B) Certificate of Approval - PLN08-0035 - 1150 Bay Street. The applicant requests
a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent (30%) of the value of a
historically designated residential building for the purpose of remodeling a previous
addition and adding a front porch.
Mr. Doug Vu presented the staff report.
Board Member Lynch asked if there were any pictures from the 1979 survey indicating
what the building looked like at the time.
Board Member lrons asked about the front yard setback.
Vice Chair Miller opened the public comment.
Mr. Craig Coombs, representing the property owners, addressed the Board regarding
the design and gave some history of the project and its progression.
Mr. Jerry Wilkins, with Custom Kitchens, addressed the Board. He gave a brief history
of the work his company has done and shared some of his experiences with remodeling
homes around the Bay Area.
Mr. Robert Ramos addressed the Board regarding the setback of the porch and stated
that it goes beyond the seven feet allowed. He expressed concern regarding the view
from his house and said it would be obstructed if the project is built as designed.
Mr. Jeff Oster addressed the Board and said that he feels that the property owners
should be able to do what they want with their properties. However, he felt that the
preservation of this neighborhood block is necessary. He also stated that he feels this
project may set an undesirable precedent.
Mr. Christopher Buckley with the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society addressed
the Board regarding the front setbacks and stated that he feels their uniformity is what
makes the neighborhood unique.
Minutes of August 7, 2008
2
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-08-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-08-07,3,"Board Member Lynch said that it was an exciting proposal but was concerned about the
precedent that would be set if the porch was built as proposed. She asked about
alternatives to the design of the porch.
Mr. Vu replied said that they had talked about alternative designs and could pursue a
design that was similar to other houses in the neighborhood.
Board Member lrons pointed out that there were drawings in the supplemental report
that illustrate other options. He read from the report including the Secretary of Interior's
standards regarding the construction of new additions. He also discussed the front yard
setbacks.
Vice Chair Miller expressed concern with the precedent that would be set if the project
is built as proposed.
Board Member lrons asked about the encroachment into the side yard and if there were
zoning issues involved.
Mr. Vu replied that the applicant would need a variance to allow the addition to
encroach into the setback.
Mr. Woody Minor asked how the changes were reviewed under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He said as much information should be obtained as
possible to make a sound judgment with regards to the remodel.
Mr. Minor noted that out the building permit ledger book was available in the Planning &
Building Department and that this book may contain more information on the structure.
Mr. Biggs clarified CEQA review, and suggested that the Board could refer the project
back to the applicants to obtain more information on the history of the structure and to
redesign the project.
Board Member Lynch stated that she believes there is not enough information to make
a decision and that the design needs to be addressed.
Motion (Lynch)/Second (Miller) to refer the project back to the applicant to restudy the
design and allow staff to obtain more information on the history of the structure and
continue the item to the meeting of September 4, 2008.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 0
Motion carries.
(7-C) PLN08-0185 - 1501 Buena Vista Avenue. The applicant proposes structural
alterations, including alterations to the building's exterior, for the rehabilitation of the Del
Monte Building. The Board will review and comment on findings regarding the
consistency of the proposed alterations with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation and Restoration.
Minutes of August 7, 2008
3
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-08-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-08-07,4,"Mr. Biggs presented the staff report.
Board Member Lynch inquired about the number of rooms the hotel would have. She
also asked about material and color samples for the proposed alterations, and if they
would go to the Board.
Mr. Michael Rockhold, architect, presented the project to the Board.
Board Member Lynch asked about the letters that Mr. Rockhold mentioned regarding
the status of the property, including its listing as a federal historic monument.
Mr. Steve O'Brien, architect, gave a presentation about the proposed structural
modifications.
Ms. Eliza Skaggs, historic preservation consultant, described some of the history of the
Del Monte property.
Ms. Erin McKlosky, historic preservation consultant, discussed some of the existing
conditions and the preservation work that would be done.
Mr. O'Brien talked about some of the interior elements of the design proposal. He also
talked about the openings and the awning over the loading dock.
Board Member Miller asked about the awning and the material that is being proposed.
Mr. O'Brien offered to provide a sample of the awning material.
Mr. Rockhold addressed the letters that Board Member Lynch asked about. He clarified
the stages that the project must go through and noted that they are through the second
stage.
Board Member lrons asked about the solar panels and how they are integrated into the
roof. He also expressed concern regarding the heating and cooling of the big, open
space.
Board Member Lynch asked if the Board could receive updates on the project and what
they were drilling for.
Mr. Rockhold said that he would be glad to update the Board as they wish.
Mr. Woody Minor expressed his confusion regarding the certification process.
He
reiterated that this site is one of the last historic industrial buildings left in Alameda. He
encouraged the Board to scrutinize the project as much as possible.
Minutes of August 7, 2008
4
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-08-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-08-07,5,"Mr. Barbara Kerr expressed her concern with the project and stated that it does not
conform to the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment. She also expressed
concern with the landscaping, noting that it needs to conform to the City's General Plan.
Mr. Christopher Buckley commended the project and expressed excitement that it is
moving forward. He also addressed a few points in the letter the Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society sent to the Board regarding elements of the design including:
Retention of the corrugated metal canopies
Maintenance of industrial sash look in new ground floor windows
Recessing the ground floor windows
Mr. Anthony Jones addressed the Board and expressed excitement about the building
being rehabilitated. He asked about the supermarket and what kind of market it is going
to be. He also asked if the hotel is going to be economically sustainable.
Vice Chair Miller expressed his concern with how the windows would be installed.
Ms. Barbara Kerr expressed her concern with the parking and the parcel on the corner
of Buena Vista and Sherman and the ownership and transfer of the parcel.
Mr. Jon Biggs clarified questions regarding the parcel
The Board expressed some concerns with the design elements and how they would to
be implemented. They asked questions concerning the new windows, glass awning
and the maintenance of the awning. The Board asked how the developers had decided
on the materials that they are proposing to use.
The design team replied by saying that the decisions were made based on the
practicality of the application and how it would be maintained. They were also given
input by federal and state agencies on how to incorporate the new design elements.
The Board clarified that they are supposed to look at the entire site and not just the
building. They would like to see plans for signage, landscape, lighting and other
aspects of the project, such as samples of the materials to be used.
Board Member Lynch expressed her concern regarding how the renovation would affect
the surrounding neighborhood and wanted to ensure that the historic character of the
neighborhood will be preserved.
The Board added conditions to the project that would require that certain aspects of the
project come back to the Board at a later time for review and approval. The Board also
wanted to ensure that the project complies with appropriate elements of the General
Plan and the Northern Waterfront Plan.
Minutes of August 7, 2008
5
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-08-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-08-07,6,"Motion (Irons)/ Second (Lynch) to approve the Certificate of Approval based on the
findings suggested by staff and subject to the following special conditions in addition to
the other conditions in the resolution of approval for this project:
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 0
Motion Carries
Special Conditions -
Materials and features are to come back to the Historical Advisory Board for
review and approval rather than staff.
The project must be compliant with the Northern Waterfront General Plan.
The landscape plan for the Del Monte Site must come back to the Historical
Advisory Board for approval.
The exterior lighting plan for the Del Monte Site must come back to the Historical
Advisory Board for approval.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch mentioned there would be a lecture regarding the Del Monte
building on Thursday, September 25, 2008 as part of the 2008 Alameda Museum
Lecture Series.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Biggs stated the Board had been provided a copy of their rules and procedures. He
also mentioned that there will be workshop on heritage tourism in Monterey on
September 19, 2008.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:49 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jon Biggs
Planning Services Manager/Secretary Historical Advisory Board
Minutes of August 7, 2008
6
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-08-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-09-04,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: 7:05
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Vice Chair Miller, Board Members lrons and Lynch
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to the
Historical Advisory Board; Doug Garrison, Supervising
Planner; Doug Vu, Planner III; Tony Ebster, Permit
Technician I/Recording Secretary
MINUTES: None
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
Board Member lrons suggested changing the order of the agenda to avoid making
members of the public wait to hear the Bay Street item. The Board agreed to switch
items.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None
CONSENT ITEMS:
(7-A.) Certificate of Approval - PLN08-0390 - 1356 Broadway. The applicant
requests a Certificate of Approval for the removal of one Coast live oak tree (Quercus
agrifolia) located in the rear side yard of the property. The tree is promoting hazardous
conditions due to its proximity to the house. The site is located within an R-
4, Neighborhood Residential District. (DV)
Motion (Lynch)Second (Irons) to approve the Certificate of Approval.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0
Motion passes.
Minutes of September 4, 2008
1
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-09-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-09-04,2,"REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
(8-B.) Certificate of Approval - PLN08-0035 - 1150 Bay Street. The applicant requests
a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent (30%) of the value of a
historically designated residential building for the purpose of remodeling a previous
addition and adding a front porch. (DV)
Continued from the meeting of August 7, 2008.
Mr. Doug Vu presented the staff report.
Board Member Lynch asked if the new drawing could be explained for clarification.
Mr. Jon Biggs pointed out that two letters were received the day of the meeting.
Mr. Craig Coombs stated that he was available to answer any questions regarding the
project at 1150 Bay Street.
Board Member Lynch asked about how the pergola was designed and how the
drawings were supposed to be looked at.
Mr. Coombs clarified the drawings and recapped part of the discussion from the
previous meeting. He also clarified that the design was altered to meet the proper
requirements for preservation and construction. He clarified elements of the design that
were in question.
Mr. Bob Woolley addressed the board. He submitted copies of documents from the
Secretary of Interior's website for the treatment of historic structures. He read from the
sections of the guidelines that address the setting, emphasizing the setbacks.
Ms. Sally Damsen addressed the board. She read a letter on her neighbor's behalf.
While the letter talked about several aspects of the project, one aspect, the front porch,
will extend out past the property line as will its roof. This may cause access problems
for emergency responders such as fire and police.
Ms. Dee Keltner addressed the board. She wanted to clear up a point of confusion,
which was that the neighbors had not met with the applicants. The applicants had an
open house for the neighbors to review the design and plans. The neighbors
encouraged the applicants to reduce the porch extension so it does not protrude as far
into the front yard. She then read from her letter, which was signed by several
neighbors. The letter emphasized the setting of the neighborhood.
Mr. Christopher Buckley from the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS)
addressed the board. He submitted a handout to the board and reiterated that
maintaining the front setback is the key issue. He urged the board to not approve the
project as presented.
Minutes of September 4, 2008
2
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-09-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-09-04,3,"Mr. Jerry Wilkins responded by saying that the Sanborn map that Mr. Buckley submitted
was over 60 years old and may not be entirely accurate. He clarified that he was the
contractor for the Emerson project.
Ms. Keltner asked if the applicants had any documentation that would help the
neighbors get a better idea of the property lines and measurements.
Board Member Lynch asked some questions about the design. She mentioned some of
the conversation from the previous meeting. She wanted to see what they were
currently looking at and how it compared to what was being reviewed at the last
meeting. She wondered if the neighbors had seen the updated plans and designs. She
also complimented the people who were commenting on the standards.
Board Member lrons pointed out the protrusion of the roof and wanted to know what the
minimum setback was for front yards.
Board Member Lynch asked about the porch and why they replaced the porch with a
pergola instead of getting rid of it all together. She also asked if they had more accurate
information regarding the Sanborn map.
Mr. Coombs replied by saying that the porch is in an integral part of making the design
work as a whole. He also had pictures that he hoped would clarify the design and
setting of the neighborhood. He stated that their measurements to property lines were
more accurate than the Sanborn maps and gave a more realistic interpretation of the
setting.
Acting Chair Miller expressed some concerns with the project. He stated that one of the
problems is that the house was designed without a front porch and the protrusion of the
roof changes the streetscape and sets a dangerous precedent. It changes the ""setting""
of the property. He feels that the porch is not a necessary part of the house.
Board Member Lynch agreed with Mr. Miller in that she feels that setting a precedent is
not a good by-product of approval of the project.
Board Member lrons stated that he felt that there was more to the project than just the
design. There were issues regarding the history of the structure and that it would be
better to gather as much information as possible before making a decision. He talked
about the encroachment and that it may be problematic.
Board Member Lynch responded by saying that she would like to see the front of the
structure stay as it is.
Acting Chair Miller pointed out that the redesign did not meet standard number nine and
it has not changed at all.
Mr. Biggs replied by saying that it met the standard because the porch was downsized
and the roof was changed to a trellis structure. The porch is not as massive as it was
originally designed to be.
Minutes of September 4, 2008
3
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-09-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-09-04,4,"Mr. lrons brought up the side set back of 5 feet. His understanding of the ordinance
was that it negates the need for a variance.
Mr. Vu clarified that the ordinance only applies to walled additions. This porch is not
considered a ""walled"" addition.
Mr. Biggs pointed out that the board had alternatives to denying the project.
Mr. Coombs said that they are looking for guidance and are willing to compromise to get
the board to approve the project. He asked for a continuance.
The board discussed the other options to denying the project. The board agreed to
refer the project back to the applicant for further revisions to the front porch.
Motion (lrons)/Second (Lynch) to continue the application for the Certificate of Approval
for 1150 Bay Street to the meeting of October 2, 2008.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0
Motion carries
(8-A.) Park Street North of Lincoln Strategic Plan. The Historical Advisory Board will be
reviewing and commenting on the Park Street North of Lincoln Strategic Plan. The Plan
area includes Park Street from Lincoln Avenue to the Park Street Bridge and one block
on either side of Park Street. The Park Street commercial district, north of Lincoln
Avenue, is an area in transition due to the recent loss of two car dealerships and the
imminent loss of a third dealership. The Plan includes preliminary urban design
concepts for this district and strategies for redeveloping the district. The Plan will
provide a basis for future actions by the City of Alameda, which may include zoning and
General Plan amendments, and establishing design standards for this area. (DG)
Mr. Doug Garrison presented the Park Street North of Lincoln Strategic Plan. The plan
includes several ideas and proposals for the area of Park Street from Lincoln Avenue to
the estuary and one block in either direction from Park Street. The proposals include
redevelopment of many of the sites located within the area. This is a broad vision of the
future and potential for the ""Gateway"" area. The plan includes strategies, visions,
projections and potential uses. No action was taken on the Strategic Plan. This was for
informational purposes only.
He gave a brief history of the beginnings and evolution of Park Street and how it has
changed over time with the construction and opening of various bridges and freeways.
He also spoke to how Park Street has changed with the economy and its demands. It
was also mentioned that the area is a mix of different uses, from retail to commercial to
residential.
Mr. Richard Rutter addressed the board. He thinks the area should be expanded to
include the area on the west side of Oak Street and should go to Broadway; the truck
route should be changed; auto uses should be strongly considered; more research is
Minutes of September 4, 2008
4
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-09-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-09-04,5,"needed on the area's buildings; residential character needs to be maintained; lower the
height limit of new buildings.
Mr. Christopher Buckley addressed the board. He reminded the board of a letter that
was sent by the AAPS. He suggested that some of the language in the plan be
changed. He referred to one of the structures on Park Street and suggested that it
could be preserved, as it's an opportunity.
Mr. Charles Howell addressed the board. He agrees with the recommendations made
by Mr. Buckley and Mr. Rutter.
Board Member Lynch asked about previous comments and how they will know what
they are and if they have been included.
Mr. Eric Fonstein replied by saying that all comments will be included in the report that
is to be presented to the Planning Board and City Council in future meetings.
Board Member Lynch mentioned that the list of historic buildings is incomplete and
needs to be updated.
Mr. Biggs clarified that they are not to be making corrections to the plan, simply
providing comments and suggestions.
Board Member Lynch expressed appreciation for all the work that has been done and
wanted to make sure that many of the historic buildings are protected. She also
expressed concern with the 100-foot height limit and feels that the zoning regulations
should be revisited to lower the height limit.
(8-C.) PLN08-0400 - 2264 Santa Clara Avenue, (Carnegie Library) and 1429 Oak
Street (Foster House). Applicant is proposing the rehabilitation, exterior alterations, and
an addition that will connect the Carnegie Library to the Foster House. The addition will
contain an elevator plus ramps and stairs that provide access to the floor levels of the
two buildings. The proposal includes moving the Foster House to provide the necessary
space for the proposed addition. Approval requires a finding that the project is
Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15331 - Historical
Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation - Rehabilitation projects consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the treatment of historic properties. The site is
located within the R-6, Hotel Residential District. (JB)
Mr. Jon Biggs presented the staff report. He then introduced the architects and
consultants, Rosemary Muller and Allen Dryfus from Muller and Caulfield, who gave
their presentation for the rehabilitation of the Carnegie building and the Foster house.
Acting Chair Miller asked about the librarian room and why the stairs would be turned
into a balcony.
Board Member Lynch asked about the timing and funding. She also asked about the
urns in the picture that was displayed in the presentation.
Minutes of September 4, 2008
5
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-09-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-09-04,6,"Mr. Richard Rutter addressed the board. He expressed concern about the glass floors
and the link between the two buildings. He feels that it is trying to hard and needs to be
simplified; the architecture should be softened down a bit.
Mr. Christopher Buckley addressed the board. He stated that he is excited about the
project and thinks that the design is good. He expressed concern with the resolution
and that it has no conditions requiring the use of certain materials or colors. He also
expressed concern about the librarian stairway and feels it should be kept and feels that
the pipe rails be revisited. He liked the interior layout and likes that the old librarian
desk is going to be preserved.
The board expressed that they like the design and appreciate that the architect seems
to be creating the design with the historical aspects in mind. They like the link between
the two buildings and feel that it is more of a connector instead of a new structure. They
also said that they would like to see a sample board, lighting fixtures, urn design, and
included as a condition that the colors and materials come before the board for review
and approval.
Motion (Lynch)/ Second (Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval with conditions
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0
Motion carries.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
None
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Biggs informed the board about the Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda
(CASA) meeting that was scheduled.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:12
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jon Biggs
Planning Services Manager/Secretary Historical Advisory Board
Minutes of September 4, 2008
6
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-09-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-10-02,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Acting Chair Miller, Board Members lrons and Lynch
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to the
Historical Advisory Board; Andrew Thomas, Planning
Services Manager; Doug Vu, Planner III; Tony Ebster,
Permit Technician I/Recording Secretary
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of August 7, 2008
Motion (Lynch)/Second (Miller) to approve the minutes with
changes
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 0
Motion Carries
Ms. Barbara Kerr addressed the board expressing concern that the minutes were
not complete because they did not contain the added conditions of approval for the
Del Monte restoration project that were created at the Historical Advisory Board
meeting of September 4, 2008. She wanted to see the conditions added in the
minutes for the record and wanted to verify that the conditions were entered in
exactly as they were stated at the September 4, 2008 Historical Advisory Board
meeting.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Barbara Kerr addressed the board regarding the transportation element and the
Alameda Point Plan. She is concerned that the proposals will not address the potential
transportation problems.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
1
Minutes of October 2, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-10-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-10-02,2,"(7-A) Certificate of Approval - PLN08-0035 - 1150 Bay Street. The applicant requests
a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent (30%) of the value of a
historically designated residential building for the purpose of remodeling a previous
addition and adding a front porch. (DV)
(Continued from the meeting of September 4, 2008.)
Mr. Doug Vu presented the staff report.
Mr. Craig Coombs addressed the board. He reiterated the discussion from the
Historical Advisory Board meeting of September 4, 2008 and that the design adheres to
the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines. He also reminded the board that the project is
going to restore the structure and its historical elements.
Mr. Robert Mackenson addressed the board. He gave a brief history of his experience
and stated that the design is in line with the requirements of the Secretary of the
Interior's Guidelines. He pointed out several features in the neighborhood, such as the
setbacks and the landscaping, and suggested the design of the front porch will not
protrude excessively into the front yard setback relative to the other houses in the
neighborhood.
Mr. Christopher Buckley addressed the board. He felt that this item has gone on too
long and recommended that the board make a decision. He thinks that the board
should either approve the project without the front porch or deny the project.
Mr. Jerry Wilkins addressed the board. He stated that this project should be approved
because it will benefit the neighborhood and the City. He also pointed out that the
proposed work follows the guidelines and requirements of the City of Alameda and the
Secretary of the Interior.
Ms. Linda McKenna addressed the board. She mentioned some of the other projects
she has worked on and stated that this project will restore the house to its original
design and will be beneficial for the neighborhood. She also stated that it follows the
guidelines and requirements.
Ms. Dee Keltner addressed the board. She reviewed the plans with the applicants and
wondered why the owners have not attended any of these meetings. She thinks the
renovation is wonderful except for the front porch. She expressed concern regarding its
setback and feels that it will take away from the neighborhood if approved. She is also
concerned with the precedent that will be set if the porch is approved. She asked that
future foliage be limited in height, width and depth to minimize the protrusion into the
setback.
Mr. Josiah Lewis addressed the board and noted his support of the remodel.
Ms. Patricia Emerson addressed the board. She spoke to the remodel and how it will
preserve the building and increase the usability of the structure. She mentioned how
difficult it has become to navigate the historic preservation process. Some people sell
2
Minutes of October 2, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-10-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-10-02,3,"their homes instead of rehabilitating a structure or they do work without permits. She
asked that the board approve the project.
Mr. Eric Jackson addressed the board. He stated that the remodel will improve the
structure, which ultimately helps the neighborhood. He also said that the rehabilitation
will improve the house structurally and will prolong its useful life.
The meeting was adjourned and reconvened in Council Chambers.
The public comment was closed.
Board Member Lynch had questions for Mr. Mackenson. She asked about the
difference between a terrace and a porch.
Mr. Mackenson replied by saying that the porch will be very narrow. Porches provide
covering and trellises are more open allowing more sunlight to come into the area and
structure. He also spoke to some of the windows and doors and that they were altered
in a way that isn't in character with the structure. He pointed out that French doors are
very common in modern remodels and the doors will be in character with the windows
and house.
Board Member Lynch feels that they have been struggling with this project but she
understands it better. She is inclined to change her mind regarding the project.
Board Member lrons pointed out that the building in the Architecture and Historic guide
is similar to the project, which makes him feel more comfortable with the project.
Mr. Biggs clarified that staff's recommendation is to approve the project after reviewing
and discussing the revised plans and drawings.
Acting Chair Miller likes the project except for the porch. He feels that the project still
doesn't address some of the issues and still doesn't meet some of the standards and
requirements. He is concerned with the proposed setback of the porch and its visual
impact. He still objects to the porch and he feels that it goes way beyond restoration
and is more of a modification to the house.
Motion (Irons) / Second (Lynch) to approve the Certificate of Approval with conditions.
Ayes: 2; Noes: 1
Motion Carries
(7-B). Review and Comment on SunCal's Preliminary Development Concept for
Alameda Point.
Mr. Andrew Thomas gave a brief summary of the Alameda Point Development Concept
and introduced Mr. Phil Tagami and Mr. Pat Kelliher.
Mr. Christopher Buckley addressed the board. He asked if all three board members
need to be present to provide comments. He submitted pictures to the board consisting
3
Minutes of October 2, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-10-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-10-02,4,"of a map and photos of some of the structures in the historic district of the former Navy
base. He wished to thank SunCal for preserving some of the structures that were
originally slated for demolition.
Ms. Birgitt Evans addressed the board. She stated that the goal of the Alameda
Architectural Preservation Society is to preserve enough of Alameda Point for future
generations to be able to get an idea of Alameda's history.
Mr. Richard Rutter addressed the board. He is worried that some of the historic
buildings are unoccupied and are being neglected. He also expressed concern with
vandalism issues.
Ms. Elizabeth Krase addressed the board. She reminded the Board that the former
naval air station is an historic place. She pointed out several buildings and how
significant they are from an historical perspective. She also wants enough of the former
base to be preserved to show how significant the City of Alameda's role was in World
War II.
Mr. Bill Smith addressed the board. He talked about various reuses and other
possibilities for Alameda Point. He would like to see more businesses invest in the
former naval station.
Ms. Patty Jacobs addressed the board representing the Greater Alameda Business
Association. She wanted to make sure that the Neptune Beach Museum would
continue to have use of the building they are currently in.
The public comment was closed.
Board Member Lynch commented on Ms. Krase's point regarding some of the
structures that were not on the list for preservation.
Mr. Phil Tagami replied by saying that they might not agree on all the buildings that
should be kept for reuse or preservation. However, they need to do what is best for the
overall project and instead of considering each individual building, they need to keep the
whole project moving forward on schedule so that it stays economically feasible.
Mr. Tagami and Mr. Kelliher gave a PowerPoint presentation of their preliminary
concept plan for Alameda Point. The presentation addressed several aspects of the
development, such as housing, open space, future businesses, potential retail, jobs,
transportation and historic preservation. They also talked about environmental hazards
such as asbestos, mold and lead with regard to the demolition and preservation
process.
The Board thanked Mr. Thomas, Mr. Tagami, and Mr. Kelliher for their presentation and
answering questions of the Board Members.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
4
Minutes of October 2, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-10-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-10-02,5,"Acting Chair Miller asked about Measure X on the upcoming ballot and where it came
from.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Biggs reminded the board of the streetlight replacement project and that it would be
scheduled for consideration at a future meeting.
Acting Chair Miller asked if there had been any applicants for appointment to the
Historical Advisory Board.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:34 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jon Biggs
Planning Services Manager/Secretary, Historical Advisory Board
5
Minutes of October 2, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-10-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-11-20,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING OF THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2008
CONFERENCE ROOM 360, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE:
7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Acting Chair Miller, Board Members lrons, Lynch
and Owens
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary
to the Historical Advisory Board; Tony Ebster,
Permit Technician I/Recording Secretary
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of September 4, 2008
Minutes from the meeting of October 2, 2008
Motion (Lynch)/Second (Irons) to accept the minutes with corrections
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0
Motion Carries
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
(7-A.) 2009 Meeting Calendar
Mr. Jon Biggs presented the staff report. He clarified that the meeting of January 1,
2009 needs to be scheduled for a different day due to the New Years Day holiday.
1
Minutes of November 20, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-11-20.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-11-20,2,"Motion (Lynch)/Second (Miller) to accept the 2009 Historical Advisory Board Meeting
Calendar
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0
Motion Passes
(7-B.) PLN08-0211 - 2413 Buena Vista Avenue. The Applicant requests approval to
remove the structure located at 2413 Buena Vista Avenue from the Alameda Historical
Building Study List.
Mr. Jon Biggs presented the staff report. He pointed out several aspects of the property
and how things have changed over time including alterations to the structure, lack of
maintenance, changes in the surrounding properties, and uses of the area as a
business district.
Acting Chair Miller asked if the project would have to come back before the Board for a
Certificate of Approval for demolition if the structure is taken off the Historical Building
Study List.
Board Member Lynch asked what sections of the Municipal Code regulated Certificates
of Approval.
Board Member lrons asked why buildings must come before the Board if they are not on
the list.
Board Member Lynch pointed out that the pre-1942 requirement was changed due to a
project that was to be demolished and because of public response. City Council
amended the ordinance to require that any structure built prior to 1942 must go before
the Historical Advisory Board for a Certificate of Approval.
Ms. Cara Bertron of Page and Turnbull, Historic Preservation Consultant, was available
to answer questions of the Board.
Mr. Miller asked about the criteria used to create the report that says the house is not a
valuable historic resource.
Mr. Owens asked for clarification about some of the terminology used in the report to
describe the house.
Ms. Bertron replied by saying that the terminology she used was in the guidelines.
Mr. Owens asked if the evaluation was compared to the National Park rating system or
the City's guidelines.
Ms. Bertron said that the evaluation was compared to both the City's guidelines and the
National Park rating system.
Acting Chair Miller pointed out that because the architect or designer is unknown, that is
not a valid reason to remove the structure from the study list.
2
Minutes of November 20, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-11-20.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-11-20,3,"Public comment was opened
Ms. Betsy Matheson gave a short presentation on the possibilities of restoration. She
made comparisons to a house she and her husband purchased and restored in San
Jose and the structure at 2413 Buena Vista Avenue, noting it could be restored if
desired. She also showed some pictures that illustrate the context of the neighborhood.
Mr. Woody Minor helped clarify what had happened in the neighborhood that the project
structure is located in. He provided information regarding the character of the
neighborhood and how the structure at 2413 Buena Vista is an integral part of keeping
the character of the neighborhood intact. He disagreed with the consultant's report on
how the ""setting' of the neighborhood is defined. He expressed concern with setting a
precedent by removing the structure from the study list.
Mr. Richard Rutter addressed the Board and stated he wants to see the structure kept
on the study list. He expressed concern that the building was looked at from a
standpoint of modern construction regarding the structural integrity and should have
been looked at from the perspective of being an older, historic structure.
Ms. Debbie George addressed the Board. She spoke to the North of Lincoln
revitalization project and the Cavanaugh building. She supports removing the structure
from the study list and would like to see the project move forward. She suggested
moving the house or selling pieces from the house to be used in the preservation of
other houses.
Ms. Valerie Turpen addressed the Board. She also submitted some pictures that show
the streetscape. The pictures showed how the neighborhood would look if the structure
was moved to the parking lot to the Southeast of 2413 Buena Vista. She feels that the
whole block is an important part of Alameda. She is worried that if the structure is
removed from the study list, it will be demolished.
Mr. Ross Dileau addressed the Board. He talked about the restoration he has done to
his own house and that complete restoration of the subject structure is possible. He
wants to see the structure at 2413 Buena Vista restored and preserved. He addressed
points in the Page and Turnbull report regarding the importance of the architect and
stated it doesn't matter that the architect is unknown, the structure is still important. He
feels that the criteria used are not what should be used to determine whether or not the
structure is historically significant. He supports keeping the structure on the list.
Mr. Christopher Buckley addressed the Board. He reminded the Board of the letter from
the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) that was sent to the Board and
the Planning Department regarding the Page and Turnbull report. He discussed options
for the house such as moving it to a different location. He also talked about the number
of parking spaces and what is going to be required in the future. He would like
clarification of the ordinance by the City Attorney regarding the need for a Certificate of
Approval. He also feels that the criteria used to generate the Page and Turnbull report
is not correct.
3
Minutes of November 20, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-11-20.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-11-20,4,"Mr. Kevin Fredrick addressed the Board. He wants to see the structure stay on the
study list and urged the Board to deny any proposed demolition. He supports moving
the house to a different location.
Ms. Barbara Price was available to answer any questions.
Board Member Lynch asked about efforts to move the house.
Ms. Price replied by saying that after further evaluation of the structure, it was not
economically feasible to restore the house for use in the new development and the
owner is looking to give the house away for relocation. Other options are to use parts of
the house for the restoration of other houses.
Acting Chair Miller asked if the house is taken off the list if it will still have to come
before the Board if it is to be relocated.
Mr. Biggs clarified that if the building is on the list, a request for relocation will have to
come back to the Board.
Board Member lrons asked about the Cavanaugh project and what it entails. He also
wanted clarification of the uses of the buildings in the area. He talked about some of
the houses in his neighborhood and made some comparisons to those and the structure
at 2413 Buena Vista and also expressed appreciation for the woodwork inside the
building. He is concerned that the house will deteriorate further if it continues to be
neglected. He also expressed concern with the Page and Turnbull report.
Board Member Owens pointed out that despite the requirements of modern commercial
structures, the historic building code could be applied to the project structure.
Mr. Minor asked if the owner's intention was to keep the structure upon purchase or to
demolish it.
Ms. Price replied by saying that the owner intended to incorporate the structure into the
new project but once the evaluation was complete, it would not be economically feasible
to restore and reuse the structure.
Board Member Owens pointed out that the issue before the Board was whether or not
to remove the structure from the list. They were not deciding on the future use of the
structure.
The Board expressed concern that if the request for removal from the study list is
denied, it could be appealed to City Council. They are concerned that if City Council
were to overturn the denial, the Board would not see the project again and the house
would be lost.
Board Member lrons would like a continuance until clarification is given as to whether or
not a Certificate of Approval would have to come before the Board if taken off the study
list.
4
Minutes of November 20, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-11-20.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-11-20,5,"Mr. Biggs said that upon interpretation of the ordinance by the City Attorney, the Board
may still see the project if it were to be relocated or demolished.
Board Member Lynch would like to see a good faith effort to give the house away to
someone who would have it relocated and preserved. The developer has said he is
sincerely interested in finding a new owner and a new home for the building.
Board Member Lynch motioned to continue the matter until the March 2009 HAB
meeting so they have a period of 90 days to show good faith effort in the terms of the
Oakland ordinance. All these efforts would continue for at least 90 days. Each would
include the statement that such listing was required by the City of Alameda and would
include both a phone number and an email address of someone in the Planning
Department who would keep track of any inquiries and answer questions. Such efforts
would include:
1. Posting availability signs on the front sized at least 3' X 6' in a large and legible font.
2. Placing advertisements in Bay Area print and broadcast media as well as websites.
This kind of story could bring positive publicity to the developers and secure good will
for the new project.
3. Enlisting the Bay Area, State and national historic preservation communities by
sending releases they can run in their newsletters and on their websites and asking
them to email the availability of this building to their membership, with the understanding
that the structure would remain on the Island.
4. Planning staff to maintain a log of all inquiries and their disposition, document the
maintenance of the structure through periodic photographs and make such
documentation available at all HAB meetings between December and March so we can
track the progress of the preservation efforts
5. Preventing further depredation of the building by weatherproofing the place, sealing
off the fence and eliminating the use of the property for parking, plus a good faith effort
at security to safeguard the historic resource
6. The Craigslist posting stated that the owners would offer $5,000 to someone willing to
move the structure. If that offer still stands, include it in all listings, postings, and
newspaper stories.
This motion failed for lack of a second.
Board Member lrons stated he would be concerned with any motion that is too open-
ended.
Board Member Owens asked about the categories and if the pre-1942 category
overlaps with the study list category or if they are separate.
5
Minutes of November 20, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-11-20.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-11-20,6,"There was consensus among Board Members that an opinion from the City Attorney
regarding the need for a Certificate of Approval if removed from the list would be helpful
in their consideration of the request.
Motion (Lynch)Second (Owens) to continue the item to December 4, 2008
Ayes: 4; Noes 0
Motion Passes
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch reminded the Board of the upcoming 2009 Historic Preservation
Season.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Biggs updated the Board on the Del Monte Project.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jon Biggs
Planning Services Manager/Secretary Historical Advisory Board
6
Minutes of November 20, 2008
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-11-20.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-12-04,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Acting Chair Miller, Board Members lrons and Owens
ABSENT:
Board Member Lynch
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary
to the Historical Advisory Board; Tony Ebster,
Permit Technician I/Recording Secretary
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of November 20, 2008
Motion (lrons)/Second (Owens) to accept the minutes with changes
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: Lynch
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
(7-A.) PLN08-0211 - 2413 Buena Vista Avenue. The Applicant requests approval to
remove the structure located at 2413 Buena Vista Avenue from the Alameda Historical
Building Study List.
Mr. Biggs presented the staff report. He reiterated that the item was continued so staff
and the Board could get an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the need for a
Certificate of Approval if the site is removed from the study list. He informed the Board
the City Attorney had indicated a Certificate of Approval would be required to demolish
or relocate the structure, even if the site was removed from the Historical Building Study
List.
Minutes of December 4, 2008
1
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-12-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-12-04,2,"Board Member lrons asked about the progression of the item if the Board denied the
request and if it could go before the City Council on appeal.
The public comment period was opened.
Mr. Rob Ratto with the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) supported the request
to remove the structure from the Historical Building Study List. He said that the new
development is being held up and is costing the property owner money. He would like
to see the new development move forward.
Mr. Christopher Buckley with the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS)
referred to the AAPS letter that was submitted at the November 20, 2008 meeting, and
reiterated their recommendation to include as a condition of approval that the house be
offered for a period of time to someone who would move it to a new location on the
Island of Alameda.
The public comment period was closed.
Acting Chair Miller asked staff to remind the Board of the conditions suggested by
Board Member Lynch at the last meeting that would allow for relocation of the house.
Mr. Biggs read the conditions for the Board.
Board Member Owens acknowledged the comment made during oral communications
regarding the economic importance of the new project, but noted that economic
considerations are not within the Historical Advisory Board's purview. He encouraged
the other Board members to focus on whether the structure has the historical merit to
remain on the list.
Acting Chair Miller stated that removal of another site on this street from the study list
would be a mistake. He also said that because the architect or designer of the building
is unknown is not a sufficient reason to remove the site from the study list.
Board Member Owens said that the structure has the historical integrity to remain on the
list and its position in the neighborhood is significant. He added that the structure meets
the applicable criteria for retention on the list.
Board Member lrons said that their purview is historic integrity and they are not
supposed to consider the economic aspects of a project. He said that delisting the
structure would undercut the standard by which they judge other sites.
Ms. Barbara Price mentioned that the property is private and people should not trespass
onto the site.
Motion (Owens)/Second (Miller) to deny the request to remove 2413 Buena Vista
Avenue from the Alameda Historical Building Study List based on the following finding:
Minutes of December 4, 2008
2
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-12-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2008-12-04,3,"The Board finds that 2413 Buena Vista Avenue shall remain on the City of
Alameda's Historical Building Study list because this building embodies a
distinctive architectural resource as an example of the Queen Anne cottage
style. The building retains the majority of its distinguishing characteristics
including form, drop siding, fish scale shingles, ornamental wood trim and
double hung wood windows. It is not a requirement of the study list or of the
National Register that a building be either a rare example or an outstanding
example of a particular style.
Furthermore, the building shall remain on the study list because it is a part
of a group of structures of particular historic significance to the City. This
group includes the row of buildings on the same side of this block of Buena
Vista Avenue and the row of buildings directly across the street. Although
this setting has been compromised by the removal of the adjacent building
and its replacement with a parking lot the group of remaining buildings
continues to exemplify the early Victorian residential development of the
City.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 1 (Lynch)
Motion Carries
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
None
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None
ADJOURNMENT: 7:23 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jon Biggs
Planning Services Manager/Secretary Historical Advisory Board
Minutes of December 4, 2008
3
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2008-12-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-02-05,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2009
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE:
7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Acting Chair Miller, Board Members lrons, Lynch, Owens and
Talbot
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary
to the Historical Advisory Board; Tony Ebster,
Permit Technician I/Recording Secretary
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of December 4, 2008
Motion (Lynch)/Second (Irons) to accept the minutes with changes
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: None
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None
CONSENT ITEMS:
(7-A.) Certificate of Approval - PLN08-1114 - 3263 Thompson Street. The applicant
requests a Certificate of Approval for the removal of one diseased Monterey Pine (Pinus
radiata) located in the public right-of-way adjacent to 3263 Thompson Avenue. The site
is located within an R-1, One Family Residence District. (DV)
Motion (Owens)/Second (Lynch) to approve the Certificate of Approval for the removal
of the diseased Monterey Pine tree.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0
Motion Carries
Minutes of February 5, 2009
1
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-02-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-02-05,2,"REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
(8-A.) Certificate of Approval - PLN08-0970 - 2413 Buena Vista Avenue. The
Applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to demolish a structure built prior to 1942
for redevelopment as a parking lot in conjunction with the renovation of a commercial
structure and construction of a new retail building on adjacent parcels. The project is
located within a C-M (Commercial Manufacturing) Zoning District (JB)
Mr. Jon Biggs pointed out that staff had received two letters after the packet was
distributed. He then presented the staff report. He reiterated staff's concerns to the
board. He also mentioned that the board's decision to deny the removal of the structure
at 2413 from the study list had been appealed to the City Council. He also clarified that
the structure was built before 1942 and is on the historical building study list.
Board Member Lynch asked about the conditions that were mentioned at the December
Historical Advisory Board meeting.
Mr. Biggs reminded the board of the conditions, which were that a good faith effort be
made to give the house away to be relocated to another site.
The public comment period was opened.
Mr. Richard Rutter addressed the board saying that his practice specializes in structures
that were built between 1870-1930. He spoke in support of the Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society's (AAPS) letter that suggested that two conditions be applied to
the approval. Those conditions were to require that a good faith effort be made to give
the house away/move the house and that the demolition permit not be granted until a
building permit for the new project is issued. He supports saving the house.
Mr. Tom Antholzner addressed the board. He supports saving the house.
He
mentioned that the house was never put up for sale and stated that restoring the house
would not be too expensive and would greatly increase the value of the house. He
wanted the board to consider if there was enough parking in the area already.
Mr. Erik Miller addressed the board. He supports saving the house. He looked at the
house and mentioned the car wash nearby and how an old showpiece property was torn
down. He mentioned the Page and Turnbull report and disagrees with it. He also
stated that the house may not be historically significant by itself, but is part of a
neighborhood that has taken a beating as other historical structures have been torn
down. He feels that the house is important to the neighborhood as a whole.
Mr. Christopher Buckley with the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS)
stated that there is a fine balance that must be met between the historic nature of the
neighborhood and the structure and the redevelopment of the area. He wants Historical
Advisory Board to attach the two conditions that were mentioned in the AAPS letter if
they do approve the demolition.
Minutes of February 5, 2009
2
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-02-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-02-05,3,"Board Member Lynch asked if the Applicant was going to address the board.
Ms. Barbara Price, the Applicant's representative, said that she is available to answer
any questions that the board may have. She also mentioned that the house had been
advertised and several parties were interested but had fallen through and that the
original intention was to keep and rehabilitate the house for some sort of commercial
use.
Mr. Adam Garfinkle addressed the board pointing out that there is a strong case not to
demolish the building. He is a property owner in the neighborhood and they are
concerned about a precedent being set that people can buy houses just to tear them
down. He also mentioned another property that a family member owned that had an
historic structure that was rehabilitated. He thinks that demolishing the house to build a
parking lot is a bad idea.
Ms. Valerie Turpen addressed the board expressing support for saving the house. She
also wants to see a good faith effort to give the house away and have it relocated. She
wants it to be clear when the 90-day period to give the house away would start and who
would oversee the process. She didn't like that the ad for the house didn't describe the
house in a positive way. She also mentioned the North of Lincoln redevelopment plan
and expressed concern that there may be more houses that could be demolished.
Ms. Melanie Wartenberg addressed the board opposing demolition of the structure.
She is concerned with adding more parking on side streets. She is also concerned with
dumpster and waste storage near her house as her back yard backs up to the property.
She wants the board to give the house a chance to continue to be a part of the
neighborhood.
Ms. Nancy Manos addressed the board telling them that the house she moved into was
dilapidated and she was distraught by the condition of her house. She was able to
rehabilitate the house and bring it back to its original state. She also wanted the board
to consider the parking in the neighborhood and feels that they don't need to tear down
another house to make another parking lot.
Mr. Kevin Frederick addressed the board by reiterating that he likes the house and
wants to see it preserved. He feels that the Page and Turnbull report is not accurate
and wants it to be disregarded. He is also worried about outside developers coming
into town and destroying the historical integrity of the City. He also mentioned the
proposed project and would not like to see the project go forward as is. He supports the
suggestions of the AAPS and hopes that the City will enforce the conditions if applied.
Mr. Malyka Chop addressed the board by clarifying where the 'Wedgewood' name
came from. He also mentioned that the house he purchased is in need of rehabilitation
and wants to bring it back to its original state to help the community. He is also
concerned that the developer is not considering the historical aspects of the City.
Minutes of February 5, 2009
3
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-02-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-02-05,4,"Ms. Nanette Burdick addressed the board saying that there is parking all over the place
and doesn't like that the developer wants to demolish a structure to make another
parking lot. She is also concerned that due to the economic times, the developer will
demolish the house and not move forward with the new development. She is undecided
but wants to support what is best for the community.
The public comment period was closed.
Board Member lrons addressed the members of the public and their concerns. He
mentioned what Mr. Garfinkle had said regarding compromised structures. He also
mentioned that the previous body had authorized the demolition of a valuable structure
that he was not sure was compromised. He spoke to Ms. Turpen's comments about the
Island High School site and wasn't sure what was happening with that site. He clarified
that the structure is not an historical landmark but is on the study list and is a pre-1942
structure, therefore will need the board's approval for demolition. He also clarified the
purview of the board and that they don't get to fine-tune design review. He asked about
the delisting and why it was back before the board. He also mentioned that he attended
the charette for the North of Lincoln proposal for redevelopment.
Mr. Biggs clarified that because the structure was built before 1942, it needs a
Certificate of Approval for demolition.
Board Member Talbot stated that she read the Alameda Municipal Code regarding the
role of the board. She thinks that they do need to consider the economics of the
situation. While she favors rehabilitation, the reality is that economic factors make
rehabilitation infeasible.
Ms. Barbara Price spoke to Board Member Talbot's concern that the Applicant was not
at the meeting. She clarified that the Applicant's original intention was to move the
structure to the back of the lot and rehabilitate the structure but due to economic
constraints, they could not save the building. She also gave information as to what is
going to happen with the adjacent parcels on Park Street.
Board Member Lynch asked how many parking spaces were envisioned for the property
and how was it decided to increase the number of parking spaces. She also asked
about the listing on Craigslist and why the responses fell through. She asked how long
the ad had been posted for.
Mr. Biggs clarified the parking requirements.
Ms. Price replied to Board Member Lynch's questions about the listing and said that
they had over 20 inquiries but they had all fallen through due to unforeseen
circumstances. She also said that all the bricks taken from the demolition of the
adjacent building would be used for the new construction. She also mentioned the
other media that the house was advertised in.
Minutes of February 5, 2009
4
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-02-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-02-05,5,"Board Member Talbot asked if the Applicant would be willing to meet the conditions
suggested by the AAPS if the demolition was approved.
Ms. Price said that they Applicant is not willing to abide by the suggested conditions and
will appeal the conditions if they are applied to the Certificate of Approval for demolition.
They do not want the project held up by the conditions.
Mr. Biggs clarified that the Applicant could appeal the conditions if the demolition is
approved with the conditions. He also clarified why the Applicant came before the
board with two different applications.
Board Member Lynch said that it was strange that they are being asked for a Certificate
of Approval for demolition after they denied the request to remove the structure from the
study list.
Board Member Owens said that he is uncomfortable weighing the benefit of the project
with the historic benefit of the building due to the fact that they don't have any
knowledge of the new project. They can only weigh one side of the project.
Board Member Lynch expressed concerns regarding the AAPS conditions and that they
will be appealed if the demolition is approved. She is torn between denying the
application and approving the application with the conditions.
Board Member Owens said that if approved, the condition should be that the building be
moved.
Acting Chair Miller said that the house has a death sentence no matter what their
decision is. He is also concerned that the house will be torn down and the new project
will not move forward due to economic troubles. He read from the December 5, 2008
minutes information that describes the house and neighborhood and that was the
reason that it was not taken off the list.
Board Member Lynch wanted clarification on how to word the motion for the vote. She
moved to deny the application to demolish the structure.
Motion (Lynch)/Second (Owens) to deny the application for a Certificate of Approval to
demolish the structure at 2413 Buena Vista Avenue.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 1 (Talbot)
Motion Carries
(8-B.) Certificate of Approval - PLN09-0012 - 1832 Nason Street. The applicant
is
requesting a Certificate of Approval for the demolition of more than 30% of the value of
a pre-1942 single-family dwelling that was damaged by a fire. The project is located
within an R-2, Two-Family Residential Zoning District. (DB)
Minutes of February 5, 2009
5
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-02-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-02-05,6,"Mr. Dennis Brighton presented the staff report. He explained the project and why it had
gone forward without the Certificate of Approval for demolition.
Board Member Lynch expressed confusion by the photos that were attached to the
report. She was unsure of what the extent of the damage was due to the fire. She also
asked about the windows and what type they are.
Mr. Brighton clarified the confusion and pointed out that there have been some changes
made to the plans.
Board Member lrons commented on the windows and how they are made.
Acting Chair Miller asked how the percentage was determined.
Board Member Owens asked how the demolition happened without the Certificate of
Approval since it was more than 30%.
Mr. Biggs clarified that after an inspection was scheduled, it was discovered that the
builder had gone beyond the scope of work.
Board Member Talbot reminded the board that some of the demolition was because of
dry rot and pest problems.
Mr. Keith Durden, project manager with Har-Bro Construction, introduced himself and
the job superintendent Chris Krzywicki. They explained why they went as far as they
did with the demolition.
Board Member Owens asked if they were installing the new sheer sheathing to the new
building code and doing everything as per the guidelines. He suggested that this
implied that they were going to have to do more than 30% demolition.
Mr. Krzywicki said that after the demolition had taken place, they realized that more
work had to be done than originally anticipated. His understanding was that when they
were going through the planning and permit process, everything was taken care of. He
said that this was the best way to address the project.
Mr. Durden said that when they started on the project, they were under the impression
that the planning portion of the process was taken care of and they did not know they
needed to go before the Historical Advisory Board. As the project progressed, they
realized that it was more than 30% demolition.
Board Member Lynch asked about the front elevation of the house and if the same door
was going to be put back in place. She pointed out that some of the pictures are
inconsistent with the new plans.
Minutes of February 5, 2009
6
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-02-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-02-05,7,"Board Member Talbot expressed confusion with the amount of demolition and how the
numbers were determined, and how the replacement in kind was not going to count as
part of the demolition.
Board Member lrons pointed out that it is easily interpreted that only 30% will be
demolished if new construction is going to be sistered in with the old construction. He
also said that for efficiency sake, it is better to demolish damaged parts of the project
than trying to repair the damage.
The Board agreed that according to the drawings, it is inevitable that there is going to be
more than 30% demolition.
Board Member Owens expressed concern with the drawings and that they didn't
indicate that 30% was going to be the amount demolished and why there wasn't an
inspection done before rough framing. He is concerned about setting a precedent. He
also clarified that the drawings are different than what is actually happening on the
construction site.
Mr. Biggs said that his understanding was that most of the walls were to remain so it
would not be more than 30% demolition. He suggested that the office copy of the plans
might not be the same as the job site copy of the plans.
Acting Chair Miller pointed out that the plans regarding the windows do not reflect what
is actually happening.
Board Member Owens pointed out that the elevations do not accurately reflect what is
happening with the structure and that what shows on the plans is more than 30%
demolition of the structure.
Mr. Biggs stated that a set of plans will come to planning for approval, and then the
building set of plans will be compared to the planning set of drawings to make sure
there are no discrepancies.
The public comment period was opened.
Mr. Kevin Beal addressed the board saying that the building burned in April of 2008 and
are perplexed by what the hang-up is for the reconstruction. They are eager to get the
construction done so they can move back in.
Mr. Christopher Buckley addressed the board saying that the picture of the structure in
the 1979 survey did not match the pictures attached to the staff report. He wanted to
give the board an idea of what it looked like.
Mr. Biggs said that if you compare the pictures, it can be seen that the changes that
were made altered the house significantly.
Minutes of February 5, 2009
7
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-02-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-02-05,8,"Ms. Michelle Beal addressed the board saying that they were willing to make the
changes requested of them by planning staff. She just wants the house built and is
willing to do whatever it takes to make it happen. Their intention was in the best interest
of the house, City, and contractor.
Board Member Lynch agrees with staff recommendations. She is concerned with the
wording in the report and resolution. She wants more positive language.
Mr. Biggs replied by saying that the wording could be changed.
Motion (Lynch)Second (Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval for demolition at
1832 Nason Street.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0
Motion Carries
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch talked about Historic Preservation Season and shared her
excitement that there are now several major organizations involved. She also talked
about the lecture series with the Alameda Museum.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Biggs welcomed Board Member Talbot
Board Member Talbot talked about the Mills Act and wants to see it enacted by the City.
She clarified that it applies to both residential and commercial.
Mr. Biggs suggested that it be agendized for an upcoming meeting for discussion.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:06 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jon Biggs
Planning Services Manager/Secretary Historical Advisory Board
Minutes of February 5, 2009
8
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-02-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-03-05,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2009
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE:
7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Acting Chair Miller, Board Members lrons, Lynch,
Owens and Talbot
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary
to the Historical Advisory Board
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of March 5, 2009;
Board member Lynch was in attendance at the 3/5/09 meeting. Her
name should be listed., On page 3 the word not was left off of Mr.
Garfinckle's statement. On page 4 last paragraph the word fell should
be fallen.
Motion (Miller)/Secono (Irons) to accept the minutes with corrections.
Ayes:5; Noes: 0; Absent: None
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None
CONSENT ITEMS:
7-A. Certificate of Approval - PLN09-0033 - 1118 Bay Street. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow removal of a Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia). The tree is in poor condition and presents a hazard to the
single-family dwelling. The property is located within an R-1, One-Family
Residence District. (SW)
Minutes of March 5, 2009
1
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-03-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-03-05,2,"Motion to approve all items on the consent calendar subject to recommended findings
and conditions in agenda report.
Motion (lrons)/Second (Owens)
Ayes: 5 Noes:0
Motion Carries
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A. Historic Preservation Season Proclamation.
Board Member Lynch discussed support for the Historic Preservation Season
Proclamation.
Acting Chair Miller stated that the City Council would be presenting the proclamation at
the April 21, 2009 meeting.
Motion to Recommend that the City Council proclaim a Historic Preservation Season for
the City of Alameda
Motion (Lynch)/ Second (Talbot)
Ayes: 5 Noes:0
Motion Carries
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch pointed out that the memorandum of agreement from the City
Manager setting up the North of Lincoln planning process did not include the Historical
Advisory Board. Board Member Lynch asked that the Historical Advisory Board be
added to meetings because a large part of the project has to do with historic buildings.
Board Member Lynch provided an update on the status of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
Board Member lrons expressed concern that the term form-based code is confusing.
Acting Chair Miller stated he will have the consultants or staff give a presentation on
form-based codes.
A board discussion ensued regarding the City Council's action on the property located
at 2413 Buena Vista.
Board Member Talbot requested that a discussion on the Mills Act be agendized for
next meeting.
Minutes of March 5, 2009
2
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-03-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-03-05,3,"STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff reported that an amendment to the Alameda Charter requires three votes in
support of a motion in order for the motion to carry.
Staff reported that the City Council introduced new second unit regulations and provided
some information regarding the new standards for second units.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:06 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jon Biggs
Planning Services Manager/Secretary Historical Advisory Board
Minutes of March 5, 2009
3
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-03-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-04-02,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 2009
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE:
7:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Acting Chair Miller, Board Members lrons,
Owens, and Talbot
ABSENT:
Board Member Lynch
STAFF PRESENT:
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary
to the Historical Advisory Board
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of March 5, 2009;
Motion (Owens)/Second (Irons) to accept minutes as presented.
Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: None
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
Board member Owens requested that items 7-A and 7-C be pulled from the consent
agenda and placed on the regular agenda
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
David Hall invited Board Members to participate in the California of the Past Digital
Storytelling project being conducted by the Alameda Free Library.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None
CONSENT ITEMS:
7-B. Certificate of Approval - PLN09-0057 - 915 Centennial Avenue. The
applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow removal of a Coast Live
Oak (Quercus agrifolia). The tree has structural weaknesses that are considered
hazardous. The property is located within an R-2, Two Family Residential
District. (LA)
Minutes of April 2, 2009
1
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-04-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-04-02,2,"Motion (lrons)/Second (Talbot) to approve all items on the consent agenda subject to
the recommended findings and conditions in the agenda report.
Ayes:4; Noes: 0
Motion Passes
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
(7-A) Certificate of Approval - PLN09-0046 - 2207 Santa Clara Avenue. The
applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow removal of a Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia). The subject tree has caused property damage. The property is
located within an R-6-PD, Hotel Residential District, Planned Development Combining
District. (LA)
Mr. Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager, presented the agenda report.
Board member Owens asked if there was a definition for structure and whether a fence,
concrete patio, or brick planter qualified as a structure. He also asked if damage to such
items warranted the removal of a tree, noting there were other methods that could be
employed to protect ""structures"" and retain the tree. Mr. Owens offered that bridging
and tunneling under roots were possible solutions as was constructing fences, patios
and planters in different locations. He asked if these options had been explored.
Board member lrons asked if removal of the tree was necessary and if the fence, patio
and brick planter would be replaced.
Joseph LoParo, a contractor representing the property owner, responded to the Board's
questions and noted that damage was being done not only to structures on the subject
site, but the neighboring property as well. He pointed out the tree was located on or very
near the property line separating the two sites.
Mr. Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager, stated that the agenda report did include a
finding supporting the requested removal, and informed the Board that the threshold for
granting a tree removal application was relatively low. He stated that if the Board found
that damage was being done to a structure it could grant the tree removal request.
Motion (Talbot)/Second (Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval and grant the tree
removal permit subject to the recommended findings and conditions in the agenda
report.
Ayes:3; Noes: 1 (Owens)
Motion Passes
(7-c) Certificate of Approval - PLN09-0083 - 1212 1/2 Broadway. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow removal of a Coast Live Oak (Quercus
agrifolia). The tree has been partially removed and the health of the tree has been
Minutes of April 2, 2009
2
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-04-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-04-02,3,"severely compromised. The property is located within an R-1, One Family Residence
District. (DB)
Mr. Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager, presented the agenda report.
Board member Owens asked if a fine had been assessed for trimming the tree without
permit approval.
Mr. Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager, stated that a fine had been imposed and the
property owner was responsible for expenses incurred by the department for processing
this application.
Board member Owens stated it would be informative to include this information in the
agenda reports and wanted to know if the owner had explored retaining the tree.
Brian Kim, co-owner of the property, stated it was his understanding that the tree did not
have a good chance of survival based on an evaluation by an arborist. He added that he
planned on planting fruit trees as a replacement for the oak.
Board discussion ensued regarding what the long-term appearance of the tree would
have been had it not been removed.
Motion (lrons)/Second (Talbot) to approve the Certificate of Approval and grant the tree
removal permit subject to the recommended findings and conditions in the agenda
report.
Ayes:4; Noes: 0
Motion Passes
(8-A) Informational Presentation on the history of Alameda's Japan Town
Jill Shiraki gave an informational presentation on the History of Alameda's Japantown
and the statewide effort to document historic resources related to Japanese
communities in California.
Reverend Michael Yoshii, minister of the Buena Vista United Methodist Church,
provided information regarding the Japanese community in California and the buildings
that were important to the community
Rebecca Holder of the Alameda Multicultural Community Center, echoed the
statements of earlier speakers and encouraged that buildings be recognized for their
contribution to the community.
Jeannette Copperwaise offered to assist in documenting the structures that made up
Alameda's Japantown.
Minutes of April 2, 2009
3
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-04-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-04-02,4,"The Board had a number of follow-up questions regarding the next step in the effort to
document resources and thanked Jill Shiraki and the other speakers for the
informational presentation.
(8-B) Discussion on the Mills Act
Board member Talbot provided the Board with documents that described the purpose
and process for the Mills Act. She noted that incentives to encourage historic
preservation were needed in the community given the number of historic properties in
Alameda.
Board member Owens added that Oakland had a Mills Act process and felt that
establishing such a process in Alameda should be explored further. He stated that
it
was an incentive to restore and rehabilitate historic buildings and felt that it was worthy
of moving up on the Historic Advisory Board's work program.
Motion (Talbot)/Second (Miller) to request that staff research and bring back to the
Board a process by which the Mills Act could be implemented in Alameda.
Ayes:4; Noes: 0
Motion Passes
(8-C) Appointment of a Board Member to Serve as a Representative for the 106
Consultation Process for Alameda Point
Acting Chair Miller appointed Board member Owens to serve as the Board's
representative for the 106 Consultation Process for Alameda Point and appointed Board
member Lynch to serve as his alternate. He requested that staff provide the appointees
with appropriate materials and a calendar of meeting dates and times.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff reported.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jon Biggs
Planning Services Manager/Secretary Historical Advisory Board
Minutes of April 2, 2009
4
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-04-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-08-06,1,"FINAL
MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, AUGUST 6, 2009
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:05 PM
CONVENE:
7:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Acting Chair Miller, Board Members lrons, Owens, Lynch,
and Talbot
STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to the
Historical Advisory Board, Laura Ajello, Planner I
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of April 2, 2009;
Motion (Owens)/Second (Talbot) to accept minutes as presented.
Ayes: 5; Noes: 0; Absent: None
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
Staff requested that items 8-A be discussed first.
Board Member Lynch presented other board members with Woody Minor's newest book.
She also announced the next AAPS neighborhood walk with lecturer Woody Minor. Board
Member Lynch presented Board Member Miller with a letter thanking him for his many
years of service on the Historical Advisory Board.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution
of the agenda packet are available in the Planning & Building Department at City
Hall during regular business hours.
7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN09-0143 - 3016 Lincoln Avenue. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval for the demolition of more than 30% of the value
of a pre-1942 single-family dwelling. The project is located within an R-1, One",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-08-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-08-06,2,"Family Residence Zoning District. (LA)
Staff presented the project.
R. Rutter, architect, discussed the architectural presence of the frontage and orientation
to the neighborhood. He recommended a modification of the proposal to maintain the
architectural staircase and preserve the Golden Mean. He also recommended shed
dormers instead of the proposed bay windows and discouraged the use of cement
fiberboard as a siding material.
C. Buckley, citizen, outlined his discussion with the property owners and outlined his
ideas on how to improve the design of the pergola, railing, and stairs and choice of
siding.
G. Shivan, project architect, after being asked by the board, explained the choice of
windows and siding on the project. He also explained the proposed staircase.
R. Rutter, recommended a standardization of the plan set submittal to facilitate plan
review.
The board members discussed the project. Board Member lrons raised concerns about
the window selection. Board member Owens questioned whether the draft resolution
was required to make a finding that the project met the Secretary of Interior Standards
as the building was not on a historic list. Staff responded that the finding was necessary,
as the building was built pre-1942, granting it special status pursuant to the City Council
Ordinance. Board member Lynch (initially inaudible) commented that the plans could
have been more detailed and offered design suggestions for the front of the building.
Board member Owens supported the design but opposed the cement siding. Acting
Chair Miller supported the previous comments.
The board members agreed to revise the conditions of approval to require siding,
matching siding to be applied to the new lower section and all new windows to be single
light, and all construction plans match the approved HAB plan set. Motion
(Owens)/Secono (Lynch) to approve the project subject to the revised conditions of
approval. Motion passed.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff discussed the recent staff reductions and the effort put forth to maintain the levels of
service. Board member Lynch requested an update at a future meeting on the North of
Lincoln project and the status of the HAB Ordinance Update. Board member Owens
requested that the Mills Act be brought forward as well.
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:07 p.m.",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-08-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-11-05,1,"Approved
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2009
1.
CONVENE:
7:04 P.M.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Board Members Hoffman, lrons, Lynch, Owens, Talbot
Present: Board Members Hoffman, lrons, Lynch, & Owens
Absent: Board Member Talbot
Lynch motioned/Hoffman seconded the motion to appoint
Board Member Owens to be the Chair for the meeting. Motion
passed 4-0.
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of August 6, 2009 - lrons motioned/Lynch seconded
to approve the minutes as amended. Approved as amended 4-
0
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Buckley, representative of the Alameda Architectural submitted a letter in support of
continuing the discussion of the Historic Preservation Ordinance to a future date.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN09-0339 - 2510 Eagle Avenue. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow removal of a Coast Live Oak (Quercus
agrifolia). The subject tree has caused property damage.
Staff conducted a presentation.
Board Member Lynch requested that staff report back where trees have been planted
through the replacement program and asked for clarification on the process for
removing oak trees in emergencies.
Mr. Torres, neighbor, spoke in support of the tree removal, and noted the tree causes a
significant maintenance hardship on the elderly owner of 2514 Eagle Avenue.",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-11-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-11-05,2,"Ms. Miles, daughter of the owner if 2514 Eagle Avenue, spoke in support of the tree
removal.
Chair Owens asked if at least one tree could be planted on site, in a currently open
area on the site, or in the public right of way.
Mr. Goodeill, property owner, stated that he would like to plant something adjacent to
the street, but had been turned down by the Public Works Department because of the
location of the utility lines. He stated that the open area demarked the former location of
a pine tree that had grown too large for the site and had prevented anyone from parking
there.
Staff suggested that the Board consider an amendment to the resolution granting that
one tree be plantedin the planter strip between the sidewalk and street, subject to
approval by the Public Works Department.
Board Member Lynch moved/ Hoffman seconded the Certificate of Approval with the
condition that the applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee of $ 125 and, identify a tree species
for planting on-site or in the landscape strip between the street and sidewalk. The tree
species is subject to approval by the Public Works Department, which shall take into
consideration site limitations, such as overhead power lines. If a suitable tree species is
not identified for planting on-site the applicant will be required to pay an in-lieu free of
$250 unstead of the $125 as noted above. The in-lieu fee shall be paid to the City of
Alameda and deposited in the appropriate tree planting fund. Motion approved 4-0.
7-B
Certificate of Approval - PLN09-0063 - 1185 Broadway. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval for the demolition of more than 30% of the value
of a pre-1942 single-family dwelling.
Staff conducted a presentation.
Ms. Dang, applicant, outlined the need to significantly update the building.
Board Member Lynch asked for the need to expand the building to such an extent. The
applicant stated that they wanted to fully utilize the site and felt that a two-story building
would fit into the neighborhood.
Chair Owens requested clarification on the need to separate the garage demolition from
the main project. Staff explained the accessory structures can be reviewed on a staff-level.
Mr. Bogomolets, the project advisor, explained that he had only provided design
recommendations to the applicant, but had not designed the project.
Board Member lrons, commended the clarity of the plans. He suggested that the existing
configuration of the front be maintained.",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-11-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-11-05,3,"Board Member Lynch commented on the proposed windows and the proposed roofline not
being the same and pointed out the inconsistency in the plans.
Board Member Hoffman commended the plans and the design of the proposed building.
Chair Owens asked for clarification on those elements (stucco, windows, trim elements)
that will be retained on the proposed building. He asked that the plans clearly identify those
elements that will be retained. Ms Dang clarified that all stucco and wood siding on the
lower half, as well as all windows will be replaced.
Board Member Hoffman stated that the extent of demolition may increase once
construction starts.
Board Member Lynch asked if the project should come back to a future meeting to allow
the applicant time to revise the plans and clarify the areas of concern.
Board Member lrons suggested that staff handle the revisions as discussed by Board
Members.
Staff explained possible ways to handle the approval process for this project.
Board Member Lynch asked that the applicant return with the requested changes. She also
asked the applicant to discuss the proposed front door.
The applicant stated the ongoing efforts made to amend the project to meet the requested
changes as would be proposed by the Board.
Staff suggested that the Board form a subcommittee that would approve revised plans and
would report back to the Board at the next hearing. The subcommittee would review the
extent to which original wall materials would be retained, the extent of demolition and also
discuss window and door changes.
Staff reiterated the role of the Board as a judicial body, which is to make a decision on the
project. The submcommittee would not be advised to make any design changes and
recommend products.
Board Members lrons and Hoffman agreed to be on the subcommittee.
Board Hoffman motioned to approve the project subject to the approval by the
subcommittee. The subcommittee would review the extent of the demolition and retention
of the exterior stucco finish, the selection of windows and front door. Board Member Lynch
seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-1.
7-C
2010 Meeting Calendar
Board Member Lynch motioned, Board Member Hoffman seconded the motion. Approved
4-0",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-11-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-11-05,4,"7-D
Historic Preservation Workshop
Staff clarified that the workshop is the first session at which the Historic Preservation
Ordinance is being considered and the public would have more opportunities to provide
comments. Staff then thanked Chair Owens and Board Member Lynch for their continued
efforts to update the ordinance over the last 18 months.
Chair Owens asked how the shortage of staff would affect the development and circulation
of the ordinance.
Board Member Lynch described the efforts of updating the ordinance and the focus on
developing a comprehensive definition section and strengthening the provisions for
enforcement and penalties.
Chair Owens elaborated on their efforts.
Chair Owens opened the public comment period.
Ms. Evans, member of the AAPS, spoke in support of the ordinance and the proposed
provisions for enforcement and penalties. She recommended changing the ""Historic
Advisory Board Fund' to ""Historic Building Revolving Fund"" to create a name that
accurately reflects the future use of said funds. She submitted written comments and edits
to staff.
Chair Owens explained that the new ordinance no longer defined demolition as determined
by 30% of value of the building, but rather redefined by 25% of the area of an elevation of
a building.
Mr. Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) representative,
commended the development of the new ordinance. He raised concerns that the new
ordinance does not contain findings required to grant demolition or alterations. He spoke to
the concept of redesignating all historical monuments to historical landmarks and
suggested that the ordinance explicitly call that out. He cautioned against requiring minor
changes to historic buildings having to come to the HAB on the basis that such a drawn out
the approval and review process may create a backlash against historic preservation and
create a significant burden on staff. He advocated that the section on hazardous buildings
be modified to allow the Building Official have more remedies other than simple demolition
to address such hazardous buildings. He also suggested that the HAB had some authority
over interior spaces, such as for historic landmarks.
Chair Owens closed the public comment period.
Staff explained the future steps for refining the ordinance, that it be circulated internally,
and that comments from the public and other board members. He suggested that the
project be agendized for the meeting in February 2010, the subcommittee will accept
comments until January 11, 2010. Board Member Lynch motioned, Board Member lrons
seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-11-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-11-05,5,"8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch presented a copy of ""Home in Alameda"" by Woody Minor to Mathew
Hoffman, the newest member on the Board.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff explained that Board Members have been given a map indicating a 500' radius from
property they own. This map shows the area that would require a Board Member to recuse
themselves from projects located within that boundary.
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:10 P.M.",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-11-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2009-12-03,1,"Approved
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2009
1.
CONVENE:
7:10 P.M.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Board Members Hoffman, lrons, Lynch, Owens, and Rauk
Present: Board Members Hoffman, (arrived during item 8)
Irons, Owens, and Rauk
Absent: Board Member Lynch
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of November 5, 2009 - Rauk motioned/Irons
seconded to approve the minutes. Approved 3-0
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A&B Election of a Chair Person and Vice Chairperson
On a motion by lrons, seconded by Rauk, the Board voted 3-0 to elect Dennis Owens
Chair Person and Donna Rauk Vice Chairperson.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
There were no Board communications.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff reported there was no information to relay to the Board.
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 7:18 P.M.",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-12-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-02-04,1,"Approved
MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2010
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 pm
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present Chair Owens, Vice Chair Rauk, Board Members
Hoffman, Irons, and Lynch
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of December 3, 2009. Vice Chair Rauk motioned,
seconded Hoffman. Motioned passes 4-0-1 (Board Member
Lynch abstained).
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Staff provided copies of written communications addressing the Draft Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN09-0410 - 1019 Morton Street. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow removal of three Coast Live Oaks
(Quercus agrifolia). The subject trees are located in a confined space and are
structurally weakened.
Staff presented a report on the project.
Board Member Lynch asked why the trees had been planted so close to the residence.
The property owner replied that the trees were mature when they moved into the house in
1991.
Chair Owens closed the public hearing and opened the item up for discussion by the
Board.
Page 1 of 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-02-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-02-04,2,"Board Member lrons indicated that he favored tree planting in public sites in lieu of
replanting on constrained sites, but cautioned that public space is limited and future
authorizations to plant trees off-site may be ineffective due to a lack of available public
space.
Staff stated it would check with the Public Works Department and see of they could provide
information regarding how tree replacement planting funds have been used to date and if
there was any data regarding the number of trees that had been planted in public spaces.
Vice Chair Rauk asked if it would be possible to plant one larger tree in lieu of planting two
trees for each removed tree.
Staff stated that young trees seem to adapt to new locations much more easily than larger,
more mature trees, but it was possible to condition an approval to require replanting one
larger tree.
Chair Owens proposed that the Board should be able to condition an approval that required
a replacement planting fee, but then it should be up to the discretion of the City to
determine how best to use that money to acquire and plant trees. For example, in some
instances it might be best for a City to use the money to buy and plant numerous smaller
trees and in other instances it might be best to use the money to buy one larger tree for
planting at a particular site.
Board Member Hoffman seconded that notion.
Board Member Lynch asked for a list of trees that have been planted in Alameda using the
tree replacement planting funds that have been collected to date.
Following additional discussion regarding the recommended number of tree replacement
plantings, staff proposed that the resolution be amended to delete the number of
replacement trees so that it would be up to the City to determine how best to use the tree
replacement planting funds.
Board Member lrons motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Rauk, to adopt the resolution as
amended. Motion passes 5-0.
7-B
Historic Preservation Ordinance Workshop
Chair Owens provided an overview of the changes contained in the Draft Historic
Preservation Ordinance.
Board Member lrons asked for clarifications on the Historical-Cultural Preservation Permit
and its relation to the State Historic Building Code.
Chair Owens explained that the proposed regulations provided a process by which the
Board could consider exceptions to the Zoning Code if the project was an effort to preserve
Page 2 of 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-02-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-02-04,3,"a historic resource.
Staff explained that the Board would be asked to make decisions that would allow a project
to receive exceptions to the Development Regulations, which are normally considered
through a use permit or variance application. Staff pointed out that this umbrella permit
would allow an applicant to receive a streamlined permit, which would be a cost and time
savings for an applicant or property owner. Such an incentive would likely prompt an
applicant to develop a project that would emphasize preservation and restoration over
demolition.
Board Member Hoffman asked for a clarification on the Historical Advisory Board Fund.
Staff stated that such a fund exists, but there are no monies in it at this time. Collected
funds, from donations, fines, etc, could be used for historic preservation efforts.
Chair Owens opened the public comment period.
Mr. Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society Representative, discussed the
points in the letter submitted by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society.
Mr. Kibby, Alameda Resident, cautioned against economic hardship provisions in the
ordinance and supported the permit process that would allow the Board to consider land
use exceptions by way of a Historical-Cultural Preservation Permit. He also recommended
that the ordinance include authority for staff to approve small projects, rather than requiring
that they all be considered by the Historical Advisory Board (HAB).
Chair Owens closed the public comment period.
Vice Chair Rauk stated that she supported streamlining the permit process by having
authorized planning staff conduct an initial evaluation of buildings constructed prior to 1942
not listed on the Historical Building Study List and make a determination that the proposed
changes meet the conditions to be issued a Certificate of Approval. Staff would be
authorized to issue a Certificate of Approval. She also suggested that the definition of an
alteration as stated in section B"" the removal of more than 25% of the surface of any
exterior wall that is adjacent to a street or a public sidewalk"" and that this would also be
applicable to pre-1942 structures not listed no the Historical Building Study List. This
amendment would allow for additions at the back of structures where they would not be
visible from the street. She expressed concern that if the new regulations are too strict,
homeowners may not be inclined to pursue remodeling and upgrading their historic
properties that, in turn, could hinder historic preservation efforts. She also provided
comments on the submittal requirements for projects and the appeal process.
In
response to questions concerning the appeal process and findings, staff suggested that
the findings for approval should be the same for any civic body taking an action on a
historic preservation project. For example the City Council would need to make the same
findings for a project as the Historical Advisory Board.
Page 3 of 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-02-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-02-04,4,"Chair Owens asked for clarification on developing findings for economic hardship and
consideration of a project through the California Environmental Quality Act process. Staff
provided a clarification of the process.
Board Member lrons supported Vice Chair Rauk's comments that non-listed, pre-1942
structures should be evaluated in a less stringent manner than those properties that are on
a list of historic resources.
Chair Owens clarified that ""replacement-in-kind would not fall under the classification of
""demolition"".
Vice Chair Rauk stated that determinations for inclusion of structures built before 1942 on
the Historical Building Study list, or other historic inventory, should be made by Planning
staff.
Board Member Lynch preferred that staff not make such determinations because with
changes in staff there could be changes in the level of historic preservation expertise and
knowledge.
Vice Chair Rauk proposed that the Community Development Director, or other position in
Community Development, be assigned to make the determination on whether a site should
be added to the Historic Resources Inventory.
Staff proposed such determination could also be done by a committee made up of staff
and some members of the Historical Advisory Board. It also pointed out that a system for
determining the historical status of a site needs to be formulated because there are
inaccuracies and oversights on existing lists.
Vice Chair Rauk emphasized the need to make the HAB and design review process as
easy as possible for buildings that currently fall under the pre-1942 classification, but that
do not exhibit significant architectural merit.
Chair Owens proposed that historic evaluations of structures could be conducted by
consultants and the Board would then be required to evaluate the validity or accuracy of
the historical analysis by the consultant.
Staff supported such a proposal but cautioned that the consultant should meet minimum
qualifications.
The Board concluded its discussion at this point and requested that this item be scheduled
for its next meeting in March, which would allow the Board and members of the public an
opportunity to review the draft ordinance and provide additional feedback or comments.
7-C
Historic Preservation Season Proclamation
Board Member Lynch presented the draft proclamation to be presented at a City Council
Page 4 of 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-02-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-02-04,5,"meeting in March.
Staff proposed that the proclamation include a section that would recognize the City's
efforts to obtain the ""Preserve America"" designation by the federal government, which
would allow the City to apply for historic preservation grants.
Board Member Lynch motioned and Vice Chair Rauk seconded the motion to recommend
forwarding the proclamation, as amended, to the City Council. Motion passed 5-0.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch announced this year's Alameda Museum Lecture Series and shared
that the Alameda Museum has new exhibit items, which she encouraged the Board to visit.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff reported.
10.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 8:32 pm.
Page 5 of 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-02-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-03-04,1,"APPROVED
MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2010
1.
CONVENE:
7:08 pm
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Vice Chair Rauk, Board Members
Hoffman, lrons, and Lynch
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of February 4, 2010
Board Member lrons motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Vice Chair Rauk, to approve the
minutes as amended. Motion to approve minutes as amended passed.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff had received comments regarding item 7-A, that were submitted after the packet had
been mailed.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Historic Preservation Ordinance Workshop
Chair Owens opened the public comment period.
Mr. Rutter, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) member, reviewed some of
the items of the letter submitted by the AAPS on the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Mr. Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) member, went over the
remaining items of the letter submitted by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
on the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Ms. Hurd, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) member, submitted her
written suggestions and presented comments on the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Ms. Gordon, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) member, commented
that she supported the written comments submitted by the Alameda Architectural
Page 1 of 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-03-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-03-04,2,"Preservation Society on the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Chair Owens closed the public comment period.
lrons provided comments on the draft ordinance. He supported the concepts that exterior
replacements mimic the visual appearance of details and elements, as opposed to
matching the original elements exactly.
Vice Chair Rauk supported this sentiment.
The Board reviewed the submitted comments and discussed the intent and need to change
sections of the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance pertaining to the relevant comments.
Chair Owens closed the discussion of the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and noted
the subcommittee would take the comments and suggestions into consideration when it
redrafted the ordinance.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Member Lynch requested an update on the status of Alameda Point, after the failure of the
ballot measure.
Chair Owens provided an update on his communications with the Navy liaison, Erica
Spinelli, regarding historic properties at the former Alameda Naval Air station.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff distributed a flyer for an upcoming California Preservation Workshop in Monterey.
10.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:12 pm
Page 2 of 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-03-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-04-01,1,"APPROVED
MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 2010
1.
CONVENE:
7:02 pm
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Board Members Hoffman and Lynch
Absent: Vice Chair Vice Chair Rauk and Board Member lrons
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of March 4, 2010 (Pending)
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff stated that two letters in support of the agenda items for 547 Lincoln Avenue and
1102 Santa Clara Avenue were received after the packets had been sent out.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN10-0057 - 1102 Santa Clara Avenue. The applicant
is requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow removal of two Coast Live Oaks
(Quercus agrifolia). One tree is located next to the main building and has caused
property damage; according to a Certified Arborist, it has outgrown its area and
should be removed.
Staff presented the project.
Board Member Lynch and Hoffman asked for clarification on the process of submitting
arborist's reports.
Board Member Lynch requested that staff research how much money had been deposited
in to the tree fund and the type and number of trees that had been planted.
Board Member Lynch motioned, Hofman seconded, to approve the application based on
the findings suggested by staff and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in
the resolution for this project. Motion passes 3-0.
Page 1 of 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-04-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-04-01,2,"7-B
Certificate of Approval - PLN10-0044 - 547 Lincoln Avenue. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow removal of one Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia). The subject tree is located in the driveway and has caused
property damage. According to a Certified Arborist, the tree shows signs of sudden
oak death, has outgrown its area, and should be removed.
Staff presented the project.
Board Member Lynch asked if the diseased tree could be carefully removed from the site in
a manner that would prevent contamination of other oaks in the area.
Staff recommended that the Board add a condition of approval requiring that removal of the
tree be done at the direction of a licensed arborist to prevent against the spread of the
disease to other healthy oak trees in the area.
Board Member Lynch motioned, Hofman seconded, to approve the application based on
the findings suggested by staff and subject to the conditions contained in the resolution for
this project with the addition of one more condition requiring the removal of the oak tree be
done by at the direction of an arborist that will use best management practices to minimize
transmittal of disease to other oak trees in the area. Motion passes 3-0.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch announced the Queen Victoria lunch event at her private residence
and her success in securing a scholarship to study Victorian Architecture in London.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff announced that planners in the department had attended a Historic Preservation
Design Review workshop in Monterey.
10.
ADJOURNMENT:
7:32 pm
Page 2 of 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-04-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-05-06,1,"Approved
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2010
1.
CONVENE:
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Vice Chair Vice Chair Rauk (left early),
Board Members Hoffman, lrons, and Lynch.
Staff present: Mr. Biggs, Planning Services Manager
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of March 4, 2010
Meeting of April 1, 2010
The Board requested that staff members be identified, as well as first names of public
speakers be included in future meeting minutes. On a motion by lrons, seconded by Vice
Chair Rauk, the Board voted 5-0 to approve the minutes as amended.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Nancy Hird, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society President, presented the
Board with invitations Annual Alameda Architectural Preservation Society Preservation
Awards, to be held on Thursday May 13, 2010.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Historic Preservation Ordinance Workshop
Mr. Chris Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society member, discussed the
Alameda Architectural Preservation Society's comments submitted to the Board on
February 13, 2010 and March 2, 2010 that address the latest Draft Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
Board Member Lynch asked whether the City Attorney had an opportunity to review the
Draft Ordinance.
Mr. Biggs responded that this had not occurred due to time constraints.
HAB MEETING MINUTES
Page 1 of 3
May 6, 2010",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-05-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-05-06,2,"Chair Owens asked whether other staff members had been able to review the Draft.
Mr. Biggs responded that this had not occurred as most of the Planning staff were out
during the last week due to vacations and need to be out of the office.
Chair Owens outlined and explained the major changes in the current ordinance Draft.
Vice Chair Rauk commended the current draft for its clarity and process flow. She
suggested that a ""replacement-in-kind"" be excluded from the definition of major design
review on page 4, as well as from the demolition definition on page 7. On page 23, she
suggested that ""major alteration"" be deleted from the text. On page 25, she pointed out that
the Certificate of Approval is not required for a pre-1942 structure, which is a requirement
of the current ordinance.
Board Member Lynch asked how the ordinance can be structured to amend the duties for
the Building Official for instances when he or she would be called upon to evaluate the
structural integrity of a building.
Mr. Biggs explained that the draft ordinance should include any changes to the duties of
a
Building Official, even if the proposed changes would amend different sections of the
Municipal Code.
Board Member Lynch requested that the Building Official, Greg McFann, be presented with
the Draft and that he possibly attend the next subcommittee meeting to discuss the
proposed changes.
Mr. Biggs stated he would facilitate that effort and that he would continue to place the Draft
on the future agendas to keep the update moving forward.
Chair Owens asked the Board whether the prohibition of developing a site after a historic
resource had been illegally altered, destroyed, or moved should be limited to 5 or 10 years.
Vice Chair Rauk and Board Member Hoffman stated that 5 years was a sufficient time
span to prohibit additional development on a site.
Board Member Lynch asked for clarification on the process of placing a deed restriction on
a property.
Mr. Biggs explained that staff drafts a deed restriction for the specific property and then the
applicant would record this restriction with the County of Alameda Recorder's office.
Board Member Hoffman suggested that the Draft ordinance be sent to the Board of
Realtors in Alameda so that their comments could be addressed sooner than later.
Board Member Lynch supported this idea. She also suggested that the Business
Associations should be included.
Mr. Biggs also suggested including the City of Alameda Customer Service Improvement
HAB MEETING MINUTES
Page 2 of 3
May 6, 2010",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-05-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-05-06,3,"Committee so that their review and comments could be provided and considered.
Board Member Lynch asked that the City Attorney provide legal advice whether the
Ordinance can include language that would allow the City to ban contractors from working
in Alameda.
Board Members Lynch and Hoffman suggested that the Ordinance include a section that
would require penalties should work on the project for which enforcement action was taken
was not progressing.
Board Member Hoffman requested some history of those projects that are frequently
referred to as a ""poster child"" for demolition gone too far.
Board Member Lynch volunteered to brief him.
Chair Owens asked how the subcommittee members can receive comments from other
board members.
Mr. Biggs requested that all comments be sent to him, so that he can forward them to the
subcommittee members and maintain compliance with Brown Act.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch provided her fellow Board Members with a card that included a
reprint of a mural located in the single officers meal facilities at the former Alameda Naval
Air Station and the Christmas dinner menu from the 1940's
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff noted that an application for a Certificate of Approval to allow demolition of the
large warehouse structures on the site commonly referred to as the ""Collins Property"",
located at the corner of Oak Street and Clement Avenue, would be coming before the
Board for consideration at some point in the future.
10.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion by Hoffman, seconded by Rauk, the Board voted 5-0 to adjourn the meeting
at 8:31.
HAB MEETING MINUTES
Page 3 of 3
May 6, 2010",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-05-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-06-03,1,"APPROVED
MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, June 3, 2010
1.
CONVENE:
7:15 pm
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Board Members Hoffman, lrons, and
Lynch, Jon Biggs, HAB Secretary, Simone Wolter, Recording
Secretary
Absent: Vice Chair Rauk
3.
MINUTES:
Board Member Lynch provided amendments to the Meeting
Minutes of May 6, 2010. Board Member Irons motioned,
seconded by Lynch to approve the minutes as amended 4-0.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Chris Buckley of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society submitted comments on
the Draft Ordinance.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN10-0140 - 1109 Chestnut Street - Jo Berning. The
applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval to alter the exterior of a Historic
Monument by including one exterior door to a new restroom within the existing
building.
Ms. Simone Wolter, Planner, presented the project.
Board Member Lynch asked how the applicant will match the existing door. The applicant
responded that the door would be custom made, should a stock door not match exactly.
Board Member lrons motioned, seconded by Hofmann to approve the project. 4-0
7-B
Certificate of Approval - PLN09-0240 - 915 Centennial Avenue. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow the removal of five Coast Live Oaks
(Quercus agrifolia) tree-clusters and one accessory structure. The subject trees are
located in a confined space. According to a Certified Arborist the five tree-clusters
are in primarily poor and deteriorated health.
Ms. Wolter, presented the project.
Page 1 of 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-06-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-06-03,2,"Board Member Lynch asked how the trees had come to be in such poor shape and
whether replacement planting would be an option.
Staff explained that the trees had grown without any maintenance and hadn't purposefully
been planted in such close manner. Replanting on site would not be recommended as the
remaining trees and the proposed building would provide for insufficient space.
Chair Owens asked for clarification on the definitions.
Chair Owens opened the public comment period.
Mr. Patterson, neighbor, provided comments on the issue of tree coverage on private and
public property. He also pointed out that oftentimes city staff is insufficiently trained to
manage and prune trees in the public realm.
Chair Owens closed the public comment period.
Board Member Hoffman stated that he supports the tree and garage removal.
Chair Owens asked why the applicant had only requested one tree removal instead of all
the trees at one time.
Staff explained that the applicant had developed his project plans over time and hadn't
anticipated developing the site at the time of the first removal request.
Board Member lrons asked where the replacement trees are being planted with the money
that is being generated from all Certificate of Approvals for Demolition of oak trees.
Staff proposed to return to the board with that information.
Chair Owens supports the application and would like to see stronger language in the
resolution to ensure protection of tree no. 3.
Board Member Hoffman seconds this notion.
Board Member Lynch proposed continuing the project to a future meeting to allow for a site
visit and a meeting with the arborist.
Board Member Hoffman recommended moving the project forward and amending the
conditions of approval.
Chair Owens recommended changes to the resolution to make retention of tree no. 3
mandatory and that the replacement fee be reduced to $1,000.
Chair Owens motioned, seconded by Board Member Lynch to adopt the resolution as
amended. Motion passes 4-0.
Page 2 of 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-06-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-06-03,3,"7-C
Consider Appointing a Subcommittee of the Historical Advisory Board
Charged With Evaluating and Developing Recommendations Regarding the
Mills Act, a Tax Incentive Program that Encourages Historic Preservation, and
Return to the Board with Findings.
Ms Elizabeth Greene, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society representative, spoke in
favor of the City adopting the Mills Act program.
Chair Owens pointed out that the work program had listed the Mills Act program as a low
priority on the HAB work program. He stated that Vice Chair Rauk would be willing to
participate in the subcommittee.
Mr. Biggs pointed out that the board could appoint Vice Chair Rauk to the subcommittee
and appoint one other members to the subcommittee as members' schedules allow for
additional work.
Board Member Lynch motioned to establish a subcommittee on the Mills Act, seconded by
Hoffman. Motion passes 4-0.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch provided Board Member Hoffman with information on the project on
500 Central. She also announced the walking tour with Dick Rutter. Ms. Lynch described
her efforts to distribute the forthcoming draft ordinance to the West Alameda Business
Association (WABA), Park Street Business Association (PSBA), Greater Alameda
Business Association (GABA), as well as the Alameda Association of Realtors, and
requesting feedback from business organizations in Alameda.
Chair Owens elaborated on the current status of the draft ordinance.
Chair Owens presented Board Member lrons with a proclamation thanking him for his 4
years of service with the City of Alameda Historical Advisory Board.
Board Member lrons thanked the Board for his opportunity to work with the Board
members and gracefully accepted the Proclamation.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 pm
Page 3 of 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-06-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-08-05,1,"Approved
MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 2010
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 pm
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Board Members Hoffman and Lynch;
Jon Biggs, HAB Secretary; Laura Ajello, Planner I
Absent: Vice Chair Rauk
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of June 3, 2010 (pending)
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN10-0190 - 1218 Oak Street. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow removal of one Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia). According to a Certified Arborist Report, the 24"" diameter
tree, located in a narrow side yard, is causing damage to the building and should
be removed.
Ms. Ajello presented the project.
Mr. Bowen, certified arborist, wrote the report. The arborist stated that the tree is in poor
condition and that it had been poorly pruned over time. He stated that the tree does not
have any disease.
Chair Owens asked whether any building permits would be required for any repairs on the
structure.
Staff responded that city staff would not be required to inspect the building after tree
removal.
Chair Owens suggested a condition be added to the tree removal permit that a licensed
contractor, engineer, or architect inspect the foundation of the historic structure for any
damage to the building after the tree has been removed. Such report from the engineer or
architect would be forwarded to the HAB.
Chair Owens motioned, seconded by Hoffman approving the resolution as amended.
Motion passes 4-0.
Page 1 of 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-08-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-08-05,2,"Board Member Lynch asked how much money was placed in the tree fund and where trees
had been planted.
Staff stated that one tree had been planted behind the new recreation building at
Washington Park and that staff would be further researching the amount of funds available.
Board Members Lynch and Hoffman requested that staff investigate and clarify whether
tree funds can only be used for planting oaks in public spaces, or if they could be used for
any trees.
7-B
Historic Preservation Ordinance Workshop
Chair Owens noted that the he had received requests that the board continue to accept
public comments. He asked whether the board would be required to make a motion on
continuing the public comment period.
Staff explained that no motion would be required.
Staff announced that the subcommittee had continued working on the Draft Ordinance. He
elaborated that the subcommittee had also made recommendations on another part of the
municipal code that addresses what the Chief Building Official would be able to review and
make decisions on the document. He explained that the final document that the HAB would
recommend to the City Council for adoption, would include all sections that will be
changed.
Chair Owens opened the public comment period.
Ms. Lambden, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society representative, discussed the
letter that Mr. Buckley had previously sent to the board members. She stated that the
Alameda Architectural Preservation Society would like to request more time to review the
document, as it is a complex document. She requested that a redline version would be
provided prior to the next workshop to make reviewing the document easier. She noted that
some changes had not been incorporated into the latest iteration and asked if the board
could state whether the decision not to include them was because they did not agree with
them or because they had not had time to review the comments.
Ms. Lambden (not on behalf of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society) cautioned
that homeowners may be too frustrated with the process if requirements for permits on
historic structures became too stringent. She noted that the City may see an increase in
unpermitted work. A repercussion of increased permit requirements may lead to an
increase in work load for the HAB. Ms. Lambden asked that a definition of structures be
included in the ordinance. She pointed out that pruning of protected trees should be
addressed in the ordinance.
Page 2 of 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-08-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-08-05,3,"8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Biggs announced that he was taking a position with another city and that Ms. Wolter,
Planner I, would be asked to take up the HAB Secretary duties and work with the
subcommittees.
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:14 pm
Page 3 of 3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-08-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-10-07,1,"REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2010
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Vice Chair Rauk, Board Members
Hoffman and Lynch; Erin Garcia, Recording Secretary; Laura
Ajello, Planner; Simone Wolter, HAB Secretary
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of June 3, 2010
Motion moved by Board Member Lynch and seconded by Vice Chair Rauk to approve the
minutes as amended. Motion carries 4-0.
Meeting of August 5, 2010
Motion moved by Vice Chair Rauk and seconded by Board Member Lynch to approve the
minutes as amended. Motion carries 4-0.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Joseph Victor Lagana spoke about his lawsuit against the City and County of San
Francisco Police and City of Alameda Police Departments.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN10-0153 - 1716 Webster Street. The applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow removal of the service building at 1716
Webster Street from the Historical Building Study List. The applicant proposes to
completely demolish the existing 1,561 sq. ft. gasoline service station built in 1955
and build a 2,575 sq. ft. convenience store (no change to the gasoline pumps or
canopy is proposed).
Motion moved by Board Member Hoffman and seconded by Board Member Lynch
to remove the building from the study list. Motion carries 4-0.
7-B
2011 Historical Advisory Board Meeting Schedule
The Historical Advisory Board will consider and approve a Historical Advisory Board
meeting schedule for 2011.
Page 1 of 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-10-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-10-07,2,"Motion moved by Chair Owens and seconded by Vice Chair Rauk to adopt the meeting
schedule for 2011. Motion carries 4-0.
7-C
Naval Air Station Combined Specific Buildings Survey and Evaluation Report/
Cold War Era Historic Resources Survey and Evaluation Report
Ms. Simone Wolter summarized the presentation by the Navy on September 28, 2010 and
presented the process for providing comments on the Survey.
Board Member Lynch stated that the omission of the waves building and control tower from
the survey and historic district is disconcerting. And raised the concern that the china
clipper monument was not eligible for inclusion, even though it was on the California
Register of Historic Places.
Chair Owens stated that the seaplane servicing buildings 11 and 12 were not included in
the survey, however pointed out that these buildings could be included in the cultural
landscape report in the future.
No action was taken on this item.
7-D
Historic Preservation Ordinance Workshop
No action was taken on this item.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Chair Owens discussed the appointment of Vice Chair Rauk to the Mills Act subcommittee.
This subcommittee will assess the feasibility of and establishment a Mills Act Program. A
Mills Act Program would allow a local government to enter into contracts with owners of
qualified historic properties in which the property owner agrees to restore, preserve, and
maintain their property in exchange for property tax relief from the local government. Board
Member Hoffman agreed to also participate in the subcommittee.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff stated that at this time there were no permits on file that would impact the historic
Boniere Bakery sign on Park Street Staff also stated that the historic Carroll Sign had not
been returned to the building at this time.
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 p.m.
Page 2 of 2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-10-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-11-04,1,"Approved
MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2010
1.
CONVENE:
7:00
2.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Owens, Vice Chair Rauk, Board Members Hoffman and
Lynch
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of October 7, 2010. Adopted as amended.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society submitted a comment letter to the board,
which was distributed at the meeting. The letter requests that the Board include specific
buildings into the City's NAS Historic District. Board member Lynch requested that the item
be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.
Chair Owens asked whether staff would be able to conduct the required research on the
buildings that are proposed to be added to the list. Staff will return to the board at the next
hearing with this information.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN10-0262 - Phillip Banta - 2229 Clement. The
applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow removal of three existing
pre-1942 industrial buildings.
Mr. Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, presented the project.
Chair Owens asked whether any of the building material was salvageable.
Mr. Thomas explained that some old growth timber is likely salvageable, and that the City
has a Construction and Demolition Ordinance that mandates recycling for each site.
Board Member Lynch suggested that the original DOW tower be rebuilt as part of the
public art or for memorializing the history of the property. She requested that the Board be
involved in the review, not approval, of the historic or art work that would memorialize the
history of the site.
Mr. Thomas explained that the proposed developer will have to develop the public art or
Historical Advisory Board
Page 1 of 3
Meeting Minutes 11/4/2010",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-11-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-11-04,2,"historic recognition program and that the proposals would return to the HAB for review and
input.
Board member Lynch also suggested that the historic document researcher review the
historic commercial pictures archives of the Alameda Museum.
Vice Chair Rauk asked whether there were any significant docks and waterfront structures
at this site. She would like to see public access on this site that would be reminiscent of the
previous uses, such as docks.
Mr. Thomas answered that the existing docks are results of more recent activities and were
not evaluated as historic in the historic resources survey conducted for the Boatworks EIR.
He then explained that the proposed park is not designed at this time, but that public
access to the water would be accounted for.
Chair Owens opened the public comment period.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, Alameda resident, stated that the photographic documentation of the
buildings is very important. He also stated that salvaging the old growth timber should be of
paramount importance and he would like to have access to the information where the
salvaged materials will be taken to. He agreed to provide two historic pictures he has on
the buildings from the 1930s/1940s.
Chair Owens closed the public comment period.
Chair Owens, Vice Chair Rauk, and Board member Lynch discussed the period in which
the Certificate of Approval for Demolition would remain valid. They agreed on allowing the
Certificate of Approval to be valid for one year to expedite the demolition of the hazardous
buildings, while allowing the property owner to document the buildings' history pursuant to
the Mitigation Measures of the EIR for the proposed Boatworks Project as stated in MM E-
1 and according to the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level Il documentation
standards.
Chair Owens, Vice Chair Rauk, and Board member Lynch discussed and agreed to
incorporate the EIR Mitigation measures into the resolution to ensure that documentation
of the historic structures be conducted prior to the actual demolition of the buildings.
Motion to approve the resolution as amended made by Vice Chair Rauk, seconded by
Board Member Lynch. Motion passes 3-0.
7-B
Naval Air Station Combined Specific Buildings Survey and Evaluation Report/
Cold War Era Historic Resources Survey and Evaluation Report
Staff summarized the meeting held by the Navy on October 2nd
Historical Advisory Board
Page 2 of 3
Meeting Minutes 11/4/2010",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-11-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2010-11-04,3,"Chair Owens asked for clarification on how the board's comments could be incorporated
into the form sheet as requested by the navy.
Staff suggested that board members could provide comments at the meeting or send them
via email to staff that would incorporate them.
Chair Owens opened the public comment period.
Ms. Elizabeth Greene, representative for Alameda Architectural Preservation Society,
explained the nature of the comment letter submitted prior to the meeting. The Alameda
Architectural Preservation Society requested that the Flight Control Tower, WAVES
building, Seaplane Hangars 11 and 12, a Quonset hut, and three salute guns be listed on
the City's NAS historic district to protect those resources during future redevelopment
activities.
Chair Owens closed the public comment period.
Board Member Lynch requested that the board consider this request at the next available
meeting and that the Transcontinental Railroad and Pan Am Clipper commemorative
plaques and the time capsule be added to the historic sign inventory. She would also like to
see the jets on the sticks be included on the street light standard list.
Chair Owens asked whether there was a Quonset hut within the existing boundaries and
how long the salute guns have been there. He also stated that the WAVES building should
not be relocated, as it would lose a lot of its integrity.
Ms. Greene stated that she would check on that info.
Motion was made by Chair Owens to submit comments to staff by Friday 12, 2010,
seconded by Board Member Lynch. Motion passes 3-0.
7-C
Historic Preservation Ordinance Workshop
Staff provided an update on the progress of the ordinance. The draft ordinance is currently
under review by the City Attorney's office. No comments have been received from the
business associations. No action taken.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff explained the community involvement process and Brown Act requirements for the
Alameda Point Going Forward Community Forums.
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:50 pm.
Historical Advisory Board
Page 3 of 3
Meeting Minutes 11/4/2010",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2010-11-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-01-06,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 2011
1.
CONVENE:
7:00 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Vice Chair Rauk, Board Members
Hoffman, Jasper, and Lynch; Staff present: Simone Wolter,
HAB Secretary; Erin Garcia, Recording Secretary
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of November 4, 2010. Approved as amended 4-0-1.
Board member Jasper abstained.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
Chair Owens requested that staff communications items 9-A and 9-B be moved to the
regular agenda items to allow for public comments.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN10-0336 - 535 and 535 1/2 Pacific Avenue. The
applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval to remove approximately 274 square
feet on the back of the pre-1942 building located on the front of the lot, as well as
remove the residential building in the rear of the lot for a replacement in kind.
Ms. Simone Wolter presented the project.
Chair Owens asked for the Sanborn Map records available to staff. Staff explained that
Sanborn maps are available that were last updated in 1918, 1948, and 1987.
Board member Hoffman pointed out that the blanket pre-1942 threshold is problematic
and he would like to see it revisited. In this case, for instance, this building should have
not have had to gone through the HAB, given its state. He stated that he is concerned
about the multiple steps a property owner has to go through for properties in this state
and of this nature, which severely hampers redevelopment.
He asked for a copy of the Historic Study List. Chair Owens, Jasper and Rauk also
requested a copy.
Board member Hoffman motioned to approve the Certificate of Approval for Demolition,
seconded by board member Lynch. Motion passes 5-0.
7-B Election of Chairperson.
Rauk motioned that Chair Owens remain chair of the Historical Advisory Board. Chair
Owens accepted. Lynch seconded the motion. Motion passes 5-0.
7-C Election of Vice Chairperson
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 2
HAB Meeting 1/6/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-01-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-01-06,2,"Hoffman motioned that Vice Chair Rauk remain vice chair of the Historical Advisory
Board. Chair Owens seconded the motion. Motion passes 5-0.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board Member Lynch asked that the HAB recommend a historic preservation season
proclamation to City Council for the March historic preservation season. Board member
Lynch stated that she would provide the draft proclamation.
Chair Owens requested that the HAB discuss the American Institute of Architects,
endangered buildings list designation at the next HAB meeting.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
9-A
Ordinance Update
Ms. Simone Wolter, stated that the once comments are received from the City
Attorney's office, staff would meet with the subcommittee first and then schedule it
before the HAB.
Chair Owens asked when the subcommittee would meet with the realtor's association
representatives and asked staff to coordinate this meeting at the earliest opportunity.
9-B
Addition of buildings to Historic District
Staff presented an overview of the three options on how to proceed in adding structures
and facilities to the City of Alameda NAS Historic District. She addressed staffing
concerns, financial resources, and the process to add them to the City's Monument list,
Historic Study List, or the alternative to not make any decision.
Board member Lynch favors Option B, which would list the resources on the Historic
Study List, but not as a Monument on the City's Monument list.
Chair Owens, Vice Chair Rauk, and Hoffman favored Option B as well.
Board member Lynch volunteered to do research and develop preliminary language to
document the nomination to the Historic Study List.
The Board agreed that this item would be returned to the HAB at the next possible
meeting.
Chair Owens opened the public comment period.
Mr. Chris Buckley, Alameda resident, spoke in favor of listing the flight control tower as
a historic resource on the Study List.
Chair Owens closed the public comment period and directed staff to bring this item to
the next HAB meeting, if possible.
10.
ADJOURNMENT 7:38 p.m.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 2
HAB Meeting 1/6/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-01-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-02-03,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2011
1.
CONVENE:
7:00 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Vice Chair Rauk, Board
Members Hoffman, Jasper, and Lynch
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of January 4, 2010
Jasper proposed, Lynch seconded the motion to
approve the minutes as amended (5-0).
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Preserve
America
Nomination
as
presented to Mayor Gilmore.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
""Community Planning Strategy for Alameda Point""
The Historic Advisory Board will hold a public hearing to discuss Reuse of
Historic Structures at Alameda Point (AT).
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch presented the workbook and the general timeline of
the Community Planning Strategy effort.
Chair Owens opened the public comment period.
Mr. Gary McAfee, Alameda resident, is in favor or reusing the historic structures
utilizing strategic economic adaptation and generating an income with similar
uses as originally intended on a temporary 5-10 year basis, until a viable
residential component can be accommodated with a second tunnel to alleviate
traffic.
Vice Chair Rauk asked if he had ideas for longer term leases.
Mr. Gary McAfee suggested a shore museum with an emphasis on small boat
motors.
Chair Owens closed the public comment period.
Approved Historic Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 4
3/2/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-02-03,2,"Board member Lynch asked who is funding the planning effort.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that the City was funding this planning effort.
Board member Lynch asked how an increase in housing units would fund the
development, when it would be cheaper to construct retail or commercial uses,
instead of residential units.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that in general the residential uses
generate more long-term income than commercial uses. She concurred that the
cost to maintain residential units is in fact more expensive than commercial units,
however, residential uses could in turn provide funding to upgrade the aging
infrastructure.
Chair Owens questioned the implicit advantage of constructing residential uses
over other types of uses to fund the development. He stated that the economy
goes through cycles and that in the future non-residential uses may be more
favorable than housing units.
Board member Hoffman asked where the Veterans Affair's Hospital would be
located and where the potential Lawrence Berkeley Labs (LBL) could be located.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch provided a brief overview of the locations for the
Maritime Administration fleet (MARAD), Water Emergency Transportation
Administration (WETA) and LBL could be located. She also explained that the
City is currently reviewing its lease arrangements with the tenants at the base
and that the City is considering to expand the lease terms to more than 10 years
to encourage building rehabilitation by tenants.
Board member Lynch asked who would be making decisions on this project and
how the different factors would be weighed in the end.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that no decisions have been made and
that this planning effort is at its basis a summary of lessons learned. However,
this planning effort is also constructed to glean the community's preferences and
priorities so that these preferences can be weighed when the City Council makes
decisions.
Board member Jasper commented that many buildings could be reused and that
careful consideration should be given to the economic viability and traffic
impacts. He urged that the City Council and the community be on the same page
and develop an attractive project. He asked that the theatre, O-Club and other
important buildings be maintained and put to highest and best use.
Chair Owens asked if staff is preparing a new land use plan for the future
development.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that staff was indeed developing a land use
plan, that would then set the parameter for future development.
Chair Owens asked what the infrastructure costs are that are needed to update
the historic district.
Approved Historic Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 4
3/2/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-02-03,3,"Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that she would request that the Public Works
provide that information for the next meeting. She stated it is her understanding
that much of the sanitary sewer, water, and electrical infrastructure is failing and
requires significant upgrades.
Chair Owens asked which portions of the districts would benefit from the
upgrades, would it only be the residential portions.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that the utilities would be sized to
accommodate the appropriate development densities.
Board member Jasper asked whether a hazardous material assessment phase I
had been completed for the Point and if a copy was available.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that the Navy has prepared such a document
and that she would try to provide this document at the next meeting.
Board member Hoffman stated that he considers the Officer's Housing historic
and would like to see them reused or even moved to a more useful location. The
Chief Petty Officer's housing could be removed to allow for other redevelopment.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stressed that the planning effort is ongoing and
collaborative and that the HAB is specifically being asked to provide comments in
this planning project.
Vice Chair Rauk stated that she would like to better understand the state of
disrepair of the buildings and the cost of rehabilitation, because it would better
inform the decision on what needs to be kept and maintained.
Board member Lynch asked about the timeline to provide feedback and when
other information (cost estimates for rehab, state of infrastructure and buildings,
contamination constraints) could be provided to better inform the HAB
recommendations on the planning process.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch said that the information required would be provided
at a future meeting and that there would be several opportunities to provide the
HAB feedback. She asked whether the board would like a tour of Alameda Point.
The board members supported this suggestion and recommended a weekend
date for the tour.
Chair Owens asked if there were any favorable or unfavorable comments on the
previous planning studies. He did not favor the extensive demolition of historic
structures in all planning studies.
The board supported extending leases to allow long-term maintenance by
existing tenants. They also supported allowing the sale of the buildings to
generate income that could be used for maintenance on other buildings.
Board member Hoffman would like to see a mix of uses throughout the area as
long as its comes together as a cohesive neighborhood.
Approved Historic Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 4
3/2/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-02-03,4,"7-B Proclamation of Historic Preservation Season Review and
recommend Historic Preservation Season Proclamation to City Council (SW).
Board member Lynch amended the proclamation and announced that the season
of historic events would be sent at a later time.
Chair Owens proposed, seconded by Vice Chair Rauk to approve and
recommend the proclamation as amended to City Council. Motion passes 5-0.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
8-A
Endangered Historic Places List - American Institute of Architects -
East Bay Chapter Nomination. Informational discussion only. No Action
will be taken on this item (DO).
Chair Owens explained the program. He stated that the application request
would be sent by early March 2011.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that staff was working on training
opportunities for the Board members, but that there likely was no budget to send
commissioners to training opportunities.
Vice Chair Rauk requested that staff seek out Mills Act training opportunities that
would outline the administrative steps that would be required to implement Mills
Act.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that the subcommittee is working on the
ordinance.
Board member Lynch explained the process for reviewing the potential NAS
buildings and appurtenances to the Historic Study List, which would be discussed
at the next HAB meeting.
10.
ADJOURNMENT:
8:30 p.m.
Approved Historic Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 4
3/2/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-03-03,1,"Approved Meeting Minutes
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011
7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:00 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Owens, Vice Chair Rauk, Board Members
Hoffman, Jasper, and Lynch
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of February 3, 2011 (Pending)
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Kevin Frederick, Alameda resident, raised his disapproval regarding the
sudden demolition of 2526 Buena Vista Avenue. He stated that there was no
deconstruction, but that all building materials had been pulverized on site causing
significant dust in the environment.
Ms. Elizabeth Greene, Alameda resident, spoke about the condition of approval
requiring deconstruction and suggested that in the future there be standard
language in the Historic Preservation Ordinance to ensure deconstruction and/or
preservation of building resources.
Chair Owens and board member Lynch asked her to clarify or recommend
enforceable language. Board member Rauk suggested having applicants return
to the board to demonstrate the ""maximum effort feasible' undertaken to preserve
a structure, before a demolition permit is issued.
Ms. Alexandra Mummery, Alameda resident/neighbor, also spoke about the
demolition and stated her dismay about the manner in which the structure was
taken down. She presented a picture taken of the demolition in action.
Board member Lynch requested that the speaker email her the picture.
Ms. Nanette Burdick, neighbor, voiced her shock about the manner in which the
building was demolished and that nobody was allowed to go inside the building to
dismantle items that could be easily taken off, because the property owner stated
that the building was deemed toxic. Given that it was deemed toxic, she was then
further surprised that no containment was in place to address the dust during the
demolition. She also stated that a video about this demolition has been posted on
YouTube.
HAB APPROVED Meeting Minutes
1 of 3
March 3, 2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-03-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-03-03,2,"Chair Owens asked if the Board wanted to discuss the issue. Board member
Lynch stated her dismay at the manner and expediency in which the building was
taken down and that none of the board members were informed of the pending
demolition.
Chair Owens suggested that more thought and effort be put into the future
ordinance to avoid this kind of demolition.
Board member Jasper commented that the demolition was a tragic event, but he
cautioned that a property owner had the right to pursue demolition if the structure
cannot be salvaged. He agreed that deconstruction should have taken place
opposed to demolition.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS One letter was submitted to the board.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
PLN11-0014 - Certificate of Approval for Demolition - Joanna Bianchi
1612 Clinton Avenue The applicant is requesting a Certificate of
Approval for the demolition of more than 30% of the value of a pre-1942
single-family dwelling. The project is located within an R-1, One Family
Residence District.
Ms. Laura Ajello presented the project.
Chair Owens asked Joanna Bianchi, project architect, to come to the podium and
then asked for clarification on the size of the proposed replacement windows.
Ms. Bianchi clarified that the windows will be replicated exactly and that the
difference in apperance is a matter of printing.
Board members Lynch and Rauk supported the project.
Board member Lynch made a motion, seconded by board member Rauk to
approve the project. Motion approved 5-0.
7-B
Discussion of Addition of Structures to the City of Alameda
Historical Building Study List. The Historic Advisory Board will discuss
the merits of individual buildings and structures that could be added to
City's Historic Study List. Informational discussion only. No action will be
taken on this item.
Ms Simone Wolter provided an overview of the historic resource inventories
conducted in the past and the Section 106 consultation process currently
underway. Then she showcased the additions and appurtenances as proposed in
the list developed by board members Lynch and Chair Owens.
HAB APPROVED Meeting Minutes
2 of 3
March 3, 2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-03-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-03-03,3,"Chair Owens asked that board member Lynch explain which buildings are
currently considered as contributors to the District as stated in the 2010 Navy
district and which elements proposed to be added to the study list are not within
the district.
Board member Lynch provided that information.
Board members Hoffman and Lynch are in agreement that some structures may
have to be relocated to save them. However, the anchors and statues need to be
retained.
Chair Owens opened the public comment period.
Ms. Elizabeth Greene, praised the HAB for potentially adding these structures to
the Historic Study List. She also provided the installment date for the flagpole
(1941).
Chair Owens closed the public comment period.
A date was set to tour Alameda Point to view the proposed structures. Staff
would send out more details at a later date.
7-C
Endangered Historic Places List - American Institute of Architects -
East Bay Chapter Nomination. Informational discussion only. No Action
will be taken on this item.
Chair Owens explained the context and purpose of this list and encouraged the
board to make submissions for endangered structures.
Board member Jasper asked if there would be any action, i.e. fixing up
structures, that would be expected to follow this nomination.
Chair Owens stated that no immediate action would result of the nomination, but
perhaps the education about the status of structures may lead to action to
preserve the structures.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board member Lynch announced that she received the Historical Preservation
Season proclamation at the City Council meeting and presented the schedule of
events.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that she would develop a condition of
approval to address the demolition and prevent such demolition runs in the
future. The board supported developing stricter recycling and deconstruction
measures.
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:17 pm
HAB APPROVED Meeting Minutes
3 of 3
March 3, 2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-03-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-04-07,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2011
7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:08 pm
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Board Members Hoffman,
Jasper, and Lynch
Absent: Vice Chair Rauk,
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of February 3, 2011
Board Member Lynch asked whether Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch could provide
the information requested at the February 3rd meeting regarding the demolition of
the historic resource on Buena Vista Avenue and the EPA Phase I Environmental
Assessment for Alameda Point.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that the infrastructure replacement cost
estimates would be forthcoming, as would the Environmental Impact Assessment
for the environmental contamination at the site. She also stated that staff is
developing a standard condition of approval that would state which steps would
be required to allow for deconstruction and demolition sourcing.
Board member Hoffman moved to approve the motion, board member
Lynch seconded to approve the meeting minutes (4-0).
Meeting of March 3, 2011 (Pending)
Meeting of March 29, 2011 (Pending)
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Debriefing on Alameda Point Site Tour from Saturday 3/26/2011. The
board will not take any action on this item. It is intended as a discussion
item only.
Chair Owens appreciated that the group had access to so many buildings.
The Board felt that the BEQ and administrative core should be reused if possible.
APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
1 of 4
HAB MEETING 4/7/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-04-07,2,"Chair Owens stated that he was concerned about the condition of the WAVES
building and asked if any funding was available to redo the roof.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch Planning Services Manger, stated that she was
unsure what funding was available for repairing the structure. She also cautioned
that before a roof is redone, a careful review should occur that determines if
other work is required.
Board member Jasper offered to inspect the campus buildings and the WAVES
building to determine construction needs.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch cautioned that many of the structures are not
accessible to the public for inspection, but thanked him for his generous offer.
Board member Lynch was pleased to know that the proposed Lawrence Berkeley
Labs campus location would not likely require much demolition of existing
structures.
Board member Lynch asked whether the board would vote on the addition of the
structures and appurtenances at the next meeting.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that at the next meeting, pending notification
of the Navy as the property owner, the board could vote on the additions to the
Study List. However, she cautioned the board to only add structures and
appurtenances to the Study List that have not already received a determination
of ineligibility by professional architectural historians.
Chair Owens stated that the historians' review was geared toward a National
Register level of recognition, but did not consider what is locally important or
significant. Therefore the board is considering these additions for local
significance.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch suggested that if the structures and appurtenance
are going to be added for local significance, then the board should include the
criterion for local significance in the their findings to support the additions to the
Study List. She recommended that the Board, as a Certified Local Government
(CLG), frame the additions in such a manner that is legally defensible and cannot
be considered arbitrary and capricious. She also suggested that the board could
consider making a separate list including all items that should receive special
considerations for redevelopment at the Point, but that the list not be included in
the Study List, because two historic evaluations have already deemed the items
proposed for listing as non-historic.
Board member Lynch asked whether strengthening the preface of the staff report
would help the argument that they are locally historic.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch urged the board to be strategic in their efforts, to
consider long-term involvement in the planning process and to carefully develop
findings that can withstand scrutiny.
Board member Jasper asked who will be the body to make final decisions for the
Alameda Point redevelopment process.
APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
2 of 4
HAB MEETING 4/7/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-04-07,3,"Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that the planning process involves the
community as a whole, which informs the future plan. The plan would be put
forward to the boards and commissions. The HAB provides review of the historic
structures, while the City Council has final decision making power. The City
Council could possibly overturn any prior decisions.
Board member Jasper endorsed that the community needs complete
involvement in the visioning process.
7-B Accept Summary Report on Community Input for the Planning
Process for Alameda Point. The board will not take action on this item.
This is an informational item only.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch presented a summary of the Community Input
Report for the areas of Land Use, Historic Preservation, Building Design,
Transportation, Parks and Open Space and Community Benefits and tradeoffs.
Chair Owens asked if staff was pleased with the planning forums. He also asked
for the involvement of the consultants Community Design Consultants in the
process.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that the forums were a solid success, as the
community was interested and turned out for this event. It also provided good
information on the general preferences that the community has. CDC was
primarily tasked with developing graphics, but the bulk of the text came from
planning staff.
Board member Hoffman commented on the importance of addressing the traffic
impacts on the island, but in particular at the Webster Tubes. He also provided
an example on how to allow internal campus traffic circulation through a
collective of accessible bikes that anyone can use within a specific location.
Board member Jasper suggested that the board work in tandem with the
community to develop a good plan for Alameda Point. He is of the opinion that
the first a vision must be developed and then the money would simply follow.
Board member Hoffman suggested that perhaps a historic park could be
developed that showcases all the historic or non-historic, but important, Naval Air
Station elements the HAB deems important.
Board member Lynch supports the idea of a Historic NAS walk showcasing all
items to be listed on the Study List and explained how she came to appreciate
the architecture at the base.
APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
3 of 4
HAB MEETING 4/7/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-04-07,4,"Chair Owens stated that historic preservation is primarly supported by reuse and
that the Board has to remain open-minded about the potential uses that would fill
those buildings. He would recommend being more restrictive for the uses in new
infill buildings within the Historic District so that the proposed uses fit into the
nature of the district. He also suggested that at least 2/3rds of the buildings be
retained within the Historic District to maintain the district feel. He explained that
he really did not favor the SunCal plan for its significant demolition of historic
buildings in the district. He commented on how the participants ranked the
importance of retaining the sub-districts.
Board member Lynch added that the setting, such as the parade grounds, open
axis, and campus feel are integral to the Historic District, and therefore should
not be filled in with the buildings.
Board member Jasper suggested visiting Hamilton Airforce Base to review the
development process of that base.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that a tour could be organized, if the board is
interested in a field trip.
7-C
Certificate of Approval - PLN11-0068 - Wes Hildebrand - 1222 Park
Street. The applicant requests approval to alter three historically
designated signs by replacing the lettering, replace the entrance doors,
and add vertical neon tubes to existing stacked pediment over the front
door. The property is not located within the Historic Park Street
Commercial District, but is listed as a ""S"" resource in the Historic Study
List. The applicant requested a continuance of this item to the HAB
hearing on May 5, 2011.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board member Lynch distributed invitations to the Queen Victoria event.
She also asked that the HAB become a supporting member of the State Historic
Preservation Conference that is centered in Oakland in 2012.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch announced that she is meeting with the Alameda
Architectural Preservation Association the following week.
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:40pm
APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
4 of 4
HAB MEETING 4/7/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-04-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-05-05,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, May 5, 2011
7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:04 pm
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Vice Chair Rauk, Jasper, and
Lynch; Absent: Board Members Hoffman
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of March 3, 2011 (Pending)
Meeting of March 26, 2011 (Pending)
Meeting of April 7, 2011 (Pending)
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Chris Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, announced that
the AAPS would like to initiate a plaque program for historic structures. He asked
that the HAB designate a representative from the HAB to join the project meeting
sessions. The plaque program would develop plaques for landmarks or
monuments, N or S rated historic resources on the Study List, and historic
districts. He requested that the designation of a representative be placed on an
upcoming agenda.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN11-0068 - Wes Hildebrand - 1222 Park
Street. The applicant requests approval to alter historically designated
signs and perform exterior changes to the building façade. The property is
not located within the Historic Park Street Commercial District, but is listed
as a 'S' resource in the Historic Study List.
Ms. Simone Wolter outlined the two options proposed to replace the historic sign
at the site.
Board member Lynch asked for clarification on the reuse of existing letters.
Ms. Wolter explained that the property owner still has some of the original letters,
some of which would be reused.
HAB Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 4
5/5/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-05-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-05-05,2,"Chair Owens asked for clarification for the font style and metal band. He also
asked how the permit would be processed, and whether the planning division
would review the shop drawings.
Ms. Wolter explained that the intent is to match the font, but the plan set is not
accurately depicting the original font. Prior to installation, a building permit would
be required, which requires staff review.
Vice-Chair Rauk prefers Option 2 and asked for clarification on the thickness of
the channel letters.
Chair Owens also prefers Option 2 with a matching font. He supports the neon
lighting.
Board member Lynch asked whether the decals could be omitted from the
proposal.
Board member Lynch proposed to amend the conditions of approval #7 for
Option 2 to include direct reference to the font style.
Vice-Chair Rauk motioned to approve Option 2 with amended condition #7 to
include the sentence ""staff shall review detail drawings"", seconded by board
member Jasper. Motion passes 4-0.
7-B
Discussion of Potential Additions of Structures and Appurtenances
to the City of Alameda Historic Study List. Discussion item only. No
decision will be made at this time.
Staff explained that the board had not had a proper opportunity to discuss all
potential study list additions and had not had a discussion to determine the
appropriateness of adding the individual appurtenances and structures to the
Study list. Staff recommended a) inclusion of Building 78 (WAVES) to the Study
List, b) to await final determination by the Navy on eligibility for buildings 11, 12,
and 19 into the National Register determination, c) not include those structures in
the Study List that have obtained eligibility for inclusion in the National Register
nomination, and d) add the remaining structures and appurtenances to a
separate list, not the Study List, because they are not intrinsically historic.
Board member Lynch noted errors in the report pertaining the ARMCO hut and
anchors.
Chair Owens and board member Lynch were disappointed that the board would
discuss this agenda item instead of voting on the agenda item. Chair Owens
requested that a formal notice be provided to the Navy so that a vote could occur
at the next meeting.
HAB Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 4
5/5/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-05-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-05-05,3,"Staff agreed to place the vote on the next meeting.
Board member Jasper recommended adding all the items to the list regardless of
the Navy's notification.
Board member Lynch asked how the Study List additions would be added to the
City of Alameda NAS Historic District.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch Planning Services Manager, explained that the local
district nomination would be amended as laid out in the preservation ordinance
with an assessment report and resolution from the HAB recommending adoption
of new items to the existing district to City Council.
Chair Owens opened the public comment period.
Mr. Dick Rutter, Navy historian by default, corrected factual inaccuracies in the
staff report and provided a copy of said corrections to staff. He strongly
supported the retention of the flight control tower.
Mr. Chris Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society representative,
reiterated his comments made on the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society letter submitted in November 2010. He also pointed out that the Navy
consultants used national criteria, not the local criteria, which are looser than the
national criteria. As such, the HAB is not bound by the Navy consultants'
findings, but could independently evaluate the resources for their inclusion in the
Study List, based on local criteria. He then provided comments on the staff
report.
Chair Owens closed the public comment period.
Chair Owens asked for clarification on the process for developing a separate list
as suggested by staff. He supported the full inclusion of all proposed study list
items. He seconded comments made on the importance of retaining the flight
tower as made by the public.
Board member Lynch is concerned about retaining the statues should the
structure (BEQ) be demolished. She would like to see all structures and
appurtenances on the Study List and a vote made at the next hearing.
The board then discussed and agreed upon the ratings as proposed in the
document showcasing the individual structures and appurtenances. They
suggested an adaptive reuse for the WAVES building.
HAB Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 4
5/5/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-05-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-05-05,4,"8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board member Lynch announced the upcoming lectures sponsored by the
Alameda Museum and the next North of Lincoln walking tour. She also
announced the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society Annual Preservation
Awards.
Chair Owens spoke about the California Preservation Annual Conference in
Oakland next year. He suggested that the HAB participate in the event. He asked
for concurrence. The board agreed to participate and Chair Owens would
complete the required forms to participate.
Board member Lynch asked if the HAB would be required to move to a reduced
meeting schedule given that the new City Manager would be initiating changes to
boards and commissions.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that the HAB is listed in the City Charter.
Any changes to the meeting schedule would require an amendment to the City
Charter.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that the Planning and Building divisions
are cooperating to update and tighten the procedures and processes that govern
permit review to better protect historic resources from un-permitted and
undesirable design changes in the building permit phase.
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:45 pm
HAB Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 4
5/5/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-05-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-06-02,1,"Approved Meeting Minutes
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, June 2, 2011
7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:04 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Owens, Vice Chair Rauk, Board Members Hoffman,
Jasper, and Lynch
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of March 3, 2011. Moved by board member Lynch, seconded by Vice-Chair
Rauk. Approved as amended (5-0).
Special Meeting of March 26, 2011 Moved by Chair Owens, seconded by board
member Hofman. Approved (5-0).
Meeting of April 7, 2011 Moved by board member Hofman, seconded by Vice-Chair
Rauk. Approved as amended (5-0).
Meeting of May 5, 2011 (Pending)
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN11-0140 - Matt Lovering - 1350 & 1352
Broadway The applicant requests approval for the demolition of more than
30% of the value of a pre-1942 single-family dwelling.
Ms. Simone Wolter, staff, presented the project.
Chair Owens asked why the board would not review the design of the structure. He
commented that in the past the board reviewed them.
Staff explained that design reviews fall under the purview of the planning staff, and not
the Historical Advisory Board. However, she presented the existing and proposed
elevations.
Chair Owens asked for clarification on the type and style of the window and siding and
whether the design would match the historic structure.
APPROVED HAB Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 4
6/2/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-06-02,2,"Board member Lynch asked if changes would occur on the front of the building.
Staff confirmed that changes would only occur in the rear of the structure.
Chair Owens moved, seconded by board member Hoffman, to approve the project as
amended. Approved (5-0).
7-B
Accept Historic Resource Evaluation and Structure Report for Historic Fire
Station at City Hall. The Board is asked to accept the report evaluating reuse
feasibility of the historic fire station located behind City Hall at 2263 Santa Clara
Avenue.
Mr. Michael Garavaglia, Principal, introduced the project.
Ms. Becky Urbano, Garavaglia Architecture Inc. Preservation Services Manager
presented the current conditions of the structure and re-use findings as contained in the
draft core historic structure report.
The board thanked Ms Urbano for the presentation.
Chair Owens asked who is responsible for the building maintenance.
Staff explained that Public Works is responsible for the maintenance of the structure
and that given the financial situation of the General Fund, maintenance would likely
have to be deferred to a future date unknown.
Ms. Urbano explained that adding rain gutters, downspouts and unclogging the existing
downspouts would alleviate constant dampness in the building.
Chair Owens asked for clarification of the copper roof and whether there were leaks.
Ms. Urbano explained that active ponding is the most serious maintenance issue
although the roof itself appears to not have any leaks at this time.
Mr. Garavaglia pointed out that leasing the property may allow for funds to pay for
rehabilitation and maintenance.
Board member Lynch asked whether it was on the Study List and whether the garage
could obtain a street address. She also asked for clarification on the material of the
cornice.
Staff explained that it currently was not on the list and explained that the garage is
located within the City Hall parcel and would return with information on the street
address for the garage.
Ms. Urbano explained the manufacturing process of zinc cornices.
Board member Jasper commented on the evaluation and thanked Ms. Urbano for the
presentation.
Vice-Chair Rauk stated that the board should recommend to City Council to include a
line item in next year's budget to allow for maintenance on the structure.
The board members supported that idea.
APPROVED HAB Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 4
6/2/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-06-02,3,"Chair Owens asked what would have to occur should repointing of the brick be
necessary.
Ms. Urbano recommended conducting a mortar sample which may cost $800 to $1500,
which could then assess the appropriate mortar mix.
Chair Owens commented on the Historic Preservation Element and stated that the
native Indians were Ohlone, not Coastal Miwoks. He requested that this be corrected
when the Element is updated. He also asked for guidance on how to transmit the
board's concerns about the deferred maintenance to the Public Works Department and
City Council.
Staff suggested adding this discussion to the next agenda, passing a resolution
regarding this topic, which can then be forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
The board agreed to this suggestion. No action was taken on this item, except to accept
the report.
7-C
Vote to add Structures and Appurtenances at NAS to the City of Alameda
Historic Study List.
Chair Owens opened the public comment period.
Mr. Dick Rutter described the rehabilitation efforts for the A-4 plane. He supported the
additions of all items to the Study List.
Chair Owens asked who owns the jet planes.
Mr. Rutter explained that the planes and anchors belong to the Navy but are in City
custody.
Chair Owens closed the public comment period.
Board member Hoffman asked whether property, such as the anchors and planes,
instead of buildings could be placed on the Study List, whether that was legally feasible.
The board members thought that it was.
The board discussed the resolution and split voting on the items to separately discuss
the inclusion of the ARMCO huts on the Study List.
Chair Owens suggested amending the resolution to separately identify the National
Register Historic District opposed to the Local Historic District.
Board member Lynch moved to add buildings 194 and 273 to the Historic Study List,
seconded by Jasper to approve the resolution as amended. Motion passes (3-2).
Board member Vice-Chair Rauk moved to add the remaining appurtenances and
buildings to the Historic Study List, seconded by Jasper to approve the resolution as
amended. Motion passes (5-0).
Staff promised to provide a revised and updated study list at the August hearing.
APPROVED HAB Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 4
6/2/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-06-02,4,"7-D
Discussion on Participation in 2012 California Preservation Conference.
This item entails a discussion on the potential involvement of the HAB with the
Preservation Conference that will be hosted in Oakland in spring 2012.
Chair Owens announced when the next meeting of the California Preservation
Conference subcommittee meeting would occur.
Board member Jasper volunteered to attend the meeting.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board member Lynch volunteered to attend the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Plaque Action Committee meetings.
Board member Lynch announced the next Lecture Series by the Alameda Museum on
A.W. Padiani on June 30th, 2011.
Chair Owens summarized the Endangered Buildings nomination event in Oakland.
Display boards showing the nominated buildings are shown at the AIA offices in
Oakland.
Chair Owens asked for clarification on the ordinance language that outlines that fees
and penalties should be dispersed into a Historic Preservation funds available.
Chair Owens stated that the Historic Preservation Ordinance subcommittee would meet
soon to discuss the proposed draft ordinance that had been developed by staff.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS None.
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:37 p.m.
APPROVED HAB Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 4
6/2/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-07-07,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, July 7, 2011
1.
CONVENE:
7:00 pm
2.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Owens, Vice-Chair Rauk, Board Members Hoffman and
Lynch - Absent: Board Member Jasper
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of May 5, 2011 (postponed for a full quorum)
Meeting of June 2, 2011
Motion made by board member Hoffman, seconded by Rauk to approve the minutes. (4-0-
1)
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Linda Hanson, Alameda Photographer, presented her photographs of historic signage
in Alameda.
Board member Lynch asked if she would consider donating a photograph to the reference
section or the Main Library, which Ms. Hanson agreed to do.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
6-A
Streetnaming Request by Gary Randall
The board discussed the merits of the request letter. The board recommended that the
applicant return with more supporting documentation, such as letters of support from the
Elks Lodge #1015, Alameda Municipal Credit Union, or Public Utility Board of the Alameda
Bureau of Electricity to elaborate on Mr. or Mrs. Randall's efforts to further the
development of Alameda. They also requested that the naming request return to the board
no earlier than next year, to ensure compliance with criteria #3 that the person be
deceased for more than three years.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN11-0098 - 2501 Monarch Street (Building 22) -
The Lyle Company. The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval and Design
Review to alter a Historic Monument.
Ms Simone Wolter, Planner, presented the project.
HAB MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 1 OF 3
JULY 7, 2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-07-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-07-07,2,"Board member Rauk asked whether the expansion of the storage area, a temporary
structure, requires a design review.
Staff stated that the expansion of the temporary structure requires Design Review pursuant
to Design Review regulations. Generally, if a building permit is required, then a Design
Review is also required, unless it can be exempted.
Mr. Jonathan Fong, the applicant, elaborated on the project.
Board member Rauk stated that she supports the project, as the lease areas of the
building create income that can then be used for building maintenance.
Chair Owens asked whether the wireless facility would have a generator attached to the
location in the case of an earthquake or other natural disaster.
Mr. Fong explained that most wireless facilitates have either diesel-powered generators or
back-up batteries. This facility had batteries storage on site.
Board member Hoffman asked if AT&T leases the whole building.
Mr. Fong explained that the lease area is only for the storage area and roof-top locations.
The building itself is occupied by another tenant.
Board member Lynch asked for clarification on the panels and their appearance.
Mr. Fong explained the location and appearance of the panels on the parapets.
Motion to approve the alteration to the historic monument made by board member Hoffman
and seconded by board member Lynch. Motion passes (4-0).
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Chair Owens announced that he attended the California Preservation Conference Meeting
in Oakland on behalf of the board. Originally, the HAB had been interested in sponsoring
sessions or tours for the California Preservation Conference. However, after his
conversations with the chair of the California Preservation Foundation he came to the
conclusion that the City of Alameda was better suited to be a sponsor in the California
Preservation Conference instead of the Historical Advisory Board. Regardless of sponsor
level, he recommended that the board participate in the conference planning efforts.
Board member Lynch elaborated on the current historic preservation ordinance update
efforts. The ordinance subcommittee has been meeting every week to work on the newest
draft. She is supportive of the draft, as it streamlines efforts and is more clearly
understood. A draft would be brought to the board in the next few months.
Chair Owens stated that the demolition threshold for historic structures would likely be
moved to ""more than 50 years of age"" opposed to the current ""pre-1942 construction date"".
Board member Lynch encouraged the board members to attend the Lawrence Berkeley
Labs Campus 2 BBQ at the Alameda Point Theatre on July 13, 2011. The board then filled
HAB MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 2 OF 3
JULY 7, 2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-07-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-07-07,3,"out marketing postcards for the event.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
9-A
Recommendation to City Council to set aside maintenance funding to address
deferred maintenance on the historic City Hall garage located behind City Hall.
Staff requested that the board provide comments on the attached draft letter.
Chair Owens recommended that the board adjourn to the adjacent room to take a look at
the adjacent historic garage. The meeting was temporarily adjourned.
Staff requested that the board summarize their comments made while the meeting had
adjourned to the other room.
Chair Owens stated that the overhanging Coast Live Oak tree should be trimmed so that it
no longer overhangs the roof and gutters. He also suggested that the roof be swept and
the gutters be cleaned out.
The board then discussed changes to the letter and reorganized the priority items
according to critical path.
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 7:55 pm
HAB MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 3 OF 3
JULY 7, 2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-07-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-08-04,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 2011
7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:00 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Board Members Hoffman, and Jasper
Absent: Vice-Chair Rauk and Board Member Lynch
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of May 5, 2011 (postponed due to lack of quorum)
Meeting of July 7, 2011 (postponed due to lack of quorum)
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN11-0172 - 3009 Marina Drive - Richard Vaterlaus
The applicant requests approval for the demolition of more than 30% of the value of
a single-family dwelling included on the Historical Building Study List.
Ms Laura Ajello, Planner II, presented the scope of the project.
Chair Owens opened the public comment period.
Ms Elizabeth Green, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society representative, noted that
the architect was a renowned modernistic architect, Anshen & Allen, and noted that the
front siding should not be changed and the recessed door was a design feature that should
not be pulled forward.
The architect said that the property owner would like to see the door pulled forward to the
façade.
Chair Owens asked about the door recess and supports the changes in siding.
Board members Jasper and Hoffman supported the project.
Ms Anne Wallace, resident, spoke against the project (portions inaudible).
HAB Final Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 2
8/4/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-08-04,2,"Board member Jasper moved to approve the project as amended, seconded by board
member Hoffman. Motion passed 3-0 (Rauk and Lynch absent).
7-B
Certificate of Approval - PLN11-0212 - 1238 Versailles Ave - Ron Gong. The
applicant proposes to alter the exterior of a City of Alameda Historic Monument. The
changes include partial removal of an existing rear deck and new construction of a
side door landing and stairs, as well as an installation of an electric scooter lift.
Ms Simone Wolter, Planner II, presented the proposed alterations to the structure,
including an overview of unpermitted work to be removed.
Board member Jasper asked for clarification on the use of siding and lattice materials.
Ms Barbara Coperland, neighbor, is supportive of the removal of unpermitted work and
supports retaining the deck as is was built facing her property. She was concerned about
privacy concerns, but was interested in working with the neighbors to find a good
replacement for the lattice work.
Chair Owens was supportive of the project, but was concerned about the look of a
replacement door for the kitchen. He was also concerned that the excessive use of the
lattice was not congruent with the Historic Monument. He would like to see a replacement
that is more compatible.
Chair Owens clarified which sections of the unpermitted work would be removed from the
residence, and which would be legalized, and the replacement of railing with a more open
railing system.
[Tape inaudible.]
Motion to approve the project as amended and subject to further staff review, made by
board member Hoffman and seconded by board member Jasper. Motion passed 3-0.
(Rauk and Lynch absent).
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
The board discussed development potential in Alameda and the Board's opportunities to
provide comments to Planning Staff. The board agreed that as individuals they would
provide comments, but as a Board they would only provide comments on projects coming
before the board.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff announced the efforts of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society to scan the
1979 negatives from the picture inventory. The Board expressed thanks for this effort.
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:03 p.m.
HAB Final Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 2
8/4/2011",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-08-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-09-01,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2011
7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:08 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Owens, Vice-Chair Rauk, Board Members Hoffman,
Jasper, and Lynch
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of August 4, 2011 (postponed)
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Ms. Elizabeth Greene, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society member, asked the
board about the status of the addition of Naval Air Station buildings and appurtenances to
the City Study List. The board informed her that all structures as proposed had been listed
on the Alameda Study List.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN11-0247 - 1505 & 1507 Park Street - Dick Rutter.
The applicant is requesting to reface the bulkhead, install terrazzo tile on the floor,
and refurbish existing materials. Staff requested a continuation to the October 6,
2011 meeting for additional noticing.
7-B
Scoping Session-2900 Main Street-Todd Shipyard Crane Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR)-Notice of Preparation.
Mary Bean, the Public Works consultant for this project, presented the draft environmental
impact report process to the board.
Board member Lynch corrected the consultants' statement regarding the shipyard being
solely listed on the Study List, not as a historic district. She then questioned who had made
the decision that the crane should be taken down.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager, elaborated on the decision
making process that led to the conclusion that it would be taken down for safety and
financial reasons.",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-09-01,2,"Board member Lynch asked who currently owns this crane and who should have
maintained it.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that the crane was likely owned by the Navy at
some time, but since the land surrounding this location had been transferred it to the City.
She offered to check on this.
Chair Owens asked who was paying for the EIR and the crane removal.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch and the consultant clarified that the Draft/Final EIR study
would be conducted for approximately $70,000 and the removal would be covered by the
Public Works Department.
Chair Owens asked whether there would be other opportunities to speak on this issue.
The consultant and Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch explained that the Draft and Final EIR
would return to the HAB, as well as the City Council.
Board member Lynch asked what kind of mitigation measures would be proposed for this
crane demolition.
The consultant explained that several mitigation measures, such as reevaluating the district
for eligibility for inclusion on the National or California Register, or prepare archival large-
formal photographs, develop historic structures report, or an oral history project, a public
history and interpretive display. The impact would remain unavoidable, therefore a EIR is
required.
Board member Hoffman asked whether the structure itself was historic, or whether it was a
contributing structure.
The consultant confirmed that the crane was a contributing structure to the district.
Chair Owens asked whether the crane track was also deemed hazardous.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch proposed to include this question in the EIR scope.
Board member Hoffman asked when the crane was built.
The consultant stated that it was likely constructed during WWII.
Chair Owens stated that it seemed like there were three options regarding the crane: 1)
remove the crane, 2) move the crane down the tracks to eliminate the hazard to WETA, or
3) move the ferry terminal.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch pointed out that the ferry terminal no longer is under City of",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-09-01,3,"Alameda jurisdiction. She stated that the crane is likely a liability regardless of where it
stands, but that this should be included as an alternative in the EIR.
Chair Owens stated that he would like the Draft EIR, and if the Historic Report is made
public, see both return to the HAB for comments.
7-C
Public Workshop - PLN08-0463 - City of Alameda
The City of Alameda and Historical Advisory Board Sub-Committee will hold a
workshop to introduce the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance to the full Board
and the public. A brief overview will be presented to highlight new aspects of the
ordinance and receive public input. As a workshop, input will be gathered, but no
actions will be made at this meeting. This workshop was continued to the
HAB hearing on October 6, 2011.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board member Lynch announced that the Alameda Home Tour would be on September
25th, 2011 and would benefit the Alameda Museum and the Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch announced that Lori Taylor is the new Community
Development Director and started on August 22, 2011.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch announced that Judith Altschueler is helping the department
sort through files for archiving.
10.
ADJOURNMENT 8:20 p.m.",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-10-06,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, October 6, 2011
1.
CONVENE:
7:00 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Board Members Hoffman, Jasper, and
Lynch
Absent: Vice-Chair Rauk
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of May 5, 2011
Board member Lynch moved, seconded by Chair Owens, to approve the meeting minutes
as amended. Motion passes 3-0. (Board member Hoffman abstained)
Meeting of July 7, 2011
Board member Hoffman moved, seconded by board member Lynch, to approve the
meeting minutes as amended. Motion passes 4-0.
Meeting of August 4, 2011
Board member Hoffman moved, seconded by board member Jasper, to approve the
meeting minutes as amended. Motion passes 4-0.
Meeting of September 1, 2011
Board member Lynch moved, seconded by board member Jasper, to approve the meeting
minutes as amended. Motion passes 4-0.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Chris Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society representative, requested that
the draft historic preservation ordinance be released ahead of time, to allow sufficient
review time by the public.
Simone Wolter, HAB Secretary, announced that the draft would be released in 10 days.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: None.
Approved Meeting Minutes 10/6/2011
Page 1 of 5
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-10-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-10-06,2,"7-A
Certificate of Approval - PLN11-0247 - 1505 & 1507 Park Street - Dick Rutter.
The applicant is requesting to add an awning, reface the bulkhead, install terrazzo
tile on the floor, and refurbish existing materials.
Ms Wolter provided a brief overview of the project.
Dick Rutter, project architect, described elements of the project.
Rob Ratto, Executive Director of the Park Street Business Association, spoke in favor of
the project.
Motion made by Hoffman, seconded by Chair Owens, to approve the project. Motion
passes 4-0.
7-B
Certificate of Approval - PLN11-0272 - 1518 Park Street - Italo Calpestri. The
applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to reconfigure the storefront of a
contributor in the Park Street Historic Commercial District and remove the recessed
corner entry and square off the building with removable window panels on both
facades.
Ms Wolter provided a brief overview of the project.
Board member Lynch asked whether historic pictures exist for this project.
Staff discussed stated that there were no historic pictures on file except the picture earlier
than 1979.
Italo Calpestri, project architect, discussed options to address concerns noted in the
Alameda Architectural Preservation Society letter dated submitted prior to the meeting.
He noted that the bulkheads may contain marble. He suggested that, upon approval by the
property owner, the remaining marble be consolidated and applied to the center window on
the Park Street façade.
In order to address ADA requirements, he noted that the tile and some interior concrete
would need to be removed. He suggested that a replica be included here in lieu of the tile.
He stated that the bottom rail of the window come in common sizes, so that the bottom rail
could not be raised.
Also, he noted, that the ceiling would not be altered much, only to include the rails for the
windows.
Board member Lynch asked for clarification on the location of the doors.
Approved Meeting Minutes 10/6/2011
Page 2 of 5
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-10-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-10-06,3,"Staff explained the location of the person doors on the corner elevations.
Chair Owens asked if the current doors have sufficient clearance between door and
strikeside.
Italo Calpestri stated that the project, in its current iteration, meets ADA requirements.
Chair Owens asked whether wood doors had been considered for this project.
Italo Calpestri stated that the property owner had selected metal doors for its sturdyness.
Rob Ratto, Executive Director of the Park Street Business Association, spoke in favor of
the project.
Chris Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society representative, discussed the
comments submitted to the Board in a letter dated October 4, 2011. He showed pictures of
existing conditions to demonstrate the importance of maintaining important historic
features.
Betsy Mathieson, Alameda resident, spoke against altering the recessed entryway as it
would alter the historic composition of the historic structure.
Kevin Frederick, Alameda resident, welcomed the opportunity to speak on the façade
alteration projects in the Park Street Historic Commercial District. He did not favor the
proposal to alter the existing recessed entryway and asked that the entry way be retained.
Woody Minor, Alameda resident, supported the al fresco window design, however, he
proposed that the existing configuration be retained. He questioned whether the scoring of
the corner would add significant space. He favored retaining the existing bulkhead in its
current configuration and adding movable windows with louvered treatments.
Board member Hoffman favored louvered windows, but wants to see the existing entryway
retained in its current configuration. He stated that the feel of that corner adds to the
historical uniqueness.
Board member Jasper did not favor accordion windows. He asked whether the windows
would allow for spill-over onto the sidewalk. While he understood the need to allow for
overflow dining, he could not support the proposal in its current form. He suggested that a
bulkhead with operable windows would be more suitable.
Board member Lynch was concerned about retaining the existing bulkhead and window
configuration and tile.
Chair Owens explained that the Board is charged with evaluating this project based on its
compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. He felt that the reconfiguration of the
Approved Meeting Minutes 10/6/2011
Page 3 of 5
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-10-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-10-06,4,"historic storefront or removal of the tile, which are character-defining features, could not be
supported in light of these standards. If removal of historic elements was required, it should
be retained or replicated in a suitable fashion.
Staff asked whether the applicant would be able return to the property owner and consider
other alternatives. She recommended that the project be continued to a date specific.
Motion made by board member Lynch, seconded by board member Hoffman to continue
the project to the December 1, 2011 hearing, to allow the architect and property owner
time to revise the project.
7-C
Certificate of Approval - PLN11-027 - 1419 Park Street - Italo Calpestri. The
applicant is proposing to replace the storefront windows with a new fixed storefront
window and door system of a contributor in the Park Street Historic Commercial
District.
Staff provided a brief overview of the project.
Italo Calpestri, project architect, described the project with more detail and explained the
intent to develop several retail spaces.
Chair Owens asked whether one tenant would retain the main space abutting the street.
Italo Calpestri stated that this is correct. There have been several interested tenants, but
no potential tenant has made a formal commitment for this space.
Rob Ratto, Executive Director of the Park Street Business Association, spoke in favor
of
the project.
Debbie George, property owner and business operator at this site, described the
architectural details that would be refurbished on the façade, the color scheme, and the
intent to develop several retail spaces. She stated that originally this building was used by
Long's Drugstore, which will inspire the future signage with neon and channel letters. She
intends to call the new retail spaces ""Park Street Plaza"".
Chair Owens was supportive of the separate awnings identifying the separate retail spaces
that front on Park Street.
Debbie George stated that the proposal calls for one continuous awning with an art deco
color-inspired awning.
Board member Lynch supports the project and noted that the project will be a marked
improvement over the current façade.
Approved Meeting Minutes 10/6/2011
Page 4 of 5
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-10-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-10-06,5,"Chair Owens also supports the project and requested that the design changes be attached
to the resolution.
Board member Hoffman moved, seconded by board member Lynch, to approve the project
with the addition that the design renderings be attached to the proposal. Motion passes 4-
0.
7-D
Public Workshop - PLN08-0463 - City of Alameda
The City of Alameda and Historical Advisory Board Sub-Committee will hold a
workshop to introduce the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance to the full Board
and the public. A brief overview will be presented to highlight new aspects of the
ordinance and receive public input. As a workshop, input will be gathered, but no
actions will be made at this meeting. Staff is requesting a continuance to a future
date.
Board member Hoffman moved, seconded by Chair Owens, to approve continuance of the
agenda item to the December 1st, 2011 hearing date. Motion passes 4-0.
st
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS : None.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Simone Wolter explained that the City Manager had issued a press release stating that the
property owner for the Boatworks project at 2223 Blanding Avenue was required to
demolish the structures on site within 90 days. She then elaborated on the steps required
before the demolition permits would be issued by the City and that the Board would be
informed of the status of the mitigation measures (i.e. photographic inventory) as the
project continues.
Chair Owens stated that he had attended an industrial archeology presentation and
expressed an interest that the memory of the industrial Boatworks complex may be
documented through a video that also included oral traditions and memories as expressed
by people who worked there.
Board member Lynch stated that that would be wonderful project for local organizations to
document the history of Boatworks. She would like to see this incorporated in the
documentation for the public displays.
Simone Wolter announced that she was resigning from her position as Planner and HAB
Secretary effective October 13th 2011 and thanked the Board for their service on the Board
and her opportunity to staff the Historical Advisory Board.
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:36 pm.
Approved Meeting Minutes 10/6/2011
Page 5 of 5
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-10-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-12-01,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, December 1, 2011
1.
CONVENE:
7:00 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Vice-Chair Rauk, Board Members
Hoffman, Jasper, and Lynch
Absent: None
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of October 6, 2011
Board member Jasper moved, seconded by Board member Lynch, to approve the meeting.
Motion passes 4-0. (Vice-Chair Rauk abstained)
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A Certificate of Approval - PLN11-0272 - 1518 Park Street - Italo Calpestri. The
applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to reconfigure the storefront of a
contributor in the Park Street Historic Commercial District and remove the recessed
corner entry and square off the building with removable window panels on both
facades.
Applicant requests a continuance to the January 5, 2012 Meeting.
7-B
Proposed Designation of New City Monument.-PLN11-0343 - 1240 St. Charles
Street - Jeannie Graham. The property owner has submitted a designation
proposal for the subject property, prepared by Woody Minor.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager, gave a brief introduction of the
project.
Approved Meeting Minutes 12/1/2011
Page 1 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-12-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-12-01,2,"Jeannie Graham spoke on the history of her home and the decision to request that the
home at 1240 St Charles Street be designated a historic monument
Woody Minor gave a presentation and slideshow of the home.
Board Member Lynch thanked Mr. Minor for his presentation, and noted she believed that
this home is eligible for to National Landmark Standards.
Board Member Lynch stated that the architect should be included if in the resolution is
stating architectural significance.
Chair Owens asked if there was a period of historic significance.
Mr. Minor stated yes 1897 when it was built to 1944 when the Bruton's left.
Recommend to the City Council as the thirtieth monument, to adopt a resolution with the
addition of Fred P Fischer as the architect and the period of significance to be 1897 to
1944. Motion By Board member Lynch seconded by Board member Hoffman. Motion
passes 5-0.
7-C
Certificate of Approval - PLN11-0340 - 1234 Hawthorne Street - Patricia &
Alexander Bernstein. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow
removal of one Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia). According to a Certified Arborist
Report, the approximately 30-foot high, 25.7-inch diameter tree, located in the front
left side of the property is in poor health with extensive decay.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager gave a brief report.
Board member Hoffman noted he visited the property and agreed the tree was diseased,
and removal should be approved.
Chair Owens expressed that the disposal of the diseased tree should comply with the
recommendations of a ASA Certified Arborist.
Motion by Board member Hoffman to approve the removal of the tree as stated in the
resolution with the addition that the tree should be disposed of as recommended by a ASA
Certified Arborist. Seconded by Board member Rauk. Motion passes 5-0.
7-D
Certificate of Approval - Alteration of a City Monument - PLN11-0346 - 500
Central Avenue - Dominic Chan Nguyen. Applicant is requesting to alter the restoration
plan. The modifications include: 1. Relocate three windows at right side of building to
possible original location, 2. Replace wood siding on three elevations with wood siding
potentially using a different width and style.
Approved Meeting Minutes 12/1/2011
Page 2 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-12-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-12-01,3,"Staff member Kavanaugh-Lynch clarified that the subject property was not a City
Monument, but the decision to hold the restoration to that standard was made in 2005. She
presented a brief staff report.
Members of the Board asked clarifying questions of the staff.
Anthony Pham - applicant for 500 Central gave some clarifications on the building
restoration.
Members of the Board questioned the applicant on the proposed modifications and the
difficulty the applicant has experienced in finding appropriate materials.
Board member Hoffman suggested that a subcommittee be created.
Christopher Buckley spoke in opposition of the proposed changes.
Kevin Frederick spoke in opposition of the proposed changes.
Board member Jasper and Hoffman agreed to be on the subcommittee,
The applicant agreed to work with the subcommittee.
Motion by Board Member Lynch to create a subcommittee with Board Members Hoffman
and Jasper and continue this to the January 2012 meeting. Second by Board Member
Jasper. Motion passes 5-0
Motion by Board Member Rauk to continue item to 7-A to the January meeting second by
Board Member Lynch. Motion carries 5-0
7-E
Historic Preservation Policy Document - City Wide. A new draft document has
been prepared for public review by a subcommittee of the Historic Advisory Board.
This is the first meeting before the full Board and an overview will be presented. No
action will be taken at this meeting.
Staff Member Kavanaugh Lynch gave a presentation on the Preservation Policy Document.
Board member Lynch clarified the difference between Historic Signs and other City
Monuments.
Chair Owens noted some changes were left out of the last version of draft code, including
the differentiation of interior VS. exterior purview of HAB on Monuments, and clarification of
penalties.
Approved Meeting Minutes 12/1/2011
Page 3 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-12-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-12-01,4,"Board member Rauk and Hoffman both voiced concerns on the change from pre-1942 to
all buildings over the age of 50 years being considered for demolition control. They both
noted that it could be a deterrent to residents complying with city standards when working
on their homes. Chair Owen noted the ordinance could reflect the period of significance,
which is likely 1942. He also noted that the issue is demolition not alteration control.
Board member Hoffman thinks that Alameda Point should be given special consideration.
He supports purview over the exterior of buildings, only.
Chair Owens noted he would suggest the addition of massing and form to the definition of
integrity as surface material can be restored and/or removed. He also supported that post
Approved Meeting Minutes 12/1/2011
Page 4 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-12-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-12-01,5,"1942 properties considered for demolition could then be added to the study list. Also,
accessory buildings issue are also challenging to resolve, the need to save water towers
and carriage houses, but not other utility buildings that are not worthy of preservation. He
also noted that the interior alteration purview issue was mostly in error. However, he is
open to allow owners to voluntarily allow interior purview if the Board felt that it was
warranted.
Board member Hoffman and Rauk support that the owner should have to support interior
purview.
Board member Lynch was ambivalent towards interior purview, but would believe that
some persons would find the interior purview an honor.
Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch noted that landmark status, including items of significance would
run with the land, not with the individual property owner.
Board members discussed items noted by the AAPS presentation, including;
a. Relocation of structures on and off of lots and/or on other places in the lot.
b. Findings should be added for actions of the Board.
C. Offer Building Official the ability to allow a limited emergent demolition as part of the
policy discussion.
d. Consider the Historic Preservation Permit - zoning and potential conflict between
purview of the Planning Board. Could add findings to allow certain examples where
a restoration of a monument would be allowed to exceed development standards.
e. Trees. Board noted that trees that are noted in the municipal code are protected,
however not clear as to which Board would be best for this work or if it could be
done by staff.
There was also some discussion that the document should be reviewed by the State
Historic Preservation Office early in the process.
This discussion item was continued by the Board members to the February meeting.
7-F
2012 Historical Advisory Board Meeting Schedule - The Historical Advisory
Board will consider and approve the Historical Advisory Board meeting schedule for
2012.
Motion by Chair member Owen to approve item to 7-F second by board member Lynch.
Motion carries 5-0.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS/ STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Approved Meeting Minutes 12/1/2011
Page 5 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-12-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2011-12-01,6,"Staff announced that 1600 Park Street would be holding a temporary ice rink during the
holiday season.
Staff also noted that a demolition permit has been submitted to the city for the buildings on
the 1600 and 1608 Park Street. Building records indicate that the oldest structure on site
was built in 1942, therefore the permit is ministerial. However, any new information would
as to the date of construction should be forwarded to staff.
Navy 106 Report for Alameda Point was released and should be sent to the libraries and
cd's are be available.
10. ADJOURNMENT:
Motion by Board member Raulk to adjourn second by Board Member Hoffman. Motion
carries 5-0.
Approved Meeting Minutes 12/1/2011
Page 6 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2011-12-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-01-05,1,"Meeting Minutes
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, January 5, 2012
7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:00 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present Chair Owens, Vice-Chair Rauk, Board Members, and
Board member Lynch
Absent: Board members Hoffman and Jasper
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of December 1, 2011 - Pending
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Eric Stiger - President of Alameda Architectural & Perseveration Society - and Chair of of
the Education Committee. Introduced a contest on the 29 official monuments in the City of
Alameda for school age children. Mr Stiger asked Chair Owens to be a Judge for the
contest. and he agreed. Mr. Stiger also asked for the support of the HAB for the contest.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Alameda Architectural Preservation Society - Kids Preservation Contest
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A.
Certificate of Approval - PLN11-0272 - 1518 Park Street - Italo Calpestri. The
applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to reconfigure the storefront of a
contributor in the Park Street Historic Commercial District and remove the
recessed corner entry and square off the building with removable window
panels on both facades.
Margaret Kavanaugh Lynch Planning Services Manager gave an update from the last time
this item had been brought before the board.
Alan Teague - AAPS board member, Made comments regarding the Corner openings on
park st. Habanas being only one of a few left on Park St. Request Denial of the project and
would like to see the corner preserved in a future plan.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 5
January 5, 2012",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-01-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-01-05,2,"Siley Jadesini, The General Manager for Habanas showed drawings of the proposed
changes to the building. Mr. Jadesini explained that the changes will enhance the building
with sliding doors, and adding patio seating. The changes will help the economic viability
of the business.
Board Member Lynch asked about the sliding doors, if they went down both sides of the
building, and wanted to know where the door would be located.
Mr Jadesini responded the windows would go down both sides and the main door would be
located by the pillar.
Board Member Lynch asked about the fence on the sidewalk.
Mr Jadesini explained this was for the patio.
Chair Owens asked if the soffit would remain.
Mr Jadesini said it would stay the same.
Chair Owens asked about the tile floor and if it would be preserved, as stated by a letter
frown the building owner Mr Dudum.
Mr Jadesini said the tile would remain.
Chair Owens asked about the ceiling if it would be preserved
Mr Jadesini said it could not be preserved it would need to be changed.
Mr Jadesini spoke of the economical difficulties with the restaurant. These enhancements
need to be done to enhance business.
Chair Owens asked about a comment from the last meeting about having the doors follow
the current configuration and questioned if the architect revisited this issue and identified
alternatives.
Mr Jadesini said they did look into alternative but did not find any alternative that would
accomplish what they are trying to do with the business.
Chair Owens identified an alternative and found a manufacturer that makes the accordion
style doors. He noted that it was possible to get them to work with the current footprint,
retaining the corner opening.
Betsy Mathieson - Spoke about the Habanas being at the Gateway of the Park St historic
district and feels that the recessed entry is a distinguishing feature in its architectural style.
She showed copies of other recesses corner entries on Park St. She also stated that the
secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation for historic buildings states alterations of
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 5
January 5, 2012",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-01-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-01-05,3,"features and spaces that characterize a building should be avoided. She closed by noting
she was in opposition to the changes.
Valerie Turpen - Vice President for AAPS presented the letter sent to the Board earlier in
the day. AAPS feels the corner entry should be kept intact, and opposes the closing off of
the corner.
Nancy Hird - AAPS questioned if staff had the credentials to make these kind of decisions.
The short term economic issues should not over ride historic inventory. She commented on
the features of the building and the importance of keeping them intact.
Kevin Frederick felt the owner dismissed the recommendations of the HAB. He further
noted that he did not see any documented efforts showing the owner had tried to save
parts of the building and would like to see that in writing. Finally, he does not think the door
system is appropriate in this space.
Vice Chair Rauk does not feel the applicant has looked at all of the options, and should
bring back a better option to preserve the opening.
Board Member Lynch agrees with Vice Chair Rauk, and does not think it meets the
department of interior standards. (#: 2 on the staff report) Does not feel she could vote for
the proposal.
Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch requested a clarification from the applicant. She asked if the
applicant wanted a decision or a continuance this evening.
Mr Jadesini stated the he would like a decision from the Board, tonight.
Chair Owens concurred that the plans or the letter from the applicant are not consistent
with what has been discussed and seen tonight, and would like a consistent package to
vote on. He reiterated that the discussion from October about maintaining the space and
materials and that was the most important feature and had give this direction to the
applicant and has not come back with that plan.
Ms Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that the drawings seen to night have no physical changes or
differences, the applicant's representative had only provided a rendering to further
illustrate the streetscape.
Vice Chair Rauk made a motion to deny, Board member Lynch seconded The vote was 2
in favor, 1 opposed. Chair Owens votes against the denial.
Motion does not carry.
Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch asked the board to vote on a continuance so that we could have a
date for a hearing coming up.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 5
January 5, 2012",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-01-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-01-05,4,"Board member Lynch inquired why they should since nothing had happen since October.
Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that she had met extensively with the applicant about
different options while trying to preserve the bulkhead and the door feature. The applicant
had said that he appreciated the efforts of the Board and staff but that it would not meet
the objectives he wanted for the project. After careful consideration he chose to bring back
his original application.
Vice Chair Rauk made a motion to continue the item, Board member Lynch seconded the
motion.
3-0 Motion passes to continue the project to the February meeting.
7-B. Restoration Review - Applicant: Dominic Chan Nguyen - 500 Central Avenue.
Modification of the approved restoration plans for 500 Central Avenue.
Board member Lynch stated she would like to hear what the sub committee had to say, in
person.
Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch stated she was at the meeting and all of the comments are in the
staff report.
Chair Owens felt that the owner should be present as well.
Board member Lynch agreed the owner should be present.
Board member Rauk was concerned about time sensitivity of the project.
Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch noted the weather sensitivity. She also restated the sub-committee
staff report Specifically, that the property owner should use cedar not pine for the siding
and to take off the ""eyebrows"" from the window openings. All parties agreed to this. The
one issue that the sub-committee wanted to bring back to the Board was regarding the
railing options.
Board member Lynch moved to continue the project and request the owner to attend to the
next meeting Vice Chair Rauk seconded. 3-0 motion carries.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Presentation by Board member Lynch on Alameda Monuments.
Board member Lynch presented a power point of the 29 city monuments.
Board member Lynch handed out a tentative list of activities for Preservation season
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 5
January 5, 2012",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-01-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-01-05,5,"9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:22 pm.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 5
January 5, 2012",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-01-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-02-02,1,"MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, February 2, 2012
1.
CONVENE:
7:00 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Vice-Chair Rauk, Board Members
Hoffman, Jasper, and Lynch
Absent: None
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of December 1, 2011
Board member Lynch stated that on page two the sentence ""Mr. Minor stated yes 1897
when it was built to 1944 when the Bruton's left.' The word Bruton's should not have an
apostrophe because it is not possessive.
Called to approve motion Board member Hoffman, 2nd motion Board member Rauk,
approved 5-0.
Meeting of January 5, 2012 (Pending)
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
Board member Owens called for board members to approve a motion to move item 7-B
ahead of 7-A. Board members approved 5-0.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager, gave a brief report.
Draft Meeting Minutes 2/2/2012
Page 1 of 8
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-02-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-02-02,2,"7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-B
Restoration Review - Applicant: Dominic Chan Nguyen - 500 Central Avenue.
Modification of the approved restoration plans for 500 Central Avenue. Continued
from the meeting of January 5, 2012
Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, stated that the group
hasn't submitted a formal statement on the proposal, but some of the members have
discussed the issue and are comfortable with the subcommittee recommendation and
plans that were submitted, but they would like to see clarification on the railing designs.
Board member Hoffman stated that he and Board member Jasper went to the site and they
suggested that the window eyebrows should be removed. He also stated that they didn't
want the pinewood, cedar or redwood would be fine. He suggested that the Board talk
about the design of the railing and the back porch. Furthermore, he would like to make a
decision so the property owner can move on and get this done.
Chair Owens stated agreed that a decision should be made and there was a decision
made, but the property changed hands and the new owner drafted new plans.
Board member Lynch stated that on page 3 of 4 within the four drawings Board member
Hoffman and Board member Jasper agreed with the two drawings located on the left hand
side, the Vertical Boards, but for the railing piece.
Board member Lynch asked if the plans were a reflection of the Draft Resolution.
Board member Hoffman stated that it was in the draft resolution option A, recommended by
the subcommittee.
Board member Owens asked Board member Hoffman to make a motion to approve the
resolution choosing the option 4A instead of 4B. The motion was 2nd by Board member
Lynch. Approved 4-0.
7-A Certificate of Approval - PLN11-0272 - 1518 Park Street - Italo Calpestri. The
property owner requests a Certificate of Approval to reconfigure the storefront of a
contributor in the Park Street Historic Commercial District and remove the recessed
corner entry and square off the building with removable window panels on both
facades. This application first appeared before the Board on October 6, 2011.
Pursuant to AMC, the Board must act on the application before April 5, 2012.
Continued from the meeting of January 5, 2012
Draft Meeting Minutes 2/2/2012
Page 2 of 8
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-02-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-02-02,3,"Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager, presented the follow up report to
the January 5th report.
Board member Owens asked if the staff report was the same as last meeting.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch replied yes.
Chair Owens called for public comment.
Mario Mariani, Commercial Realtor at Gallagher and Lindsey Realtors, stated that he is in
favor of the project. He explained that today's customers are attracted to outdoor cafes and
that is a unique thing. If you go to the cities of Emeryville, Walnut Creek, and Berkeley,
most restaurants have outdoor seating. Therefore, it is important for restaurants to survive
the economic downturn and if that is what it takes please make that happen.
Richard Rutter, Alameda resident, stated that the corner is well executed and it would be a
shame to lose it. He recommended that the property owner should save the tiled entry, the
top soffit, and the existing door. He also suggested that the owner change the glazing to
operable windows on top of the existing bulkhead and to not tear out the existing bulkhead.
Furthermore, he believed the building to be a treasure and for the Board to compromise
with the property owner by using his recommendations.
Mi'Chelle Fredrick, experienced retail and restaurant designer, spoke about the need to
promote adaptive reuse projects that function with the evolving times and neighborhood
characteristics. She believed that outdoor seating is a desired amenity and she urged the
Board to approve the project.
Shadi Movafagh, General Manager of Linguini's Restaurant in Alameda, spoke on behalf
of the General Manager of Havana and the other employees. She explained that the
building must be revitalized in order to compete with other businesses, especially
businesses that have patio seating.
Kathi Young, Alameda resident, stated she approved the project because it will create
more jobs and revenue for the city. She acknowledged the fact that the open space design
was necessary so waiters and waitresses can safely serve patrons.
Nancy Hird, Alameda resident, stated that outdoor seating is a great idea but the issue lies
within the National Park Service guidelines, also known as The Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the treatment of historical properties. Therefore, she doesn't want to see the
building's character diminished.
Draft Meeting Minutes 2/2/2012
Page 3 of 8
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-02-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-02-02,4,"Robb Ratto, Executive Director of the Park Street Business Association, stated that Park
Street Business Association and board members support the project. The association does
not believe the design will be a detriment to the historical nature of the district. He also
urged the Board to approve the project as soon as possible.
Christopher Buckley, Second VP for the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society,
explained that he wanted to focus on the bigger issue. He supports the sidewalk-seating
concept, but what concerns the organization is why some of the options suggested to the
property owners won't work. The Board chair suggested folding doors and his organization
would like to know why this option didn't work for the owner. He also stated that staff
organized extensive discussions and various options were explored, but the options didn't
work out. Thus, he wanted to know why they didn't work and he was concerned that
modifying the building and others in the district will jeopardize the Park Street District's
historical status.
Italo Calpestri, project architect, stated that he supported the application and mentioned to
the Board that there were a number of items to bear in mind. In regards to the folding
doors, he explained that the corner is retained when the doors are open (usually when the
restaurant is open) so they don't loose the corner except for late at night. He also talked to
the property owner at length about the project and they are keeping the polychrome tile
design, which will extend into the building as a way of supporting the desire of the
historical element and present a more inviting entry. He believed that outdoor seating was
good for the business and having the doors open will add circulation and give people on
the sidewalk separation.
Board member Lynch asked whether the corner would be lost when the doors are opened.
Mr. Calpestri stated the column at the corner will remain, but when the doors are folded
back then the corner will be open on both sides of the street.
Board member Lynch asked if the doors would be open for most of the restaurant's
operating time.
Mr. Calpestri stated yes, but depending on weather conditions.
Board member Lynch stated that she didn't see that indicated in the last meeting's
drawings and she would like to see that illustrated in the next meeting.
Chair Owens asked if the configuration would be the same as present, but substituting the
folding storefront system for the historic storefront fabric.
Draft Meeting Minutes 2/2/2012
Page 4 of 8
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-02-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-02-02,5,"Mr. Calpestri responded by stating that they did discuss that option, but not at great length
and the design did not meet the standard of how the restaurant would function.
Chair Owens asked instead of replacing the corner storefront section replace the non-
historic section.
Mr. Calpestri replied that the design option would not serve the restaurant's operating
function well.
Jack Dudum, Owner of Havana's Restaurant, stated that the restaurant's access to that
corner would be from 10 a.m. until 11:30 p.m. on weekdays and from 10 a.m. from 12:30
a.m. on weekends (Saturday and Sunday). So, in order to employ staff and to be a
competitive restaurant in Alameda, he needs to create outdoor seating. He responded to a
question that imagines the folding storefront following the exact same line and he
explained that following the HAB plan would be cost prohibitive for the restaurant and
would ultimately quadruple the cost.
Board member Lynch asked to outline on the plan where the outdoor seating would be.
She also asked, based on the design; if the first 1/3 of the building (5 panels) would fold
back and would fold back overlapping onto each other.
Mr. Dudum stated yes and they would fold back.
Chair Owens asked whether the property owner would save the tiles on the ceiling, since
they are similar to the floor pattern.
Mr. Dudum stated yes and the only changes for the building would be to take the sliding
doors and bring them to the corner. Also, he stated that the City of Alameda and Alcohol
and Beverage Control (ABC) approved outdoor seating on Webster and Park Streets.
Board member Lynch asked how many seats would be placed outdoors.
Mr. Dudum replied that the approximate number of outdoor seating would be 30 total for
both sides.
Board member Lynch asked whether that would significantly add more customers to the
restaurant.
Mr. Dudum replied there are 50 seats right now, so that would bring the total number of
seats to 80. And that is a fair size for a restaurant owner to try to earn a living.
Draft Meeting Minutes 2/2/2012
Page 5 of 8
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-02-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-02-02,6,"Chair Owens called for the Board to discuss the project.
Board member Jasper stated that given the economic climate it is important to support the
project. He explained that keeping the restaurant the way it is would not help the City,
especially if it's just to keep the corner door. Finally, he appreciated the project owner's
efforts and time to review the project.
Board member Lynch stated that their job is to take care of the City's historical buildings
and she understood the hardships for restaurant employees and owners, but she did not
support the project.
Vice Chair Rauk stated a lot of her questions had been answered and as an accountant,
she understood the restaurant's economic considerations for not being able to follow the
existing footprint of the restaurant. She also believes that the project should be supported
based on the business association's support of it.
Board member Hoffman stated that the building's changes does not negatively affect the
historic district as a whole, but enhances it in other ways. Thus, he supports the project.
Board member Owens asked if the board opposes the outdoor seating.
The Board did not oppose to the outdoor seating.
Chair Owens stated there are a couple of issues: 1) the Board must judge the project
based on the Secretary of Interior Standards; and 2) the project owner and the Board
should discuss all alternative design options considered. He believed that based on the
Secretary of Interior Standards the project's design proposal does not meet the standards
because the project would remove historic façade materials, namely the bulkhead,
windows, and would change the configuration of the corner, which is a historical corner
entry. He opposed the design as it is right now, but he would favor a design that would
include the folding storefront in the same plan arrangement, as it exists now.
Board member Hoffman replied that he felt the Secretary of Interior Standards could be
interpreted so that the project does lie within the standards.
Board member Hoffman called a motion to approve the resolution with the polychrome tile
covering the entire threshold entrance of the building, the soffit would remain above the
door area as physically possible and the transit windows would remain unchanged.
Vice Chair Rauk 2nd the motion.
Draft Meeting Minutes 2/2/2012
Page 6 of 8
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-02-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-02-02,7,"Approved 3-2. Chair Owens and Board member Lynch were opposed.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
8-A.
Presentation by Board member Lynch on Historic Preservation Season in
Alameda
Board member Lynch asked if the Board was able to review the Draft Proclamation (last
part of the packet given to the Board) and they had any comments or revisions. She further
explained that event # 1 of the Historical Preservation Season will continue to have items
added onto it such as Woody Minor making a presentation about the Bruton House.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that the first meeting in March currently has the golf
course and housing item plus the monument designation. So, would like to move the item
to March 20th.
The Board agreed and Board member Lynch would be present at the monument
designation.
Chair Owens stated that Congress is reconsidering the tax credits for historical
preservation. For the City of Alameda, the tax credit is an advantage especially for any
building on Park Street and the Naval Air Station. He also urged members of the
subcommittee, public, and City staff to weigh in with their representatives on the issue.
Finally, he voiced to Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch that the current Secretary of Interior
Standards for Rehabilitation contains a couple of wording differences since the last version
and he would send the new document to her.
Board member Hoffman suggested that going forward the Board and public to speak
louder during recorded meetings.
8-B.
Appointment of new sub-committee members for Historic Preservation
Committee.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated there is no minimum size for a sub-committee.
The Board did not finalize an appointment.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
9-A. Implementation of the Sunshine Ordinance as related to the business of the
HAB and its sub-committees.
Draft Meeting Minutes 2/2/2012
Page 7 of 8
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-02-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-02-02,8,"Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch presented the Sunshine Ordinance requirements and staff
would receive new interpretations as they go along with the process. She believed the
requirements will have positive impacts on the transparency of the work done on behalf of
the Board.
Board member Lynch asked staff how do they notice a subcommittee.
Planning Staff stated they would post the meeting on the website and they only need to
record a meeting if there are three or more board members at any point.
Chair Owens asked how far in advance would a meeting date have to be published.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated 7 calendar days. Also, in the near future the Board will
have to attend training about the Sunshine Ordinance.
Chair Owens asked about the public passing a piece of evidence (diagram, picture, letter,
etc.) to the Board.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that if evidence were submitted within minutes of the
meeting taking session, then Staff would submit it to the Board. Also, staff will scan and
post the evidence to the City's website.
Chair Owens asked about items that come in electronically and whether staff would print
and present the information to the Board at each meeting.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated yes.
10.
ADJOURNMENT:
Vice Chair Rauk made a motion to adjourn
2nd by Board member Jasper
Approved 5-0.
Draft Meeting Minutes 2/2/2012
Page 8 of 8
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-02-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-03-01,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, March 1, 2012
1.
CONVENE:
7:00 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Vice-Chair Rauk, Board Members
Hoffman, Jasper, and Lynch
3.
MINUTES:
Meeting of February 2, 2012
Chair Owens motioned to approve February 2 minutes as amended.
Board member Lynch seconded the motion.
Motion carried 5-0.
Meeting of January 5, 2012
Board member Jasper motioned to approve January 5 minutes as amended.
Board member Hoffman seconded the motion.
Motion carried 4-0; 1 abstention.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
NONE
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Alan Teague, resident, stated he would like the public to have the opportunity to
address their opinions on the agenda items as they are presented instead of only have
comments at the beginning and towards the end of the meeting.
Christopher Buckley, resident, stated the Board should ""memorialize"" the rules of
procedure. He suggested that there should be a brief overview of the Secretary of
Interior Standards. He asked for clarification as to whether the City adopted the
Standards as part of an agreement with the federal government regarding Alameda
Point and urged the Board to review the agreement,
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Services Manager, received a memo from
Approved Meeting Minutes 3/1/2012
Page 1 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-03-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-03-01,2,"Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer for Alameda Point, regarding the transmittal NAS
Alameda Draft Cultural Landscape Report. Individual comments can be submitted to
either herself, Jennifer Ott, or the Navy by March 19. An emergency meeting can be
scheduled for collective comments.
Board member Lynch said she would like to see the Board's individual comments
before they are submitted.
Chair Owens stated the final comments would appear in the final document and
proposed a subcommittee to comment on the report.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that the subcommittee would still have to report to
the Board.
Chair Owens proposed submitting individual comments given the time constraints and
the length of the report.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch stated that the Board must review the Sunshine Ordinance
prior to April 1. She said the Proclamation of the Historic Preservation Season will be
presented at the March 20 City Council meeting, the landmark hearing has rescheduled
for April 3, and the Oakland Historical Society and Mayor Jean Quan invited the Board
to the Oakland Roots and New Growth event on May 3-6.
Chair Owens announced that the California Preservation Foundation is holding two
seminars about the interpretation of the Secretary of Interior Standards for the treatment
of historic properties on March 7 and April 4. He stated that Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society sent a letter about the historic streetlights to the Board.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A.
Certificate of Approval - PLN12-0038 - 906 San Antonio Street - Linda Kell.
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval to allow removal of one
Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia). According to a licensed contractor's report,
the tree located in the front left side of the property is causing damage to the
home.
Laura Ajello, Planning staff, presented the staff report.
Board member Lynch clarified with Laura Ajello that an arborist report is not needed
because the tree is being removed because of its proximity to a building.
Chair Owens stated that removal of the tree would benefit the house.
Vice Chair Rauk motioned to approve the certificate of approval to allow removal of one
Coast Live Oak.
Approved Meeting Minutes 3/1/2012
Page 2 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-03-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-03-01,3,"Board member Jasper seconded the motion.
Motion carried 5-0.
7-B. Certificate of Approval - PLN11-0300 - 1516 Oak Street - Cortel, LLC. The
applicant requests a Certificate of Approval for an alteration to a Contributing
Structure to a Historic District. The project consists of an installation of
telecommunication equipment on the project property.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch presented the staff report.
Board member Lynch clarified with staff that the term conjectural feature is interpreted
as a feature that comes off of the main façade.
Chair Owens inquired about backup power.
Alex Oner, Cortel, clarified that more equipment will be removed than installed. He
affirmed that there will be battery backup power.
Board member Hoffman motioned to approve the proposal.
Board member Lynch seconded the motion.
Motion approved 5-0.
7-C.
Certificate of Approval- Various Locations throughout City. The applicant
requests a Certificate of approval to remove and replace historic streetlights at
various locations throughout the City of Alameda.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch gave brief presentation.
Board member Lynch asked if there are fiberglass double pendant replacements. She
stated that the cost analysis does not make sense and questioned the projected
longevity of the refurbished streetlights. She asked which historic streetlight the casting
came from and said she would like to see the streetlight prior to deciding.
Chair Owens inquired about the height of the fixtures and how many pieces each fixture
was.
Vice Chair Rauk asked if all the streetlights being replaced are identical to the pole.
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch replied that all the streetlights will have the same single
armed pendants and clarified that any new development would have to include the
streetlights.
Juan Ulloa, Engineering Supervisor Alameda Municipal Power (AMP), gave a brief
presentation.
Approved Meeting Minutes 3/1/2012
Page 3 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-03-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-03-01,4,"and installation is $4,600, with a projected life of five years; the total estimated cost for a
new fiberglass replacement pole and installation is $4,000, with a projected life of 35-80
years.
Juan Ulloa explained to the Board that the project is part of the comprehensive asset
management program, and is funded through AMP's maintenance and Capital
Improvement Plan. During Phase I, staff discovered that most of the inspected
deteriorating lights and five percent of the poles inspected were leaning and could not
be refurbished and no shafts are left.
Board member Lynch stated a ""rehabilitated"" light should have last longer than five
years. She said she was not ready to vote on this issue because she would like to learn
more.
Douglas Draeger, AGM of Engineering and Operations, explained that the five-year
warranty is part of the value of the product. He said that warranty information comes
from the steel welding that they had available to them at that time.
Chair Owens clarified that the warranty for the fiberglass poles is from the manufacturer
and the warranty for the welding is from a contractor.
Vice Chair Rauk clarified with staff that the lifetime of the pole is estimated between 35-
80 years, and the piece below grade, which is the most essential is warranted for 20
years.
Chair Owens opened public comment.
Approved Meeting Minutes 3/1/2012
Page 4 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-03-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-03-01,5,"Alan Teague, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), stated that the lights
older than 50 years are significant and have historic values. He stated that the new
lights will not look like the old lights; the globe and the shape of the fixture are not the
same. He stated that the idea of welding on a new base sounds better. He suggested
that the Board gather more information prior to voting.
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, stated he would like to review the written proposal. He
requested additional information regarding the warranty of the poles. He said that the
Webster Street pole is a single cast, and asked if there was an impact on a two-piece
fixture like the pendant fixtures would that have an effect on the continued usability of
the remainder of the fixture. He requested clarification on the fiberglass pole coating
and the color specification. He stated that the proposed design should be similar to the
existing design and as there are significant differences, it is impossible to conclude
whether it conforms to the Secretary of Interior Standards.
Chair Owens closed public comment.
Chair Owens said the project does not meet standard # 6 because it is possible to
repair the poles but if the cost to repair is ten times more than the cost to replace the
streetlights, then replacing may be a good option.
Board member Lynch said she would like more information about the streetlights and
wanted to see the replica.
Board member Hoffman agreed that the Board should see the replicas. He said he
would like to know what the replacement figures truly cost rather than an estimate. He
requested a completed cost analysis prior to making a decision.
Vice Chair Rauk agrees that # 6 is clear and repairing the streetlights is an option. She
requested more information prior to making a decision.
Board member Jasper agreed with Board member Hoffman's statement.
Chair Owens stated that there is plenty of room to weld a larger base plate along the
envelope of the shroud and add a diamond pattern of 40 epoxy bolts to add strength to
the connection. He suggested that staff find a way to save the existing fluted steel
poles. Staff should find a manufacturer that can make the tapered steel tubes to match
the steel poles.
Chair Owens suggested that the repairs be sequenced in series of five as opposed to all
at once.
Board member Hoffman wanted to know how everyone felt about the replica.
Approved Meeting Minutes 3/1/2012
Page 5 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-03-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-03-01,6,"Chair Owens stated that he would have to see it side by side.
Board member Lynch asked how long would staff at Alameda Municipal Power need to
put some of these figures together into a new staff report.
Douglas Draeger stated he would need a month in order to get the information.
Chair Owens directed staff to prepare a report that addresses repair alternatives and a
cost analysis showing the difference between repair and replacement.
Board member Hoffman motioned to continue Item C until the next meeting.
Vice Chair Rauk seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 5-0; no abstentions
7-D.
Change Order of Agenda
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch gave a brief presentation.
Chair Owens motioned to include the second oral communications item on the agenda
in order for the public to comment towards the end of the meeting. The item will come
after staff communications and before adjournment.
Board member Hoffman seconded the motion.
Motion approved 5-0; no abstentions.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board member Lynch referred to the packet with the ""big hand"" which mentioned the
historic preservation season and she hoped that everyone would be able to come to her
house and meet Queen Victoria. She also said that if the board planned to come, then
they should let her know. Furthermore, City Manager John Russo would be there to
oversee the children's show.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
NONE
10.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:06 pm
Approved Meeting Minutes 3/1/2012
Page 6 of 6
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-03-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-04-05,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, April 5, 2012
1.
CONVENE:
7:00 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Owens, Board Members Hoffman and Jasper
Absent: Board members Lynch and Vice-Chair Rauk
3.
MINUTES:
March 1, 2012 (Pending)
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
6.WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Chair Owens mentioned that the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society sent a
letter to the Board discussing 7-A.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A. Certificate of Approval - PLN12-0027 - 930 Pacific Avenue - Daniel Winterich.
The applicant requests approval for the demolition of more than 30 percent of the value
of a residence included on the Historical Building Study List.
Laura Ajello, Planning staff, presented the staff report.
Chair Owens asked what the purpose of the hammerhead in the back of the driveway.
Laura Ajello replied the hammerhead is to enable cars to turn around and face forward,
and Public Works requires the configuration if there are more than three units.
Chair Owens stated that the two cars in the back would use the configuration, but the
ones in the front would not use that.
Approved Meeting Minutes 4/5/2012
Page 1 of 5
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-04-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-04-05,2,"Laura Ajello replied that Public Works would review parking in the future and after a
building permit was issued, that changes to the parking may be possible.
Chair Owens stated that according to the Secretary of Interior Standards, the railings
could be considered as ""false historic"". He asked if the railings could be re-designed.
Daniel Winterich, architect, replied that the design could be altered.
Chair Owens opened public comment.
Alan Teague, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), suggested the Board
condition that the applicant get a variance for the open space requirement. He
suggested that the balcony be removed from the front of the house. He said the French
doors and railing in the front will be a major architectural feature in the front of the house
and will significantly detract from that aspect.
Kevin Frederick, Alameda resident, stated that the balcony doesn't look like it's related
to the project. He said he objects to the balcony in the front of the house unless they
can prove that it was preexisting feature with a special architectural handrail.
Chair Owens closed public comment.
Board member Jasper stated he likes the proposal and doesn't have any objections.
Board member Hoffman said that all the balconies do not keep with the actual flow of
the house or the period. He said he is not opposed to the balcony in the front if it is re-
designed to look compatible with the period.
Chair Owens stated he does not agree with the whole hammerhead for the parking area
and suggested that it be reduced by half. He asked how many parking spaces are
required. He suggested that the board condition the approval, require that the railing be
redesigned, and reduce the amount of paving.
Laura Ajello replied that usually two parking spaces are required per unit.
Chair Owens replied three legal spaces because two of them are tandem.
Laura Ajello replied each unit could have tandem parking.
Chair Owens stated he doesn't have a problem with the side decks. He does have
concerns with safety issues regarding the front balcony: the railings should have as light
of touch as possible, the least amount of mass conceivable, and painted in a color that
blends in with the siding.
Approved Meeting Minutes 4/5/2012
Page 2 of 5
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-04-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-04-05,3,"Board member Hoffman concurred with the Chair's comments.
Chair Owens motioned to approve the draft resolution with the exceptions of requiring
balcony railings to be designed in a contemporary compatible fashion. Additionally, the
railings must be designed with minimal impact and the Planning Board would consider
eliminating the hammerhead configuration, minimizing the parking requirements to
possibly less than six required spaces, and minimized the required paving.
Board member Hoffman seconded the motion.
Motion approved 3-0; no abstentions
7-B. Draft Environmental Impact Report - Todd Shipyard Crane Demolition (2900
Main Street) City of Alameda - Public Hearing to Consider a Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the Todd Shipyard Crane Demolition Project -The City of Alameda
Historic Advisory Board will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to determine the environmental consequences
that could occur if the crane were to be demolished. The crane is a contributing element
to the United Engineering Company Shipyard Historic District. The HAB will be holding
a hearing to consider a Certificate of Demolition at an upcoming meeting.
John Cook, Circlepoint, who prepared the environmental review for the project, gave a
brief update on the CEQA process overview.
Board member Hoffman asked how the crane was pushed out of the district.
Chair Owens asked how the crane is contributing to the district since it is not in the
district.
John Cook replied that the crane is on rails and was moved to its present location. He
said that when the district was formulated, the crane was identified as an element within
the district.
Chair Owens clarified with staff that the crane is considered a structure, is on State land
and the City is the trustee for the State. He requested more detail about the district
reevaluation. The district was formed to keep the Port of Oakland from dredging away
Alameda.
Chair Owens explained from reading the documents that the Port of Oakland
commented that the Crane is an important contributor and mitigation should go beyond
the standard. So, he wanted to know if the mitigations being proposed were going
beyond the minimum standard.
John Cook replied the Port of Oakland wrote the letter during the scoping period and the
Approved Meeting Minutes 4/5/2012
Page 3 of 5
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-04-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-04-05,4,"main interest in the letter was the historic nature of the district and the impact that
demolition would have in terms of cultural resources. He said the mitigation measures
proposed are more than the bare minimum.
Chair Owens stated that the study of the reevaluation of the district is an important
element and more should be done to preserve the crane because it's an important
element to the district.
John Cook stated that demolition comes down to the financial aspects. He clarified that
there is an agreement with the Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority
(WETA) to take some action and costs to preserve the crane in place or relocate it,
which are outlined in the Environmental Impact Report. He estimated the hard
engineering costs are well over one million dollars to either preserve in place or
relocate, which does not include ongoing maintenance or the repair work for the pier.
Chair Owens stated that according to the structural engineer report the crane should be
moved because the probability that it may fall down and hurt someone. He asked if the
Building Official can order that the crane be removed.
Board member Hoffman said the crane's safety issues have been discussed at previous
meetings.
John Cook replied that the City Building Official hasn't looked at the structure yet and
explained that the agreement with WETA was to make the removal of the crane a
matter of urgency. He said the procedure must be done within two years of when the
agreement was signed.
Andrew Thomas explained that the reevaluation of the district is a valuable mitigation
because of future projects that will happen to the district.
Chair Owens referred to the report stating that the structure is not salvageable and
there is great risk in attempting to salvage it.
Chair Owens opened public comment.
Alan Teague stated that AAPS discussed the Draft Environmental Impact Report and
agree that the crane should come down, stating that their biggest concern is with the
revaluation of the district and the protection of the Sawtooth Building. He said AAPS
would like to see reevaluation of the district conducted by an independent firm that was
not involved in the other evaluations.
John Cook replied the Sawtooth Building was individually eligible as a resource and that
the demolition of the crane did not affect its eligibility.
7-C. Certificate of Approval - Historic Street Lights - City of Alameda. The
Approved Meeting Minutes 4/5/2012
Page 4 of 5
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-04-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-04-05,5,"applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to remove and replace 55 historic street
lights located along Central Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. Staff is requesting
continuance to May 3, 2012.
Chair Owens motioned to continue Item 7C.
Board member Hoffman seconded the motion.
Motion approved 3-0; no abstentions
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
10.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
NONE.
11.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:14 pm
Approved Meeting Minutes 4/5/2012
Page 5 of 5
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-04-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-07-05,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, July 5, 2012
1. CONVENE 7:00P.M.
2.
ROLL CALL Present: Chair Owens, Board members Hoffman, Jasper, and
Lynch
Absent: Vice Chair Rauk
3. MINUTES
3A. Minutes from 3-1-12
3B. Minutes from 4-5-12
Board member Lynch motioned to continue the minutes of the 3/1/12 and 4/5/12
meetings.
Board member Hoffman seconded the motion
Motion carried 4-0, no abstentions
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS
NONE
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Christopher Buckley, resident, informed the Board of the Design Review and
Variance application for a pre-1942 building at 707 Haight Avenue that the
Planning Board will review on Monday, July 9. He said the demolition appears to
exceed the 30 percent demolition threshold. He also stated that the School
District has proposed a partial retrofit on the Central and East buildings of
Historic Alameda High School.
Chair Owens stated that the Historic Alameda High School is a City Monument
and requested guidance from staff and the City Attorney regarding the status and
permit/approval process. He stated that the Board may want to comment to the
School District. He also stated since the building is subject to CEQA, and asked
who was responsible for ensuring compliance with CEQA guidelines.
Mr. Thomas responded that the School District is responsible for ensuring CEQA
compliance.
Mr. Thomas stated that staff will contact the School District and schedule a
Public Hearing.
Approved Meeting Minutes 7/5/12
Page 1 of 4
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-07-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-07-05,2,"6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Owens acknowledged receipt of email from the Alameda Architectural
Preservations Society
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7.A. 2900 Main Street - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) and adoption of a Certificate of Approval for the Demolition
of the Todd Shipyard Crane
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave a brief presentation.
Board member Lynch asked how much it would cost to remove the crane and
who would pay for the removal.
Mr. Thomas stated that the City and the Water Transportation Authority will pay
for the removal of the crane.
Chair Owens opened public comment.
Gary McAfee, stated that the City imposed risk by putting the ferry terminal next
to the crane. He asked if the City has considered removing just the crane head
and placing it next to the crane; it then could be replaced after the earthquake.
Mike Henneberry, resident, said that the crane and the Sawtooth building make a
valuable skyline worth saving. He stated that this is an opportunity for a public-
private partnership. He suggested that the City use this as an opportunity to build
on the crane and reword the resolution to allow for an interested party to
reconstruct the crane on site. He concluded by stating the City should not
always be responsible for paying for these projects.
Chair Owens closed public comment.
Board member Lynch stated that she likes the idea of removing the cab and
boom of the crane and placing it next to the crane. She stated she also likes the
idea of using volunteers to assist with the project.
Chair Owens questioned if a 45 day advertising notice was a sufficient amount of
time for someone to express interest and move the crane.
Board member Hoffman stated that safety is the main concern and a 90-day
notice would be sufficient. He stated that advertising notice should be national.
Chair Owens referred to comments made by John Cook from Circle Point stating
that costs to preserve in place or relocate is over $1 million and does not include
Approved Meeting Minutes 7/5/12
Page 2 of 4
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-07-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-07-05,3,"ongoing maintenance costs or pier repair, which is a significant amount of
money for a volunteer group to get involved in.
Board member Hoffman suggested rewriting the draft resolution to remove the
phrase ""to a new location.'
Chair Owens stated that he does not want to remove the option to have the
crane moved to another location and would like to keep the notification period at
45 days, which allows ample time for people to respond and show interest
without having to commit to the project.
Board member Lynch stated that she would prefer a 90-day notice.
Board member Jasper stated that he doesn't think the crane will fall down and
that City should give every opportunity for the crane to be preserved. He said the
notice should be a minimum of 90 days.
Mr. Thomas clarified that the City will start to pursue a demolition permit/contract
after the notification period has ceased, but the City can work on securing the
required photography and oral history.
Board member Hoffman motioned to approve the draft resolution with conditions
that the draft resolution be changed to increase the notification period to 90 days.
Board member Lynch requested that the motion be amended to include the
removal of the word ""Historical"" from the phrase ""Alameda Museum.""
Board member Jasper seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 4-0; no abstentions
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board member Lynch reminded the Board about the Alameda Museum lecture
series and pointed out that the July lecture is on the 125th anniversary of
Alameda Municipal Power. She also presented the Board with a memo
regarding the suggestion to change the tree section of the Ordinance to protect
the street trees on Thompson Avenue.
Chair Owens stated that the protected trees should remain under the purview of
the Historical Advisory Board. He inquired about the comments regarding the
ordinances that were passed around to City staff.
Mr. Thomas stated that he will follow up with other departments regarding the
ordinance comments and will report back to the board.
Approved Meeting Minutes 7/5/12
Page 3 of 4
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-07-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-07-05,4,"Chair Owens stated that he sent an email to staff stating that Habanas did not
follow the conditions of approval for multiple issues; he requested an update from
staff.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
NONE
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
NONE
11. ADJOURNMENT
8:53 p.m.
Board member Hoffman motioned to adjourn the meeting.
Board member Jasper seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 4-0; no abstentions.
Approved Meeting Minutes 7/5/12
Page 4 of 4
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-07-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-09-06,1,"Approved Meeting Minutes
City of Alameda Historical Advisory Board
Thursday, September 6, 2012
7:00 p.m.
1. CONVENE
2. ROLL CALL- - Present: Chair Owens, Vice Chair Rauk, Board Members, Jasper, and
Lynch
Absent: Board member Hoffman
3. MINUTES
Minutes from the March 1, 2012 Meeting
Vice Chair Rauk motioned to approve minutes as amended.
Board member Lynch seconded the motion
Motion carried, 4-0; no abstentions
Minutes from the April 5, 2012 Meeting
Board member Lynch motioned to approve minutes as amended
Vice Chair Rauk seconded the motion
Motion carried, 4-0; no abstentions
Minutes from the July 5, 2012 meeting
Vice Chair Rauk motioned to approved minutes as amended
Chair Owens seconded the motion
Motion carried, 3-0; 1 abstentions, Vice Chair Rauk
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS
Staff requested that Item 9, staff communications move to the top of the Agenda. Andrew
Thomas, Acting City Planner, stated that the representative from Alameda High School
will not be able to attend the public hearing and asked the board if they would prefer to
continue the item to the meeting of October 4, 2012.
Chair Owens stated that the public hearing is not an action item and discussion will most
likely be continued to the following meeting; he suggested that any people who desire to
speak may comment during Oral Communications, and he clarified with staff that Item 7-
C (Report on Alameda Historic High School Retrofit) will be continued to next month's
meeting.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Thomas introduced Barbara Meerjans who is a new part time staff member and will
focus on the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Trish Spencer, resident, speaking as an individual, asked if it would have been more
appropriate for the School Board to work with the Historical Advisory Board prior to the
Approved Minutes 9/6/2012
Page 1 of 4
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-09-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-09-06,2,"installation of the fence surrounding the high school. She requested clarification of the
process and how both boards could have worked together.
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Owens, shared an email from Christopher Buckley representing AAPS addressing
the ceiling soffit at Habana's restaurant. He disclosed that the Board received
communication from the Veterans Affairs Office, he stated that the subject matter is not
pertinent to the current meeting and requested that board members read it in due time.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7.A. Certificate of Approval for 1417 Park Street
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave brief presentation.
Betty Lee, applicant, stated that she tried to design the new sign to match the old.
Peter Beck, landlord, stated that there is no use for the old sign and the new tenant
should have every opportunity to have her own sign.
Staff clarified that there is not a clear plan for what to do with the old sign and is open to
board suggestions.
Chair Owens asked if the old letters could be used in the new sign which would match the
old sign exactly.
Mr. Beck responded that the material may be different.
Board member Lynch stated that the letter substitution would break up the historical sign
and the new sign would have to be changed to match the historical lettering. She clarified
that the old sign is made of wood and the new sign is made of aluminum.
Chair Owens commented that the thickness of the lettering should be narrower and the
spacing between the words should be increased.
Board member Lynch stated that her first preference is to the see the sign saved and
moved to a different location. Her second alternative would be to use as much of the old
sign as possible.
Chair Owens inquired as to whether the museum could store the individual letters.
Vice Chair Rauk expressed concern with reusing the old lettering and the effect that
would have on the size of the current sign.
Chair Owens opened public comment.
Approved Minutes 9/6/2012
Page 2 of 4
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-09-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-09-06,3,"Dianne Hofmann Sasser, grandchild of the original business owner, requested that the
sign be preserved in some manner and requested that she or her cousin be notified
if/when the sign is removed or destroyed. She stated she will leave her contact
information with staff.
Chair Owens closed public comment
Board member Lynch confirmed that she will discuss the storing of the sign with the
Alameda Museum and will approach staff with Museum Board's decision.
Chair Owens suggested that the certificate of approval be amended and state that the
existing sign shall be salvaged, the lettering on the new sign shall be modified to match
the stroke and width of the existing letter ""e"" old sign. Staff shall review and approve the
revised shop drawings, and the paint coating shall be a Fluorocarbon base or the
equivalent.
Vice Rauk seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 4-0; no abstentions
7B. Certificate of Approval for 1532 Park Street
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave brief presentation
Vice Chair Rauk clarified with the applicant that the existing tiles will be used.
Vice Chair Rauk motioned to approve the staff resolution
Board member Lynch seconded the motion
Motion carried, 4-0; no abstentions.
7C. Alameda High School
Chair Owens motioned to continue the item until the next meeting, when the High School
representative can be present.
Board member Lynch seconded the motion.
Motion carried, 4-0; no abstentions
7-D. Update on Habanas Restaurant
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave brief presentation.
Board member Lynch asked staff to clarify that building inspections are initiated by the
project contractor.
Board member Jasper clarified with staff that the project contractor has not requested any
inspections, and the City has actually initiated inspections.
Approved Minutes 9/6/2012
Page 3 of 4
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-09-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2012-09-06,4,"Chair Owens clarified with staff that there is a clear code violation from a safety issue and
the City can start a citation process, which can ultimately lead to a court hearing. Staff
stated that the citation process will be initiated if the owner chooses not to address the
issue. He requested that staff advise the board if there are any actions that the board can
pursue in regards to the violations of conditions of approval.
Chair Owens opened public comment
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, referenced an email he sent to the board. He presented a
photograph of the ceiling that may assist the board's discussion.
Chair Owens, stated that the soft ceiling is significantly lower and it appears that the
original ceiling material is probably gone. He mentioned the height of the doors bottom
panel requiring that the height being close to the height of the storefront bulk head.
Staff confirmed that this item will be placed on the next agenda.
7E Historic Street Lights
Vice Chair Rauk motioned to continue item to the next board meeting.
Boad member Lynch seconded the motion
Motion carried, 4-0; no abstentions.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board member Lynch mentioned the Veterans Affairs Letter that the board received and
requested that staff give a presentation to the board.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
NONE
11. ADJOURNMENT
Board member Jasper motioned to adjourn.
Vice Chair Rauk seconded the motion
Motion carried, 4-0; no abstentions
Approved Minutes 9/6/2012
Page 4 of 4
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2012-09-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-02-05,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2015
1.
CONVENE: 7:02 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Owens, Vice Chair Rauk, Board Member
Piziali and Vella (arrived later). Absent: Board Member Chan.
3.
MINUTES: Vice Chair Rauk motioned approval of the minutes from the
March 6, 2014 meeting. Chair Owens seconded the motion. The motion carried,
3-0.
Vice Chair Rauk motioned approval of the minutes from the May 1, 2014
meeting. Board Member Piziali seconded the motion. The motion carried, 3-0.
Vice Chair Rauk motioned approval of the minutes from the March 6, 2014
meeting with edits. Chair Owens seconded the motion. The motion carried, 3-0.
Vice Chair Rauk motioned approval of the minutes from the August 7, 2014
meeting. Board Member Piziali seconded the motion. The motion carried, 3-0.
Vice Chair Rauk motioned approval of the minutes from the September 4, 2014
meeting. Board Member Piziali seconded the motion. The motion carried, 3-0.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Mark Rodgers, owner of Lola's Chicken Shack, asked the Board for
permission to replace the signage reading ""Park Café"" and replace it with
signage for his business.
Chair Owens asked Mr. Rodgers about the style of lettering he would use. Mr.
Rodgers explained his choice.
Chair Owens asked if such a choice needed to be submitted to the Board.
Mr. Allen Tai, Secretary to the Board, explained that the Board had previously
made a decision to approve changes in sign typeface, with a condition that the
typeface should be as close to the original signage of Boniere Bakery as
possible. Therefore, any changes to the sign should conform to the Board's
previous decisions. However, the current sign, Park Café, is not a historic sign.
Vice Chair Rauk stated she wants to make the process as easy as possible for
Approved Meeting Minutes 02/05/2015
Page 1
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-02-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-02-05,2,"the applicant.
Chair Owens asked Mr. Rodgers how long he was in business. Mr. Rodgers
replied that his business has been open since December 2013.
Chair Owens noted that the Alameda Museum offered to archive the current sign,
and that the original Boniere Bakery sign is located there.
Board Member Piziali said that there is no historic sign currently at the property,
and therefore there is no need to come back to the Board. Vice Chair Rauk
agreed.
Chair Owens explained that, because the sign was changed, the property does
not have a historic sign, and therefore would not be required to come to the
Board.
Mr. Tai suggested that the speaker visit the Permit Center and staff can provide
assistance on the permit application to remove and install a new sign.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Owens acknowledged receipt of a
letter sent to the Board from the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, and
an email from Mr. Chris Buckley. The letter and email stated that there should be
more open space along the taxiway of Seaplane Lagoon at Alameda Point.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A. Public Workshop on the initial development for Site A.
Mr. Andrew Thomas, City Planner, introduced Mr. Joe Ernst, of Alameda Point
Partners. Mr. Ernst introduced Mr. William Duncanson, of BAR Architects. Mr.
Duncanson gave a presentation.
Vice Chair Rauk asked for clarification about the proposed plans for Site A. Mr.
Thomas explained the illustrative design of the plans. Mr. Duncanson further
explained how parking would be incorporated into residential, commercial, retail
and open space areas.
Board Member Piziali asked about the difference between the precise plan and
the Alameda Point Partners plan. Mr. Thomas explained that the precise plan is
the City-approved guidelines for the property. The Alameda Point Partners plan
is the developers' plan to implement the City's precise plan.
Vice Chair Rauk asked Mr. Thomas for an update on the directional signage
proposed for Alameda Point. Mr. Thomas explained that staff was procuring
building permits for free-standing signs, and said staff was looking at paint
pallettes for signs to be painted on existing buildings.
Approved Meeting Minutes 02/05/2015
Page 2
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-02-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-02-05,3,"Vice Chair Rauk asked Mr. Thomas about how the development team would
choose the buildings to be kept on the site. Mr. Thomas explained the process
that staff and the development team have taken to keep existing buildings.
Chair Owens asked staff to clarify the ownership status of the parcel. Mr.
Thomas explained that the federal and state governments swapped land after the
Navy left. The lands that make up the perimeter of Alameda Point are held in
trust by the State of California and owned by the City. The City cannot sell this
land, but the City is asking the developer to make improvements on the land. The
rest of the land is owned by the City and can be sold to a developer.
Chair Owens asked Mr. Ernst if his team is planning to construct any buildings
taller than 50 feet high. Mr. Ernst replied that all buildings built will be in
compliance with height envelopes in the areas, some of which are over 50 feet.
Board Member Piziali asked Mr. Ernst to clarify his remarks about the height of
some of the buildings to be constructed. Mr. Ernst clarified his comments.
The Board opened public comment.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, representing the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society, explained that his email was originally sent from Mr. Dick Rutter. He
thanked the developer for trying to incorporate the original feel of the Naval Air
Station into the new plans. He clarified some of the points made by the
developer, and suggested various uses for some of the proposed empty space
within Site A. Mr. Buckley said that all new construction should be subordinate to
the existing building in terms of scale and surface treatments.
Ms. Trish Spencer, Mayor of Alameda, clarified that she was speaking in her
individual capacity. Ms. Spencer said she appreciated the Board's questions to
staff and the developers. She said that many of the same questions were being
asked at an open house on January 29th, 2015. She asked for a legend or a key
of the colors and symbols on the proposed plans for the benefit of the public.
The Board closed public comment.
Board Comments:
Board Member Piziali said that he has walked the area every day for the past 15
years.
Board Member Vella said she is happy of the proposed gradual height increase
above the water. She wants to have as many people enjoy the view of the Bay as
possible. That being said, she wanted to make sure that the space is used
productively. She thinks that there has to be a comprehensive plan for surface
types between each stage of development. There can be some distinguishing of
Approved Meeting Minutes 02/05/2015
Page 3
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-02-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-02-05,4,"surface material between the areas, but she suggested looking into proposed
surface types sooner than later. Board Member Vella asked for an overlay of the
proposed buildings available for the public.
Vice Chair Rauk said that many residents see the grassy knoll with the airplane
as the main symbol of Alameda Point. She liked that the residential and
commercial spaces in the plan are distinct from each other. She wanted to know
about the status of designated bike and pedestrian trails, and how the developer
planned to define the main entry to the area.
Mr. Thomas clarified that Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway would be the most
direct route for pedestrians and bicyclists to access the water. There would be a
dedicated bus lane for the first half of the route, and then the street would
narrow. AC Transit would route their buses to the ferry terminal. There would be
many different ways for drivers to enter and exit Alameda Point. Mr. Thomas
emphasized that staff's main goal is to integrate the new development at
Alameda Point with the rest of the Island.
Vice Chair Rauk said that there is only one courtesy dock for boaters in Alameda,
and she would like to see more docks. Mr. Thomas agreed, and that the
developers and the Planning Board also agreed with her comments. He said
there are plans to make the development accessible to all watercraft, including
smaller boats and kayaks.
Board Member Vella noted that response times for emergency services in
Alameda Point are higher than those for the rest of the City. Mr. Thomas
explained that there will be a fire station built Alameda Point as development
proceeds.
Board Member Piziali asked about the possibility of relocating Alameda Municipal
Power's substations in the area. Mr. Thomas said that the substations would stay
in their current locations as it is prohibitively expensive to move them.
Chair Owens said that the integration of new and old buildings will lead to a nice
mix in the area. He also liked how the height of the new buildings will be limited
and that many historical aspects of the Base will be retained. He reminded the
staff and the developers that projects brought before the Board need to comply
with the Secretary of the Interior's standards, and alerted the development team
they might might need to make changes to their plans in order to comply with
those standards.
7-B. Introduction to the Design Review Process and Certificates of
Approval.
Mr. Tai gave the presentation. He explained the Design Review amd Certificate
of Approval process in the City of Alameda, what actions trigger design review,
Approved Meeting Minutes 02/05/2015
Page 4
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-02-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-02-05,5,"and what the process entails.
Chair Owens asked for clarification on the minimum size of a building that would
trigger Design Review.
Mr. Tai explained that the minimum size of a building for Design Review is 220
square feet, and that is based on current building code threshold.
Board Member Piziali praised staff's work and urged the public to have staff look
at all projects before they file for a permit.
Mr. Tai defined a Certificate of Approval for the Board. He explained that Design
Review can be done at the staff level, but a Certificate of Approval for alterations
to main buildings is issued by the Board after a hearing.
Chair Owens asked Mr. Tai about the reasoning behind his presentation.
Mr. Tai said that the presentation was for the Board's benefit. The presentation
could also be used for staff training for better customer service at the counter. He
added that the presentation would be posted online for the public's benefit. Staff
also intends to bring forward proposed amendments to the Historic Preservation
Ordinance that captures some of the best practices discussed tonight.
Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda resident, praised staff's presentation. He
explained that the 2003 update of the list of properties supplemented the list of
pre-1942 buildings. He seconded Chair Owens's comments about requiring a
Certificate of Occupancy for demolition, and offered clarification on the matter.
He explained that when a pre-1942 property comes to the Board for demolition, a
Certificate of Approval is not necessary if the property is not considered historic.
Trish Spencer, Mayor of Alameda, spoke in her individual capacity. She thanked
Mr. Tai for the presentation. She asked if staff could substitute pictures of
Alameda on the presentation and use Alameda examples.
The Board closed public comment.
Board Comments:
Chair Owens called the presentation thought-provoking.
7-C. Meeting Schedule for 2015
Vice Chair Rauk motioned to approve the meeting schedule. Board Member
Vella seconded the motion. The motion carried, 4-0.
7-D. Board Elections. Continued.
Approved Meeting Minutes 02/05/2015
Page 5
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-02-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-02-05,6,"8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
9-A. Chair Owens asked to return to the Minutes, and said that Board
Member Vella was present at the December 5, 2013, and the April 3, 2014
Meeting. Board Member Owens motioned to approve the April Minutes. Board
Member Vella seconded the motion. The motion carried, 3-0. There was not a
quorum to approve the December 2013 minutes.
Mr. Tai summarized the contents of the Certified Local Government annual
reports for the past three years. He explained that the City has been a Certified
Local Government since 1986, and said that, because of this certification, the
City is eligible for state grant money. The City last applied for a state grant in
2002, but it was denied. Mr. Tai said that the Department would need to have
more staff, in order to work on grant applications.
Chair Owens asked Mr. Tai if there are other benefits for being a Certified Local
Government. Mr. Tai said that the City can provide tax incentives for to historic
properties in accordance with the Mills Act.
Board Member Vella asked who is in charge of the grant money. Mr. Tai
answered the State Historic Preservation Office. He noted that the grant money
is awarded on an annual basis.
9-B: Mr. Tai informed the Board on the status of a project at 1350 Mound
Street. He said that the applicant is working with Mr. Jim Smallman and they are
making good progress.
Mr. Tai also updated the Board on a project at 1203 Park Street. He said a
building permit was issued last year to repair fire damage at the site, but there
have been issues with the property because the owner lives out of state and the
property recently went through probate. Mr. Tai also noted that the applicant has
hired a restoration contractor and that the Building Official has indicated that
there is progress on the restoration work.
10.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
11.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Approved Meeting Minutes 02/05/2015
Page 6
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-02-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-05-07,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2015
1.
CONVENE: 7:02 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Owens, Vice Chair Rauk and Board Member Piziali.
Absent: Board Members Chan and Vella were absent.
3.
MINUTES:
3-A
2015-1651
Draft Meeting Minutes-December 5, 2013
Vice Chair Rauk motioned to approve the minutes with edits. Board Member Piziali
seconded the motion.
The motion carried, 3-0.
3-B
2015-1653
Draft Meeting Minutes-February 5, 2015
Vice Chair Rauk motioned to approve the minutes. Board Member Piziali seconded the
motion.
The motion carried, 3-0.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Christopher Buckley, President of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
(AAPS), wrote a letter to the Board expressing support for a proposed height limit for
new buildings constructed at Alameda Point.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A.
2015-1649
Public Hearing to Consider Amending the Guide to Preserving the
Character of the Naval Air Station Alameda Historic District to
Include Exterior Paint Guidelines for Existing Buildings in the NAS
Alameda Historic District. The Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for the Alameda Point Project, Certified on February 4,
Approved Meeting Minutes 05/07/2015
Page 1 of 4
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-05-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-05-07,2,"2014, Satisfies Environmental Review for this Action Pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Mr. Eric Fonstein, Economic Development Manager, gave a presentation. He
introduced consultants Mr. Pierluigi Serraino and Mr. Lorenzo Apicella to give a
presentation on the selection of a paint palette. During the presentation, Mr. Serraino
passed out samples of the paint color schemes proposed for the hangar buildings. He
explained how each color would be used for certain parts of the buildings.
Chair Owens asked how his team included the public in the color selection process. Mr.
Fonstein replied that there were several focus group meetings with the current business
tenants in the historic district. Mr. Serraino added that the feedback from the public
outreach led to the selection of colors that respected the history of the buildings while
providing opportunities to highlight their unique features.
Chair Owens asked if these color guidelines would also be used in the residential
subarea known as the Big Whites. Mr. Fonstein said that the colors would not be
brought over to residential areas because those residential buildings are unique and
were historically painted white. The color palette and guidelines are for the shop and
hangar areas, because those subareas are very similar in nature.
Vice Chair Rauk asked staff if existing tenants were given paint samples. Mr. Fonstein
replied in the affirmative, and explained that two focus groups looked at the paint colors
and gave the team comments. Vice Chair Rauk said she noticed the new signage at
Alameda Point. Mr. Apicella replied, saying that the proposed color schemes on the
signs are meant to attract attention, and the colors on the buildings are likewise meant
to attract attention to them. The colors are meant to induce effortless orientation for
those at former naval air station. Mr. Serraino said that his team plans on using three
base colors being used at Alameda Point.
Vice Chair Rauk asked Mr. Serraino if his team was leaning towards clear or opaque
colors for the buildings. Mr. Serraino said that he is working with the tenants on
determining their preferences. Chair Owens asked Mr. Tai if tenants would have to
confirm their paint colors with staff. Mr. Tai said that there is no permit needed to paint a
building, but there would probably be a conversation between the tenants and staff
about what paint product substitutes would be considered appropriate if they differed
from the paint palette.
Mr. Serraino explained that the colors were chosen because of the surrounding marine
environment. He said that it is reasonable to talk to Sherman Williams about making the
cost of paint affordable.
Board Member Piziali asked Mr. Serraino about his conversation with the tenants. Mr.
Fonstein explained that the tenants were shown the color palettes, and staff asked for
their input.
Approved Meeting Minutes 05/07/2015
Page 2 of 4
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-05-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-05-07,3,"Chair Owens said that he did not think that any of the reds presented to him were
muted, especially those presented with a sheen.
Vice Chair Rauk said that different lighting makes a huge difference in the appearance
of certain colors. She applauded the team's approach to the issue.
Chair Owens said that he was disappointed that the gray shown was not more bluish.
He also expressed concern about the cost of the paints. Mr. Serraino said that his team
would look into the different shades of colors.
Board Member Piziali asked staff if any tenant was ready to start painting their
buildings. Mr. Fonstein replied that the Bladium and a new tenant, Wrightspeed, have
expressed interest in starting to paint their facilities.
Mr. Tai added that paint substitutes were taken into account when determining the
appropriate paint products. Therefore, the proposed guidelines incorporate standard
RGB color combinations that would be used to find suitable substitutes in the event the
Sherman Williams colors are no longer available. He explained that the significant
deviations from the prescribed color palette could be brought back to the Board for
consideration on a case-by-case basis if it was deemed necessary.
Vice Chair Rauk motioned to approve the draft Resolution. Board Member Piziali
seconded the motion.
The motion carried, 3-0.
7-B. 2015-1652
Public Workshop on the initial development for Site A Development
Plan.
Vice Chair Rauk indicated that she had to leave the meeting by 8:30 P.M.
Mr. Andrew Thomas, City Planner, introduced Mr. William Duncanson, of BAR
Architects. Mr. Duncanson gave the presentation.
Chair Owens asked staff if the boundaries for Site A had changed. Mr. Thomas replied
in the negative. Chair Owens said he was pleased to see the district boundaries
expressed on the graphics.
Mr. Thomas explained that staff would be taking the final presentation to the Planning
Board on May 11th for a vote, and to the City Council in June. He explained some of the
changes that had been made to the plans since the Board's last meeting.
Board Member Piziali said that the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society supports
the proposal.
Approved Meeting Minutes 05/07/2015
Page 3 of 4
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-05-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-05-07,4,"Chair Owens said he would have concerns with a 65' tall parking structure that is
supposed to be taller than one of the hangar buildings. He said that it should be shorter
than the adjacent building. Mr. Thomas said that the Board needs to issue a Certificate
of Approval and the Planning Board needs to approve Design Review for all buildings to
be constructed. He explained that full build-out of Alameda Point will take up to 15 to 20
years.
There were no public speakers.
Board Comments:
Board Member Piziali said that he is pleased with the progress made on the project and
would like to see the development move forward.
7-C.
2015-1654
Board Elections. Continued due to lack of full Board attendance.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Tai informed the Board that staff will be approving a Certificate of Approval on May
12 to remove an oak tree that has already fallen at 3215 Liberty Avenue.
10.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
11.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Approved Meeting Minutes 05/07/2015
Page 4 of 4
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-05-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-09-03,1,"FINAL MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2015
1.
CONVENE: 7:05 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Owens, and Board Members Chan, Piziali, and Vella.
Absent: Vice Chair Rauk was absent.
3.
MINUTES:
2015-1984 Draft Meeting Minutes-May 7, 2015
Minutes approved 4-0.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
6-A
2015-1999
Programmatic Agreement Compliance Report to the State Historic
Preservation Officer for the Administration of U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Funded Activities by the
City of Alameda
Chair Owens asked about the purpose of this report and whether Board action was
required.
Allen Tai, Secretary to the Board, explained that this is an annual compliance report
submitted to the State by the Housing Authority. The report is being provided to the Board
as information only, so no action is necessary.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A
2015-1995
Certificate of Approval - PLN15-0136- Saikley Architects - 1732
Union Street. The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval for a
second story addition to an existing pre-1942 single family residence
that will result in the removal of more than 30% of the value of the
existing structure. The project has been determined to be exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section
15301 - Existing Facilities - minor alterations of existing private
structures.
Henry Dong, Planner I, provided a staff report.
Page 1 of 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-09-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-09-03,2,"Board member Vella asked about the proposed window treatments and materials and
whether they meet City requirements. Mr. Dong advises that the window details conform
to the City's residential design guidelines.
Board member Vella asked the project architect to explain the choice of windows for the
new addition. Alexandra Saikley, project architect, explained that wood windows were
the preference, but the home owners elected to go with fiberglass.
Board member Vella asked about the purpose of the bay window, and Ms. Saikley
explained that the bay window adds articulation to the front elevation as recommended
by staff.
Chair Owens asked about the basis for Certificate of Approval. Mr. Tai explained the
project requires a Certificate of Approval because building the addition would require
demolition of more than 30% of the value of the existing structure, which is determined
by the Building Official.
The Board opened the floor to public comments.
John Watkins, a neighbor, was not in favor of the proposal. He believes the addition
would block his view of the sky. Mr. Watkins thinks the project would remove an
affordable housing unit from the City by making it larger.
Stacy Kaplan, a neighbor, commented that the project is incompatible with the scale and
character of the block, as most homes on the block are modest small homes and not two-
story homes. She expressed concern over replacing the small, affordable home with a
larger, more expensive home. Ms. Kaplan also cited concerns over parking.
Peter Slote, a neighbor, commented on the impacts of the addition to neighboring houses.
He described this block of Union Street as historically a place for small housing stock and
should be a historic resource due to affordability and scale. He believes a big boxy
second story addition on this lot is inconsistent with the neighborhood. He also noted that
a three-bed, two-bath house is inconsistent with the property size and asked the Board
to deny the request.
Meredith Levins, property owner, commented on her family's decision to move to
Alameda in 2010 to start a family. She noted that the existing home is a 760-square-foot
two-bed, one-bath home, and the project intended as a modest expansion while
preserving important design elements. Ms. Levins noted the property has a driveway that
can accommodate parking. She noted that the shadow study shows the project will not
affect any neighbors and that the window placement is sensitive to their neighbors'
privacy.
Ken Levins, property owner, said he liked the diversity of the neighborhood because it
was not made up of cookie cutter homes. He wants to take the opportunity to modify the
home they love to make it an optimal living space that is attractive. He noted that the
Page 2 of 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-09-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-09-03,3,"project design conforms to the City's design guidelines and that City rules allow modifying
the house while preserving the historical character.
Chris Buckley, representing the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, commented
on the design of the project. He noted that the configuration of the roof is inconsistent
with the Guide to Residential Design. He recommended the use of a side facing gable to
envelope the second story into the roof of the first level or bring elements of the first level
into the second level. Mr. Buckley suggested deleting the bay window in order to
deemphasize the second level. He commented on the various forms of window treatment
and recommended the windows show muntins. Mr. Buckley also recommended adding
a belly band on the second floor to transition with the shingles, and address privacy
impacts by raising the window sills to eye level. He asked for clarity from staff on the
application of the Secretary's Standards for properties on the study list.
Mr. Tai noted that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for treatment of historic
properties sometimes conflict with the City's residential design guidelines. The primary
example being the Secretary's Standards call for differentiating new construction from the
existing while the City's guidelines suggest merging new construction into the existing
building as if it were part of the original design.
Ms. Saikley described the intent behind the design and indicated exploring examples
similar to Chris Buckley's suggestions. She described the front facing gable as the best
approach to maintain the original bungalow facade while adding a second story. She
noted that a side-facing gable on the second story would need to be much steeper, higher
and inconsistent with the original rooflines. Furthermore, this type of roof form could not
achieve the interior livable space that is desired. Ms. Saikley added that the proposed
design preserves the front porch and sets back the second floor. She noted that other
minor details could be added to windows to further enhance compatibility.
Celia Schwarz, a neighbor, noted that the adjacent homes were all identical bungalows
with small yards. She stated that the bungalows do not have bay windows, and she
believes the subject property is overhanging her property by one foot. She believes that
her neighbors have good jobs, and should therefore buy another property in Alameda
without putting the neighbors through the proposed changes.
Chair Owens closed the public comments.
Board member Vella asked the architect to explain the purpose for reconfiguring the
laundry room and bathroom on the first floor. Ms. Saikley explained the location of the
laundry and bath were to allow stacking the bathrooms on both floors and consolidate the
plumbing in one location within the small footprint of the house.
Board member Vella noted that Burbank Street has many bungalows with additions where
good examples of the second story additions. She asked if the architect looked at the
houses on Burbank Street for reference. Ms. Saikley replied no.
Page 3 of 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-09-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-09-03,4,"Board member Vella concurred with the overall comments made earlier by Christopher
Buckley, and she agreed that the bay window on the front elevation should be eliminated.
She suggested the architect look closely at the illustration provided by Mr. Buckley as a
basis for design revisions.
Chair Owens asked whether there is a maximum floor area ratio in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Tai replied no, but that the development standards provide a maximum height limit of
two-stories and 35-feet. The development standards are further supplemented by the
design guidelines.
Chair Owens asked whether the Board can add the building to the historic buildings study
list. Mr. Tai explained that it would be an action that was not noticed for this meeting.
Furthermore, a survey or historical context assessment would need to be prepared for
the property to determine if it meets criteria for designation as a historic resource. The
criteria is generally related to the property having distinctive architectural character or
some significant historical association with local persons or events. Mr. Tai noted that
this property is highly unlikely to qualify as a historic resource.
Board member Piziali commented that most of the Design Review issues are subject to
Planning Board purview. The item before the Board is a Certificate of Approval for the
demolition work that is proposed as part of the addition. He asked the Board to go along
with the staff recommendation.
Chair Owens asked staff whether the project will go before the Planning Board. Mr. Tai
responded that the Design Review for this project would be acted on at the staff level,
and it would only go before the Planning Board upon an appeal or a Call for Review by
members of the Planning Board. Otherwise, there will be no public hearing.
Chair Owens commented that he cannot find justifications for the property to qualify for
the study list, and he reminded the Board that the vote before them is to approve or not
approve the Certificate of Approval. He also disagrees with Mr. Buckley on requiring side
facing gables, because the building is too shallow to accommodate that roof pitch. Chair
Owens also suggested that casement windows should include muntins to match existing.
He also acknowledged raising the sills on certain side elevation windows to address the
neighbor's privacy concerns. He agreed with the use of a bay window or dormer on the
front elevation to break up the façade. He expressed favor in approving the proposal.
Board member Vella also acknowledged there was no reason to add the building to the
study list. She believes the project needs to incorporate as many features as possible
found on surrounding homes. She agrees with raising the window heights and revisiting
specific design treatment as previously noted to keep neighborhood compatibility.
Board member Chan concurred with the comments made by previous Board members.
Motion to approve by Board member Piziali, Seconded by Board member Vella.
Approved 4-0. Vice Chair Rauk absent.
Page 4 of 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-09-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-09-03,5,"7-B 2015-1996
Certificate of Approval - PLN15-0277 - 763 Buena Vista Ave -
Applicant: Italo Calpestri on behalf of Wei Lin Zhao. Applicant
requests a Certificate of Approval to allow for the demolition of a
single-family residence built prior to 1942. The property is not listed
on the City's Historic Building Study List. The project site has two
residential structures on-site, of which the building at the front, a
single family residence, will be demolished and the building at the
rear, a two-family residence, will remain. The project is intended to
allow future subdivision of the property into three lots. The project is
categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - demolition
and removal of a single-family residence.
Mr. Tai noted that the applicant has requested the item be continued to the future public
hearing that would be renoticed.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
9-A
2015-1997 Certificate of Approvals Recent Actions and Decisions
Mr. Tai gave an overview of the recent actions by staff.
9-B
2015-1998 Update on 1605 Park Street
Mr. Tai provided an update on the status of the fire damaged building at 1605 Park Street.
He noted that work is in progress by the property owner to determine whether the existing
building can be salvaged and whether there is any historical integrity remaining in the fire
damaged structure.
Chair Owens inquired about the status of the retail space below China House restaurant.
Mr. Tai replied that a renovation is pending building permits to convert the space into a
tavern. The project was previously reviewed by the board.
10.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
11.
ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 8:26 p.m.
Page 5 of 5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-09-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2015-11-05,1,"FINAL MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2015
1.
CONVENE: 7:05 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Owens, Vice Chair Rauk and Board Member Piziali.
Absent: Board Members Chan and Vella were absent.
3.
MINUTES: None
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS: None
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A.
2015-2251
Special Presentation: A Legacy of Enterprise & Innovation. Local historian,
Woody Minor, will give a presentation on the history of Alameda's industrial
development spanning the late 19th through mid-20th centuries. This is an
educational and informational presentation and discussion by the Historical
Advisory Board. No action will be taken. This presentation is not a Project
under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Mr. Allen Tai, Secretary to the Historical Advisory Board, introduced local historian
Woodruff (Woody) Minor as the special guest for the special presentation. He thanked
the audience for attending the presentation.
Mr. Woodruff Minor gave the presentation.
There were no public speakers.
Board Comments:
Chair Owens and the Board thanked Mr. Minor for the presentation.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None
10.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
11.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m.
Draft Meeting Minutes 11/05/2015
Page 1 of 1
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2015-11-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2016-01-07,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 2016
1. CONVENE
Chair Owens called meeting to order at 7:00pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Owens, Vice-Chair Rauk, Board Members Chan, Piziali and Vella
3. MINUTES
3-A 2016-2447
Draft Meeting Minutes - September 3, 2015
Chair Owens said that he reviewed the minutes and that they looked like a good set of
minutes.
Board Member Piziali made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Vella
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
3-B 2016-2448
Draft Meeting Minutes - November 5, 2015
Chair Owens said the meeting consisted largely of a presentation and the minutes
seemed adequate.
Vice-Chair Rauk made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Piziali
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
6-A 2016-2452
Certified Local Government Program -- 2014-2015 Annual Report
Alan Tai, Planning Services Coordinator, presented the report to the board. The item can
be found at:
ps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2540983&GUID=A076DE1D-
D275-4845-8A8E-940B0795233D
Historical Advisory Board
Page 1 of 5
Approved Minutes
January 7, 2016",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2016-01-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2016-01-07,2,"Chair Owens asked if the report had been submitted to the state.
Staff Member Tai indicated that it had not and the deadline was in the next week.
Chair Owens asked if there were any planned educational activities for Board Members
in the coming year.
Staff Member Tai said there would be a conference upcoming in San Francisco and that
more information would be coming soon.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2016-2449
Historical Advisory Board Workshop on Alameda Point Site A Design
Review for Block Eleven Architectural Design and adjacent Waterfront
Street Design and Waterfront Park
Andrew Thomas, Assistant Community Development Director, introduced the item
before the project applicant gave a presentation. The item can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2540981&GUID=5D89E0E8
7BFD-43DC-ABOE-5EE441660524
Chair Owens asked what would happen with the existing paving materials from the
taxiway.
April Phillips, project architect for the Waterfront Park, explained their approach to
handling the demolished paving materials through recycling and reuse attempts while
meeting their sea level rise mitigation requirements.
Vice-Chair Rauk asked where the ADA access would be in the park plans.
Ms. Phillips explained where the gently sloped ramps down to the waterfront would be.
Chair Owens asked about the anticipated sizes of the mature trees.
Ms. Phillips explained that they are developing their landscape choices and that Mexican
Fan Palms and Ginkgoes are under consideration.
Chair Owens asked how the drainage would function with the sea level rise protection
improvements.
Ms. Phillips showed on the images where different flows would go.
Chair Owens asked what options there were if sea level rise were more than 24 inches.
Historical Advisory Board
Page 2 of 5
Approved Minutes
January 7, 2016",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2016-01-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2016-01-07,3,"Joe Ernst, project applicant, explained that the berm would be engineered to be able to
be built up higher if that became necessary.
Chair Owens asked if the city was working on addressing sea level rise throughout the
island which would be necessary for this area's defenses to be functional.
Staff Member Thomas highlighted the importance of the issue for the city and different
elements of various planning efforts that are attempting to address the issue in a
piecemeal fashion.
Board Member Vella asked if the city has been working with the Port of Oakland on
protecting shared areas along the estuary.
Staff Member Thomas explained the discussions with the Port on how they can work
together to access funds to help address the issue.
Chair Owens asked what would be done with the large amount of concrete removed
from the taxiway.
Ms. Phillips explained their desire to reuse as much as possible on the site with creative
elements. She said it will be part of their waste management plan.
Board Member Vella asked how the sewage line removal and upgrades would affect
storm water drainage for the rest of the point.
Mr. Ernst explained the upgrades in size and the flap gates that would be added to try
and address problems that have been happening.
Steve Israel, BAR Architects, gave the Block 11 portion of the presentation.
Vice-Chair Rauk asked how drivers would know which side of the road to drive on.
Mr. Ernst explained the feedback that Planning Board has given to make sure the space
indicates that it is shared by all users and not to favor drivers with too many visual cues.
Chair Owens asked if the city would be the owner of the road.
Staff Member Thomas explained that it would be a city owned street and that many
people are looking at it to make sure they get it right. He said it would be unlike anything
else in the city.
Historical Advisory Board
Page 3 of 5
Approved Minutes
January 7, 2016",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2016-01-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2016-01-07,4,"Vice-Chair Rauk brought up the idea of a courtesy dock for larger sailboats that would
like to visit the area.
Board Member Piziali asked if there would be any parking in the shared plaza.
Mr. Israel explained that there would be parallel parking in that zone.
Board Member Vella asked where the elevated roadway platform would end.
Mr. Israel explained that decision is still being worked out. Board Member Vella
compared the space and traffic calming effects favorably to Santana Row in San Jose.
She said she was concerned about creating a large, empty wind tunnel, however.
Board Member Vella asked about the tree choices around the building.
The landscape architect explained that they are still working with the horticulturalist to
see what would work best with the soil and wind conditions.
Chair Owens asked about the height being above 65 feet.
Mr. Israel explained the development agreement exception that allows them to go over
for ""exceptional architecture."" He said the high retail spaces pushed the building higher.
Board Member Vella said she has no problem with the height exception in this location,
but that it should be the exception and not the norm.
Chair Owens asked how the loading function would work.
Mr. Israel showed on the plans where the loading activity would take place.
Chair Owens asked why there is only one elevator on the east lobby which appears to
serve more units.
Mr. Israel said it was debated and that much of the activity will be focused on the west
side of the building and the client wanted the emphasis to be on the west side.
Chair Owens opened the public hearing.
Steve Aced asked about the material used on the surface of the west facing rounded
end of the building.
Historical Advisory Board
Page 4 of 5
Approved Minutes
January 7, 2016",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2016-01-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2016-01-07,5,"Mr. Israel explained that it was going to be as glassy and transparent as possible while
making sure they meet their efficiency and LEED Gold standards.
Chair Owens closed the public hearing.
7-B 2016-2450
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Schedule 2016
Alan Tai introduced the item. He noted that the City Council was planning to take their
slot for the February 4th meeting, and that they currently have no items for that date and
it would be cancelled.
Vice-Chair Rauk made a motion to accept the meeting schedule for 2016. Board
Member Vella seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
7-C 2016-2451
Board Elections
Vice-Chair Rauk made a motion to keep Chair Owens as chair. Board Member Piziali
offered to amend the motion to also keep Vice-Chair Rauk in the position of vice-chair.
The amendment was accepted. The motion passed 5-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai said the California Preservation Foundation conference would be held
at the Presidio in San Francisco this year and they would be working to send board
members. The conference will be from April 16-20.
Staff Member Tai said they would also be looking to do more presentations for board
training and public education at their meetings.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Vella made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Vice-Chair Rauk seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Historical Advisory Board
Page 5 of 5
Approved Minutes
January 7, , 2016",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2016-01-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2016-03-03,1,"APPROVE MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2016
1. CONVENE
Chair Owens called meeting to order at 7:01pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Owens, Board Members Piziali and Vella. Absent: Vice-Chair Rauk,
Board Member Chan.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2016-2647
Draft Meeting Minutes - January 7, 2016
Chair Owens said that he reviewed the minutes and that they looked thorough.
Board Member Vella made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Piziali
seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Owens said they received information on the 41st Annual California Preservation
Conference in San Francisco next month.
Staff Member Thomas said the City would send any Board Member that wanted to go
and to let staff know so they can arrange it.
Chair Owens and Board Member Vella said they tried to sign up for an upcoming
workshop in Benicia but had technical difficulties.
Staff Member Thomas said he would follow up on the issue.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2016-2642
Historical Advisory Board
Page 1 of 3
Approved Minutes
March 3, 2016
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2016-03-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2016-03-03,2,"Certificate of Approval, Site A-Block 11 and Waterfront Park. A certificate
of approval for the plans for the Block 11 building adjacent to the NAS
Historic District and the new Waterfront Park on the Seaplane Lagoon in
the Historic District. The environmental effects of the proposed project
were considered in the Alameda Point Environmental Impact Report. No
further environmental review is required.
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2578061&GUID=C0324B6D-
7679-4D72-B09E-1F41841574DE&FullText=1
Chair Owens asked whether voting to approve certification tonight would involve
approving the relocation of Pan Am Way and whether that should be included in the
resolution.
Staff Member Thomas said it would and should be included.
Chair Owens pointed out an error contained in the drafting of the resolution that
referenced the Planning Board and needed striking.
David Israel, BAR architects, the project architect for Block 11 gave a presentation on
the building design and how it fit in with the historic context of the base.
April Phillips, landscape architect for the Waterfront Park, gave an overview of the park
and shared plaza.
Board Member Vella asked about the water usage plans and whether we would use
recycled water.
Ms. Phillips said they are exploring using recycled water. She said they have a very
drought tolerant plan and are incorporating stormwater runoff into the plan as well as
choices that will be tolerant of the salt air.
Board Member Vella asked about wind and the trees' placement close to the water.
Ms. Phillips said they are set back at 50 feet and have used fewer trees than most parks.
Chair Owens asked what type of trees would be used in the grove.
Ms. Phillips said they were considering ginko or ""a couple of other"" tree options. She
said that they are still working with their horticulturalist to refine their plan.
Historical Advisory Board
Page 2 of 3
Approved Minutes
March 3, 2016
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2016-03-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2016-03-03,3,"Chair Owens said he was concerned that large, mature trees, depending on the species
could block the view corridor to San Francisco.
Chair Owens asked whether the demolition of Building 544 needed to be included in the
approval.
Staff Member Thomas said it should be included but was not a ""contributor.'
Chair Owens said he liked the refinements that have been made and will have no
problem supporting the resolution.
Board Member Vella said she also liked the changes to the plan.
Chair Owens said he would like to see changes to the resolution including: a limitation of
tree height in the grove to 30 feet, the relocation of Pan Am Way, and the demolition of
Building 544.
Board Member Vella made a motion to approve the resolution with amendments: 1)
limiting the tree height in the grove to 30 feet at maturity, 2) acknowledge and approve
the demolition of Building 544, 3) acknowledge and approve the relocation of Pan Am
Way, and 4) adjusting the section referring to the Planning Board. Board Member Piziali
seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Owens referenced a report on some trees that were approved to be removed from
Central Ave. He said he did not see anything about requiring Public Works to replace
them and that the HAB approvals required that.
Staff Member Thomas gave an update on what to expect regarding future Alameda
Point developments. He said they would not be holding their April meeting.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Piziali made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Board Member Vella
seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:41pm.
Historical Advisory Board
Page 3 of 3
Approved Minutes
March 3, 2016
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2016-03-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2016-05-05,1,"DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, MAY 5, 2016
1. CONVENE
Chair Owens called meeting to order at 7:00pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Owens, Board Members Chan, Vella. Absent: Vice Chair Rauk, Board
Member Piziali.
Chair Owens stated that Vice Chair Rauk had resigned from the board.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2016-2863
Draft Meeting Minutes - March 3, 2016
No action taken.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
Mike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, gave an update on the Del Monte project's
progress.
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2016-2642
PLN16-0115/PLN16-0116 -- Certificates of Approval -- 651 & 707 W.
Tower Avenue, Applicant: SRM Ernst. Certificates of approval for the
minor exterior modifications to 651 & 707 W. Tower Avenue (Buildings 91
and 9), which are contributing structures within the NAS Alameda Historic
District. At 651 W. Tower Ave. the applicant proposes demolishing a
recent and non-contributing awning, installing shade overhangs along the
building, removing existing windows, constructing new exterior doors,
replacing loading bay doors, and repainting the building according to the
previously approved Alameda Point color scheme. At 707 W. Tower Ave.
the applicant proposes installing a new row of second story transom
windows, installing new pedestrian doors, removing and replacing several
loading bay doors and windows, adding a second story within the existing
interior space, and repainting the building according to the previously
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2016-05-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2016-05-05,2,"approved Alameda Point color scheme. The environmental effects of the
proposed project were considered in the Alameda Point Environmental
Impact Report. No further environmental review is required.
Staff Member Sablan gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments can
be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2703692&GUID=E51559B9-
C5FB-4EAE-A424-35E29F278DA6&FullText=1
Chair Owens pointed out that the control tower was a contributing structure and the
boundary in the presentation should reflect that.
Board Member Chan said that there appeared to be very little exterior changes to the
buildings.
Chair Owens asked if the developer would be applying for tax credits.
Joe Ernst said they are not planning to apply for tax credits because they are post 1936
buildings.
Chair Owens said he believed that buildings contributing to a historic district could be
eligible for a tax credit even if the buildings are not listed. He asked staff to look into it
further and make sure they are giving proper advice to potential developers. He asked
what they planned to do with the glass.
Mr. Ernst said the glass on the south side of Building 9 has a film that would be replaced
with one that allows vision through but mitigates heat gain.
Chair Owens said that in the future he would like the board to receive clearer drawings
showing existing conditions and demolition plans.
Board Member Vella asked if they had considered where bike storage would be placed.
Mr. Ernst said they would meet the requirements of the Town Center Plan and have a
combination of exterior parking for visitors and internal bike storage for tenants.
Staff Member Tai said the next step would be design review and use permit at Planning
Board, where things like bike parking would be addressed.
Chair Owens confirmed that there was no historic landscape around either building.
There were no public speakers.
Board Member Vella said the changes were all minor, and that she liked the
improvements to the building.
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2016-05-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2016-05-05,3,"Chair Owens asked if they needed two separate actions.
Staff Member Tai said they may take action on both items at once.
Board Member Vella made a motion to approve the staff recommendations. Board
Member Chan seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Owens said he will be termed out in a month and that this might be his last
meeting. He said the Vice Chair resigned and has moved to Idaho.
Staff Member Tai explained that Chair Owens could stay in his current position until the
Mayor successfully appoints a replacement.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2016-2865
Certificate of Approvals Recent Actions and Decisions
Staff Member Tai explained recent actions on Block 11 at Alameda Point.
Mr. Ernst, Alameda Point Partners, gave an update on progress at Site A.
Staff Member Tai gave an update on a remodel at Santa Clara and Park St. He said the
City is also reinstating its facade grant program. He said the first round is funded for
$125,000.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Chan made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Board Member Vella
seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:32pm.
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2016-05-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2016-09-01,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2016
1. CONVENE
Acting Chair Vella called meeting to order at 7:04pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Jones, Piziali, Saxby and Vella. Absent: Board Member Chan
Staff Member Tai welcomed the two new board members. He said that because the
Chair left the board, the bylaws state that the senior member of the board, Ms. Vella,
chairs the meeting and that there is an item on the agenda for Board Elections tonight.
3. MINUTES
*None*
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Staff Member Tai recommended continuing item 7-A to 10/6/16 to be able to include
some late refinements.
Board Member Piziali made a motion to continue item 7-A. Board Member Vella
seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
At staff's request, Staff Communications was moved to the front of the agenda.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai introduced proclamations recognizing the service of departed Board
Members Rauk and Owens. He thanked Former Chair Owens for his long service to the
board and significant contributions to major decisions in Alameda.
Board Member Vella thanked Mr. Owens and read the proclamation.
Mr. Owens said there were two pieces of unfinished business from his time on the
board. He said the 30% of value trigger and penalty sections in the preservation
ordinance need updating. He also said we needed to work on a Mills Act ordinance. He
encouraged the board to take those items on in the coming years.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
Approved Minutes
Page 1 of 3
Historical Advisory Board
September 1, 2016",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2016-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2016-09-01,2,"6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-B 2016-3275
PLN16-0383 - Certificate of Approval - 2300 Monarch Street (Bldgs 614
and 405). Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing to consider a
Certificate of Approval to relocate and reuse three (3) Quonset Huts from
the Northwest Territory at Alameda Point to 2300 Monarch Street as part
of a retrofit to Buildings 614 and 405 (non-contributing structures) in the
NAS Alameda Historic District. The environmental effects of the proposed
project were considered in the Alameda Point Environmental Impact
Report. No further environmental review is required.
Staff Member Tai introduced the item and historian Pierluigi Serraino, who gave a
presentation on the Quonset Huts. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2820181&GUID=1D9089D8-
091E-4C28-93EE-1AF5B50531AB&FullText=
Staff Member Tai clarified that the City is the owner of the huts and the destination site.
He said they are working with a potential wine producer to operate at the site.
Board Member Vella asked whether the design review would come before the HAB.
Staff Member Tai said that it would go to Planning Board and not necessarily come back
to HAB.
Board Member Saxby asked how we address the idea of adding buildings to the Historic
District and whether adding period buildings would add a sense of false historicism.
Mr. Serraino said that the historic district would need interventions in the landscape in
any reprogramming and the huts' existence and use throughout the base helps them fit
in.
Board Member Vella said that she has concerns with schemes that attach the huts to
existing structures. She said she would prefer placing them in a regimented pattern
similar to their use on the base in the past. She said the wide roadways make placement
too near the road a concern. She said she was also concerned with preservation of the
view corridors. She said preserving the structures through the move and in their new use
and modifications should be a priority. She mentioned the need to address bike parking
in any plans at the site.
There were no public speakers.
Approved Minutes
Page 2 of 3
Historical Advisory Board
September 1, 2016",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2016-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2016-09-01,3,"Board Member Piziali said he supported using a regimented placement apart from other
structures.
Board Member Saxby said the temporary and utilitarian nature of the buildings helps him
accept the idea of adding buildings that will be interpreted as original and historical to the
district. He said he would want to see some restraint in how they are utilized.
Staff Member Tai explained that the board has the option to include some of their
concerns as conditions of approval for moving the buildings to the site within the Historic
District. He said staff would prefer to keep some flexibility because they are trying to lure
a tenant to the site and have not worked out the programming yet.
Board Member Piziali made a motion to approve the relocation with the conditions that:
any alteration or attachment would show restraint in preserving the original form,
placement and arrangement should be in a regimented pattern consistent with historical
uses, and preserves view corridors. Board Member Jones seconded the motion, with the
amendment to factor in preservation during transport. Board Member Piziali accepted
the amendment. The motion passed 4-0.
2016-3276
Board Elections
Board Member Piziali nominated Board Member Vella to be Chair. Board Member Saxby
seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
Board Member Vella nominated Board Member Piziali to be Vice Chair. Board Member
Saxby seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
***
moved to before item 5 ***
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Saxby made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Board Member Jones
seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:16pm.
Approved Minutes
Page 3 of 3
Historical Advisory Board
September 1, 2016",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2016-09-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-02-02,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2017
1. CONVENE
Chair Piziali called meeting to order at 7:03pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Piziali, Board Members Jones, Sanchez, Saxby. Absent: Board Member
Chan.
Board Member Sanchez introduced himself to the board.
3. MINUTES
*None*
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
Nancy Hird, AAPS, spoke about adding buildings at the Alameda Marina to the Historic
Study List. She said the collection of the buildings as a whole, and their WWII history, are
worthy of inclusion on the list and asked the board to initiate the process.
Woody Minor gave a history of the study list and explained how the buildings at Alameda
Marina fit in the historic study list.
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, repeated the request to initiate the process for including the
buildings in the historic study list.
Staff Member Tai explained to the board the nature of AAPS's request to add the buildings
at Alameda Marina to the study list. He said they originally received a request in March,
2016. He said the property owner has submitted a master plan application and the historic
resources are studied as part of the Environmental Impact Report. He said Mr Minor was
able to comment on their administrative draft and they are taking his comments into
consideration for the EIR. He said the process will be transparent.
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai said they received written communications from AAPS and the League
of Women Voters.
Approved Minutes
Page 1 of 5
Historical Advisory Board
February 2, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-02-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-02-02,2,"7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2017-3847
Certificate of Approval - PLN16-0606 - 2307 Clinton Avenue - Applicant: David
Kuoppamaki. Applicant requests a Certificate of Approval for a two story rear addition to
an existing two story single-family residence. Although the proposed rear addition is
designed to match the existing architectural features, the project requires a Certificate of
Approval because it involves the removal of the existing one-story rear addition, which is
equivalent to more than 30% of the value of the existing structure. The addition will
continue the existing roofline to maintain the existing building height. The project also
involves demolishing an existing detached garage and replacing it with a new garage with
a similar design. The property is listed on the City's Historical Buildings Study List with an
S designation. The property is located in the R-5 (General Residential) zoning district. The
project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - demolition and removal of a single-family residence.
Staff Member Barrera gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2946715&GUID=C9A2D770-
5914-4B95-854D-AF978EF969FC&FullText=1
Board Member Saxby said the design seems to try and make it impossible to tell the old
from the new, and that the standards say they should be differentiated. He asked how that
would be addressed.
Staff Member Barrera said there is a discrepancy between the City's design guidelines
and the Secretary of the Interior's standards.
Staff Member Tai said that in most established neighborhoods the preference seems to
be to integrate the design of new construction as much as possible.
Board Member Saxby said he hoped that for a more significant structure that the standard
for differentiation would be upheld. He said he supports the removal of the existing addition
and demolition and replacement of the existing garage. He said he would like to see some
small changes to the roof line and/or wall to differentiate the addition from the original
structure.
Chair Piziali said the plan is good for the Planning Board but not necessarily for the
Historical Advisory Board and that this conflict comes up frequently.
Board Member Sanchez asked why no windows were included along the side of the
addition.
Staff Member Barrera said they are still going through design review. She said there are
some privacy concerns being discussed with the neighbors that could still impact window
placement.
Approved Minutes
Page 2 of 5
Historical Advisory Board
February 2, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-02-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-02-02,3,"Board Member Sanchez asked if the building height was staying the same.
Staff Member Barrera said that is was staying the same height.
Staff Member Tai said that the board could condition the approval on differentiating the
addition from the original structure if they wished. He said that would give staff direction
to more strictly follow that standard for future projects. He said one treatment they could
use is to add a vertical trim separating the addition visually.
Board Member Saxby said that changes to the roof line could be made to delineate the
addition. He said a setback in the wall would also be an option. He said a third option
would be a change in materials used on the addition.
Board Member Sanchez asked what the size of the new garage was compared to the
original.
Staff Member Barrera said that it was the same size as the original and would
accommodate two cars.
Chair Piziali opened the public hearing.
Ronan Kennedy, neighbor, said the character of the original structure is not being
maintained. He said the added mass of the design makes it appear much larger from the
street and adjacent properties. He said the design does not meet the standards of
preserving the form of the existing structure. He said the suggestion of stepping back the
walls would meet the standards.
Chair Piziali closed the public hearing.
Board Member Saxby made a motion to approve the application with the condition
that staff work with the applicant to provide more differentiation between the
addition and the original structure, considering stepping down of the roof, creating
a setback in the wall of the addition, and/or simplifying the details of the facades.
Board Member Sanchez seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
7-B 2017-3848
Review and Comment on the Historic District Principles and Infill
Guidelines Section of the Draft Main Street Specific Plan at Alameda Point
Staff Member Giles gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found
at:
ps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2946716&GUID=3062EA54-
1429-4A98-A1C9-FDA95FOF4352&FullText=1
Approved Minutes
Page 3 of 5
Historical Advisory Board
February 2, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-02-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-02-02,4,"Board Member Sanchez asked for information on what makes a structure in the beehive
neighborhood a contributing structure or not.
Ruth Todd, from Page & Turnbull, said there is a process for nominating and determining
which structures contribute to a historic district. She said it is based solely on their historic
relevance and not based on a structure's condition, design, etc.
Board Member Saxby asked if any of the structures in question were significant in any
other way.
Ms. Todd said they were not determined to be individually significant.
Board Member Sanchez asked if the NCO quarters would be removed.
Ms. Todd said new construction could be desired, but there is not necessarily a plan for
demolition. She said the city wanted flexibility.
Chair Piziali asked if the recently demolished buildings are where the APC residents would
be relocated to in the future.
Staff Member Ott said it would be sited where the old PX was located. She said the first
phase of building where the units were demolished would help facilitate the construction
of the new APC units.
Board Member Jones asked how they planned to bring all of the Collaborating Partners'
units together.
Staff Member Ott said that they three supportive housing providers are spread out over a
large footprint right now and that bringing them together around common amenities and
services they can be more successful at delivering services.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Saxby said it sounded like there were several reports from the 80s and
90s that did not make it onto the study list, which has not been updated since the late 70s.
Staff Member Tai said they maintain the list on a case by case basis, triggered by project
proposals. He said they have expanded the list to include Alameda Point. He said there is
an opportunity for the city to improve its record keeping.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2017-3849
Introduction to Design Review and Certificates of Approval
Approved Minutes
Page 4 of 5
Historical Advisory Board
February 2, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-02-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-02-02,5,"Staff Member Barrera gave a presentation on planning and permit staff work flows.
Board Member Sanchez asked if the design review notices went out at the same time as
the certificate notices.
Staff Member Barrera said that sometimes they happen simultaneously and sometimes
they are staggered.
Board Member Saxby asked what follow up there is to ensure projects do not demolish
more than 30% without going through the process.
Staff Member Tai said there are several steps in the process to check the plans and attain
revisions to the permit when there is extra demolition work.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Christopher Buckley said that AAPS was asking the board to initiate placing buildings on
the historic study list.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Piziali adjourned the meeting at 8:45pm.
Approved Minutes
Page 5 of 5
Historical Advisory Board
February 2, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-02-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-04-06,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2017
1. CONVENE
Chair Piziali convened the meeting at 7:00pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Chan, Jones, Piziali, Saxby, Sanchez
3. MINUTES
3-A 2017-4164
Draft Meeting Minutes - December 1, 2016
Board Member Jones made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Saxby
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-0-2 (Chan and Sanchez abstained).
3-B 2017-4165
Draft Meeting Minutes - February 2, 2017
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Jones
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Piziali pointed out that the board received a letter from the Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society regarding item 7-A.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2017-4158
Certificate of Approval - PLN14-0059 - 1501 Buena Vista Avenue - TL
Partners I, LP. Public hearing to consider a revision to an approved
Certificate of Approval for replacement windows and an alternate design
for a new roof canopy as part of the restoration of the Del Monte
Warehouse Historic Monument. The Environmental Impact Report for the
Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment and subsequent
Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Del Monte
Warehouse Project satisfies environmental review requirements for this
project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Approved Minutes
Page 1 of 6
Historical Advisory Board
April 6, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-04-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-04-06,2,"Staff Member Thomas introduced the item and gave a PowerPoint presentation. The
staff report and attachments can be found
at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3009982&GUID=9DB26651-
C10-462A-B080-8E90C73FD8D1&FullText=1
Mike O'Hara, with Tim Lewis Communities, gave a presentation on their proposed
changes to the Del Monte plan.
Susan McComb, with BAR Architects, continued the presentation.
Board Member Saxby asked if it was possible and what the procedure would be to
restore the existing steel windows and add new glazing.
Ms. McComb said they can add a certain amount of new glazing. She described the
technical process, including lead abatement that would be involved in doing that window
by window.
Chair Piziali asked what would happen to the operable vents in the windows.
Ms. McComb said they would keep the existing vents, but that they are not the right
height for egress or size for ventilation.
Board Member Sanchez asked why one replacement window was chosen over the
other.
Ms. McComb explained the specific performance and cost tradeoffs that they
considered.
Board Member Saxby asked if historic windows would be left anywhere on the building.
Ms. McComb said that at the main entries where there is not a need for the residential
performance aspects of the replacement windows, they would keep the original steel
framed windows.
Chair Piziali asked if the monitor replacement would be sliding windows.
Ms. McComb said they would not be using sliders, in order to try and keep the look of
the glazing consistent.
Mr. O'Hara said they are asking to replace the windows because repairing them is an
infeasible solution.
Board Member Sanchez asked which requirements the city has been flexible with.
Approved Minutes
Page 2 of 6
Historical Advisory Board
April 6, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-04-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-04-06,3,"Ms. McComb said the city has been flexible on egress and other issues, but not the
noise requirements.
Chair Piziali said the stacked flat replacements are the main issue.
Board Member Saxby agreed and said he is less concerned with the monitor windows
due to visibility and location.
Board Member Sanchez agreed that the original steel windows are what gives the
building its character. He said he understands the challenge preserving those windows
presents.
Board Member Sanchez asked what materials would be used in the new canopy.
Ms. McComb said it would be an aluminum skylight system. She said the color would be
silver or white in order to keep the focus on the surrounding wood structures.
Chair Piziali opened the public hearing.
Jay Ingraham said he is frustrated with the design process. He said the canopy would be
visible to residents of nearby homes and park visitors.
Chair Piziali closed the public hearing.
Board Member Jones asked if the exterior of the canopy could be a different color than
the inside.
Ms. McComb said they could paint it different colors with an additional cost. She said the
entire roof surface would be replaced and would be white in order to be more energy
efficient and meet new green building standards.
Board Member Saxby asked how much higher the new canopy design would be.
Ms. McComb said they would be about a foot higher. She said they could also look into
reducing the pitch of the new canopy.
Board Member Saxby said the steel windows are a very important feature of the building
and that wholesale replacement is not the right solution. He said he would like to
preserve the steel sash wherever possible. He said he would support replacing the
monitor windows to solve the egress, acoustic and energy concerns. He said the canopy
is new and he would support the change in design so long as they work to lower the
pitch.
Approved Minutes
Page 3 of 6
Historical Advisory Board
April 6, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-04-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-04-06,4,"Board Member Jones said the replacement windows do not bother her because the
project architect has confirmed that the original windows were uniform on the building
and the replacement windows would achieve the same cohesion.
Board Member Sanchez said he is struggling with the wholesale replacement of the
steel windows. He said the ""Hope"" window seemed like the happy medium between
performance and preserving the historic look. He said the aluminum window was a much
larger difference from the original windows in the stacked flats.
Chair Piziali asked Board Members Chan and Jones if they were okay with aluminum
replacement windows; they responded affirmatively.
Board Member Saxby said that, from a design standpoint, he thinks preserving the
original windows everywhere there is a pediment would be a good compromise.
A representative from Tim Lewis Communities discussed the challenges of achieving
sound dampening requirements with rehabilitated steel frame windows.
Mr. O'Hara said they would still like to consider full replacement. He said they could
consider preserving windows where there is non-enclosed space behind.
Chair Piziali said he would be okay with the aluminum framed replacements while
keeping the original windows in the non-habitable areas.
Mr. O'Hara said the replacement steel framed window option would cost $600,000 more
than the aluminum option.
Board Member Saxby asked if preserving the existing windows would be a cost
increase.
Ms. McComb said that preserving the existing windows in the non-habitable areas would
be least expensive, but that rehabbing each window in residential areas would involve a
lot of labor costs.
Chair Piziali reopened the public hearing.
Jay Ingraham said we should not be afraid to ask for the Cadillac version because we
are the ones who will have to live with the project. He said Tim Lewis Communities could
make up the difference in cost on a few units.
Chair Piziali closed the public hearing.
Chair Piziali said he thinks the aluminum window is the better option.
Approved Minutes
Page 4 of 6
Historical Advisory Board
April 6, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-04-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-04-06,5,"Board Member Saxby said he would like to preserve as many windows as possible
where the performance demands of residential use are not needed. He said he prefers
the steel replacement windows but would be okay with the aluminum.
Board Member Sanchez said he agreed with Board Member Saxby.
Chair Piziali said they are asking for the lowest possible pitch on the sky canopy and
light colors. He said the board was not very concerned about the monitor windows.
Board Member Saxby said the effort that was made to match the mullion spacing and
glazing height were good and he was fine with the changes.
Chair Piziali said that the board wants to keep the facade windows where there are no
residences.
Staff Member Thomas said they are looking for a motion, with the conditions he heard:
all existing windows within the brick facade that are providing light into non-residential
areas would be preserved; use the lowest possible pitch for the canopy structure with a
light color on the canopy framing.
Mr. O'Hara asked to clarify whether they wanted to preserve the windows in unoccupied
spaces only, or also include the commercial space.
Board Member Saxby said that he wanted to preserve the windows where ever it is not
dictated by performance requirements.
Chair Piziali said he agreed with that description of the condition.
Board Member Saxby made a motion to approve the changes as proposed with
the following amendments:
Windows within the brick façade adjacent to spaces that do not dictate a
change to address performance requirements for habitable spaces shall be
retained and rehabilitated, and
The canopy roof design shall be modified to provide the lowest feasible
slope and the canopy frame shall be painted a light color.
Board Member Sanchez seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
Approved Minutes
Page 5 of 6
Historical Advisory Board
April 6, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-04-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-04-06,6,"9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Piziali adjourned the meeting at 9:06pm.
Approved Minutes
Page 6 of 6
Historical Advisory Board
April 6, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-04-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-05-04,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2017
1. CONVENE
Chair Piziali convened the meeting at 7:00pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Piziali, Board Members Jones, Saxby, Sanchez. Absent: Chan
3. MINUTES
2017-4283
Draft Meeting Minutes - April 6, 2017
Board Member Jones added a clarification that she was okay with the fully replaced
windows because of the reassurance of the architect that all the windows would be
cohesive, which is consistent with the original appearance of the building where all the
windows were of the same appearance.
Board Member Jones made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Saxby
seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Piziali pointed out that the board received a letters from the Downtown Alameda
Business Association and Alameda Architectural Preservation Society regarding item 7-
A.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2017-4285
Certificate of Approval - PLN17-0080 - 1339 Park Street and 1337 Park
Street - Applicant: Cholita Linda, LLC. The Historical Advisory Board will
hold a public hearing to consider improvements to three existing
commercial storefronts at 1337 & 1339 Park Street, and the back entrance
storefront to the units along Alameda Avenue. The proposed improvements
include rehabilitation work as well as modifications to bring the commercial
spaces into compliance with current building code requirements. The
property is located within the C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district
Approved Minutes
Page 1 of 5
Historical Advisory Board
May 4, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-05-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-05-04,2,"and is a contributing structure within the Park Street Historic District. The
project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301- Existing
Facilities
and
Section
15331
-
Historic
Resource
Restoration/Rehabilitation.
Staff Member Dong gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found
at https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3032800&GUID=AC932B24-
480-4476-891E-A19C54FC5E98&FullText=1
Bill Craig, project architect, said they intend to restore the historic facade of the building
as much as is feasible.
Chair Piziali opened the public hearing.
Janet Magleby, Executive Director of DABA, said they are supportive of the project and
asks for the board's approval.
Chair Piziali closed the public hearing.
Board Member Saxby asked if the historic building code was discussed with the building
official to consider preserving one of the original entry doors.
Staff Member Dong said they did discuss that with the building official and this was the
preferred scenario.
Staff Member Tai said that preserving the Monkey Bars entryway would require a
substantial reduction in seating capacity. Staff is considering a balance between the
preservation goals of the project and the desire to bring this restaurant business to
Alameda.
Board Member Saxby said the state historic building code gives the building official to
make a discretionary call in this scenario.
Staff Member Dong said that the building official would not accept that option with the
proposed seating configuration.
Board Member Saxby said the 1339 storefront is historic and largely original and worthy
of preservation. He said the Alameda Ave storefront is also very historic and possibly
original. He said he would like to see more preservation of the historic finishes. He said
that the new fixtures should more closely match the historic bronze fixtures in width. He
said the proposed restoration of the transom windows does not match the rhythm of the
original windows he found in historic photos. He said if they need to be replaced, we should
Approved Minutes
Page 2 of 5
Historical Advisory Board
May 4, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-05-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-05-04,3,"mimic the original design. He suggested a clear break in the bulkhead to identify the
separate storefronts.
Board Member Sanchez asked whether they could condition the approval on restoring
and replacing the transom windows.
Staff Member Tai said that they could place that as a condition of approval.
Board Member Sanchez said it would be great to find clerestory windows on the Alameda
Ave. storefront and uncover and restore them.
Board Member Jones asked for more information about evaluating when materials are
able to be repaired and when they are beyond repair.
Mr. Craig spoke about the conditions of the existing storefronts, outlining the level of
disrepair. He spoke about the life safety issues of the positioning of the exits and said
moving them would be irresponsible, especially given all the recent events involving
people unable to safely exit in fires.
Board Member Sanchez asked if they could create an egress in the Alameda Ave.
storefront that would meet the fire code.
Mr. Craig said they could, but it would involve a fire safe corridor along the entire glass
storefront which would render it unusable. He said they would like to use that storefront
for takeout service.
Board Member Saxby asked if there are options that could reduce the profile of the
aluminum trim.
Mr. Craig said they looked at a different system, and explained the design tradeoffs that
went into choosing the proposed system.
Board Member Saxby said his goal is to preserve as much historic fabric as possible.
Board Member Sanchez said he would like to preserve the clerestory windows if possible
and agreed with Board Member Saxby that if they must be replaced that they should try
and replicate the rhythm of the original windows from the historic photo. He asked that the
corner mullion on the window system be minimized to help it fit in with the historic
elements.
Mr. Craig said that all the suggestions made by the board are doable. He said he would
like to have the facade be cohesive.
Approved Minutes
Page 3 of 5
Historical Advisory Board
May 4, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-05-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-05-04,4,"Board Member Sanchez asked what the condition of the Alameda Ave. door is.
Mr. Craig said of the door is covered with orange paint and a mail slot. He said they will
have to change the slope of the entry for ADA compliance and does not know if the door
will be usable.
Board Member Saxby said the state historic building code could provide avenues to get
around some of those requirements.
Chair Piziali said moving a historic door inside would not be a desirable way to preserve
the historic elements.
Board Member Jones said the placement of door on the interior would be outside of the
board's purview.
Staff Member Tai said the board could specify the physical features of the door that they
could require instead of making use of the existing door mandatory.
Mr. Craig said that they could create a replacement door that mimics the existing historic
door.
Staff Member Tai summarized the proposed conditions of approval:
1.
the transom windows should be exposed and restored if possible, and if replaced
the mullions should reflect the historic spacing as shown in the photo provided;
2. have a break in the finish of the Park St. bulkhead to separate the two storefronts;
3.
the Park St. door fronts should use doors that match the appearance of the current
""Monkey Bars"" door at 1339 Park St;
4. keep the existing transom windows over the doors and the ceiling panel over the
entrance.
Board Member Sanchez asked to clarify that the doors be evaluated for preservation if
possible, before identifying replacements. He restated his request to explore the possibility
of reducing the size of the corner mullions on the windows.
Mr. Craig said he would explore what options the manufacturer could provide or the
possibility of butt-glazing the corners.
Staff Member Tai said he also heard the board say they wanted to preserve the floor tiles
of the Alameda Ave. entryway.
Approved Minutes
Page 4 of 5
Historical Advisory Board
May 4, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-05-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-05-04,5,"Board Member Sanchez made a motion approve the recommendation with the
conditions listed previously. Board Member Jones seconded the motion. The
motion passed 4-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai said they would have a June 1st meeting to discuss Alameda Marina
and Ship Ways projects.
Board Member Saxby asked what the follow up is for the conditions they add to the
projects.
Staff Member Tai explained the process they go through to document the conditions,
which would occur during Building Plan-Check review. He said if any conditions were
appealed or not met, he would report back to the board.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Piziali adjourned the meeting at 8:09pm.
Approved Minutes
Page 5 of 5
Historical Advisory Board
May 4, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-05-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-06-01,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 2017
1. CONVENE
Chair Piziali called meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Piziali, Board Members Chan, Jones, Saxby. Absent: Sanchez.
Staff Member Tai noted that Board Member Sanchez was recusing himself because he
is a tenant of the Alameda Marina.
3. MINUTES
*None*
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Piziali said they received letters from Alameda Architectural Preservation Society,
Woody Minor, and Nancy Hird.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2017-4393
Public hearing to consider the inclusion of identified historic resources at
Alameda Marina on the City's Historic Resources Inventory (formerly
Historic Buildings Study List). The proposed update to the Historic
Resources Inventory is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections
15305 Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations and 15308 Actions by
Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment.
Staff Member Tai introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3057315&GUID=DCE42A08-
9040-47EC-AB11-2BA4AAA5F6EA&FullText=1
Chris Verplanck gave a presentation.
Approved Minutes
Page 1 of 5
Historical Advisory Board
June 1, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-06-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-06-01,2,"Board Member Saxby asked why the change in exterior finish materials was such an
emphasis in the report's findings.
Mr. Verplanck said the replacement of the corrugated metal siding changed the feelings
of the buildings from industrial to domestic materials.
Board Member Saxby asked why the interiors of the buildings were not considered more
heavily.
Mr. Verplanck said many of the buildings with intact industrial interiors were not part of the
period of historical significance. He said there is case law that says interiors of private
buildings typically are not subject to CEQA review.
Board Member Saxby asked if the buildings on the eastern portion of the site were part of
the period of significance.
Mr. Verplanck said the combination of them having low integrity and not being part of the
main property until the very end of the war led him to the finding that they were not
contributors to the historic district.
Chair Piziali opened the public hearing.
Woody Minor, architectural historian, said he believes the exteriors have been
overemphasized and the interiors need to be considered. He said he is concerned about
the information that is conveyed in the report. He strongly recommended that they board
members take a tour of the interiors of the buildings.
Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, said they believe all the
buildings identified in the Corbett report should be added to Alameda's study list, which
has a different threshold than the state requirements. He said it would be helpful to have
a peer review.
Brian Schumacher said we should preserve the buildings as they are. He said the older
buildings are preferable for many marine businesses due to their lower rents.
Sylvia Gibson, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda, said they would like to see
all 30 buildings added to the historic district. She said there is an urban sustainability
aspect to preserving the access to the water.
Liz Taylor, DOER Marine, said they need to preserve these work spaces for the blue
economy and for defensible space against sea level rise. She said these spaces are being
systematically lost around the bay. She said she would be happy to have board members
tour their building.
Approved Minutes
Page 2 of 5
Historical Advisory Board
June 1, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-06-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-06-01,3,"Tom Charron said he owns two boats and hauls his boats out at the boatyard regularly.
He said the area should be maintained for the jobs and maritime industry of Alameda.
Maggie Sabovich, Recreational Boaters of California, said the board should maintain the
maritime heritage of Alameda. She said housing can be put on other sites instead of
urbanizing the waterfront. She said it took her two hours to get to the meeting from
Crockett.
Ken Petersen said we should preserve the site for the jobs that it provides.
Chair Piziali closed the public hearing.
Chair Piziali asked for clarification about the board's purview over the interiors of the
buildings.
Staff Member Tai said that they typically have no purview over the condition of private
buildings.
Mr. Verplanck said he does not usually access the interiors of buildings when reviewing
sites.
Board Member Jones said the interior of the buildings is not their purview. She said the
question is whether to include more buildings in the historic district.
Board Member Saxby said that the comment about integrity not being required for
inclusion in the city's historic study list is leading him to consider including all 30 buildings
in the historic district. He said buildings 31-35 appear to be of the same period and
significance as those buildings that were included.
Board Member Chan asked if they would have access to the interiors of the buildings.
Staff Member Tai said that the interiors are not part of the environmental impact report or
CEQA review. He said Alameda's historic preservation ordinance does not specify criteria
for consideration but they do have guidelines from the state to try and follow.
Board Member Saxby asked if a third party peer review would be possible.
Staff Member Tai said that Mr. Verplanck's report is the peer review of the 1988 Corbett
report.
Approved Minutes
Page 3 of 5
Historical Advisory Board
June 1, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-06-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-06-01,4,"Board Member Jones said buildings 33 and 34 were build by a different company towards
the end of the war. She said that is the argument for why they were not included in the
report, since they were not part of the WWII shipbuilding history of the site.
Chair Piziali said he would add buildings 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26, and 13 to the list. He
said putting all 30 buildings in the historic district, it would not help the Planning Board and
City Council identify which buildings should be kept in a final plan.
Board Member Saxby said building 22 was on the 1988 list and is part of the context of all
the buildings providing historical context together. He said he would like to err on the side
of preservation, where possible.
Staff Member Thomas gave suggestions on process for considering different groups of
buildings for inclusion in the list of historic buildings. He said they could also ask Mr.
Corbett to come back next month to provide comments on his list of buildings.
Board Member Saxby said he would like to have another expert review the
recommendations of the Verplanck report.
Board Member Jones said the board needs to focus on the exterior of the buildings and
she is comfortable going with the staff recommendation.
Board Member Chan said he would support coming back next month.
Chair Piziali asked if they would be holding up the process by delaying their decision for
a month.
Staff Member Thomas said they are not ready to release the EIR yet, and coming back in
a month would not slow down the process. He clarified that what the board is looking for
is a review of the evaluation of the exterior integrity issue.
Chair Piziali continued the item to the next meeting.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai informed the board about an oak tree that required an emergency
removal. He said the board has received invitations for a tour of the Shipways site. He
said the board would not meet in August.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Approved Minutes
Page 4 of 5
Historical Advisory Board
June 1, 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-06-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-06-01,5,"Christopher Buckley said it was difficult to hear some of the discussion tonight. He said
that the board should consider interiors when deciding historic designation of buildings.
Woody Minor said that the consultant needs to allow the consultant to access the interiors
of the buildings in order to properly evaluate their historic value.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Piziali adjourned the meeting at 8:51 pm.
Approved Minutes
Page 5 of 5
Historical Advisory Board
June 1, , 2017",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-06-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-10-05,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2017
1. CONVENE
Chair Piziali called meeting to order at 7:05pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Piziali, Board Members Jones, Saxby.
Absent: Board Members Chan (family emergency), Sanchez.
3. MINUTES
*None*
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2017-4794
Certificate of Approval - PLN17-0396 - 63 Garden Rd - Applicant: Nikitas
& Jaimie Orfanos. Hold a public hearing to consider a residential building
addition that will result in the removal of more than 30% the current value
of a structure built prior to 1942. The proposed addition will require the
removal of a large portion of the side exterior wall and the entirety of the
roof. The existing single-story residence was built in 1924 and is located
within in the R-1 (One-Family Residence) zoning district. The project is
categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - demolition and removal of
a single-family residence.
Staff Member Tai introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3165354&GUID=13E13EF6-
F459-4FA3-8CCB-58131F8067EF&FullText=1
Board Member Saxby said the findings from the city make it an easy determination.
Board Member Jones said that she agreed.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 3
October 5, 2017
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-10-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-10-05,2,"There were no public speakers.
Board Member Saxby made a motion to approve the staff recommendation. Board
Member Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0.
7-B 2017-4797
PLN17-0465 - Building 8 Rooftop Addition - Applicant: Alameda Point
Redevelopers, LLC. The proposed addition requires Historical Advisory
Board approval of an amendment to a previously approved Certificate of
Approval to modify a contributing structure to the Naval Air Station
Alameda Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. The proposed addition also requires Planning Board
approval of an amendment to a previously Development Plan and Design
Review. The City of Alameda certified the Alameda Point Final EIR (State
Clearinghouse No. 201312043), which evaluated the environmental
impacts of redevelopment and reuse of the lands at Alameda Point. No
further environmental review is required for this project
Staff Member Tai gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3165355&GUID=12BB1BF3-
5F65-439E-8842-436E479FF6C1&FullText=
The applicant, Jonah Hendrickson and the project architect gave a presentation on the
progress and proposed changes to the project.
Board Member Saxby asked about the height of the condensing units.
The project architect said that they were about 30"" and would not stick up beyond the
parapet.
Chair Piziali opened the public hearing.
Rick Browning said it is really nice to see the activity going on at the old base.
Chair Piziali closed the public hearing.
Board Member Jones asked the applicant to speak to the goal of making the new
structure subordinate to the historic structure.
The project architect explained the window and materials features that echo the original
building while still being clearly different. He said they think they have achieved a
balance.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 3
October 5, 2017
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-10-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-10-05,3,"Board Member Jones asked how the adjacent building 5 was used to influence the
choice of the gabled roof on the addition.
Staff Member Tai said that they looked for nearby designs to influence what elements to
include in the addition.
Chair Piziali said it is exciting to see these changes happening at the base after all these
years.
Board Member Saxby said he was happy to see the height of the addition not exceed
the towers and that the setbacks are appreciated. He said they have done a good job
making a structure that is differentiated and subordinate to the historic structure.
Board Member Jones said she is totally comfortable with the design.
Board Member Saxby made a motion to approve the draft resolution. Board
Member Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai said staff reviewed a garage demolition and an oak tree removal.
Board Member Saxby said an oak tree was removed at 9th and Santa Clara.
Chair Piziali asked why projects that lack historic merit and are not on the study list are
required to come before the Board. Staff member Tai noted that all work involving the
removal of 30% of the value of a building that was built prior to 1942 requires a
Certificate of Approval. He said he would review the requirements and report back to
the Board.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Piziali adjourned the meeting at 8:04pm.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 3
October 5, 2017
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-10-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-12-07,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2017
1. CONVENE
Chair Piziali called meeting to order at 7:00pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Piziali, Board Members Chan, Sanchez, Saxby.
Absent: Board Member Jones.
Staff Member Tai pointed out that Board Member Jones is absent after delivering a baby
last month.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2017-5007
Draft Meeting Minutes - July 6, 2017
Chair Piziali asked if Board Member Sanchez could vote on the minutes even though he
had to recuse himself for an item.
Staff Member Tai said that he could vote on the minutes.
Board Member Saxby made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Sanchez seconded the motion.
Staff Member Tai asked if there was a vote on the motion.
Chair Piziali confirmed a 4-0 vote to approve the minutes.
3-B 2017-5008
Draft Meeting Minutes - October 5, 2017
Chair Piziali said there were only two members present tonight that attended the October
meeting.
Staff Member Tai said that unless one of the other members had watched the recording
of the meeting, they would need to continue the minutes.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 6
December 7, 2017
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-12-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-12-07,2,"6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai said there were two letters from Christopher Buckley of AAPS, one
relating to the item 7-A and the other letter on item 7-B.
6-A 2017-5001
Certified Local Government Annual Report 2016-2017
Staff Member Tai described the Certified Local Government program and the reporting
requirements for the item. The report can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3268625&GUID=F1EFF104
64D1-4F26-9EE3-BBEF96F075DC
Chair Piziali asked what the most critical planning issues are and asked for an update on
the electrification of records.
Staff Member Tai said many cities are struggling with record keeping. He said they are
trying to develop a database system, staff resources permitting.
Board Member Saxby asked about the current status of the Alameda Marina property as
it relates to the study list.
Staff Member Tai said the draft EIR would be released soon that would identify the historic
district and contributing buildings that would be added to the study list.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2017-5003
Certificate of Approval - PLN17-0447 - Jack Backus Architects - 3278 Garfield Avenue.
The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval for a second story addition to an existing
single-family residence, built prior to 1942, that will result in the removal of more than 30%
of the value of the existing structure. The project has been determined to be exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 - Existing Facilities-
minor alterations of existing private structures.
Staff Member Dong gave a presentation. The staff report can be found at:
tps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3268626&GUID=563519A5-
A931-4208-AFC3-F1175B7FE43A&FullText=1
Chair Piziali opened public hearing.
Steve Aced said the second story gables should be side facing. He said the horizontal
siding is not necessary to distinguish the addition from the original building.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 6
December 7, 2017
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-12-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-12-07,3,"Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, referenced their letters
commenting on the project. He offered several comments to try and make the project
blend in more effectively and minimize the impact on the streetscape.
Jack Backus, representing the applicant, said the narrow lot made the side gables not be
the desired design choice. He said they would be open, and perhaps prefer, to have the
same siding on the second floor as the original.
Board Member Sanchez asked if the intention is for the first story to be cement board
siding. Mr. Backus responded that they are likely to use cement board siding.
Board Member Sanchez asked what the condition of the existing shingle siding is. Mr.
Backus responded that the existing siding is in poor condition and will need to be repaired
or replaced.
Board Member Saxby asked how the nearby house with a second story addition differed
from the proposal. Mr. Backus responded that the design steps back twice and would
hopefully reduce the dominance of the addition.
Board Member Sanchez asked for information about the accessory building being
removed. Staff Member Dong responded that the building was built in 2009. Mr. Backus
added that the structure was likely older than that but there was an unpermitted second
story addition to the structure for which the work was red tagged by the Building Official.
Board Member Saxby said that the single story character of this house and its neighbors
makes him tend to favor side facing gables in order to downplay the presence of the
second story. He said he would also like to consider reducing the plate height.
Board Member Sanchez said that turning the gable sideways without reducing the plate
height would not reduce the massing significantly. He noted that turning the gable
sideways would allow reducing the pitch of the roof in a way that could not be
accomplished with front facing gables.
Staff Member Tai said that the board could condition its approval on changing the gable
design and plate height. He said staff could forward possible revised plans to board
members as individuals but that the board would not be able to comment collectively at
that point.
Board Member Sanchez said he would be willing to approve the project with the discussed
changes regarding gable direction and plate height.
Board Member Saxby said he has concerns about the overall massing unless changes
were made to the gable direction and plate height.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 6
December 7, 2017
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-12-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-12-07,4,"Board Member Saxby made a motion to approve the draft resolution with conditions
that the applicant work with city staff to reduce the massing by reducing the plate
height and turning front facing gables to the side.
Board Member Sanchez said he would like to add that the siding on the upper story
have a historically appropriate look.
Board Member Saxby accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment.
Board Member Sanchez seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
7-B 2017-5006
Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Secretary to the Board to act on Certificate
of Approvals for projects that result in the removal of more than 30% of the value of a
structure built prior to 1942, pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code Section 13-21.7, but do
not involve resources, currently listed or eligible to be included, on the Historical Buildings
Study List. The adoption of this resolution is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(3) and 15378(b)(5)
because the activity approved by this resolution neither commits the City to implement any
specific project nor will it result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment
Staff Member Tai gave a presentation. He explained that the preservation ordinance
currently requires all Certificate of Approval applications come before the Board at a public
hearing, other than tree removals and accessory structures, which had been previously
delegated to staff level review. Staff proposes delegating those applications involving
buildings not on the Historical Building Study List to staff level in order to streamline costs
and processing time. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
ps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3268628&GUID=4EE67EB2-
109-4CDO-AE99-5B51853EC3DE&FullText=1
Board Member Sanchez asked how the timing of the decisions would be shared with the
HAB members.
Staff Member Tai said decisions would be made in batches mirroring the process for
Design Review applications under the purview of the Planning Board. He said there would
be a ten days public comment period before a decision is made and ten days after the
decision for an appeal filing or Board call for review.
Chair Piziali said that as long as the process is above board, reducing cost and delays for
the citizens is a good reason to streamline.
Chair Piziali opened the public hearing.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 6
December 7, 2017
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-12-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-12-07,5,"Christopher Buckley, AAPS, said they sent a letter encouraging the process be left as is.
He said there are many buildings that could be on the Study List which are not. He said
they worry that projects may fall through the cracks if they are only reviewed at the staff
level. He suggested several recommendations for the process if the board decides to
move forward with this process.
Board Member Sanchez said he has always found the 30% demolition threshold vague.
Staff Member Tai said the demolition criteria is defined in the ordinance. He said the board
could set criteria for what types of Certificate of Approval applications require a public
hearing. He explained the workload placed on Planning staff and additional cost to
Alameda homeowners for requiring fairly routine projects to go for a public hearing.
Chair Piziali says he does not see any reason to not try it. He suggested putting a time
limit on the change and then reviewing how the change is working. He said any time they
can save residents time and money while still providing proper public notice is worth doing.
Board Member Saxby said he believes the savings would be fairly minor.
Staff Member Tai said that some of the AAPS recommendations are reasonable, but some
would be extraordinary. He said he worries about the standards for restoration if the City
has to presume that every building that was altered over time has historic integrity hidden
underneath its current appearance.
Board Member Sanchez said he would be receptive of doing this on a trial basis.
Board Member Saxby said he is concerned things will be missed and favors the current
process.
Chair Piziali made a motion to approve the staff recommendation. The motion failed
for lack of a second.
7-C 2017-5004
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Schedule 2018 The schedule can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3268628&GUID=4EE67EB2-
C109-4CDO-AE99-5B51853EC3DE&FullText=1
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the calendar. Board Member
Saxby seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 6
December 7, 2017
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-12-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2017-12-07,6,"9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai said there was one Certificate of Approval application approved at staff
level for a removing a dilapidated garage at 1520 Morton Avenue.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Piziali adjourned the meeting at 9:04pm.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 6
December 7, 2017
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2017-12-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2018-05-03,1,"APPROVED ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2018
DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, AN OFFICIAL RECORDING OF THE MEETING IS
UNAVAILABLE
1. CONVENE
Board Member Saxby called meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Members Sanchez, Saxby, and Jones.
Absent: Chair Piziali and Board Member Chan
3. MINUTES
*None*
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2018-5519
PLN16-0314 - Certificate of Approval - Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal Canopy.
Applicant: City of Alameda. Public Hearing to consider plans for a canopy for a new ferry
terminal located at the Seaplane Lagoon in the NAS Alameda Historic District. The
Historical Advisory Board will consider the canopy design for Certificate of Approval
pursuant to AMC Section 13-21. The environmental effects of the proposed project were
considered and disclosed in the Seaplane Lagoon Addendum to the Alameda Point
Environmental Impact Report. No further environmental review is required under the
California Environmental Quality Act.
APPROVED 3-0; Sanchez motioned, Jones seconded
Board comments to the Planning Board:
1.
The design of the railing needs to be simple and not bulky in appearance.
Approved Action Minutes
Page 1 of 2
May 3, 2018
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2018-05-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2018-05-03,2,"2.
A gap between the glass wind panels is preferred over the use of caulked
joints.
3.
The glass panels should be taller than 5-feet to provide better wind
protection.
7-B 2018-5520
1100-1250 Marina Village Parkway Public Hearing to Review and Comment on the
Shipways Residential Project Draft Environmental Impact Report and Project Design -
Applicant: The Cavallari Group, Inc.
A public hearing to review and comment on the adequacy the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) and project design for the Shipways Residential Project application. The
Shipways Residential Project Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2017042021) evaluates
the potential environmental impacts associated with the approval and construction of the
proposal, and this public hearing is being conducted pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The Board provided comments to staff and the applicant but no action was
required.
7-C 2018-5522
Public Hearing to recommend that the City Council approve an amendment to Alameda
Municipal Code Section 13-21 to increase protection of historic/heritage trees, including
adding a requirement for certified arborist review, establishing review standards, clarifying
protected trees, and other miscellaneous administrative and clarifying amendments. The
proposed amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3 and 15308.
CONTINUED TO FUTURE DATE 3-0, Sanchez motioned, Jones seconded.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:00 p.m.
Approved Action Minutes
Page 2 of 2
May 3, 2018
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2018-05-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2018-06-07,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2018
1. CONVENE
Chair Piziali called meeting to order at 7:00pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Piziali, Board Members Sanchez, Saxby.
Absent:
Board Member Chan submitted his resignation on May 3, 2018.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2018-5659
Draft Meeting Minutes - October 5th, 2017
Board Member Jones made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Saxby seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
3-B 2018-5661
Draft Meeting Minutes - December 7th, 2017
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Saxby seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai noted a letter the board received from a potential appointee.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2018-5654
PLN18-0231 - Addition to the Historical Buildings Study List - 1100 Marina
Village Parkway. Public hearing to consider a recommendation to add the
Shipways site to the Alameda Historical Buildings Study List. The property
is an approximately 8. 1-acre site located at 1100 Marina Village Parkway
(APN: 074-1334-067, -024, and -026). The addition of the Shipways site to
the Historical Buildings Study List is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and no further environmental review is required
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 4
June 7, 2018
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2018-06-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2018-06-07,2,"Staff Member Tai introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3516129&GUID=AC28AFE1-
3B29-4E82-AC7F-0706A47C61A0&FullText=1
Dennis O'Hanlon said that the historic nature of the Ship Ways are enjoyed by people on
the water even more than people on land.
Board Member Saxby said he felt the site should have an ""S"" designation rather than an
""N"" designation.
Staff Member Tai said that staff felt that the site met the highest level of significance for
Alameda's criteria and therefore gave it an ""N"" designation in the recommendation.
Staff Member Sanchez said that he agrees with staff's suggestion.
Staff Member Sanchez made a motion to adopt the staff recommendation. Board
Member Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
7-B 2018-5655
PLN16-0314 -Certificate of Approval - Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal
Landside Improvement. Applicant: City of Alameda. Public Hearing to
consider temporary landside plans for a new ferry terminal located at the
Seaplane Lagoon in the NAS Alameda Historic District. The Historical
Advisory Board will consider this project for Certificate of Approval pursuant
to AMC Section 13-21. The environmental effects of the proposed project
were considered and disclosed in the Seaplane Lagoon Addendum to the
Alameda Point Environmental Impact Report. No further environmental
review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Staff Member Tai gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3516130&GUID=7CA87799-
7F4A-4645-8B75-7A7F7OF2169D&FullText=1
Board Member Saxby asked for information on the perforated panels near the sewage
outfalls.
Staff Member Giles said they are still discussing whether to use the panels or a traditional
railing. She said BCDC suggested using benches.
Board Member Sanchez said he feels the project maintains the character of the lagoon
and base.
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the Certificate of Approval for
the land side approvals. Board Member Saxby seconded the motion. The motion
passed 4-0.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 4
June 7, 2018
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2018-06-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2018-06-07,3,"7-C 2018-5657
PLN18-0191 - Certificate of Approval - 2450 Pan Am Way (NAS Alameda
Historic District - Building 35) - Applicant: Malyka Chop. Public hearing to
consider a Certificate of Approval to modify the exterior of a contributing
structure to the NAS Alameda historic district (Building 35). The project
includes converting an existing window to an exit door on the rear of the
building, and the construction of a wood wheelchair ramp. The
environmental effects of the proposed project were considered in the
Alameda Point Environmental Impact Report. No further environmental
review is required.
Staff Member Dong gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found
at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3516131&GUID=384FFB2B-
FE18-4B2B-A87D-43ACA4AD15A4&FullText=1
Chair Piziali asked if the hedge in the plans would be artificial.
Malyka Chop, applicant, said they planned to use planters for a garden curriculum and a
printed fabric to be attached to chain link fence to provide a wind guard and soften the
look. He said they did not want to encumber the property with something that would be
hard to remove at the end of their tenancy, which is expected to be three to five years.
Board Member Sanchez asked what material the ramp would be.
The applicant said that they would use a durable product like redwood or pressure treated
lumber.
Board Member Saxby said that the ramp connecting to the rear of the building is
appropriate. He suggested differentiating the new entrance by not making it match the
existing windows.
Board Member Sanchez agreed that the location of the ramp is correct. He said that the
exposed nature of the ramp would mean any wood product would not last long. He
suggested the applicant consider a metal ramp, which would also fit the aesthetic on the
base.
The applicant said that the metal ramps would be four times the cost of the wood. He said
the short nature of the lease term means they could not justify the expense of the metal
ramps.
Board Member Saxby made a motion to approve the resolution with the condition
that the transom window for the new door opening be removed and the door
opening be its own height, not matching the adjacent window heights. Board
Member Sanchez seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 4
June 7, 2018
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2018-06-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2018-06-07,4,"7-D 2018-5658
PLN18-0233 - Certificate of Approval - 2599 Todd Street. Applicant: City of
Alameda. Public hearing to consider a Certificate of Approval for demolition of
Building 130, a structure determined by the Building Official to be unsafe to occupy
and a public safety hazard, located in the NAS Alameda Historic District. The City
of Alameda certified the Alameda Point Final Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse No. 201312043), which evaluated the environmental impacts of
redevelopment and reuse of the lands at Alameda Point, including building
demolition. No further environmental review is required for this project.
Staff Member Tai gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3516132&GUID=720256F9-
E55B-434D-8239-4FB179FF6C49&FullText=
Chair Piziali asked if the tenants of the adjacent building are required to maintain the
exterior of the building.
Staff Member Tai said every building lease is different.
Board Member Saxby said he would like to make sure that the building has been properly
documented with the state before demolition proceeds.
Board Member Saxby made a motion to approve the resolution with a condition that
staff verifies there is an HABS historic record for the building before issuing a demo
permit. Board Member Sanchez seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Piziali said that he expects this to be his last meeting, pending a new board member
being seated.
Staff Member Tai said that there is a nomination to replace former Board Member Chan.
He said that Chair Piziali can continue serving until there is a replacement confirmed for
his seat.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Piziali adjourned the meeting at 7:53pm.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 4
June 7, 2018
Historical Advisory Board",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2018-06-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2018-10-04,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2018
1. CONVENE
Chair Saxby called meeting to order at 7:03pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones (arrived 7:08pm), Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2018-6057
Draft Meeting Minutes - May 3, 2018
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
3-B 2018-6058
Draft Meeting Minutes - June 7, 2017
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Staff requested to move staff communications up in the agenda for the resolution honoring
former member Piziali.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2018-6053
Board Elections
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to nominate Board Member Saxby as chair.
Board Member Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Board Member Jones nominated Board Member Sanchez to be Vice Chair. Board
Member Saxby seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
***
Staff Communications***
Staff Member Dong introduced a board resolution honoring former member Piziali for his
service on the Historical Advisory Board.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 5
October 4, 2018",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2018-10-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2018-10-04,2,"Chair Saxby read the resolution.
7-B 2018-6054
PLN18-0331 - Certificate of Approval - 1447 1/2 Eighth Street - Applicant: James Snider.
Public hearing to consider a Certificate of Approval to allow a 447 square foot single story
addition at the rear of an existing 497 square foot detached single family house which will
require demolition of more than 30% of the structure's current value, as determined by the
Building Official. The property is not listed on the City's Historic Building Study List. The
project site is located in the R-5 (General Residential) Zoning District.
Staff Member Sablan gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found
at:
 https:/lalameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3688748&GUID=70670E94-
2DAE-45D6-87CF-5F194EFEF805&FullText=1
Board Member Sanchez asked if the windows in the front of the house were being
replaced. He also asked if the shingles (siding) were being replaced.
Staff Member Sablan said that the windows were being replaced and the shingles would
be replaced with redwood shingles.
Board Member Wit asked what the procedure was for researching the building history and
significance of whomever built it.
Staff Member Sablan said they use building documents, internet research, and the
Alameda Museum as resources.
Chair Saxby asked what the final square footage would be.
Staff Member Sablan said it would be 944 square feet.
Board Member Sanchez asked if the applicant would use Milgard windows.
The applicant said he is unsure. He said he wants it to look period and could use wood or
vinyl, if allowed.
Board Member Sanchez offered some suggestions for avoiding the undesirable look of
vinyl windows on a historic home.
Board Member Wit asked if the addition would trigger any additional parking requirements.
Staff Member Sablan said it would not trigger any parking requirements.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 5
October 4, 2018",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2018-10-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2018-10-04,3,"Chair Saxby said the massing looks appropriate. He said he has the same preference not
to use vinyl windows.
Chair Saxby opened and closed the public hearing.
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the project with the condition
that the applicant submit documentation regarding the windows at the time of
design review and that vinyl windows be avoided.
Chair Saxby asked that the character of the windows match the existing windows. Board
Member Sanchez agreed and said that as long as the windows match the designs in the
application, they should be sufficient.
Board Member Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
7-C 2018-6055
PLN18-0341 - Certificate of Approval - 2301 Santa Clara Avenue - Applicant: Carolyn C.
Fong on Behalf of Lily Angela Chun 1991 Living Trust. Public hearing to consider a
Certificate of Approval for the disassembly and removal of a gas station kiosk and canopy
to enable ground soil cleanup required by state regulatory agencies. The gas station kiosk
will be reassembled once the soil remediation is completed, which is anticipated to take
18-24 months. The subject property is a Contributing Structure to the Park Street Historic
District. Per Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 13-21.5 the project requires a
Certificate of Approval by the Historical Advisory Board. The property is located in the C-
C-T (Community Commercial, Theatre Combining) Zoning District. The project is
Categorically Exempt from additional environmental review pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15301 - Existing Facilities, 15304
-
Minor Alterations to Land, 15330 - Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitigate
or Eliminate the Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Waste or Hazardous
Substances, and 15331 - Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. Staff Member
Sablan gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3688749&GUID=69B80DC0
8B63-45CF-95E8-818657CEA138&FullText=1
Board Member Wit asked if anything prevents the owner from not following through with
reassembly after the soil is cleaned up.
Staff Member Sablan said that they are trying to use the proof of financing to achieve that
goal.
Chair Saxby asked if that requirement would transfer to a new owner.
Staff Member Sablan said that the entitlement runs with the land.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 5
October 4, 2018",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2018-10-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2018-10-04,4,"for many years.
Ted Chun said he worked at that station since he was ten years old. He said they want to
clean the property up. He said they are not the type of people to walk away.
Ronald Chun said this has been a family business and he knows this is an important
historical part of Alameda.
Chair Saxby closed the public hearing.
Board Member Sanchez asked what would happen if they started cleanup and had to do
cleanup beneath the flower shop structure.
<Response not given into microphone/inaudible>
Board Member Sanchez asked whether if during excavation and remediation they needed
to do something that affected the structure of the flower shop.
Staff Member Sablan said the flower shop is a contributing structure and would require
the same certificate of approval.
Board Member Wit asked what would happen if the canopy structure did not fit in the
garage where it would be stored.
Clarence Peterson, the applicant's contractor, said they have room inside and on top of
the garage.
Chair Saxby asked if anyone has considered moving the structure in its entirety to a new
site.
Mr. Peterson said the building was old and brittle and they had not considered that option.
Board Member Saxby said disassembling an old structure like that may be difficult to put
back together is fraught with problems.
Board Member Lau asked if there was a plan to deal with pedestrian traffic on and around
the site during the lengthy construction.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 5
October 4, 2018",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2018-10-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2018-10-04,5,"Mr. Peterson said they planned to reinstall a fence around the site during work.
Board Member Jones expressed concern that leaving elements on top of the garage,
exposed to the elements could cause damage.
Board Member Sanchez said there is a reasonable plan in place. He said leaving the
brittle, fragile cladding on top of the garage could render the material useless. He said a
detailed photographic inventory is going to be critical.
Chair Saxby said there should be a detailed drawing and a plan to tag all the pieces before
it is disassembled. He said he is concerned that the building will not go back together.
Board Member Wit asked Mr. Peterson had taken a structure this old apart and put it back
together.
Mr. Peterson said he had done something similar before. He said they have a plan to
catalogue where all the pieces go.
Board Member Saxby said any items stored outside need to be properly protected. He
listed possible conditions: storage, record keeping, as built drawings, inventory of
components. He said that if there were any alterations in the reconstruction, he would like
it to come back for review.
Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the item with condition that staff review the
owner's as built drawings and inventory, tagging of the site conditions and gas
station elements, that the components are stored in a secure and weathertight
manner, and that any significant changes during reconstruction come back to the
board for approval. Board Member Sanchez seconded the motion. The motion
passed 5-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 8:07pm.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 5
October 4, 2018",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2018-10-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2018-12-06,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2018
1. CONVENE
Chair Saxby called meeting to order at 6:58pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
*None*
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2018-6278
PLN17-0140 - 1100 Marina Village Parkway - Applicant: Steelwave, LLC. -
Public Hearing to consider the historic preservation design features for the
Shipways Residential Project, a 329-unit multi-family housing complex with
a waterfront park. The project will require the approval of a Certificate of
Approval by the Historical Advisory Board but no action will be taken at this
public hearing. The environmental impacts of the proposed project were
considered in the Alameda Shipways Residential Project Environmental
Impact Report (SCH#2017041011)
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3763445&GUID=92741C3F
123E-4D48-9BD3-FF5B2D665A14&FullText=1
Staff Member Barrera gave a presentation.
Nathan Herrero, project architect, gave a presentation.
Approved Minutes
Page 1 of 5
December 6, 2018
Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2018-12-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2018-12-06,2,"Board Member Sanchez asked what the logic was for having the taller buildings along the
water instead of Marina Village Pkwy.
Mr. Herrero said keeping the scale down at the street and providing more units with access
to the waterfront views were the reasons.
Board Member Wit asked if keeping the facades of the buildings and incorporating them
into the new structures was considered.
Mr. Herrero said the garage walls will be built in those locations and they would not be
able to keep the character of the walls.
Chair Saxby opened and closed the public hearing.
Board Member Jones said the celebrating of the history of the site should be enriched in
the public spaces of the site. She said she wanted to make sure we took every opportunity
to historically and aesthetically celebrate the site. She said she would like to explore
making the design more evocative of the design elements of the original buildings. She
asked about the process for finalizing the artwork.
Staff Member Thomas said there is a large public art obligation, a desire to honor the
history of the site, and a need to create a unique public park. He said the applicant will
make a proposal to the Public Art Commission.
Board Member Jones asked how confident we are that the signage can be removed
successfully.
Mr. Herrero said he is very confident that they can reinforce and cut out the Shipways
signage.
Board Member Lau asked if the park area can be built with a sloped building like the
original structure and possibly swap the location of the pool and the park area.
Mr. Herrero said the ability to build with a slope severely limits the usability of the interior
space or would require a much higher roof or canopy structure than the original building.
Board Member Sanchez said he would worry that they would be getting into the area of
false historicism by replicating the building.
Board Member Wit said the large pictures of old planes above the historic hangars in the
Presidio are a good example of what she would like to see on the sides of the buildings.
Approved Minutes
Page 2 of 5
December 6, 2018
Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2018-12-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2018-12-06,3,"Board Member Sanchez said the sales office would be a good place to have some of the
required imagery on display.
Mr. Herrero said using that imagery on the interior portions of the common areas is in their
plans.
Board Member Sanchez said the landscape and waterfront elements are the most
successful of relating to the history of the site. He said public access elements and
experience of the site were good. He said he is concerned by the massing of the building
and that the taller buildings are on the waterfront site. He said the pool areas would seem
dwarfed by the taller buildings. He said shorter buildings near the pool, which is on the
north side, would enhance the private open spaces on the site by allowing more sunlight
to reach the ground there. He said he appreciates the changes that have been made and
thinks they have gone a long way towards alleviating the historical concerns given the
challenges of the site.
Chair Saxby said the City should include a preservation aspect to this project. He said it
was a mistake to allow four historic buildings of local and national significance be
destroyed in order to build the project. He said Alameda stands strong on the integrity of
its historic character. He said the finding that preserving two of the buildings was not viable
came from the developer, who is not really interested in preservation. He said we could
look at maybe preserving one of the four buildings. He said he does not think it is a fair
choice to sacrifice the public amenities for historic preservation. He said he does not think
preservation options have really been studied. He said he is not giving up on the
preservation of at least one of these buildings.
Staff Member Thomas asked if Chair Saxby was envisioning preserving one or more of
the head house buildings and building over and around it.
Chair Saxby said that is possible and would be very exciting idea architecturally and be
similar to how the ships were built at the site.
He said the mitigation measures considered are superficial. He said they are not historic
mitigation measures.
Staff Member Thomas said a historic mitigation measure is photography when you have
a significant, unavoidable impact under CEQA. He said they are trying to add to that.
Chair Saxby said it would be a shame to write off these historic buildings.
Staff Member Thomas said nobody is trying to write them off. He said we also have an
obligation under state law to build housing. He said the City cannot make the development
Approved Minutes
Page 3 of 5
December 6, 2018
Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2018-12-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2018-12-06,4,"of the housing infeasible by their mitigation measures. He said he expects the chair's idea
for preservation would affect the financial feasibility of the project.
Board Member Sanchez asked how the elevation of the peak of the head house compares
to the elevation of the plinth (platform.)
Mr. Herrero said the floor level is about five feet. He said he is guessing the building height
is 21 feet up, the driveway entry of the project would be built up to nine feet. He said that
would create a cocoon effect around the building.
Chair Saxby asked how that would be affected if they used one of the edge buildings.
Mr. Herrero said they would have to study that, and that impacts to fire department access
would be a factor they would have to consider.
Chair Saxby said it is confusing that the EIR is from May 2017 and we still have not
seriously looked at the feasibility of preserving any of these buildings.
Staff Member Thomas said they have considered the possibility of preservation, but have
to consider financial impacts, and he said he is trying to consider what this building would
look like visually submerged compared to the surrounding grounds and buildings. He said
that if the City makes a project infeasible they would run afoul of state law. He said the
Del Monte project is a preservation project, has been approved for four years, and cannot
get financed.
Board Member Jones said she agreed with Chair Saxby about Alameda's historic
preservation commitments. She compared the potential of the Shipways site to the historic
Alameda Theater. She said we like to push the envelope and wants to make sure this
does not look like any other city.
Board Member Wit said she agreed with those thoughts. She said Alameda needs to
decide what it wants to be, a suburb or a destination. She said maintaining our history is
what makes people want to come to Alameda.
Nicole Bures, project manager, said this has been a large collaborative effort. She said
this will be an over one hundred million dollar investment to provide for rent housing in
Alameda with 54 deed restricted units. She said no new for rent housing has been built in
Alameda since 1973, will open the waterfront to Alamedans, and convert an abandoned
site. She asked that the board take these items into consideration.
Mr. Herrero said getting the head houses to meet FEMA requirements for flooding and
sea level rise.
Approved Minutes
Page 4 of 5
December 6, 2018
Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2018-12-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2018-12-06,5,"Chair Saxby said the building is suitable for occupancy now and is a historic structure on
a historic site. He wondered why we are not looking seriously at saving one or more of
these buildings.
Staff Member Thomas said that they have come to the conclusion that it is not financially
feasible on this site, but have not convinced this board of that. He asked what it would
take for the board to reach that conclusion.
Chair Saxby said he does not think it is the board's purview to address the financial
feasibility of the project. He said they are looking only at the historic preservation point of
view.
Staff Member Thomas said they will be taking the project to the Planning Board in January.
He said they will share that this board felt the historic preservation mitigations in the
application were good, but that the plan missed the mark by not having a preservation
element. He said they would be coming back to HAB for a certificate of approval.
Board Member Sanchez said he would like to go through the process of studying a design
that has a preservation element. He said always presents his clients with the ""money is
no object"" solution to make sure that possibilities are not limited.
Staff Member Thomas asked if the board would be able to move their meeting back from
the scheduled January 3rd date in order to do the work required.
Chair Saxby said they could coordinate a date offline and make that work.
7-B 2018-6287
2019 Historical Advisory Board Regular Meeting Schedule
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to adopt the 2019 schedule. Board
Member Wit seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 8:20pm.
Approved Minutes
Page 5 of 5
December 6, 2018
Historical Advisory Board Meeting",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2018-12-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-01-10,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 2019
CITY HALL ROOM 391
1. CONVENE
Chair Saxby called meeting to order at 7:01pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
Staff: Allen Tai, Planning Services Manager
3. MINUTES
3-A 2019-6408
Draft Meeting Minutes - October 4, 2018
Chair Saxby and Board Member Sanchez provided corrections to the minutes.
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Staff Member Tai informed the Board that the property owner for item 7-A has requested
the City to stop processing the development application until further notice.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
2019-6388 Certified Local Government Program - 2017-2018 Annual Report
Staff Member Tai explained the purpose of the CLG annual report. Board Member
Sanchez asked if upcoming training opportunities were part of the CLG program to which
Staff Member Tai responded no.
Chair Saxby asked about the benefits of being a CLG. Staff Member Tai summarized the
benefits including eligibility for grant monies from the state, which are around $10,000 for
survey work.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 2
January 10, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-01-10.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-01-10,2,"7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2019-6400
PLN17-0140 - 1100-1250 Marina Village Parkway - Applicant: Steelwave,
Acquisitions, LLC - Public Hearing to consider a preservation feasibility analysis for the
Shipways Residential Project. The environmental impacts of the proposed project were
considered in the Alameda Shipways Residential Project Environmental Impact Report
(SCH#2017042021).
This item was continued at the request of the property owner.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Sanchez described the Request for Proposals process for reuse and
rehabilitation of the Carnegie Library building. The City's selection panel will convene on
January 29 to review two proposals.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai reviewed a correspondence from Greg McFann, Building Official about
proposed amendments to the Alameda Municipal Code that would automatically appoint
members on the HAB in designated skilled positions (architect, contractor, designer) to
serve as the Housing and Building Code Appeals Board. Staff anticipates the City Council
to hear this matter in February 2019.
Board Member Sanchez asked about the Code Enforcement process responsibilities as it
relates to a homeowners purchasing a home.
Board Member Tai explained that the current property owner on record is responsible for
correcting outstanding violations and that the City usually works with homeowners to
achieve compliance.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 7:35pm.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 2
January 10, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-01-10.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-03-07,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2019
1. CONVENE
Chair Saxby called meeting to order at 7:03pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2019-6625
Draft Meeting Minutes - December 6, 2018
Board Member Wit made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Sanchez seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
3-B 2019-6626
Draft Meeting Minutes - January 10, 2019
Board Member Lau made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Sanchez seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2019-6628
PLN19-0044 - Del Monte Warehouse Certificate of Approval Amendment -
1501 Buena Vista Avenue - Applicant: TL Partners I L.P. Public hearing to
consider revisions to previously approved Certificate of Approval (PLN14-
0059) to modify the design of the monitors (rooftop structures) on Bays 1
and 4 as part of restoration and rehabilitation of the historic Del Monte
Warehouse. The proposal is limited to architectural changes only and does
not affect the previously approved land use, unit count, and parking. The
site is zoned M-X, Mixed-Use with a Multi-Family Residential Overlay. The
Environmental Impact Report for the Northern Waterfront General Plan
Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 5
March 7, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-03-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-03-07,2,"Amendment and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Del
Monte Warehouse Project satisfies environmental review requirements for
this project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Staff Member Tai gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3873062&GUID=1EA4A375
)9B-4599-8D6D-2DC2496C6844&FullText=
Board Member Wit asked if the glass canopy would remain in the changed plan.
Staff Member Tai said the courtyard would be open air under the new plan.
Board Member Sanchez explained that the removal of the trusses eliminates the need for
the canopy.
Mike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, gave a presentation detailing the proposed
changes.
Board Member Wit asked how high the monitor windows would be.
Mr. O'Hara said they would be about 35 feet.
Board Member Sanchez asked if the glazing on the new windows would be multi colored
or clear glazing.
Mr. O'Hara said they would have clear glazing.
Chair Saxby asked if options to preserve the wood trusses were considered.
Mr. O'Hara said they have considered alternatives. He said preservation of the trusses
has been the biggest sticking point in figuring out how to construct the parking podium and
units in a financially viable manner.
Board Member Lau asked if the removal of the center trusses would require additional
support for the sides of the building.
Mr. O'Hara said that the building on either side would be new, independent structures on
top of a new podium with their own supports.
Board Member Jones said the scale of the structure is large enough that the new windows
will be okay.
Chair Saxby said the board's duty should be focused on preservation issues and let other
boards and council deal with financial feasibility issues. He said the board previously
Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 5
March 7, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-03-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-03-07,3,"approved of the aluminum windows for sound and egress and Title 24 reasons. He said
the change of the monitors does improve the preservation of character defining features
and he supports that change. He has concerns about the plans for bays 1 and 4 because
those trusses are character defining features, and he thinks it would be a mistake to allow
them to be removed. He disagreed with the interpretation of the Secretary of the Interior
findings in the staff report. He said the proposal to do more demolition for cost savings
pushes the project where too much historic integrity is lost. He said he does not support
the removal of the roof trusses in bays 1 and 4.
Board Member Sanchez said the new grouping and rhythm of the monitor windows is an
improvement from the previously approved plan. He said when the trusses came to the
board the first time, the trusses were not within the board's scope for approval. He said
the amount of the trusses that were already being removed made saving these relatively
small portions of them less important to preserve.
Board Member Jones said she thought the more important factor was what was more
visible to the public and questioned whether the interior of the project is a major factor for
the board's consideration.
Staff Member Tai said that in private buildings, the interior is not typically subject to that
scrutiny.
Chair Saxby said the Secretary of Interior standards do not exclude the interiors.
Board Member Lau asked if it was possible to keep portions of the timber structure.
Mr. O'Hara showed which post structures would remain and which would need to be
removed.
Board Member Sanchez asked if the approved plan has the posts continue down through
the new podium structure.
Mr. O'Hara said there would be new posts and the bottom of the existing trusses would
be cut.
Board Member Wit said eliminating the trusses and roof is a missed opportunity by the
Planning Board.
Chair Saxby said he would like to split the voting to take the monitor window issue separate
from the truss issue.
Staff Member Tai said his belief is that the Historical Advisory Board was established to
do more than focus 100% on preservation. He said the makeup of the board is mixed
Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 5
March 7, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-03-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-03-07,4,"because the board is charged with taking a balanced approach to issues before them
when advising City Council decisions.
Board Member Lau said he sees the building every day and that it needs improvement.
He worries what will happen to the building if it nothing is done to it soon.
Mr. O'Hara pointed out the limited number of people (residents of bays 1 and 4) that would
ever be able to see those trusses.
Chair Saxby referenced standard #10 prevents the proposed plan from meeting the
standards for preservation.
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the changes to the monitor
windows according to the draft resolution. Board Member Jones seconded the
motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Board Member Jones asked if it would be possible (referencing standard #10) to ever
restore the trusses in the future.
Chair Saxby said the trusses would be gone. He lamented that the board did not have a
chance to see the inside of the building, which he called remarkable.
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the request to remove the
trusses at bays 1 and 4. Board Member Jones seconded the motion. The motion
passed 3-2. (Saxby and Wit opposed.)
Staff Member Tai mentioned the existing conditions on the project which will require
capturing the existing conditions of the building, including the trusses in question.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Sanchez said the City is looking for a partner to take over the Carnegie
Library space for a new use and put out an RFP. He said he sat on a panel to hear the
two proposals. He said one included a restaurant and bakery. Another proposal focused
on an art performance space with a community focus.
Board Member Lau said he was aware of someone with an idea to turn the building into a
museum and asked if it was too late to submit applications.
Staff Member Tai said it was probably too late, unless the chosen candidate does not
progress.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 5
March 7, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-03-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-03-07,5,"Staff Member Dong gave an informational presentation of smaller scale, staff approved
restoration projects.
Board Member Sanchez asked if people could apply for amnesty for windows that had
previously been replaced.
Staff Member Tai said they would likely still be asked to replace the windows to meet the
design guidelines.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 8:15pm.
Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 5
March 7, , 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-03-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-04-04,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 2019
1. CONVENE
Board Member Jones called meeting to order at 7:03pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Jones, Lau, Wit.
Absent: Chair Saxby, Board Member Sanchez.
Board Member Jones said that Board Member Sanchez was recusing himself today
because his office is on the property being discussed tonight. Board Member Jones
presided as Chair for the meeting.
3. MINUTES
Board Member Wit made a motion to accept the minutes from the 3/7/19 meeting.
Board Member Lau seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai said that they received the newsletter from the Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2019-6751
PLN19-0095 - Alameda Marina Certificate of Approval - Alameda Marina - Applicant:
Pacific Shops, Inc. Public hearing to consider a Certificate of Approval to allow demolition
of contributing buildings (Buildings 1, 4, 6, 12, 22, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, and 34) and non-
contributing buildings (Buildings 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 20, 23, 24, 35, 37, and 39) within the
Alameda Marina Historic District to meet the objectives of the Alameda Marina Master
Plan, and consideration of an interpretive signage and history walk program as a
component of the mitigation measures required by the Alameda Marina Master Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The environmental effects of the proposed project
were considered and disclosed in the Alameda Marina Master Plan EIR (State
Clearinghouse #2016102064). No further environmental review is required under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 5
April 4, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-04-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-04-04,2,"7-B 2019-6752
PLN19-0095 - Amendments to List of Street and Facility Names - Alameda Marina and
Citywide - Applicants: Pacific Shops, Inc. and City of Alameda - The applicants request a
public hearing to amend the List of Street and Facility Names for the Alameda Marina
Master Plan project and other revisions to the List. This action is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)3, where it can
be seen with certainty there is no possibility that amending the City's street names list will
have a significant effect on the environment
Staff Member Tai said he would present both Alameda Marina items together. He gave a
presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at: 7-A:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3903321&GUID=FAB7F88A-
35CA-4705-81D0-2A4CF7322611&FullText=1
and
7-B:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3903322&GUID=373ECOCB-
E16-471D-BA3B-4BCC6F3DB2OF&FullText=
Sean Murphy, Pacific Shops, spoke about the project's history and introduced the project
team.
Howard Curtis gave a presentation detailing the proposed historic signage plan.
Board Member Lau asked if any of the original materials from the site, such as wood
trusses from the historic buildings to be demolished, were considered for use in the
signage.
Clay Fry, project architect, said that they have plans to repurpose building materials into
things like benches, flooring, and other uses. He said they wanted the signage to reflect
the masts and sails of the boats and have something durable as well as to use the historic
building materials in a building manner instead of a signage one. He then explained how
they ended up with name choices for streets, paths, and parks.
There were no public speakers.
Board Member Lau asked if the applicant considered advertising an opportunity allow
someone to haul away intact buildings slated for demolition.
Mr. Murphy said that is part of their plans. He said the project would take five to six years
and would advertise those opportunities to the public after anything that has been
adaptively re-used.
Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 5
April 4, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-04-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-04-04,3,"Staff Member Tai said that cities often require that a home be offered to the public for
salvage before demolition. He said it would be difficult to imagine many of the large
buildings at the site being moved to a new location.
Board Member Jones asked staff how the discussion should proceed.
Staff Member Tai explained which buildings would be preserved and which would be
demolished. He said the board can consider demolitions first. He said the Board could
consider whether to require opportunities for salvage and relocation, but to be practical
when thinking about what might be feasible. He said the Board could then provide
feedback on the signage and the street names.
Board Member Jones asked what would happen if the Board wanted to vote to keep the
buildings from being demolished.
Staff Member Tai said that the Board could vote no on the certificate of approval for the
demolition. He said that would essentially force the applicant to appeal the decision to the
City Council, who would likely refer to the master plan which is based on the demolition of
these buildings. He said this step is really a formality and the applicant is required to begin
construction in 2019 under Tidelands lease obligations with the City.
Board Member Jones asked if demolishing one building would meet their requirements to
begin construction.
Mr. Murphy said the Tidelands lease sets the milestones for what has to begin construction
in phase I.
Board Member Jones said the Historical Advisory Board has a unique perspective and
role for preserving Alameda's character in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's
standards. She said demolishing everything outside the ""golden triangle"" would result in a
loss of the scale which leads her to being at an impasse.
Board Member Wit said she walked the site today and can see what the developer is trying
to
accomplish. She said she is having the most trouble with Building 12 which housed
Svendsens. She said that building seems very historically relevant.
Staff Member Tai said that the decision about which buildings were historically significant
was already made by this board in 2017. He said the City Council has already decided
that these buildings can come down. He said the Board can channel those concerns into
the historic signage, street names, and walk program to best capture the historic nature
of the site.
Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 5
April 4, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-04-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-04-04,4,"Board Member Wit asked why the Board is being asked to approve demolition if
interpretive signage has already been decided as a mitigation for demolition.
Staff Member Tai said the code requires this Board to issue a certificate of approval for
the demolition, however since the Council has already approved a master plan, the build-
out of which expects demolition of the historic buildings, this Board's vote is really a
formality. He said the Council's decision has given them mitigation measures like the
interpretive signage and street names for the board to work with.
Board Member Jones said that the signage could be more interactive. She suggested
installations to engage the public, like the rigging materials. She also suggested the use
of handheld technology that residents can use to enhance the experience, similar to
Pokémon Go, a virtual reality mobile application, on the interpretive signage. She said the
signage is a decent start, but the proposed content seems stark.
Board Member Lau agreed with Board Member Jones. He said reusing materials from the
site would help. He asked if the building designs could be shared with the board as they
move forward.
Staff Member Tai said that the architectural designs for new buildings could be brought to
the board for review and comment.
Board Member Jones made a motion to approve the staff recommendation for the
demolition of historic buildings set forth in the draft Resolution. Board Member Wit
seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0.
Staff Member Tai said the board could approve the signage plan with specific direction on
possible changes.
Board Member Jones made a motion to approve the signage plan with a condition
that the applicant incorporate more dynamic, interactive, experiential elements that
may include use of technology.
Staff Member Tai said the feedback he heard was to include elements that the public can
see, feel, and touch.
Board Member Jones said she would like to give people a sense of the scale and that
repurposing items from the original buildings into the signage itself. She said it is a
challenge to make history relevant to people's experience today.
Staff Member Tai repeated the motion: ""Approving the interpretive sign and history
walk program with a condition that the applicant work with staff on the details of a
revised plan that includes interpretive signage that integrates more dynamic user
Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 5
April 4, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-04-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-04-04,5,"interaction, such as things that give the user a sense of scale, feel and touch, and
explore repurposing pieces of the historic buildings into the signage as well as the
use of mobile or other technology.""
Board Member Lau seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0.
Staff Member Tai explained the board's options regarding street names.
Board Member Wit said she would prefer to keep the names within and adjacent to
Alameda County.
Board Member Lau agreed.
Board Member Jones made a motion to accept staff's recommendation regarding
amendments to the street names list, including deletion of names from the water
bodies list, but to keep water bodies in Alameda and San Francisco counties. Board
Member Lau seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
10. *None*
11. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
12. ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Jones adjourned the meeting at 8:23pm.
Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 5
April 4, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-04-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-08-01,1,"MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 2019
1. CONVENE
Board Member Saxby called meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, and Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2019-7111
Draft Meeting Minutes - March 7, , 2019
Chair Saxby moved approval of the minutes. Board Member Sanchez seconded the
motion. The motion passed 5-0.
3-B 2019-7112
Draft Meeting Minutes - April 4, 2019
Board Member Sanchez noted that under ""Roll Call,"" it should be Board Member Sanchez
recusing, not Saxby.
Board Member Sanchez moved approval of the minutes as corrected. Board
Member Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Saxby noted a letter was received from the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society regarding item 7-A.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2019-6751
PLN18-0405 - Certificate of Approval and Historic Sign Designation2070 Lincoln Ave -
Applicant: Bill Wong on behalf of OYH LLC. Public hearing to consider: 1) Certificate of
Approval, pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 13-21.7, for demolition of
more than 30% of the value of a one-story, pre-1942 commercial building to construct a
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 5
August 1, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-08-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-08-01,2,"second floor addition; and 2) Evaluation of the existing ""Lincoln Market Liquors"" sign
according to criteria for historic sign designation pursuant to AMC Section 13-21.6. The
property is not listed on the Historical Buildings Study List. The project is located in the C-
1 (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District. This project is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15301(e) - Additions to Existing Structures, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (projects
consistent with General Plan and Zoning).
David Sablan, Planner II, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4071850&GUID=3EB2C7FA-
1CB4-47D1-A7DD-DC22BD640041&FullText=1
Chair Saxby asked if anyone has thought about taking away some of the stucco to see
what is underneath.
Staff Member Sablan said the applicant would address the Chair's question in his
presentation.
Chair Saxby asked if we knew when the building was treated with stucco.
Staff Member Sablan said staff believes it was done in 1958.
Bill Wong, applicant, said they cut four holes into the Willow frontage and they did not find
anything.
Chair Saxby said he thinks it would be helpful to see more of what is behind the stucco
where the transom windows would be. He said there appears to be a lot of the original
framing materials left below the stucco. He said he would like to be careful to see if there
is an opportunity to preserve historic fabric.
Allen Tai, City Planner, said the board could add a condition of approval to coordinate with
staff to do exploratory demolition before proceeding.
Chair Saxby opened the public hearing.
William Silva said he has no argument about the sign one way or the other. He said his
concerns are what will happen to the Acapulco restaurant operations during construction.
He said the demolition and construction of this building would negatively impact the
restaurant. He said parking is already a problem in the area and he is worried about lost
wages for employees, including himself.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 5
August 1, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-08-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-08-01,3,"Christopher Buckley, AAPS, said they strongly support preservation and restoration of the
sign. He asked if a façade grant could assist in paying for the restoration of the sign and
any restoration work. He said they support fully exploring the chance to discover and
restore the historic fabric of the building. He said doing investigations on historic buildings
should be standard procedure when there has been remodeling. He said minimizing the
second floor parapet and/or pushing the second floor back could minimize the impact of
the second floor.
Steve King said they own the adjacent building and are supportive of the project, but would
like to see as much preservation as possible. He said they may be selling the building and
may not be the party to sign any agreement about making changes to their cornice in order
to solve the air space encroachment that exists now and would impact the remodel.
Michael Harvey said Lincoln Market is part of the neighborhood's history. He said he
supports the historical value of the store. He said adding apartments raises concerns
about parking impacts in the neighborhood.
Staff Member Tai noted that the proposal includes four off street parking spaces for the
two units being proposed.
Board Member Sanchez asked if there would be any parking for the commercial spaces.
Staff Member Tai said the existing condition for the commercial is that there is no parking
and that it would not change with the application.
Board Member Wit said that the power lines appear to pass very close to what would be
the second floor addition and asked if there were plans to deal with that.
Staff Member Tai said that AMP has long term undergrounding plans, but there are no
plans to connect the project to any undergrounding requirements.
Chair Saxby said he agreed with the recommendation to designate the sign as historic
and have it refurbished and properly mounted. He added that restoring the electronics of
the sign is not necessary.
Board Member Wit said she agreed, noting that the sign is a marker for the neighborhood.
She said it should look good, but need not restore the electrical components.
Board Member Lau said the façade grant program would be a good option for the sign.
Board Member Sanchez agreed that the sign is a historic landmark. He said he is
somewhat concerned about the mid-century sign fitting with a potentially restored early
1900s building.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 5
August 1, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-08-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-08-01,4,"Chair Saxby made a motion that the Lincoln Market Liquor sign be designated a
historic sign that should be restored to a repaired, preserved and re-installed sign
on the building. He said the electronic neon need not be functioning as part of the
restoration. Board Member Wit seconded the motion.
Board Member Sanchez pointed out that the enclosed resolution included the sign
designation and the certificate of approval, and asked whether the board could decouple
the two actions.
Staff Member Tai said that the board could separate the actions into two motions.
The motion passed 5-0.
Chair Saxby said he is hesitant to comment on the design of the storefront before there is
additional exploration of the existing conditions.
Board Member Sanchez said that it seems clear that at least the structures of the transoms
are still present. He said he is hopeful that there is an opportunity to restore, rather than
replace, the facades. He said that a restoration approach would change how the second
story is addressed. He added that the neighboring building could be eligible for the Study
List and removing the cornice would not be desirable. He said setting the second story
addition back could accomplish two goals at once.
Board Member Jones said she agreed with Board Member Sanchez that the Whales and
Friends building should be recognized as historical. She asked if we could recommend
specific contractors for doing proper investigative demolition.
Chair Saxby suggested appropriate locations for exploratory stucco removal.
Board Member Wit said you can see painted wood behind the hole in the Willow façade's
stucco.
Board Member Lau said he is interested in not disturbing the existing business too much
with the investigative demolition.
Chair Saxby said he would like to continue the item until some more information can be
provided through further exploratory demolition.
Chair Saxby made a motion to continue the item until there is more information
about what is under the stucco. Board Member Sanchez seconded the motion. The
motion passed 5-0.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 5
August 1, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-08-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-08-01,5,"8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai said there would be a groundbreaking for the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry
Terminal on September 12th. He said Woody Minor would be giving a presentation on
Alameda's ship building history on August 13th at the library. He said there would be a
September 5th meeting relating to Alameda Marina.
Board Member Sanchez announced dates for two upcoming community events.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 8:01 p.m.
Draft Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 5
August 1, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-08-01.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-09-05,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2019
1. CONVENE
Chair Saxby called meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Chair Saxby noted that Board Member Sanchez would be absent due to his need to recuse
himself for both items.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, and Wit.
Absent: Board Member Sanchez.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2019-7222
Draft Meeting Minutes - August 1, 2019
Chair Saxby noted an error in name under item 1.
Board Member Jones made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Board
Member Wit seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
Betsy Mathieson requested that the HAB begin a process to designate Jackson Park as
an historical monument. She said the need has arisen due to a proposal for a playground
being added to the park. She gave a brief history of the park and neighborhood.
Denise Nowicki described the park characteristics that she feels make it worthy of
preserving the Victorian nature of the park. She asked that the HAB begin the process of
designating the park an historical monument.
Chair Saxby asked what the process would be for nominating the park for historic
monument status.
Allen Tai, City Planner, thanked the speakers for their engagement. He said the topic is
not agendized for tonight's meeting and would need to be placed on an agenda before
being discussed by this board. He said the neighborhood could accelerate the process by
filing an application.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 7
September 5, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-09-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-09-05,2,"Chair Saxby asked if the Façade Grant Program or something similar would be available
to assist in preservation efforts.
Staff Member Tai said the Façade Grant Program was established to assist with private
projects and is not sure if this type of project would be eligible. He said he is not aware of
any mechanism for waive application fees for historic projects in Alameda and the issue
would need to be discussed at a public hearing.
Chair Saxby said the proposal has a lot of merit and the park has a lot of historic integrity.
Staff Member Tai reminded the Board that they should refrain from discussing the topic,
which is not agendized.
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai said they received a flyer promoting Oktoberfest, and a letter from
Alameda Architectural Preservation Society regarding the next agenda item.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2019-7225
PLN19-0385 - Alameda Marina Certificate of Approval - 1815 Clement Avenue, Alameda
Marina - Applicant: Pacific Shops, Inc. Public hearing to consider the Rehabilitation Plan
for existing contributing buildings #15, 16, 17, 19, and 27 and non-contributing building
#18 in the Alameda Marina Historic District at the Alameda Marina site, and consideration
of Certificate of Approval for the demolition of non-contributing building #14, and potential
demolition/reconstruction of contributing building 21 and non-contributing buildings #5, 13,
25, and 26 to facilitate shoreline rehabilitation under the approved Alameda Marina Master
Plan. The environmental effects of the proposed project were considered and disclosed in
the Alameda Marina Master Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse #2016102064). No further
environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Staff Member Tai gave a brief presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found
at: ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4119985&GUID=F8918104-
6E4-4DDE-925D-F149832E6914&FullText=
Clay Fry, project architect, gave a presentation about the plans for adaptive reuse of the
historic buildings on the site.
Chair Saxby asked if the proposed layout for the gatehouse matches the original footprint.
Mr. Fry said he attempted to replicate the original box, though cannot be 100% sure
without undertaking demolition.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 7
September 5, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-09-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-09-05,3,"Chair Saxby said the grade change around building 19 changes the building's relationship
to the site. He asked if part of the surrounding area, perhaps the south side and a little
around the corners, could be kept at the existing elevation.
Mr. Fry said they studied putting the building ""in a hole.' He said there was not enough
space to do that. He said preserving the grade at the south façade is theoretically possible,
but all the surrounding parking and sidewalk would be elevated. He said that if he were to
try and preserve the grade at one side, it would be at the north side which did not
previously have an entrance. He said it was perhaps also possible on the west side of the
building where there is more sidewalk to work with.
Chair Saxby said that it would be great to be able to keep the south and west sides as
they were. He questioned the addition of a water table feature added to buildings 15, 17
and 18 since that would be ahistorical. He asked what the intention is for the roof monitors.
Mr. Fry said any damaged glazing would be replaced with glass.
Chair Saxby said the guard shack photograph shows that the building had louvered vents.
He said in the past he has put glass on the backside of the monitors in order to condition
the interior space. He asked if that could be considered.
Mr. Fry said he could consider doing that type of treatment.
Chair Saxby asked if any of the old growth heavy timbers used in these buildings would
be salvaged and reused.
Mr. Fry said the demolition plans for phase I include plans to salvage materials from those
buildings and some would be used by the landscape architect. He said they have not
considered using old materials in any of the new construction. He noted that surgical
demolition is extremely expensive and they have plans to do some of that.
Chair Saxby asked if relocation of buildings has been discussed with any moving
companies.
Mr. Fry said the large buildings won't move and the small ones are being kept.
Board Member Wit asked what Building 19's intended use would be.
Mr. Fry said that under the Master Plan, it is intended to be used for maritime commercial
use.
Board Member Jones suggested having an additional color to help Building 19 stand out
more.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 7
September 5, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-09-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-09-05,4,"Mr. Fry said that the color palette matches the historic nature of the site and creates a
cohesive theme for all of the historic buildings. He said he originally liked the orange, but
has been converted.
Board Member Jones asked why Mr. Fry preferred the taller alternative for the gatehouse
tower.
Mr. Fry said it helps pull the banding and other elements from the adjacent buildings into
the gate house. He said it also frames the new street better and draws more attention to
the importance of the entry.
Board Member Lau asked if anything from Building 14 could be salvaged or pieces re-
used.
Mr. Fry said the building is not structurally stable and the wharf cannot safely support the
building. He said the cost of moving and replacing the building is economically infeasible.
Board Member Wit asked how many parking spaces would be provided for buildings 25
and 26.
Mr. Fry said there are over 300 spaces dedicated to maritime uses throughout the site,
and no residential parking is permitted in those spaces.
Chair Saxby opened the public hearing.
Karl Robrock expressed concern that the vision of a maritime building would not happen
because the timing of leases being terminated and demolition do not match up and provide
a place for maritime industries to be able to move into. He said those businesses are
important mom and pop shops that need a realistic plan.
Chris Nicholas, commodore of Island Yacht Club, said that the yacht club is a cultural
resource worthy of preservation under the Board's mandate. He said he hopes their home
can somehow be preserved for the community.
Chair Saxby asked what the plan is for existing maritime businesses and if there is a plan
for preserving the social aspect of the marina community.
Sean Murphy, Alameda Marina, said the Master Plan focused the plan for the maritime
core on these buildings and put it in the first phase in order to address the needs for
maritime commercial space. He said they have an active marina and the yacht club
activities are an important part of their plan going forward.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 7
September 5, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-09-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-09-05,5,"Chair Saxby said the mitigation measures are his focus. He said he appreciates the effort
to preserve buildings 15, 17 and 18. He said the proposal for Building 16 is entirely
appropriate. He said he would like to see a study of keeping the grade at one or more
sides of Building 19. He wondered if the sliding doors should only be used where the
original entrances are and that the new entrances on the north and east elevations should
be something different. He said he is okay with the raw metal color. He asked what is
proposed for all the large roof vents on Building 19.
Mr. Fry said the plan is that the vents would stay.
Chair Saxby said removing the doors on Building 27 is a difficult issue. He suggested that
anything that could be left that indicates the former presence of a door would be a good
thing. He said he strongly favors the one story gatehouse. He said the historic buildings
do a good job of framing the entrance and that the tower would take something away from
the view of Building 19. He said he would like to see the roof monitor restored and water
table removed on buildings 15, 17 and 18.
Board Members all expressed support for the one story gateway approach.
Chair Saxby said that any efforts that can be made to preserve buildings 5, 13, 25 and 26
would go a long way towards preserving important parts of the marina's history. He said
we should hold onto the possibility of moving buildings for wharf and seawall work and
then moving them back into place.
Board Member Jones expressed a desire to reuse materials in a larger fashion than just
making benches out of them.
Staff Member Tai asked if the Board would be amenable to having the study of the grading
on the south and west sides of Building 19 be brought back to staff for decision and shared
with the Board as an off agenda report. He said a similar approach could be taken for
reviewing the applicant's salvage plans.
Chair Saxby said that he would like to add a similar procedure for reporting back on the
possibility of moving and replacing the buildings along the waterfront.
Staff Member Tai summarized the Board's positions based on the discussion: Building 16
rehab improvements are satisfactory; Building 19 would study the west and south
elevations and not have sliding doors on the north and east elevations.
Chair Saxby said he supported the idea of not using the sliding doors on the north and
east sides in order to differentiate from the original entrances.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 7
September 5, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-09-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-09-05,6,"Board Member Jones felt the sliding doors were different enough in scale and materials
that it did not appear to be trying to replicate the historic look.
Board Members Lau and Wit said they were okay with the sliding doors.
Staff Member Tai continued to summarize the Board position. Sliding doors would be okay
on all sides of Building 19. The removed doors on Building 27 should leave some evidence
of their previous existence, if feasible. The one story gatehouse option would be preferred.
Building 15, 17 and 18 would remove the water table and restore the monitor windows.
There would be a report back to the Board on the findings regarding moving and relocation
of buildings, and reporting back on the disposition and demolition of materials.
Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the draft resolution with all of the conditions
summarized by Staff Member Tai. Board Member Wit seconded the motion. The
motion passed 4-0.
7-B 2019-7226
PLN19-0270 - Informational Presentation on Alameda Marina Phase 1 - 1815 Clement
Avenue, Alameda Marina - Applicant: Pacific Shops, Inc. The Historical Advisory Board
will hear a presentation on Phase 1 of the Alameda Marina Master Plan project, called
Wrap A or The Launch. The Board may provide comments on the project design but no
action will be taken. This item is informational only and no environmental review is required
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Staff Member Tai introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found
at:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4120016&GUID=9F983014-
886B-4B8D-BDOE-52F3F36D2323&FullText=1
Mr. Fry gave a brief presentation on the design for the first multifamily building at Alameda
Marina.
Chair Saxby asked for more information about the phasing of the project.
Mr. Murphy said that this 351 unit building, combined with the maritime commercial core
would be phase I. He said phase Il is on the eastern edge of the site. He said the historic
rehab would be happening simultaneously with the apartment construction. He said the
seawall in front of each phase would be done at the same time, which would allow
upgrading utilities for the marina.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 7
September 5, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-09-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-09-05,7,"Staff Member Tai noted that the façade grant program was reopening. He said the focus
this round is on restoring historic building facades. He gave an update on the exploratory
work at the Lincoln Market site.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 7
September 5, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-09-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-11-07,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2019
1. CONVENE
Chair Saxby called meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, and Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2019-7414
Draft Meeting Minutes - September 5, 2019
Board Member Wit made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Lau seconded
the motion. The motion passed 4-0-1 (Sanchez abstained).
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
None.
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2019-7409
PLN19-0334 - Certificate of Approval - 1223 Post Street - Applicant: Angie Klein. Public
hearing to consider a Certificate of Approval to construct a two-story addition at the rear
of an existing two-story duplex, built prior to 1942, which will require demolition of more
than 30% of the structure's current value, as determined by the Building Official. The
property is listed on the City's Historic Building Study List with an ""H"" designation. The
project site is located in the R-1 (One-family Residential) Zoning District.
Linda Barrera, Planner II, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4208387&GUID=9DBE8CB8-
5D1-44EO-AFDB-212FD5C74F8C&FullText=1
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 4
November 7, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-11-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-11-07,2,"Board Member Sanchez asked if the upstairs unit was original or part of the previous
addition.
Staff Member Barrera said it is not clear when the unit was added. She said the research
shows that the original cottage was 1.5 stories.
Board Member Sanchez asked if the front stairs were being replaced.
Staff Member Barrera said the front stairs and stair railings would be replaced.
Chair Saxby asked for clarification regarding what work is being done to the original portion
of the building.
Angie Klein, applicant, said they only plan to replace the lower stairs and the railing.
Chair Saxby asked if the original building had a brick foundation that would be updated.
Ms. Klein said that the foundation would probably wait for a future time due to budget
concerns.
Board Member Sanchez asked if the chimney being removed serviced an existing
fireplace.
Ms. Klein said they are removing the chimney because it is unsafe and there is no fireplace
inside presently.
Board Member Lau asked why the addition would use double hung windows when the
original home has single hung windows.
Ms. Klein said she believes the existing home also has double hung windows.
Board Member Jones asked whether an addition built in 1910 would meet the
requirements for historic preservation, even though it is not original and not as beautiful.
Staff Member Barrera said that the age of the addition is part of the reason they are asking
for a Certificate of Approval for the demolition. She said the addition is non-descript and
has been altered significantly over time, which contribute to the staff recommendation to
allow the new addition to move forward.
Board Member Lau asked if the siding would need to be special ordered to match the old
width of the siding on the original house.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 4
November 7, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-11-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-11-07,3,"Ms. Klein said they could order specially milled siding to match if the owner preferred. She
said that there would be a plane change in the wall, which would make it easier to have a
slightly different siding on the addition.
Chair Saxby asked for clarification about the roof plan and whether there was a step in
the roof in order to maintain a consistent eave line.
Ms. Klein responded regarding the roof plan.
Chair Saxby said that he is concerned about how the roof on the two story portion of the
addition will meet with the one story roof.
There were no public speakers.
Chair Saxby liked that the proposed two-story addition is separated from the historic
house. He said the roof plan needs to be worked out. He suggested further differentiating
the window trim on the addition. He said the addition seems pretty massive compared to
the original home.
Board Member Sanchez agreed that the addition does seem bulkier than the original. He
said that its location away from the corner mitigates that issue, as well as the care given
by including the single story element to separate the addition. He said overall he feels the
approach is fairly good. He suggested possibly adjusting the plate height over the dining
room in order to get the leaves to match up. He said that however they do it, they need to
carefully address the roof plan to prevent an awkward step. He said it would be important
that the brick mold be done in wood and not a clad product.
Board Member Lau said the east elevation should only have two windows in the addition
to match the original structure.
Chair Saxby pointed out that the triplet window would be above the kitchen sink which
would dictate a smaller size than in the original home.
Board Member Jones agreed with the comment to simplify the window frames in the new
addition. She suggested a change to the roof design to help minimize the extra height of
the new addition. She asked why addition had to be taller than the original home.
Ms. Klein said the modern structural requirements require thicker floors and that the
owners are quite tall and do not want to have low ceilings on the second floor.
Board Member Sanchez said he would not like to see a change in the rhythm of the roof
pitches.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 4
November 7, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-11-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-11-07,4,"Chair Saxby summarized the proposed conditions: correct the roof design on the corner
where the dining room and kitchen come together to keep the roof plane consistent on the
east elevation; simplified window trims without the brick mold for the addition. He asked
for a motion to approve with those proposed conditions included.
Board Member Jones made a motion to approve with the conditions Chair Saxby
described. Board Member Sanchez seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Henry Dong, Planner III, said that Site A's Block 11 and Waterfront Park may come to the
Board in December. He suggested the January meeting may be rescheduled or cancelled
due to conflict with the New Year's holiday.
Board Member Sanchez asked for an update on 2070 Lincoln.
Staff Member Dong said that the applicant is still evaluating how to proceed.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 4
November 7, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-11-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-12-05,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2019
1. CONVENE
Chair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm.
2.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez.
Absent: Board Member Wit
3.
MINUTES
3-A 2019-7512
Draft Meeting Minutes - November 7, 2019
Board Member Saxby made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Lynn Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
4.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATION
None.
6.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Items will be included with Regular Agenda Items.
7.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2019-7507
PLN18-0405 - Certificate of Approval and Historic Sign Designation 2070 Lincoln Ave -
Applicant: Bill Wong on behalf of OYH LLC. Public hearing to consider a Certificate of
Approval, pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30-21.7, for demolition of
more than 30% of the value of a one-story, pre-1942 commercial building to construct a
second-floor addition. The property is not listed on the Historical Buildings Study List.
The project is located in the C-1 (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District.
David Sablan, Planner II, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4265498&GUID=0BC02F9E-
159C-453A-8233-1E76916562AF&FullText=1
Chair Saxby asked about the proposed storefront elevation and wanted more
information on the final design details.
Staff Member Sablan said that was part of the condition of approval, to have more
development of that.
Approved Historical Advisory Board Minutes
Page 1 of 6
December 5, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-12-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-12-05,2,"Chair Saxby asked about the historic sign and what changes the applicant could make
under the historic sign ordinance.
Allen Tai, City Planner Planning, Building, and Transportation Department answered that
there is latitude for both the city and the applicant to decide. The Secretary of the Interior's
Standards has a brief on historic signs for reference. The Board needs to decide what part
of this sign is historic and what characteristics they want to preserve. Any changes need
to be reasonable, per City Attorney and Staff.
Board Member Sanchez asked for the age of the sign (not original to the building) and the
original purpose of the building.
Staff Member Sablan answered the sign was from 1958 and did not have information on
the original tenants of the building. Staff Member Tai said ""you can assume these were
various retail spaces"" and to keep in mind the evolution of the building.
Chair Saxby opens public comment.
Laura Tang, the applicant, confirms they want to keep the building historic as possible and
want to be reasonable in regards to the sign. She strongly believes that the new business
owner should allow the content of the sign to change. She does not believe the word
""liquor"" is reasonable to keep.
Chair Saxby closes public comment.
Board Member Sanchez thanked the applicant for listening to the suggestions of the
board, conditions need to be added for details of the design such as detailing the windows.
The Windows on the Willow St side should be brought closer to the corner but is concerned
the current set back sets it out of balance. Also agrees with many of the comments made
by AAPS on the upper floor windows. In regards to the sign would lean more toward
flexibility for wording on the sign. Suggested to keep the ""Lincoln Market"" as the historic
portion and allow the ""Liquour"" portion to be altered by new tenants.
Board Member Jones agrees with Board Member Sanchez and has concerns over the
new entrance, it looks similar to the original doorways. It should match the new addition
more, not contemporary but not trying to replicate history. Also agrees with Board Member
Sanchez's comment on the solution for the sign.
Board Member Lau agrees about signage, to let the applicant decide to change it. He gave
a recommendation on a way to do the new signage on the top.
Chair Saxby pointed out the letter from Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, Item
7-A Public Comment, that contains eight suggestions and says he is in agreement with all
except item eight in regards to the sign, AAPS does not want any changes. He is more
inclined to allow alterations to the sign. Item number five of the letter pertaining to the
stucco believes exploratory removal of the stucco should happen on both facades. For the
design along the storefront on Lincoln, he would like it to be informed by whatever they
discover under the stucco. Concurs with item 4 of the letter that there be a sub-committee,
and volunteers himself and Board Member Sanchez to sit on that committee. For the
Approved Historical Advisory Board Minutes
Page 2 of 6
December 5, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-12-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-12-05,3,"condition of approval would suggest including all of AAPS's letter and conditions, except
for item eight. He also added that they should simplify the parapet on the second floor.
Staff Member Tai commented that on Item 4 of AAPS's letter, having a subcommittee
""would blur the lines between the board's role in the discretionary review of a certificate of
approval vs the ministerial review of the building permit"". Instead, the board could continue
the decision until the plans are correct for approval or just be very specific in the conditions
for approval on what details the board wants Staff to look for. He then reminds the board
about their purview over the project is the Certificate of Approval and there is a separate
design review process that is part of the Planning Board.
Board Member Sanchez wanted clarification on the design review process and what is the
next step of this project and whose purview that would fall under.
Staff Member Tai said that Staff would work with the Applicant to make sure the board's
comments were noted and that AAPS would also be notified.
Staff Member Tai asked clarifying questions about the Willow Street elevations, windows,
and setbacks.
Board Member Sanchez explained the board's concerns about some of the design choices
and gave better options.
Chair Saxby wanted to make sure there is a distinction between the historic old building
and the new design.
Staff Member Tai asked a clarifying question about window choices.
Board Member Saxby referred to a photo from AAPS where the original building had
transom windows. He went on to say how much detail needs to be overseen and wanted
to make sure there was someone overseeing the final design. He commended the
applicant but says conditions must be added to keep the project on track.
Staff Member Tai summarized the discussion. The Board wants to incorporate the
suggestions made by The Alameda Architectural Preservations Society
http://alameda.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=d37a9e61-5a9c-461b-a6c7-
a102532813f2.pdt (specifically points 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7) However for point 8, the board is
willing to accept consent change, replacing the word ""Liquor"" but keeping the ""Lincoln
Market"". Staff would recommend in the conditions that any words replacing ""Liquor"" be in
the same font type as ""Lincoln Market"". On the Willow St side making sure the cornice
straddles the full span of the bay. Also, the parapet on the 1st floor should look like the
original design and the parapet on the second floor can be with the new design.
Board Member Jones made a comment about Item 3 on AAPS's letter. They want the new
entryway to have a historic look but since it is not original to the building it should look
different.
Board Member Saxby said this could be done simply and Board Member Sanchez said
it's more about the portions.
Approved Historical Advisory Board Minutes
Page 3 of 6
December 5, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-12-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-12-05,4,"Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the resolution with the conditions that were
noted and have them added to the city's draft resolution. Board Member Lau
seconded and the motion passed 4-0.
7-B 2019-7508
PLN19-0556 - Amendment to Certificate of Approval for Site A - Block 11 and Waterfront
Park Design - Applicant: Alameda Point Partners. Public hearing to consider proposed
amendments to the 2016 approved Certificate of Approval for the Block 11 building
adjacent to the NAS Historic District and the new Waterfront Park on the Seaplane
Lagoon. The environmental effects of the proposed project were considered in the
Alameda Point Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2013012043). No
further environmental review is required.
Staff Member Tai gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4265530&GUID=87F820D2-
81E3-4079-9865-3F538D9F69A7&FullText=1
Board Member Saxby was concerned about the tree selection due to how it can obstruct
the view and wanted to know why the Honey Locust Tree was chosen.
Staff Member Tai answered the applicant had more to say on that, but the understanding
is it was an environmental decision not choosing palm trees. Also wanting trees that
provide more shade.
Kristel Railsback, the applicant, gave a presentation talking more about the amendments
for Site A, overall design choices, landscaping, and amenities. She also explained why
they decided against palm trees, they are difficult to maintain and don't provide sufficient
shade. Also, the space is wide enough that the trees do not block the view. She also
pointed out where a mural would be going once an artist had been selected.
Chair Saxby wanted more information on the historic taxiway.
Ms. Railsback introduced Joe from her team who explained the taxiway was a parking
area for planes and wanted to keep the pathway open for views. They would also add
bike paths and historical markings.
Board Member Sanchez asked about the open area at the east evaluation, the alleyway
facing block 10, and if there are any plans.
The applicant said at this time there wasn't much value in doing anything since it was not
as nice for pedestrians, so a decision was made to trim it down.
Board Member Sanchez asked about the 90% infrastructure completed in phase one
and what areas and items are covered.
The applicant said the site A, gutters, pavement, and underground piping is complete but
the landscape as part of the retention is not complete. The road system for Site A is in
place and space for possible parking will be created.
Approved Historical Advisory Board Minutes
Page 4 of 6
December 5, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-12-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-12-05,5,"Board Member Lau made a comment about the street light design and if they could be
given a historic look.
The Applicant said since they were a newly added feature (they were not there
historically) they would need to follow the National Park Standards.
Chair Saxby asked about west of the Waterfront Park and what would be happening
there.
The applicant said this would be a further extension of the park, more hardscape for
activities but as it moves further west it would become a softer less sculpted area. They
also want to add public boat access.
Chair Saxby asked if the hardscape promenade would continue on.
Applicant believed it will continue on, it has not been designed yet. The goal would be to
continue the Bay Trail through the area. They would also need to incorporate sea-level
rise into the design.
No public speakers.
Chair Saxby doesn't see any major changes from 2016 and can support this resolution.
Board Member Sanchez agreed and believed the smaller footprint of the building is a
positive thing, believed it respected the original approval.
Board Member Jones appreciated all the thoughts put into the new tree option and
wanted to make sure going forward to respect the history of the area.
Board Member Lau would still like to see some historical lighting fixture but understood
the choice.
Staff Member Tai reminded the board about upcoming phases and there would be other
opportunities to make design comments. He also explained the design choice for the
lighting fixtures and why they are appropriate for the area.
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the resolution on the
amendments to the original approval on Phase One Site A, as outlined by the
Clty.
Board Member Jones seconded the motion. The motion passes 4-0.
7-C 2019-7509
Historical Advisory Board 2020 Meeting Schedule.
It was suggested to cancel the meeting in January 2020, due to not having any items for
that meeting. If anything comes up they can pool the board for availability.
August is missing due to this is when City Council, Boards, and commissions go to
recess.
Approved Historical Advisory Board Minutes
Page 5 of 6
December 5, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-12-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2019-12-05,6,"Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the Historical Board Meeting Schedule for
2020. Board Member Sanchez seconded and the motion passed 4-0.
8.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None
9.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai presented to the Board a list of Webinars for training and reference
materials from the California Preservation Foundation. Staff can provide access to the
board if anything is of interest, keeping up to date on preservation topics is a
requirement of the board.
Board Member Jones made the suggestion if anything is very pertinent the Staff make a
recommendation and the board can watch the webinar together.
Staff Member Tai said that could work as long as the meeting was made public and
proper notice was given.
10.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
11.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 8:40 pm.
Approved Historical Advisory Board Minutes
Page 6 of 6
December 5, 2019",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2019-12-05.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-01-07,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 2021
1. CONVENE
Chair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
This meeting was via Zoom.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
2020-8572 - Draft Meeting Minutes - October 1, 2020
Approved
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
None
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2020-8573
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Schedule 2021.
Staff attachments can be found at
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4735857&GUID=6BCC73FD-
58D5-4F4C-8444-5A22094E2CF5.
Approved
7-B 2020-8574
General Plan Update - Historical Advisory Board public workshop to review and comment
on the draft Alameda General Plan 2040.
Allen Tai, City Planner, Board Secretary, and City Planner, introduced this item, the staff
report and attachments can be found at
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
January 7, , 2021",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-01-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-01-07,2,"ittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4735858&GUID=4802A84E-
F75-4BC8-8769-8AE7C287B954&FullText=1.Staff Member Tai also played a recorded
presentation given by Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation.
Chair Saxby opened public comments.
Christopher Buckley, from the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS),
discussed issues and comments that had been submitted in a letter by the AAPS. He
addressed the ambiguity of the General Plan and questioned what was the actual intensity
of development that was being proposed. The AAPS was also concerned by the amount
of upzoning that was being discussed. He ended by recommending that Alameda should
enact the Mills Program, which would provide reduced property taxes in exchange for the
restoration of designated historic buildings.
Chair Saxby closed public comments and opened board questions.
Board Member Sanchez wanted to know more about the concept of upzoning that had
been proposed.
Staff Member Tai explained the idea of upzoning, to establish regulations that allow the
amount of development that could occur on a piece of property. The city is growing and
upzoning allows for more development.
Board Member Sanchez gave the example of Alameda Point and that the General Plan is
striving for a higher density than what the current General Plan would allow.
Staff Member Tai said that was correct.
Chair Saxby pointed out that the items of the General Plan he had read mentioned a much
wider spread of upzoning in Alameda, it's not just isolated areas.
Staff Member Tai said they are mainly focused on the transit corridors where the
commercial streets are now.
Chair Saxby wanted to know how the defeat of Measure Z would affect the General Plan
provisions.
Staff Member Tai said the City of Alameda must comply with state law, so this is an issue
the city would have to address. That's part of the General Plan, how to comply with state
law while also dealing with this issue in the city's charter.
Board Member Wit wanted to know what percentage of the total housing stock was
committed to low income.
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
January 7, , 2021",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-01-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-01-07,3,"Staff Member Tai said the statewide standard, that Alameda uses, is 15%.
Chair Saxby wanted to know that since Alameda was so far behind in their affordable
housing requirements what was being done to correct that.
Staff Member Tai said that many cities in California were having this problem. The state
even considered affordable housing requirements a barrier. If the affordable housing
requirements are too high it would inhibit development overall. The overall goal is more
housing, more housing hopefully means housing prices go down.
Board Member Wit added that without Measure Z then we are pushing out a great
percentage of what makes the community great. It could be worth it to look at increasing
the affordable housing requirements for developers to maintain the character of the city.
Board Member Lau was still concerned about upzoning and where potential housing would
go.
Staff Member Tai said that the General Plan was mainly focused on goals, objectives, and
policies. The General Plan was a policy document, it does not specifically say where and
what you can build.
Board Member Lau wanted to know how Measure Z could affect upzoning in the future.
He was concerned about the height of future buildings.
Staff Member Tai clarified Measure Z, which would amend Article 26 in the city charter. It
did not say anything about building height or form. Those are matters that fall under the
zoning ordinance. There are also measures in place that require Alameda to approve
certain housing projects that are not consistent with Article 26.
Chair Saxby asked more about those measures.
Staff Member Tai explained the Density Bonus Law and Waivers.
Board Member Sanchez asked about the Mills Act Program. He thought that the program
was already in place.
Staff Member Tai clarified that state law only sets up the framework for the program but
that cities have to formally adopt it. Past Alameda City Councils had decided not to institute
the program. Staff believed that its a very good idea and should be included in the
Preservation Ordinance.
Chair Saxby suggested that the City Council would want to know more information on
what sort of tax impact the program would have.
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
January 7, , 2021",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-01-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-01-07,4,"Board Member Wit asked about affordable child care and child care centers and believed
this was something the General Plan should address.
Board Member Sanchez said with the General Plan being so complex he wanted the board
to focus their comments on elements that were in the purview of the Historical Advisory
Board.
Board Member Sanchez agreed with the action items presented in the letter from AAPS
and wanted to hear what the staff thought.
Staff Member Tai said that staff was in the process of addressing those comments. He
then explained more about the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) methodology and how Alameda could contest
those findings.
Board Member Sanchez wanted to stress that the bullet points currently not in the
language of the draft should be included.
Chair Saxby suggested making this an action item, to make a motion to approve to include
these action items. He also agreed with these action items.
Staff Member Tai said an action item was not needed to include these comments. The
staff was in the process of incorporating some of these actions.
Board Member Sanchez also suggested that the language around transit corridors be
cleaned up and made as clear as possible.
Staff Member Tai said yes but they would not specify the AC Transit line numbers.
Board Member Lau asked if the city should put more restrictions on historic properties in
case of development pressure.
Staff Member Tai said the city currently has very strong demolition controls. They would
also be adding language in the plan about adaptive reuse.
Board Member Jones added that the language shouldn't come off as anti-development.
Chair Saxby pointed out places where the language could be more clear. He also gave
his thoughts on adaptive reuse, green aspects, and reaching the affordable housing goals.
Board Member Wit believed the art aspect was being overlooked in these developments.
She believed that art made spaces liveable and it's something that should be addressed.
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
January 7, , 2021",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-01-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-01-07,5,"Staff Member Tai thanked the board for their comments and questions. He said they would
be revisiting the language but for the most part, this would be long-term thinking. They can
get more specific in the ordinances.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai updated the board about the status of the Preservation Ordinance. It
had not been scheduled on the agenda yet because he wanted to hear thoughts on the
General Plan first. Also in the interest of time try and they would have everything prepare
at once.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 8:29 pm.
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
January 7, , 2021",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-01-07.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-03-04,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2021
1. CONVENE
Chair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm.
This meeting was via Zoom.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, and Wit.
Absent: None
3. MINUTES
3-A 2021-707
Draft Meeting Minutes - January 7, 2021
Chair Saxby noted that his title should be Chair, not President, and added that the
minutes were very clear and concise.
Board Member Jenn Wit made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member
Lynn Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
None.
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
6-A 2021-711
Letter Regarding Central Avenue Safety Improvement Project.
Allen Tai, City Planner, discussed the letter and what the intent behind the letter was.
The letter can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4809155&GUID=FOFCOA03
BOBO-4547-BF62-592213F259EE.
Chair Saxby wanted to know what effect it would have on Historic Properties but Staff
Member Tai had clarified that it was just roadwork.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2021-709
Historical Advisory Board Approved Minutes
1
March 4, 2021",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-03-04,2,"PLN20-0431 - Delisting from Historical Buildings Study List - 620 Central Avenue
-
Alameda Federal Center. Applicant: Alameda Point Collaborative. Public hearing to
consider delisting the Alameda Federal Center site at 620 Central Avenue from the
Historical Buildings Study List. The property is listed on the Historical Buildings Study List
with an ""s"" designation. The delisting of 620 Central Avenue from the City's historic
resources inventory is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the common sense exemption that CEQA
applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. As a separate and independent basis, this action is not a project under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b) and Public Resources Code section 21065.
Henry Dong, Planner III, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at
Ittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4809153&GUID=A445FD85-
3D49-412A-AF2E-C06F94BC4759&FullText=1.
Chair Saxby opened the board's clarifying questions.
Board Member Norman Sanchez wanted clarification if one or both of the sites had gone
to the City Council yet.
Staff Member Dong said that the site that had gone to council was the APC site, the
Northern portion.
Board Member Sanchez asked if that proposal was to rehabilitate the existing building not
to demolish it.
Staff Member Dong clarified that the rehabilitation was for the South building, the W-
shaped one. The Northern building was the one that had not gone to hearing yet.
Chair Saxby clarified the delisting would be the entire Northern portion of the property that
was considered the APC site.
Staff Member Dong said yes, both buildings plus the accessory structures and the EBRPD
(East Bay Regional Park District) site.
Staff Member Tai said it was the property as outlined and also clarified that the question
before the board was about the clean-up of the listing. What the applicant plans to do on
the property was a land-use question and not a question before the board.
Board Member Jones asked about certain designations on the Historical Buildings Study
List and wanted clarification on those.
Historical Advisory Board Approved Minutes
2
March 4, 2021",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-03-04,3,"Staff Member Dong said the top category was N (National) then there were S (State), H
(Historical), B (Background), and E (Environmental).
Board Member Jones asked about the hierarchy within those designations.
Staff Member Tai said that N, the national register, was the highest, then S, then B. Then
was the E category, where individually they might be insignificant but as a group they were
significant. Lastly was H, these buildings might have historical significance but would
require further research.
Doug Biggs and Chris Ebert, the applicant and the architect, also gave a presentation
discussing the history of this site, why they were asking to delist this site from the Historical
Buildings Study List, and addressed the opposition to this delisting process.
Chair Saxby asked if they had looked into rehabilitating the buildings or doing some type
of adaptive reuse for the project. He wanted to know more about the background of the
project.
Mr. Biggs said from day one the plan for Building 1, the Engineering Building, was to tear
it down for a new Built to Purpose Medical Program Building. He said for Building 2/E
Shaped they had thought they could rehab the building until they did Exploratory Demo.
They determined that the seismic upgrade cost would be too cost-prohibitive to be able to
get funding for the project so they are now tearing it down.
Chair Saxby asked if the seismic evaluation was done using Historic Building Codes or
current codes.
Mr. Biggs said it was done with the current building codes.
Chair Saxby said these buildings would be eligible for Historic Building Codes.
Mr. Biggs said that the Historic Building Code would not save them money on the seismic
issues.
Chair Saxby was curious why they were not able to view the Page & Turnbull reports which
were referenced by the 2003 letter from SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) Report
as to why the location was not eligible for the National Historic Registry.
Mr. Biggs said they had reached out to Page & Turnbull, those reports had been archived
and it would take a few months to track them down. Also since the site was not eligible
back then it would not be now.
Chair Saxby reminded Mr. Biggs that their decision would not apply to the local registry.
Historical Advisory Board Approved Minutes
3
March 4, 2021",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-03-04,4,"Mr. Biggs said that was not his declaration but that of the SHPO officer.
Board Member Alvin Lau wanted to know why they didn't remove this site from the
Historical List before now since they had this letter from 2003 saying the site was not
eligible.
Staff Member Tai said that the Alameda Municipal Code does not have procedures
established for the Historic Study List, and there is no actual requirement to delist a
property. They were doing this now to be transparent and there was some precedent to
do this. The staff felt that the 2003 letter was very conclusive.
Board Member Sanchez asked since there was no procedure for delisting, the procedure
is just done case by case.
Staff Member Tai said there are properties on the Study List that had been demolished
and staff would make a note of that on the list. They have handled this issue in different
ways. This was a clean-up action after it is concluded that the property is delisted.
Board Member Sanchez asked if this property was not delisted how would that affect the
applicant.
Staff Member Tai said for the applicant to move forward they would need to move forward
with a Certificate of Approval for demolition, and they would come back at the next meeting
for that approval. All of the evidence that they had reviewed was very conclusive.
Board Member Sanchez asked since it was not eligible for the National Registry would
that also mean that it was not eligible for the State Registry.
Staff Member Tai said that the National and State criteria were very similar. He described
what that criteria was, from design to association. He also discussed Alameda's criteria
and what made a location historically significant. He broke down why this site did not meet
the local criteria.
Board Member Sanchez wanted to know if a different site wasn't eligible for the National
or State registry they could still decide to keep it on the local Study List. They don't have
to be governed by the State or National Registry.
Staff Member Tai said that was correct.
Chair Saxby asked about the demolition done in 2007 and wanted to know what process
happened in regards to the Historic Advisory Board.
Historical Advisory Board Approved Minutes
4
March 4, 2021",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-03-04,5,"Staff Member Tai said in 2007 it was still a Federal property so it was not within the purview
of the city. There were no permits at that time since Federal and State Agencies are not
subject to the city's permitting process.
Chair Saxby wanted to know why the applicant and the staff hadn't just come before the
board for a Certificate of Approval to demolish.
Staff Member Tai said once they know the property is not historic it's a more
straightforward process to remove it than coming before the board needing approval for
each building.
Chair Saby said that whatever decision that is made would affect other buildings on the
site that was on the EBRP (East Bay Regional Park) property.
Mr. Biggs said there was only one remaining building on the EBRP property, and does not
include the boathouse. He wanted to add that they are doing it this way because they
needed to treat the site as a whole.
Staff member Tai clarified that it would still be for individual buildings, but yes doing it this
way was more transparent.
Chair Saxby clarified that if they delist the site then all future action regarding demolition
of individual buildings would not have come back before the board. It would be handled at
the staff level. Including the EBRPD site.
Staff member Tai said that was correct.
Board Member Sanchez wanted to know if the staff could request and file an application
with HAB for delisting of a property regardless of an impending project.
Staff Member Tai said that was conceivable. He said he could think of other properties
that had been demolished that were still on the list. He agreed that any changes to that
list should go through a public process.
Board Member Sanchez wanted to know who could generate that request.
Staff Member Tia said for the Historical Study List anybody could, there were no rules in
the Alameda Municipal Code about that.
Board Member Sanchez wanted to know if there was pending litigation regarding this site.
Celena Chen, City Attorney's Office, explained a recent case that was dismissed and
discussed another case challenging Alameda's Design Review Approval in the Superior
Historical Advisory Board Approved Minutes
5
March 4, 2021",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-03-04,6,"Court. She added that the filing of a lawsuit doesn't affect the process of the project as a
whole. She further explained the risks that the applicant would be assuming.
Chair Saxby opened the public comments. He also reminded the public that the discussion
was about delisting the site not for what it would be used for. Also in the interest of time,
he limited the public speakers to 2 minutes each.
John Healy, the applicant for the mentioned upcoming court case, said that this delisting
process by the city was an attempt to circumvent its liability and culpability in ongoing
litigation with Alameda County's Superior Court. He discussed the parts of the litigation
and questioned why this process was changing now. He also brought up the procedure
for delisting by the state and wanted to know why that was not being used. He also took
issue with his time being limited to 2 minutes.
Chris Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, wanted the board to defer any
decision about delisting this property until adequate information and documentation was
made available. He found the staff's reliance on the 2003 determination from the SHPO
to be really off base since it was not based on local criteria. He spoke about the connection
to the Maritime School and World War II this site had.
Carmen Reid gave her objection to the delisting of this property. She stated that the
Alameda Point Collaborative was not eligible for delisting as a lessee under the Alameda
Municipal code along with other legal reasons. She wanted the board to consider that the
property served as a visual reminder of Alameda's military history and the property was
under litigation for not adhering to the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)
mandate. She saw the delisting process as a ""workaround"" the pending litigation and to
avoid state law.
Zac Bowling wanted to give his support for the staff's recommendation and the delisting
of this property. He saw the CEQA lawsuit as a moot point and believed the other speakers
were part of the same group who wanted to do the vote over again. He believed the
board's duty was to look at the facts and information in front of them and not to listen to
distractions being raised to try and stop this project.
Harvey Rosenthal, the adjacent property owner, referenced the GSA letter and how the
parcels had changed over the years. He also spoke of the connection to World Word Il
and the people that made this site historic.
Rosalinda Fortuna, a nearby property owner, spoke of her father who was a 90-year-old
veteran who believed this property should be maintained as a Historic Property. She
believed if the board allowed the delisting of this property then the Alameda Point
Collaborative would then build numerous stories in this old established neighborhood.
Historical Advisory Board Approved Minutes
6
March 4, 2021",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-03-04,7,"Margaret Hall, a property owner on Central Ave, spoke of her family's history with the
military and Alameda and as a General Contractor, she was at first very excited about the
repurposing of the buildings. She was very disappointed to learn that the plan now was to
demolish the buildings and urged the board to look into the matter more before they made
any decision.
Chair Saxby closed the public comments and opened the board's discussion.
Board Member Jones said this was obviously a difficult decision since the information was
not clear. She believed that the applicant had made some very good factual comments
that were making her decision harder. She understood and believed that the staff had
done their due diligence in regards to researching this site.
Board Member Witt agreed with what Board Member Jones said. She believed in order to
get the go-ahead for this project it would be great to find the Page & Turnbull letters to
make things more clear cut. She was very much on the fence for this project.
Board Member Sanchez said there was an abundance of information to go over in order
to reach a decision. He spoke again that the board's only concern at the moment was to
decide if the property belongs on the Historic Study List, not what the applicant intends to
do with the property. He said even though he trusts the staff he would like to see the
original document used to place the site on the list, the Page & Turnbull Report, and a
better understanding of the site as it was now. He wanted to defer any decision until more
information was brought forward.
Board Member Lau agreed with his fellow board members that it was very difficult to make
a decision now. He wanted the staff to gather more information and documentation before
he and the board made a decision.
Chair Saxby agreed that they lacked information about this property. He acknowledged
that the difficult part was knowing that their decision to delist the property would result in
the buildings being demolished. He added that the presentation did give him a better
understanding of the property, even if it was historically significant it had lost a lot of
integrity. He too wanted to see the original 1996 Page & Turnbull evaluation.
Board Member Jones asked the staff what other documentation (Page & Turnbull letters)
was available that could be gathered.
Staff Member Tai said first he wanted clarification on what documentation the board would
like. He knew that there were many references to the 1996 Page & Turnbull Report, but
that document had never been available to the city. He said that even the applicant had
reached out to Page & Turnbull and that document had never been made available. He
wanted to know what other specific information the staff could gather that would compel
the board to make a conclusive decision.
Historical Advisory Board Approved Minutes
7
March 4, 2021",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-03-04,8,"Chair Saxby said they had been given conclusions but not the background for those
conclusions. He asked if it was possible to just do a new Historical Evaluation of the site.
Mr. Biggs spoke of his passion and dedication to seeing this development happen and
said they would reach out to Page & Turnbull again to see if they can pull the original
report from their archives. He said if that didn't work they would have Page & Turnbull
come out again to review the documents they have and the site to do an updated
determination. He did not want this project held up because of how it was put on the Study
List. He also offered to bring the board out to a site visit, with COVID it was difficult but not
impossible.
Board Member Sanchez believed a site visit would be very helpful. He suggested finding
any documents for when the Study List was first put together that would show the logic
behind listing any property. He wanted to see the progression of the Study List.
Staff Member Tai wanted to clarify that record-keeping in the city over the years had been
very spotty. He had discovered some survey forms but it was really more of a checklist
that the surveyors used as they walked the neighborhoods. For most of the properties on
the Study List, including this one, there is just not much information. He also added with
the site visit they would need to schedule a special meeting, to figure out the logistics. He
also said another way was to schedule individual visits.
Staff Counsel Chen said that touring in pairs would be acceptable since pairs did not count
as a quorum.
Staff Member Tai also checked with Mr. Biggs that if anyone from the public wanted a tour
of the site they could try to accommodate them.
Mr. Biggs said that was acceptable and offered suggestions on how that could work.
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to continue the decision to a future meeting
with the request that as much information be provided that was available, from the
city records, the Page & Turnbull report if it was available and to take up Mr. Biggs
his offer of a site visit. Board Member Jones seconded the motion and a roll call
vote was taken. The motion passed 5-0.
7-B 2021-710
Historic Preservation Ordinance Informational Workshop: The City of Alameda is
proposing to update the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Alameda Municipal Code
Section 13-21, to ensure that it reflects best practices in the field of historic preservation.
The Historical Advisory Board will hold a public workshop to review the existing ordinance
and discuss ideas for proposed revisions. No final action will be taken at this meeting. A
public workshop to review and discuss amendments to the Historic Preservation
Ordinance is not subject to environmental review under CEQA.
Historical Advisory Board Approved Minutes
8
March 4, 2021",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-03-04,9,"Staff Member Tai introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments
can
be
found
at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4809154&GUID=65037058-
882D-4986-B8AA-AE540DAF17B5&FullText=1.
Chair Saxby opened the board's clarifying questions and comments.
Chair Saxby was intrigued by Option 3 because when they do give Certificates of Approval
they do touch on Design Review. He also believed that redefining demolition makes sense
because the current definition of demolition was too complicated for people to understand.
Staff Member Tai clarified that once they made their decision, the importance of the word
demolition might not be as significant. He gave examples of what he meant if the board
chose Option 3.
Chair Saxby wanted to know more about what would trigger a project coming before the
board.
Staff Member Tai said that was up to the board, for Design Review the staff was the default
party. He explained how the Design Review worked now with the Planning Board but this
board could change the criteria of what would come before them. He said that the staff's
vision was not to change the current process, they would want the majority of mostly
single-family Design Reviews to remain at the staff level.
Board Member Sanchez explained how he understood how Option 3 would work and what
would lead an applicant to have a Design Review with this board. They would be changing
the process if an applicant didn't trigger (due to the demolition) a Design Review and the
board could still request a Design Review if there was an appeal.
Staff Member Tai said that was correct, that would only be the subset of properties that
were pre-1942 and on the Historical Study List.
Board Member Sanchez clarified the difference between Option 2 and Option 3.
Staff Member Tai also gave examples of each option and how the process would work.
Board Member Sanchez said he was not opposed to Option 3 at all. He believed having
the trigger be major alterations rather than value was clearer.
Staff Member Tai continued his presentation, where he discussed the Historical Studies
List.
Chair Saxby continued the board's questions and comments.
Historical Advisory Board Approved Minutes
9
March 4, 2021",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-03-04,10,"Chair Saxby asked how this could be set up so that single-family homes were not
subjected to CEQA if they were on this Resource Inventory List.
Staff Member Tai clarified if the homes were valued to be historic they would be subjected
to CEQA with all those protections. He mainly was discussing the category of buildings
that were pre-1942, the staff believed those buildings should not be automatically be
subjected to the strict regulations of CEQA.
Chair Saxby asked if that would be ""devaluing"" some of the properties on the list.
Staff member Tai said that process-wise they would still be subjected to the same
procedures. He used the McKay property as an example.
Chair Saxby said it was clear to him, and to others, that the need for better investment in
resource evaluation was needed in Alameda. He hoped they would move toward that with
further discussions.
Board Member Sanchez asked who would submit the forms that were referred to. He
wanted to know more about that process.
Staff Member Tai explained how the process used to work and what the surveyors did. He
then explained the current process and what forms were needed from the applicant. It's a
very structured process.
Board Member Sanchez asked, having these two lists, he wanted to know if a DPR
(Department of Parks and Recreation) form was needed in order for a project to move
forward or could the property be moved to the list where the DPR form was not required.
Staff Member Tai said yes and added that this is where the details become very important.
He gave some examples of how the board could change criteria.
Chair Saxby opened the public comments and kept the time at 2 minutes.
John Healy thanked the commission and the staff for all their time and dealing with issues
like this that no one else wants to bother with. He agreed with Staff Member Tai that they
have to go back and reevaluate the Historic Study Llst. He recommended going back and
finding some of the people who established the original Historic Advisory Board and even
having a Historian on the board.
Chris Buckley, from the AAPS, wanted to discuss a letter the society had sent. He gave
the society's thoughts on the term demolition and gave changes the society thought
worked better. He added that the society agreed with Option 3. He was very concerned
about information and cards for each property on the list that was missing.
Historical Advisory Board Approved Minutes
10
March 4, 2021",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-03-04,11,"Staff Member Tai informed him about what documentation was available.
Chair Saxby closed the public comments and opened the board's discussion.
Board Member Jones checked with Chris Buckey to make sure the AAPS had her correct
email since she did not receive the letter or the attachments from AAPS.
Board Member Lau suggested having a group email address.
Staff Member Tai said they could look into getting everyone on the board city email
addresses. He discussed what they would need to do and how they would need to
maintain the emails.
Board Member Sanchez asked about a recommendation that was not covered in the
presentation about holding a public workshop to review comments on the proposed
amendments. He wanted more elaboration on that.
Staff Member Tai said once they had more direction from the board the staff would draft
the ordinance. Then the board would use the regular meeting times to discuss it.
Staff Member Tai then asked the board to give the staff some direction on this issue. He
said that the staff would benefit from some more clarity from the board.
Chair Saxby brought up the demolition definition, the evaluation was very unclear and
needed to be cleaned up. He added that he believed that Option 3 was the most
interesting.
Board Member Sanchez agreed, saying Option 3 made the most sense after what they
had discussed.
Board Member Lau was also in agreement.
Staff Member Tai said that was helpful and wanted to take Option 3 further. He broke
down the process conceptually and what amendments they would be making.
Chair Saxby said they needed to establish a trigger that would take projects from staff
review to board review. In the past demolition had been that trigger and it still could be but
with a better definition.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai said they would be discussing the COG (Council of Governments)
Annual Report. Being a certified local government, the local preservation programs
Historical Advisory Board Approved Minutes
11
March 4, 2021",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-03-04,12,"needed to make sure they meet certain standards. Also annually the staff has to provide
a report as well as meeting other standards. The report this year was written by Staff
Member Dong.
Staff Member Tai asked the board if they were interested in official city emails.
Chair Sanchez said he did not want another email to deal with but said it was very
important for AAPS to have everyone's correct email.
Staff Member Tai said he would take care of that.
Chair Saxby wanted to know how the board would know about Design Reviews approved
at the staff level.
Staff Member Tai said that those actions were posted and they would notify the board
when those actions took place and they would happen on a set schedule.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 10:02 pm.
Historical Advisory Board Approved Minutes
12
March 4, 2021",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-05-06,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2021
1. CONVENE
Chair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
This meeting was via Zoom.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2021-908
Draft meeting Minutes - March 4, 2021
Board Member Norman Sanchez corrected his statement on page 5, it should be could
and not would ask to file a report with Historical Advisory Board (HAB).
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the minutes with this
correction. Board Member Alvin Lau seconded the motion and the motion passed
5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
None
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Allen Tai, City Planner and HAB Secretary, wanted to address the Written
Communication for item 7-A. Since there were many letters submitted the staff had
posted those on the City of Alameda's website and for the staff report, they were
compiled and attached as an exhibit. Staff had also emailed out those comments to the
board prior to the meeting.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2021-907
PLN20-0431 - Delisting from Historical Building Study List and Certificate of Approval
-
620 Central Avenue - Alameda Federal Center. Applicant: Alameda Point Collaborative.
Public hearing to consider delisting the Alameda Federal Center site at 620 Central
Avenue from the Historical Building Study List. In addition, the applicant requests a
Approved HAB Meeting Minutes
May 6, 2021
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-05-06,2,"Certificate of Approval to demolish two main buildings and four accessory structures on
the project site. The property is listed on the Historical Building Study List with an ""s""
designation. The City of Alameda has prepared an Addendum to a Mitigated Negative
Declaration pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines and no further
environmental review is required.
Staff Member Tai introduced this item and gave a presentation. Staff Report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4928317&GUID=F79F3F4C-
F1FD-421E-857A-E6F1C7FB096D&FullText=1
Stacy Kozakavich, Cultural Resources Planner/Archaeologist with Page & Turnbull, also
presented the history of the location and the findings from the 1996 report they had done.
Doug Biggs, the lead applicant on this project, discussed the intended plans for the
location and why they had decided to try and delist this location from the Historical Building
Study List.
Chair Saxby asked the Board for clarifying questions.
Board Member Sanchez asked about the buildings outside of the site, the buildings in the
East Bay Regional Park District's parcel, and wanted to know if they were listed separately
on the Historical Buildings Study List.
Staff Member Tai answered that they were not. The staff could clean up the Historical
Buildings Study List administratively and make it clear that there are multiple buildings on
this site.
Board Member Sanchez asked if the buildings on the Alameda Federal Center Site were
listed together on the Historical Buildings Study List.
Ms. Kozakavich clarified that the Seamanship Building is listed separately on the Study
List as the Boat House.
Board Member Sanchez wanted to know if the Crab Cove Visitor Center falls into one or
the other.
Ms. Kozakavich said she did not believe it did, the Visitor Center and the sewage building
were not part of the delisting. She also added that Building 7 was included in the original
620 Central Avenue address.
Approved HAB Meeting Minutes
May 6, 2021
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-05-06,3,"Board Member Sanchez asked if they wanted the Crab Cove Visitor's Center to be listed
separately from the Alameda Federal Center that it could be done administratively by the
staff. Staff Member Tai said that was correct.
Chair Saxby clarified that they were only asked to consider delisting the Northern part of
this site, and the Southern part of the site was excluded from the request.
Staff Member Tai said that was correct. He added that Building 7, the boathouse, and the
infirmary were not part of the delisting request.
Chair Saxby wanted to know the logic of that approach of separating the Southern part of
this parcel.
Staff Member Tai explained that the request is related to the McKay Wellness Center. The
applicant determined the buildings could not be feasibly reused, which led to questioning
what other buildings on this site needed to be demolished. To continue with the McKay
Wellness Center Project the staff was only looking at the 3.5-acre portion.
Board Member Sanchez asked if the original application also included the demolition of
the small accessory structures.
Henry Dong, Planner III, said it included four accessory buildings.
Board Member Sanchez wanted to know if the General Services Agency (GSA) were to
propose a new building on that site then they would not have to go through the City of
Alameda's approval process.
Staff Member Tai said that was correct.
Board Member Sanchez continued saying if GSA wanted to demolish all the buildings on
this site they could do that without an application for approval.
Staff Member Tai said that was also correct, that was what had happened to the other
buildings of the Alameda Federal Center previously.
Board Member Sanchez further clarified that having this location on the Study List would
do nothing to sway or stop GSA if they wanted to tear down and build a new building.
Staff Member Tai said that was correct.
Board Member Lynn Jones wanted more information about the adaptive reuse feasibility
study that was brought up in the public comments.
Approved HAB Meeting Minutes
May 6, 2021
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-05-06,4,"Mr. Biggs said they had done an exploratory demolition of the existing building, and had
engineers analyze the ability to adaptively reuse the building. The costs to rehabilitate the
existing building are enormous.
Chair Saxby asked if that study was focused on structural concerns.
Mr. Biggs said that was correct.
Board Member Jones asked if there was any possibility that the architect of these buildings
was notable. She referenced public comments that note prominent architects were
associated with the buildings.
Ms. Kozakavich explained their research and what would make a building noteworthy and
historically significant. The original plans for these buildings could have come from more
centralized wartime plans which were used across the country to quickly build an
installation for training and housing of armed forces. To find those plans they would need
to dig into federal archival records, the 1996 report did not find those records. She added
that even if this building did have a note-worthy architect it would not change the fact that
the building had lost integrity.
Board Member Jones wanted to know if this facility would qualify as a Historical
Monument.
Mr. Biggs brought up that most of the people who had written letters to ask the Board to
save the buildings had no issue with the buildings being torn down when they previously
asked the City to turn the site into open space. Since the City does not own the buildings
they cannot turn them into a museum.
Chair Saxby asked if it were possible these buildings could be restored to their original
historical condition or whether the question is irrelevant.
Ms. Kozakavich said it wasn't irrelevant, in many cases buildings can be restored to their
historical appearance. In this case, if Building 1 was rehabilitated to its original appearance
it would be a well-preserved single building but that still wouldn't restore integrity to the
campus. It would only go a little way toward bringing back the original character of the site.
Board Member Sanchez asked if the original application for Building 2 assumed Adaptive
Reuse.
Mr. Biggs said the original design and intent for Building 2 was to adaptively reuse the
building. It was only after they had submitted everything with the Planning Board and the
City Council that they were able to do the exploratory demolition. Then with the exploratory
demo and the analysis from the engineers, it was determined that the original plan for
adaptive reuse was no longer feasible.
Approved HAB Meeting Minutes
May 6, 2021
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-05-06,5,"Chair Saxby opened the public comment.
Board Member Jones reminded everyone that they were not here to discuss the use of
the building.
Chair Saxby concurred and he added that the topic tonight was the potential delisting and
or demolition of this site. He said that people could combine their time to give a speaker
extra time.
Staff Member Tai said that he had been contacted prior to the meeting by Carmen Reid
and Janet Gibson regarding a presentation they wished to give.
Carmen Reid had been researching the original architect of the site, and she had reason
to believe that it was Gardner Daily. She had also reached out to the National Archives
and as soon as they open she hoped to gain access to those files. She had also found
some 1946 drawings by Joseph Esherick, the architect of Sea Ranch, who had designed
an addition at the training school. She had also submitted an application to designate the
site on the National Register, and she pointed out that GSA had incorrect information
about which buildings had been demolished. She urged the board to give this item more
time, at least until they heard back from the National Register so that the site could be fully
evaluated by the state and national historians. She said the Merchant Marines deserved
this and discussed the petition going around to save the buildings that was fully supported
by the National Veterans Association. She believed that destroying the buildings without
doing a full evaluation would be a disaster.
Chair Saxby asked when the application with the National Register had been submitted
and what the expected turnaround time was.
Ms. Reid said she had submitted the application on the Friday before this meeting and the
full evaluation process was between 6-12 months.
John Healy believed there was a way for historians to feel that history was being preserved
and for Mr. Biggs to get what he needed to make his project happen. He also thought the
memo presented by Page & Turnbull didn't cut it and he disputed that there really hadn't
been an Adaptive Reuse study. He felt that there was a lot of misinformation on both sides.
He addressed the importance of this site and that it was the only one like it in the country.
He felt that the City had also given out a lot of misinformation and believed there needed
to be another forum so everyone could have their say.
Jay Garfinkle said that even though the buildings had been modified that shouldn't take
away the fact that the area had historic significance. He believed the push to do this project
was because of financial significance which should carry no weight in the decision
Approved HAB Meeting Minutes
May 6, 2021
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-05-06,6,"demolition back then the measure would have lost that vote. He pointed out that the only
other time a building was delisted and demolished in Alameda, a Victorian for a parking
lot, those findings were also based on a Page & Turnbull report. He pointed out the
applicant was complaining about cost after the Federal Government had offered these
buildings to help the homeless and now the applicant was saying they had no use for
these buildings. He believed the HAB should vote to keep the buildings on the Study List
and preserve and reuse them.
Harvey Rosenthal addressed some misstatements made in regards to the project. He felt
the statement that the opponents of this project had been fine with the buildings being torn
down for open space was not true. The open space initiative would have allowed the
buildings to stay and be reused for the park. Secondly, the statement that from day one
Building 1 was always going to be torn down. He pointed out that the applicant first applied
to the Federal Government for these buildings to be reused. Public presentations were
also provided by the applicant that discussed ""Adaptive Reuse"" and showed how each
building would be reused. He felt that the public and the voters had been misled. He
Approved HAB Meeting Minutes
May 6, 2021
6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-05-06,7,"believed the buildings could all be returned to the original design and finish. He felt that
there was no research provided as to why the site had been put on the Study List in the
first place. He believed if the site could not serve the needs of the project it should be
relocated elsewhere.
Rosalinda Fortuna spoke on behalf of her father, a Navy Veteran, and shared a letter he
had written. He spoke about how saddened he was to learn that the city was trying to
delist the property at 620 Central Ave and to tear down these buildings was a disgrace.
The city should be striving to preserve Alameda's military history. He was also
disappointed that the applicant was not sticking to their original promise of reusing the
buildings instead of tearing them down. Ms. Fortuna compared the site to the Rosie the
Riveter Museum in Richmond, California.
Chris Buckley, from the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS), discussed a
letter they had sent. He pointed out that the criteria for integrity Page & Turnbull used was
based on the National Register in California but the City's criteria don't clearly state what
the integrity standard was. He discussed the Historic Preservation Ordinance for Alameda
and the definition for Historic Monuments and how integrity wasn't even mentioned. He
believed this gave flexibility to the HAB do to decide what standard of integrity to apply to
this location. An example of this flexibility would be to allow the demolition but to allow the
site to stay on the Study List, which suggests there is still some integrity to this site. He
felt that there was some contradiction in the staff analysis and in the Page & Turnbull
report. He discussed other ways the integrity issue was flexible.
Janet Gibson discussed her personal history with Alameda and was even born before the
buildings were built. She talked about Alameda's unique history and how important these
buildings are. She understood the need to create a home for at-risk homeless individuals
but perhaps this site was not the right place for it. She wanted the board and the city to
rethink the use of the land that would bring people to Alameda.
Chair Saxby reminded Ms. Gibson that the use of the site was off-topic.
Zac Bowling acknowledged all the information that had already been provided that showed
that these buildings were not historically significant. He made clarifications about previous
statements by other commenters. He felt the online petition that was circulating against
this project was being shared with false information. He summarized that the same issues
are being brought up again to fight the project.
Ryan Lalonde commented on statements made by previous speakers. He was frustrated
that at every meeting there was always a new issue that needed to be studied just to delay
this project. He added that the property was owned by the GSA, and it was not going to
be magically be turned over to the city for a different project that some commenters are
hoping for. He concluded that opponents to the project did not want the respite home in
their neighborhood.
Approved HAB Meeting Minutes
May 6, 2021
7",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-05-06,8,"Laura Gamble said the speakers who were demanding to keep these buildings for historic
value had previously advocated for their demolition. She did not appreciate the negative
remarks directed at the applicant as well as the city staff in a bad faith attempt to further
delay a project. She added that subject matter experts all concurred that the answer was
to delist this property.
Bronwyn Harris said she had read AAPS's letter regarding this site and disagreed with
their comments. She believed the same people who wanted to tear down these buildings
to build a park are now trying to save the buildings to stop the wellness center. She felt it
was time to listen to the experts and delist the property.
Brenden Sullivan discussed the rich military history that the Bay Area had and how unique
the Merchant Marine history was. He believed taking the extra time to get this right was
not a bad thing. He said we don't need to tear down our history and should preserve the
buildings.
Ezra Denney discussed statements previously made by other commenters and urged the
board to end this delay and move forward with this incredibly needed facility that would
serve the community. Trust the experts, city staff, and voters and let the Wellness Center
happen.
Margaret Hall discussed Adaptive Reuse and what had been in the Measure that had been
voted on. She discussed her past work as a contractor and how this is something you
should have figured out at the beginning of a project. She felt the buildings should be
reused and saw the merit in the historic feeling of a building. She described her experience
rehabbing 100-year-old homes and argued to save these buildings. She agreed with Matt
Reid's comparison of saving the buildings to saving the Great Wall of China.
Thomas Stapleton, calling from Texas, discussed his history with Alameda and his time
with the Merchant Marines. He talked about the Maritime Training School in New York,
where his father had trained, and how it had been torn down in the 1950s without honoring
the mariners who had served there. No one had stood up against the developers then so
saving the buildings tonight was an opportunity to right what was previously lost. He said
there was so little that had been done to honor the Merchant Marines and pleaded with
the board not to delist this property. He did not believe Alameda needed more concrete
and steel but needed to protect the sacred grounds of Alameda's maritime history.
Chair Saxby closed public comments and opened the board's discussion.
Chair Saxby thanked everyone for their comments and acknowledged they were still
getting email comments as well. He noted everyone's passion and said this would add to
the difficulty in making the decision.
Approved HAB Meeting Minutes
May 6, 2021
8",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-05-06,9,"Board Member Jenn Wit thanked everyone for their comments and agreed this was a big
decision to make. She first wanted clarification on the Exploratory Demo that had been
done and what had been found.
Mr. Biggs provided details about exploratory work they had done. He explained the
extensive work and analysis done by the engineers.
Chair Saxby asked a question about the helical piers put in from the outside.
Mr. Biggs said it was not possible, and that they did not have the space for that.
Board Member Wit brought up the Del Monte project and the exploratory demolition that
was done there, and how that was able to get rehabbed.
Mr. Biggs clarified that the expectations are different because the Del Monte building had
already been declared a Historical Building, and the 620 Central location was just on the
Study List, to be studied to see if it was historical. He had also accepted these buildings
from the Federal Government to be used to help the homeless, the Del Monte building
doesn't have that added constraint. The project is mandated to create a project that serves
the homeless, and is financially feasible to serve the homeless.
Board Member Witt wanted to know if it was because of financial reasons that it wasn't
being rehabbed.
Mr. Biggs said the financial reasons were paramount but it also of equal importance they
could create a much better property for the clients they would be serving, and able to
maintain
Staff Member Tai added that this step of the project coming before the HAB was always
there from the beginning since the original project had anticipated the demolition of
Building 1. He also discussed the differences between this project and the Del Monte
project.
Board Member Alvin Lau agreed that the original site had historical value and understood
its importance to some of the Alameda residents, however he believed the City did follow
legal processes and provided a lawful report that states the buildings no longer have
historical value because it was not a complete site anymore.
Chair Saxby said he thought that AAPS assumed the board had more flexibility in
determining the historic value of the site due to some ambiguity in the language of the
ordinance.
Approved HAB Meeting Minutes
May 6, 2021
9",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-05-06,10,"Board Member Jones wanted to know if what Mr. Buckley said was true. Could the board
approve the Certificate of Approval to Demolish and still keep the site on the Historical
Study List?
Chair Saxby believed that was true.
Staff Member Tai said that was true and that this board had done that in the past, most
recently with Alameda Marina. It was a way of recognizing there was history on the
property but that the buildings lacked integrity so you could allow the demolition.
Chair Saxby clarified that for the Alameda Marina project the City Council had already
decided on that before it was brought before the HAB.
Board Member Sanchez asked if all the buildings had been scheduled for demolition in
the Alameda Marina project. He thought some buildings were scheduled to be preserved.
Chair Saxby said 4 buildings were being preserved.
Board Member Sanchez said he didn't see the point in preserving the site on the Study
List if the plan was to approve the demolition of the buildings.
Chair Saxby said with the Alameda Marina it was a much more intact Cultural Landscape.
From all the public comments and the speakers, it appeared that the people valued the
historical significance of this site and the buildings' connection to the Merchant Marines
and that gave him hesitation to have this board decide to demolish these buildings. The
importance to the community elevated this site in terms of the local historical register. He
preferred the option of Adaptive Reuse for these buildings and said he would come down
in favor of not delisting the property and not approving the Certificate of Approval to
demolish. He was aware that would then promote this decision to the elected officials on
the City Council.
Staff Member Tai made a clarifying point to help the board come to a decision. He said
while public input and opinion were important the standard of review on the question of
whether the site was historic or not was based on established criteria and standards for
historic preservation. He recommended that the board rely on the criteria as presented by
staff and the experts to come to a decision.
Chair Saxby pointed out that the Page & Turnbull report said that the site did have historic
significance and that the real issue was that there had been a loss of integrity. He also
added according to the AAPS they had a lot of flexibility in interpreting integrity and they
didn't have to rely on national and state standards for that analysis.
Board Member Sanchez acknowledged that this was an emotionally charged issue and
he is trying to evaluate this site and determine if he agrees with Page & Turnbull's
Approved HAB Meeting Minutes
May 6, 2021
10",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-05-06,11,"assessment that the site had lost its integrity. He discussed how the site was no longer
integral and how a lot of the key buildings that were part of the school had already been
removed. It would be a difficult decision to determine if what remains was sufficient to
continue on the Study List. He said the Crab Cove visitor center and Seamanship building
south of the site should be preserved.
Board Member Jones said she agreed with Board Member Sanchez that this was a difficult
decision. She felt they did have some flexibility with integrity and it was a subjective thing.
She appreciated the comment by Mr. Reid about small parts of the Great Wall in China
that had been saved. She also felt that they should be preserving the history and if it was
something the community cared about they should honor that. She addressed the state of
the buildings now and questioned whether if they do still honor the significant historical
events that happened there. That was why she was leaning toward approving the
Certificate of Approval for demolition but keeping the location on the Study List. She
wanted them to do more to highlight its significance since it was such a big part of
Alameda.
Board Member Sanchez clarified that Board Member Jones's point was not to delist but
to approve the Certificate of Approval to demolish.
Board Member Wit said yes but only because she agreed with all the research that was
done.
Board Member Wit agreed this was a very tough decision because everyone cared about
the historical character of the island. There was such a need for respite housing and the
land is vacant and even though half of the structure was torn down it was still hard to
decide that the other half should be torn down as well.
Chair Saxby acknowledged that the preservation movement didn't really start in America
until the 1960s. This building had fallen into that time when people were not thinking too
much about the historical record.
Board Member Lau personally felt that the site was no longer complete after all the
demolition of buildings that had already taken place.
Chair Saxby made a motion to delist from the Historical Building Study List the
Northern part of the property at 620 Central Ave and Board Member Sanchez
seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion failed 3-2 with Chair
Saxby and Board Members Jones and Wit voting against.
Board Member Jones made a motion to approve the Certificate of Approval to
demolish two main buildings and four accessory structures on the project site at
620 Central Ave and Board Member Wit seconded the motion. A roll call vote was
taken and the motion passed 4-1 with Chair Saxby voting against.
Approved HAB Meeting Minutes
May 6, 2021
11",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-05-06,12,"Staff Member Tai reminded everyone in attendance that the board's actions were
appealable to the City Council and that the City Council may also call this decision for a
review in the next 10 days.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai gave an update on the status of the update on the Historic
Preservation Ordinance. Due to the demands of the staff they had not had much time to
work on it but hoped to have an update soon. He encouraged the board to read up on
the Mills Act.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jay Garfinkle wanted to discuss the agenda item some more, he was confused about
how something could stay on the study list and still be demolished. He was not criticizing
the vote, just the two things seemed inconsistent to him.
Chair Saxby reminded Mr. Garfinkle that Oral Communications was an opportunity to
discuss something that was not on the agenda.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 9:36 pm.
Approved HAB Meeting Minutes
May 6, 2021
12",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-09-02,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2021
1. CONVENE
Chair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Due to Governor Executive Order N-08-21, Citizens can attend the meeting via
teleconference.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2021-1256
Draft meeting Minutes - May 6, 2021
Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the minutes as it. Vice-Chair Norman
Sanchez seconded the motion and the motion passed 5-0.
3-B 2021-1235
Draft Meeting Minutes for June 14, 2021, Joint Planning Board and Historical Advisory
Board Meeting.
Chair Saxby clarified that he denied ever saying that the McKay Ave location was not
appropriate for a homeless shelter. The public speaker who said that had quoted him
incorrectly.
Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Vice-Chair
Sanchez seconded the motion and the motion passed 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
None
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
  https://alameda.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9779192&GUID=2623B268
2B32-4F69-84EB-CBB324E684AD
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes September 2, 2021
Page 1 of 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-09-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-09-02,2,"7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2021-1252
Review and Comment on Revisions to the City Council Policy for Naming City Property,
Facilities, and Streets (Naming Policy). The proposed amendment is not a project under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15378 and Public Resources Code Section 21065. No further environmental review is
needed.
Allen Tai, Secretary to the board and City Planner introduced this item and gave a
presentation. Staff Report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5117355&GUID=9C4598DE
58DA-4094-B823-55D94647D869&FullText=1.
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Jenn Wit asked if someone on the city staff would be tasked with keeping
a list of historically relevant indigenous names, Alamedians of note, or would they just let
the community bring names forward.
Staff Member Tai the idea would be to let the community bring names forward. This helped
get the community more involved. This board could give feedback about keeping a list
though.
Chair Saxby added that the Alameda Museum and places like that would have a deep
knowledge of historical names.
Staff Member Tai clarified no list would be destroyed, it would live on in the public record.
Vice-Chair Saxby discussed some of the problems about only letting residents of the street
have a say in its renaming. He wanted to find a way to let all residents of Alameda
participate in the process.
Staff Member Tai discussed why residents on streets that were being renamed only could
decide instead of letting everyone weigh in. Changing a street name can really impact
people.
Board Member Alvin Lau asked about renters and how to get the information about who
actually lived on the streets in question.
Staff Member Tai discussed privacy laws and what information the staff could get access
to. These would be questions for the City Attorney's Office.
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes September 2, 2021
Page 2 of 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-09-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-09-02,3,"Board Member Lau asked how long they would allow the public to make comments about
a name change.
Staff Member Tai said the policy did not specify but they would want to give it a proper
amount of time to take advantage of the ways to reach people. The staff did not want to
rush this process.
Chair Saxby wanted to know how often this had come up.
Staff Member Tai said this was the first time it was addressed by the City Council. The city
had never really had an open discussion about renaming streets and facilities.
Board Member Lynn Jones asked how citizens could access information on street names
such as pronunciation and where names came from.
Staff Member Tai thought that was an interesting question. He believed that most street
names were chosen by engineers. In more recent history there had been a more
conscious effort of why certain names were chosen and city records would be a great
place to look for more information.
Chair Saxby opened public comments.
Rasheed Shabazz, an Alameda resident, had worked to rename Haight School as well as
Jackson Park. He discussed the social importance of being able to rename public areas
as people become more aware of how White Supremacy had woven itself into our daily
lives. He discussed his own background and gave a brief history of some of the
problematic names in Alameda today.
Chair Saxby closed public comments and opened board discussions and comments.
Board Member Wit discussed the importance of having a list of people who citizens could
contact when these issues come up.
Vice-Chair Sanchez hoped that Mr. Shabazz would be in contact with the Alameda
Museum, Library, and AAPS so he could share his information. It would be a great way to
start that record.
Chair Saxby agreed and added that the vetting situation would be the most difficult.
However, it was more important to make things more equitable.
7-B 2021-1257
Board Elections
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes September 2, 2021
Page 3 of 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-09-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-09-02,4,"Board Member Sanchez nominated Chair Saxby for another term as Chair. Board
Member Jones seconded the nomination. A vote was taken and the nomination
passed 5-0.
Vice-Chair Sanchez nominated Board Member Jones for Vice-Chair and Board
Member Wit seconded the nomination. Board Member Lau nominated Vice-Chair
Sanchez for another term of Vice-Chair and Chair Saxby seconded the nomination.
A vote was taken and Board Member Jones won the nomination 3-2.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2021-1258
Alameda Marina Update
Staff Member Tai gave the update.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 8:04 pm.
Approved Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes September 2, 2021
Page 4 of 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-09-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-11-04,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2021
1. CONVENE
Chair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Historical
Advisory Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2021-1453
Draft Meeting Minutes - September 2, 2021
Board Member Jenn Wit made a motion to approve the minutes as is and Board
Member Norman Sanchez seconded the motion and the motion passed 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
Chris Buckley discussed a letter the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS)
had sent about their concerns about upzoning in historic neighborhoods in Alameda. The
AAPS wanted to see this board more involved in the Housing Element.
Chair Saxby informed Mr. Buckley that the HAB would be reviewing the Housing
Element at the December 2nd meeting.
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
HAB Meeting Minutes
November 4, 2021
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-11-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-11-04,2,"7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2021-1454
2022 Meeting Calendar
The 2022 Calendar can be found at
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5197489&GUID=24B43C47-
4AF9-40D1-BOF3-429549D26BD0.
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the 2022 Meeting Calendar and
Board Member Alvin Lau seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of
hands and the motion passed 5-0.
7-B 2021-1455
Draft Climate Adaptation and Hazard Mitigation Plan - Citywide - Applicant: City of
Alameda. A Public Hearing to Review and Comment on the Draft Climate Adaptation and
Hazard Mitigation Plan. CEQA Determination: The proposed plan is not a project under
CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and Public Resources Code Section
21065. No further environmental review is needed.
Danielle Mieler, Sustainability and Resilience Manager, introduced the item and gave a
presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5197490&GUID=0A457939-
C676-418E-ABE1-E762F62F42AF&FullText=1.
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Sanchez asked about different types of incentive programs for owners to
retrofit their homes.
Staff Member Mieler discussed how some of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) grants could be used to support owners. She also discussed options for
single-family and multi-family homes.
Chair Saxby asked about at-risk buildings in Alameda (masonry and concrete) and wanted
to know if engineering studies had been done on them. He also wanted to know more
about the denied grant for the North Shoreline adaption.
Staff Member Meiler discussed the complete inventory of buildings that had been
seismically retrofitted. She explained the grant process from CalTrans, it was not
something they typically fund. She discussed the different approaches Alameda was trying
to enhance the shoreline.
Board Member Lau asked if there would be grant money or funds made available to retrofit
older/historic buildings.
HAB Meeting Minutes
November 4, 2021
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-11-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-11-04,3,"Staff Member Mieler clarified what the state grant would be for, it did not provide extra
funds for historical buildings.
Board Member Sanchez asked about the groundwater issue in terms of retrofitting and
wanted to know if they would be curbing that solution.
Staff Member Mieler said that was a good point and discussed what other cities had done.
She discussed options for basements and added they needed to do more work on the
groundwater issue.
Chair Saxby brought up the importance of undergrounding electrical wires in Alameda.
Board Member Wit asked about the clean-up after a fire or earthquake and wanted to
know how those issues would be addressed.
Staff Member Mieler said hopefully with these retrofits there would be less debris to clean
up. She then briefly discussed the plans in place as part of the Emergency Operations
Plan.
Vice-Chair Lynn Jones wanted more clarification on the proper way to retrofit older homes,
she wanted to know if there were resources available. She was concerned about the
scope of impact to homeowners.
Staff Member Mieler discussed information and resources available such as Plan Site A,
a guideline for retrofitting.
Chair Saxby pointed out that the city's website had information on retrofitting. Information
can be found at
https://www.alamedaca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building-and-Transportation/Building-
Division/Seismic-Retrofit
Chair Saxby opened Public Comments.
Chris Buckley asked about an earthquake-caused fire and had concerns if there was a
backup plan if anything happened to Alameda's water supply.
Staff Member Mieler agreed that earthquake-caused fires were a major concern and
another important reason to get homes retrofitted since homes knocked off their
foundation could rupture gas lines. She then discussed Alameda's water tenders and what
they had learned from studies on this type of scenario. Retrofitting homes and installing
gas shut-off meters were important ways to help.
Chair Saxby closed Public Comment and opened board comments and discussion.
HAB Meeting Minutes
November 4, 2021
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-11-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-11-04,4,"Board Member Wit wanted to know if the city should be doing more to help people retrofit
their homes since this was in many ways a public safety concern.
Staff Member Mieler said she thought the city could do more and discussed local grants
available for low-income households. She also discussed the importance of bringing
awareness of this issue to homeowners.
Chair Saxby also believed that public outreach and education would be critical and that
some very active work on behalf of the city was needed to make information available.
Board Member Sanchez also believed that community response would be important too.
Board Member Lau asked about the Alameda Cinema and if at been retrofitted. He also
asked about general public facilities.
Staff Member Mieler said it was not since there were no requirements to retrofit it. She
then discussed what public facilities had been retrofitted.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Saxby asked the staff about an update for the Preservation Ordinance.
Henry Dong, Planner III, gave an update on the status. The staff's attention had mainly
been focused on the Housing Element and Zoning changes. The staff was also hoping to
introduce the Mills Act to Alameda.
Board Member Wit also wanted updates on projects they had reviewed.
Staff Member Dong agreed that was something they could do at a future meeting.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Dong said that at the December meeting they would go over the Housing
Element.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chris Buckley discussed the Historic Study List and that it would be good to digitize
those forms to make them more easily available to the public.
HAB Meeting Minutes
November 4, 2021
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-11-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-11-04,5,"11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 8:15 pm.
HAB Meeting Minutes
November 4, 2021
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-11-04.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-12-02,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2021
1. CONVENE
Chair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Historical
Advisory Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
None
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
None
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2021-1531
PLN21-0468/PLN21-0469 - Certificates of Approval - 2263 Santa Clara Avenue/950
West Mall Square - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing to consider Certificate of
Approval applications to allow the conversion of lawn to drought-tolerant landscaping at
the grounds of City Hall and City Hall West. Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code
Section 13-21.5 a Certificate of Approval by the Historical Advisory Board is required for
alterations to Historic Monuments including trees and plantings. This project is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15304(b) - Minor Alterations to Land, which consists of new gardening or
landscaping, including the replacement of existing landscaping with water-efficient
landscaping
Erin Smith, Director of Public Works, introduced this item. She also introduced Todd
Ainsworth, Senior Associate with Gates & Associates, who gave a presentation. The
staff report and attachments can be found at
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-12-02,2,"https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5257047&GUID=CDE2C8D2-
FE6F-4C1A-B097-E61E8B0664B5&FullText=1.
Allen Tai, City Planner, explained the board's role in approving this item.
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Chair Saxby asked if there was any historic information regarding the character-defining
features of the landscape for City Hall. He knew there was such information for City Hall
West.
Staff Member Tai said unfortunately not and discussed the history of City Hall.
Chair Saxby wanted to know how this new landscaping would conform to the well-
manicured character-defining feature described in the report.
Staff Member Tai explained the Cultural Landscape Report and how staff interpreted it.
He also discussed other landscaping in Alameda.
Mr. Ainsworth also discussed what ""well-manicured"" meant and the thought process
behind plant choices.
Board Member Norman Sanchez asked what thought was behind the pathways. He
wanted to see the formality to be maintained.
Mr. Ainsworth answered how they could accentuate the existing paths so they could be
defined in a more traditional manner. He also discussed other ways to bring in a more
geometric and linear look.
Director Smith added that none of the hardscapes at either site would be changing, so
pathways would remain in their existing form.
Board Member Alvin Lau asked about using historical benches and lighting.
Director Smith said this project would not be dealing with lighting. For benches, they had
only thought that they should have seating and not about the overall decor.
Mr. Ainsworth said that the next phase would address historically accurate seating.
Vice-Chair Lynn Jones asked about upkeep.
Director Smith said since Public Works would be maintaining everything they would be
very familiar with what needed to be done.
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-12-02,3,"Mr. Ainsworth said they would provide a Maintenance Manual.
Board Member Jen Wit asked about the durability of the plants. City Hall is a place for
gatherings such as protests and people might walk or stand on plants and grass.
Mr. Ainsworth discussed options he had thought about.
Chair Saxby opened public comment.
Betsy Mathison discussed different ways to get the word out about the landscaping
changes and why it was happening. She thought it looked great but noted that when
something similar happened in the past the citizens of Alameda were very concerned.
Chair Saxby closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Chair Saxby liked the idea to modify the design to make more room for
standing/gathering and having places for people to sit was important. He was more
concerned for City Hall West due to the historical relevance of the area. He wanted to
see a sense of belonging with the surrounding buildings.
Vice-Chair Jones was happy that there would be documentation to help with
maintenance and upkeep. City Hall East and West represent Alameda and this would be
a legacy to leave for the future.
Board Member Sanchez thought this was a wonderful project and looked forward to the
new tone and direction that City Hall West would receive. He also believed that
conserving water was a great aim.
Board Member Wit asked about the surrounding areas at City Hall West.
Director Smith and Staff Member Tai discussed what areas were owned by the city and
what development plans had been discussed.
Board Member Lau also was excited to see the final project.
Staff Member Tai explained the next steps in the design process and how the board
would like to stay involved. Director Smith explained the Public Works's timeline.
There was a discussion on what was needed for City Hall and how to address the area
around City Hall West.
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-12-02,4,"Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the landscaping for City Hall to be
converted to drought-tolerant per the design as was presented tonight with the
amendments to make more standing room around the entry plaza, consider
additional sitting in the landscape, and for it to be maintained properly. Board
Member Lau seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
*For City Hall West the board wanted to see a development of the design to get a better
idea of how the design would work with this very important historic site.
7-B 2021-1532
PLN21-0527 - Certificate of Approval - Citywide - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public
hearing to consider a Certificate of Approval to allow rehabilitation and retrofit of historic
streetlights throughout the City. This project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 - Historic Resource
Restoration/Rehabilitation, which applies to maintenance, repair, rehabilitation,
restoration, or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards.
Director Smith introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5257048&GUID=9E7A137F
4FF4-4DED-A143-A4AD39CD054C&FullText=1.
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Sanchez asked about design choices to achieve the historic look.
Director Smith said they had created this design specifically for that purpose, there was
no off-the-shelf option that worked.
Vice-Chair Jones asked about the color choice to mimic the historical green color.
Director Smith discussed what information had been available from AMP (Alameda
Munciple Power).
Staff Member Tai discussed the historical color choices.
Board Member Lau asked if they would ever paint them to color match.
Director Smith explained that the streetlights were powder coated and would never be
painted.
Chair Saxby opened public comment.
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-12-02,5,"There were no public speakers.
Chair Saxby closed public comment and opened board discussion and comment.
Vice-Chair Jones was excited to see the streetlights changed to be more energy-efficient
and appreciated the historical appearance and charm of these streetlights. She did wish
the wires attached to the poles were not there.
Board Member Lau wanted to see consistency among the lights especially since the new
ones would be LED lights.
Director Smith discussed the plan for replacing the older lights bulbs.
Chair Saxby wanted to know if any of the historic streetlights being replaced could be
preserved and adapted.
Director Smith explained how the LED light project had worked and how many of the lights
were beyond repair. They would only be replacing the ones that required replacement.
Chair Saxby made a motion to approve this resolution with the additional condition
that there be documentation of the damage to the streetlights showing that they
were damaged beyond repair and there needed to be every attempt to preserve the
existing streetlights. Vice-Chair Jones seconded the motion, a vote was taken, and
the motion passed 5-0.
7-C 2021-1533
A Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update to
accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Period 2023-2031
in Compliance with State Law.
Staff Member Tai introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5257049&GUID=85489B65
 AF6-4293-B394-9ED1EF4440AC&FullText=1.
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Wit wanted to know more about how the housing allocation numbers were
determined.
Staff Member Tai explained the RHNA (Reginal Housing Needs Allocation) Methodology
and models that ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) used.
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-12-02,6,"Board Member Lau wanted to know if the RHNA also had requirements on the size of the
housing or how many rooms and bedrooms a home had.
Staff Member Tai answered that the Housing Element would not get that specific but they
would look at the analysis and see what type of housing was the most needed. He agreed
that they would need to create housing for all types of needs.
Board Member Sanchez asked about zoning changes and what was allowed under the
R1 changes and SB-9.
Staff Member Tai explained the R1 zoning changes under SB-9 and what California State
Law would allow.
Board Member Sanchez asked other technical questions pertaining to lot size under SB-
9. He also wanted to know more about how SB-9 would impact how the board would make
rulings.
Staff Member Tai explained SB-9 in detail and gave different examples of what was
allowed. He discussed how SB-9 would affect neighborhood character, how everything
would come down to design, and when designs would need to come before the historical
board.
Chair Saxby asked if SB-9 established a minimum lot coverage.
Staff Member Tai believed that SB-9 would defer to local jurisdictions to set lot coverage
standards. He also discussed what was already allowed under the ADU (Accessory
Dwelling Unit) Law. He added the importance of setting design standards that would help
with the increase in additional units in neighborhoods.
Henry Dong, Planner III, also gave information on unit size and setbacks.
Board Member Lau wanted to know if there was a limit to the ADUs someone could have.
Staff Member Tai answered that staff was putting together a draft that would have four at
the maximum. That would be four including ADUs, Jr. ADUs, or units under SB-9.
Chair Saxby opened public comment.
Betsy Mathieson summarized comments from her November 16, 2021 letter to the City
Council that were pertinent to historic buildings. She said she believed that all of the
neighborhoods in Alameda needed to accommodate new neighbors, including the ones
built in compliance with Article 26. She agreed with a comment made by Planning Board
Member Alan Teague that the ""reuse of existing buildings is how we would move forward.""
She thought that approach would be how the City avoids displacing low income residents,
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-12-02,7,"increasing our carbon footprint and converting alameda to any town USA. She stated that
without carefully crafted specifications, upzoning will provide an incentive for demolition,
and found it concerning that the purpose of the annual review of the Design Review
Ordinance is to confirm the standards do not constrain the development of housing. She
felt developers will use that to argue that existing buildings themselves constrain the
development of housing. And felt this logic will result in displacement of low income
residents and may also result in the loss of the very buildings shown in the ""Spotlights.'
She points out that the Housing Element gives what amounts to density bonuses for the
rehabilitation and adaptation of existing buildings with no increase in floor area. She then
suggests that ""no increase in floor area"" be changed to say ""no change to the building
envelope.' She concludes this change will allow new finished floor area in basements and
attics to accommodate more dwelling units in addition to the existing residents. She said
she looks forward to following the progress of the Housing Element.
Chris Buckley, AAPS, discussed a letter the society had sent. AAPS was very concerned
about the massive proposed upzoning, the society believed this was overkill. He discussed
what these changes meant for each zoning and suggested different strategies for
upzoning.
Chair Saxby closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Board Member Sanchez wanted to know about the increase and demand for ADUs.
Staff Member Tai believed it was still too early to establish a trend and then discussed
how they had established the average based on the last 4 years. He did note that 2021
had the most ADU applications.
Board Member Sanchez discussed his concerns about relying on ADUs, such as
homeowners buildings ADUs with no intention of renting them out. He wanted to know
how many of the completed AUDs were actually being used as rental properties.
Chair Saxby asked if that was something the state would want to be verified.
Staff Member Tai discussed that the HCD (Housing and Community Development)
considered the ADU a housing opportunity even if it wasn't rented to anyone outside of
the family.
Board Member Lau asked about the Navy Cap at Alameda Point and suggested different
ways the city or potential developers could work around it.
Chair Saxby agreed with Mr. Buckley about the blanket upzoning of Alameda and he also
agreed with Ms. Mathieson about looking to the existing housing stock as a method of
solving the housing crisis. He also agreed with the proposed mixed-use for Park and
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
7",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2021-12-02,8,"Webster Street. He felt that there needed to be more conversation in the Housing Element
about protecting the historic older neighborhoods.
Board Member Sanchez asked if student housing counted toward the RHNA. He also
asked about focusing housing on vacant properties and wanted an idea of the open
parcels in the R zone.
Staff Member Tai said it was a need but those would be addressed on a case by case
basis. He then discussed what open parcels had potential development.
Board Member Sanchez felt that most residential neighborhoods had the potential for
more housing and mixed-use spaces. He discussed the importance of finding balance for
the R1 neighborhoods.
Board Member Lau discussed the potential of Lincoln Ave and if the zoning would change.
Staff Member Tai discussed what had been discussed.
Board Member Witt asked about the Golf Course.
Staff Member Tai clarified that it was owned by the city and was designated as Public
Open Space.
Chair Saxby took a moment to clarify what the primary purpose of the Mills Act was for
and thought the section about it needed to be reworded or struck entirely.
Staff Member Tai said that portion had been flagged. He then discussed all the notes he
had received and thanked the board for their input.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 9:38 pm.
HAB Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2021
8",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2022-02-03,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2022
1. CONVENE
Chair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Historical
Advisory Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2022-1714
Historical Advisory Board Draft Meeting Minutes, November 4, 2021
Board Member Norman Sanchez clarified Chair Saxby's comment should have been
""undergrounding"".
Board Member Jen Wit made a motion to approve the minutes with this correction
and Board Member Sanchez seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of
hands and the motion passed 5-0.
3-B 2022-1715
Historical Advisory Board Draft Meeting Minutes - December 2, 2021
Chair Saxby felt that the Public Comment made by Betsy Mathieson for the 7-C Agenda
item was oversimplified and had not accurately captured her thoughts. He wanted her
comment clarified and expanded on.
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the minutes with this
correction and Board Member Wit seconded the motions. A vote was taken by a
raise of hands and the motion passed 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
None
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2022
Page 1 of 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2022-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2022-02-03,2,"None
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2022-1713
PLN21-0497 - 2986 Northwood Drive - Certificate of Approval - Applicant: Lauren
Herrera. Public hearing to consider a Certificate of Approval application to allow the
demolition of an accessory structure built prior to 1942 located in the rear yard of a
property that is on the City's Historical Building Study List with an ""S"" designation. This
project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(I)(4) - Demolition and Removal of Individual Small
Structures.
David Sablan, Planner II, introduced this item and gave a brief presentation. The staff
report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5397043&GUID=4A9848CD-
B5D2-4631-BFA4-48259EA86847&FullText=
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Chair Saxby wanted clarification on the noted flooding at the accessory structure.
Lauren Herrera, the applicant, discussed the problems she had been experiencing at the
location.
Board Member Sanchez asked what options a future homeowner would have if they
wanted to build an accessory structure.
Staff Member Sablan discussed the options for a future homeowner, a new accessory
structure would be possible.
Vice-Chair Lynn Jones wanted to know how the structure had been modified over the
years and whether the windows were original.
Ms. Herrera clarified that the windows, doors, and siding were not original. It had been
modified over the years and the interior had been gutted due to mold.
Board Member Sanchez asked about the history of the structure and wanted to know if
the structure originally had a gambrel roof.
Staff Member Sablan answered the City only had a 1979 photo.
Ms. Herrera discussed the permit history of the building.
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2022
Page 2 of 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2022-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2022-02-03,3,"Henry Dong, Planner III, also discussed the records the City had on file, including a DPR-
523 form that documented the historical character of the primary house. The accessory
structure was not described as one of the character-defining features of the property.
Chair Saxby opened public comment.
There were no public speakers.
Chair Saxby closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Chair Saxby believed that accessory structures can add some integrity to a site but in this
case, it appeared to be altered too many times from its original design. He was leaning
toward approval.
Board Member Sanchez agreed especially since it was not mentioned in the original
property survey documentation. Also, he noted that the structure was not a street-facing
structure or had any visual impact on the character of the home or the neighborhood. He
was also leaning toward approval.
Vice-Chair Jones noted that the building is one of the more visually appealing accessory
structures that had come before the board and that it had a lot of charm. She discussed
the criteria they looked at when discussing the demolition of accessory structures.
However, she was also leaning toward allowing the demolition due to the issues
mentioned.
Board Member Alvin Lau wanted to know more about the plans for the space after the
demolition.
Ms. Herrera said there were no plans for a new additional structure. They would be adding
some landscaping and a fence.
Sarah Rodebaugh, Interior Designer of Henry & Mae, representing the applicant,
discussed how the owners had tried to save the structure.
Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the demolition of the accessory structure
and Vice-Chair Jones seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands
and the motion passed 5-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Saxby discussed an ""eyesore"", an incredible historic property at 1617 Central Ave.
It was abandoned and some work had started on it but had stopped. He wanted to know
what the City could do to help this historic property.
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2022
Page 3 of 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2022-02-03.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2022-02-03,4,"Staff Member Sablan was aware of the property, and noted that the property has a pending
Code Enforcement case. He discussed its history and what could be the next steps. They
would need to involve the City Attorney's Office and the Building Official.
Board Member Witt discussed a similar property near Webster.
There was a discussion that these large empty homes could accommodate many units
that could help with housing needs.
Vice-Chair Jones noted that the City of Alameda has started a process to rename parks.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Sablan gave a status update on the CLG (Certified Local Government)
Report.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 7:38 pm.
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2022
Page 4 of 4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2022-02-03.pdf