body,date,page,text,path
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