body,date,page,text,path
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