{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-10-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD\nREGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2005\nCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nChair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. Secretary Eliason called the roll.\nMEMBERS PRESENT:\nChair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members Lynch &\nTilos.\nMEMBERS ABSENT:\nNone.\nSTAFF PRESENT: Secretary Eliason, Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, Emily\nPudell, Planner II, Elizabeth Johnson, DSD, Debbie Gremminger, Recording Secretary.\nMINUTES:\nM/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 4, 2005. 3-0-1.\nAyes: 3;\nNoes:\n0;\nAbstain:\n1 (Tilos);\nMotion carries.\nM/S (Tilos,Lynch) to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 1, 2005.\n3-0-1.\nAyes: 3;\nNoes:\n0;\nAbsent:\n1 (Anderson);\nMotion carries.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:\nNone.\nACTION ITEMS\n1.\nAppointment of a Historical Advisory Board member to the Transportation\nSubcommittee. (Continued from the 9-1-05 mtg.)\nThis item will be continued to the November 3, 2005 meeting when a full Board is present.\n2.\nCA05-0027 - Certificate of Approval - 2255 Clinton Avenue -Applicant: Dan Thebeau\n-\nThe applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent (30%) of\nthe historic structure, located at the above address, for the purposes of converting the existing tri-\nplex to a single-family dwelling. The site is located at 2255 Clinton Ave. within the R-4,\nNeighborhood Residential Zoning District.\nEmily Pudell presented staff report. She informed the Board that the applicant received Design\nReview approval on August 17, 2005 and building permits have been issued. During the\nMinutes of October 6, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n1", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-10-06", "page": 2, "text": "construction process, dry-rot was discovered in the front bay window. The siding and trim\nboards were removed and set aside. Because the repair of the bay window was not specifically\nidentified in the Design Review application or building permits, and because the project was\napproaching the 30% threshold for demolition, staff informed the applicant he must stop-work\nand apply for a Certificate of Approval. The applicant has also identified that the front staircase\nwould also be repaired \"in-kind\".\nStaff recommends the Board approve the Certificate of Approval CA05-0027, for the partial\ndemolition of an existing dwelling at 2255 Clinton Ave with conditions as stated in draft\nResolution.\nChair Anderson opened the public hearing.\nNorman Sanchez, architect, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He informed the Board that the\ngoal is to convert the existing triplex to a single-family residence while preserving the\narchitecture character of the house.\nThere were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the Public hearing and opened the\nfloor to Board discussion.\nBoard Member Lynch is in favor of approving the project, but has concerns with the replacement\nof front stairs.\nChair Anderson is also in favor of approving the project, with the added condition that the posts\nand handrails be replaced with materials that are reminiscent of the building's original\narchitecture.\nIn response to Board Member Tilos question if the Housing Authority has any objections to\nchanging a triplex to a single family dwelling, Ms. Eliason stated that the Housing Authority\ndoes not have jurisdiction over non-public housing properties and that the triplex was not legal.\nM/S (Tilos, Lynch) to approve Certificate of Approval CA05-0027 for the partial demolition of\nan existing dwelling at 2255 Clinton Avenue with conditions as stated in the draft Resolution,\nwith the added condition that the front staircase, including the handrails, balusters, and newel\nposts, shall be replaced with materials that are reminiscent of the building's original architecture\nand shall be similar in appearance to those found on the landing portion of the front staircase.\nThe design of the staircase shall be approved by Planning Division staff. 4-0-0.\nAyes:\n4;\nNoes:\n0;\nAbsent:\n0.\nMotion carries.\nREPORTS:\n3.\nUpdate on the NAS Alameda Historic District - Presentation and Discussion of the\nPreliminary Development Concept Process for Alameda Point.\nMinutes of October 6, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n2", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-10-06", "page": 3, "text": "Elizabeth Johnson, Development Services, presented staff report. She informed the Board of the\ntwo public processes currently underway that involve historic properties at Alameda Point. First\nis the development of the City's Preliminary Development Concept (PDC), which informs the\npublic of potential trade-offs between historic preservation and viable redevelopment of the\nformer Naval Air Station. The second process is the re-initiation of consultation under Section\n106 of the National Historic Preservation Act between the Navy, the Advisory Council for\nHistoric Preservation, and the State Historic Preservation Officer. There have been a total of six\ncommunity meetings to gain input from residents of Alameda. Historic preservation was\nidentified as a critical issue for discussion at each meeting.\nOne of the major items the Navy is responsible for under the MOA is the nomination of the NAS\nHistoric District to the National Register. The Navy is currently contracting a qualified\nconsultant to complete this task. The Navy anticipates that preparing the nomination and\nsubmitting it through the Secretary of the Interior's process will take up to two years. The HAB\nwill then have a chance to review the Navy's nomination. After reviewing the information and\nstudies conducted by the Navy, and National Register's nomination, the Board may consider\nwhether any additional structures that have not been determined to be eligible for the National\nRegister, are eligible for listing on the City of Alameda Historic Building Study List or Historic\nMonument List.\nChair Anderson opened the public hearing.\nElizabeth Krase, AAPS, expressed her concern with waiting two years. She stated that AAPS has\nalready met and discussed this issue with the Navy and they have no objections to the City listing\nany structures on the Study List prior to their National Register nomination.\nBirgitt Evans, AAPS, is also not in favor of waiting to list the structures. She would like to\nreiterate that AAPS has already done research on these buildings and can assist staff on further\nresearch if necessary. She would like to see this item on a future agenda as an action item.\nThere was no more speaker slips submitted. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and\nopened the floor to Board discussion.\nBoard Member Lynch would prefer not to wait for the Navy. She stated that AAPS has already\ndone extensive research on the buildings and would like to proceed with listing the properties\nthey recommended in their letter submitted to the Board.\nMs. Johnson informed the Board that the reason that Staff is recommending waiting for the\nNavy's nomination is because the Navy is already funding the cost for the consultant. Mr.\nThomas added that there is no need to rush to list any buildings, because there will not be any\ndemolition until the CEQA process is completed.\nMinutes of October 6, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n3", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-10-06", "page": 4, "text": "Ms. Eliason stated that currently there aren't any individual buildings located at Alameda Point\nlisted on our study list. Alameda Point is designated as a Historic District with contributing\nstructures.\nVice-Chair Miller approves of Staff's recommendations.\nBoard Member Tilos stated that since the City does not own the property yet, it would be a waste\nof time to list any structures.\nChair Anderson recommended that the Board accept the staff recommendations, but with the\nrevision that we not wait to add the structures the Board feels are eligible for listing on the City's\nHistorical Building Study List. She would like to enlist the services of AAPS to help staff with\nthe research needed.\nMs. Eliason stated that Staff can provide Board updates as they move forward, but due to current\nwork loads in the Planning and Building Department, staff cannot commit to a date certain.\nM/S (Lynch, Anderson) to accept staff's first two recommendations and amend the third by\nproceeding with listing eligible buildings to the City Historical Building Study List. (3-1-0).\nAyes:\n3;\nNoes:\n1 (Miller);\nAbsent:\n0;\nMotion carries.\n4.\nWorkshop on possible changes to the Historical Preservation Ordinance.\nMs. Eliason presented staff report. In 2002, the Historical Advisory Board held several\nworkshops and public hearings regarding revisions to the Historical Preservation Ordinance,\nwhich primarily focused on the Interim Review Section of the Ordinance. The HAB\nrecommended that any building built prior to 1942 must first obtain a Certificate of Approval\nfrom the HAB prior to demolishing more than 30% of the structure. The City Council adopted\nthe recommended revisions made by the HAB in 2003.\nSince that time, implementation of the Ordinance has resulted in identifying a few areas of\nconcern, particularly relating to penalties and enforcement sections. Staff would like direction\nfrom the Board on several sections of the Ordinance.\nFirst area of concern is the definition of demolition. Currently the Ordinance reads: \"Demolition\nshall mean the removal within a five (5) year period of more than thirty (30%) percent of the\nvalue of any designated structure or building, as determined by the Building Official.\" The\nproblem with this definition is that valuation has nothing to do with saving the character-defining\nelements of a structure.\nIn most recent cases, once a building permit has been issued and demolition begins, the\ncontractor has run into wood rot or other damage that must be removed. It is the natural\ninclination to simply remove that wood without consideration of the historical implications.\nA\nMinutes of October 6, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n4", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-10-06", "page": 5, "text": "demolition that was first assessed at less than 30% of value may unintentionally grow into a\nlarger demolition without knowledge that additional approvals are required.\nThere are also areas of concern in the Penalties section of the Ordinance. In the recent months\nthere have been several unauthorized demolitions that have come before this Board. Currently\nthe Ordinance only provides one remedy for each type of unauthorized demolitions. For\nexample, pre-1942 unauthorized demolitions are only a violation of the Alameda Municipal\nCode, which would result in the issuance of an administrative citation or fine. This inflexibility\nregarding penalties provides no administrative relief nor does it allow for extenuating\ncircumstances regarding individual situations. In some cases, the penalty may be too harsh and\nin other cases it may not be enough.\nOther areas of concern are the section on Historic signs and the penalty, or lack there of, for\nunauthorized removal of protected Oak trees.\nStaff is requesting the Board review the options provided by in the staff report and submit their\ncomments and recommendations. Staff will then create a revised ordinance and seek HAB\nrecommendations to the City Council for approval around the first of the year.\nChair Anderson opened the public hearing.\nBirgitt Evans, AAPS, spoke in favor of revising the Ordinance. She stated the current Ordinance\nlimits the Board's ability to impose conditions of approval on Certificates of Approval. Also the\npenalties are too limited. She agrees with Board Member Miller statement at the previous\nhearing regarding 616 Pacific Ave. \"Why do we have a moratorium, if it is not imposed.\" She\nagrees with AAPS's recommendations regarding different penalty options\nNancy Hird, AAPS, is concerned with the 5 year stay of building permits. What would happen if\nthe property changes ownership within those five years?\nDick Rutter, AAPS, stated his concerns that once dry rot is discovered, the initial scope of work\ncan change. Staff should provide better documentation to contractors and home owners\nregarding what should be done on pre-1942 houses that are on the border line of demolishing\nmore that 30%. The current definition of 30% of value does not work.\nMs. Eliason informed the Board that all pre-1942 submittals are now being stamped in big red\nletters informing the applicant of the Certificate of Approval process and the 30% demolition\nrule.\nThere were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened the\nfloor to Board discussion\nBoard Member Lynch agrees that there should be more options for imposing penalties.\nMinutes of October 6, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n5", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-10-06", "page": 6, "text": "Chair Anderson recommended that the HAB be informed of all permits issued on pre-1942\nbuildings, not just the demolitions. Too many applications are coming before this Board \"after-\nthe-fact\". She stated that there is a disconnect between the design review process and the\nCertificate of Approval process.\nVice-Chair Miller stated that previously they were informed by the City Attorney's office that\ndesign was not the purview of the HAB.\nBoard Member Lynch stated that in the AMC it states that they are able to look at proposed\ndesign of new buildings as well as historic ones, to determine whether the proposed new design\nis compatible with the surrounding areas. She would also like to see a better definition of\ndemolition.\nIn response to Board Member Tilos question regarding who determines if demolition is\nexceeding 30%, Ms. Eliason responded that the Building Official makes the determination.\nChair Anderson would like to be informed of all application submittals, prior to any permits\nissued on pre-1942 structures, so that the HAB may look at the scope of work, such as window\nreplacements. The HAB needs to be in the loop early on. She would like staff to provide the\nBoard a list on a regular basis of all project submittals.\nStaff has noted the Boards recommendations.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)\nStaff has provided the Board with a copy of Resolution HAB-05-27. Staff also provided a copy\nof an Off-Agenda report from the City Manager regarding a Community Needs Survey for their\ninformation.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard Member Lynch would like certain districts of Alameda designated as Historic Districts\nbeginning with LeonardaVille, followed by Park Ave.Station, Bay Station, and Burbank-Portola\nStation Staff noted her request.\nBoard Member Miller asked Staff what would have happened to the approved Design Review\npermit if the City Council denied the appeal of 616 Pacific Ave. Ms. Eliason stated that the\napplicant would of had to submit a landscape plan to the Planning & Building Director. After\nthe five year stay was over, a new Design Review application would need to be submitted.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nThe Mayor has not nominated anyone to fill the vacant seat on this Board.\nMinutes of October 6, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n6", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-10-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-10-06", "page": 7, "text": "ADJOURNMENT:\nM/S (Lynch, Tilos) to adjourn meeting at 8:35 pm.\nRespectfully Submitted by:\nCynthia Eliason,\nSecretary, Historical Advisory Board\n::\\PLANNING\\HAB\\AGENMIN\\Agemin.05\\8-4-05 HAB minutes.doc\nMinutes of October 6, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n7", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-10-06.pdf"}