{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-06-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD\nREGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2007\nCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nChair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.\n1.\nRoll Call:\nPresent: Chair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members\nIverson, lrons and Lynch.\nAlso present were: Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner, Dennis Brighton, Planner III,\nSimone Wolter, Planner I, Laura Ajello, Planner I.\n2.\nMINUTES:\nBoard Member Lynch noted that in the middle of page 2, she had asked if staff was\nworking with the Residential Design guidelines, rather than the guidelines from AAPS.\nShe also requested the citation from the City Attorney's opinion with respect to\ndemolitions being included in the purview, but not the design of a new structure.\nChair Anderson noted that it was Alameda Architectural Society rather than\n\"Architecture\" in paragraph 1 of page 2.\nMotion (Miller)/Second (Lynch) to accept minutes of May 3, 2007, as amended.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:\nMs. Eliason advised that a revised agenda had been provided in order to add the report\nregarding the review and comment on the Veterans' Building under \"Reports.\"\n4.\nSPECIAL REPORT:\nNone.\n5.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n6.\nACTION ITEMS:\nA.\nCertificate of Approval CA06-0031 - Sally Harmon - 433 Taylor\nAvenue. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval for a\ncomplete (100%) demolition of a residential structure that was built prior\nto1942 but is not on the Historical Building Study List. The site is located\nat 433 Taylor Avenue within an R-3, Garden Residential Zoning District\n(DB).\nMinutes of June 7, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 1", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-06-07", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Dennis Brighton presented the request for the Certificate of Approval for demolition.\nHe noted at the last meeting that the Board chose to deny the Certificate of Approval,\nbut did not provide the appropriate findings. The HAB needed to make any one of the\nthree findings cited in the staff report to support the denial.\nMs. Eliason advised that the public hearing for this item has already been held, and that\nstaff wished to properly prepare the Resolution of Denial.\nChair Anderson noted that this house had lost quite a few of its historical elements, but\nit was surrounded by homes that were eclectic in nature, and which provided the\nidentifying fabric of the neighborhood. She denied the Certificate of Approval because\nshe believed that surrounding homes had historical elements, and that there was\npotential for this house to have it as well. She did not believe that the house should be\ndemolished so it may be replaced it with a very new building that would not blend with\nthe rest of the neighborhood.\nMr. Brighton noted that the findings provided by staff were consistent with previous\nfindings. He recommended that the findings should be consistent. He suggested that\nthe Board examine the definition in Section 13-21.2 and determine whether there was\nany other wording that could be utilized to make one of the three findings.\nBoard Member Lynch inquired whether this house could be added to the Study List. Ms.\nEliason replied that staff requested the findings for the denial of the Certificate of\nApproval; if the Board wished to add it to the Study List, that would be a separate\naction, and that the findings must still be made to provide justification in anticipation of\nan appeal.\nVice Chair Miller confirmed his belief that this house embodied distinguishing\ncharacteristics of an architectural type specimen, although some of the detail had been\nremoved.\nBoard Member Lynch requested a photo of the subject house.\nBoard Member Iverson agreed with the comments of the other Board members, and\nhoped that part of the house that faced the street and most enhanced the neighborhood\ncould be saved, with the potential to make an addition as allowed by the City by a\nprofessional.\nMs. Eliason noted that this item was originally brought as a more than 30% demolition,\nand that there was some confusion at the original meeting with respect to the amount of\ndemolition. The item was readvertised as a complete (100%) demolition, which was\nsubsequently denied by the Board.\nMinutes of June 7, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 2", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-06-07", "page": 3, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Board Member lrons whether the Board should consider\nthe proposed replacement in making its determination, Ms. Eliason confirmed that was\nnot part of the process, and that the Design Review had not yet been approved. Staff\nwas still working with the applicant on the design, and added that the Board had seen\nthe working drawings.\nChair Anderson believed that the existing property contributed to a cultural or historical\nfabric of the neighborhood, and that it could be brought up to a significant level of\ncontribution to the neighborhood if the owners were to remodel or improve the exterior.\nIt was the consensus of the four previously voting Board members that even though this\nresidence does not show identifying marks, it should be saved as completing the fabric\nof the neighborhood. It is surrounded by homes that are eclectic by nature, and are\nhistoric. This house has potential to embody the characteristics of a historic home, and\ncould be remodeled and returned to its original Colonial Revival style.\nAyes: 4; Noes: ; Abstain: 1 (Irons)\nB.\nCertificate of Approval CA07-0006 - Lourdes and Thomas Hartrick -\n131 Maitland Drive. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval\nto demolish more than thirty percent (30%) of a residential structure that\nwas built prior to 1942 but is not on the Historic Building Study List. The\nsite is located at 131 Maitland Drive within an R-1, One-Family Zoning\nDistrict. (SW)\nMs. Simone Wolter summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the\nCertificate of Demolition for this property.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member Iverson where the date of 1924 came from,\nMs. Wolter replied that staff recorded the building permit, which stated it was built in\n1924, although that may be a typo. Board Member Iverson noted that she had never\nheard of a ranch-style house that early.\nMs. Eliason advised that the Design Review for the additions to the residence had\nalready been approved.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMinutes of June 7, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 3", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-06-07", "page": 4, "text": "Chair Anderson noted that she would abstain from voting on this item because she felt\nthe submittal was not complete. She believed the plans indicated what was existing,\nrather than what was approved for being added to the house.\nMs. Wolter advised that the architectural design for the new building was very much in\nkeeping of the existing building, and that it was slightly larger.\nChair Anderson noted that the Board could not see that information.\nBoard Member Iverson noted that one of the Board's goals was to encourage new\nbuilding that is harmonious with its surroundings, and that they could not evaluate those\ncriteria if they could not see the new design.\nBoard Member Lynch agreed with the previous comments, but believed the request\nseemed reasonable. She was concerned that the Board did not have information about\nthe new design.\nMs. Wolter offered to show the plans to the Board. Chair Anderson noted that she\nwanted to review the plans beforehand.\nBoard Member Lynch agreed with the Chair that more time was needed to evaluate the\nplans. She inquired whether it would be appropriate to continue this item.\nMs. Eliason understood the Board's concerns, but noted that continuing the item\nbecause the findings could not be made would be unfair to the applicants and placed\nthem in an awkward situation. Board Member Iverson believed that it would have been\nappropriate to include the plans in the Board packet.\nChair Anderson entertained a motion to approve the Certificate of Approval for this\nproject.\nBoard Member lrons moved to approve the Certificate of Approval for 131 Maitland\nDrive.\nBoard Member Miller seconded the motion.\nAyes: 3; Noes: 1 (Lynch); Abstain: 1 (Anderson). Motion carries to approve.\nC.\nCertificate of Approval CA07-0007 - William and Rebecca Paden -\n1239 Hawthorne Street. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of\nApproval for Demolition of more than 30 percent of a single-family\nresidence built in 1939. Demotion consists of the removal of a single-story\ngarden room that was added to the original structure in the 1950s,\nreplacement of existing windows throughout the building, and replacement\nof the roof. The garden room will be replaced with a two-story addition.\nMinutes of June 7, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 4", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-06-07", "page": 5, "text": "Building materials will be consistent with original elements of the structure.\nThis property is not listed on the Historic Building Study List. The site is\nlocated within an R-1, One-Family Zoning District. (LA)\nMs. Laura Ajello summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this\nproject.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speaker slips.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member Lynch regarding the definition of a\n\"ramada,\" Mr. Italo Calpestri, project architect, replied that it was a kind of covered\nporch. He noted that the second story provided an overhang to the porch. He detailed\nthe background of this application, and noted that they suspected there was dry rot by\nthe south wall near the entry. At that point, Mr. McFann suggested sending this\napplication to the HAB.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nChair Anderson entertained a motion to approve the Certificate of Approval for 1239\nHawthorne Street.\nBoard Member Iverson seconded the motion.\nAyes: 5; Noes: 0; Abstain: 0. Motion carries to approve.\n7.\nREPORTS:\nHistoric Preservation Commission Review and Comment on the\nNomination of Alameda Veterans' Memorial Building to the National\nRegister of Historic Places.\nMs. Eliason provided the staff report, and noted that the Office of Historic Preservation\nhas requested a second comment on this nomination. She noted that the Letter of\nSupport could be reissued, or a new letter could be provided.\nChair Anderson complimented staff on a thorough and informative report. Ms. Eliason\nnoted that Ms. Jean Sweeney prepared the report.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that this was a thrilling building, and wholeheartedly\nsupported the application.\nChair Anderson noted that there was a typo on the form, which read \"be listed\" instead\nof \"by listed.\" Ms. Eliason took note of that correction.\nMinutes of June 7, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 5", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-06-07", "page": 6, "text": "Chair Anderson believed the building was representative of the architectural mixture of\nstyles in Alameda, in the Spanish Colonial Revival vernacular. She added that it was\ndesigned by a renowned Alameda architect. For those two reasons, she highly\nrecommended that it be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places.\nBoard Member Iverson noted that because of the prominence of the military in\nAlameda, this building holds a special status in Alameda for all those who served, and\nthose who benefited.\n8.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n9.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard Member Lynch noted that she had made a booklet addressing the Rug Works\n(also known as the Clamp Swing Building) and distributed them to the Board.\nBoard Member Lynch proposed that the sign on the Alameda Rug Works be added to\nthe Historic Sign Ordinance. She noted that almost two years ago, the two station signs\nwere added. She noted that the sign list had not been updated. Ms. Eliason noted that\nshe would check that.\nChair Anderson inquired about the status of 1343 Fernside Boulevard and mentioned it\nlooked like a stucco house with three round arches at the front porch. She added that it\nhad plywood attached all around the house, and that the top floor had been completely\nremoved. Ms. Eliason advised that she would send out Code Enforcement because that\nhouse had to comply with a very specific design review that was extensively developed.\nShe would request that a Stop Work Order be issued if necessary.\nBoard Member Iverson inquired about the house on Broadway and Santa Clara. Ms.\nEliason noted that was a bungalow where the stucco was removed down to the lathe;\nthe lathe was subsequently removed and that area was sheathed in plywood.\nVice Chair Miller noticed that house in each stage, and had thought it was an extensive\ntermite job; he added there was a similar house with tapered columns on Central\nAvenue that was being rebuilt in kind. Ms. Eliason noted that she would check on that\nhouse.\nChair Anderson noted that in October, staff had brought to the HAB's attention the\nhistorical building ordinance, which was to be reviewed.\nMs. Eliason noted that item was on the Planning and Building Director's desk.\nMinutes of June 7, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 6", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-06-07", "page": 7, "text": "Chair Anderson inquired whether there was a way for the HAB to have more meaningful\nand effective responsibilities, either through ordinance or City Charter. She sometimes\nfelt as though it was a waste of her time to review projects that had already gone\nthrough design review, and that the scope of the HAB's abilities was limited to stating\nwhether a building could be torn down, or which portion of the building could be\ndemolished. She did not feel that the HAB had any power or ruling over how a building\ncould be preserved; she believed that the reason for the existence of the HAB was to\nstate how buildings could be kept intact.\nVice Chair Miller echoed Chair Anderson's comments, and noted that was the reason\nhe joined the Board.\nMs. Eliason noted that she could examine the HAB's charter, and that the City was\nworking under the present ordinance. Staff will continue to examine revisions, most of\nwhich were related to penalty sections and dealing with properties such as 1343\nFernside and similar demolitions. She suggested bringing the concern to City Council,\nespecially in defining where the HAB's authority stopped, and where the Planning\nBoard's authority started. She acknowledged that tensions between the purviews of\nother Boards, such as the Economic Development Commission and the Transportation\nCommission, with the Planning Board in terms of authority. She noted that those\nquestions are appropriately addressed by the community.\nChair Anderson suggested that it may be appropriate to call in the HAB prior to the\nDesign Review Board to review the actual design that would take place in a demolition\nand restoration of a building. She believed that there were several homes in Alameda\nthat should be preserved without having to be historical monuments. She believed that\nin some instances, the Planning Board, Planning staff and City Council, as well as the\nother authorities in Alameda take the recommendations by the Alameda Architectural\nPreservation Society first over the recommendations of the HAB. She added that the\nHAB has been selected by the Council and the Mayor to serve on the Board, and that\nthey were part of the City. She was disturbed to see a private organization to have so\nmuch power, which sometimes undermined the HAB's role.\nVice Chair Miller noted that the pair of buildings on Ninth Street had great potential to be\nbrought back, and that it was appealed to City Council. He noted that he attended that\nCouncil meeting, and that the item was brought back to the HAB. Before that occurred,\nit went to the Planning Board, which he viewed as a misconception by the Council of the\nHAB's purview. He added that many of the HAB's determinations did not go to other\nboards.\nBoard member Lynch noted that as work continued on the theater, she had fielded\nquestions by residents regarding its progress. She inquired whether there was a tour\nMinutes of June 7, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 7", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-06-07", "page": 8, "text": "available for the HAB members. Ms. Eliason replied that private tours could be\narranged, or she could work with Jennifer Ott of Development Services to have a tour\nbefore the next meeting. She noted that staff may need to advertise the tour to comply\nwith the Brown Act. The first choice would be July 5, 2007, and August 2, 2007, would\nbe the second choice.\n10.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Eliason noted that the next meeting would be July 6, 2007.\n11. ADJOURNMENT:\nChair Anderson entertained a motion for adjournment.\nVice Chair Miller moved to adjourn the meeting.\nBoard member Iverson seconded the motion.\nAyes: 5; Noes: 0. Motion carries to adjourn.\nThe meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted by:\nCynthia Eliason\nCynthis\nEhara\nSecretary Historical Advisory Board\nHAB Final Minutes.doc\nMinutes of June 7, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 8", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-06-07.pdf"}