{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-12-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD\nREGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2007\nCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nChair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.\n1.\nMEMBERS PRESENT:\nChair Anderson, Vice-Chair Miller, Board Members\nIverson, Lynch and lrons.\nMEMBERS ABSENT:\nNone.\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nPlanning & Building Director Cathy Woodbury; Secretary\nCynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner; Zach Seal,\nPlanner I; Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager; Sue\nRussell, Development Services; Tony Ebster, Recording\nSecretary.\n2.\nMINUTES:\nBoard Member Lynch requested that staff review the audiotape for consideration of the\nminutes of September at the next meeting. Ms. Eliason noted that the meeting had not\nbeen taped, and because the minutes were produced from her notes, she suggested that\nBoard Member Lynch provide any further detail that she recalled. She noted that the\ncorrected minutes were put into the files when the Certified Local Government (CLG)\nAnnual Report was presented.\nBoard Member Iverson noted that Dick Rutter had made many interesting points about the\nmaterials for street lights and monuments, as well as their life expectancy and care. She\nbelieved that this was very important, and inquired whether Mr. Rutter could discuss those\nmatters again since the meeting had not been taped. Ms. Eliason replied that she had\nrequested that the item be continued to the February 2008 meeting, and suggested that\nMr. Rutter discuss those matters at that time.\nMs. Eliason noted that the issues addressed in February would be considered part of that\nmeeting. She would add further detail about the monuments.\nBoard Member Lynch did not believe the minutes of October 4, 2007, could be considered\nuntil the outstanding issues were resolved. The minutes for October 4, 2007 would be\ncontinued to the February 2008 meeting.\nM/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the minutes of the regular meeting for November 1, 2007\nwith corrections. 5-0-0.\nAyes: 5; Noes: 0; Abstain: 0; Motion carries.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:\nMinutes of December 6, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 1", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-12-06", "page": 2, "text": "None\n4.\nSPECIAL REPORTS:\n4-A.\nIntroductions of New Staff\nPlanning & Building Director Cathy Woodbury introduced new staff member Jon Biggs,\nwho came to Alameda from the City of Pacific Grove. He would staff the HAB meetings in\nthe future, and brought considerable historic experience to the City from his previous post.\nShe added that Ms. Eliason had been working with the Climate Protection Task Force for\nthe past year, and that the plan will be ready to go to City Council; she will move into that\nrealm in the near future. She noted that a new administrative staff member would be\nintroduced at the next meeting.\nMr. Biggs introduced himself and noted that he looked forward to helping the City achieve\nits historic goals.\n4-B. 2007 CLG Annual Report - Presentation of the Certified Local Government (CLG)\nAnnual Report for the reporting period of October 1, 2006, to September 3, 2007. (Code\nEnforcement)\nMs. Eliason presented the staff report, and summarized the contents of the CLG Annual\nReport. She noted that some of the minutes were still in draft form, and would be finalized\nbefore being sent to the State.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that she did not see the pre-1942 non-monument, non-study\nlist buildings listed in Attachment 3 of the report. She noted that the section describing the\ngoals for 2008 read, \"Continuing the development of a plan for adoption for reuse of\nhistoric buildings.\" She did not know the City was involved in that plan. Ms. Eliason replied\nthat was being undertaken by the Navy, assisted by the City with a new Section 106\nconsultation. Because of the timing between the initial plan and the new one, the Navy\nwould like to review it.\nChair Anderson noted that page 6, paragraph 2 of Attachment 3, should be corrected to\nread, \"The City is took-has taken its first steps\nChair Anderson noted that page 6, paragraph 3 of Attachment 3, read, \"The City of\nAlameda has been able to successfully implement its guide to residential design which\nwas adopted by the City Council in February 2005. She requested that if it was adopted\nin 2005, that each member of the Board should have a copy with that date on it. Ms.\nEliason advised that it was on the City's website, and that staff would provide copies to the\nBoard members.\nMinutes of December 6, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 2", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-12-06", "page": 3, "text": "Chair Anderson wished to make a correction on \"Members of the Historical Advisory\nBoard,\" and noted that her information should reflect that she has practiced more than two\nyears as an architect.\nM/S (Anderson, Miller) to accept the report.\nAyes: 5; Noes: 0\nMotion carries.\n5.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n6.\nWORKSHOP:\nNone.\n7.\nACTION ITEMS:\n7-A. Certificate of Approval CA07-0008; Applicant: Yong Liang - 1611 Walnut\nStreet. The applicant requests a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent\n(30%) of a residential structure that is listed as a historical resource on the Historic\nBuilding Study List. The proposed work includes additions to the first and second stories,\nthe replacement of windows and doors, and the replacement of the foundation and\nbasement. The site is located within an R-5, General Residential Zoning District.\nZack Seal, Planner I, presented the staff report to the Board. Staff recommended that the\nreplacement windows be either wood, wood-clad or fiberglass, and that they must meet\nthe City of Alameda Residential Review Guidelines.\nChair Anderson noted that the Proposal Summary indicated that the living space would be\nexpanded by 594 square feet, and that Mr. Seal had quoted figures between 1,500-2,100\nsquare feet. The plan indicated that both units were increasing by a total of 1,156 square\nfeet. She would like to confirm the correct figures. Mr. Seal replied that the numbers were\naccurate, and that the 1,156 square feet was not the net number. He noted that the square\nfootage included all of the floor area as part of the two-story addition; the floor area of the\nexisting first story rear addition would have to be subtracted. The total net gain in floor area\nwould be approximately 650 square feet. He noted that he would confirm that the numbers\nwere accurate.\nBoard Member lrons did not believe the Board should micromanage the paint job, and\nnoted that the front appeared radically different than the idea of somebody burning paint\non the same property. He would like clarification, but was not highly concerned about that\nissue. He noted that the pony wall and the section of the building below the first floor was\nnot very tall, which he did not believe was typical for similar buildings. He preferred a nicer\nMinutes of December 6, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 3", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-12-06", "page": 4, "text": "railing treatment that would be more integrated to the historic feel, but he was not very\nfamiliar with what would have been typical in 1883.\nMr. Seal noted that staff had not seen any plans indicating what the style of the new side\nrails would be, nor have they seen plans for the new sidewalls that would be installed on\neither side of the staircase. He noted that the review of these plans would be part of the\ndesign review that would occur after the certificate of approval is issued, if the application\nis approved.\nMember Lynch wanted to ensure the details of the five-sided bay windows and the\ncollonettes were saved, and noted that the details did not appear on the drawings. Mr.\nSeal replied that the applicant had not proposed the elimination of those details, and noted\nthat a condition of approval could be added directing that the details of the bay windows\nnot be altered in any way.\nThe Board opened the item for public comment.\nRichard Rutter, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), believed that the\nproposed project would upgrade the neighborhood, and would be a good example of\nimprovement. He agreed with staff's report, and believed the proper handling of the doors\nand transoms could make this building a jewel box. He submitted two photos of a East\nLake Stick building on Waller Street in San Francisco, designed by John Gash, a prolific\nVictorian architect. He noted that the treatment of the double doors would be of interest\nwith respect to this project.\nElizabeth Krase, AAPS, requested clarification about the windows, and noted that page 2\nof the staff report stated, \"The removal of the existing wood windows, and replacement with\nIWC vinyl windows, could affect the integrity of the structure.\" Also, page 4, Item 5, read,\n\"New/replacement windows shall be wood, wood-clad or fiberglass windows.' She\nbelieved there seemed to be a discrepancy in window materials. She suggested that the\nold windows slated for removal be rehabilitated if possible. She noted that an Italianate\nstairway railing with heavy, urn-shaped balusters would be appropriate for this kind of\nbuilding. She suggested checking the Alameda Museum for early period photos of this\nbuilding, or similar styles, to get ideas for what the stair railing ought to look like. She said\nthat she generally liked the project.\nThere were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened\nthe Board discussion.\nVice Chair Miller stated that Item 13 of the staff report's recommendations read, \"Applicant\nshall make every attempt to salvage the existing rear wall and additional elements, including\nstair, molding, brackets, borders and siding. He inquired why that language was not\nincluded in the resolution, and whether it should be added. Mr. Seal noted that it was\nincluded in the resolution at the top of page 3.\nMinutes of December 6, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 4", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-12-06", "page": 5, "text": "Chair Anderson noted that a tall, vertical element was characteristic of the Italianate style,\nand she liked the idea of seeing what was underneath. She would like to see the vertical\nelement strengthened in the front, and would like Condition F to be changed to include the\ninstallation of a transom so that it assumed its original proportions.\nBoard Member Iverson requested clarification on the actual proposed material on the\nwindows. Mr. Seal replied that the preferred material was the extruded vinyl window\nmaterial of the homeowner. Staff recommended that the Board add as a condition of\napproval that the windows not be extruded vinyl, and that they be either wood, wood-clad\nor fiberglass, which was consistent with the residential design review guidelines for historic\nhomes (Condition E).\nBoard Member Iverson thanked Planning staff for a good, thorough job on this application,\nand emphasized that a quality job will enhance the appearance and add value to the\nproperty and to the neighborhood.\nA discussion of siding alignment techniques ensued.\nBoard Member Iverson noted that it was possible to match the siding and that is the\nintention of the Code, and suggested that the old and new siding be interlocked if the\ndimensions were the same. She proposed that maintaining the overall aesthetic and\nintegrity of the building be the goal,\nBoard Member lrons suggested changing the wording from \"exact match\" to \"a visual\nmatch.\"\nBoard Member Lynch complimented staff on an excellent staff report, and inquired whether\nfinal inspections were performed to ensure the conditions of approval were followed.\nMr. Seal replied that discussions had been held at the staff level to have the staff planner\ngo out in the field, and performing a final inspection to ensure that the project as\nconstructed was in line with what the Board or staff had required. Another layer of review\nwould be triggered if that was not the case. Staff could include a condition stating that prior\nto the installation of the siding, staff would verify that the new siding would verify the\nexisting siding.\nChair Anderson advised that Condition G required that \"a sample of the proposed siding\nwill be provided to staff prior to the issuance of building permits.\"\nChair Anderson entertained a motion to approve the Certificate of Approval with the\nconditions, stating each condition individually.\nBoard Member Lynch suggested that instead of using the language \"an Italianate\nstructure,\" that the wording \"the Italianate style\" be used.\nMinutes of December 6, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 5", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-12-06", "page": 6, "text": "A discussion of window materials ensued. Chair Anderson emphasized that she did not\nwant to see a fiberglass window next to an existing wood window.\nMr. Seal noted that the conditions stated that the windows must be a visual match.\nVice Chair Miller noted that cost may be a factor for the owners, and if they could\naccomplish the visual match with fiberglass window, he believed it would be adequate to\naccomplish the design aesthetic.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that the quality of the molding of the fiberglass windows was\nan important factor.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Eliason regarding the number of new windows, Mr. Seal\nnoted that there would be three replacement windows, as well as eight new windows on\nthe addition, for a total of 11 new windows. All the windows would be placed on the side,\nand the rear had no windows.\nThe following conditions would be added:\n1. The balcony to be consistent with the Italianate style, non-cantilevered, such\nas in the provided graphic material;\n2. Side walls, new railing and posts are to be added to the front porch\nconsistent with the Italianate style, in order to restore the design integrity of\nthe front entry;\n3. All existing windows shall remain with the exception of the two kitchen and\nbathroom windows on the north side, and the one second-story window on\nthe south side;\n4. The window trim, including drip sill, on all new windows shall match the style\nand dimensions of the window trim on the existing windows, excluding the\nbay window on the north right and south left sides of the structure;\n5. Replacement windows shall provide a visual match.\n6. The applicant will be encouraged to repair and maintain existing wood\nwindows;\n7. The replacement front doors shall be consistent with the Italianate style, add\ntransoms or other trim to restore the original entry proportions;\n8. The bay window shall not be altered.\nChair Anderson entertained a motion to approve the Certificate of Approval with the\nconditions, stating each condition individually.\nM/S (Miller/Anderson) to accept Resolution No. HAB-07-24 as prepared by staff, with the\nfollowing modifications to the conditions of approval as follows:\n1. The design review approval shall incorporate the following conditions:\nMinutes of December 6, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 6", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-12-06", "page": 7, "text": "A.\nThe proposed railing and posts for the rear entry and second story balcony\nbe made consistent with the Italianate style, non-cantilevered;\nB.\nSide walls and new railing and posts are to be added to the front porch,\nconsistent with the Italianate style, in order to restore the design integrity of\nthe front entry;\nC.\nAll existing windows shall remain except the kitchen and bathroom windows\non the north, right side of the structure, and one second-story window on the\nsouth, left side of the structure. Encourage the applicant to repair existing\nwood windows;\nD.\nThe window trim, including drip sills on all new windows shall match the style\nand dimensions on the existing windows, excluding the bay window on the\nnorth, right and south, left sides of the structure;\nE.\nThe new replacement windows shall be wood, wood-clad or fiberglass\nwindows that provide a visual match to the existing original wood windows on\nthe structure;\nF.\nThe replacement front doors shall be consistent with the Italianate style,\nadding transom window or panel to restore the entry proportions;\nG.\nThe new siding shall exactly match the material (wood) style, texture and\ndimensions of the existing siding. A sample of the proposed siding will be\nprovided to staff prior to the issuance of building permits;\nH.\nThe new roof shall exactly match the style and material of the existing roof;\nI.\nDistinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or\nexamples of craftsmanship that characterize the Restoration period will be\npreserved;\nJ.\nMaterials, features, spaces and finishes that characterize time periods other\nthan the historical period of the subject property will be documented prior to\ntheir alteration or removal, such as the concrete steps, stair railing, etc.;\nK.\nDeteriorated features from the Restoration period will be repaired rather than\nreplaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a\ndistinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture\nand, where possible, materials;\nL.\nReplacement of missing features from the Restoration period will be\nsubstantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of\nhistory will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other\nproperties and by combining features that never existed together historically;\nand\nM.\nBow windows and second-story front windows and trim shall not be altered.\n2. The applicant shall make every attempt to salvage the existing rear wall and\nsecond-story elements, including exterior molding, eave brackets, frieze borders,\nand siding. A graphic presentation will be provided by staff to the applicant to aid in\nthis endeavor.\nAyes: 5; Noes: 0\nMotion carries.\nMinutes of December 6, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 7", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-12-06", "page": 8, "text": "7-B. Certificate of Approval PLN07-0006; Applicant: Peter Yeh - 1222 Park Street\n(Bernardi Cleaners Historic Signs). The applicant requests approval to alter the three\nhistorically designated Bernardi Cleaners signs by replacing the words \"Bernardi\" with\n\"Amazon\"; \"Cleaners\" with \"Tropical Fish\"; and \"Tailors\" with \"Supplies.' The applicant also\nproposes to change the color of the neon tubing from red to blue and pink, and add a\ntropical fish logo above the \"Amazon\" sign. The site is located within a C-C/T (Community\nCommercial/Theatre Combining) Zoning District. (ZS).\nMr. Seal noted that Sue Russell from Development Services would answer questions for\nthe Board.\nThe Board opened the item for public comment.\nSue Russell, Development Services, noted that the applicants were well aware of the\nhistorical significance of the building. She added that the owner received a Development\nServices grant to redo the glass in front of the building, which had been in very bad shape.\nShe noted that the owner was very respectful of the sign, and valued the architecture of\nthe building. She emphasized that the owner needed accurate signage for his business,\nand noted that he still has people bringing laundry and tailoring in to his business because\nof the inaccurate signage.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that she was disturbed by this, and did not see it as respecting\nthe design guidelines for the preservation of the signs. She had called Jerry Lynn of the\nsign company several days prior, and discussed her concerns with him. She had pointed\nout that the font was not the same, and she had been told that he would try to get a more\nsimilar font.\nPeter Yeh, Direct Sign Outlet, distributed a handout to the Board members, and pointed\nout that two fonts were similar to the letter forms currently on the sign. He described the\nnoticeable differences between the two fonts, and noted that the current signage was\nbased on the two fonts but that creative license had been taken when the sign was\ncreated. He noted that it would be impossible for them to create a 100% match of the sign\nbecause that font did not actually exist. The similar fonts were called Futura Display and\nTourist Gothic.\nBoard member Lynch noted that two letters in \"Bernardi\" could be used in \"Amazon,' and\nthat 12 letters in \"Cleaners and Tailors\" could be used in \"Tropical Fish Supplies.' She did\nnot oppose the sign being changed, but would like the sign to look as much like the original\nas possible.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member Lynch regarding the proposed colors, Mr. Yeh\nreplied that the colors they chose were still true to the era of the signage, and that the\nproposed blue and pink would better match the business.\nA discussion about the fabrication of the neon letters ensued.\nMinutes of December 6, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 8", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-12-06", "page": 9, "text": "Board Member Lynch would like the font to be matched to the original sign as closely as\npossible aesthetically by the sign company. She also understood the need to be as\ndescriptive of the business as possible.\nThere were no more speaker slips. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing and opened\nthe Board discussion.\nBoard Member Lynch wished to discuss the changes in the neon colors.\nMr. Yeh noted that the fish was in blue neon, as would the word \"Amazon\"; \"Tropical Fish\nand Supplies\" would have either pink or red neon, depending on the appropriateness of\nthe color.\nVince Ng, owner, displayed a picture of the neon signage.\nBoard Member Lynch would like the original colors to be used, as cited in the ordinance.\nChair Anderson did not know whether the colors had changed over the course of time, and\nbelieved it would be overly restrictive by the ordinance to state that they must follow those\ncolors.\nVice Char Miller noted that he owned several neon signs, and had observed a change in\nthe fluorescence over time; one white sign had changed to pink because of deterioration.\nBoard Member Iverson suggested asking the applicant to return with a font that was more\nsquare.\nChair Anderson suggested that since the original font could not be duplicated exactly, that\nthe applicant be encouraged to match certain aspects of the font.\nMs. Russell noted that the ordinance read, \"Should it not be possible for any historic signs\nto be modified according to the requirements above, any changes to the signs must be\nreviewed and approved by the Historical Advisory Board.'\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Anderson, Mr. Yeh replied that the font was not\navailable in the computer; also, it did not exist inside the Encyclopedia of Typefaces.\nBoard Member lrons suggested that Condition 1 read, \"The font for the new letters shall be\nTourist Gothic of the same, size, placement\n\"\nMr. Yeh indicated that would not be a problem.\nBoard Member Lynch inquired whether the neon fish on the sign could be animated. Mr.\nYeh replied that he would like to be able to do that, but the budget would not allow it.\nChair Anderson entertained a motion to approve the Certificate of Approval.\nMinutes of December 6, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 9", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-12-06", "page": 10, "text": "M/S (Miller/Lynch) to accept Resolution No. HAB0720 as prepared by staff, with the\nfollowing modifications to Condition 1: \"The new letters shall be Tourist Gothic of the same\nshape, size, placement, color, material.. \"\nAyes: 5;\nNoes: 0;\nMotion carries.\n7-C. Certificate of Approval; CA06-0020; Steve Rynerson for Barry Hemphill and\nJudy Freed - 951 Pacific Avenue. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Approval\nfor demolition of more than 30 percent of an Italianate style single-family residence built in\n1879. The demolition would result from the proposed removal of the fa\u00e7ade and expansion\nof the entire structural footprint to fully encase the original building, changing the structure\nfrom a simple Italianate farmhouse to a more monumental mansion form. This property is\nlisted on the Historic Building Study List as a historic resource distinguished by its\narchitectural, historical, or environmental significance, eligible for inclusion in the State\nHistoric Resources Inventory, and of secondary priority for inclusion on the list of Alameda\nHistorical Monuments. The site is located within an R-2, Two-Family Residential Zoning\nDistrict. (DB)\nMs. Eliason indicated that this applicant has withdrawn their application.\n7-D. 2008 Meeting Schedule.\nChair Anderson proposed eliminating the July 3, 2008, meeting.\nChair Anderson moved to accept the 2008 meeting schedule, with the deletion of the July\nmeeting.\nM/S (Anderson/Lynch)\nAyes: 5; Noes: 0\nMotion carries.\n8.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n9.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nChair Anderson noted that the Alameda Point Task Force meeting was cancelled in\nNovember. The next scheduled meeting will be December 13, 2008, at the O Club at 6:30\np.m.\nBoard Member Lynch distributed a story she wrote for the Alameda Sun about signs. She\nalso noted that Historic Preservation season was coming, and added that she had a draft\nof the various activities.\nMinutes of December 6, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 10", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2007-12-06", "page": 11, "text": "10.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nMr. Biggs gave the Board information on upcoming workshops and conferences.\nBoard Member Iverson inquired about the status of historic plaques. Mr. Biggs noted that\nhe would report back to the Board with that information.\nVice Chair Miller requested that staff provide a list of future projects coming before the\nHAB.\n11. ADJOURNMENT:\nThis meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted by:\nCynthia Eliason,\nSecretary, Historical Advisory Board\nMinutes of December 6, 2007\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\nPage 11", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2007-12-06.pdf"}