{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2009-02-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD\nREGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2009\nCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nCONVENE:\n7:01 p.m.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT: Acting Chair Miller, Board Members lrons, Lynch, Owens and\nTalbot\nABSENT:\nNone\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nJon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary\nto the Historical Advisory Board; Tony Ebster,\nPermit Technician I/Recording Secretary\nMINUTES:\nMinutes from the meeting of December 4, 2008\nMotion (Lynch)/Second (Irons) to accept the minutes with changes\nAyes: 4; Noes: 0; Absent: None\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:\nNone\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION:\nNone\nCONSENT ITEMS:\n(7-A.) Certificate of Approval - PLN08-1114 - 3263 Thompson Street. The applicant\nrequests a Certificate of Approval for the removal of one diseased Monterey Pine (Pinus\nradiata) located in the public right-of-way adjacent to 3263 Thompson Avenue. The site\nis located within an R-1, One Family Residence District. (DV)\nMotion (Owens)/Second (Lynch) to approve the Certificate of Approval for the removal\nof the diseased Monterey Pine tree.\nAyes: 5; Noes: 0\nMotion Carries\nMinutes of February 5, 2009\n1\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2009-02-05", "page": 2, "text": "REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n(8-A.) Certificate of Approval - PLN08-0970 - 2413 Buena Vista Avenue. The\nApplicant requests a Certificate of Approval to demolish a structure built prior to 1942\nfor redevelopment as a parking lot in conjunction with the renovation of a commercial\nstructure and construction of a new retail building on adjacent parcels. The project is\nlocated within a C-M (Commercial Manufacturing) Zoning District (JB)\nMr. Jon Biggs pointed out that staff had received two letters after the packet was\ndistributed. He then presented the staff report. He reiterated staff's concerns to the\nboard. He also mentioned that the board's decision to deny the removal of the structure\nat 2413 from the study list had been appealed to the City Council. He also clarified that\nthe structure was built before 1942 and is on the historical building study list.\nBoard Member Lynch asked about the conditions that were mentioned at the December\nHistorical Advisory Board meeting.\nMr. Biggs reminded the board of the conditions, which were that a good faith effort be\nmade to give the house away to be relocated to another site.\nThe public comment period was opened.\nMr. Richard Rutter addressed the board saying that his practice specializes in structures\nthat were built between 1870-1930. He spoke in support of the Alameda Architectural\nPreservation Society's (AAPS) letter that suggested that two conditions be applied to\nthe approval. Those conditions were to require that a good faith effort be made to give\nthe house away/move the house and that the demolition permit not be granted until a\nbuilding permit for the new project is issued. He supports saving the house.\nMr. Tom Antholzner addressed the board. He supports saving the house.\nHe\nmentioned that the house was never put up for sale and stated that restoring the house\nwould not be too expensive and would greatly increase the value of the house. He\nwanted the board to consider if there was enough parking in the area already.\nMr. Erik Miller addressed the board. He supports saving the house. He looked at the\nhouse and mentioned the car wash nearby and how an old showpiece property was torn\ndown. He mentioned the Page and Turnbull report and disagrees with it. He also\nstated that the house may not be historically significant by itself, but is part of a\nneighborhood that has taken a beating as other historical structures have been torn\ndown. He feels that the house is important to the neighborhood as a whole.\nMr. Christopher Buckley with the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS)\nstated that there is a fine balance that must be met between the historic nature of the\nneighborhood and the structure and the redevelopment of the area. He wants Historical\nAdvisory Board to attach the two conditions that were mentioned in the AAPS letter if\nthey do approve the demolition.\nMinutes of February 5, 2009\n2\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2009-02-05", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Lynch asked if the Applicant was going to address the board.\nMs. Barbara Price, the Applicant's representative, said that she is available to answer\nany questions that the board may have. She also mentioned that the house had been\nadvertised and several parties were interested but had fallen through and that the\noriginal intention was to keep and rehabilitate the house for some sort of commercial\nuse.\nMr. Adam Garfinkle addressed the board pointing out that there is a strong case not to\ndemolish the building. He is a property owner in the neighborhood and they are\nconcerned about a precedent being set that people can buy houses just to tear them\ndown. He also mentioned another property that a family member owned that had an\nhistoric structure that was rehabilitated. He thinks that demolishing the house to build a\nparking lot is a bad idea.\nMs. Valerie Turpen addressed the board expressing support for saving the house. She\nalso wants to see a good faith effort to give the house away and have it relocated. She\nwants it to be clear when the 90-day period to give the house away would start and who\nwould oversee the process. She didn't like that the ad for the house didn't describe the\nhouse in a positive way. She also mentioned the North of Lincoln redevelopment plan\nand expressed concern that there may be more houses that could be demolished.\nMs. Melanie Wartenberg addressed the board opposing demolition of the structure.\nShe is concerned with adding more parking on side streets. She is also concerned with\ndumpster and waste storage near her house as her back yard backs up to the property.\nShe wants the board to give the house a chance to continue to be a part of the\nneighborhood.\nMs. Nancy Manos addressed the board telling them that the house she moved into was\ndilapidated and she was distraught by the condition of her house. She was able to\nrehabilitate the house and bring it back to its original state. She also wanted the board\nto consider the parking in the neighborhood and feels that they don't need to tear down\nanother house to make another parking lot.\nMr. Kevin Frederick addressed the board by reiterating that he likes the house and\nwants to see it preserved. He feels that the Page and Turnbull report is not accurate\nand wants it to be disregarded. He is also worried about outside developers coming\ninto town and destroying the historical integrity of the City. He also mentioned the\nproposed project and would not like to see the project go forward as is. He supports the\nsuggestions of the AAPS and hopes that the City will enforce the conditions if applied.\nMr. Malyka Chop addressed the board by clarifying where the 'Wedgewood' name\ncame from. He also mentioned that the house he purchased is in need of rehabilitation\nand wants to bring it back to its original state to help the community. He is also\nconcerned that the developer is not considering the historical aspects of the City.\nMinutes of February 5, 2009\n3\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2009-02-05", "page": 4, "text": "Ms. Nanette Burdick addressed the board saying that there is parking all over the place\nand doesn't like that the developer wants to demolish a structure to make another\nparking lot. She is also concerned that due to the economic times, the developer will\ndemolish the house and not move forward with the new development. She is undecided\nbut wants to support what is best for the community.\nThe public comment period was closed.\nBoard Member lrons addressed the members of the public and their concerns. He\nmentioned what Mr. Garfinkle had said regarding compromised structures. He also\nmentioned that the previous body had authorized the demolition of a valuable structure\nthat he was not sure was compromised. He spoke to Ms. Turpen's comments about the\nIsland High School site and wasn't sure what was happening with that site. He clarified\nthat the structure is not an historical landmark but is on the study list and is a pre-1942\nstructure, therefore will need the board's approval for demolition. He also clarified the\npurview of the board and that they don't get to fine-tune design review. He asked about\nthe delisting and why it was back before the board. He also mentioned that he attended\nthe charette for the North of Lincoln proposal for redevelopment.\nMr. Biggs clarified that because the structure was built before 1942, it needs a\nCertificate of Approval for demolition.\nBoard Member Talbot stated that she read the Alameda Municipal Code regarding the\nrole of the board. She thinks that they do need to consider the economics of the\nsituation. While she favors rehabilitation, the reality is that economic factors make\nrehabilitation infeasible.\nMs. Barbara Price spoke to Board Member Talbot's concern that the Applicant was not\nat the meeting. She clarified that the Applicant's original intention was to move the\nstructure to the back of the lot and rehabilitate the structure but due to economic\nconstraints, they could not save the building. She also gave information as to what is\ngoing to happen with the adjacent parcels on Park Street.\nBoard Member Lynch asked how many parking spaces were envisioned for the property\nand how was it decided to increase the number of parking spaces. She also asked\nabout the listing on Craigslist and why the responses fell through. She asked how long\nthe ad had been posted for.\nMr. Biggs clarified the parking requirements.\nMs. Price replied to Board Member Lynch's questions about the listing and said that\nthey had over 20 inquiries but they had all fallen through due to unforeseen\ncircumstances. She also said that all the bricks taken from the demolition of the\nadjacent building would be used for the new construction. She also mentioned the\nother media that the house was advertised in.\nMinutes of February 5, 2009\n4\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2009-02-05", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Talbot asked if the Applicant would be willing to meet the conditions\nsuggested by the AAPS if the demolition was approved.\nMs. Price said that they Applicant is not willing to abide by the suggested conditions and\nwill appeal the conditions if they are applied to the Certificate of Approval for demolition.\nThey do not want the project held up by the conditions.\nMr. Biggs clarified that the Applicant could appeal the conditions if the demolition is\napproved with the conditions. He also clarified why the Applicant came before the\nboard with two different applications.\nBoard Member Lynch said that it was strange that they are being asked for a Certificate\nof Approval for demolition after they denied the request to remove the structure from the\nstudy list.\nBoard Member Owens said that he is uncomfortable weighing the benefit of the project\nwith the historic benefit of the building due to the fact that they don't have any\nknowledge of the new project. They can only weigh one side of the project.\nBoard Member Lynch expressed concerns regarding the AAPS conditions and that they\nwill be appealed if the demolition is approved. She is torn between denying the\napplication and approving the application with the conditions.\nBoard Member Owens said that if approved, the condition should be that the building be\nmoved.\nActing Chair Miller said that the house has a death sentence no matter what their\ndecision is. He is also concerned that the house will be torn down and the new project\nwill not move forward due to economic troubles. He read from the December 5, 2008\nminutes information that describes the house and neighborhood and that was the\nreason that it was not taken off the list.\nBoard Member Lynch wanted clarification on how to word the motion for the vote. She\nmoved to deny the application to demolish the structure.\nMotion (Lynch)/Second (Owens) to deny the application for a Certificate of Approval to\ndemolish the structure at 2413 Buena Vista Avenue.\nAyes: 4; Noes: 1 (Talbot)\nMotion Carries\n(8-B.) Certificate of Approval - PLN09-0012 - 1832 Nason Street. The applicant\nis\nrequesting a Certificate of Approval for the demolition of more than 30% of the value of\na pre-1942 single-family dwelling that was damaged by a fire. The project is located\nwithin an R-2, Two-Family Residential Zoning District. (DB)\nMinutes of February 5, 2009\n5\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2009-02-05", "page": 6, "text": "Mr. Dennis Brighton presented the staff report. He explained the project and why it had\ngone forward without the Certificate of Approval for demolition.\nBoard Member Lynch expressed confusion by the photos that were attached to the\nreport. She was unsure of what the extent of the damage was due to the fire. She also\nasked about the windows and what type they are.\nMr. Brighton clarified the confusion and pointed out that there have been some changes\nmade to the plans.\nBoard Member lrons commented on the windows and how they are made.\nActing Chair Miller asked how the percentage was determined.\nBoard Member Owens asked how the demolition happened without the Certificate of\nApproval since it was more than 30%.\nMr. Biggs clarified that after an inspection was scheduled, it was discovered that the\nbuilder had gone beyond the scope of work.\nBoard Member Talbot reminded the board that some of the demolition was because of\ndry rot and pest problems.\nMr. Keith Durden, project manager with Har-Bro Construction, introduced himself and\nthe job superintendent Chris Krzywicki. They explained why they went as far as they\ndid with the demolition.\nBoard Member Owens asked if they were installing the new sheer sheathing to the new\nbuilding code and doing everything as per the guidelines. He suggested that this\nimplied that they were going to have to do more than 30% demolition.\nMr. Krzywicki said that after the demolition had taken place, they realized that more\nwork had to be done than originally anticipated. His understanding was that when they\nwere going through the planning and permit process, everything was taken care of. He\nsaid that this was the best way to address the project.\nMr. Durden said that when they started on the project, they were under the impression\nthat the planning portion of the process was taken care of and they did not know they\nneeded to go before the Historical Advisory Board. As the project progressed, they\nrealized that it was more than 30% demolition.\nBoard Member Lynch asked about the front elevation of the house and if the same door\nwas going to be put back in place. She pointed out that some of the pictures are\ninconsistent with the new plans.\nMinutes of February 5, 2009\n6\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2009-02-05", "page": 7, "text": "Board Member Talbot expressed confusion with the amount of demolition and how the\nnumbers were determined, and how the replacement in kind was not going to count as\npart of the demolition.\nBoard Member lrons pointed out that it is easily interpreted that only 30% will be\ndemolished if new construction is going to be sistered in with the old construction. He\nalso said that for efficiency sake, it is better to demolish damaged parts of the project\nthan trying to repair the damage.\nThe Board agreed that according to the drawings, it is inevitable that there is going to be\nmore than 30% demolition.\nBoard Member Owens expressed concern with the drawings and that they didn't\nindicate that 30% was going to be the amount demolished and why there wasn't an\ninspection done before rough framing. He is concerned about setting a precedent. He\nalso clarified that the drawings are different than what is actually happening on the\nconstruction site.\nMr. Biggs said that his understanding was that most of the walls were to remain so it\nwould not be more than 30% demolition. He suggested that the office copy of the plans\nmight not be the same as the job site copy of the plans.\nActing Chair Miller pointed out that the plans regarding the windows do not reflect what\nis actually happening.\nBoard Member Owens pointed out that the elevations do not accurately reflect what is\nhappening with the structure and that what shows on the plans is more than 30%\ndemolition of the structure.\nMr. Biggs stated that a set of plans will come to planning for approval, and then the\nbuilding set of plans will be compared to the planning set of drawings to make sure\nthere are no discrepancies.\nThe public comment period was opened.\nMr. Kevin Beal addressed the board saying that the building burned in April of 2008 and\nare perplexed by what the hang-up is for the reconstruction. They are eager to get the\nconstruction done so they can move back in.\nMr. Christopher Buckley addressed the board saying that the picture of the structure in\nthe 1979 survey did not match the pictures attached to the staff report. He wanted to\ngive the board an idea of what it looked like.\nMr. Biggs said that if you compare the pictures, it can be seen that the changes that\nwere made altered the house significantly.\nMinutes of February 5, 2009\n7\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-02-05.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2009-02-05", "page": 8, "text": "Ms. Michelle Beal addressed the board saying that they were willing to make the\nchanges requested of them by planning staff. She just wants the house built and is\nwilling to do whatever it takes to make it happen. Their intention was in the best interest\nof the house, City, and contractor.\nBoard Member Lynch agrees with staff recommendations. She is concerned with the\nwording in the report and resolution. She wants more positive language.\nMr. Biggs replied by saying that the wording could be changed.\nMotion (Lynch)Second (Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval for demolition at\n1832 Nason Street.\nAyes: 5; Noes: 0\nMotion Carries\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard Member Lynch talked about Historic Preservation Season and shared her\nexcitement that there are now several major organizations involved. She also talked\nabout the lecture series with the Alameda Museum.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nMr. Biggs welcomed Board Member Talbot\nBoard Member Talbot talked about the Mills Act and wants to see it enacted by the City.\nShe clarified that it applies to both residential and commercial.\nMr. Biggs suggested that it be agendized for an upcoming meeting for discussion.\nADJOURNMENT: 9:06 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted by:\nJon Biggs\nPlanning Services Manager/Secretary Historical Advisory Board\nMinutes of February 5, 2009\n8\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2009-02-05.pdf"}