{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-03-04", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD\nTHURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2021\n1. CONVENE\nChair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm.\nThis meeting was via Zoom.\n2. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, and Wit.\nAbsent: None\n3. MINUTES\n3-A 2021-707\nDraft Meeting Minutes - January 7, 2021\nChair Saxby noted that his title should be Chair, not President, and added that the\nminutes were very clear and concise.\nBoard Member Jenn Wit made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member\nLynn Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATION\nNone.\n6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n6-A 2021-711\nLetter Regarding Central Avenue Safety Improvement Project.\nAllen Tai, City Planner, discussed the letter and what the intent behind the letter was.\nThe letter can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4809155&GUID=FOFCOA03\nBOBO-4547-BF62-592213F259EE.\nChair Saxby wanted to know what effect it would have on Historic Properties but Staff\nMember Tai had clarified that it was just roadwork.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2021-709\nHistorical Advisory Board Approved Minutes\n1\nMarch 4, 2021", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-03-04", "page": 2, "text": "PLN20-0431 - Delisting from Historical Buildings Study List - 620 Central Avenue\n-\nAlameda Federal Center. Applicant: Alameda Point Collaborative. Public hearing to\nconsider delisting the Alameda Federal Center site at 620 Central Avenue from the\nHistorical Buildings Study List. The property is listed on the Historical Buildings Study List\nwith an \"s\" designation. The delisting of 620 Central Avenue from the City's historic\nresources inventory is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)\nunder CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the common sense exemption that CEQA\napplies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the\nenvironment. As a separate and independent basis, this action is not a project under\nCEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b) and Public Resources Code section 21065.\nHenry Dong, Planner III, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at\nIttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4809153&GUID=A445FD85-\n3D49-412A-AF2E-C06F94BC4759&FullText=1.\nChair Saxby opened the board's clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Norman Sanchez wanted clarification if one or both of the sites had gone\nto the City Council yet.\nStaff Member Dong said that the site that had gone to council was the APC site, the\nNorthern portion.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked if that proposal was to rehabilitate the existing building not\nto demolish it.\nStaff Member Dong clarified that the rehabilitation was for the South building, the W-\nshaped one. The Northern building was the one that had not gone to hearing yet.\nChair Saxby clarified the delisting would be the entire Northern portion of the property that\nwas considered the APC site.\nStaff Member Dong said yes, both buildings plus the accessory structures and the EBRPD\n(East Bay Regional Park District) site.\nStaff Member Tai said it was the property as outlined and also clarified that the question\nbefore the board was about the clean-up of the listing. What the applicant plans to do on\nthe property was a land-use question and not a question before the board.\nBoard Member Jones asked about certain designations on the Historical Buildings Study\nList and wanted clarification on those.\nHistorical Advisory Board Approved Minutes\n2\nMarch 4, 2021", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-03-04", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Member Dong said the top category was N (National) then there were S (State), H\n(Historical), B (Background), and E (Environmental).\nBoard Member Jones asked about the hierarchy within those designations.\nStaff Member Tai said that N, the national register, was the highest, then S, then B. Then\nwas the E category, where individually they might be insignificant but as a group they were\nsignificant. Lastly was H, these buildings might have historical significance but would\nrequire further research.\nDoug Biggs and Chris Ebert, the applicant and the architect, also gave a presentation\ndiscussing the history of this site, why they were asking to delist this site from the Historical\nBuildings Study List, and addressed the opposition to this delisting process.\nChair Saxby asked if they had looked into rehabilitating the buildings or doing some type\nof adaptive reuse for the project. He wanted to know more about the background of the\nproject.\nMr. Biggs said from day one the plan for Building 1, the Engineering Building, was to tear\nit down for a new Built to Purpose Medical Program Building. He said for Building 2/E\nShaped they had thought they could rehab the building until they did Exploratory Demo.\nThey determined that the seismic upgrade cost would be too cost-prohibitive to be able to\nget funding for the project so they are now tearing it down.\nChair Saxby asked if the seismic evaluation was done using Historic Building Codes or\ncurrent codes.\nMr. Biggs said it was done with the current building codes.\nChair Saxby said these buildings would be eligible for Historic Building Codes.\nMr. Biggs said that the Historic Building Code would not save them money on the seismic\nissues.\nChair Saxby was curious why they were not able to view the Page & Turnbull reports which\nwere referenced by the 2003 letter from SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) Report\nas to why the location was not eligible for the National Historic Registry.\nMr. Biggs said they had reached out to Page & Turnbull, those reports had been archived\nand it would take a few months to track them down. Also since the site was not eligible\nback then it would not be now.\nChair Saxby reminded Mr. Biggs that their decision would not apply to the local registry.\nHistorical Advisory Board Approved Minutes\n3\nMarch 4, 2021", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-03-04", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. Biggs said that was not his declaration but that of the SHPO officer.\nBoard Member Alvin Lau wanted to know why they didn't remove this site from the\nHistorical List before now since they had this letter from 2003 saying the site was not\neligible.\nStaff Member Tai said that the Alameda Municipal Code does not have procedures\nestablished for the Historic Study List, and there is no actual requirement to delist a\nproperty. They were doing this now to be transparent and there was some precedent to\ndo this. The staff felt that the 2003 letter was very conclusive.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked since there was no procedure for delisting, the procedure\nis just done case by case.\nStaff Member Tai said there are properties on the Study List that had been demolished\nand staff would make a note of that on the list. They have handled this issue in different\nways. This was a clean-up action after it is concluded that the property is delisted.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked if this property was not delisted how would that affect the\napplicant.\nStaff Member Tai said for the applicant to move forward they would need to move forward\nwith a Certificate of Approval for demolition, and they would come back at the next meeting\nfor that approval. All of the evidence that they had reviewed was very conclusive.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked since it was not eligible for the National Registry would\nthat also mean that it was not eligible for the State Registry.\nStaff Member Tai said that the National and State criteria were very similar. He described\nwhat that criteria was, from design to association. He also discussed Alameda's criteria\nand what made a location historically significant. He broke down why this site did not meet\nthe local criteria.\nBoard Member Sanchez wanted to know if a different site wasn't eligible for the National\nor State registry they could still decide to keep it on the local Study List. They don't have\nto be governed by the State or National Registry.\nStaff Member Tai said that was correct.\nChair Saxby asked about the demolition done in 2007 and wanted to know what process\nhappened in regards to the Historic Advisory Board.\nHistorical Advisory Board Approved Minutes\n4\nMarch 4, 2021", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-03-04", "page": 5, "text": "Staff Member Tai said in 2007 it was still a Federal property so it was not within the purview\nof the city. There were no permits at that time since Federal and State Agencies are not\nsubject to the city's permitting process.\nChair Saxby wanted to know why the applicant and the staff hadn't just come before the\nboard for a Certificate of Approval to demolish.\nStaff Member Tai said once they know the property is not historic it's a more\nstraightforward process to remove it than coming before the board needing approval for\neach building.\nChair Saby said that whatever decision that is made would affect other buildings on the\nsite that was on the EBRP (East Bay Regional Park) property.\nMr. Biggs said there was only one remaining building on the EBRP property, and does not\ninclude the boathouse. He wanted to add that they are doing it this way because they\nneeded to treat the site as a whole.\nStaff member Tai clarified that it would still be for individual buildings, but yes doing it this\nway was more transparent.\nChair Saxby clarified that if they delist the site then all future action regarding demolition\nof individual buildings would not have come back before the board. It would be handled at\nthe staff level. Including the EBRPD site.\nStaff member Tai said that was correct.\nBoard Member Sanchez wanted to know if the staff could request and file an application\nwith HAB for delisting of a property regardless of an impending project.\nStaff Member Tai said that was conceivable. He said he could think of other properties\nthat had been demolished that were still on the list. He agreed that any changes to that\nlist should go through a public process.\nBoard Member Sanchez wanted to know who could generate that request.\nStaff Member Tia said for the Historical Study List anybody could, there were no rules in\nthe Alameda Municipal Code about that.\nBoard Member Sanchez wanted to know if there was pending litigation regarding this site.\nCelena Chen, City Attorney's Office, explained a recent case that was dismissed and\ndiscussed another case challenging Alameda's Design Review Approval in the Superior\nHistorical Advisory Board Approved Minutes\n5\nMarch 4, 2021", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-03-04", "page": 6, "text": "Court. She added that the filing of a lawsuit doesn't affect the process of the project as a\nwhole. She further explained the risks that the applicant would be assuming.\nChair Saxby opened the public comments. He also reminded the public that the discussion\nwas about delisting the site not for what it would be used for. Also in the interest of time,\nhe limited the public speakers to 2 minutes each.\nJohn Healy, the applicant for the mentioned upcoming court case, said that this delisting\nprocess by the city was an attempt to circumvent its liability and culpability in ongoing\nlitigation with Alameda County's Superior Court. He discussed the parts of the litigation\nand questioned why this process was changing now. He also brought up the procedure\nfor delisting by the state and wanted to know why that was not being used. He also took\nissue with his time being limited to 2 minutes.\nChris Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, wanted the board to defer any\ndecision about delisting this property until adequate information and documentation was\nmade available. He found the staff's reliance on the 2003 determination from the SHPO\nto be really off base since it was not based on local criteria. He spoke about the connection\nto the Maritime School and World War II this site had.\nCarmen Reid gave her objection to the delisting of this property. She stated that the\nAlameda Point Collaborative was not eligible for delisting as a lessee under the Alameda\nMunicipal code along with other legal reasons. She wanted the board to consider that the\nproperty served as a visual reminder of Alameda's military history and the property was\nunder litigation for not adhering to the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)\nmandate. She saw the delisting process as a \"workaround\" the pending litigation and to\navoid state law.\nZac Bowling wanted to give his support for the staff's recommendation and the delisting\nof this property. He saw the CEQA lawsuit as a moot point and believed the other speakers\nwere part of the same group who wanted to do the vote over again. He believed the\nboard's duty was to look at the facts and information in front of them and not to listen to\ndistractions being raised to try and stop this project.\nHarvey Rosenthal, the adjacent property owner, referenced the GSA letter and how the\nparcels had changed over the years. He also spoke of the connection to World Word Il\nand the people that made this site historic.\nRosalinda Fortuna, a nearby property owner, spoke of her father who was a 90-year-old\nveteran who believed this property should be maintained as a Historic Property. She\nbelieved if the board allowed the delisting of this property then the Alameda Point\nCollaborative would then build numerous stories in this old established neighborhood.\nHistorical Advisory Board Approved Minutes\n6\nMarch 4, 2021", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-03-04", "page": 7, "text": "Margaret Hall, a property owner on Central Ave, spoke of her family's history with the\nmilitary and Alameda and as a General Contractor, she was at first very excited about the\nrepurposing of the buildings. She was very disappointed to learn that the plan now was to\ndemolish the buildings and urged the board to look into the matter more before they made\nany decision.\nChair Saxby closed the public comments and opened the board's discussion.\nBoard Member Jones said this was obviously a difficult decision since the information was\nnot clear. She believed that the applicant had made some very good factual comments\nthat were making her decision harder. She understood and believed that the staff had\ndone their due diligence in regards to researching this site.\nBoard Member Witt agreed with what Board Member Jones said. She believed in order to\nget the go-ahead for this project it would be great to find the Page & Turnbull letters to\nmake things more clear cut. She was very much on the fence for this project.\nBoard Member Sanchez said there was an abundance of information to go over in order\nto reach a decision. He spoke again that the board's only concern at the moment was to\ndecide if the property belongs on the Historic Study List, not what the applicant intends to\ndo with the property. He said even though he trusts the staff he would like to see the\noriginal document used to place the site on the list, the Page & Turnbull Report, and a\nbetter understanding of the site as it was now. He wanted to defer any decision until more\ninformation was brought forward.\nBoard Member Lau agreed with his fellow board members that it was very difficult to make\na decision now. He wanted the staff to gather more information and documentation before\nhe and the board made a decision.\nChair Saxby agreed that they lacked information about this property. He acknowledged\nthat the difficult part was knowing that their decision to delist the property would result in\nthe buildings being demolished. He added that the presentation did give him a better\nunderstanding of the property, even if it was historically significant it had lost a lot of\nintegrity. He too wanted to see the original 1996 Page & Turnbull evaluation.\nBoard Member Jones asked the staff what other documentation (Page & Turnbull letters)\nwas available that could be gathered.\nStaff Member Tai said first he wanted clarification on what documentation the board would\nlike. He knew that there were many references to the 1996 Page & Turnbull Report, but\nthat document had never been available to the city. He said that even the applicant had\nreached out to Page & Turnbull and that document had never been made available. He\nwanted to know what other specific information the staff could gather that would compel\nthe board to make a conclusive decision.\nHistorical Advisory Board Approved Minutes\n7\nMarch 4, 2021", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-03-04", "page": 8, "text": "Chair Saxby said they had been given conclusions but not the background for those\nconclusions. He asked if it was possible to just do a new Historical Evaluation of the site.\nMr. Biggs spoke of his passion and dedication to seeing this development happen and\nsaid they would reach out to Page & Turnbull again to see if they can pull the original\nreport from their archives. He said if that didn't work they would have Page & Turnbull\ncome out again to review the documents they have and the site to do an updated\ndetermination. He did not want this project held up because of how it was put on the Study\nList. He also offered to bring the board out to a site visit, with COVID it was difficult but not\nimpossible.\nBoard Member Sanchez believed a site visit would be very helpful. He suggested finding\nany documents for when the Study List was first put together that would show the logic\nbehind listing any property. He wanted to see the progression of the Study List.\nStaff Member Tai wanted to clarify that record-keeping in the city over the years had been\nvery spotty. He had discovered some survey forms but it was really more of a checklist\nthat the surveyors used as they walked the neighborhoods. For most of the properties on\nthe Study List, including this one, there is just not much information. He also added with\nthe site visit they would need to schedule a special meeting, to figure out the logistics. He\nalso said another way was to schedule individual visits.\nStaff Counsel Chen said that touring in pairs would be acceptable since pairs did not count\nas a quorum.\nStaff Member Tai also checked with Mr. Biggs that if anyone from the public wanted a tour\nof the site they could try to accommodate them.\nMr. Biggs said that was acceptable and offered suggestions on how that could work.\nBoard Member Sanchez made a motion to continue the decision to a future meeting\nwith the request that as much information be provided that was available, from the\ncity records, the Page & Turnbull report if it was available and to take up Mr. Biggs\nhis offer of a site visit. Board Member Jones seconded the motion and a roll call\nvote was taken. The motion passed 5-0.\n7-B 2021-710\nHistoric Preservation Ordinance Informational Workshop: The City of Alameda is\nproposing to update the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Alameda Municipal Code\nSection 13-21, to ensure that it reflects best practices in the field of historic preservation.\nThe Historical Advisory Board will hold a public workshop to review the existing ordinance\nand discuss ideas for proposed revisions. No final action will be taken at this meeting. A\npublic workshop to review and discuss amendments to the Historic Preservation\nOrdinance is not subject to environmental review under CEQA.\nHistorical Advisory Board Approved Minutes\n8\nMarch 4, 2021", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-03-04", "page": 9, "text": "Staff Member Tai introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments\ncan\nbe\nfound\nat\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4809154&GUID=65037058-\n882D-4986-B8AA-AE540DAF17B5&FullText=1.\nChair Saxby opened the board's clarifying questions and comments.\nChair Saxby was intrigued by Option 3 because when they do give Certificates of Approval\nthey do touch on Design Review. He also believed that redefining demolition makes sense\nbecause the current definition of demolition was too complicated for people to understand.\nStaff Member Tai clarified that once they made their decision, the importance of the word\ndemolition might not be as significant. He gave examples of what he meant if the board\nchose Option 3.\nChair Saxby wanted to know more about what would trigger a project coming before the\nboard.\nStaff Member Tai said that was up to the board, for Design Review the staff was the default\nparty. He explained how the Design Review worked now with the Planning Board but this\nboard could change the criteria of what would come before them. He said that the staff's\nvision was not to change the current process, they would want the majority of mostly\nsingle-family Design Reviews to remain at the staff level.\nBoard Member Sanchez explained how he understood how Option 3 would work and what\nwould lead an applicant to have a Design Review with this board. They would be changing\nthe process if an applicant didn't trigger (due to the demolition) a Design Review and the\nboard could still request a Design Review if there was an appeal.\nStaff Member Tai said that was correct, that would only be the subset of properties that\nwere pre-1942 and on the Historical Study List.\nBoard Member Sanchez clarified the difference between Option 2 and Option 3.\nStaff Member Tai also gave examples of each option and how the process would work.\nBoard Member Sanchez said he was not opposed to Option 3 at all. He believed having\nthe trigger be major alterations rather than value was clearer.\nStaff Member Tai continued his presentation, where he discussed the Historical Studies\nList.\nChair Saxby continued the board's questions and comments.\nHistorical Advisory Board Approved Minutes\n9\nMarch 4, 2021", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-03-04", "page": 10, "text": "Chair Saxby asked how this could be set up so that single-family homes were not\nsubjected to CEQA if they were on this Resource Inventory List.\nStaff Member Tai clarified if the homes were valued to be historic they would be subjected\nto CEQA with all those protections. He mainly was discussing the category of buildings\nthat were pre-1942, the staff believed those buildings should not be automatically be\nsubjected to the strict regulations of CEQA.\nChair Saxby asked if that would be \"devaluing\" some of the properties on the list.\nStaff member Tai said that process-wise they would still be subjected to the same\nprocedures. He used the McKay property as an example.\nChair Saxby said it was clear to him, and to others, that the need for better investment in\nresource evaluation was needed in Alameda. He hoped they would move toward that with\nfurther discussions.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked who would submit the forms that were referred to. He\nwanted to know more about that process.\nStaff Member Tai explained how the process used to work and what the surveyors did. He\nthen explained the current process and what forms were needed from the applicant. It's a\nvery structured process.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked, having these two lists, he wanted to know if a DPR\n(Department of Parks and Recreation) form was needed in order for a project to move\nforward or could the property be moved to the list where the DPR form was not required.\nStaff Member Tai said yes and added that this is where the details become very important.\nHe gave some examples of how the board could change criteria.\nChair Saxby opened the public comments and kept the time at 2 minutes.\nJohn Healy thanked the commission and the staff for all their time and dealing with issues\nlike this that no one else wants to bother with. He agreed with Staff Member Tai that they\nhave to go back and reevaluate the Historic Study Llst. He recommended going back and\nfinding some of the people who established the original Historic Advisory Board and even\nhaving a Historian on the board.\nChris Buckley, from the AAPS, wanted to discuss a letter the society had sent. He gave\nthe society's thoughts on the term demolition and gave changes the society thought\nworked better. He added that the society agreed with Option 3. He was very concerned\nabout information and cards for each property on the list that was missing.\nHistorical Advisory Board Approved Minutes\n10\nMarch 4, 2021", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-03-04", "page": 11, "text": "Staff Member Tai informed him about what documentation was available.\nChair Saxby closed the public comments and opened the board's discussion.\nBoard Member Jones checked with Chris Buckey to make sure the AAPS had her correct\nemail since she did not receive the letter or the attachments from AAPS.\nBoard Member Lau suggested having a group email address.\nStaff Member Tai said they could look into getting everyone on the board city email\naddresses. He discussed what they would need to do and how they would need to\nmaintain the emails.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked about a recommendation that was not covered in the\npresentation about holding a public workshop to review comments on the proposed\namendments. He wanted more elaboration on that.\nStaff Member Tai said once they had more direction from the board the staff would draft\nthe ordinance. Then the board would use the regular meeting times to discuss it.\nStaff Member Tai then asked the board to give the staff some direction on this issue. He\nsaid that the staff would benefit from some more clarity from the board.\nChair Saxby brought up the demolition definition, the evaluation was very unclear and\nneeded to be cleaned up. He added that he believed that Option 3 was the most\ninteresting.\nBoard Member Sanchez agreed, saying Option 3 made the most sense after what they\nhad discussed.\nBoard Member Lau was also in agreement.\nStaff Member Tai said that was helpful and wanted to take Option 3 further. He broke\ndown the process conceptually and what amendments they would be making.\nChair Saxby said they needed to establish a trigger that would take projects from staff\nreview to board review. In the past demolition had been that trigger and it still could be but\nwith a better definition.\n8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Member Tai said they would be discussing the COG (Council of Governments)\nAnnual Report. Being a certified local government, the local preservation programs\nHistorical Advisory Board Approved Minutes\n11\nMarch 4, 2021", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-03-04", "page": 12, "text": "needed to make sure they meet certain standards. Also annually the staff has to provide\na report as well as meeting other standards. The report this year was written by Staff\nMember Dong.\nStaff Member Tai asked the board if they were interested in official city emails.\nChair Sanchez said he did not want another email to deal with but said it was very\nimportant for AAPS to have everyone's correct email.\nStaff Member Tai said he would take care of that.\nChair Saxby wanted to know how the board would know about Design Reviews approved\nat the staff level.\nStaff Member Tai said that those actions were posted and they would notify the board\nwhen those actions took place and they would happen on a set schedule.\n10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n11. ADJOURNMENT\nChair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 10:02 pm.\nHistorical Advisory Board Approved Minutes\n12\nMarch 4, 2021", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-03-04.pdf"}