{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-05-06", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD\nTHURSDAY, MAY 6, 2021\n1. CONVENE\nChair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.\nThis meeting was via Zoom.\n2. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.\nAbsent: None.\n3. MINUTES\n3-A 2021-908\nDraft meeting Minutes - March 4, 2021\nBoard Member Norman Sanchez corrected his statement on page 5, it should be could\nand not would ask to file a report with Historical Advisory Board (HAB).\nBoard Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the minutes with this\ncorrection. Board Member Alvin Lau seconded the motion and the motion passed\n5-0.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATION\nNone\n6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nAllen Tai, City Planner and HAB Secretary, wanted to address the Written\nCommunication for item 7-A. Since there were many letters submitted the staff had\nposted those on the City of Alameda's website and for the staff report, they were\ncompiled and attached as an exhibit. Staff had also emailed out those comments to the\nboard prior to the meeting.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2021-907\nPLN20-0431 - Delisting from Historical Building Study List and Certificate of Approval\n-\n620 Central Avenue - Alameda Federal Center. Applicant: Alameda Point Collaborative.\nPublic hearing to consider delisting the Alameda Federal Center site at 620 Central\nAvenue from the Historical Building Study List. In addition, the applicant requests a\nApproved HAB Meeting Minutes\nMay 6, 2021\n1", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-05-06", "page": 2, "text": "Certificate of Approval to demolish two main buildings and four accessory structures on\nthe project site. The property is listed on the Historical Building Study List with an \"s\"\ndesignation. The City of Alameda has prepared an Addendum to a Mitigated Negative\nDeclaration pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines and no further\nenvironmental review is required.\nStaff Member Tai introduced this item and gave a presentation. Staff Report and\nattachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4928317&GUID=F79F3F4C-\nF1FD-421E-857A-E6F1C7FB096D&FullText=1\nStacy Kozakavich, Cultural Resources Planner/Archaeologist with Page & Turnbull, also\npresented the history of the location and the findings from the 1996 report they had done.\nDoug Biggs, the lead applicant on this project, discussed the intended plans for the\nlocation and why they had decided to try and delist this location from the Historical Building\nStudy List.\nChair Saxby asked the Board for clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked about the buildings outside of the site, the buildings in the\nEast Bay Regional Park District's parcel, and wanted to know if they were listed separately\non the Historical Buildings Study List.\nStaff Member Tai answered that they were not. The staff could clean up the Historical\nBuildings Study List administratively and make it clear that there are multiple buildings on\nthis site.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked if the buildings on the Alameda Federal Center Site were\nlisted together on the Historical Buildings Study List.\nMs. Kozakavich clarified that the Seamanship Building is listed separately on the Study\nList as the Boat House.\nBoard Member Sanchez wanted to know if the Crab Cove Visitor Center falls into one or\nthe other.\nMs. Kozakavich said she did not believe it did, the Visitor Center and the sewage building\nwere not part of the delisting. She also added that Building 7 was included in the original\n620 Central Avenue address.\nApproved HAB Meeting Minutes\nMay 6, 2021\n2", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-05-06", "page": 3, "text": "Board Member Sanchez asked if they wanted the Crab Cove Visitor's Center to be listed\nseparately from the Alameda Federal Center that it could be done administratively by the\nstaff. Staff Member Tai said that was correct.\nChair Saxby clarified that they were only asked to consider delisting the Northern part of\nthis site, and the Southern part of the site was excluded from the request.\nStaff Member Tai said that was correct. He added that Building 7, the boathouse, and the\ninfirmary were not part of the delisting request.\nChair Saxby wanted to know the logic of that approach of separating the Southern part of\nthis parcel.\nStaff Member Tai explained that the request is related to the McKay Wellness Center. The\napplicant determined the buildings could not be feasibly reused, which led to questioning\nwhat other buildings on this site needed to be demolished. To continue with the McKay\nWellness Center Project the staff was only looking at the 3.5-acre portion.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked if the original application also included the demolition of\nthe small accessory structures.\nHenry Dong, Planner III, said it included four accessory buildings.\nBoard Member Sanchez wanted to know if the General Services Agency (GSA) were to\npropose a new building on that site then they would not have to go through the City of\nAlameda's approval process.\nStaff Member Tai said that was correct.\nBoard Member Sanchez continued saying if GSA wanted to demolish all the buildings on\nthis site they could do that without an application for approval.\nStaff Member Tai said that was also correct, that was what had happened to the other\nbuildings of the Alameda Federal Center previously.\nBoard Member Sanchez further clarified that having this location on the Study List would\ndo nothing to sway or stop GSA if they wanted to tear down and build a new building.\nStaff Member Tai said that was correct.\nBoard Member Lynn Jones wanted more information about the adaptive reuse feasibility\nstudy that was brought up in the public comments.\nApproved HAB Meeting Minutes\nMay 6, 2021\n3", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-05-06", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. Biggs said they had done an exploratory demolition of the existing building, and had\nengineers analyze the ability to adaptively reuse the building. The costs to rehabilitate the\nexisting building are enormous.\nChair Saxby asked if that study was focused on structural concerns.\nMr. Biggs said that was correct.\nBoard Member Jones asked if there was any possibility that the architect of these buildings\nwas notable. She referenced public comments that note prominent architects were\nassociated with the buildings.\nMs. Kozakavich explained their research and what would make a building noteworthy and\nhistorically significant. The original plans for these buildings could have come from more\ncentralized wartime plans which were used across the country to quickly build an\ninstallation for training and housing of armed forces. To find those plans they would need\nto dig into federal archival records, the 1996 report did not find those records. She added\nthat even if this building did have a note-worthy architect it would not change the fact that\nthe building had lost integrity.\nBoard Member Jones wanted to know if this facility would qualify as a Historical\nMonument.\nMr. Biggs brought up that most of the people who had written letters to ask the Board to\nsave the buildings had no issue with the buildings being torn down when they previously\nasked the City to turn the site into open space. Since the City does not own the buildings\nthey cannot turn them into a museum.\nChair Saxby asked if it were possible these buildings could be restored to their original\nhistorical condition or whether the question is irrelevant.\nMs. Kozakavich said it wasn't irrelevant, in many cases buildings can be restored to their\nhistorical appearance. In this case, if Building 1 was rehabilitated to its original appearance\nit would be a well-preserved single building but that still wouldn't restore integrity to the\ncampus. It would only go a little way toward bringing back the original character of the site.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked if the original application for Building 2 assumed Adaptive\nReuse.\nMr. Biggs said the original design and intent for Building 2 was to adaptively reuse the\nbuilding. It was only after they had submitted everything with the Planning Board and the\nCity Council that they were able to do the exploratory demolition. Then with the exploratory\ndemo and the analysis from the engineers, it was determined that the original plan for\nadaptive reuse was no longer feasible.\nApproved HAB Meeting Minutes\nMay 6, 2021\n4", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-05-06", "page": 5, "text": "Chair Saxby opened the public comment.\nBoard Member Jones reminded everyone that they were not here to discuss the use of\nthe building.\nChair Saxby concurred and he added that the topic tonight was the potential delisting and\nor demolition of this site. He said that people could combine their time to give a speaker\nextra time.\nStaff Member Tai said that he had been contacted prior to the meeting by Carmen Reid\nand Janet Gibson regarding a presentation they wished to give.\nCarmen Reid had been researching the original architect of the site, and she had reason\nto believe that it was Gardner Daily. She had also reached out to the National Archives\nand as soon as they open she hoped to gain access to those files. She had also found\nsome 1946 drawings by Joseph Esherick, the architect of Sea Ranch, who had designed\nan addition at the training school. She had also submitted an application to designate the\nsite on the National Register, and she pointed out that GSA had incorrect information\nabout which buildings had been demolished. She urged the board to give this item more\ntime, at least until they heard back from the National Register so that the site could be fully\nevaluated by the state and national historians. She said the Merchant Marines deserved\nthis and discussed the petition going around to save the buildings that was fully supported\nby the National Veterans Association. She believed that destroying the buildings without\ndoing a full evaluation would be a disaster.\nChair Saxby asked when the application with the National Register had been submitted\nand what the expected turnaround time was.\nMs. Reid said she had submitted the application on the Friday before this meeting and the\nfull evaluation process was between 6-12 months.\nJohn Healy believed there was a way for historians to feel that history was being preserved\nand for Mr. Biggs to get what he needed to make his project happen. He also thought the\nmemo presented by Page & Turnbull didn't cut it and he disputed that there really hadn't\nbeen an Adaptive Reuse study. He felt that there was a lot of misinformation on both sides.\nHe addressed the importance of this site and that it was the only one like it in the country.\nHe felt that the City had also given out a lot of misinformation and believed there needed\nto be another forum so everyone could have their say.\nJay Garfinkle said that even though the buildings had been modified that shouldn't take\naway the fact that the area had historic significance. He believed the push to do this project\nwas because of financial significance which should carry no weight in the decision\nApproved HAB Meeting Minutes\nMay 6, 2021\n5", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-05-06", "page": 6, "text": "demolition back then the measure would have lost that vote. He pointed out that the only\nother time a building was delisted and demolished in Alameda, a Victorian for a parking\nlot, those findings were also based on a Page & Turnbull report. He pointed out the\napplicant was complaining about cost after the Federal Government had offered these\nbuildings to help the homeless and now the applicant was saying they had no use for\nthese buildings. He believed the HAB should vote to keep the buildings on the Study List\nand preserve and reuse them.\nHarvey Rosenthal addressed some misstatements made in regards to the project. He felt\nthe statement that the opponents of this project had been fine with the buildings being torn\ndown for open space was not true. The open space initiative would have allowed the\nbuildings to stay and be reused for the park. Secondly, the statement that from day one\nBuilding 1 was always going to be torn down. He pointed out that the applicant first applied\nto the Federal Government for these buildings to be reused. Public presentations were\nalso provided by the applicant that discussed \"Adaptive Reuse\" and showed how each\nbuilding would be reused. He felt that the public and the voters had been misled. He\nApproved HAB Meeting Minutes\nMay 6, 2021\n6", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-05-06", "page": 7, "text": "believed the buildings could all be returned to the original design and finish. He felt that\nthere was no research provided as to why the site had been put on the Study List in the\nfirst place. He believed if the site could not serve the needs of the project it should be\nrelocated elsewhere.\nRosalinda Fortuna spoke on behalf of her father, a Navy Veteran, and shared a letter he\nhad written. He spoke about how saddened he was to learn that the city was trying to\ndelist the property at 620 Central Ave and to tear down these buildings was a disgrace.\nThe city should be striving to preserve Alameda's military history. He was also\ndisappointed that the applicant was not sticking to their original promise of reusing the\nbuildings instead of tearing them down. Ms. Fortuna compared the site to the Rosie the\nRiveter Museum in Richmond, California.\nChris Buckley, from the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS), discussed a\nletter they had sent. He pointed out that the criteria for integrity Page & Turnbull used was\nbased on the National Register in California but the City's criteria don't clearly state what\nthe integrity standard was. He discussed the Historic Preservation Ordinance for Alameda\nand the definition for Historic Monuments and how integrity wasn't even mentioned. He\nbelieved this gave flexibility to the HAB do to decide what standard of integrity to apply to\nthis location. An example of this flexibility would be to allow the demolition but to allow the\nsite to stay on the Study List, which suggests there is still some integrity to this site. He\nfelt that there was some contradiction in the staff analysis and in the Page & Turnbull\nreport. He discussed other ways the integrity issue was flexible.\nJanet Gibson discussed her personal history with Alameda and was even born before the\nbuildings were built. She talked about Alameda's unique history and how important these\nbuildings are. She understood the need to create a home for at-risk homeless individuals\nbut perhaps this site was not the right place for it. She wanted the board and the city to\nrethink the use of the land that would bring people to Alameda.\nChair Saxby reminded Ms. Gibson that the use of the site was off-topic.\nZac Bowling acknowledged all the information that had already been provided that showed\nthat these buildings were not historically significant. He made clarifications about previous\nstatements by other commenters. He felt the online petition that was circulating against\nthis project was being shared with false information. He summarized that the same issues\nare being brought up again to fight the project.\nRyan Lalonde commented on statements made by previous speakers. He was frustrated\nthat at every meeting there was always a new issue that needed to be studied just to delay\nthis project. He added that the property was owned by the GSA, and it was not going to\nbe magically be turned over to the city for a different project that some commenters are\nhoping for. He concluded that opponents to the project did not want the respite home in\ntheir neighborhood.\nApproved HAB Meeting Minutes\nMay 6, 2021\n7", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-05-06", "page": 8, "text": "Laura Gamble said the speakers who were demanding to keep these buildings for historic\nvalue had previously advocated for their demolition. She did not appreciate the negative\nremarks directed at the applicant as well as the city staff in a bad faith attempt to further\ndelay a project. She added that subject matter experts all concurred that the answer was\nto delist this property.\nBronwyn Harris said she had read AAPS's letter regarding this site and disagreed with\ntheir comments. She believed the same people who wanted to tear down these buildings\nto build a park are now trying to save the buildings to stop the wellness center. She felt it\nwas time to listen to the experts and delist the property.\nBrenden Sullivan discussed the rich military history that the Bay Area had and how unique\nthe Merchant Marine history was. He believed taking the extra time to get this right was\nnot a bad thing. He said we don't need to tear down our history and should preserve the\nbuildings.\nEzra Denney discussed statements previously made by other commenters and urged the\nboard to end this delay and move forward with this incredibly needed facility that would\nserve the community. Trust the experts, city staff, and voters and let the Wellness Center\nhappen.\nMargaret Hall discussed Adaptive Reuse and what had been in the Measure that had been\nvoted on. She discussed her past work as a contractor and how this is something you\nshould have figured out at the beginning of a project. She felt the buildings should be\nreused and saw the merit in the historic feeling of a building. She described her experience\nrehabbing 100-year-old homes and argued to save these buildings. She agreed with Matt\nReid's comparison of saving the buildings to saving the Great Wall of China.\nThomas Stapleton, calling from Texas, discussed his history with Alameda and his time\nwith the Merchant Marines. He talked about the Maritime Training School in New York,\nwhere his father had trained, and how it had been torn down in the 1950s without honoring\nthe mariners who had served there. No one had stood up against the developers then so\nsaving the buildings tonight was an opportunity to right what was previously lost. He said\nthere was so little that had been done to honor the Merchant Marines and pleaded with\nthe board not to delist this property. He did not believe Alameda needed more concrete\nand steel but needed to protect the sacred grounds of Alameda's maritime history.\nChair Saxby closed public comments and opened the board's discussion.\nChair Saxby thanked everyone for their comments and acknowledged they were still\ngetting email comments as well. He noted everyone's passion and said this would add to\nthe difficulty in making the decision.\nApproved HAB Meeting Minutes\nMay 6, 2021\n8", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-05-06", "page": 9, "text": "Board Member Jenn Wit thanked everyone for their comments and agreed this was a big\ndecision to make. She first wanted clarification on the Exploratory Demo that had been\ndone and what had been found.\nMr. Biggs provided details about exploratory work they had done. He explained the\nextensive work and analysis done by the engineers.\nChair Saxby asked a question about the helical piers put in from the outside.\nMr. Biggs said it was not possible, and that they did not have the space for that.\nBoard Member Wit brought up the Del Monte project and the exploratory demolition that\nwas done there, and how that was able to get rehabbed.\nMr. Biggs clarified that the expectations are different because the Del Monte building had\nalready been declared a Historical Building, and the 620 Central location was just on the\nStudy List, to be studied to see if it was historical. He had also accepted these buildings\nfrom the Federal Government to be used to help the homeless, the Del Monte building\ndoesn't have that added constraint. The project is mandated to create a project that serves\nthe homeless, and is financially feasible to serve the homeless.\nBoard Member Witt wanted to know if it was because of financial reasons that it wasn't\nbeing rehabbed.\nMr. Biggs said the financial reasons were paramount but it also of equal importance they\ncould create a much better property for the clients they would be serving, and able to\nmaintain\nStaff Member Tai added that this step of the project coming before the HAB was always\nthere from the beginning since the original project had anticipated the demolition of\nBuilding 1. He also discussed the differences between this project and the Del Monte\nproject.\nBoard Member Alvin Lau agreed that the original site had historical value and understood\nits importance to some of the Alameda residents, however he believed the City did follow\nlegal processes and provided a lawful report that states the buildings no longer have\nhistorical value because it was not a complete site anymore.\nChair Saxby said he thought that AAPS assumed the board had more flexibility in\ndetermining the historic value of the site due to some ambiguity in the language of the\nordinance.\nApproved HAB Meeting Minutes\nMay 6, 2021\n9", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-05-06", "page": 10, "text": "Board Member Jones wanted to know if what Mr. Buckley said was true. Could the board\napprove the Certificate of Approval to Demolish and still keep the site on the Historical\nStudy List?\nChair Saxby believed that was true.\nStaff Member Tai said that was true and that this board had done that in the past, most\nrecently with Alameda Marina. It was a way of recognizing there was history on the\nproperty but that the buildings lacked integrity so you could allow the demolition.\nChair Saxby clarified that for the Alameda Marina project the City Council had already\ndecided on that before it was brought before the HAB.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked if all the buildings had been scheduled for demolition in\nthe Alameda Marina project. He thought some buildings were scheduled to be preserved.\nChair Saxby said 4 buildings were being preserved.\nBoard Member Sanchez said he didn't see the point in preserving the site on the Study\nList if the plan was to approve the demolition of the buildings.\nChair Saxby said with the Alameda Marina it was a much more intact Cultural Landscape.\nFrom all the public comments and the speakers, it appeared that the people valued the\nhistorical significance of this site and the buildings' connection to the Merchant Marines\nand that gave him hesitation to have this board decide to demolish these buildings. The\nimportance to the community elevated this site in terms of the local historical register. He\npreferred the option of Adaptive Reuse for these buildings and said he would come down\nin favor of not delisting the property and not approving the Certificate of Approval to\ndemolish. He was aware that would then promote this decision to the elected officials on\nthe City Council.\nStaff Member Tai made a clarifying point to help the board come to a decision. He said\nwhile public input and opinion were important the standard of review on the question of\nwhether the site was historic or not was based on established criteria and standards for\nhistoric preservation. He recommended that the board rely on the criteria as presented by\nstaff and the experts to come to a decision.\nChair Saxby pointed out that the Page & Turnbull report said that the site did have historic\nsignificance and that the real issue was that there had been a loss of integrity. He also\nadded according to the AAPS they had a lot of flexibility in interpreting integrity and they\ndidn't have to rely on national and state standards for that analysis.\nBoard Member Sanchez acknowledged that this was an emotionally charged issue and\nhe is trying to evaluate this site and determine if he agrees with Page & Turnbull's\nApproved HAB Meeting Minutes\nMay 6, 2021\n10", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-05-06", "page": 11, "text": "assessment that the site had lost its integrity. He discussed how the site was no longer\nintegral and how a lot of the key buildings that were part of the school had already been\nremoved. It would be a difficult decision to determine if what remains was sufficient to\ncontinue on the Study List. He said the Crab Cove visitor center and Seamanship building\nsouth of the site should be preserved.\nBoard Member Jones said she agreed with Board Member Sanchez that this was a difficult\ndecision. She felt they did have some flexibility with integrity and it was a subjective thing.\nShe appreciated the comment by Mr. Reid about small parts of the Great Wall in China\nthat had been saved. She also felt that they should be preserving the history and if it was\nsomething the community cared about they should honor that. She addressed the state of\nthe buildings now and questioned whether if they do still honor the significant historical\nevents that happened there. That was why she was leaning toward approving the\nCertificate of Approval for demolition but keeping the location on the Study List. She\nwanted them to do more to highlight its significance since it was such a big part of\nAlameda.\nBoard Member Sanchez clarified that Board Member Jones's point was not to delist but\nto approve the Certificate of Approval to demolish.\nBoard Member Wit said yes but only because she agreed with all the research that was\ndone.\nBoard Member Wit agreed this was a very tough decision because everyone cared about\nthe historical character of the island. There was such a need for respite housing and the\nland is vacant and even though half of the structure was torn down it was still hard to\ndecide that the other half should be torn down as well.\nChair Saxby acknowledged that the preservation movement didn't really start in America\nuntil the 1960s. This building had fallen into that time when people were not thinking too\nmuch about the historical record.\nBoard Member Lau personally felt that the site was no longer complete after all the\ndemolition of buildings that had already taken place.\nChair Saxby made a motion to delist from the Historical Building Study List the\nNorthern part of the property at 620 Central Ave and Board Member Sanchez\nseconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion failed 3-2 with Chair\nSaxby and Board Members Jones and Wit voting against.\nBoard Member Jones made a motion to approve the Certificate of Approval to\ndemolish two main buildings and four accessory structures on the project site at\n620 Central Ave and Board Member Wit seconded the motion. A roll call vote was\ntaken and the motion passed 4-1 with Chair Saxby voting against.\nApproved HAB Meeting Minutes\nMay 6, 2021\n11", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-05-06", "page": 12, "text": "Staff Member Tai reminded everyone in attendance that the board's actions were\nappealable to the City Council and that the City Council may also call this decision for a\nreview in the next 10 days.\n8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Member Tai gave an update on the status of the update on the Historic\nPreservation Ordinance. Due to the demands of the staff they had not had much time to\nwork on it but hoped to have an update soon. He encouraged the board to read up on\nthe Mills Act.\n10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nJay Garfinkle wanted to discuss the agenda item some more, he was confused about\nhow something could stay on the study list and still be demolished. He was not criticizing\nthe vote, just the two things seemed inconsistent to him.\nChair Saxby reminded Mr. Garfinkle that Oral Communications was an opportunity to\ndiscuss something that was not on the agenda.\n11. ADJOURNMENT\nChair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 9:36 pm.\nApproved HAB Meeting Minutes\nMay 6, 2021\n12", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf"}