{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-12-02", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD\nTHURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2021\n1. CONVENE\nChair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.\nPursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Historical\nAdvisory Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.\n2. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.\nAbsent: None.\n3. MINUTES\nNone\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATION\nNone\n6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2021-1531\nPLN21-0468/PLN21-0469 - Certificates of Approval - 2263 Santa Clara Avenue/950\nWest Mall Square - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public hearing to consider Certificate of\nApproval applications to allow the conversion of lawn to drought-tolerant landscaping at\nthe grounds of City Hall and City Hall West. Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code\nSection 13-21.5 a Certificate of Approval by the Historical Advisory Board is required for\nalterations to Historic Monuments including trees and plantings. This project is exempt\nfrom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines\nSection 15304(b) - Minor Alterations to Land, which consists of new gardening or\nlandscaping, including the replacement of existing landscaping with water-efficient\nlandscaping\nErin Smith, Director of Public Works, introduced this item. She also introduced Todd\nAinsworth, Senior Associate with Gates & Associates, who gave a presentation. The\nstaff report and attachments can be found at\nHAB Meeting Minutes\nDecember 2, 2021\n1", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-12-02", "page": 2, "text": "https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5257047&GUID=CDE2C8D2-\nFE6F-4C1A-B097-E61E8B0664B5&FullText=1.\nAllen Tai, City Planner, explained the board's role in approving this item.\nChair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.\nChair Saxby asked if there was any historic information regarding the character-defining\nfeatures of the landscape for City Hall. He knew there was such information for City Hall\nWest.\nStaff Member Tai said unfortunately not and discussed the history of City Hall.\nChair Saxby wanted to know how this new landscaping would conform to the well-\nmanicured character-defining feature described in the report.\nStaff Member Tai explained the Cultural Landscape Report and how staff interpreted it.\nHe also discussed other landscaping in Alameda.\nMr. Ainsworth also discussed what \"well-manicured\" meant and the thought process\nbehind plant choices.\nBoard Member Norman Sanchez asked what thought was behind the pathways. He\nwanted to see the formality to be maintained.\nMr. Ainsworth answered how they could accentuate the existing paths so they could be\ndefined in a more traditional manner. He also discussed other ways to bring in a more\ngeometric and linear look.\nDirector Smith added that none of the hardscapes at either site would be changing, so\npathways would remain in their existing form.\nBoard Member Alvin Lau asked about using historical benches and lighting.\nDirector Smith said this project would not be dealing with lighting. For benches, they had\nonly thought that they should have seating and not about the overall decor.\nMr. Ainsworth said that the next phase would address historically accurate seating.\nVice-Chair Lynn Jones asked about upkeep.\nDirector Smith said since Public Works would be maintaining everything they would be\nvery familiar with what needed to be done.\nHAB Meeting Minutes\nDecember 2, 2021\n2", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-12-02", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Ainsworth said they would provide a Maintenance Manual.\nBoard Member Jen Wit asked about the durability of the plants. City Hall is a place for\ngatherings such as protests and people might walk or stand on plants and grass.\nMr. Ainsworth discussed options he had thought about.\nChair Saxby opened public comment.\nBetsy Mathison discussed different ways to get the word out about the landscaping\nchanges and why it was happening. She thought it looked great but noted that when\nsomething similar happened in the past the citizens of Alameda were very concerned.\nChair Saxby closed public comment and opened board discussion.\nChair Saxby liked the idea to modify the design to make more room for\nstanding/gathering and having places for people to sit was important. He was more\nconcerned for City Hall West due to the historical relevance of the area. He wanted to\nsee a sense of belonging with the surrounding buildings.\nVice-Chair Jones was happy that there would be documentation to help with\nmaintenance and upkeep. City Hall East and West represent Alameda and this would be\na legacy to leave for the future.\nBoard Member Sanchez thought this was a wonderful project and looked forward to the\nnew tone and direction that City Hall West would receive. He also believed that\nconserving water was a great aim.\nBoard Member Wit asked about the surrounding areas at City Hall West.\nDirector Smith and Staff Member Tai discussed what areas were owned by the city and\nwhat development plans had been discussed.\nBoard Member Lau also was excited to see the final project.\nStaff Member Tai explained the next steps in the design process and how the board\nwould like to stay involved. Director Smith explained the Public Works's timeline.\nThere was a discussion on what was needed for City Hall and how to address the area\naround City Hall West.\nHAB Meeting Minutes\nDecember 2, 2021\n3", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-12-02", "page": 4, "text": "Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the landscaping for City Hall to be\nconverted to drought-tolerant per the design as was presented tonight with the\namendments to make more standing room around the entry plaza, consider\nadditional sitting in the landscape, and for it to be maintained properly. Board\nMember Lau seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.\n*For City Hall West the board wanted to see a development of the design to get a better\nidea of how the design would work with this very important historic site.\n7-B 2021-1532\nPLN21-0527 - Certificate of Approval - Citywide - Applicant: City of Alameda. Public\nhearing to consider a Certificate of Approval to allow rehabilitation and retrofit of historic\nstreetlights throughout the City. This project is exempt from the California Environmental\nQuality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 - Historic Resource\nRestoration/Rehabilitation, which applies to maintenance, repair, rehabilitation,\nrestoration, or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the\nSecretary of the Interior's Standards.\nDirector Smith introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5257048&GUID=9E7A137F\n4FF4-4DED-A143-A4AD39CD054C&FullText=1.\nChair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked about design choices to achieve the historic look.\nDirector Smith said they had created this design specifically for that purpose, there was\nno off-the-shelf option that worked.\nVice-Chair Jones asked about the color choice to mimic the historical green color.\nDirector Smith discussed what information had been available from AMP (Alameda\nMunciple Power).\nStaff Member Tai discussed the historical color choices.\nBoard Member Lau asked if they would ever paint them to color match.\nDirector Smith explained that the streetlights were powder coated and would never be\npainted.\nChair Saxby opened public comment.\nHAB Meeting Minutes\nDecember 2, 2021\n4", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-12-02", "page": 5, "text": "There were no public speakers.\nChair Saxby closed public comment and opened board discussion and comment.\nVice-Chair Jones was excited to see the streetlights changed to be more energy-efficient\nand appreciated the historical appearance and charm of these streetlights. She did wish\nthe wires attached to the poles were not there.\nBoard Member Lau wanted to see consistency among the lights especially since the new\nones would be LED lights.\nDirector Smith discussed the plan for replacing the older lights bulbs.\nChair Saxby wanted to know if any of the historic streetlights being replaced could be\npreserved and adapted.\nDirector Smith explained how the LED light project had worked and how many of the lights\nwere beyond repair. They would only be replacing the ones that required replacement.\nChair Saxby made a motion to approve this resolution with the additional condition\nthat there be documentation of the damage to the streetlights showing that they\nwere damaged beyond repair and there needed to be every attempt to preserve the\nexisting streetlights. Vice-Chair Jones seconded the motion, a vote was taken, and\nthe motion passed 5-0.\n7-C 2021-1533\nA Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update to\naccommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Period 2023-2031\nin Compliance with State Law.\nStaff Member Tai introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5257049&GUID=85489B65\n AF6-4293-B394-9ED1EF4440AC&FullText=1.\nChair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Wit wanted to know more about how the housing allocation numbers were\ndetermined.\nStaff Member Tai explained the RHNA (Reginal Housing Needs Allocation) Methodology\nand models that ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) used.\nHAB Meeting Minutes\nDecember 2, 2021\n5", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-12-02", "page": 6, "text": "Board Member Lau wanted to know if the RHNA also had requirements on the size of the\nhousing or how many rooms and bedrooms a home had.\nStaff Member Tai answered that the Housing Element would not get that specific but they\nwould look at the analysis and see what type of housing was the most needed. He agreed\nthat they would need to create housing for all types of needs.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked about zoning changes and what was allowed under the\nR1 changes and SB-9.\nStaff Member Tai explained the R1 zoning changes under SB-9 and what California State\nLaw would allow.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked other technical questions pertaining to lot size under SB-\n9. He also wanted to know more about how SB-9 would impact how the board would make\nrulings.\nStaff Member Tai explained SB-9 in detail and gave different examples of what was\nallowed. He discussed how SB-9 would affect neighborhood character, how everything\nwould come down to design, and when designs would need to come before the historical\nboard.\nChair Saxby asked if SB-9 established a minimum lot coverage.\nStaff Member Tai believed that SB-9 would defer to local jurisdictions to set lot coverage\nstandards. He also discussed what was already allowed under the ADU (Accessory\nDwelling Unit) Law. He added the importance of setting design standards that would help\nwith the increase in additional units in neighborhoods.\nHenry Dong, Planner III, also gave information on unit size and setbacks.\nBoard Member Lau wanted to know if there was a limit to the ADUs someone could have.\nStaff Member Tai answered that staff was putting together a draft that would have four at\nthe maximum. That would be four including ADUs, Jr. ADUs, or units under SB-9.\nChair Saxby opened public comment.\nBetsy Mathieson summarized comments from her November 16, 2021 letter to the City\nCouncil that were pertinent to historic buildings. She said she believed that all of the\nneighborhoods in Alameda needed to accommodate new neighbors, including the ones\nbuilt in compliance with Article 26. She agreed with a comment made by Planning Board\nMember Alan Teague that the \"reuse of existing buildings is how we would move forward.\"\nShe thought that approach would be how the City avoids displacing low income residents,\nHAB Meeting Minutes\nDecember 2, 2021\n6", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-12-02", "page": 7, "text": "increasing our carbon footprint and converting alameda to any town USA. She stated that\nwithout carefully crafted specifications, upzoning will provide an incentive for demolition,\nand found it concerning that the purpose of the annual review of the Design Review\nOrdinance is to confirm the standards do not constrain the development of housing. She\nfelt developers will use that to argue that existing buildings themselves constrain the\ndevelopment of housing. And felt this logic will result in displacement of low income\nresidents and may also result in the loss of the very buildings shown in the \"Spotlights.'\nShe points out that the Housing Element gives what amounts to density bonuses for the\nrehabilitation and adaptation of existing buildings with no increase in floor area. She then\nsuggests that \"no increase in floor area\" be changed to say \"no change to the building\nenvelope.' She concludes this change will allow new finished floor area in basements and\nattics to accommodate more dwelling units in addition to the existing residents. She said\nshe looks forward to following the progress of the Housing Element.\nChris Buckley, AAPS, discussed a letter the society had sent. AAPS was very concerned\nabout the massive proposed upzoning, the society believed this was overkill. He discussed\nwhat these changes meant for each zoning and suggested different strategies for\nupzoning.\nChair Saxby closed public comment and opened board discussion.\nBoard Member Sanchez wanted to know about the increase and demand for ADUs.\nStaff Member Tai believed it was still too early to establish a trend and then discussed\nhow they had established the average based on the last 4 years. He did note that 2021\nhad the most ADU applications.\nBoard Member Sanchez discussed his concerns about relying on ADUs, such as\nhomeowners buildings ADUs with no intention of renting them out. He wanted to know\nhow many of the completed AUDs were actually being used as rental properties.\nChair Saxby asked if that was something the state would want to be verified.\nStaff Member Tai discussed that the HCD (Housing and Community Development)\nconsidered the ADU a housing opportunity even if it wasn't rented to anyone outside of\nthe family.\nBoard Member Lau asked about the Navy Cap at Alameda Point and suggested different\nways the city or potential developers could work around it.\nChair Saxby agreed with Mr. Buckley about the blanket upzoning of Alameda and he also\nagreed with Ms. Mathieson about looking to the existing housing stock as a method of\nsolving the housing crisis. He also agreed with the proposed mixed-use for Park and\nHAB Meeting Minutes\nDecember 2, 2021\n7", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2021-12-02", "page": 8, "text": "Webster Street. He felt that there needed to be more conversation in the Housing Element\nabout protecting the historic older neighborhoods.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked if student housing counted toward the RHNA. He also\nasked about focusing housing on vacant properties and wanted an idea of the open\nparcels in the R zone.\nStaff Member Tai said it was a need but those would be addressed on a case by case\nbasis. He then discussed what open parcels had potential development.\nBoard Member Sanchez felt that most residential neighborhoods had the potential for\nmore housing and mixed-use spaces. He discussed the importance of finding balance for\nthe R1 neighborhoods.\nBoard Member Lau discussed the potential of Lincoln Ave and if the zoning would change.\nStaff Member Tai discussed what had been discussed.\nBoard Member Witt asked about the Golf Course.\nStaff Member Tai clarified that it was owned by the city and was designated as Public\nOpen Space.\nChair Saxby took a moment to clarify what the primary purpose of the Mills Act was for\nand thought the section about it needed to be reworded or struck entirely.\nStaff Member Tai said that portion had been flagged. He then discussed all the notes he\nhad received and thanked the board for their input.\n8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n11. ADJOURNMENT\nChair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 9:38 pm.\nHAB Meeting Minutes\nDecember 2, 2021\n8", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf"}