pages: HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard | 2021-05-06 | 10 | Board Member Jones wanted to know if what Mr. Buckley said was true. Could the board approve the Certificate of Approval to Demolish and still keep the site on the Historical Study List? Chair Saxby believed that was true. Staff Member Tai said that was true and that this board had done that in the past, most recently with Alameda Marina. It was a way of recognizing there was history on the property but that the buildings lacked integrity so you could allow the demolition. Chair Saxby clarified that for the Alameda Marina project the City Council had already decided on that before it was brought before the HAB. Board Member Sanchez asked if all the buildings had been scheduled for demolition in the Alameda Marina project. He thought some buildings were scheduled to be preserved. Chair Saxby said 4 buildings were being preserved. Board Member Sanchez said he didn't see the point in preserving the site on the Study List if the plan was to approve the demolition of the buildings. Chair Saxby said with the Alameda Marina it was a much more intact Cultural Landscape. From all the public comments and the speakers, it appeared that the people valued the historical significance of this site and the buildings' connection to the Merchant Marines and that gave him hesitation to have this board decide to demolish these buildings. The importance to the community elevated this site in terms of the local historical register. He preferred the option of Adaptive Reuse for these buildings and said he would come down in favor of not delisting the property and not approving the Certificate of Approval to demolish. He was aware that would then promote this decision to the elected officials on the City Council. Staff Member Tai made a clarifying point to help the board come to a decision. He said while public input and opinion were important the standard of review on the question of whether the site was historic or not was based on established criteria and standards for historic preservation. He recommended that the board rely on the criteria as presented by staff and the experts to come to a decision. Chair Saxby pointed out that the Page & Turnbull report said that the site did have historic significance and that the real issue was that there had been a loss of integrity. He also added according to the AAPS they had a lot of flexibility in interpreting integrity and they didn't have to rely on national and state standards for that analysis. Board Member Sanchez acknowledged that this was an emotionally charged issue and he is trying to evaluate this site and determine if he agrees with Page & Turnbull's Approved HAB Meeting Minutes May 6, 2021 10 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf |