pages: HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard | 2021-05-06 | 7 | believed the buildings could all be returned to the original design and finish. He felt that there was no research provided as to why the site had been put on the Study List in the first place. He believed if the site could not serve the needs of the project it should be relocated elsewhere. Rosalinda Fortuna spoke on behalf of her father, a Navy Veteran, and shared a letter he had written. He spoke about how saddened he was to learn that the city was trying to delist the property at 620 Central Ave and to tear down these buildings was a disgrace. The city should be striving to preserve Alameda's military history. He was also disappointed that the applicant was not sticking to their original promise of reusing the buildings instead of tearing them down. Ms. Fortuna compared the site to the Rosie the Riveter Museum in Richmond, California. Chris Buckley, from the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS), discussed a letter they had sent. He pointed out that the criteria for integrity Page & Turnbull used was based on the National Register in California but the City's criteria don't clearly state what the integrity standard was. He discussed the Historic Preservation Ordinance for Alameda and the definition for Historic Monuments and how integrity wasn't even mentioned. He believed this gave flexibility to the HAB do to decide what standard of integrity to apply to this location. An example of this flexibility would be to allow the demolition but to allow the site to stay on the Study List, which suggests there is still some integrity to this site. He felt that there was some contradiction in the staff analysis and in the Page & Turnbull report. He discussed other ways the integrity issue was flexible. Janet Gibson discussed her personal history with Alameda and was even born before the buildings were built. She talked about Alameda's unique history and how important these buildings are. She understood the need to create a home for at-risk homeless individuals but perhaps this site was not the right place for it. She wanted the board and the city to rethink the use of the land that would bring people to Alameda. Chair Saxby reminded Ms. Gibson that the use of the site was off-topic. Zac Bowling acknowledged all the information that had already been provided that showed that these buildings were not historically significant. He made clarifications about previous statements by other commenters. He felt the online petition that was circulating against this project was being shared with false information. He summarized that the same issues are being brought up again to fight the project. Ryan Lalonde commented on statements made by previous speakers. He was frustrated that at every meeting there was always a new issue that needed to be studied just to delay this project. He added that the property was owned by the GSA, and it was not going to be magically be turned over to the city for a different project that some commenters are hoping for. He concluded that opponents to the project did not want the respite home in their neighborhood. Approved HAB Meeting Minutes May 6, 2021 7 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf |