pages: HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard | 2021-05-06 | 9 | Board Member Jenn Wit thanked everyone for their comments and agreed this was a big decision to make. She first wanted clarification on the Exploratory Demo that had been done and what had been found. Mr. Biggs provided details about exploratory work they had done. He explained the extensive work and analysis done by the engineers. Chair Saxby asked a question about the helical piers put in from the outside. Mr. Biggs said it was not possible, and that they did not have the space for that. Board Member Wit brought up the Del Monte project and the exploratory demolition that was done there, and how that was able to get rehabbed. Mr. Biggs clarified that the expectations are different because the Del Monte building had already been declared a Historical Building, and the 620 Central location was just on the Study List, to be studied to see if it was historical. He had also accepted these buildings from the Federal Government to be used to help the homeless, the Del Monte building doesn't have that added constraint. The project is mandated to create a project that serves the homeless, and is financially feasible to serve the homeless. Board Member Witt wanted to know if it was because of financial reasons that it wasn't being rehabbed. Mr. Biggs said the financial reasons were paramount but it also of equal importance they could create a much better property for the clients they would be serving, and able to maintain Staff Member Tai added that this step of the project coming before the HAB was always there from the beginning since the original project had anticipated the demolition of Building 1. He also discussed the differences between this project and the Del Monte project. Board Member Alvin Lau agreed that the original site had historical value and understood its importance to some of the Alameda residents, however he believed the City did follow legal processes and provided a lawful report that states the buildings no longer have historical value because it was not a complete site anymore. Chair Saxby said he thought that AAPS assumed the board had more flexibility in determining the historic value of the site due to some ambiguity in the language of the ordinance. Approved HAB Meeting Minutes May 6, 2021 9 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf |