Okay, well, we can uh take roll call first.

Um, member of Rito?

Here, board member Bevan.

Present.

And Chair Hernandez.

Present.

Okay, we have a quorum with two absences, Crady and Rabbercheck.

Super.

Um, first up, uh, non-agenda public comments.

Do we have anybody online or in person?

If anyone wishes to speak, we can raise your hand on Zoom.

We have no speakers.

Okay, super.

Um, next uh agenda item is the draft minutes from our last meeting.

Any comments from the gallery?

Nope.

Do we have a motion?

I move to accept the comments.

I second all in favor.

So we approve our minutes from the last meeting.

Yes, the three of you were there, and so we have a quorum and they pass.

Thank you.

Good job of the minutes.

Uh now on to regular agenda items.

So this is uh 802 Buena Vista Avenue.

We talked about this one, was it last time?

Uh or the time before coming back to us with additional information.

Is there a presentation on this?

Yes, this evening.

Uh Tristan Swear will be making the presentation.

Super.

Take it away, Tristan.

Uh thank you, Steam Chair, board members.

I appreciate your time this evening.

Um, as noted, uh the item before you today is the certificate of approval for the uh project located at 802 Buena Vista.

Uh, this is a certificate of approval to demolish the existing residential structure pursuant to uh Alme Municipal Code section 30-21.5, which requires the approval of the historical advisory board for demolition of uh historic structure.

Um I do want to take a quick minute just to give us an opportunity to get on the same page.

I know we've discussed this a little bit previously, but just to outline sort of the uh role of the historical advisory board um with regards to the certificate of approval.

Um so the uh the item before you is of course um a historic building, meaning it was uh well in this case it is both constructed prior to 1942 and included in the city's historical building study list.

Um the historical building study list obviously a function of the city's windshield survey conducted in 1979 to identify buildings that had potential for eligibility for inclusion on the statewide historic register, although the study list uh inclusion of a building is not sufficient alone to uh demonstrate eligibility.

Um, and so uh for any of those buildings when a proposal for demolition comes before staff, um we're required to get approval from the historical advisory board based on a very specific criteria to allow the demolition.

Um that criteria of course is that the historic monument um and this applies also to buildings prior to 1942 are included on the study list, so not just monuments, no longer meets the criteria therefore, which is identified as the four-part criteria uh for secret historic resources, or has become a detriment to the community, and that the condition making it a detriment cannot readily be cured.

And if that finding can be made, um the certificate of approval can be approved.

Um the uh criteria therefore that's referenced in the sort of former section of that um has been sort of uh delineated here uh in the findings as um the structure to be demolished no longer uh embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type period region or method of construction, nor does it represent the work of an important creative individual.

Um that there are no events associated with the property that make uh a historic contribution to the history or cultural heritage of the local or regional history, that the property is not associated with persons important to local, state, or national history, and that the property does not yield any information important to prehistory or history.

Uh and so um the reason I bring those up is just to make sure that we focus tonight um on those criteria um and the finding regarding the certificate of approval.

Um I mention that because there have been modifications proposed to the design of the building.

Um, and while those uh design considerations are intended to achieve harmony with the architectural character of the building, um they will be considered through the design review process, um, which is a staff level approval, can be considered up for the planning board.

Um, and so just a reminder that our focus tonight here is on the demolition of the structure and not the design of the resulting structure.

Um with that in mind, just a little bit of background to remind you of the subject property.

Um, the property located at 802 Buena Vista is a 1466 square foot single family residential building in a predominantly single-family residential neighborhood.

Built in 1908.

It was an exemplary craftsman building, likely built by the Strang Brothers, as evidenced by both the original DPR form that was under consideration last time, and the revised EPR form provided by Paige and Turnbull in response to the board's request for additional historic evaluation to provide context on the project.

So the subject property underwent a pretty significant fire in 2022.

The resulting damage to the fire caused quite a bit of damage, both the interior and exterior of the building.

The historic conditions, as you can see here, are really quite a beautiful H-shaped craftsman building, single story with a crawl space.

Defining architectural features include the front porch, the field stone columns, the triangular brackets, among other specific architectural features, some of which do actually remain intact after the fire, but the vast majority of which those character defining features were destroyed as a function of the fire, as identified in the DPR form and historical evaluation memo provided by Page and Turnbull.

The building has lost integrity as a historic resource.

Integrity defined by several seven excuse me, elements, including setting, location, worksmanship, design, all sort of intended to create a comprehensive image of whether the resource is able to convey its historic significance.

As noted, the uh conclusions to both the revised DPR form and the memorandum provided by Paige and Turnbull, they conclude that the um and I quote the building does not appear to retain sufficient overall integrity for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historic Resources.

The DPR does uh identify, as well as the memo for that matter, elements that do uh maintain uh sort of significance or were not significantly damaged by the fire, such that they may be retained in the resulting design, and the applicants have revised their proposed plans to reflect some of those elements.

I will acknowledge that staff has received uh public comment, including a letter from our architectural preservation society, identifying some elements that were uh noted in the historic eval memo that were not yet incorporated into the design of the resulting building.

It is the intent of staff to uh pursue through conditions of approval of design review and the design review uh process to uh incorporate those elements into the resulting design to ensure that, for example, um the triangular brackets that are very clearly well preserved on the rear and I believe eastern facade of the building, those are well preserved and and should be maintained in the resulting building.

So just a little note on the comments we've received regarding the design.

Um, back to the certificate of approval, um it is staff's opinion that the structure due to its significant fire damage both meets the four criteria necessary or rather fails to meet the criteria necessary for the historic monument and uh is also you know become a detriment to the community that cannot be readily uh cured.

Um just to kind of further that point a little bit.

Um the fire damage has caused the building to be red tagged, uh demonstrating its structural um sort of uh lack of structural soundness.

Um, and so we do have some pictures here, both from the exterior showing the extent of the fire damage, and then um there appeared to have been uh a video provided via public comment that we provided uh screenshots of to show the extent of the damage to the interior, which is significant.

Um, I'll add as a personal note, it was a little nerve-wracking to watch, because it seems very clear that the interior of the structure is not very sound.

And so, because of the damage that is evident here, it seems clear that any sort of even attempt at restoration would constitute a 30% demolition or removal of the structure, and so would trigger a certificate of approval regardless.

And so the recommendation by staff is to approve the certificate of approval to demolish the structure as it can no longer convey its historic significance, and to delist the building from the historic building study list as a result.

And to uh proceed uh following the approval of the certificate of approval with the design review entitlement to ensure that the architectural consistency of the resulting building is maintained uh in relation to the rest of the neighborhood surrounding buildings.

Um I think I will pause there.

I think uh the only thing I'd like to add is we've provided for you quite a bit of information that's been updated since our last meeting, specifically that DPR form and historic uh memorandum provided by Page and Turnbull.

Um, and so assuming you folks have had the time to review that information, um, I figure there may be questions or further clarification needed on that.

Happy to provide answers to those.

And of course, we do have the uh applicants architect available if you have specific questions or recommendations that you'd like included as conditions of approval.

Um, we can certainly include those to be followed through with on the design review portion of the uh entitlement process.

So with that, I will conclude my presentation.

Um I will also leave up for us uh if I can.

Oh, sorry.

It's on, it's vibrating.

JB, are you able to click ahead?

Sorry, we can go one more.

It's the resulting design in, one more.

There we go.

We'll just leave up those findings for you so you can have those uh readily available to you as well.

Great.

Well, thank you, Tristan.

Um, are there any questions from my fellow board members for trust?

Or any of the materials he's presented.

Just I want to make sure I I understood what you said.

Uh, as soon as the a building needs 30% or more demolition, then that automatically triggers the need for the certificate.

Uh so a demolition is defined as 30% or more of the rev removal of the value of the structure as determined by the building official.

Okay.

And so, yes, anything, any project that proposes to remove at least 30% of the value of the structure will require a certificate of approval.

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Um I have a couple questions.

Great.

Um I wanted to note that under exhibit seven in the agenda, there's an attachment called 802 Bonavista walkthrough photos.

And I came across those earlier this week when I was doing some background research on the property.

So my understanding is that when the property was surveyed by Page and Turnbull, they didn't have access to the interior.

Um, and I'm curious when when was the building red tagged relevant to that date?

That's one question.

Yeah.

Um the other question is: did the consultant request the access, or um something like removing some of the plywood from the windows, that's obscuring interior visibility.

Or was there uh sort of uh an inability to do that because of red tag or owner and projection potentially not to insinuate anything?

But it's a very good question.

And um, so maybe just to add a little context there.

Yeah, we weren't even aware of those screenshots that were included as that extra exhibit until earlier this week when we saw that uh the video of uh the folks entering the building.

Um it is our understanding that that was done illegally, um uh certainly wasn't given permission by the city or the building official to enter the building.

Um as things stand, the city's position is that the building is not safe to occupy um and that um nobody should be in there for the purposes of doing a structural eval or for just taking pictures.

We believe this was a realtor.

Um was um obviously had other incentive for uh entering the building.

Okay.

Yeah, that that was one question I had because I know from a lot of the public comments and the conditions assessment, there were some questions about materials that are left.

Um one of the challenges from a consideration of character defining features perspective is that oftentimes as a historian when you're looking at a private residential property type, at least as far as seek was concerned about public realm features or features visible from that perspective, the interior is really not up for discussion.

Um very rarely maybe a property has something like a preservation covenant that will protect interior features.

Um so in in this case, there was a little bit of question about the presence of certain features and and their condition.

Um I also noticed on the conditions assessment diagrams that were pulled together by pigeon turnbull.

The roof was identified as a non-original feature.

Um, and I'm wondering if that was perhaps an accident or maybe that's referring to the shingles on the roof, being composite versus maybe something like wood.

Um, that was a little unclear from the alteration history.

Yeah, so I'm gonna take those one at a time.

So uh first regarding the roof.

Um, yeah, the the we have uh permit history showing that the roof has been re-shingled a number of times, and so I think that's what they're referring to as a non-original feature.

Okay.

Um and as for the interior, I completely agree with you for a private building.

Um typically we're not considering the interior whatsoever.

Um, however, it is worth noting that the interior images do provide context into the structural sort of damage that was done and the infeasibility of restoration.

So I think that was sort of the context we were looking to provide with those, not necessarily identifying features that were worth preserving, right?

Okay, um I'm also curious, and this may be a question that comes up in the future, hopefully not, but I was reading through the code and I saw mention of interim stabilization plans.

Is that specific to buildings that are designated monuments or does that cover study list properties?

Um, well, and uh I'm not sure what the city's past practice has been with regards to this.

Um I can tell you I'm not familiar with any interim stabilization plans for non-monument buildings.

Um and so that would imply to me that it has not been the city's practice to require this for buildings that are simply study list or pre-42.

Um, that that would be my understanding of the the city's past practice.

Okay.

All right.

Um let's see.

Um I think my other question, I'm gonna I'm gonna have a few.

Please, but I feel like this is the time to do it.

Um as far as integrity is concerned, one question that came up in the evaluation was there's no express mention of or explicit mention of integrity being required for eligibility to the city's list.

Or as a monument, I should say.

Versus California register, national register.

They both had that requirement.

Can is there any insight into how the city's dealt with that recently?

Uh so uh it's worth noting that what is required for inclusion on our local register is effectively two things it is property owner application and recordation.

So um the criteria for inclusion as a local monument is um not necessarily as robust as the integrity framework.

And so that is why we'll typically defer to the integrity framework um as sort of the defining, you know, decision making uh criteria rather than um simply you know the uh uh nomination of a particular property by the property owner.

Okay, because they believe it's you know worthy of inclusion.

Right.

Yeah.

And I understand some municipalities may have lower thresholds or lack thereof for integrity, um depending on when ordinances were updated, things like that.

Uh let's see um I did want to note um I reviewed National Park Service Bulletin 15 which is kind of a go-to document I think you had mentioned um that seven aspects of integrity and uh at least for national register eligibility that's a good guide for how you how do you evaluate integrity right um and it does not whether the property retains the identity for which it is significant is key to that discussion but also um the property would not be eligible if it has some basic features massing as an example um but has lost the majority of features that once characterize its style so I think those sorts of arguments are what uh patient trimbles wrestling with is there going through that discussion um uh but I so where I'm I think there could be some uh amendment if you will to these two studies that were done in light of this new information on the interior does the does the assessment of what's left in the interior impact their understanding of integrity as far as what windows are present uh were repairable because I feel like there is some additional information that would inform their conditions analysis whether it's more features not being intact or more features being intact um and then I think the other questions I have um analysis of integrity usually requires some assessment of comparables so in this case there's an indication that this property was designed by or built by the Strang brothers and in the DPR forms that were prepared there were there were a couple um I think weak points in the analysis of Strang brothers' work and I I want to make sure that that can be addressed for whatever the final record becomes um for example I I found that buildings at 910 and 914 one block away were built by Strang brothers so those provide extant examples and that was just through research on newspapers.com I also noticed that there wasn't any research apparently done at Almin Museum local permits were referred to that were provided by the city um but I I would anticipate some sort of in-person archival research to really get to the bottom or at least attempt to um answer to that question so I I think there's some room for improvement there as far as rounding out the evaluation when I get to the actual evaluation section in the report uh there was obviously mention of Mastic Park being the earliest 20th century subdivision in the city and under criterion A the finding was the property's one of hundreds of single family craftsman residences built in massive park a 200 lot subdivision uh built between early 20th century and world war one therefore the subject property does not appear to have been individually associated with any notable local regional or national events or patterns of development.

And I will say that for developments like that that were built over time, the kind of defined period in a defined geographic area, the likelihood that there will be um individually significant buildings, that's one factor but but there's also the ability of buildings that may have not kind of non-individual significance to that actual development as contributors to the pattern.

So I think it would be important and a stronger assessment if there was some indication of whether this particular neighborhood is potentially significant or whether future research, additional study is merited to help suss that out.

I also think that helps inform integrity arguments too, sometimes building center contributors versus individually significant, they can have less integrity and still be a part of the pattern, if you will.

Finally, under criterion three, the architectural evaluation, architectural evaluation, it concludes with however research did not uncover notable works built by the strengths, and therefore the building cannot be attributed as the work of a builder or architect of merit.

And I think that doesn't sound like it's a very uh defensible conclusion based upon some of the evidence presented in the DPR as far as the number of houses the strengths were responsible for and um the fact that their work has been documented.

So I do I do see the argument for this being a significant example of its type.

But but again, just like criterion in one, if rather than conclude that the strengths are not builders of merit, I would suggest concluding something that says based on what we found, you know, we don't know, because I more research may be necessary.

Ultimately, this document will serve as uh the next stepping stone from what was the 1979 evaluation.

It will go on to some record, and a historian in the future will find it and say, okay, here's where they left off.

This is what was feasible, and this is where we can go from.

Those are the comments I have on the deliverables.

Um I think for now that's I'll leave it at that.

Um I had a question following up on um what Mr.

Brito said about the valuation determination being the trigger.

So uh was any analysis done of the actual cost of repair?

Anything's doable, it's only time and money, but what was the valuation given to the building and what was the estimate of repair that led the city to believe it's over the 30% threshold?

So um it's the extent of damage typically the 30% is calculated by removal of exterior walls, um, and so the necessary reconstruction of the building would result in more than 30% of the demolition of exterior walls.

It's a determination made by the building official.

Um so I don't have great insights into how exactly the you know uh technical information that's going into that decision.

Got it.

So um there is not a cost analysis done, but of course the cost isn't really factored into decision making for the findings needed for the certificate of approval either.

I just wanted to clarify what the criteria was.

So it's if 30% of the surface area of the exterior of the building needs to be removed, that would trigger the my understanding is that the building officials' determination does take largely into account the amount of exterior wall percentage that would need to be removed.

Um again, I think there are other pieces of technical information that go into that determination, but um that is something that I have had conversations with the building official in the past and it's been indicated to me that's part of the determination.

Got it.

Got it.

Um that that would be good to know just for clarity on uh process, you know.

So as we think about, well, what if someone came and applied and said, hey, we want to be on the city's historical list, you know, voluntarily filled out the application.

What is the process to remove them?

I think some more clarity would be helpful.

Steven, you have a but I I just want to clarify that's the threshold for the definition of demolition, correct?

And so it's not really it's kind of the flip side, maybe of the eligibility question, but or or integrity, but it's it's not entirely the same question.

Um yeah, I'm just trying to make sure I have the correct definition of the trigger.

You know, there could be something that would cost easily 30% of the value of the home, but isn't actually 30% of the surface area of the home.

That's very true.

And and so there is an interpretation by the building official of um also yeah, value to whom in what circumstances, so it's it's not precise.

Got it.

Um more clarity would I I would find useful.

Um Arthur, did you have any other questions?

Um, um it was mentioned that the east and west facades were in fairly good condition.

Um I guess that gets back to the 30% question.

It's like, well, if if if what 30%?

Yeah, what 30%, and I guess if the if the entire front facade is lost, yeah, would it even make any sense to keep those those two and then looking at those interior, the interior damage, it's like, well, the outside looks okay, and like like was mentioned, they didn't have access to the interior when they did the report.

So um yeah, that's kind of what I'm struggling with a little bit.

I I'll respond to a little bit to that.

Um it's worth noting, and this is called out in the memo as well, that the majority of that rear facade is on original.

So while that rear facade is largely undamaged, um it's also not original.

So it's sort of a moot point to that effect, but uh and I'm sorry, uh board member Beffin, did you want me to respond to any of your comments that you had made?

Um I I had one more question I thought of.

Um I mean those are comments and uh I'm not sure if it's better for me to jot those down and forward them.

I do think they're worth um looking into uh to kind of finalize these deliverables.

Um that's that's my intent there is is to say, you know, in the event that this building gets demolished, what's the final record look like?

And is it is it solid?

I think we'd want that.

So maybe just to respond to that.

The uh DPR form was filed with the Northwest Information Center.

Um, and so my understanding is that this is the final deliverable.

Okay.

Um I would suggest that the consultant inquire with uh either the information center or the Office of Historic Preservation to see if they've made a formal determination of eligibility on that record.

Typically, in my experience, the records aren't actually submitted until the project is deemed complete, um, so there could be an opportunity there to send in an amendment of revised edition.

Um my other question is um the conclusion of the evaluation is that the property receives a 5s1 status code for appears locally eligible through survey evaluation, hinging on the integrity or lack of of an integrity requirement for local listing.

So does that 5S1 code qualify the building as a historical resource under CEQA?

That's one part.

And if that's the case, if the building's demolished, even due to its status as a red tag property, does that count as a significant impact to a historical resource for CEQA?

And is there mitigation tied to that?

Uh our understanding is that the project is exempt under CEQA.

Um that was the analysis conducted in conclusion reached by staff, approved by our city attorney's office.

Um so uh my understanding is that it is it while it may be uh not disqualified for eligibility on local register, um, without the property owner coming forward and initiating a request for inclusion on that local register, it wouldn't happen.

So it doesn't seem to me that it would be possible for it to be included on a local register at this time.

Well, it I guess I'd like clarification on uh whether eligible resources, resources identified through a survey that was formally adopted by a city are considered historical resources for CIQA, and this this appears to be uh an update that confirms that at least local eligibility.

So I'm not sure.

The city's study list does not constitute eligibility for inclusion on a register.

Okay.

Um more call question then.

At the first meeting, when I asked, does the 3S status code which is eligible for national register?

That was assigned in 1979, and I asked if the property was considered a historical resource for CECLA.

Um I believe it was explained that properties that have a historic state historic resource inventory form considered or treated as historical resources.

Could be eligible for inclusion depending on the outcome of that DPR form.

There are DPR forms that conclude that a project or rather a site is ineligible, right?

Um, and based on the findings for that eligibility, in this case, the uh architectural character, which it has been determined by the most recent evaluation is no longer maintaining its integrity, and therefore the initial reasons for inclusion on that study list are moot.

Okay, right.

Um I think that's all the comments I have.

Thank you.

So uh again back to the DPR form, it's uh because it lists a few things.

So it's it doesn't appear to be qualified based on events or persons, uh, but it does have some architectural significance but does not uh from uh you know an individual thing in itself uh have anything uh that would justify it being on these lists.

That's aside from the city's historical significance list, you know, to keep these things sort of separated on the city list side.

What we're really determining is for the certificate of uh approval on the demolition, you know, should it come off the city list, and can it get a demolition approval?

Um ultimately I would say there is one determination that the board needs to make, and that is effectively yes or no.

Does this site meet the criteria therefore, which is laid out before you there, the four-point criteria, or has it become a detriment to the community, that the condition of making it a detriment cannot readily be cured?

Right, and so that that again goes back to one of my questions about cannot anything can be cured, but you know, we're we're you know, layering onto what can and cannot based on a 30% of what.

Right.

So readily I think is the operative term here.

Um I think readily be cured would imply that it could be cured without a 30% demolition or removal of the value of the structure, right?

Um if it could be readily cured, then it wouldn't require a certificate of approval.

Got it.

Um so from a time material investment point of view, obviously building an entirely new building would be more expensive than curing this building.

I have not we would actually, yeah.

Yeah, so I mean, we don't have any analysis of that, but it's just like you know, intuitively a theoretical, like, I build houses, so like okay, you know, I don't know.

Seems like building a whole new one would would involve some cost.

Um, but uh more generally, because you know, as as we think about what just happened in Southern California and the huge fires and all these historical buildings lost or damaged, you know, thank God we're not in anything like that situation here in Alameda, and we're talking about one specific building, but it would be good for us as a community to gain and as a uh decision-making body to gain more clarity around this, because uh what I would and this is obviously not the case, you know, I would hate for there to be a fire so someone could justify getting rid of a building to make a new one.

The worst case of all, yeah, you know, so just clarity around the maybe I can respond very briefly to that.

Um I think one of the things that we want to avoid here is you know, in the event of a significantly bad fire, right?

Um, if a project requires demolition in order to restore it, which appears to be the case here, when you restore it, it's really a reconstruction, and oftentimes using modern building materials and techniques results in a modern feeling building, even if the intent is to create a replica of the old.

And so I think what we want to avoid is that sort of false historicism.

Um, and so in in situations where the damage is so significant that it loses its integrity, as is the case here.

Um, I think it behooves the board to consider the alternative, which is um, you know, uh reconstruction or restoration in such a way that results in a structure that maybe doesn't convey any historical significance but does perhaps cost more from the perspective of the Africaner, requires more um uh attention to something that isn't desirable.

Um, and so I think that's sort of the reasoning behind um why you might not want somebody to uh be forced to reconstruct in such a way after significant damage is done that you know the exterior features can no longer be preserved.

Although again, I'll note that the preservable features um are intended by the applicant to be retained and reused on the resulting building.

So hopefully that helps a little bit.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

Um let's see uh any other questions for Tristan.

Is there anything?

Great, thank you so much.

Thank you all.

Um let's see, uh were there any thoughts on um the public comment?

Are there public comments?

Uh do we have folks either online or if you'd like to speak online, please raise your hand public comments?

We already submitted some excellent thank you.

Um we have none in person, uh they've already submitted online, and we have one speaker.

Okay, super.

Chris Buckley.

Christopher Buckley with the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society would like to uh review some of the points in the letter that we sent that you should have received um today or last night in some cases.

Um, first we want to thank the board for its robust review of the proposal at March 6th meeting and for the applicant uh you know responding uh both to the board's comments as well as to ours, significant improvements to the design.

There's still some loose ends though that's uh we believe should be addressed.

So we've listed um I believe it's 12 of them in the letter, so starting with item one, incorporate existing porch rafter tails into the design.

We included a photograph um showing those attached to the letter.

Uh that photographs also been handed out.

Um the raster tails uh provide some texture, important texture there in the uh you might say belly band along the midpoint of the building.

So we think that's an important detail to retain.

Uh item two, retain existing tapered river rock.

Uh which they call field stone.

Not sure what it's river rock is really a type of field stone, but we'll leave that to the others.

The um, but to the ports, column bases, um the plan should explicitly show the column bases tapered design.

It also says that the um bases uh should incorporate, should should be changed to shall.

Um these are notes on the plans.

Item three retain existing front porch railing design, which consists of some very chunky, robust, probably six by six posts um that um are below the 42 inch minimum height, but we don't think the that the building code requires, but we don't think that's applicable here because it appears that the porch floor is uh exactly 30 inches above grade, which is what triggers those building code requirements, and if the applicant wants to use a higher railing anyway, that we recommend it to do it as a uh booster rail uh things, just more in of um inconspicuous materials.

We can provide more information how design that the staff or the applicant is interested.

Uh item four, uh clarify the proposed engineered wood horizontal siding.

Uh they have two types indicated um LP uh true smart side and also collins true wood.

We don't believe a Collins product is currently available.

Both of them seem to be promoting a textured surface.

We recommend that it be a smooth surface, the textured surfaces tend to look uh synthetic.

Uh and also the dimension should be clarified to make sure it actually matches the existing siding.

Uh item five, verify proposed V brackets, um, you know, match um what was there.

I believe staff has covered that in their uh comments.

Um I've run out of time here.

Could I have 20 seconds more?

Uh yes, you may.

Okay, thank you.

Um, item seven, provide windows that visually match the existing wood windows.

It's confusing on the plan.

They list various uh window types that we believe would uh match the existing windows, the Marvin Oldman wood clad notably, but also others, but they also list the mill guard windows, vinyl windows that were on the previous design, and um the mill guard should be deleted and just list those other uh five window types.

Um eight, don't use mold sash for the paired windows, it creates a somewhat artificial uh very um flimsy divider between the windows.

Uh so use a three and a half wide separation between the windows.

Item nine horizontally align the top 90% of the doors and windows on street facing elevations.

It's geometrically much more satisfactory that those tops of doors and windows are aligned, at least most of them.

Uh we it's not clear why they have different horizontal alignments there.

Um, and then provide vertical section details through the eaves and porch railings so that we um so it's very clear exactly what's being proposed, and then noting finally item 12 and the uh resolution, correct that to reflect the actual criteria.

In other words, this historical monument criteria does not have an integrity component.

That's the most that's the most significant part.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Beckley.

Are there any questions for Mr.

Buck?

No, I think so.

Okay, great.

Um so no other public comments, great uh discussion.

Well, I'll say I'm glad that there are some elements being incorporated into the new building.

I think that's a good approach towards sustainability.

Um I do want to acknowledge that um as uh planning staff had mentioned regarding materials and um false historicism.

I do think it's important that um new construction has a chance to be of its own time, and not have to rely on exact copies of historic features.

Um I know that can lead to harmony in a neighborhood, but it can also lead to confusion about which fabric is from what period.

Um things like modern windows, uh different types of siding, um, that can help differentiate the new from the old.

Um, but I do I think as um someone who believes in historic preservation, I do think it's important to balance the old and the new.

I think that's important.

So and in the long run, 50 years down the road, a new building of its own time will have a chance to be evaluated as a new building of its own time.

So I think that's important.

What else?

I think the massing and the roof forms are generally compatible with that area.

Yeah, I mean, I don't I don't feel like I have any other any critiques, so to speak.

Uh yeah, just kind of I was going through my notes from the last meeting, and uh former board member Sanchez had pointed out some architectural elements that on the proposed design that didn't that didn't quite fit in right, weren't you know necessarily period correct.

Um and I'm I'm happy to see that the this updated design has kind of corrected some of those things.

And um yeah, I would agree I'm I'm I'm liking the direction that it's going.

So I I it's if something has to be demolished, then I'd like to look that it at least it's giving the sense to me that it instead of just a complete knockdown and let's start over and do whatever, it's it feels like the design is more like a remodel on an on an older existing building instead of just kind of starting from scratch, it's like someone did a big addition, and so it's still filling feeling architecturally uh appropriate.

Um and I appreciate that the owners and the design team is trying to incorporate some salvaged materials uh where possible.

Um so I'm overall I'm I'm feeling feeling better than than I was uh last time we spoke about this.

Um I guess I'll go so uh I I also want to thank the uh the applicants uh for trusting in the process thus far.

Um it's uh definitely um I know a challenge from the other side uh of the desk.

Uh why why do things take so long?

Why is there so much uh back and forth?

But um uh definitely appreciate the efforts um that we're seeing both uh from the city in updating some of the evaluation forms and the updated DPR so we have more documentation to justify our position.

Uh like my fellow board member uh I believe that we need to pay attention to the historic artifacts that we're creating in that document.

And even though you know the form has been filed, so to speak, uh the uh some of the suggestions uh made I think are you know worth listening to and seeing if if maybe there is ways we can amend or enhance or clarify some of those statements so that uh you know whoever's sitting in these desks a hundred years from now will be like, oh these guys were actually you know great builders, and here's the 10 other buildings they built or or whatever.

Um I don't pretend to understand what they'll think is significant in the future.

Um also uh I applaud uh everybody uh here for helping new housing come to be.

Uh so whether this ultimately ends up uh being approved as a demolition, and this exact building or some version of it gets built.

You know, none of us can predict that, but the effort is here to create more housing, and I think that's uh super important uh thing in our community.

So I applaud that as well.

Um on the subject of the design itself.

Um I will leave that to the architects.

Um I do agree in general, I think, with a lot of the suggestions made by Christopher Buckley uh in regards to architectural elements.

Um it would be my hope that uh many of those comments uh should this go forward be pushed through staff into planning for strong consideration.

Um makes great points and I'm sure there's plenty of folks uh much more competent than me in architecture that can speak to that.

Um I would also uh as we look forward to if we're gonna entertain the resolution, um, in the same way that we might modify some of the language in the DPR, reflect that in the resolution, so there's a little bit of tuning.

Um, as in um, you know, some elements have lost significant integrity, but it's not like the whole thing's lost.

I think um in the AAPS letter, there was mention of uh it could yet regain its significance.

We we don't really know what'll happen here once or if we grant a certificate of approval for the demolition.

Maybe it doesn't get demoed, maybe something happens, maybe someone new buys the building and restores it, and then what?

Uh so I don't wanna not I don't want to not allow that to happen, you know.

If it did, what magic that would be.

Um we can't predict.

Um so yeah, I think those are those are my basics.

Um as far as the massing, and this is just a personal comment uh on the design itself.

Um I was noticing the setbacks on the site plan, and um I I didn't see that a survey had been done, you know, and I always worry about those things in Alameda, you know, where are the setbacks actually uh because they tend to vary so much from the public right away.

Uh because it's a corner, you know, facing lot to make sure that's really well articulated, and yes, it's a bigger building, and is it gonna stay right faced where the current one is?

I didn't go out and measure, so I don't know where this massing relates to the previous massing, but those are just you know visual considerations, it's a lot of building, it's a lot more building, but I'm sure planning will have their hand well on that.

Um, so yeah, those are those are my comments.

Thank you.

So you have a resolution in your packet, um and it's uh exhibit 64A.

And um I wonder if you're prepared to to make that motion, um, perhaps with some edits.

It sounded like you wanted to suggest that we work with the DPR form edits and see what we can accomplish there.

Um I did see that in the resolution there's maybe some slightly different language, and um I don't know if you want to try to reconcile that in terms of finding number one or number two in terms of the Strang Brothers and the Mastics subdivision.

I don't know if you have that in front of you.

Yeah, we could put it up in front of me, yeah.

Um, but um that I feel like that would be where you have the power to make changes or at least dictate to us.

It's our resolution.

Some ideas, yeah.

Um so here's a question just to start out.

Um, so this is one of clarification, and this is on page two, you know, the first be it further resolved, is that we are hereby removing the building, or would we would be uh hereby removing the building from the historical study list?

And so that the certificate of approval could be, etc.

etc.

etc.

Um, should it come to pass that this next part never happens?

Let's say the building does not get demolished, let's say the next building does not get built, then where are we?

You know, where does this building stand in limbo if none of those things happen next?

Well, I think we're still recommending that the building doesn't really communicate anymore or have the integrity where it really could be restored in its present form.

So I think we're still recommending that you remove it from the list.

Got it.

And if it doesn't get demolished, or if circumstances change and someone wants to restore it or could restore it, they can still send in the form just like anybody else and say, hey, we have this beautiful building.

Uh that is now significant again.

Well, yeah, although I think again that the 30% threshold means they still need the COA certificate of approval to do anything because it's going to be demolished more than 30%.

So you still have to issue the COA, and I think at that point the demolition is approved, and at that point then the design review of whatever comes next shifts to someone else with these sort of suggestions and conditions.

Okay.

So I think we're back where we started.

Okay.

And uh we know that the building can be demolished.

Let's say this passes the building can be demolished and will be demolished, but that is immaterially connected to what happens next on that lot.

Like the the demolishing is that's a done deal, whether or not they go through the rest of it.

Except to the extent again that you might say, and we think these seven or nine features should be preserved or replicated or or at least considered.

Got it.

Okay.

I mean, I I think in that situation that you're you're making suggestions.

Right.

Recommendations, yeah.

So if we were to Wordsmith, I guess essentially is where we are, or do we want to five?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, the whereas is are kind of the whereas is so I think it's the resolved.

Yeah, be it further resolved one one through five.

So I think what I heard was that the Strang brothers may be associated with at least a pattern of development in the city that is notable or something to that effect, rather than but I think what we were getting at is they haven't they weren't associated with monuments, like they didn't build the Carnegie Library, but they had a different influence on the city, maybe.

Yeah, I mean, I would feel more comfortable if it said something along the lines of the builder was likely the Strang brothers who are not considered a builder of significance in the city of Alameda, if we are saying clearly that they didn't build anymore, but you're saying you've found other examples.

So what I would say, um is and I'll I'll say I have some documentation that I'm happy to share through planning if they want to forward it.

I'm happy to do that.

Um, so I'll say the builder of the subject property has been identified as Strang brothers, who through uh documentation available for this individual property study could not be identified as a builder of merit.

Therefore, the building um was unable to be associated with an important creative of individual.

I think that I want to think about that.

I'm happy to work off of the video recording of the meeting.

We don't have the evidence to say the Strang brothers are not builders of merit based on what we've seen.

Like we can't say that because we don't know that.

I, yeah, thank you.

Um so the builder was like the the Strang brothers.

Period.

Um through research for this study um was limited on their career.

Um no additional particular specific properties that they built were identified through research.

Therefore, additional research would be required to make a determination of whether they are a builder of merit.

Okay.

Yeah.

I'm okay.

I think it's okay to say, based on what we found, which was very limited, it's hard to make that judgment.

I don't think a builder's merit should be written off just based upon one property.

Okay.

Yeah.

Fair enough.

Yeah.

And I and I would also suggest that these first four findings are important, but if you make the fifth finding, um, then um it's in terms of more of the current integrity and the condition can now be readily cured, then the preceding findings help make the case, but they're not the they don't have to all be negative, because you can also just say, that aside, we think the building has to be demolished, and that would be okay too.

So I I don't want you to get too hung up on these first four findings, um, but I hear that you're trying to clarify the record.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I would say for number two um research did not identify the property as individually significant to any patterns of history that are important to local, state, or national history.

Um as a building or as a property that is part of the mastic subdivision, um additional research would be required to determine whether that subdivision uh is significant as a potential historic district.

Um, however, this study was scoped just for this property.

Or rather than wordsmith like that, maybe we're just literally removing words or removing sentences that are making these overly broad descriptions.

You know, like the property was developed as part of the mastic subdivision, period.

Okay, we all agree on that.

No, I no significant events are associated with the property that we uncovered, and that's kind of that, or is the rest of that really required if all of the determination really comes down to five?

That we're saying it's it doesn't meet the criteria for historical monument, and it's become a detriment, and the condition is such that it can't readily be cured.

That's that's the overriding proclamation.

So we're not putting things in record that we can't justify or have to so deeply uh you know, yeah, I think the claim, you know, we're just claiming everything like maybe, but right.

Well, I think where I'm hung up on that is um when you're evaluating a property under a criterion one, that property will be associated with something, what whether it's development of a subdivision or maybe it's a one-off property, um maybe it's civic development, depending on the property right, whether or not that is significant and the subject properties role in that pattern, that's what you're really trying to answer.

And I feel like as currently written in the DPR, there's a very quick assessment of that, that the individual property is not significant.

Okay, I think it would be um helpful to indicate not evaluate, but just indicate that further evaluation was not required as part of the study, or that further research would be required to understand the significance of that neighborhood because that's historic districts are types of historic resources, yeah.

But that's it's got a subdivision name, you know, mass mastic is uh is a name around town, you know, there's mastic senior setter for a reason, yeah.

Like it's it's a thing.

So um uh so again back to our conversation.

If we were you know uh nudifying one, two, three, and four, you know, so that they're not making proclamations that we're not feeling adequately informed to make, would that get us to a place where we could you know vote on this today?

Uh knowing that the basis is really about number five, it's it's not readily curable.

I think I mean yeah, three and three and four I'm totally okay with um, so I think I'm hearing then rather than trying to wordsmith some more neutrality and future research, instead just state what you do know and then say nonetheless, the project is not meet the criteria.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, right that it's not readily curable.

Yeah.

Um page three, first paragraph at the top, you know, for example, the majority of the public facing facade has been damaged, and the structural deficits cannot be readily cured.

Well, I don't know what is again back to this.

What's which 30%, you know, which which majority, you know, I would strike all that uh and just say has been vacant for more than two years, and the structural deficits cannot be readily recured, because that's you know that's the rub.

And red tagged and bordered up and fenced and but um, you know, again to what we're we're ready to make a statement as, you know, what what majority?

Like, well, I don't know, because we don't even know which 30% is the criteria that would make up now the majority.

Um I think all the for at least for me all the be it further resolved, all that is fine, and the notice, etc.

are just more of the boiler, boilerplate.

So um, can I can I make a suggestion that um we make these edits and that after the fact that we take your direction, you you make your motion, you take your vote, and if you approve the slimmed down version, that uh Tristan and I would run it by the chair just to make sure that we captured it, and that would be the final resolution.

Okay, yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

I thought you were raising your hand.

I saw a fingers, so I was like, Jennifer's saying something.

Can I ask if if there are um conditions?

Are those written into here?

Or or do we can conditions go in the resolution here, and in this case, the conditions are you need to demolish it within three years and get a um design review approval.

Okay.

Um can we add a condition that the DPR forms that were submitted will be updated with um information based upon comments or that I can provide as far as a permit reference or um I just want to make sure that that record that's on file is as accurate as possible.

And I mean, I know it's already been submitted, maybe subject to the ability to edit it.

Yeah, I think that's I don't know if it's quite the right legal term, but dicta.

I mean, I think you're giving us some commentary, but not necessarily in this resolution.

Yeah.

Kind of like, and by the way, we think you should do this.

Yeah.

Yeah, so I guess that that's the question mark of what we had up on our screen, which is what we're here to decide, or you know, what what is within the purview of our authority, which is do they or do they not get the certificate of approval?

Uh is it or is it not on the list?

Uh, but that follow-up staff action, just like the comments we may make that we wish to go forward to the planning portion of the adventure.

Should that continue?

Those are just kind of like our comments.

So um, you know, I don't I don't know that necessarily there's uh an official way for us to order that based on our authority.

Yeah, we can see it's not to say they won't do it.

I just don't know that we do put it in.

And yeah, I'm okay if it's this is my suggestion.

I'd appreciate if there was some effort to undertake that, consider it.

I think it's for the best.

Yeah, I I agree.

I think having a clean, you know, record that we all believe in is important.

So we'll we'll do what we can.

Yeah, and you know, it sort of goes to the point of well, should we ever be back here again talking about a fire damage building?

We're gonna have a lot more clarity on that process.

And yeah, I feel like I what we want to see, yeah.

We've already, you know, elevated the game.

Yeah.

I think updated recordation is a step in the right direction.

Um that's an important aspect of you know, figuring out what's the best thing to do.

We have a lot of information we didn't have in March.

Um, so um yeah.

Um let's see, do we have anybody wanting to motion anything?

Anyone go ahead.

Well, uh, do we have a motion on the resolution?

I I should say, I make the motion to approve the certificate for demolition.

For certificate for approval, pardon me.

And as far as the draft resolution, which is I think the mechanism by which we would do that, um, do you you want to make a motion about any of the um the language changes or how would we?

How would we articulate something along the lines of you know a motion to approve the draft resolution with the following changes to be made by staff and reviewed or final adoption?

Um wording like that.

I can't make the motion that you're not I'm not sure how to how to say that.

Yeah, um, I already said GPs, that's what I'm saying.

Yeah.

I I think with the modifications that we've discussed, yeah.

Just really that's that's okay, yeah.

So then I'll make a motion to approve the certificate, the draft resolution, the draft resolution with the uh amendments that we discussed earlier um for points one through four, and then approve for number five.

Is that correct?

Did I say that right?

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

I mean the eyes have it.

Yeah, I said it.

The motion carries.

Yeah.

Hopefully more houses in Alameda.

Yeah.

Um board communications.

That's any news you all have for each other.

Well, we do have a new board member, uh, so that's big news.

Um he wasn't able to join us this evening, but I assume we'll be joining us shortly.

Uh so that's exciting.

Um that brings us up to full staffing, I think.

We're fully um fully board membered up.

Uh and other than that, I don't know that I have any other board communications.

Staff communications.

Oh, can I add to that?

I I think I saw um on Facebook that the Radio Society is having uh an event this weekend, maybe something called Radio Days, and I just wanted to bring that up.

I think they've done a really nice job with that restoration recently.

Um it's it's always nice to walk past that building and and see that facade brought back.

Um so kudos to them.

Um I do want to ask in light of some of the conversation tonight, if we have something we'd like to have agendized just as kind of a discussion session, like uh educating us on what the city's definition of historic resource is.

I think that would be a a valuable uh topic to have, especially with new relatively new board members.

Um that'd be really valuable.

Yeah, and I would echo that, Josh.

Uh we've actually had that same discussion previously.

Um you might have noticed that sometimes meetings aren't uh they're canceled because there are no uh put upon us agenda items, but there is definitely the opportunity, since we're all kind of dedicating the same Thursday every month anyway, uh, to have some of those conversations.

I think the we have to balance it with um, you know, uh really clear directions as to what we want to talk about, you know, maybe developing a a list of agenda items so it's not just like, well, I don't know what to talk about, so cancel the meeting because there's no COA or something.

Um but I I definitely agree and um I think there are enough things that we need more um refinement around process and decision making and even just basic education that uh those would be useful.

And I know that's it leans on staff because you guys have to come be here, but please make us come be here with you so we can talk about some of these things.

One prime example is the uh the effort to resurvey what is now the historic study list, uh fix things that are incorrect, you know, find homes that aren't even there, you know, mistakes, let alone, you know, reassess the actual quality of those homes.

Uh and that's something AAPS um, I'm sure has some things they could talk to us about.

Yeah, I I recall just as a public attendee at a few past meetings that um for certain projects there were committees formed and things like that, and um I just encourage uh that maybe for a future meeting we agendize something like uh an introduction to base reuse and development or some sort of uh way to connect with our peers that are working in those areas around the the city because there's a lot of territory to cover even though it's you know geographically not too big.

There's all sorts of aspects that are pretty complex for um a local board to navigate and um yeah, and I, you know, one thing I realized this week, I was on Facebook, Little City of Alameda, I think is the the Facebook page.

And I saw a lot of uh pictures of the commissary at Alameda Point, and it it made me think there are there are places like that that maybe they did not meet National Register criteria, maybe they're not part of districts, but they could be important community centers.

Some of them could be kind of flying under the radar, and I think as a professional, I've seen a lot of resources that you might say of the more recent past that they haven't had the ability to be evaluated yet.

So I I'd encourage the community if if you want to reach out to me or the board, you have the the historic preservation board email.

I mean, I'd be happy to chat with you about what you really value about culture here and things like that.

That's a really important part of preservation.

And you know, I think having a robust preservation planning framework is important.

And I mean, we're gonna have uh difficult decisions like the one tonight to navigate through.

But there's a lot of opportunity out there too.

I mean, I think we've we've got a lot of local public historians, if you will, that lead great tours, and they they're really institutional when it comes to their knowledge of the city.

So uh I encourage you to engage with that over the summer, yeah.

And on the the subject of subjects, I think uh more communication to and from us with planning, the actual planning board, whether it's a planning board member that can liaise with this group, you know, we don't know what sort of hap- I mean, you know, we can all as private citizens, you know, attend a planning board meeting, but something that helps us understand who they are and what they want from us versus what they're getting if they even see it or notice it, uh that might be useful.

Yeah, because we serve the planning, you know, for advising them essentially.

Yeah, and council.

Um so um, yeah, we we've been intending to bring you an update on the base reuse activities and their uh different strategies uh for property disposition and management.

Um, so maybe by September we'll be able to do that.

Super.

That'd be great.

Thank you.

Um other than that, um other staff communications.

No, I don't think so.

Should we adjourn?

Let's adjourn.

All right, we're adjourned.

Excellent.

Thanks all for attending.

Thank you.