Our first meeting of the historical advisory board.

Let's start with uh roll call.

Yes, uh good evening.

Um board member Brito Present.

Board Member Bevan.

Present.

And uh Chairperson Hernandez present.

Uh okay, we have a quorum.

We also have two absences.

Um is traveling, and uh board member Rebacek has resigned.

Okay.

Got it.

Um non agenda public comments.

Do we have anyone either in person or online?

Does not appear we have any public comment online.

Anyone in person wish to make a public comment?

Okay.

Seeing none, uh, let's move to the minutes.

Ums from the crew on last minute minutes.

Nope.

Do we have a motion to accept said minutes?

I'll move to accept the minutes.

We have a second.

A second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Minutes approved.

Thank you.

Uh and now I guess on to the regular agenda items.

Uh first up is uh 1711 Arbor Street.

Um certificate of approval to allow demolition of an existing two foot residential building.

Um there is there a presentation on this from staff.

All right.

Good evening, board members.

Uh, thank you very much for taking the time this evening.

Uh the item before you is a request for a certificate of approval uh for demolition of the existing residential structure uh located at 1711 Arbor Street.

Um this is a building identified on the historical building study list with an H designation.

Um the existing uh 1341 square foot two-story residential building was built prior to 1942.

Um the applicants have conducted a historic evaluation uh to determine the integrity uh and uh significance of the historic resource.

Um and we have provided to you um a staff report and a brief presentation to explain that.

So uh I'm gonna dive right in here.

Um let's see.

The subject property is a uh 50 foot wide um irregular uh interior lot there located uh at Arbor Street just north of Pacific Av.

Um generally in a residential neighborhood, um, mostly single family residences.

Um while it was originally built in 19 1894, excuse me, um it has had uh only minor modifications since then, although um it is pretty clear in the historic evaluation that there was some very early alterations to the building that make identifying its sort of original uh architectural character a little bit more difficult.

Um the building has undergone some recent modifications, um, so it's currently vacant um and uh not really considered habitable in its current condition.

Um I will add, sorry, this just reminded me here um uh mistakenly identified the uh the building as not having an identified uh builder in our staff report.

Um we did realize that the George C.

Gunn book identifies the original builder as Charles A.

Mitchell.

So just a correction there.

Um so you can see here from the uh 1979 survey photo as well as a more recent photo taken just over 10 years ago.

Um, that the uh existing site was a two-story residential building.

Um it has sort of uh architectural characteristics that might be um attributed to a couple of different styles, making it sort of coherence as a single architectural entity a little bit um questionable.

So um you'll find that in the 2025 uh Garavaglia historic evaluation that was provided by the applicant that they speculate that it may even have been the case that both the upper and lower floors were originally independent buildings, um, although they were not able to verify that.

Um it does seem that the upper and lower floors were at the very least constructed uh during different architectural periods as uh indicated by, for example, the fasteners used the type of fasteners used among other uh sort of uh uh identifying characteristics.

Well, you can see here in the historic photo, the sort of characteristic two-story front porch was one of the sort of main elements that was present on this building when it was in relatively good shape.

The more recent photo shows the large tree in the front, which would eventually collapse that front porch.

Its current condition, the front porch has been removed entirely, and you can see as have the back stairs, and a number of other sort of features and finishes that have either fallen off or been removed as part of the sort of cleanup of the site.

So you can see, as compared to the last photo, most of the landscaping in the front yard has been removed, the entire front porch, as well as a few other features.

So that's the current condition as of July of this year.

Um was the likely reason for the initial inclusion in the citywide study list.

It was included as an H designation in 1979.

There was no DPR form filled out for the structure, and it is implied that the inclusion on the citywide study list was intended to warrant additional study in the future, not to indicate any eligibility for statewide or federal register.

It's our understanding that the building was neither at the time of its identification for the study list nor currently eligible for inclusion on either the statewide or national registers.

In part to do with the lack of sort of architectural cohesion as far as the styles are concerned, but also due to the significant dilapidation of the building over time, most significantly in the last 20 years or so.

We did do a bit of a permit history on the work showing that there were actually a number of re-roofs done, replacement of the front stairs and porch, and some other sort of minor alterations to the building.

However, we have not received in the past few decades any applications to restore or otherwise rehabilitate the building as it's sort of fallen to disrepair.

And so the current applicants have worked with the city to find a solution to creating a usable building on this lot as things stand.

And if it was, it would not retain any of that historic integrity due to its condition.

And further, that any of the original features identified that would have been warranting its inclusion in the historic building study lists described as few damaged or no longer present.

And so the evaluation concludes that the sum of the building's components do not yield a significantly unique or distinguishable entity.

And so with that, um the determination by staff was that it would be suitable to remove the building from the study list and approve a certificate of approval to allow the demolition of this building.

Ultimately, the applicants have proposed to do a remodel and addition, significant addition to the structure in order to create two new units, residential units that would be located in a two-story structure that does emulate some of the features of the original building, but is not intended to be a restoration of the original building.

So with that, um I'd like to sort of provide a little bit more in case you haven't seen them.

These are just some photos from the interior from the historic eval.

Um, not that the interior is really what we're considering here today, but just sort of to emphasize the significant um repairs needed.

Um just an indication there of the current proposal, which is outside of the purview of our meeting here today, but is helpful to know that the intent is for the applicant to actually increase the housing density on site and to produce a building that will, for example, emulate the features of the two-story front porch, will reuse the existing stained glass window among other things.

So these are the findings associated with the certificate of approval, which I'm sure you're more than familiar with, but just as a reminder, the findings in order to uh issue a certificate of approval would be to determine that the structure does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type period region or method of construction, nor representing the work of an important creative individual, to have no events associated with the property that make a significant contribution to the history or cultural heritage of the local or regional history, that it's not associated with purposeons important to local, state or national history, and that it doesn't yield any information important to prehistory or history.

So with that, I will open it up to any questions the board may have comments, concerns, questions?

You want to go just a quick question.

In the study, uh it says things about it mentions like uh uh evidence of a sinking foundation, lots of water in the in the walls, and then looking at the plans.

Is there is there intention to when they say demolition, are they taking everything down or and and starting again, or how how much of the existing do we know?

I I believe the applicant's architect is here who can speak a little bit more to it as needed.

Um but based on the plans submitted, uh, it did appear that there was a portion of the sort of northeast corner of the site that was intended to remain, um, whereas the um, you know, majority of the rest of the front facade and uh western sort of exterior wall of the building would need to be demolished now.

Um based on the condition of the building, just from the photos, I think it's reasonable to assume that it will require reframing, new foundation, new roof.

Um so while the location of those improvements may remain, and certainly they will attempt to salvage what they can.

I think it's reasonable to assume that many of those original elements will need to be replaced.

And just to clarify when it it got it that initial H designation, but then no one bothered to take the next step, or they just figured it just wasn't wasn't worth it to so the H designation um, as I noted is intended to say, hey, we need further study here to determine whether or not it's eligible for inclusion in any kind of register.

And so um that work typically takes place at the time of a property owner looking to do either um work to restore and therefore you know, either make sure that it is eligible for inclusion in some register, um, or because there is some intent to demolish, right?

And therefore we need to demonstrate that that sort of uh need for additional evaluation has been met.

Um and so those are usually sort of the two typical impetuses for why we might see that evaluation done, and and this was the demolition was what came across us our desks first.

So thank you.

Um thank you for your presentation.

Um I have a couple questions, and the the first one I I wanted to circle back to something I mentioned that uh I believe it may have been last meeting, and um given that there was some property damage here.

I looked at the municipal code again uh regarding interim stabilization plans, and um it does note that uh buildings on the historical building study lists that are quote damaged by fire, earthquake, flood, or other act of God uh require this to prevent further deterioration of the structure.

And I'm just curious if we can clarify uh whether or not this building uh due to the tree damage would if that would be triggered as an act of God, or if that's more of an issue of uh lack of property maintenance, for example.

Yeah, I I would tend to think the latter.

Um I think the expectation is that typically there's sort of a uh like a major event, natural disaster of some kind that triggers um sort of prompting a property owner to work on something like that.

Um oftentimes they would happen as a function of a property owner coming to us to do a repair because of an act of God, right?

And so that's sort of what triggers this.

They say, well, you know, we need a fire report because there was a significant fire.

Okay, well, then let's do a uh property damage assessment and sort of catalog that um so as to sort of freeze that moment of time.

That way they can't say, oh, well, you know, the whole building is fire damage.

Well, we know that the fire actually only took place in this portion, sort of a thing.

Um, so while I don't think in the past, something like a uh tree fall or a limb falling on the home would have warranted that, um, I can see how that might fall under the provisions in that code.

And so um we may want to take a closer look at that, but I think our past practice has been that um, you know, sort of a limb falling on a tree doesn't quite trigger that.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, more of a just a clarifying question.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's a great question.

I want to look into it myself actually a little more.

Um thank you.

And I I do realize that there were some past code violations, and I wasn't sure if that if interfacing with the chief building official would ever involve interacting with HAB, sort of as almost like a study session type thing, like, hey, here's a situation.

Yeah, what do we do about this?

Um so I I don't believe in the past that um a determination by the building official has resulted in any kind of coordination with the HAB, but I can see how that would be a helpful sort of study session, like you said, to have as far as informing all the parties who would have some kind of interest in the in the project.

Okay, all right.

Well, thank you.

That's my question about the stabilization plans.

Um, so on to the the evaluation, um I have a few concerns that I would like to kind of work through about the methodology, and um I I believe the memo states uh regarding the H status, because the building's current status, H is tied to its architectural significance and not importance of related persons or events, only the criteria related to architecture and design have been evaluated here as per the instructions from the city of Alameda Plain Department.

Um that piqued my curiosity for a few reasons.

Um is that uh when I was reviewing the document cities sorry, I have the title here, architectural and historical resources of the city of Alameda, which is provided on the city's historic preservation webpage, and that document compiles all the information from this 1978-79 survey.

It states that for H, a resource may have historical importance, and I believe historical is italicized because of its apparent age or location, or may have architectural importance because of its similarity to other buildings done by important architects and or builders, historic research should proceed further evaluation of the this resource.

Um I look at the definition of historical resource in that document, it states that historical significance comes from an association with the lives of persons of or important events which have made significant contribution to the community, state, or nation, or from an association with broad patterns of cultural, social, political, economic, or industrial history, the whole book, uh, or the urban development of Alameda.

So I would like to confirm how H what was H correctly interpreted, and um because to my understanding, there was no other documentation presented in the exhibits that indicates that this building has ever had a full evaluation for local California register or national register criteria beyond just being assigned an H status which says do further research than evaluate.

Right.

So sorry to answer your initial question.

I think it requires a bit of a careful reading.

There is a distinction between what they refer to under H as historical, historical, and italics because that is what H stands for, importance and historical significance, which are distinct.

I think we need to look at the historical importance because of its imparent age or location, architectural importance or similarity to other buildings done by important architects or builders, refers solely to the architectural uh qualities of the building and not to its, for example, consideration for importance in other historical events.

So the reason why it was included in the study list in the first place was purely architectural, and in my opinion, probably just for the sake of the novelty of the building, um, not necessarily because it imported a particular architectural period or style or something characteristic of a particular important builder.

And so because the only reason it was included in the first place was its architectural characteristics under this H designation, it only seemed prudent to analyze those characteristics.

Okay.

Um in practice, current practice.

Um when I'm looking at properties that have been recorded in varying degrees in the past, uh, there's a there's a few definitions that I consider.

One is a reconnaissance level survey.

So that might equate to in current practice to just having a primary record DPR form that says here's the property, maybe you know the year built, and you give a description, but there's no evaluation done.

Then there's an intensive level survey where you actually go into the process of doing research and uh performing an evaluation, be it for local, state, or national register.

So in this case, we have an age status assigned back in 1979, and we have a picture.

There's no DPR form.

So my interpretation of that from a historic preservation professional's perspective is that this property's never been studied intensively.

And even if we look at local evaluation criteria separate from California register and national register under CEQA, if a resource or if a property qualifies for Cal register, it's a historical resource under CECOA.

And the point I'm trying to get to is if we only evaluate architectural significance or the potential for it with this evaluation, we leave out criterion two of the California register, which is relating to persons.

And then we also leave out criterion one, which is what relates to historical events, be they singular or be they patterns of development.

And that criterion's analogous with criterion A of the National Register.

So I I feel like when I navigate through this evaluation, um it leaves me feeling uncomfortable about being able to make a an objective and defensible decision about whether or not there's an impact to a historical resource because we haven't completed the California register criteria.

We've only looked at architecture.

And I I honestly think that's quite flawed.

Um and it would set a fairly dangerous precedent in terms of uh the potential to protect buildings that maybe they haven't been evaluated yet, but they do have the potential to be historical resources.

Um I would also like to note um thank you for including the information about the original builder from uh the late George Gunn's book.

This book is entitled Documentation of Victorian and Post Victorian Residential and Commercial Buildings, City of Alameda 1854 to 1904.

Uh this particular property is actually listed, I think it's on page nine of this book with a year build of 1889.

It does list uh Charles Mitchell as the original owner, also as the attributed builder, and um obviously in the current evaluation, that information is not provided because apparently this book it was not reviewed, and I will acknowledge that there's a lot of sources of information here in Alameda, uh, whether they're physical repositories or electronic, um, but I do think that that information should be incorporated into this evaluation.

And um I also feel like the documentation presented here, it you know, it does say this building is not a high style Queen Anne, it's not a high style Italian eight building, but it has a little bit of those uh elements infused, and from my perspective, it would be worth looking into or at least explaining that the apparent original owner was a carpenter, and buildings like these, from the examples I've seen in professional practice, they're really examples of vernacular architecture that are communicating, you know, regionally common construction, but also the the application of skills and preferences that this particular builder was able to apply to their house.

And I think this is a good example, whether or not it ends up being significant, but we have to consider the contributions of builders, carpenters, not just professional architects to the built environment because they do contribute to the global built environment of the places we live.

So I highly encourage that this evaluation be revisited, amended, and at that point, if if there is significance, sure, we can consider integrity.

If there's no significance, integrity is not really an issue because integrity considers all the retained character defining features and whether or not there's enough left to say, yeah, this thing still communicates its significance.

Let's see.

Yeah, I I will leave it at that.

Um I have some other comments or feedback, but I think it may be more productive to communicate that to staff or the board secretary fee email as far as things like uh you know minor edits.

But um I appreciate you taking my feedback.

Thank you.

Uh may I ask?

Um if it is the case that the findings regarding the architectural significance have determined that there is no historic significance, and that if there was, it is unable to convey it because of loss of integrity.

Is there anything that could be identified under criterion one or two that would still be able to be conveyed in its current state?

Good question.

Um that really depends upon what information and analysis is done regarding how this building uh contextually relates to historical development.

So hypothetically, this building was built as part of uh I don't know, a small enclave of some cultural community, something like that, or maybe uh maybe this is the last example of this builder's work, or maybe it was I don't know, particularly early or a rare type.

Sometimes those situations will qualify a building.

Sometimes there's a historical event that could occur at a property, a singular event, like on this date X happened, it had this impact on city history or what have you.

Um the other factor is when it comes to criterion B slash two of the National and Californian registers, when we're looking at the contributions of people, um that really ties into their productive lives.

So, did they contribute something in their during their career that is potentially embodied by a building?

So in this case, if we're able to present, hey, we looked at census data, here's who was here between 1900 and 1950, because decade by decade we have that information available.

We looked at city directories, and these you know, these individuals are here for a relatively long amount of time.

Here's what they did.

If that turns out to be significant, and this building is the best representation of their contribution to history, then it could qualify.

If it doesn't, that's okay.

We've done the research and we presented really uh defensible findings that we can say, okay.

Um it comes to the integrity argument, you know, the there's seven aspects, right?

Location setting, design, materials workmanship, feeling, and association.

So when we're looking at the architectural criteria, the design, materials, and workmanship are pretty important.

Those are the ones that we might focus on the most.

When it comes to criterion A or criterion B, we're really honing in on what features were present when that significant person was there, or during that period of significance.

So you know, maybe there's a fair argument here about the the integrity is lost, but we we can't uh truly evaluate integrity until we understand significance or lack thereof.

Um that's that's based upon National Park Service guidance, uh, which is actually mentioned in the memo.

Um so I it's yeah, it's an interesting document to me that uh you know it communicates a methodology that was asked for, but then it also presents other information that kind of uh conflicts with that.

So um and I overall think it it does not meet uh current best practices.

So thank you.

I just to understand though those are criteria under the inclusion for a statewide historic register.

So to make the findings necessary for the certificate of approval here tonight, um one would just need to make you know the findings regarding you know, in our our code, whether or not the structure has distinctive characteristics, and so I I would like to distinguish sort of the decision being made here tonight from uh a decision of whether or not uh it's you know eligible for inclusion under these other criterion.

Yeah.

Um it seems to me that the information presented is sufficient to make such a determination under our local ordinance.

Um so I just wanted to kind of distinguish that based on the framework that you had provided.

Well, I disagree then because there's been no research conducted, apparently at any point on this property's association to any persons or any historical events.

The the evaluation it doesn't even mention anything about the development of the city or even the the you know vicinity where this building exists.

So I don't feel like we have enough information to go beyond uh the first one.

So to be clear, you don't have to make all four findings.

You would just need to make a finding that the building does not retain sufficient integrity to communicate those historic significances.

Um just to clarify.

Right.

But we cannot assess integrity until we understand what the property is or is not significant for.

That's that's the point I'm trying to make.

I don't you know I am not comfortable making any decision based upon the information presented.

This evaluation is actually not that much different than the one we had last time for 802 Buena Vista, where we needed an updated evaluation, and that was a that was a property where there was apparent architectural significance.

This one all it says is do additional research and from 1979.

So I think that uh if I were to see that as you know, if I was hired to do this, I'd say we really have to look at past occupancy and do a little research.

Put this within the context of the development of the city.

And um I just think that's a current professional standard, and um I think we deserve to have robust documentation to make these important decisions, if I may, um Mr.

Chairman.

Um I think we should probably um make sure that we also uh have public comment uh before we deliberate.

So I think um I'd recommend that you know questions of staff are great.

I think any further sort of deliberation should wait.

Okay.

Thank you for the comment.

Thank you.

Uh given that, are there any public comments either online or in person?

Uh there are none online.

I I believe you can um fill out we just need your name, right?

For the record.

We would we would typically ask for a speaker card, but you can fill it out after you speak if you'd like to step up to the microphone so you could be step up on voice as well.

Yes, please.

We need to there's an online uh version of the meeting, so that way if anybody's watching online, they can also hear and see you for the for the record.

Thank you.

If you could just introduce yourself so we know yeah.

My name is Dana Lamb.

I have lived in the house directly behind.

I'm in the property on Pacific Avenue on the other side of the fence.

It's uh Joseph Leonard property.

And it was built in the same year that 1711 was built, which was 1889.

And I think in 1894, everybody somebody went to the property records office and just wrote it down as 1894, a whole lot of properties, and it doesn't reflect the true year of the properties being built, because our house shows up as 1894 all the time, and it's not.

And the family who lived in that house, the woman who who died, her family occupied that house for mostly most of the 20th century, because Arbor Street was one of the center of Portuguese was a Portuguese neighborhood for a lot of the early and well 20th century.

And uh her family was uh through many generations was part of that, as well as a house across the street, which got rebuilt in uh in its Victorian style rebuilt.

But there's going to be one family that shows up in the 20th century um with that house mostly.

And the family who came into my house, the origin the builders, and am I off now?

It's we we can extend your time to another minute, but yeah.

The family who built my house, they were in my house for they were actually a well known family, but they were in my house for the shortest amount of time, and then another big family lived in my house for most of the 20th century until I came along.

So the original family were well-known painters, a painting family, and one of the sons is responsible for the the uh he he had a an art glass atelier and did the palace hotel ceiling and da-da-da.

But he didn't live there, that was just another brother who did.

In any case, so my house and the house in question, 1711 pretty much went up at the same time, although I don't know Mitchell so much as I know my own property.

Um, and then I know Delinda's family, and that's sort of legend legendary, but uh the house is rotten to the core.

It's just it's got history, but it's just rotten.

So I'm I'm afraid I'm in favor of tearing it down, even though it's got some historical significance as far as I'm concerned, even with Alameda with the Portuguese community.

So that's what I had to say.

Thank you.

Thank you for your for your time and your comments.

Are there any other uh public comments?

No to respond.

Well, I just wanted to see if other folks um if you had a follow-up question.

I I just want to say thank you for providing your comments, and um to me the whole point of going through this exercise of doing the research is you can find patterns where certain communities had certain residents, certain types of workers.

Um that's the value in doing this.

It doesn't mean that we can't move on and let development happen, but we will have a record of that knowledge, and that will hopefully be applied to broader planning efforts whenever we get around to that.

Um without doing that, we're just writing off buildings.

Thank you.

It was an act of God that took the tree down.

Yes, many trees have fallen in Alameda due to these windstorms.

Um, thank you.

So, no other uh public comments either online or in person.

Okay, great.

So maybe we can formally move to discussion.

Are there any uh comments or questions?

Do we feel like this is something we want to request a continuance on?

Or do we need to talk about this more?

Yeah, I mean, I I guess I would I just want to express a couple of uh thoughts that came up uh for staff and for my fellow board members.

Um I too uh had some question marks when looking through the memorandum.

Um the fact that it was uh noted that there was no builder.

I immediately reached for my copy, which sits on my desk and was like, wait a minute, it's it's somebody.

Um not that I had time to flip through the whole book and see if that builder carpenter has been mentioned any on any other page, or even you know, had uh resources at my disposal to figure out well who was this person and you know, is there other work?

Um so that aside, I I think my main concern and it it echoes from a previous review we did on Buena Vista is it's more about process and completeness of materials so that you know we're looking at things and having good confidence uh to start with rather than needing to like oh whoops, the company hired to do the analysis totally missed that there was a builder, so therefore we have no we have no research on that, and I think that's a valid point.

So we're we're missing an element uh and it's as much for the record as in our research then gets memorialized and can be of service to future generations, and we're like in previous meetings saying like, oh, there was no significance.

Well, it's like well, we don't know that, or there was no builder.

Well, actually there was uh so you know we want to leave accurate records as well.

Um not that that again needs to hold back progress, but it's more about can we as uh a decision-making body have you know good um just administrative practice?

Um and that may be uh just some of the variations of individual owners hiring different entities to do these kinds of memorandums or research versus what the city guidance is as to what is the scope of the research.

Obviously, in this case, the scope was narrowed to only the specific things that you asked them to do, which is I'm assuming true um based on the memorandum.

So yeah, I I uh you know, I too, you know, just had some question marks about this, and uh whether or not this builder, this you know, maybe owner builder, carpenter was a significant uh person, you know, I uh uh we can't say.

So obviously that leaves into question some of what's in the memo, obviously leaves into questions some of what's in our even in our draft resolution would need some modification in my mind.

And I'll I'll say um when it comes down to looking at potentially significant people, we do have a an identified original owner who is a carpenter, and and typically building professionals, design professionals, their professional contributions would be evaluated under the architectural criteria.

The other criteria related to significant persons would be reserved for people who don't have occupations in those fields.

Um, like for example, I believe it was the Mirandas who their name appears on a couple building permits.

So those would be individuals that would uh their lives would be explored a little bit and uh evaluated to see if they meet significant persons criteria.

Um I don't know, other other thoughts.

So I realize we didn't really talk about the plans much, but um I think that staff have communicated good guidance when it comes to designing a new building that would be compatible with uh uh you know the general aspects of architecture of a neighborhood without attempting to mimic historic features too much.

Um ultimately that that lets the building built in 2025 or 2026 communicate construction from that period versus having to uh you know kind of defer its ability to be of its own time to um an outgoing building.

So but I do think it's important you know, if you can incorporate some of the materials, the fabric, if it's if that's feasible, that's great.

That helps support sustainability.

Um let's see, I guess um just one question for you, Josh.

Uh uh the the uh additional research happens and we find out that uh this um Charles A.

Mitchell um uh was a builder of a few properties in in Alameda.

Given the condition that the survey found, uh the physical condition, uh finding out that he was of some significance, what in your mind, what would then be the the next the next step in terms of uh a certificate for this property or no certificate or or kind of what would be in your mind the the best next step?

Yeah, well you would update the architectural evaluation to say uh here's the identified builder, these are the other examples of his work that we found, and um an important part of that process is comparing examples of a uh construction professional's career, their their body of work, to say, okay, which which ones of these are the most important, or uh maybe you find examples of other buildings this person designed, but they're no longer around.

So this could be maybe the last example, hypothetically.

Um but I will say, you know, one of the classic examples is in the in National Park Service Bulletin 15, uh it goes through the evaluation of uh or definition of what a master architect or a master of their trade is, and basically it's it's someone of generally recog recognized greatness.

So it's a pretty it's a broad term, but it I believe it also says, for example, every building that Frank Lloyd Wright designed is not going to be significant, right?

Right.

Um I think that's the hard argument, but we'll see.

Pretty significant.

Um but in any case going through that process, and there's a bit of comparison, and then um you can present those findings.

Hypothetically, if if the property is significant, then you go through the process of the integrity analysis, and you can say, okay, what were the what were the apparent features here that were around when Mitchell designed or built this building?

Is there enough left?

Yeah, that's kind of what I was I was thinking.

Well, maybe we need to bring to present you guys can still develop it, but but then you're almost kind of then we're almost recreating like, well, he probably did this because just because so much of that is is not present anymore.

Well, there could be um typically when you have a significance finding, you develop a list of character defining features.

Um there actually was one included in here.

Um sometimes consultants will include them and um because there is character there, but in terms of significance, do you include that list of character-defining features?

And then if it's if it's feasible uh or desired to incorporate those, you can try to design a project that is typically Secretary of the Interiors compliant.

Projects that are are they typically mitigate impacts to historical resources to a less than significant level?

Um if you uh don't want to do that, and you have a significant property that has integrity too, uh then there would be a next step involving some sort of uh means of trying to mitigate that.

Um but that's that really depends on this interstitial step that um I'm kind of harping on because I you know that's what we want to get to is conclusion.

But okay, thanks.

So as I'm looking at the the resolution, you know, we don't know what we don't know about the builder.

Um in the resolution number one, uh, as part of what we're resolving would be that there is an the builders are unknown, but that's not true.

The builders are known.

Um is also saying it's not associated with anybody of important local, state, or national history.

Well, we don't know that because we don't know anything about the builder who we know his name, but um so three isn't true either.

Um we do know when it was developed, but we can say currently, at least based on its physical appearance, there's not much left.

I feel you know um more comfortable with that, but I'm not being able to reference anything that I don't know.

Yeah, um so on the face of it alone, if we're ignoring one, we're ignoring three in our resolution.

Is that still enough evidence?

Is that the question I guess at hand?

Do we still have enough there where we can say we'll resolve to uh remove it from the list and grant a certificate of approval I or is it better?

Uh I mean better is the wrong word, but um should we would we all feel more comfortable or should we direct uh staff or the owners to revise the memorandum to include some information and and they may come back and say, yeah, we looked him up and he's nobody.

This was the one and only building ever built, and other than his name, and you know, maybe whatever they can dig up, there's nothing of significance.

So I guess that's the you know that's the question, right?

Yeah, if if I may again.

Um I think you're on to something there.

I mean, I think the reason this report was prepared the way that it was given the condition, and following up on uh Tristan's comment, I think that in terms of its ability to convey the fact of who built it, is still very compromised.

I mean, obviously we want to have accurate records, and I think we can, as we did last time, uh update a memo or update a record.

Um you can also obviously you're free to edit this resolution to your liking.

So if you want to, you know, strike some sentences or add something about what you do know, um, you know, that's your prerogative right now on the on the dais.

Um we encourage that you make the findings that you believe.

Um and then in terms of you know, I think you and and the commenter have agreed that you know there really isn't much left that could be preserved.

So if you want to you know strike some sentences or add something about what you do know um you know that's your prerogative right now on the on the dais um we encourage that you make the findings that you believe um and then in terms of you know I think you and and the commenter have agreed that you know there really isn't much left um that could be preserved so it's kind of a question of as where as you were saying this certificate of approval is for the demolition um you could say leave it on the list further research is needed um but this building you know isn't really conveying much of anything now you might disagree maybe this report and the photographs and the maps do record it sufficiently or maybe they don't but I just wanted to encourage you to think that you know there is a there is a path to an action if you so choose and I'm not telling you you should or shouldn't do one thing or another I yeah that I guess that that kind of touched on the concern or question that I had is is if we we grant this uh certificate for demolition and then it's like okay we're done with this property but that's that's not the case we can still gather information you you could ask that a DPR form be filed and that it you know be thoroughly completed according to the professional standards and tell us what you well you've told us what you think needs to go in there so we can do that okay um may I ask a clarifying question uh um so my understanding is when a building of of this age is demolished or proposed for demolition uh every other municipality I've worked in has required a California register evaluation to determine if it qualifies for that uh inventory and I'm curious it it seems like that's not required here but I'm not what I'm having a hard time with is um how do we how do we get to that evaluation or determination of is this a historical resource because when I when I think of what might qualify a property as a historical resource I've seen things like it was included on a a formally adopted survey it has a certain status code or it's been found uh eligible for the California register or national register that results in automatic listing but in this case those those evaluations haven't been done or we we haven't been presented with anything besides a status code that says do the research so I mean that's really to me it's the heart of the matter here is um when we're navigating this study list I'm gonna feel confident that we're we're we're going through the steps and checking off all the boxes versus only looking at um a local designation uh so you know that it just doesn't sit right with me so um yeah I I hear you um I think it goes back to the the original scope of the um study list and um it was simply uh windshield survey kind of to start with and then some more research and and local um knowledge and and documentation um but it was really about primarily I think the architecture and you know is it an interesting looking building um so that is kind of all we have to go on that even tells us to do the research and so in a sense it's like telling us to do more research we think mostly as as Tristan said about what it looks like and is that um still interesting here we are you know 50 years later almost um and so um yeah I think you're right though I mean in the meantime um the other criteria have maybe emerged as as also important for decision making um and it's it's in the criteria and it's in CEQA and everything um but the study list I I think was mostly about the building itself and so this report was really kind of looking at well given the condition of this building um and if it was only interesting from the street um it's no longer interesting from the street you know the porch is gone the the it's all deteriorated you know and things like that and I think that was really how this analysis came about.

You know, the porch is gone, the the it's all deteriorated, you know, and things like that.

And I think that was really how this analysis came about.

Okay.

Um if this building was not on the study list but was still at least 50 years old.

How would the process differ if the if the same project was proposed?

Right.

So demolition of any pre-1942 building still comes to you.

Okay.

Um and so we still have to go through the same process.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So it's it's kind of like that study list is helpful, but it's not defining in any way of what comes to you for demolition.

It's it's also interesting for alterations, uh, additions and you know, other things.

Um, but it really only comes to you for demolition.

Yeah, okay.

Because I I'll say the the troublesome thing for me, just thinking this through is um say, for example, if I go to San Francisco or Palo Alto, wherever to do an evaluation of any property that is again at least 50, sometimes even 45 years.

That's that's what the Office of Historic Preservation recommends as the the starting point, because you might have a project that takes five years, and by that time it's it's 50, right?

In those cases, we're looking at uh local criteria if if there is any, um, or we're we're going straight to California Register and National to determine if there is an ability to qualify there.

And when I look at the study list, um there were in 1979, there were 10,000 property buildings in the city per that report I mentioned earlier.

I think there were 72 buildings that were identified as potential monuments, and then there were I could be getting that number wrong.

In any case, it was a low percentage.

I believe it was less than one percent.

Um and then there were all these study list properties where somebody went around the street and said, okay, this is among a hierarchy of buildings in our city that uh either is clearly potentially meritorious, or it at least merits this additional study.

And to me, that's kind of like, okay, here's your here's your first batch of things when you see this come across the the diet, you know, this is part of a survey that said here's your potential uh historic resource.

So and and that's really how uh best practice is working right now is if you've got uh properties that were surveyed back in the 70s or the 80s, we're looking at California registral criteria, and then we're we're just going through that evaluation, and um that leads to a finding of significance or not, and then you kind of go from there.

So um yeah, that's it's interesting to me.

Um I feel like that puts historians in a very difficult position when it comes to being able to apply the skill set they have to the evaluation.

Um I yeah, I'm not sure if that actually uh serves us all that well.

So thank you for answering my questions.

Um looking at the I mean my uh again my comment is about process.

You know, I I think we need to we need to think about our process more when it comes to these kinds of cases.

I think this highlights the problem of having a very outdated historic study list with dubious buildings still on the list for whatever reason, or buildings that were you know, maybe should have never been put on a list, or but you know we need to revisit that, I think is a high priority of getting getting our list uh updated.

Um my personal uh take on this is uh let's let's do that work.

Um I personally don't want uh um you know stop the ball rolling on getting a new project uh underway so more houses can be built in Alameda.

I am uncomfortable with some of the things in the resolution, so personally I would strike two, three, and four, and revise one uh because those are things we really have been presented no evidence on.

We um don't know because no research has been done about uh historical, cultural, or regional events associated with the property with the builder.

Um we just don't we don't have any evidence of that information, therefore I'm I'm not comfortable resolving those things.

Uh we can say yes, it has some of these elements that were identified in the memorandum because that was the scope of the memorandum.

Uh we could also say it was never designated a historical monument.

Um is this resolution with just one and five as our you know certificate of approval, you know, findings.

Is that is that enough from a staff point of view to grant the approval?

I guess that's a question.

Um I would I would say no.

I think um you need to make all the findings.

Okay.

Um I personally uh am not ready to make these findings given that we just don't have backup evidence.

I mean, I I guess the the flip side of that is you could say there is no evidence.

And so there is no evidence of a significant contribution or person or you know, but but there is no evidence because no research was done is different than there really is no evidence.

I understand so you know there's not even something that says staff did research.

Well, what research did staff do?

You know, the you know the book in the library says who the builder is.

So that that would be my you know personal position, but I'm happy to be swayed by my my colleagues.

I I agree.

I think there's a there's a difference between no evidence and no effort, and um I think what we're asking for is just effort that is consistent with current practice.

So I would suggest we do uh whatever process that looks like, we request the additional work to be put in, and then we come back and say, okay.

Now we can have effective or we can definitively confidently make these findings.

Yeah, yeah.

And and Steven, you're you're saying it it we need to be responding to all five of these of these points in some form.

In some form.

Okay.

So uh if somebody wanted to craft a motion to defer this pending further information that supports one, two, three, four, and five, including you know, research related to the builder, um, which we've identified um as well as some backing for each of the other findings that we need to make in order to have a credible resolution.

Is the resolution revision something we can do in coordination with the board secretary, or does that have to be done in the moment as far as the specific language?

Um we have to adopt it in a meeting publicly, but yes, I I think um we'll draft you another version and then try to reflect what you've been discussing, and then you can edit it further at the next meeting.

Okay.

Okay, okay.

Okay.

So this is I guess tabled.

Uh would you like to continue it to a date certain?

Um you'll be meeting again next month.

If staff can have that in time, is that uh I would prefer that so that we don't have to renotice and go through all the rigmarole and just you know, people who are interested will know to come.

Okay.

When you know at the next meeting.

Okay.

So if we can table it till the next meeting in October.

October um day will that be first Thursday.

Um the second?

Yeah, October 2nd.

Okay.

Oh, okay.

Um so if you could make that motion.

I'd like to make a motion to uh continue this item to the next historic advisory board meeting on October the second.

Second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Item 4B, uh 1325 Park Street, another certificate of approval.

I'm assuming another presentation.

Good evening, Chair Hernandez and members of the board.

Brian McGuire, project planner here to present uh 1325 Park Street, uh request for certificate of approval.

Um for some storefront modifications to a contributing building to the Park Street Commercial Historic District.

The scope of the work is primarily tenant improvements on the interior to convert the old Danish furniture um store to a the new location for the Monkey King restaurant and bar, which is a couple doors down now.

Um so big expensive, complicated tenant improvement to to add um modern kitchen facilities and building code requirements.

And so among those um improvements that affect the exterior of the building that are relevant for our discussion tonight are they're proposing new storefront windows um which would be operable and sliding windows, um, as well as a new emergency exit door on the left side of the facade to meet um current building code requirements.

There's no back of house, there's no back door here, so the the only way out is through the front um of the property.

So um we need that second exit.

So the recommendation tonight is that you make the required findings and sequel determination and approve the uh certificate of approval with conditions.

Um dwell on the picture here for a while.

The um you can see the the building is located next to the his the old Masonic um building at the corner of Park Street in Alameda Av.

Um was built as originally as a two-story building.

Um just yeah, I'll come back to this picture maybe, but it's it will be useful.

Um it was originally built as a two-story building um by George Dodge, a architect uh drafts person for the Joseph A.

Leonard company, pretty prolific builder in the city.

Um built in 1891, 1892, um, designed to sort of match um the Masonic building next door originally two stories with um arched windows.

The interesting thing is we go back to this picture, the building was built without its own north wall, so that that right side wall there is actually a Masonic building, so it was just framed right into the building, um, which I found pretty interesting.

Um and then you can kind of see here there was sort of a triple set of windows in the middle, and then uh arched windows on the sides on the second story, but they've all been bricked in.

Um you can see three of the five, four of the five windows in this image.

Um we're asking the HAB for certificate of approval um because per the AMC repairs and alterations of historical monuments, um, this being a contributing building to the historic district.

Um if they are consistent with secretary material standards for rehabilitation, um are the findings you need to make for the certificate of approval.

There is a um concurrent design review and use permit application for the changes and for the new use and some extended hours.

Um those are under a separate process, but it's all one application.

Um so the halves role here is with the certificate of approval.

Obviously, if you have um you know the design reviews closely related, and if you have um feedback and input on that, um, but those will be handled either um via the zoning administrator or the planning board.

Um again, we went through the history already here.

Um, does have a state DPR form with some good information thanks to our well-known Woody Minor who captured a lot of the history here.

Um just to the staff report goes into this in more detail, but just to briefly touch the this image didn't render super well on the on the big screen, but um Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation in this case, focus on things like there's minimal change, you're retaining the character, we're not having any faux historicism or conjectural features.

Um you're preserving the any changes that happen to the building that have acquired significance since um the original construction, um, preserving features and finishes that are distinctive.

You're repairing and matching original features when you do need to uh if you can you repair, and if you have to fix anything, you're you're matching the original features.

Um you're treating those features gently when you need to work on them, obviously um following any architecture archaeological resource um requirements that wouldn't typically apply for a project like this, um, and that any alterations differentiate um but do not destroy the historic fabric, and that any additions or alterations are reversible.

So, you know, big picture here coming back to the first image, you know, basically as much of the tenant improvements preserve as much of the the historic fabric and the facade as as feasible, um, trying to touch the not touch the brick facade, those clear story windows, um, the other you know historic details that you see, and it really is just gonna have to cut into the bulkhead on the left uh left-hand side here for that new recessed egress, and then um obviously replacing the storefront windows, but otherwise keeping uh the rest of the features and replacing the awning.

So just come back up here.

We are asking you to make uh CQA findings on the project that it is exempt from further uh environmental review pursuant to CEQA based on um two different categorical exemptions.

Um a recommendation is to hold a public hearing, approved certificate approval to allow improvements to the existing commercial storefront at 1325 Park Street with conditions that are there are conditions in this proposed in the draft resolution and obviously open to hearing any other input and you know up to you if you have further sort of direction or or suggestions on the design review application.

With that, I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

If you guys have questions, I have a couple myself, but they're pretty simple.

Go for it.

Thank you for your presentation.

Uh let's see.

I was just curious if um because this building is a contributor to a national register district, if and any consideration of California historical building code was was looked into or uh kind of uh what do you call it, reviewed by the the building official for egress.

Yeah, I don't think we have the benefit of the project um uh the designer here tonight.

I think um the the applicant did originally apply for building permits um last fall before realizing that there was some more process um that that was going to be required, and so um any of those discussions I believe would have happened, um, but we have been trying to connect with um just to double check on some of that, but uh my understanding is that the they did sort of go through these discussions with the plan checkers um when they first submitted for the building permits and the you know that they were they were quoting these these codes back to them.

So I know the the architect is the designer was working with with the building plan check planners and um this is the requirement that they provided.

Okay.

All right, uh let's see.

I um I was just doing a little bit of background research on the building, and I also did a site visit um last week actually.

And the I my understanding is that in I guess around 1997, this building was um at that time still occupied by Danish interiors, and the owners had uh through some subsidy for for restoration or renovation, um uh they had kind of brought back some features that were behind wood paneling on the the storefront.

So the transome windows, uh which were also repaired, um as well as the blue tiles, which uh they kind of are the star of the show in terms of the the staff report here.

Um I was curious if um if there's any indication that work was done in accordance to the Secretary of the Interior Standards, or if it was I i.e.

a uh a true rehabilitation, or if that was more of a uh kind of like a very well-intended effort to bring back as much as possible.

Yeah, I I didn't see any um any indications that I mean it sounds like it was you know uh maybe a predecessor to our current facade grant program that assisted the the tenant.

I know around the same time we were looking into the permit history, there was some around I think they started to apply, but then finally finished it, uh the work in around 1999 for the uh uh seismic retrofit um around the same time, but I didn't come across any evidence of uh you know uh uh approval like this where it would have gone through um uh any review for that standards, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't.

Our our records are um can be a little spotty from from the back then.

Yeah.

I I only bring that up because um I think there's a couple factors at play here.

One is that this building, it's a national registered district contributor, so it's important to think about the period of significance of that district.

Yeah, in this case, it's pretty broad, 1880 up to 1946.

Um and typically the way we'll look at these kind of projects is uh is what you're replacing uh can you really date that to that period of significance and is what you're keeping is that enough?

And um I guess I I'm not sure if what is there now, although it does appear to be a fairly uh faithful kind of early 20th century storefront.

I'm not sure if it's actually historic.

Um the the tiles are typically 1920s, 1930s, and then the metal framing, uh the sash bars that hold this glass in place, they have some detailing like corner miters that help join the glass together and they're they're screwed down.

Um very similar to some examples that the city of San Francisco includes in its uh commercial storefront historic context statement.

So it's it's it's hard to say, yeah.

This is from the period of significance.

Um I just wanted to bring that up because I I do think for these uh cases where district contributors are uh potentially going to be altered, it's it is very helpful to have some building permit and construction history made available.

Um and it it is good to um you know if it's something the project applicant can uh afford or you know feasibly to consider engaging either a building conservator or historic architect to really take a close look.

Um yeah, with that said, I don't think I have any other questions.

I I will say um although there is going to be uh removal of this storefront, I think one of the benefits of this building is that it actually appears to have operable transom windows up top.

So I just wanted to highlight that.

I hope that uh as part of the project activating those and making sure that that kind of ventilation feature uh can function and help serve uh a restaurant use.

Other questions right there?

No, right now.

I just had one, I think I heard you say it, but uh it wasn't clear from the plans.

They're going to revitalize the uh canvas canopy over the front facade.

Yeah, replacement awning would be part of the the scope of work here.

Okay, great.

I personally value that canopy when it's raining and walking through that section of Park Street.

Um anyway.

Um thanks for that clarification.

Uh pending no other questions.

Uh do we have any public comments either online or in person?

Uh there do not appear to be any.

Okay, great.

Um discussion.

I saw and I'm assuming it's the making the windows operable, and it's a in the plans that said sliding.

I'm assuming it's like the windows at um not Bowser's.

Marley G's similar where those those windows slide open, so it kind of opens the restaurant to to the to the street a bit.

My pizza tastes are a little more low brow, so I don't can't quite place the Marley G's windows off the top of my head.

Um but yeah, they would I think they're they're like three or four feet wide uh sliding panels.

I think that's a that's a really nice detail.

Yeah, it seemed to me that if you know Chilita Linda on the next block uh double doored facade, it would be more similar to that.

Oh right, yeah.

Then because they have the same situation, I think uh where they don't have a backdoor.

They s have side exit out onto Alameda AB, but they do have two.

They sort of combine two suites, and if you know anything about um the applicant's business monkey king, uh if you you're out there on a Friday or Saturday night.

It's a lot of people in there, so you can imagine why um, you know, whether it's the clear store, the transom windows or the new storefront windows, the ability to open those out and let some of that um energy and heat out is probably uh pretty desirable.

Got it.

Um there discussion um yeah.

I mean, I I I would say personally then um the again thank you for the presentation.

Everything I've seen uh uh uh it seems thorough, and I agree with uh the basic tenets of the resolution and the findings.

Uh I personally have no qualms supporting it as written just looking through real quick here.

Uh my memory.

Um yeah, I think um if this building happened to be individually significant, it it may realistically require a deeper dive to really uh uh hone in on exactly when these storefront features date to because they the storefronts are uh significant when it comes to identifying types of commercial uses over time, and um for example the the awning here is probably something that served the Alameda market back when it was put in this building in 1924.

Um but in any case I I think looking at the potential alterations here and their impact on the overall district, which is I believe is about three blocks long.

Um I think in this case the the level of retention of other features um is is good.

Um thing I would just uh as part of the conditions of approval, since we have an existing DPR form for this property from 1990, which I I believe tied into it seismic retrofit or at least documenting before that happened.

I would suggest doing a minor DPR form update that just captures these existing conditions with anywhere from five to ten photographs that are of good quality.

Um just a simple statement that says this building is being recorded ahead of its uh this this project to replace the storefront, and I think that gives us uh the ability to capture this moment in time just in case a tenant in the future may wish to kind of go through that process and consider falling back, or yeah, and that that to me helps support the reversibility, which under standard 10 is is basically the the uh key factor there is this reversible.

And I I think it's it's reversible.

So yeah.

Good feedback.

Um so we are making the motion would be to allow for the adopt the resolution as presented by staff.

Um pull it up here that was there's five points on there, correct?

That was there's five points on there, correct?

Yeah.

Exhibit four.

Right, for the uh for the alteration permit with the certificate of approval.

Okay, so I'm I'll make the motion that we uh approve the certificate of approval for these uh for these changes to the to the building and adopt the and and adopt the uh the resolution as presented by the the city did you want to include the proposed uh additional condition about the minor update to the DPR form as would that be part of the resolution or just advice to staff?

I think that I think it would make sense as a condition one of the conditions of approval for certificate of approval, it's going to your ability to make that reversibility finding the further document.

Yeah, and so then yeah, and then to add uh an addendum that the uh prior to any of this work uh they do a full documentation photo documentation of the building as it currently stands prior to to any of the work and a revision to the DPR be filed minor revision, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

That's sufficient.

All in favor?

Yeah, did we have a second?

I second that.

Thank you.

All in favor.

I motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 4C.

Uh discussion item on further training items for the board and secretary.

Yes, so um I just uh agendized this um as a discussion item uh so that uh we were um compliant with the Brown Act that as board members you're discussing an item of your uh purview in business, and so um rather than doing that offline or on an email thread, uh this is the appropriate forum to have that conversation where um I you know it sounds like there's there's lots of uh interest in in professional um uh I wouldn't say professional development, but but uh I you know getting on the same page, I guess, as a as a board um with new members and um you know maybe feeling um like you want to understand the city's processes better um and also um you know just just sort of uh how you want to conduct the business of the board.

So I I put together a quick list, um I got a little bit of feedback um and uh individually, not on a thread, and um so now I I've just sort of written that down and shared it here.

Um so I'm I'm happy to um hear any you know clarifying points or questions or suggestions.

Um I mean fundamentally um I would find find it useful as well, uh I think to um understand a little bit more of where you're coming from.

I'm I'm definitely picking up some of that vibe um from these meetings, but um you know we the just the the study list, where did it come from?

What's it for?

How's it used?

Um how does that interact with CEQA and our CQA review processes and how does it relate to design review and and um you know those sorts of what of topics are or what's in your memo.

Um I guess I would also clarify um we're a small department, and so we don't have a lot of staff capacity to throw at this.

Um so you know, I'm happy to sort of host the and and provide information to you for your digestion, but is uh there is sort of a limited capacity to um generate new information or do new studies um without um some other resources being brought to bear.

I know the the study list update was uh suggested by the uh uh Alameda Preservation Society.

Um but you know that also seems like it's sort of um languishing a little bit.

for your digestion but is uh there is sort of a limited capacity to um generate new information or do new studies um without um some other resources being brought to bear i know the the study list update was uh suggested by the uh uh alameda preservation society um but you know that that also seems like it's sort of um languishing a little bit um and that's okay um but it is an example of kind of volunteer efforts also take a lot of organizing um and and so we're not really in a position to to kind of push that ourselves force their hand to yeah exactly to volunteer to work yes yeah um well i thank you for putting on the agenda first I would say um uh I I appreciate the limited or the constraints that we're all under as far as time and attention and you know um that's doesn't escape me at all uh that being said um I think there uh maybe things that already exist that um it would be helpful to have available to us uh just as a you know I I think about well what's what's even on the HAB website um you know that the things that are there uh things like George Gunn's book uh which I just you know personally have a copy of there's other resources uh that you know if you start searching around on um uh Google you know you'll you'll find in um uh what's the sorry I have to pull up the PDF uh this is the old City of Alameda Historic Preservation element document you know this one um there's a lot of good stuff there um but some of it I think is is just a matter of getting it organized for us that hey all these things exist whether you not you knew they existed or not um so that we can reference them and if there's ways in which we can use even brief moments of existing you know meetings to just kind of guide us through like hey by the way you know take a minute and read this if if you didn't know it was there those are the kind of things that I really wanted to see so it's not something that's I would be uh assuming would be overly burdensome you know obviously it takes a little staff time to you know stand up at the mic and and lead us through stuff.

Sure.

But I think that would be helpful especially as new board members are coming on you know it it takes a few meetings to even you know kind of get your feet under you as far as what am I supposed to be looking at and where do I go find these you know these pieces of information.

I mean it's one thing if you're a you know a professional architectural historian versus like well you know whoever I'm not an architect or a builder so there's gonna it's good that we have yeah diversity in a variety of folks um but um for me personally um whatever uh we can do and I think this is part of our charter as an entity is to be able to express to city council and planning that in our opinion it is of the utmost importance that the city make resources available in up cut upcoming budget years to address the historic study list because of the problems that we're encountering seem seemingly every time something comes up that's on the list you know like oh why is this on the list well because someone drove by and thought it was interesting versus oh no it's you know an actual you know thing or these builders are significant or it's part of um so that that baseline information you know I think we need to come to grips with as a community where we have very clear definitional rules as to how we use it how it's going to be updated and set something in motion at the city level um so that we can really say honor but fulfill our obligation as a city that has these processes in place you know to really do it.

That would be my so I'm what I'm kind of hearing is there a way that we can compile the best guiding documentation.

And um, you know, that could involve helping or you know, collaborating with volunteers like AAPS and other organizations, um, but also actually kind of leveraging funding that's out there to help us uh get through costly uh updates, and um yeah, I mean it's it's tricky.

Usually these surveys or context statements, they can take a couple years to get done, they can take a couple hundred thousand dollars if they're really robust.

Um it it's pretty it's challenging.

I think uh because we're a kind of a post-BRAC city, we have a lot of formerly federal property that we're we're dealing with as far as uh new uh new development, um and but also kind of a new gateway to our community for the public, and uh we also have to think about things that have already been studied uh you know to varying degrees, but uh also not forgetting about them or or uh being or you know thinking that you know they're for sure protected that we have to understand the really complex framework that is local jurisdiction, CEQA, Section 106, federal things, um, it's really difficult to navigate preservation in California because there's so many layers.

Um I think yeah, that those kind of discussions um would be really helpful.

Um let's see.

I've my first introduction to Alameda was on my bike, and I just happened upon uh Alameda Point one day, and I went, what is this?

Is this a film set?

Is uh I was amazed by the architecture, and I I think a lot of people still are um I would like to have uh some sort of uh way to stay in touch with base reuse and development.

Um and even maybe some sort of uh strategic committee, likewise with uh downtown business associations or organizations that are uh kind of centered on commerce and tourism because uh I can guarantee that Alameda's heritage is a draw for people, and that results in direct investment in our community.

So I think it's important to think about uh ways that we can come up with some sort of programming that that uh is city sponsored or it really highlights that um because we do have assets here that not a lot of communities have or they'd love to have, and um those are things that we should I feel like we should be having more conversations about.

Uh for example, in I think it's November, Urban Land Institutes having their annual meeting in San Francisco, and uh Alameda Point is just across the bay.

So that's always been a place where uh developers have come to learn about what's going on here.

Um but we also have a lot else on this island on Bay From Island too, uh three ferries, right?

That we can really uh look for opportunities to promote, and um I think it starts with the history here.

So um yeah.

And then I I think this project that just came up, it it kind of reminded me about uh potential facade grant and rehabilitation programs and just in general incentives for preservation.

I think it's it's pretty common that there are more sticks than carrots, as they say, but um learning more about those programs is something I think would potentially help serve applicants, um at least to have a kind of uh really in-depth discussion about you know, here's your options.

Um and I I think that all goes into helping follow the policies in the general plan that uh there's quite a bit in there about historic preservation.

Um so as a board member I want to make sure we're kind of in in sync with with all that a question.

When we're when we're talking about evaluating the or uh updating the study from 1979, and Stephen, you said it in a very clever way, was it uh a windshield survey, or how did you you said some basically as someone kind of driving by going, yeah, that looks important.

Uh to an to a degree.

I mean, there's there's a lot more that was actually done at the time with the with the forms, the paperwork, the research, there's a context statement.

So I don't want to uh dismiss it as merely a windshield survey, but it there was certainly an element of that I think of what struck people's fancy as well as what was relevant in the context statement and things like that.

So when we're talking about yeah, not trying to minimize what the what all goes into the study, but when we're talking about uh updating it, it's doing kind of a new drive-by of these buildings that haven't been really surveyed since the the late 70s.

Yeah, and then given the staff restrictions or uh then diving into you know some of these materials a little bit and then adding that uh as as we find them.

Is that is that kind of what we're talking about with the well I uh you know this it's actually part of my conversation with um Chris Buckley uh who was kind of organizing that was you know it felt like we did need to have some sort of protocols and you know there are professional standards of how to do a survey and a context statement and all that.

So it feels feels like to do it right, yeah, we should definitely it needs to be systematic.

Yeah.

Um and um otherwise it's not terribly reliable or useful.

So I think that's that's the dilemma really.

Yeah, it's once you start, you really need to finish.

As uh, you know, if you look at you put the AMC subsection, you know, 13213, that's part of our responsibility.

It's also part of our uh charge that we can officially notice the city council that we need to do this, in our opinion, and obviously we can't make money appear, but they can uh as far as working with the city manager to create budgets that prioritize this as part of the work plan.

So, you know, that alone just says like, well, even if it's preliminary money to establish a partial FTE to come up with the plan and or apply for grants, and uh former member Borthwick, you know, was on about that uh quite a bit, as there are monies available, uh so that you know it it at least starts the ball rolling uh where there used to be money available.

Where there used to be money available, who knows now, but um you know, um at least getting official notice to the city council so that it can be discussed um whether or not they choose to action on it, whether or not they choose to allot funds to it as part of a work plan that's out of our hands, but we can at least you know make our voice officially known.

Uh well I I I do know the the city council um you know has established a strategic plan that um bridges with or uh correlates with the with the budget um and you know sets goals for each department um on a sort of rolling basis, you know, a five-year plan.

Um and the facade grant is is one of those priorities uh in terms of revitalizing and and publicizing uh the facade grant programs.

So I know that that's in the works.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I think I think part of the uh the challenge is understanding what's already been studied, that way you can say, okay, this is it's recent enough or it's solid enough, now we can move on to everything else that's come of age since 1978 or nine.

Um and that you know, one other question that brings to mind is I'm I'm not sure when the current uh charter or legislation that ties into our responsibilities was made, but having the pre-war, I think it is cut off for buildings to review, that actually I can see the rationale now for it because World War II is so important here.

Um but when we think about potential historic resources, um I wonder if that age should be uh kind of bumped up to more or less correspond with age eligibility or some of those concerns for you know quote unquote 50 year rules and things like that.

Yeah.

And the more time that goes by that we don't do that the harder that becomes in essence there you know there are living members of our community who can answer questions today.

Yes that won't be able to answer questions you know or provide really valuable public comment exactly I think of all this preservation planning stuff is very generational because if you think about 50 years that's roughly two generations right you probably have somebody from the generation before that who's near the end of their lifespan probably have somebody who's maybe a teenager or a kid who's just growing up as part of the new generation and over time they're gonna have different experiences with the built environment um and that's really what we're trying to kind of it's all a continuum but we have to sometimes we play catch up sometimes we get ahead of the game um soon 1980 will be 50 it's hard to believe but uh yeah um yeah I have a car built in 1997 when's it gonna be a classic oh wait I think it is vintage tax um yeah that's great well I just want to say I'm not sure how many staff are with the planning department oh um well you saw most of them tonight yeah so uh depends on which hats they're wearing if you want to count them twice yeah three times right right so so uh I'm the planning services manager Tristan's a planner um who works primarily on design review um and building permit plan checks and uh customer service uh Brian uh splits his time between um land use planning and transportation planning and so he's involved in bike lanes and roundabouts and uh the uh the free shuttle across the estuary um and then uh Henry Dong is uh right uh planner three he's been here a while and does a lot of the larger development reviews um sequa stuff like that yeah and it is that considered a separate arm or department than the base reuse team as far as planning so the base reuse and economic development is a completely separate department um so planning land use planning where I am uh is uh uh also housed with transportation planning and the sustainability um and uh the building department the building department is really the largest group um because they have the inspectors and the plan checkers and customer service people yeah so just to put that in perspective is that maybe 20 people total seven yeah there's yeah so there's literally like three and a half planners working for you and the planning board and the city council um doing ordinance revisions sequel reviews design reviews so on and so forth it's a lot of work and I mean just to put that in perspective I believe San Francisco's planning department has 20 preservation planners they have a lot more people there but in the city but still that's that's one department that is dedicated to preservation yeah the entire breadth of planning so I I appreciate all the work you do um really we do um yeah I mean we we also uh we have a new uh intern I shouldn't forget her um Carlina is with us um now uh taking over for another intern who was here during the summer break um and so um we do get some help um we have you know some um admin and and technical people as well uh so it's not quite as dire as it sounds yeah yeah we can always tap on AAPS's door maybe they have some interns they want to send your way as well so um as far as the you know the background discussion topics this is great how how do you think we can uh boil up you know something to do you know or an you know an actionable uh prioritized list that you know even if it's every other meeting you know we'll put something on the list uh or you know on those meetings where we don't have a public agenda item come you know since we've we've all blocked out our calendars for the year like well can we get together and you know uh not to make you guys work harder and stay late and not get to go home to your families but um you know

Something, you know, or an you know, an actionable uh prioritized list that you know, even if it's every other meeting, you know, we'll put something on the list.

Uh or you know, on those meetings where we don't have a public agenda item come, you know, since we've we've all blocked out our calendars for the year, like well, can we get together and you know, uh not to make you guys work harder and stay late and not get to go home to your families, but um it you know, the rare opportunities, and even if it's you know, sleeves up, let's do some work together in the public eye just to you know get things recorded as far as here's some materials that we want to get on the website or uh let's draft a letter to the city council um explaining our position on the historic study list.

Um you know, I'm happy to dedicate some sitting here time for that.

Uh if it's not if that's better than trying to put a you know to-do list on your y'all's plates, but hey, in your infinite spare time this week, which doesn't exist, you know, how are you guys gonna Yeah?

Well, I mean, you know, these bulleted items on uh page two and three of the report, I think they're they're not exactly in priority order, but it is kind of hierarchical.

Yeah, and we may as well start at the top and work our way through a few things before trying to get to specific if that's all right.

Yeah.

Um I wasn't sure.

Do we have public comment on this item?

No.

Just a general discussion of historic preservation in Alameda.

Okay, great.

Just checking.

All right.

So yeah.

Um so if that's okay, we can just you know March down the list.

Go down the list.

Yeah.

And I maybe we can um uh look at maybe June 2026, I think, which is June's always historic preservation month.

So it has a nice ring to it.

But that could be a target to kind of get through some of this stuff or you know, um yeah, and we have we have some uh slideshows that we've done in the past, so I think I can dust off some resources without too much trouble.

Yeah, super, and hopefully we'll have a full complement of board members.

Um productive, yeah.

Yeah.

But at least you'll record them, so that's true.

Folks can come back and watch.

Yeah.

Good.

Other discussion or shall we declare victory?

I think we just move to board comments, thanks.

Okay.

Um, thank you, Steven.

Yeah, thank you so much.

Uh board communications item five.

Um last weekend I went to one of Alameda Post's tours.

This happened to be a mastic park, which was the neighborhood we studied a couple or learned about a couple weeks ago.

And they did a really nice job.

I think they had maybe 30 attendees.

Um I heard their record is about 80, which is pretty impressive.

Um yeah, again, I I feel like they make uh architectural history digestible, approachable, and um there's always nice humor.

So I I recommend checking out their tours.

Okay.

And on that note, I would say that uh Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, I don't have it in front of me, but their home tours coming up, uh, which is also fun this year will be the Bronze Coast, I believe.

Uh so interesting.

There should be some interesting homes to check out.

So staff communications.

Nothing further.

Adjournment.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.