Okay.

Roll call.

Board member Hernandez present.

Or member Bevan.

Present.

Board Member Crowdy.

Present.

And Board Member Brito is absent.

So we have a quorum.

Okay.

Let's proceed.

Non-agenda public comments.

Do we have any public comments either in person or online?

We do not.

Okay, swell.

Next agenda item is meeting minutes.

These are the minutes from the September 4th meeting.

Just a point of order question for staff.

Since one of our members was not present during that meeting, he would abstain from approving said minutes.

Therefore, because there's only two of us, can we actually approve these minutes?

No.

Okay.

So we'll hold those over for the next meeting.

So let's continue that to the next meeting.

Item four, regular agenda items.

I believe this is a return for 1711 Arbor Street.

Is there any staff comments on this?

Staff will provide a brief sort of reiteration of what we discussed last meeting and provide an update on the historical evaluation and DPR form.

Okay, great.

On this item this afternoon, the item before you is a continued item from our last meeting.

This is a request for a certificate of approval for demolition of the existing structure located at 1711 Arbor Street.

My goal here just to give you a little bit of a quick roadmap is to give you a brief summary of the project just to remind you of uh some of the information we went over last time, identify the updates to the historical evaluation and DPR form that were requested by the board members, and uh give you folks an opportunity to speak on that a little bit and then uh provide you with um some additional uh information and uh open it up to discussion.

So just a little bit of background.

The subject property is located at 1711 Arbor Street.

Uh it's an existing two-story uh 1300-ish square foot single family residential building.

Um it was originally constructed in 1889 and uh has been substantially modified since the applicant has conducted a historical evaluation to review any significance uh that the subject property may have.

Um, the conclusion of that uh now updated historical evaluation um it continues to posit that um the subject building does not have historical significance or integrity to convey that significance.

Um, and so uh during the last HAB meeting um it was identified that um criterion uh one and two um of the statewide historic register were not adequately reviewed uh for the subject property, and so the applicants coordinated with their uh historical consultant Garavaglia to produce an updated version of their uh historical evaluation memo as well as a DPR form um to uh record the uh structure prior to its uh demolition rehabilitation edition uh the proposed work.

Um the updated evaluation um did look into both um uh former residents of the subject property as well as um information around the original builder.

Um it did continue to conclude um that there uh is not um sufficient historic significance um or integrity on the site for eligibility on inclusion on the state um or federal historic register, um and so uh the uh updated information was provided to the have members um and is included as exhibits on this um staff report.

Um I know that uh some of our have members have had an opportunity to review that and have provided some additional guidance.

Um the intent of staff is to uh because that guidance couldn't be updated in the exhibits in time for this meeting.

Um the suggestion of staff is to um move forward with this application uh to include a condition of approval that would state roughly prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, the applicant will provide staff with an updated final memo and DPR form subject to the approval of the clerk of the historical advisory board.

Um and in doing so would give the opportunity for staff to provide adequate updates uh based on the have board members' um uh input um to make sure that we have uh any relevant information that remains outstanding in those updates before they were um you know recorded with the Northwest Information Center.

Um and with that, um I will just remind you folks that the finding that we are asking you to make regarding the subject property uh is to find that the resource no longer meets the criteria therefore or has become a detriment to the community, and that the condition making it a detriment can no longer readily be cured.

Um the argument the staff follows for that finding is that um because of the condition of the site, um any level of rehabilitation, restoration, demolition or addition to the subject property will almost certainly result in uh in excess of 30% or more of the removal of the value of the structure, which meets our criteria for a demolition and therefore will require a certificate of approval to move forward.

If there are specific questions regarding the uh updated evaluations um or any information that any of the board members consider outstanding, we do encourage you to provide that information to staff so that we can get that updated in a timely manner.

That way the project continue moving forward uh with the suggested condition.

Um, with that, I think I'd like to open it up to the board members to give you folks an opportunity to discuss a little bit more, maybe continue the conversation we had last time, and certainly if you have any questions for staff, I'm happy to answer those.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And uh were there any public uh comments or any folks in you know, either in the audience or I'm sorry, you opening it up to public comment?

I was just curious or were there any?

I'm getting a no from Yeah, we did not receive any uh emails or letters and uh for a public comment for this project.

Okay, got it.

Questions from you know, I apologize for missing last month's meeting, but I would be curious what were the issues that were discussed that you know it sounds like you had to revise your report based on issues raised last time.

What were the issues that were raised?

May I are you asking the board members or staff?

I just want to clarify.

Who knows the answer?

We all do.

I'll ask staff.

Uh uh staff would describe the shortcomings of the historical evaluation to be centered around primarily criterion one and two of the statewide historic register uh criteria, which is uh focused on the significance of the original builder of the this uh structure as well as um any significant persons or historical events that may have uh lived there or things that could have occurred there, um larger sort of movements in the historical um uh record, and so uh there were several updates to the evaluation, including um an analysis of the former residents and sort of their occupations and their significance to the history of Alameda, um larger sort of patterns of the diaspora of various uh ethnic groups, and an analysis of the original builder uh and any contributions they may have made to um sort of significant architectural um buildings maybe in the city or elsewhere.

So just sort of digging in deeper to some of the more detailed questions for things.

Out of curiosity, how does that impact sort of the schedule for a project like this?

Is it is it like a one-month per one-month sort of delay, or are they able to continue developing things, you know, during this review period?

Uh no development is allowed to proceed until after the issuance of a certificate of approval.

Um we will not um approve uh building permit for demolition until there's a signed certificate of approval on file and the appeal period has um you know ended.

Okay, so no work is currently being done uh, you know, uh in line with the project as proposed.

Got it.

Okay.

I'll ask another question if that's okay.

So I am curious what what are the what's the hesitancy of the group to move forward a little bit more expeditiously?

You know, it sounds like we are having this group sort of be delayed, and I think we all know time is money, right?

Um so what what are the you know what's the what is the thought behind having to go through another round of of review and conversations?

And this is for the board.

Yeah.

So I I mean I'm I'm happy to chime in, Josh, you as well.

Uh one of the things we struggled with last time was in our draft resolution, we were being asked to make some statements that we had no evidence because the historic study had not yet even approached the issue of who was the builder, who you know, there were elements missing in the analysis.

So we just were lacking information essentially to make our final determination based on the criteria that we have to uh evaluate against.

We just we couldn't quite get there.

All right.

We we were, I would say, generally in agreement that the building itself didn't, you know, exhibit much significance as a as a piece of architecture, but it was those other question marks of like, well, who was the builder and who lived there, and you know, those other things that you know, and these are sort of required elements that the historic evaluation needs to respond to or address, and the historic evaluation just didn't address these issues, essentially.

Right, yeah, and I I think part of the issue was when we look at the properties on the study list, we have several different categories, and they're defined variously from being a potential landmark to a building that might contribute to neighborhood character or could potentially have historical importance, and I think uh this this property in particular had an H designation.

So the first pass at evaluating it was focused on its architecture.

And from my perspective, when we're looking at how our historical resources defined under CEQA, there are uh there's other criteria that we would look at for the California register in particular that relate to those historical events or historic persons.

And ultimately when uh when we're coming down to the conclusion when we're looking at integrity, integrity always follows historical significance.

You have to be able to define what something is significant for in order to judge its integrity.

Um so that was that was kind of the crux of the request for additional information from the last meeting.

So thank you.

Um yeah.

Um I guess I could since I'm already on the mic, I'll I'll just say um I I did review the updated evaluation and I provided the comments to staff via email.

Um some of them were just related to technical aspects of filling out a DPR form based on the Office of Historic Preservation Instructions, and a couple others were uh based on some of the the content in the updated evaluation.

And um I will say I I really appreciate having the additional information about the builder.

I feel like that um shed some light onto their body of work uh or lack thereof, and um some of their colorful past here in the city.

Um that that does help us come to a really uh defensible conclusion about whether they're uh designer or builder of merit.

Um there was also there was public comment about potentially this area having a history of uh Portuguese settlement, and that was kind of brought to light a bit more in the updated evaluation, and again, I think there was some really uh good research there to help help us understand you know where the Portuguese community was settling in Alameda and how this building may or may not fit into that that context.

So those were important aspects of addressing those criteria related to events and persons.

Um the only uh I guess kind of major comment I had was in in looking at the city of Alameda context, it's essentially boiler the plate that was taken from an evaluation of the Alamutum Arena and dropped in here.

Primarily talks about shipyards and some maritime industry, and you know, understandably the northern coast or the you know eastern coast, depending on how you look at it, of the city is pretty close to this property.

But the to me, the lowest hanging fruit is this is a residential property.

What was the residential development like circa 1889 in this part of the city?

That can really kind of round out the criterion one discussion.

So I I think in general it's good uh you know it's good for staff who are fielding these evaluations, it's good for us to look out for things like this because we don't necessarily want to take all the information as presented to us as the best and final.

Um we should be critical about it.

I think that will ultimately serve our our decisions best.

Um I again I think um on the whole the the evaluation is far more robust.

So yeah, and uh to chime in on another point uh uh David, the uh one of the things we've discussed in previous meetings in the context of other certificates of approval is when we get a DPR form, we're actually creating new historical record, and we want to make sure these forms are as complete and accurate as they can be.

So, for example, in the previous one, the builder, though we had identified it based on resources, the DPR or the memorandum didn't.

So that was a key element.

Like, hey, we know who the builder is, why isn't it say it on the form kind of thing?

Just because, you know, who knows a hundred years from now what who's gonna be sitting in these chairs and what they're gonna be interested in, but at least we can leave them uh uh the best record that we could.

Yeah.

Um I would just uh echo some of the comments.

Uh it does seem much more complete and I really appreciate that.

Uh I did notice a weird technical discrepancy in that the memo from uh the architect firm that did the study in the uh titling of the pages, it says 95% draft.

Uh so my assumption that was uh either a typo or maybe it is a draft, but if I may, um yes, the intent was that um going forward that staff will bring the 95 or 99% draft to the historical advisory board to ensure that the board has the opportunity after they make a decision on a certificate of approval to make sure that we have that's what you were preferencing.

Okay.

So I just wanted to connect those dots because I was like, it's an architect trick, we do that all the time.

Call it ninety-five until everybody's had their opportunity to comment, and then it becomes a hundred.

Then it becomes a hundred.

Okay, so uh excuse my ignorance, but uh that's that's good to confirm.

I wasn't imagining seeing that.

Um, but yes, uh much more complete, and I think uh definitely backs up all the findings, at least in my mind uh that we're being asked to make as far as the um uh our uh resolution goes.

Um I do have a question, and this may be for uh staff, it may be for the um, you know, the actual applicant is never having gone through this process personally, I'm curious what the range of costs can be on uh DPR update form and a study like this, just as you know, as far as like how does this impact projects.

So I don't know if anybody has a you know a number to that, but I'm just curious.

The applicants are participating remotely.

If you'd like, I can give them an opportunity to speak.

Yeah, that'd be great.

Jason or Kenny, I don't know if either of you are able to speak or if you heard the board members' uh question about the cost of the historical evaluation.

But I'm gonna unmute you now.

You're certainly welcome to answer that question if you're able.

Can you guys hear me?

Yes.

Yeah, this is Kenny.

Yeah, so uh for uh doing the hiring architect, we cost about uh twelve thousand dollars.

So including a fees to the I think to get this meeting going.

I think the total cost is about uh 15,000.

So that's uh just for the historical study and evaluation, or that's just for the historical um the study, yes.

Okay, great.

Thank thank you for that.

So being the new guy, is this where we just sort of talk about our thoughts of things?

Is that what I'm doing?

Yeah, so um that was the uh staff's presentation.

If there was uh anyone here that wanted to make a comment about it uh either in person or if we also had folks online, and we'll open that up right now.

So if they have any comments, we can hear anybody's comments and then at that point we can discuss and okay, you know, move forward with any decisions.

Yeah, only the applicant is present online.

Okay, so no other uh comments.

Um so yeah, discussion is where we're at now.

Uh so this would be the moment where we can ask each other clarifying questions.

Uh we have a draft resolution uh in front of us that staff has prepared.

We can look at that in detail, but essentially our decision is do we see enough evidence uh that we can make the findings that you know the subject property does no longer has historical significance or uh is essentially going to be given the conditions um that they've already laid out about the memo, etc., uh we would be ready to grant a certificate of approval.

And uh just to remind you, um, and Tristan did introduce a uh provision that um the edits that were submitted um would be incorporated, and then the report would be 100%.

You don't start?

Yeah, please.

Yeah, I I'll just um reiterate.

I I do think that there's um you know much more robust documentation provided that lets us come to a defensible conclusion, and um I would agree that um the structure it it doesn't embody distinctive characteristics of a type period or region.

Um I think that um integrity does play a part um in that because there has been some loss, but I'm you know I think the the porch being lost in particular is a key um element of the building.

Um I I you know I'll say as we look at these properties in the future, um there, you know, we've had discussion about alterations to the back of this property, and I think fairly often from a uh secretary of the interiors standards perspective.

When we're when we're advising on sensitive alterations to buildings, we may direct them towards the back of the building because those are less prominent facades.

So uh the to me it's the totality of change that really um needs to be measured.

Um I would also say that there's sufficient documentation here on the Portuguese community to say that this property, yes, isn't individually significant.

Um it is important to note though that um when districts are identified, it's it's common for properties just to be contributors versus being individually significant.

Um I think if you look at the Park Street district, for example, there's a bunch of contributors there, and I believe that My Sonic Lodge may be one of the few individually designated buildings along that stretch.

But I'll also say that although this potential Portuguese historic district you know did come to light through this study, I think there's a lot of additional study that would need to occur to really refine our understanding of that to make a sound determination of its location, its boundaries, and what types of resources would uh comprise that.

So yeah, I think that helps address that criterion one argument.

And of course, we come back to Mr.

Mitchell, who um uh apparently not a master builder.

Um I want to add one clarification in the consultant's analysis under criterion three, the architectural criterion, they noted that uh the property's not associated with a an important creative individual uh because this person is not a master architect, and that's a really key distinction because the National Park Services guidance actually defines a master as someone who is a an architect, a craftsman, or a creative individual of generally recognized greetness.

So uh just because a a building contractor may not be a licensed architect um or an architect on paper, we shouldn't just write that off.

Um but I I feel like the evidence we presented is strong enough to say that Mr.

Mitchell is not a prominent builder.

Um, so he is handy with red paint, apparently.

Good painter, good painter.

Uh, but yeah.

So that's all I have on that.

Great uh sure.

So, you know, this is my first review, so I don't have much to compare it to.

I was impressed with the amount of information that was provided.

Um, I'm also looking at this as you know, a longtime resident of Alameda, and when I see like a blighted property, and there's there, as we all know, there is blighted properties spotted all across Alameda.

So for me, it's a great service to our community when we take a blighted property and we improve it.

In its current condition, it's not doing our community any good.

In fact, it's doing the exact opposite of what we need as Alameda citizens, right?

So when I saw, you know, first of all, I saw that they were gonna when I read the the initial description, it says it's gonna be demolished.

But I guess that's under criteria because it's not being demolished, right?

It's actually being renovated and added to.

But the the language says demolish, and I think that's because there's some sort of technical definition that if you're if it costs so much money, it's considered demolish.

And so I looked at the existing design, I looked at the design that they're proposing, and they're actually trying to keep very much within the same sort of rhythm and features of the original architecture, even though it's not been granted any sort of extra, you know, design credentials.

So in my opinion, this group is doing our community a service by taking this blighted building, trying to make it better.

And so, you know, as a board member, but I want to make sure that I follow the criteria that we all need to, you know, comply with.

I want to do Alameda a service, but ultimately, I think we're doing Alameda a bigger service by helping this project move along.

You know, I don't I don't want to see people spending undue money or undue time on these things because it is expensive to do this stuff.

And the economy right now is very fragile or at least unknown.

You know, we don't know what the future holds.

I was reading in the paper today that you know the cost of construction is gonna be going up for for residents.

So I'd like to sort of seize this opportunity and make it easier for folks and our community to take what is clearly a blighted property and make it better.

So again, I want to fall within the parameters of what we're trying to do, but I also don't want to lose, you know, the forest for the trees.

So that's and I thank staff for you know making this very thorough.

To me, this is a fairly easy decision.

Um anyway, this is my first time here, so I'm just blah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um and I I would say I'm I'm in agreement that we have enough evidence, it seems like a clear decision.

I support uh the adoption of the resolution.

Um so at this point, if we're all in agreement, somebody would make a motion, uh someone would second it.

Uh if we wanted to change any of the wording, we could make a motion to, you know, essentially adopt the resolution with changes, but that's the process, right?

I see no reason for changes and would be happy to make that initial motion unless anyone else has other thoughts to share.

So you would make a motion.

I make a motion to adopt the resolution in its current form.

Okay.

Um with the additional proviso for bringing her staff.

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

What he said.

I have one question, actually.

Um when we receive the updated or kind of 100% version, if you will, is there an opportunity just to confirm the the language in the the resolution, or is this the this the final time for that?

Okay, I think I think the it may have been misstated, but the intent was that it would come back for me to review it as your Azure Secretary.

Okay, rather than have another round which would delay it further.

Um, I like that.

But I'll I'll I have your document, so I'll make sure that it's you know hitting your points.

I just have one uh request for refinement, I think.

Um, regarding the distinctive characteristics, and this is really just a kind of like a best practice recommendation.

Um, I believe we say in this, uh where did it go?

So it says, however, the building's uh elements have little to no remaining integrity due to the substantially altered condition of the building and lack of architectural cohesion, and I I think um it's you know integrity is either there or it's not it's to say yes or no.

So I would just say uh the building has lost historic integrity.

Um due to substantially condition.

Yeah.

Has lost, yeah.

Okay.

Um we have to remotion?

No.

No.

Then I will I will second the motion to approve the resolution with the updated report being forwarded to the board secretary.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

The ayes have it.

The motion carries.

Motion carries.

Yay, and thank you to the applicant.

I look forward to Alameda becoming more and more beautiful.

Okay, so moving on to item five, board communications.

Um this would be the moment where if the board had anything to communicate about, like last time I mentioned um the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society is gonna be having their historic home tour soon.

Um, when the um the radio museum was having their reception, you know, that got brought up, those those kinds of things.

So any board communications none is okay.

Yeah, no, I can just say that uh, you know, I want to uh thank you and acknowledge for you know this being my first meeting.

I apologize for missing the first one.

I will certainly do my utmost to make these meetings, and um I'm proud to be part of this.

And I'm not afraid to disagree with people, and I'm not afraid for people to disagree with me.

I think that's why they have different folks on here so that we can come at it from different perspectives.

As an architect, I have very thick skin because I get chewed up all the time.

Could be there, could be there.

Well, uh, I would welcome you.

So thank you for being here.

Yeah.

Um, I know, was it last meeting we talked about the different um kind of it's not a formal work plan yet, but kind of like a work program, if you will.

Um, and uh one of board member crowded these comments about the the cost of of these evaluations made me it just resonated with me as a consultant who prepares these.

Um, of course, there's a there's a range that you'll encounter depending on the property type that you have or what you're evaluating, the number of buildings, uh, whether or not the consultant uh you know kind of recommends or specifies interior investigation versus just you know research and evaluation, but those kind of cost questions are ones that we should be considering when we're also looking at updating a citywide survey eventually because I think one of the benefits of that type of uh effort is that it may be a big cost to undertake, but that cost is spread a bit.

It's you know it's not on a property-by-property basis.

Right, but at the same time, when we're really thorough about these uh historic resource evaluations, it's giving us a lot of material that can inform that.

So there's a little bit of uh uh play together.

Yeah, exactly.

So uh and overall it's just about doing the best work you can.

So um, yeah, I think beyond that, I I had one question about uh I saw a post on the city's Facebook page today about uh municipal infrastructure, and I believe there's a workshop at City Council next week, and I'm curious if there are any historic age buildings or facilities as part of that plan that uh it would be beneficial to present here in this kind of forum, whether it be a firehouse or you know, depending what brid what infrastructure is defined as, um, I think that would be a worthwhile topic or an opportunity for another workshop if that can be accommodated.

And of course, uh could we attend that?

I guess would I I have no idea what this is, but yeah.

I believe it's just the next city council.

Oh, as uh city council.

Um, but uh I'll look into it.

Okay, yeah.

Well, your your comment about sort of a citywide survey sort of resonates with me a little a little bit because I was I was sort of thinking about how well how the process works here, and it my sort of initial reaction to this project was I'd like to make it easier for people to fix blighted properties in Alameda.

I don't want to put up roadblocks, I actually want to make it easier for what could clearly be considered a blighted property.

And you know, there's some near my house.

I'm sure there's some near your houses.

They're just scattered all over Alameda.

And it would be nice to figure out a way to meet the goals of Alameda in terms of its historic, you know, value that we you know bring to our community, but also without without getting in the way of fixing up these these blighted houses.

Um so I don't know if that means and maybe this isn't where you were going with it, or maybe it is, I'm not sure, but maybe by doing an additional survey, we could take some of the properties that clearly are blighted and we need to encourage people to fix these up and there might be a little bit of of um collateral damage and that without having done a thorough historic evaluation for each one of these blighted properties we might miss something but in my mind there's always a cost and a benefit to things and when you weigh these things to me fixing these blighted houses would provide more to our community than spending additional resources digging deep into the historic you know value of these crappy houses right yeah well I think uh part of the challenge is um historic integrity is not necessarily defined by conditions it's design it's defined primarily by the retention of materials so um which that's a difficult situation for for any property owner because um you know construction costs are high in the Bay Area to say the least um but we also have to be careful about when we see buildings with flaking paint or a little bit of loose trim some missing roof tiles not dismissing that you know at face value as something that's sure right down it's a slippery slope and I and I'll also say that um I've learned just through working on different types of properties um many of them just being very modest buildings without any sort of definable style that um the some of the most interesting properties were owned by community members who were uh probably discriminated against in one way or another or marginalized and their ability to fund maintenance um may have been less than those who are more fortunate or you know given the opportunity to buy a house wherever they wanted to um so that that's one of the challenges of the field of of historic preservation now in the 21st century is to you know still look out for those architectural gems that are kind of you know at first pass value that's that's the easiest thing you can identify is oh yeah it's that's a great looking queen and right but when you start to dig a little deeper that gives you the opportunity to say okay here's a here's an enclave we never knew about and you know what maybe because the architecture here is not the significant thing there is more flexibility in how you can change these buildings and what's the collective environment look like as far as neighborhood fabric so uh and you know sometimes I believe it was mentioned in the evaluation uh community centers buildings like that social halls uh community gathering places those are facilities that you know are often designed with tight budgets um there's even a a theme I've seen in uh San Francisco's modern architecture context statement called municipal modernism it's really which is really about like all right you have you've got bond dollars and that's all you get right so you build us the best building you can and um some of those are they'll still become eligible as as historic resources but um yeah I mean there's always a balance and I I'll say that preservation can be less precious but still impactful um where we're not looking at every single fine green detail um but when we can encourage people to you know keep their wood windows that are old growth wood, pest resistant, rot resistant.

That would be ideal yeah it's definitely a balancing it's not economical for everybody, but yeah definitely a balancing.

Well we'll thank you guys for uh for those uh comments.

Um staff, staff communications.

Um nothing tonight.

Nothing tonight.

Yeah.

Well, I guess that brings us to number seven, which is meeting it's earned.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

World speed record.

Thank you.