Historical Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

Tonight's session of the historical advisory board meeting. Thank you again for, your participation. First order of business, I guess, is roll call.

So go ahead and, take roll call. So, Chair Hernandez?

Present. Alright.

Board members, Bevan? Present. Brito? Present. Riberchak?

Present.

And Sanchez? Present. We have a quorum.

It's nice. A full board. It's been a bit. So I guess, non agenda public comments. Do we have anybody online or in person that wishes to speak on any subject not on the agenda?

There are no raised hands online and I believe all of our in person folks are here for agenda as public comment.

Okay, great. So let's move on to minutes. Looking at the historical advisory board meeting minutes from our last meeting, 02/06/2025. I'll open it up for comments.

Yeah. I had one correction. I believe it was in the final paragraph. It I think it referred to me as chair as adjourning the meeting, it should have been chair Hernandez.

Great. We'll go ahead and make that correction.

Thank you.

Any other comments? No?

Okay. So, I'll make a motion to approve the meetings as amended.

Any second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. The ayes have

it? Passes.

And now on to regular agenda items. First order of business is a study session on a certificate approval for demolition of two structures at twenty three twenty Lincoln Ave. I believe we have a presentation.

We have a staff member, Tristan Swire, who's gonna give a presentation.

Thank you, board members. Just gonna make sure this works good. Alright. Everybody hear me okay?

Yeah.

Great. Esteemed board members, thank you for joining me this evening. The item before you here is a study session to consider applications received by staff for both a certificate of approval and staff has also received an application design review for the property located at 2320 Lincoln. The other building located at the property is 2322 Lincoln. Before we get too much in-depth, I want to offer a brief correction.

The PowerPoint that was submitted for the agenda on page five had some text not to do with this particular project. In your presentation before you hear, you'll find that the fifth page is now just blown up pictures. So please omit that text from your review. Now that that's taken care of, I'd like to provide a little bit of background for why we called the study session on this item as well as some background on the prior review of previous proposals for certificates approval at the site. And then after that, we'd like to give some context on some of the work that the applicant has done on preparing for the meeting and some of the information received later on, both by the Architectural Preservation Society and through staff's own review of the previous consideration of a certificate of approval at the site, which informed has our decision to move forward with a study session this afternoon rather than any request for board action.

And by that, just to be clear, the study session is not intended to result in any action by the board. It is purely to seek input both from the board and members of the public about what considerations they have about the proposal to demolish the subject buildings there. So we can go ahead and dive right into the actual subject matter now. The project site is just around the corner here on Lincoln. It's a relatively small interior lot located just east of the library, just west of the it's a gas station, service station, and across the street from Goodwill.

You might have passed it on your way here. The subject property has two existing buildings, one that is currently used as a commercial restaurant, Gim's Chinese, which I'm sure many of you are familiar with. It's been there for quite a few years. And the other building is currently vacant, appears to be sort of residential in appearance, although there is some evidence that it has been used as commercial in its very long life. So just for the sake of clarity, from here on out, we'll refer to the building that is on the western portion of the lot, appears more residential as Building A.

We'll refer to Gim's Restaurant, which is on the eastern portion of lot, as Building B. So again, if there's any confusion or we need to clarify that, feel free to interject and we'll try to keep those straight. Well let's just go into the background of the buildings first. The Building A, which is a one story excuse me. Building A is the one and a half story building which is currently vacant and includes many of the extent architectural features from its original construction, including features that were called out in the historical evaluations prepared in 2003 by the Architectural Resources Group and in 2004 by Elizabeth Crayce.

Those documents found at that time that the building had a number of aspects of integrity that were met, meaning that it was considered an intact historic resource at that time. And as a little bit in the way of background, there are sort of seven aspects of integrity for a given historic resource. We've kind of detailed those in your staff report. But specifically for Building it had almost all of excuse me. The seven aspects are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association.

Building A had six of those seven, although there is some question as to whether location integrity was maintained as the 2004 historical eval by Elizabeth Cray seemed to indicate that the location maybe had moved slightly over the course of this building's life. So roughly six of the seven aspects maintained. And then by comparison, Building B, by virtue of the fact that it's been somewhat altered throughout its life, only maintains three of the seven aspects of integrity, but was still considered to have some historic significance by virtue of its association with the historic Chinatown that was located in this sort of vicinity over one hundred years ago. So the request to demolish these structures seemed to reflect a request that was received in 2003 when the library was under construction to demolish these structures and replace them with a parking lot for the library. It was at that time that there was a number of concerns raised about the historical significance of the buildings and whether they should be preserved.

And it was during that time that these historical evaluations, both in 2003 and 2004, were received originally. In those historic evals, it was determined basically that the buildings did maintain their historic integrity, and therefore there needed to be more research done basically to be able to make the findings for a certificate of approval. And it was ultimately denied at that time. Staff has worked with the applicants to determine what would be required to sort of move the project forward and understand better what would be needed to determine whether these buildings still maintain their historic integrity, whether they still manage to convey the historic significance that they once had. It's been roughly twenty years since the original historic evals from 2003 to 2004 were performed.

And our understanding is that not much has changed in the project site in the interim besides just the general effect of time passing. And they're in somewhat worse condition since then. No historic eval has been done in the interim. But the expectation is that it would find much the same information that was provided in the original historic evals. And so The question was for us whether restoration was the only option for this site, or whether demolition would be possible if, HAB would be able to make findings for strict approval if it were provided the information in, say, a structural evaluation, new historic evaluations, exploratory work to determine how feasible it is to restore the structures and whether in restoring them in order to meet current building codes and such, whether it would be required to effectively demolish them in the first place and then create a new building that emulates some of the features that were called out in some of these historic evals as being significant.

In the sort of thinking about this, we were concerned that staff doesn't currently have enough information to be able to recommend to you to make the findings either for approval or denial of this application. And so we were looking, A, for some input from the board on what exactly the additional information you might need to make those decisions are. And B, to what extent you're willing to consider something other than restoration for this site. The applicants have suggested that they're willing to be fairly flexible with the design of their resulting buildings. They want to provide something that would be a boon to the community here.

We've gone through a couple of different iterations of designs, some of which have been more modern, some of which have tried to emulate some of the features in the existing buildings. And certainly we can discuss that in a little more detail. But I think the focus for us is really to determine to what extent these buildings do still convey their historic character. If they do, what kind of structural evaluation, historic evaluation, additional information would the board need to better understand whether these sort of aspects of integrity are maintained for these buildings? And then to the extent to which, if there is integrity maintained, restoration is sort of the only option for these buildings.

And so just a little bit of background on these just because we've got so many sort of historic photos. These are both from our 1979 survey of historic buildings. Phos aren't great quality. We've got some better ones for you here. The lower one of Gims was taken, I believe, in 'fifty five and shows some of the changes over time.

Although you'll notice that for Building A2320 Lincoln, the building looks more or less just like it does today with the exception of maybe the boarded up front door. The ultimate uses are still a little bit haven't committed The applicants haven't committed to proposed uses, but the suggestion at this time is that they would want to propose sort of ground level commercial and then upper level residential or office space. So sort of a commercial mixed use arrangement. The current use of Gim's is obviously a restaurant, as we mentioned. But originally, it was shown on Sanborn maps, both as a store and then on one side as a Chinese store, which indicated to us as well in the historic evals that it may have had some connection to the original Chinatown there.

And so I think the intent would be to keep that as a restaurant and likely sort of keep the tenant there if possible. Building A seems to have a pretty storied history of uses from sort of a saloon and lodging upstairs to sort of a residence, maybe for the owners of Gim's Chinese originally. It looks like maybe they had lived there at one point. And so that building has been vacant at least since the original historic evals were conducted in the early aughts. And it's fallen into considerable disrepair since then.

But that's sort of just an overview. And actually here are some pictures taken just today of the project site. Some of the things you might notice are the sort of very narrow clapboard siding there, the two over two windows. The recessed entry is actually really interesting as well. A lot of these characteristics, while very simple, do emphasize or exemplify rather the traditional form of the residential buildings at this time.

And so while there aren't many other extant buildings that sort of reflect this style, and while it is rather plain, it does sort of have a defining historic architectural character that was identified in the historic evals. And I think I've already mentioned that Building B Games has been substantially altered over time. And so while some of the extant features aren't necessarily original and may not still convey some of the historic character, there is a history of the use being associated with historic Chinatown that still maintains some of its historic significance. And so for that reason, we believe it's still sort of subject to the same considerations as far as the certificate of approval is concerned. It's worth noting that staffing conversations at the city attorney's office has determined that the project is not eligible for an exemption under CEQA.

So before any sort of decisions were made on the project, the applicants would need to conduct the bare minimum of focused EIR, environmental impact report, to consider the potential impacts of the project to the human environment. So at this time, again, no decisions being made on the project. But prior to any decisions being made, the applicants would need to complete a focused DIR on that. We can go into more detail on a number of the comments received on this project. I believe some of the folks here are intended to speak on the project, so I don't want to take up too much of your time.

I'm sure they'll be able to provide some more clarification on some of the history of the site. But in the meantime, I thought I might kind of close out my staff report by asking if there were any specific questions concerns. Again, the study session is really intended to get feedback from the planning excuse me, from the Historical Advisory Board and members of the public on what has been historically a site that has attracted a lot of attention. So we are definitely interested to hear from you folks on what you think and get some feedback. Could

I ask a favor? Do you have slides of the proposed structures

you could share with us? I do have a slide here of the proposed structures. I think part of our concern is that right now the applicants are very flexible on what they've proposed for the design. In fact, have been a few different iterations of the design, some more modern than others. And so we didn't want to focus too much of the board's attention on those designs as they're still in sort of a flexible state.

And in addition, I suppose it's worth noting that any proposed designs would be subject, of course, to design review. In a project like this, it may even go beyond a staff level decision. So I think there's definitely some additional considerations to be made there. But as of right now, the proposed design is essentially two ground level storefronts, recessed entries, windows, all the good stuff. And then upper level on building A residential, potentially multiple units, and then building B office space.

There has been some talk about whether they would consider doing high residential densities in lieu of the office space. But again, I don't think the applicants are ready to commit to that yet. I think they're more interested in finding out sort of what the board is expecting as far as not just the design of the resulting buildings, but also what they're expecting for the demolition of

the existing. Thank you. Thank you. Well, thank you for the presentation. Super great overview. Now I guess would be an okay time to ask some direct questions to you or we could hold our questions till we have the rest of I'm I'm assuming we have some folks that wanna comment and then come back. Can you hear me better now? Yes. So I was just saying, sorry for that, that rather than jumping into questions directly now, we might wanna hear from anybody who had public comments about this and then circle back to questions with you, if that's okay.

Stand by me.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah. Just a note to the board that these microphones are, not very good, so you have to, like, really talk right

into it. I'll lean forward. Yeah. So are there any public comments?

Yes. Staff has received public comments. Our first speaker is Woody Miner. Woody, you're welcome to speak on Can I have a slide before? Sure. Sure. Yeah. Just a matter of the order I'd receive the speaker slips. Yeah. So Kevin Frederick.

Hello. My name is Kevin Frederick, and I am coming to you on the subject of 2320 Lincoln Avenue due to the fact that it is a very historic structure in the city of Alameda. We're talking seriously old. We're talking, like, eighteen sixties old, but maybe even older. There it is a simple structure, but we're talking pioneer style building here, pre Victorian.

And it popped up because of first the Alameda San Francisco Alameda Railroad that came through Alameda and decided to install a station depot at Park Street, which pretty much caused Park Street to get started. This is like a seriously old commercial building. And the Central Pacific yeah, the Transcontinental Railroad came through Alameda, and this building was standing right there when this passed through. So that is pretty significant. And it was on Park Street.

I, in 2004, got word of this building, I was like, oh, this is interesting. I started digging into it, and I started finding finding documentation and everything going way back. And I got some examples here. Unfortunately, they're on a PDF on the submitted documents. And I don't have copies to present other than this one. But I'll start with this map here. This is an 1868 map showing the Park Street area. And it has a few buildings depicted. And one of them is called Nublin's Saloon. And we believe that the building that we're talking about tonight is that.

And we know this map is 1868. And so that's pretty significant. And it's right across from the first rail station in Alameda. And in 1875, a fellow named Frank Glass decided, hey. He was gonna do some improvements on that corner.

He picked up this building and moved it to the back of his lot and set it down in November 1875. And that was 2,320. And it's been standing at that site since 1875. And I got some newspaper clippings for that. I have his auction flyer here from 1880, which was a pretty amazing find in the back of the museum, Alameda Museum.

And it has Frank Glass's name right here, which I didn't realize at the time, which is pretty cool. And here is the building right there depicted, which is pretty amazing. And the last thing I want to show is a recently found photograph from 1884 of the February where this building sat. We're seeing a locomotive. We're seeing the Alameda's first station.

We're seeing Park Street. This is like the beginning. Plus, there was a Chinatown right across the street, which this building is also connected to with Kim Glock Wong and his family. And there's a family member from the Wong family that may speak tonight. And so it's very significant building preservation is of interest. And if you want to talk to me later, we can do that. Okay.

Thank you. You. Woody Miner, you're next, if you'd like.

Hi, I just wanted to second what Kevin said about the extraordinary significance of this building. If you were in Alameda back in the 1850s or 60s, you would have seen a continuity of buildings in this, what Kevin referred to as pre Victorian. Italianate came in in the 1870s and then we had these succession of styles, highly ornate jigsaw and ornament and all that. But the pioneer structures were these simple gabled pictures. The oldest images that you will find of Alameda will show these simple gabled structures.

And that was the feeling of Goldrush Alameda. And there was a continuity that it designed right up through the railroad era. So in the eighteen fifty's and sixty's, we're talking about what it felt like in Alameda during the gold rush in the advent of rail transport. And what I want to drive home to you is this is the only one left. That's it.

We have a few Gold Rush era cottages in town, houses. Most famously, the Webster House on Versailles. This is the only structure that conveys what Alameda looked like at the very beginning of the rail era. And it conveys all of that almost miraculously in terms of the level of integrity. And so it's a simple looking building, but there's great beauty in that simplicity.

And it's just, it's one of a kind. And if you talk about a building that symbolizes or incarnates an era, You can talk about your favorite Queen Anne house. You can talk about City Hall. This one of fewer than a half dozen buildings in town and the only non residential building which symbolizes and, there's a word I'm looking for, embodies the first two decades of our history. That's it. 1850s and 60s, extraordinarily important building. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. We do have a number of attendees online unless nobody else to speak for this item. Great. So we have Dolores Kelleher. I'm gonna allow you to talk now. Feel free to speak.

Can you hear me?

Yes. Can.

Hi. My name is Dodi Kelleher. I'm a board member of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, and I'm representing them here. I have sent you a letter yesterday. The email has attachments as well and I would ask you to review them.

I'm not going to bore you by trying to read through the whole thing in two minutes. I will say though that the letter was sent in the response to the request for demolition of both 2320, which was known standing by 1868 and was probably older, and February, which is Gim's Chinese Food Takeout that was built in 1890 in probably a Victorian style and then was altered later on. The current proposal to demolish the buildings would demolish what is the oldest surviving commercial building in Alameda in Building A or 2003 And 20. It's also the oldest surviving building in the Park Street Business District. Rather than, you know, we really feel, and the letter has historical, cultural and commercial significance of these two structures, AAPS believes that the proposal to demolish rather than consider restoration proposals is very short sighted.

Therefore, we request that the EIR for the project consider the following: restoration of the exterior of the building of February, which is likely to have an old growth redwood framing still extend And at a minimum, if that's not feasible, the restoration of the facade and if full restoration of the facade is not feasible, designing a new facade to match the existing, at least on the 2nd Floor. Both of these options, we believe, should be identified as project alternatives in the EIR and that that EIR needs to be performed by a structural engineer with demonstrated experience working with historic buildings and the California Historical Building. We believe the building, at least the A, meets the California Historical Code. Included in the I'll end with this included in our letter is a number of design recommendations about the facade of Lincoln, 2320 Lincoln, Building A, to emulate more truly emulate what was there, and if you need to, if it needs to be altered. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank

you. We still have a few more speakers here. Jay Ao, I believe you were next. I'm going to allow you to talk, okay?

Hi, my name is Jay Ao. I am an Asian American studies professor at Cal State University Fullerton, and I am a grandchild of the proprietor of Gim's Kitchen, Gott Gim Wong. I was here twenty years ago with Kevin Frederick at AAPS campaigning to save Jim's kitchen from eminent domain as the library is built. I'm here again now to ask the city of Alameda to pay its due respect to the memory of Alameda Chinatown and the legacy of the Wong family and Jim's Kitchen in Alameda. My ancestors first established a business in both properties in the late eighteen hundreds after the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad and they continued to work on the property for over a hundred years or so until my grandfather passed away and the property was sold in the nineteen nineties.

What is now gim's kitchen was first a Chinese dry goods store with also a gambling par parlor in the back, until World War two. After the war, my grandfather went went legit and established the Gim's Kitchen in the nineteen fifties, which is still existing today. I did send a brief PowerPoint slide to the board earlier, you might have some pictures of documenting these. Furthermore, what is shown on the slide show is my uncle David Wong, son of Gott Kim Wong, worked at the restaurant through the 1970s and employed a very diverse group of Falabella residents who scoured the city and Kim's Kitchen was known all over the city as, the place that delivers Chinese, food. The house next door, quite a few different generations of my family lived there from eighteen ninety's onward including my mother and her five other siblings from the 1930s to approximately 1950s.

There are at least two of the siblings alive now that can attest to Alameda Chinatown and the history of the building. To conclude, just wanted to again very much support the preservation of the buildings. If that is not able, I hope that definitely the demolishing can be done Carefully with any historical documents being there. Preserved and as a historian of the family I have plenty of documents artifacts and other things from my family that I'd be willing to share in any type of a historical display of Alameda Chinatown associated with these buildings. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Christopher Buckley. You are now unmuted.

Christopher Buckley, also with the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. I'd like to follow-up Dodi Kelleher's presentation, particularly the design recommendations if it's not possible to preserve at least the front facade of the building. And these it's what the understanding as staff pointed out that the design that has been submitted is basically just one of several approaches and is intended as I understand it to be very schematic. But using that as a point of departure, you know, we're suggesting that one, that the to verify the facade width height to the roof eaves and height to the roof peak to match the corresponding heights on the existing building. Basically measured drawings of the existing building needs to be done if it's to be demolished and particularly if the new building is to emulate the existing building.

Second, on the front elevation, maintain the existing configuration of the separate two over two second floor double hung windows rather than the proposed paired windows which apparently have mold sash which is very uncharacteristic of buildings of this type. Three, identify the proposed horizontal siding material type, clapboard, rustic, etc, and exposure. It's good that the proposed siding appears very similar to the existing wood clapboard siding, but the materials, wood, cement fiber and so forth, need to be identified. If cement fiber or other synthetic siding is used, the surfaces should be smooth with no imitation raised wood grain. Assuming that the pro siding is clapboard like the existing siding, the exposure and thickness of should closely match the existing exposure and thickness.

And finally item four, provide vertical section details through the eaves, windows, and storefronts to allow evaluation of these design elements. What's been presented so far is very schematic and generalized. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. That appears to be all of our online speakers. That's everybody I think we've received speaker slips for, so I think that is all of our public comment.

Okay, great. Well, thank you everybody who's come in and called in online to give us your perspectives on this. It's super important. Obviously, this building is super important to a lot of folks in town. So we're very glad to hear it.

I would open it up for Okay, sorry. I'll keep keep as close as I can. I was just saying thank you to everybody who called in and who's come out to express your interest to the building. Obviously it means a lot to a lot of folks and we really appreciate hearing those comments. At this point, I'd like to open it up to the board for questions of the staff member regarding the presentation because I know there's probably some things that we want you know, dig into a little bit there. If you want to rejoin us at the podium. The clicker.

Thank you. Sorry for the wait there. Just wanted to have that in case you had any specific questions regarding that.

Thank you. Thank you. So I'll open it up any. Sure,

I'll start if you don't mind. So I guess I'll start with two questions. Actually I'll go with three questions. So the first one is the rear building that's behind 20, Building A, excuse me, the portion of the building that's attached, am I correct that the date of construction of that is somewhat ambiguous or do we know roughly from what period that portion of the structure?

As I understand it, and what appears to be supported in the historic evals from 'three and 'four is that the sort of in both buildings, actually there are extant sort of rear additions. These actually may have been accessory buildings at one point that were gradually attached to the buildings. It's a little bit unclear if you're looking at the sandboard maps from that time which of the accessory buildings that were there may have become this addition. But our understanding is that these are non original portions of the building that were attached at a later date. Got it,

okay, thank you. Next question. So my understanding is that this will have to go through a CEQA evaluation, right, which will necessitate an EIR report. So am I correct that a historic evaluation would be part of that EIR

That is correct, yes. So part of our coming here is to seek a little bit of input with regards to what you folks need to see for your findings. But obviously, as part of what you need to see for your findings, a lot of that information will be contained in the focused DIR. I say focused EIR because it would be intended to be kind of narrowly focused on things like the historic significance of the building, not so much on other aspects that would typically be considered under an EIR, things like say water quality or air quality, right?

Right. Okay.

So I think the yes, a historic eval would be expected to be part of that focused EIR. And I think some of our speakers also had suggestions for evaluations to be included in that EIR that may kind of further elucidate the extent to which the structural integrity is still there.

Got it. Okay, great. And then my final question for you is, so with regards to the restaurant, is the sign from the 1950s or doing, can you clarify, is that, was the sign part of the 1950s renovation and conversion of that building into a restaurant?

Our earliest record of the sign is 1955. Okay. We can also investigate that further.

So is it so my understanding is that when it comes to signage, like, the sign itself would would be considered like, if if a new tenant came in, they wanted to remove the sign that would have to come before us. Right? Is that am I correct in that similar to the flower shop or am I misunderstanding that?

I don't want to misspeak so I would have to look more into that. I would assume that the sign would need to have been designated. Okay. If it but I'm not aware of any such designation so Can you clarify that for us Henry?

Yeah. So we do have a list of historic signs. I think staff would have to check to make sure if this sign is on that particular list because I think it was installed as part of the GIMMS business.

Okay. And I know that there's no guarantees, but I think you mentioned in your presentation that the current operators of GIMMS are tenants, correct? They're not part of the ownership group, is that correct?

That's correct, yes.

And so the intent or the goal would be for them to remain in that space after the improvements are made or?

Again, I think the current property owners are flexible with the use of the resulting buildings, but I think that's certainly on the table. I'm not sure how we would

require that. I just wanted, anecdotally, I guess there's conversations between them that they would be open to having that type of business if not that same business.

My understanding is that that is the case, yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Chair, if I may chime in a little bit.

Yes.

So I think part of the goal tonight is that I think the applicant is seeking direction from the board on what you might need to consider this project. So I think right now we have I think two conflicting evaluations that have like different conclusions that are over twenty years old. And so if the Board does feel like another a newer evaluation should be done, I think the applicant would like to hear that direction.

Okay. Great. Thank you. And if I might just add specifically, you know, what aspects might be needed to be considered? For example, Board Member Sanders, you mentioned sign. If that's something of particular importance, of something that you'd like to investigate further, then certainly we would appreciate knowing what the particular features are that you're interested in.

Thank you.

You for the presentation. One question I have is regarding the library DEIR from 2003 or 'four. Is the information that we've received so far through our attachments, is that the limit of the historical documentation that was part of that study?

Yes. So it's a little bit hairy because the library project, the proposal to demolish these, actually went through an appeal process. And through that appeal process is actually how we ended up with this 2004 historic eval. So initially, when the project was started for the library, there was just the ARG '2 thousand and three historic eval, which concluded, like I mentioned, six out of seven aspects of integrity for Building A, three out of seven for Building B. It did not, however, acknowledge some of the information provided to you by Architectural Preservation Society, which was identified in the 2004 eval, which includes things like the fact that Building A may have been moved from Park Street and may have been significantly older than originally suggested in the 2003 eval, and also its sort of status as one of, if not one of the top three oldest commercial buildings in the city.

So there was kind of further information that came to light through that process. But by the end of the decision making on the library project, yeah, at that point we had all of the information that we currently have through the historical evals. Does that answer your question?

Yeah, answers one. Regarding what might be needed for a new evaluation or updated evaluation, I think that would be advisable to do one. Typically for properties that were evaluated more than five years ago, it's good to do some sort of check, back check, record existing conditions, whether it be as part of a historical evaluation report. I think as a standard, it would include some sort of DPR form recordation which is a form that the State

of

California Department of Aggregation has published and is routinely used for recording the built environment, even archaeological resources. Those are often appended to EIRs. And that's something that I didn't see as part of the earlier documentation. But for instance, a lot of our buildings on the historic or the city's study list, they have an early version of the TPR.

Yep.

So that's one. One thing is yes, I do think an updated evaluation would be something that would be recommended. There's a couple aspects of history for these properties that I do think merit additional research. One, it's clear from the studies that have been done so far that Building A is constructed circa eighteen sixties to 1885. There's been a ton of intensive research that upon review looks really thorough.

And particularly for when it was done, you really had to do a lot of legwork. In 2004, we didn't have nearly as much access to digital resources. So I would encourage, one, kind of a synthesis of that information into whatever new evaluation gets done. I would also encourage additional research into more recently available census data in light of some of the public comments we've received and the fact that census data from probably the 30s, 40s, even up to the 50s right now is available. That can help fill in some of the gaps from one of the evaluations that said it's really not known who occupied these buildings during this time period.

I also wanna recognize that the Office of Historic Preservation has published a, it's called a multiple properties study or multiple property form, Asian American and Pacific Islanders in California, that covers historical context for those communities throughout the state. And that was recently published. It's available on OHP's website. That document, it provides context but it also provides helpful guidance on evaluation thresholds that might be germane to determining whether just one of these buildings has significant association to Chinatown or both. I think it's reasonable given that they have historical functional relationships and association through ownership that there should be some consideration of are these just individual resources in their own right or is this two building group capable of being considered a resource?

That's a question. And then what I think all this boils down to that the previous evaluations don't have but is really essential to both an EIR and even potential rehabilitation is identifying periods of significance and character defining features. So building A for instance, significant for its architecture. In this case, a relocated building that is significant for architecture, that loss of locational integrity is not as important as retaining integrity of design, work and ship materials. But it's important to understand what period that architecture is really representing and where the cutoff point is.

That'll help answer questions about is the addition significant or contributory to the resource or is it all about the main block, that one and a half story gabled component? And the same thing goes for cultural affiliation and that association which would be under criterion one for the California Register. Figuring out those kind of missing links is what I think an updated evaluation should focus on. And I mean that would be greatly informative for any sort of Yeah, think that's the core of what I as a historian would look for.

Thank you. That was very helpful.

Other comments or questions?

Hi. Has there been any feasibility studies of how much it would take not just monetarily just maybe monetarily to restore these buildings to their historic glory?

Short answer, no. The part of the conversations we've had with the applicants is a question as to whether or not restoration is really meeting their goals. I think at this point, their hope is to be able to propose demolition and reconstruction. The question as to whether or not they would pursue rehabilitation if demolition is not available to them is still in question. So short answer, no.

They have not done any sort of exploratory work to determine whether restoration is feasible. I think if the board were to give them direction to do that, that would certainly be something we could come back with at part of an action item meeting. But at this time, we don't have any feasibility studies or an idea as to what it would take to restore the buildings. Buildings.

I think that's all I have right now. Just consider.

Well, I for one, yes, would ask for a new evaluation for those buildings. I didn't see in any of the documents. They mentioned that the facades are, or the buildings are in somewhat of a state of disrepair. But yeah, after, since 2003. It didn't mention like that the buildings are leaning which I know is also kind of unfortunate characteristic of some Alameda buildings.

But to see, I'm sure that's going to would come up in the new evaluation. And as far as something struck me. It was what Mr. Frederick mentioned about how, if I'm remembering correctly what wrote, or said that he appreciated these buildings but then it was after he started digging that he started finding out more about the historical significance. I think if that historical significance could still be whatever happens to these buildings, whether they're rehabbed or replaced to look similar, I think it would be great to have some sort of mention whether it's on a plaque or something that even just says a little blurb to get people thinking like, Hey, it's not just an old building but there was something significant happened here.

And is part of even saying, Yeah, this is the last known building of this style of non residential and it has some tie to Chinatown and that could get other people thinking, Oh yeah, it's not just a town of cool old buildings, but there's stories there too. Thanks.

Thank you. And it might be worth noting just for your own context that Kevin Frederick, our speaker, was actually closely involved with the two thousand and four historic eval done by Elizabeth Cray, so just a little bit of context there as well.

Yeah, so I think I won't cover territory that's already been covered by my fellow board members. I think that definitely historic evaluation is called for. And I would say that a structural evaluation to give us a sense of the report definitely sort of alludes to the fact that the restaurant building has been modified more heavily than Building A. But I think that they both merit sort of investigation. And I would say that in particular, Building A seems to me that given the program that the new owners have, feels to me like it's one that is more capable perhaps of supporting their proposed goals.

The restaurant building, it's a little bit harder to say. I don't know whether the existing facade could be investigated to see if any of the original facade is existing beneath. But I think that some effort into that would be worthwhile. I think that having the owners contact Mr. Oh, Mr.

Gim's grandson, and sort of if they're able to get historic documentation from the building throughout its life would be a fantastic resource not only in determining what the original structure looked like and whether achieving something comparable or restoring it to that point is feasible. But if not, it would begin to lay the groundwork for sort of documenting, which I think is what the family has asked for, that the history be maintained. And so my question regarding the signage is that it seems like the sign is something that's a somewhat character defining feature of the building. And I know that I use the flower store as an example because although different types of businesses have gone in there, the marquee for the flower store has remained. And so it seemed like that could be one possible way to kind of tie the new building or the restored building or the remodeled building, however.

Whatever the solution ends up, it might be a way to hearken back to that, right? So it seems like there's definitely sort of some maybe some treasures to be found that could be used as part of the restoration or part of the new building kind of bring that back. And then I would say the last point is that if in fact, in particular, it sounded like Mr. O was more than willing to share some of his family's history, that if there isn't an appropriate location on the site that maybe they could work out something with Alameda Library where maybe there could be a display that's at the library and there could be a plaque sort of guiding people towards the library and that history. And so that that maybe they're better equipped to handle a nice display that wouldn't maybe be a part of the restaurant.

But think that there's definitely opportunities to capture the history. And I do think that if you were asking us today to make the decision, my inclination would be to salvage as much as possible. I think the last question which I was looking at the photos and I'm not 100% sure, but I don't know whether the siding on the side of the restaurant building, Building B, matches Building A. It doesn't appear that it does, but if there's some opportunities to salvage some materials from, let's say that after a structural evaluation and feasibility studies, it became apparent that Building B maybe had less of an opportunity to be preserved in its current state. Are there materials that could be salvaged from Building B that could then help Building A get restored.

So that would be something else that I think would be part of that historic evaluation.

Thank you. And just for the record, the Building B does have what appears to be sort of a wider horizontal, maybe, yeah, as opposed to the clapboard which is sort of a more narrow horizontal. But maybe underneath it or, you know, we'd have to do some exploratory work

to find out. Great. Yeah, and then also I should have begun with this, but thank you both for your presentation and to the applicants. I think that, and the members of the public and the AAPS who have brought all of this, it was actually quite entertaining to read out the history of these two buildings. And I really appreciate the opportunity for us to be able to give you feedback and ask our questions in advance. I also appreciate the applicant's flexibility to sort of come not with a baked application but really with an openness to hear members of the family, the public and ourselves and our input. So I really appreciate it.

Thank you, board member. So yeah, I would echo a lot of what I've already heard here. And obviously there's a lot to chew on here, including some late additions to our reading list that frankly I want to take more time personally to dive into that. I just didn't have enough time today before the meeting. I would agree that additional or updated study be included with whatever decision making process comes next.

But I do want to commend the owners on the initiative to do something with the building, whether it is what turns into a like we were talking about an entirely new building, a rehab building, who knows what. But it's nice to see energy and enthusiasm for making improvements to these two important structures and to this important area. On the subject of what's next or what we'd like to see as part of the feasibility of can these buildings be rehabbed in some way? I would also ask the question, can these buildings be moved? It's been moved once, but is there another place if we can't make this happen that at least one or both of these buildings could go to save the building?

It's obviously possible. It's been done before to these same buildings. The the context of these two buildings, where they are is I know important. So I'm not dismissing that. But I'm also asking staff as you guys are evaluating these proposals to think about this entire area of Park in Lincoln and what's going on there in that whole block long term.

I like I like the idea of revised structures if that's the way this needs to go. But I question, are these the right structures for that place given what else is around there and what will probably be there in the coming twenty to fifty years, I don't know that these two smaller buildings are the right choices. I'm not saying I have the idea but I would question those placements and what sort of the longer term vision is for the city to develop that area. Other than that, again, just to echo what everybody said, I personally would like more time with the material before I could say, Well, here's what I think should happen or here's what I would like to see before I grant a demolition or a certificate of approval for demolition. I don't know that I'm personally there yet.

So I don't know if other folks want to chime in on.

Thankfully we don't have to decide tonight.

Can I add one thing? I know the term restoration has been used a lot tonight. In practice, I'm actually used to hearing rehabilitation more because under the Secretary of the Interior Standards, rehabilitation projects, they can mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. So this is the beginning of this project for us seeing this information. Should down the road if maybe there's a shift in direction towards retention versus demolition, the rehabilitation standards are the portion of the treatment guidelines that actually allow for additions.

They allow for sensitive alteration. They allow for window replacement if it can be demonstrated that repair isn't feasible. So there is some flexibility there and I think for the benefit of the applicant, it's good to know that preservation doesn't necessarily mean everything stays. Adaption is part of keeping things going. So I think that's, it's good to know.

And in that spirit, I'd encourage the city to communicate with the applicant and understand are there any incentives available that you could target as part of this project, be they state historic preservation tax credits. I don't know if we have an active Mills Act program but there's always a first project. This would be an income producing project. I mean there's, it's hard to find incentives to preserve but sometimes there's pathways out there. So I would just encourage that kind of open dialogue as things move forward.

Thank you. Yeah. And we'll definitely be contacting the applicants and being open conversations with them about that. Appreciate that.

Well, thank you again, everybody who's commented. I would say for us to move on to our next order of business, which is the 802 Buena Vista Avenue certificate of approval. I believe we also have a presentation on this.

So board members, this is our next and final item on the agenda tonight, or action item, I should say. This is an application received by staff for a certificate of approval for demolition of an existing study list structure, 802 Buena Vista. It's located on the Corner Of 8th in Buena Vista. The existing is a roughly 1,400 square foot single family craftsman. It is not identified in the DPR form that was filled out for the property who the builder was.

However, it is suggested that it could have been the Strain Brothers because of their prolific use of craftsman themes in the city and because it's sort of part of the Mastic Park Subdivision. The project site built in 1908 has pretty much remained a single family dwelling for its entire history. Unfortunately, there was a tragic fire in 2022, which destroyed many of significant architectural features. As a result, the property was recently purchased and the new property owners are interested in demolishing the structure insofar as demolition is defined as 30% of the loss of the value of the structure. And they have proposed an addition which would make it a duplex.

The proposal includes an argument that the historical significance has been diminished by virtue of the fire damage to the subject property. You can see here we have the historic building study list photo of the property and a picture of the property prior to the fire damage. There's modest work done throughout the history of the home, but really nothing that impacted historic architecturally significant features. So really most of the features sort of called out in the DPR form, everything from the intersecting gable roofs to the dormer there. You can see in the central wing, the porch, the railings, all of that, was maintained up before the twenty twenty two fire.

You can then see after the twenty twenty two fire that much of the front facade was significantly damaged. Although some portions of the rear and side exterior seem like they may have been less damaged. The quote here is just taken directly from the DPR form and calls out a number of the significant aspects of the building. I would draw your attention to the fieldstone chimney, the sort of basis to the porch columns also in what's referred to here as fieldstone. So definitely some, there were some pretty significant architectural features there.

Some more photos since the fire, I was on-site today, took these photos, that fencing has been up for some time. And so obviously, the condition is not great. The proposal would be for a two story duplex located within the same footprint of the existing building. At this time, the expectation is that we are making the findings for demolition, which are as follows. Essentially, the structure does not embody distinctive characteristics of a tight period regional method of construction, does not represent the work of an important creative individual.

And then the following three I think are somewhat less relevant to our review here, but obviously there are no significant cultural events, persons, and that there's no sort of relevant information for pre history or history. So very briefly, the proposal to make the findings for demolition is obviously, you know, based on your review of the documentation provided. If you were to make the findings for a certificate of approval for demolition, we'd also ask that you make a decision to remove the building from the study list as it would be demolished as a result of the project. And obviously, we wouldn't want a modern building to remain on the study list. And in doing so, determining the ineligibility, excuse me, for inclusion on the state historic register, which is sort of implied by the completed DPR form.

Really, the question here, as I see it, is whether the structure continues to convey its historic significance in its current state. Staff currently believes that the certificate of approval is appropriate, given the loss of integrity due to the fire. And so we are recommending that, the board approve a certificate of approval, and we have included draft findings to support that. And certainly as an alternative, you could also propose modifications to the proposed project and approve it with conditions as well or deny the application altogether if you did find that there were distinctive characteristics present and maintained that warrant preservation. So that's a very brief overview.

But if there was questions, I'm happy to field them. I think we also do have some speakers for the project. So if you have any questions, comments, concerns.

I do have a question. So the certificate of approval is required, as you said, because of the extent of demolition that would be required, not necessarily that the plan is to demolish the remaining portion of the structure?

The expect oh sorry, was that the end of your question?

Yeah, so the project plans show the existing footprint is somewhat remaining on the existing floor plan, right? And so the idea is or the question maybe is more, is the proposal basically that the roof comes off, the damaged portions get demolished and then the construction takes up from there? Or are we talking they're going to knock it to the ground and build up from scratch?

So the understanding we at a staff level have is that the applicant has not had access to the property for long enough to perform exploratory work to determine to what extent any extent framing or whatever is salvageable. So I think they want to salvage as much as possible, but right now we're unable to commit to you how much of that is possible. I think what a likely solution to that might look like is something like a condition of approval to require that exploratory work prior to say issuance of a building permit, Basically to ensure that they are preserving or restoring to the greatest extent possible whatever features aren't burned out.

Got it. Okay. Thank you.

So do we want to move like we did on the previous item to the public comments? Should we stick with questions first for staff? Oh, That's totally fine.

I have a question. I was looking at the Office of Historic Preservation's environment resource directory this week, which is essentially the repository for evaluation records from the past that were sent to the Office of Historic Preservation's Information Center. This property shows up with, in the inventory, with a status code of 3S, which means recommended eligible for the National Register through survey evaluation. And I wasn't able to see what record is actually on file there nor was I able to see a date of when that record was sent in or when it may date from. But I suppose it's possible that this inventory form is what that repository has on file.

And the form does indicate architectural significance. So I'm curious, for CEQA purposes, does that status code qualify the property as a historical resource?

And we did have some conversations with our city attorney's office with regards to this. Our understanding is that the completion of the historic resources form is, as you mentioned, likely what sort of is referenced there. And that the determination of ineligibility by sort of making that finding in addition to the certificate of approval is sort of a function of this board's authority. Right? Like, if you make the determination that because of the damage in the fire to the historic resource, the integrity is lost and therefore it is no longer eligible for inclusion on the statewide historic resources inventory.

That determination is sufficient to use an exemption under CEQA, specifically I believe an infill development exemption to satisfy the project's triggering of CEQA. So our understanding is that the board has the authority to determine eligibility for inclusion and making their findings tonight. If the board were to find that a certificate of approval can be issued, that removed from the study list, determine ineligibility would essentially qualify us for an exemption under CEQUA. And I'm happy to defer as well to our city attorney's office if we have additional comments about that.

Can I just clarify? So, you're saying we have the authority to take away a status of eligibility. Is that accurate?

To make a finding that the integrity of the resource is no longer present by virtue of the damage from the fire.

Which would nullify its eligibility.

Okay.

But currently, it does have an eligible ranking status. Is that that's what I'm trying to clarify.

I believe that the past practice of the city is to acknowledge that for properties for which a DPR form is filled out, that that DPR form, at least my understanding, has constituted a determination of eligibility for inclusion on the statewide historic register. That answer your question?

Yeah, so if it's a determination of eligibility then it would be a historical resource. So okay.

If I may chime in, we have a number of properties listed on the historic building study list. The ones that have DPR forms are the ones that

are

considered CEQUA eligible property that we have to evaluate under CEQUA.

Okay.

But the ones without the DPIR forms just based on how the evaluations were done, yeah, we don't have any documentation or anything to for those for those properties.

Okay. Thank you. Other board questions? Okay. Let's hear from the public comments.

Our first comment is from Woody Minor.

I conducted the survey back in 1978, 'eighty, and oversaw the evaluation of that structure. And I may have written the DPR you're referring to. I don't remember. But I know that house very well. And what I wanted to convey to you or ask you first, have you made a site visit?

Have you all gone and looked at it so you have your own sort of like close-up feeling of how much of the shell is left? So I was there in the not too distant past, and I took photographs of it. And it looked to me like there was enough of the exterior there that that building could be saved as a matter of discussion, okay? And that it retains perhaps sufficient integrity on the exterior. But let me go beyond that and say why this is an important building.

With all due respect, Tristan, there's a building permit for that building, and it's 1911 or 'twelve. And it's Strang Brothers. I forget if it's 'eleven or 'twelve, but it's definitely Strang Brothers. They were the most important bungalow builders in Alameda in the early 1910s. We had Strang Brothers, Robert C. Hillen, and then George Noble, who were the three major bungalow builders from 1910 through 1925. The Strangs got started in 1910. And they got started in the subdivision where 802 Buena Vista is. That's the Mastic Park subdivision. It was subdivided in 1907 from the old Edwin Mastic Estate, for whom Mastic Sr.

Center is named. He was our foremost political leader of the nineteenth century, an attorney. His estate was, his house, his mansion was demolished and they subdivided Mastic Park. It was the city's first bungalow subdivision. And you could see in this subdivision the transition from Colonial Revival to bungalow along 8th Street, Mason, 9th, And Wood, North Of Pacific.

Several 100 houses, I forget how many exactly, find state of integrity a strong potential historic district. We have never had any historic districts listed. Within the historic district, this is one of the anchor buildings, one of the important character defining buildings on a highly visible corner on a crosstown route. And it embodies the work of the Strang brothers. It's a unique design by them, And it is a very important contributor to this potential district.

Okay? And they went on, after Mastic Park, they went down to Bay Park Subdivision, which is Burbank Portola, and built most of the bungalows in that subdivision as well. But there is no other one that looks like this. It would make a huge difference to be driving down Buena Vista and seeing this original bungalow, which embodies and conveys what that potential district is all about as opposed to an artificial pseudo historical modern house. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Kevin Frederick.

My name is Kevin. I go by this block weekly and this corner weekly. And I I was near this place when it went up and the tragedy that took place. And, yeah, it's it's a very visible corner. And the idea that this building couldn't be brought back with how much of it is still there.

I definitely want to encourage exploratory work to see if it could be brought back or enough materials could be saved to bring it back. And then to be cautious with the idea of building a double story duplex that kind of mimics it but doesn't, from the drawings and depictions, doesn't captured it right now. And that's where I wanna leave it. And and and it was good to hear Woody Minor bring up the the details and the architect and the continuity of this early bungalow style home on that corner. Because if anything replaces that in the modern style, the whole block of A Street and being in Buena Vista is definitely going to change, and I just want to point that out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Don't believe we have any more speakers in person, but we do have an online speaker. Christopher Buckley, you're now allowed to talk.

Christopher Buckley with the Alameda Architectural Preservation have a question We

the

have future potential of for actions be taken to determine how much of the existing building could be salvaged and incorporated into a new design that would retain as much of the old building as much as possible. Our comments though focus on taking as a given that there would be a two story building and perhaps it could be designed with some changes in massing to create more of a bungalow or bungaloid type style, bungaloid being two story building but still kind of looking like a bungalow. We had some specific comments concerning design details. One, to incorporate the existing porch rafter tails into the design. The existing porch has rafter tails on a substantial girder that provides a very builderly aspect of the design.

This isn't included in the proposed design and we think it's a very important feature. Included a close-up photo from the 2018 Street View showing this. Second, to retain the existing river rock porch column bases. They do have stone there, but it's not clear if it's river rock. It really should be river rock.

Three, verify that the both eave brackets will match the size of the existing brackets. They look like they might be smaller, so they need to be verified. We are concerned that if they are under scaled it's going to look somewhat kitschy. Fourth, do not use plaster covered foam trim for the windows trim and sills. That's noted on sheet A105.

Foam trim with plaster over it tends to look very synthetic and totally inconsistent with the bungalow style. Comment five provides windows that visually match the existing wood windows. The guide to residential design states that it's based primarily on the dimensions of the wood window diagram in the guide and the city's replacement window handout. Vertical section details through the proposed Moguard vinyl windows needs to be provided to verify they will visually match the existing windows. As a note, normally extruded vinyl windows do not provide visually matched wood windows, There are other options, vinyl clad windows, fiberglass and other materials.

Sixth, the material and type of the exterior doors needs to be provided. We recommend they be wood and swinging doors, but the proposed front elevation balcony doors appear to be sliders, perhaps aluminum. They should also have a Munson pattern similar to the windows. Seven, do not use mulled sash for the paired windows. The paired windows appear to use mulled sash, which has a less substantial look than the structural separation of the existing paired windows as inconsistent with the craftsman style.

And finally, provide vertical section details through the eaves and porch railings so we can have a better idea of what's being proposed. The existing porch railing design should be maintained. It doesn't meet the 42 inches height required by code, but that could be done by providing a supplemental rail that's visually inconspicuous to meet the code height requirements. So if the HAB agrees with any of the above comments, we request that the HAB recommend them to staff for staff's consideration of the design review application. Thank you.

Thank you. Other public comments?

It does not appear that there are any other folks who would like to offer public comment at this time.

Okay. Great. Let's open it up for other questions or discussion.

So I guess for maybe you could clarify for me again. We were to determine that we didn't feel like removing the structure from the study list, then at that point, what would be the next step for the applicant? Would that mean EIR report to determine? I'm trying to I guess my understanding is that there's that if we do not remove it from the list and take that as our first step, then this project is bound by CEQA, right? So what would be the next step in their process in terms of their approval process?

I suppose they would need to do

We would

have to a scope. Yeah, go ahead.

So I think if you were determined that this property needs to stay on the list, then I think they would need to design an addition designed as consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards. That would probably be the option.

Thank you.

I think similar to the buildings we actually looked at on the past item, we have a past evaluation, at least what we've received in our packet, that it identifies architectural significance, it identifies architectural features. But there's a little bit of question on the form about who was the builder. The form itself doesn't have an extensive amount of information about the Mastic subdivision, past occupants. And it's been, what, over 40 since the property was evaluated.

Roughly 1980.

I think what might best serve the process is to conduct an updated evaluation that assesses the existing conditions of the property, identifies whether or not it's significant by qualifying for certain criteria, either under events, significant persons, architectural merit. And then if it is, we can identify character defining features out of that and kind of serve whatever project might come out of that. But as part of that evaluation, if there's a determination that there is not significance, that could be a path to a categorical exemption. But I feel like there's not enough documentation to make a sound judgment on significance from what was presented. So I would want to look deeper myself.

May I just follow-up on that real quick? When you say you looked at, like looked deeper that the existing forms don't have enough information on them, for example, you said specific architectural features. The DPR form calls out specific architectural features. Are there other features that you saw that you consider that might be historically relevant but you didn't see on the form? Or help me better understand I what additional information.

Think part of the process that a historian, an architectural historian, will go through when they're evaluating a property, One, they have to assess when was this built, who built it. There's questions such as was it architect design, was it built by a local builder, What style is it? So we've identified craftsman style. There's an indication that Strang Brothers built the property. There wasn't concrete evidence of that on the forum.

But I mean, usually what we'll do is we'll look for things like historical building permits. We'll look through newspaper articles, which we have a ton more access to through digital means beyond just in person repository research. But basically we look to come up with a comprehensive history of a property and determine who occupied the building. Did they make significant contributions to history? Was this development significant?

And then is there architectural merit? So once figure out if there is significance, depending on what criteria that is, then you can look at what's the period of significance and what features that are here right now are tied to that. So those become your character defining features. And it's the loss of those features that can really inform integrity discussions. And so when I look at the building, having visited it last week, you see features like the overlapping gable roof.

Plan appears to be there. I saw one divided light wood window. Obviously field stone columns. And there's obvious burn damage, fire damage. A little bit hard to tell at the entrance porch what's left behind the boards that are up there. So I just feel like as a historian, yes we do have an earlier evaluation. But if we're gonna make a determination to remove something from a list, I think it's a good practice to make sure we understand enough about the building's history to determine or confirm its eligibility.

Okay. So you're more interested in a historic evaluation that would look at, for example, whether there were any important people there or events that took place there and how those would relate to significant architectural elements on the building to help define what the character defining elements are?

Right. Yeah. I mean, basically it would make an evaluation to determine if the property is eligible as an Alameda monument. Is it eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources? Which CEQA asks for these qualifying factors for historical resources. 1979, 1980, there was no California register. That was created in the 1990s. We've, mean, I said, I think it's good practice when these situations come up to have that update done.

Okay. So your expectation is just that a relatively recent qualified historical evaluation take place on this property or any property prior to issuance of a certificate of approval?

Certainly for demolition, yes.

Right, which is, yeah, a function of

the certificate of approval. Got it. Yeah, I would elaborate on that a little bit in that it's difficult because I think that as board member Bevans was indicating, it is difficult to assess the extent of the damage. And it sounds as though or at least in my opinion, it feels like that effort should take place so that we truly understand the extent of the damage and how much of the existing structure is salvageable. I feel like there's a little bit of cart before the horse on this one, which is that if we have to remove it off the study list to allow them to do that due diligence, it seems like at that point, there's no incentive, I guess, for them to perform that level of exploration.

And I feel like that level of exploration would need to be something that I would need to see to be able to feel comfortable saying, Well, if we're being asked to remove it from the study list because we feel like the character defining features have been lost, I would want to understand that that truly is the case. And again, I think that removing the plywood from the building, being able to see it, document it, photograph it in its current state without the protections and the fencing around it so that we could truly evaluate that would go a lot further for me to be able to make an educated decision on that. The other question I had for you is with regards to the design guidelines, so those would apply irregardless of whether this is on the study list or not, correct?

That is correct.

Okay. So for me then, I'll speak to that a little bit with regards to the proposal. So I think one is my hesitation to of to okay with removing it from the list without having more information about sort of what integrity remains. And then the second is just the way that the project is approached. I think that a second story addition is achievable on this project, but I think that the way in which they've approached it seems maybe understanding of the design guidelines, not sort of consistent with the design guidelines.

And so I think one of the most obvious examples of that is having a nine foot plate on the upper story rather than trying to minimize the mass by lowering the plate heights and having it appears from the sections that all of the dormers are sort of faked in that those octagonal windows, which I don't feel are sort of consistent with the Craftsman style. But the fact that the dormers are not expressed on the interior of the building, they're maximizing the ceiling height on the upper story but then not taking advantage of the vaulted volume to bring down the massing of the building. So, for me, I agree with most of Mr. Buckley's comments in terms of some of the details. I think that it's nice to see that they're trying to bring the or maintain the corbels.

I think that a detail showing the proportions of those and comparing it to the existing, you know, and maintaining some of the river rock on the columns if possible. But I think for me the big one is just it seems like this is a two part approval and the first one seems like it relies on us approving the removal of it from the list. And that's where I feel like I

hit a little bit

of an impasse because the rest of the project is contingent on that as I understand it. And so that's why

So can I respond to that?

Please do.

I think I maybe did a bad job explaining it the first time.

No, please do. The removal

from the study list is actually contingent on the approval of the certificate of approval. Like, if they were Understood. Proposing the restoration of a structure, we wouldn't ask you to remove it from the study list. It's because the proposal is to demolish the structure that as a function of that, we would be asking you to remove it from the study list. Understood. Less so as a function of the fire damage itself.

Got it. Yeah. And so I guess for me then, I'll go back to the point which is for us to make a fair evaluation as to whether there is a significant loss of the character defining features and whether they're how would you just say it, that there's no way to maintain them, then I would say, well then that decision would be different perhaps. But I feel like we have sort of an incomplete picture of what's really available to them as a starting point. So that for me would be the, yeah,

I guess the ask. Sure. And to your other point, obviously this would also be considered through a design review process staff level. And staff's review of the comments received from architectural preservation sites, specifically Chris Buckley, I think we were in agreement about pretty much every single one of those comments. Okay. As well as your comment there on the plate height.

Yeah, so I would add to those. Again, I think just very specifically comments that weren't included in Mr. Buckley's would be the octagonal windows on the front gables I think are not in keeping with the style that they're trying to achieve. And then the height, right? So making those dormers feel like dormers and not just sort of faux applique on the roof would be important. And I think just overall the house, the massing, if the lower story were less prominent than the upper story, I think it would be more in line with the design guidelines. I absolutely agree. Other

questions or comments? I guess I would jump in then to echo what I've heard about what's the justification. And one concern I would have is, you know, are we what what precedent would we be setting to say, like, just because a building has been burned or damaged by fire, therefore, it's okay to tear it down and build something different. And that's a dangerous precedent. Having something like a structural engineer's report that says by a licensed person, this is a condemned building, cannot be used, full stop.

That's at least one, you know, element of justification for why it can't be saved. I know people, you know, may just wanna do it for investment purposes or they need a bigger house or whatever it is, but we're we're stuck here a little bit. Also by the fact that our study list is so old, I also fear that we'll run into a continual loop of where we're working off old information. So I know we're working with AAPS and there's ideas about renewing the study list. But as a I think you used the term good practice, Whenever something like this comes up, I think we should consider that we need to trigger just as part of the information packet, Okay, well here's the latest, greatest.

And especially like in this case, there's fencing. I'm familiar with this building. I've driven by it a 100 times. I remember when it burned down, but I can't, you know, like I can't just walk on the property and see it. And I obviously can't see much now from the road just like the rest of us. So I would say that would be an important element for me to be able to say like, okay, well, let's grant this certificate of approval. But all I know is that there's, you know, obvious fire damage, but to what extent? So that that would be the my main concern.

Great. Thank you.

If I could add that, I think that because the applicant is a homeowner, right, they probably would appreciate specific direction from the board like if there was exploratory work like what type of report and what type of professional they should hire, right, that type of direction so that they can plan for that.

So I know, for example, that our former chair, Thomas Saxby, who's a preservation architect here in Alameda, mentioned to me that he was certified by the state to do emergency evaluations of properties after natural disasters. So I would say that someone with that skill set and with that training would be a perfect candidate to evaluate it, to be able to sort of make a determination of what is, you know, what portions are salvageable and sort of, and if they have that training to sort of evaluate buildings that are specifically in this condition, I think that that would be kind of the precise type of person. So whether it be a structure engineer that has some maybe historical background expertise or whether it be an architect who's had training by the state to be able to evaluate fire damaged or earthquake damaged properties, I believe it is. I think that those would both be sort of valid people to do that evaluation. And so I would say that, yeah, for me that would be one.

And I don't know whether that covers Board Member Bevan's other concerns. But I think that for me that would be sort of the thing that I would like to see so that we could then make a determination on on the validity of their of their application. Yeah. Is that am I being specific enough, Henry?

Other suggestions.

Okay. How do we do we proceed? Would it be better for us to take a vote on this or give that direction to staff and ask that the applicant come back after they've had the opportunity to perform that due diligence. My

expectation would be the latter. I think it would be more prudent to sort of delay the decision making until after we've got the full sort of range of evidence that the board has asked for. Sure. And in doing so, you know, we wouldn't have to sort of make a contradictory, you know Perfect. Series of findings.

So basically someone would make a motion to table this item?

Yeah. Maybe the city attorney could chime in on how we continue this item.

Yeah, I would suggest that we make a motion to continue it to then have staff bring it back when they believe it's ready and I would have the board agree on what direction they would give that would make it ready to be brought back. So we have the unanimous agreement of the board of what you do want to see.

Okay. Well, I'll take a stab at the motion. And please feel free to amend if I miss anything. So, I'll make a motion that we table this item and ask staff to direct the applicant to consult with a professional, whether it be a licensed architect, structural engineer, somebody who has some background in architectural preservation that can do an evaluation of the existing structure, be able to personally visit the site and document with photographs. I would imagine that having us be able to take a look at it wouldn't be infeasible.

But document with photographs the existing state of the structure and write a brief report sort of indicating what elements of the structure remain viable and which items do not. And maybe sort of do a small inventory of sort of the character defining features that are listed for this property in the report in the '19 in the inventory in order to determine which of those remain viable and which have been lost.

May I add to that? That as part of that process, there would also be an updated evaluation of the property's potential eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources and for local designation and that that study be performed by an architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards.

Okay. And any other amendments? Nope. Do we

have any discussion on that? A second?

Second.

All in favor? Are there any board communications? I have a Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay.

I just wanted to note, I'd like to confirm that the board secretary has my accurate email. That way I'm receiving notifications about agendas and things like that. I happen to be on a mailing list from the city, so I do get agendas, but I just want to make sure everyone has accurate contact information.

And I'll chime into that. I know based on previous communication with Mr. Buckley that he was attempting to work with city IT to get us email addresses from the city similar to the other boards. I don't know the status of that but that might be helpful in this regard as far as communication and getting out new materials as they're coming in. So if we could get an update on where that is, that would be would be swell. Any other board communications? Staff communications?

I don't have any staff communications, but I definitely can look into those email questions that you guys have.

Okay, super.

Anything else? Move to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you very much.

And

thanks for everybody for coming.