Historical Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

Are we there? I think we're ready. It's officially a time, isn't it? Seven? Well, with that, let's go ahead and call our meeting to order. Start with roll call.

Roll call. Good evening. Board Member Bevan. Present. Board Member Brito. Present. Board Member Lee.

Present.

And Chair Hernandez.

Present.

Okay, we have a quorum. Board Member Crotty is out tonight.

Let's start off with non-agenda public comments. I'm not sure if we have anybody joining us via Zoom today or in the audience, but anyone may speak for three minutes on anything not on the agenda.

We do have a non-agendized public comment. Mark Douglas Minor.

Good evening. Welcome. Thank you. I have some handouts, which Tristan said I can hand out. I'll give them to you or can I give them to the... Thank you. Thanks. Does this thing raise at all? No, you're going to have to shrink. We can reset the timer here too. Okay, well, thank you. Good evening chairperson and members of the Historical Advisory Board. As Tristan mentioned, my name is Mark Douglas Minor, representing preservation-minded members of the Fernside District. And I'm proud to say that I'm a fourth generation Alamedan. It deeply appreciates our city's history. And I commend this board for its legacy of protecting Alameda's living cultural landscapes. Today, I submit a formal nomination dossier to designate the Gibbons Drive Sweetgum Tree Canopy as a protected tree corridor. I'm operating under the Local Code Authorities Preservation Ordinance and Public Resources Code. My request follows established municipal precedents, including the island-wide protection of Coast Live Oaks over 10 inches, the historic fan palms on Burbank Street, the Thompson Avenue median trees, Christmas Tree Lane, and Central Avenue sycamores between Fernside and 5th. And I assert that the majestic and historic Gibbons Drive canopy deserves the same tier of preservation. The historical significance of this corridor is deeply tied to the narrative of Alameda itself. The landscape was born from the 100-acre Cohen estate, as you all know. called Fernside, Alameda's premier estate, established in the 1850s by Alfred A. Cohen, the pioneer who built Alameda's first railroad. When the estate was subdivided in 1925, prominent developer Fred T. Wood designed a grand curving boulevard through the former estate. He named it Gibbons Drive to honor the maternal line of the Cohen family. This is not a random collection of trees. In 1928, at the behest of the Neighborhood Homeowners Association, the city of Alameda uniformly planted these rows of American sweetcombs. As we sit here in 2026, over 100 trees are reaching their centennial milestone. For nearly 100 years, they have stood as a living, breathing monument to the early 20th century city beautiful movement. The interlocking limbs create a cathedral-like archway that serves as Alameda's most elegant, iconic gateway. Because the early planters smartly routed utility lines along the back, the property lines, these trees have grown entirely wire-free, allowing for uninterrupted canopy. The extraordinary seasonal variation, reds, greens, golds, is a foundation to the visual identity of the East End. We've also had the word science Bartley Consulting indicate that the trees are in, the vast majority are in good health. I have to stop? Yeah, thank you.

We appreciate your comments and we'll take time to read this as well.

Yeah, please do. Thank you for your time tonight.

Thank you. Do we have any other comments?

If any online attendees wish to speak, please raise your hand now. I do not see any further speakers.

Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, great. On to item three, draft meeting minutes. We have two meeting minutes to look at. The meeting minutes from June 4th and the meeting minutes from February 5th. And then just to remind ourselves, you can vote on those minutes if you were either attending those meetings or read those minutes.

Right. And in this case, the three of you were at both of those meetings. And if you had watched the video or read the minutes, then you can also vote.

Okay. I watched the video and read the minutes. Okay.

Okay, so let's start with item 3A. This is the meeting minutes from our June 4th, 2026 meeting. Are there any additions, subtractions, corrections to those? Do we have a motion to approve said minutes?

I'll move to approve the minutes from June 4th.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Item 3B, meeting minutes from February 5th. Any changes to those? Motion to approve.

Motion to approve the meeting minutes from February 5th, 26th.

All second.

All in favor.

Aye.

The ayes have it. Okay, great. And that brings us to regular agenda. Starting with item 4A. This is 2320 Lincoln Avenue, something that's come before us previously, it looks like we have some updated analysis of the property. Am I assuming correctly that there's a presentation on this?

That is correct.

Okay, great. We'll take it away.

Not quite so tall. Seemed board members, chair, thank you very much this evening for joining me. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Tristan Sweer. I'm a staff member here at city of Alameda planning division. And the item before the board tonight is a study session to consider some of the additional information that's been provided by the applicant regarding the proposal to pursue a certificate of approval for the properties located at, 2320 and 2322 Lincoln, just around the corner from where we are here behind the library, across the street from the Goodwill. So I am going to take a little bit of time this evening to cover some of the background information that we had discussed previously on this item, in part because we have a new board member who I think deserves that context, but also because it's important for us to remind ourselves when it's been a little bit of time since we've last kind of discussed this and refreshed ourselves on the actual material changes here. Now, I'm having a little trouble with my remote, so I think what I'm going to do here Let me try this one.

Thanks, Stephen.

Oh, never mind. I'm sorry. I think I've got it now. Reboot.

Yeah.

There we go. Appreciate everybody's patience. A little bit of technical difficulties. So the subject property, as noted, is... Fronting onto Lincoln on the south side is two buildings located on the same property, both constructed in the late 1800s, although there is a little bit of a discrepancy between the two existing historical evaluations as to when exactly the westernmost building was constructed. And I'll also point out that the subject property at 2320 Lincoln is included on our historical building study list with an S designation, which is one of the more significant designations therein. Just in the interest of getting a really important point down first, there's a nice historical photo here, but this is the point I want to make, which is going forward in this discussion, we'll be referring to these buildings as Building A and Building B, just for the sake of clarity and not making me repeat the address many times. The building A refers to the sort of residential appearance building pictured on top there. One and a half story end gable dwelling, recessed front entry. It was originally constructed as the Ensenal Saloon, although residential upstairs was sort of always the use as far as we can gather from the Sanborn maps and historical evaluations provided. Building B, of course, pictured on the bottom there, often referred to as Kim's Chinese, is a restaurant that's still in operation today and seems to have a long history of commercial uses, including references on the sandboard maps to a historical quote unquote Chinese store. So it's While it is substantially modified, as identified by several of the changes in the building permit history and the historical evaluation, it still maintains a similar use to what it once had. And many of the sort of features, including the alterations made over time to the front facade parapet, the recessed front entry, remain very much in their current state, very much reflects the state at the time of the 79 windshield survey that was conducted to identify which buildings ought to be incorporated into the historical building study list. So while both buildings are somewhat worse for wear these days, they are more or less in the same, they haven't been substantially modified since that time. Just a brief note on the floor plans here. This is the floor plan for 2320 Lincoln, which is going to be the focus of tonight's conversation because we have so much more information about it regarding its structural integrity. I just want to point out that there is actually internal connectivity between the rear addition on the first floor and the main building, which was sort of the original construction. It's not shown there to have a doorway, but it does in fact have one. And I can attest to this because I was there earlier today. The 2024 backyard fire is something that we can still see extent damage from on the buildings. Fortunately, the structures themselves were mostly unharmed, although the burn damage is still very evident. This is really the only substantial change that has occurred to the buildings since the historical evaluations conducted in 03 and 04 as part of the library project, which had considered removal of the buildings as part of it. However, at that time determined building A to be a historic resource and eventually backed off the intent to demolish that, constructed the parking lot sort of around it instead. So that brings us to our existing conditions. And this is really the focus of tonight's conversation. As noted, the applicant provided a structural analysis conducted by Steve Fedwa of Rise Design Group to identify what elements of the structure might be suitable for rehabilitation, what elements might be retained and what is in such poor condition that It will need to be rebuilt as part of any scope of work necessary to get the building up to current building code compliance, which is very much the ultimate goal of the applicants. I guess I want to mention too that there is a bit of flexibility as far as their intent is concerned. I think they're much more interested in getting feedback from you tonight on what exactly the desired outcomes are for a project that you folks would entertain a certificate of approval for. because ultimately their goal is to have a structure that is habitable, usable. Ideally, we can operate a business out of there like we do GIMS now. So they're coming to the board with not necessarily new designs, but new information, new pictures to sort of explain these existing conditions and We took the new structural information, the evaluation provided to us and discussed with our building official, their sort of assessment of that structural evaluation to get their take. The reason this is important is because ultimately the trigger for a certificate of approval, which is what we're talking about here when we talk about demolition of a historic structure. That determination is made by the building official. So in our municipal code, it's defined as 30% or more of the removal of the value of the structure as a term by the building official. And their direction after reviewing the structural evaluation provided was that any scope of work, be it full rehabilitation or full demolition, would necessitate a certificate of approval because the condition of the building would mean that no matter what you're doing, you're going to remove 30% or more of the value of the structure and the process. So understanding that the only way for a project to move forward here is with a certificate of approval. the applicants wanted to better understand what range of modifications might be acceptable and what range of modifications actually might better constitute a rehabilitation of the structure. And what might be just off the table because ultimately in order to come before the board for an action item that is to ask you to make a decision on the certificate of approval, the applicant is expected to go through some level of environmental review. And before they submit their final designs that that environmental review will be conducted on, it's nice to have a little bit of feedback direction on the expectations of the board. So to that end, we're going to dive in here a little bit more into this existing conditions. The photos here are actually taken back in 2024. So you'll see here that this is actually before some of the windows and front door were damaged, but also before they put a fresh coat of paint and made GIM's current storefront look a little bit nicer, which was done much more recently. This is just sort of to give you a street view context. These buildings are on the same lot. They're very close together and they do actually have improvements that span across the two buildings. So they're effectively attached, although they aren't sort of sharing a wall, so to speak. This is three pictures here, really just intended to show a little bit more of the back area that's much more hard to see, even if you're in the parking lot. The back yard area is sort of fenced off. In the upper left-hand corner, you're seeing the vegetation growth. This is part of what had contributed to the 2024 fire. On the bottom left-hand side, you'll see the rear non-original attachment to GIMS. There are several rear additions or accessory structures that were constructed in the rear yard area of these structures over time. Many of them are identified on the Sanborn maps. Others are identified in the historic evaluations. few actually remain today. And those that do remain have mostly actually been incorporated into the building. Some portions of either rear addition are in better conditions than others. But generally speaking, they're without foundations and just in very poor shape, even compared to the main structures. And then on the right side, this is the rear view of the space between the two buildings. just to emphasize their proximity and give you an idea of what that space looks like. It's a little hard to see from the street. Again, these are pictures from 2024 showing some of the replacement siding that has been put on. It's also worth noting that some of these windows have actually been boarded up from the inside instead of the outside. So while some of them sort of look like they are relatively intact, the interior appearance is not so great. This is just a close-up of the front step, give you an idea of the condition of that there. And you can see even the threshold and where the – The floor, the finished floor meets that is pretty uneven because of the damage to the foundation. This is in 2320 building A. Again, this is 2024 before the front door was broken down in that front window. Some of its panes have been smashed out since, but giving you an idea of what those looked like before that damage was done. Now we're getting into the interior of the building. So this is immediately as you walk inside, you're sort of looking down the main hallway here. You can see that because some of those windows are boarded up, it's quite dark inside. If we were to look over to your left, you can see in the structural evaluation, there's a picture of the foundation. That's the trapdoor that gives us the view to it there. And there, of course, is also the street-facing window on the left-hand side of that picture. It's also worth noting sort of to the right here, that's the bar space from the time that we believe from the time that this was a saloon, although it does look like it was maybe converted into dining room kitchenette space. This is the kitchen, which is actually that non-original rear addition. So this is all the way straight back from that front door and shows you The condition that it's been in for quite some time. The rear door there has actually been boarded up since from the inside. And sort of halfway through the building, you'll see the staircase. Now there's three pictures here. On the far left is the hallway that leads to the staircase. The middle is the staircase itself. And then the right hand side is actually the view as you get to the top of the staircase and are now looking out of the middle window on the street facing side. I want to point out that the picture really does not do the stairs justice. These are some of the most narrow, steep, and insufficient run stairs you've ever seen. These things were warped, and I would not recommend going up them. That being said, at the time, narrow staircases weren't terribly uncommon. So we have different rules about that today. As you get into the upper floor, to your immediate right is a very small bathroom, really more of a powder room. And the sort of wall partitions that you see there delineate the two bedrooms on either side, and then that middle hallway, all leading to those three street-facing windows. And then if we were to turn around, follow the hallway, we get to the two back bedrooms. I chose to omit some of the pictures of the floor area here because they were strewn with human feces, but the walls and ceiling give a good impression of the condition of the building. And you can see here too that the windows in the rear are intact, and that appears to be the case to this day. That's a good overview of what the interior of the building looks like. And there are some more pictures we can go into, but ultimately I think what's relevant to the applicant's ability to prepare a more complete design for the project is to understand what kind of interior modifications would be hypothetically acceptable to the board. And again, I want to emphasize that while we're not making any decisions tonight, this is the sort of information that's used to inform the architect and designer when they're considering whether or not to try to retain the appearance of a particular feature. Ultimately, I think we're acknowledging, based on the structural evaluation provided, and the sort of concurring opinion of our building official that those elements that are intended to be restored as part of the project or rehabilitated would still likely need to be demolished and rebuilt. And so the question for us becomes, to what extent would the HAB prefer to see new construction be distinguished from any original construction so as not to give the impression of being part of the original building, but also to understand from your opinion which features really need to be maintained such that the buildings can continue to convey their remaining integrity to the extent that they still have it. So With that, I just want to kind of go through the various options that I see being viable here. And I've listed them sort of starting with what would probably be the biggest ask, right? Sort of a full demolition, potentially new buildings, and all the way down to sort of a complete rehabilitation with only those minor modifications to the exterior that are necessary. And there's a couple of different iterations between this. And I think it's important to acknowledge that the applicants have actually proposed a really wide range of creative use cases for any given range of modifications that the board's willing to excuse me, willing to propose. And so while there are ideas for what portions should be residential or commercial and what sort of uses might be most suitable for this area, I would like to focus on sort of the exterior appearance and the design of the building rather than these specific use cases. Because again, I think that's more sort of materially information that the designer is going to need for their proposal to be submitted for environmental review. So I'm just going to run through these really quickly. I'm not expecting an answer from you on any of them now, but what I'd like to do is have these fresh in your mind as we go through the images at the end of the slideshow. for each building facade so that we can kind of explore whether certain facades are thought about differently in the terms of each of these sort of options. So the first, of course, as I mentioned, is proper demolition. This would mean effectively scraping the site. Certainly, if possible, it may occasionally be possible to retain a window or some feature like that and reinstall it. But ultimately, the only thing that would remain in this first scenario would be any kind of interpretive signage that would be explaining the historical context, its significance, as well as only those most important, most intact features that are identified and needing to be reused. I think we're operating under the assumption at this point, just based on our previous conversations, that this is not likely to be the outcome of this project. So with that in mind, we thought it might be useful to distinguish Building A from Building B in terms of their significance, in part because the previous historic evaluations conducted acknowledged that Building B has much less integrity than Building A. It is substantially modified by comparison, especially along the front facade. And so the next sort of most intense option would be to demolish and either reconstruct building B or construct a new building in its stead, restoration of the facade of building A, and then minor alterations throughout the building and new rear additions to maximize the buildable area on the site. which is obviously important to just sort of the feasibility of the project from the applicant's perspective. So this would obviously involve significant new construction in the form of rear additions of some kind and would also involve the demolition more or less completely of building B. We acknowledge that the historical evaluations do still state that Building B has some integrity. And so I think the expectation here would be that any full demolition would need to still meet the Secretary of Interior standards and would need to conduct a kind of analysis on its current significance and whether or not there's anything salvageable there as well. So the third potential option here is arguably maybe the most creative solution. And I actually think it compares a lot to option four. So option three would mean significant demolition of portions of either building. primarily along their walls that are sort of interior facing each other such that the floor area could be expanded between them and the buildings could become one. In this situation, I think the applicant would likely intend to rehabilitate the front facade of both buildings so as to retain sort of their overall appearance and character as well as perhaps the sort of building face or almost a facade that aligns with the library there facing the parking lot. It's very visible from Lincoln. And so, you know, as staff has had discussions internally about this, we've acknowledged that that's probably an important building face as well. But it does allow them to increase the floor area. It would likely involve a similar rear addition to some of the earlier proposals to expand the floor area. But it does allow them to explore a more creative range of use cases. So there's some impetus on the part of the applicant to pursue that particular method just because it allows for some more interesting use options. Moving along to four, it's noted in both historical evaluations and is pretty evident when you're on site that the extent rear additions are not part of the original structure. They have different finished floor heights, different foundations, different interior appearance. And so there was a suggestion that maybe demolition of those portions of the buildings may not be as significant as far as compromising the integrity of the original structures. And it would allow a much more generous area in the rear to be built upon to kind of maximize the usable floor area in this space. And there was also a question sort of going along with this about if such a improvement were to occur where you're removing these old rear additions and putting new rear additions in, If it would be more favorable to the HAB to have detached structures sort of independent from these, either operating independently or operating in conjunction with whatever gets rehabilitated in the front, or would the HAB prefer to see sort of an attached continuation of the style, even though it would be a modern structure? wing of the building. So I think there's some unanswered questions there. And then finally, if none of the previous options meet the expectations of the HAB as far as the manner in which we would like to see the buildings handled, we acknowledge that rehabilitation would effectively constitute reconstruction of the buildings. But if that were to be the case, our hope is that the HAB would maybe entertain minor exterior modifications to accommodate things necessary for building code compliance. An example would be the applicants have floated the idea of converting the upper story into residential units. And bedrooms obviously need egress windows. Egress windows cannot easily be met oftentimes with the shape, size, and operative type of historic windows. And so it's possible that either the operative type would need to be modified or the size of the window would need to be modified or a new opening would need to be put into the building to accommodate something like new residential units. And so our hope would be that even if the board's intention is to expect complete rehabilitation of the structures, that there may be some understanding around modifications to achieve building code compliance, even if those modifications impact the exterior. So with that, I'm just going to give a very brief overview of the structure the structural evaluation provided, and then I'm gonna get into each of the building faces. And I'd love to get some feedback from the board on whether there are particular aspects of those that we feel are more important than others or have significance beyond what we've sort of already identified in our evaluation. So just a quick acknowledgement, our structural evaluation kind of separates the, excuse me, the structure into five sort of building components. Regarding the foundation, their recommendation is essentially a complete new foundation. very clear from the uneven floors and the frankly lack of foundation entirely on the rear additions that that'll need to be just completely new. It acknowledges that the upper floor framing, excuse me, is overspan and so we'll need some retrofitting for interior support. And because of some of the deflection, they need to likely do some engineering there to make sure that the connection with the exterior walls is sufficient. The exterior wall framing is actually arguably in the best condition of anything else. They say that some may need to be replaced, although some may be in good enough condition to potentially be repaired. I suspect that would require more exploratory work. The roof framing. is in very poor condition, but maybe retrofitted, though they do offer an alternative to simply replace it and reframe. So that again has some uncertainty associated with it. And then again, finally, the rear additions, the recommendation of the structural engineer is simply that they need to be removed entirely and rebuilt. I would offer that not being original portions of the structure. The most important thing is that they cannot be maintained in their current condition. And with that, I'm just going to remind you folks about some of the aspects of the building that we might be interested in. Obviously, this is not an exhaustive list. If you see something that's not on this list and you care about it, let me know. But this is just a way to jog your memory and think about some of the things that we typically care about when we're looking at, you know, especially the facades of these historic buildings and trying to understand how you know, what is important to conveying the integrity of the building. So just a kind of a reminder there of what we often look for. And now kind of into the meat of it. I'm not gonna expect that you folks give me feedback immediately as we pan through these. But what I ask is that you spend some time with each of these photos and maybe make some notes. And then as we kind of get back into the discussion, we can go through each of the building faces as the board discusses them and provide feedback to staff that way. So this is the front facade. I'm going to point out the two by two windows. I'm going to point out the recessed front entry, and I'm going to point out the overall very simple design, right? We've got sort of your typical narrow horizontal siding, very simple corner trim. its simplicity is what imparts its character, right? Our expectation of this would never be to rebuild it in an opulent manner. It's really intended to be, I mean, the design of these pioneer buildings was simple, right? They were highly functional. That was their purpose, not necessarily decorative. I also just wanna point out that, The condition has deteriorated a little bit from the photo you saw earlier. As you can see, the upper middle window has had a pane knocked out, and the lower middle window has had two panes knocked out. And the panels on the front door have been knocked out. So while the frame of the front door still exists, it is just a frame. So that's sort of the existing condition there. Let's move on to the, what I would argue is probably the second most important facade of the building. This is approaching from the west, sort of behind the library viewed from the parking lot of the library. And you can really see here how different the addition is compared to the primary structure. You can also see how much worse the shape of the addition is. I'd also point out that you have what we have assumed to be a previous either door or window sort of near the front of the building along this side. It's since been infilled and it's not entirely clear to us whether this was a door or window. I think probably more likely a door. But there was some sort of an original feature there or a modification that was made in the interim. I think that's all I want to cover with this building face. This is the rear. And it's worth noting all these photos are from today. The fire damage is very evident here, although you can see that it didn't actually really engulf the structure itself. It was really a fire of the brush in the rear yard, which was especially ill-maintained at the time. You can also see sort of the haphazard approach to the rear additions on GIMS there, although we have a better photo of that in a little bit. I'd also point out that you can see how some of the previous openings, the door there in the rear and some of the windows on the addition have since been boarded up. Interestingly, the windows here on the rear don't actually match the windows on the front. Still single hung, I believe, although very well maybe double hung. I may need to investigate that a bit more. But you'll notice one has a grid, the other doesn't. This may lend itself to the idea that these were replacement windows just because they're distinct from one another. But ultimately, I think there's a question here about to what extent the rear still conveys the historic significance of the building and whether or not the modifications to the rear have the same impact by virtue of the fact that they sort of front towards a parking lot. This parking lot is sort of ordered on two-ish sides by buildings and so it's not readily visible from the public right-of-way, although certainly the one-way corridor sort of between Harkin Oak there does allow you to sort of catch a glimpse of this space of the building. The Front of Gims, as I mentioned, has recently had a fresh coat of paint, which makes a bit of difference, for sure. But it's still a substantially modified front facade, although I think you'll see from the side view, the parapet's pretty interesting. It used to be a front-facing gable there. And obviously the exhaust equipment needed to ventilate the commercial kitchen is pretty impactful to sort of the appearance of the building, especially from this perspective. Again, you can really see the difference between the rear additions and the primary building. And it's worth noting here that the building is built up more or less right to the property, the side yard property line. So there's really not a lot of additional buildable area to be had here. This is taken from the parking lot of the gas station there in case that was unclear at all. And then of course, the rear of the Gims building is describe it as eclectic. It has clearly evolved over time. This is also evidenced by the sort of evolution of the Sanborn maps where you can see detached accessory structures sort of becoming additions, additions being removed and rebuilt. this whole rear area kind of being reconfigured over time. So you notice though that it does seem to keep consistency with the other rear addition, right? A slightly wider horizontal siding used there, still have the substantial sills. So it's not that it's necessarily new construction, it's just that it is in remarkably worse shape as compared to the primary sort of original structures. That is all the photos I have for you. We definitely can go back to any of these as needed. And what I think I'd like to do is maybe start from the beginning here. But unless there's any specific questions for staff, I think I'd like to turn it over to board discussion and maybe start getting some feedback from you.

I do have a couple of questions because I was here back in March of 24 when we talked about this the first time. or at least the first time that I remember it being talked about. And at that time they had a couple of proposed building facades in the presentation. Are those off the table now?

The impression that the applicants got, and I will clarify, I think that was March of 25. The impression that the applicants got was that the... very conceptual designs that they provided didn't really meet the expectations of the board. And so before designing new conceptual facades, they really wanted to hear more from you folks about what might be tolerable. I mean, again, certainly this isn't any kind of a commitment on the part of the board, but it does help them sort of understand what is within the realm of possibility. OK, got it.

So it's not that they're saying, we don't want to develop two brand new buildings anymore.

I think they would like to develop two brand new buildings if that were on the table. Got it. I think this is more of a taking a step back, taking a listening session to hear more about your expectations and use that to come back with a design that better meets those.

Okay.

Got it. Thank you.

If I could just real quickly, I just want to clarify, Tristan is presenting this material online. both for staff, but also representing the applicant. The applicant is joining us online, I believe, but doesn't have a presentation. And so I think Tristan is trying to present their questions as much as our questions. So it may be a little confusing in terms of why we're the only people speaking, but I wanted to clarify that he's tried to digest their questions into something for you to discuss. And I think we can just turn it over to you.

Okay. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

discussion, I guess would be the next. Yeah, you have a question of- And you may wanna ask for public comment at some point. Yeah, but if anybody else has questions of Tristan before we transition, Uh, so next I would say let's hear, uh, any public comments on this agenda item, either in person or if there's folks online.

Uh, we do have a in-person public comment, uh, Woody minor, if you'd like to speak.

Oh, no, I'm sorry.

Yeah, it's like an air noise, kind of like a fan. Sorry about that.

Why is this thing sticking?

I think this is a projector.

Just to let you know, it's not functional right now. I do hear the noise as well. Yeah, sorry about that. So I'm glad the comment about that you were speaking for the applicant as well. I was wondering why the applicant was not here. And the report does not seem to be, seems a little biased towards pro-development in my regard. sort of downplaying the potential significance of the building, saying constructed by 1885, possibly earlier. The extensive report that I believe you have that Kevin Frederick did the research makes it highly likely that it was moved from the corner right by the train station. And if you look at old photographs of Alameda, uh from the the early years 1870s showing like an 1860s streetscape or even in 1850s um the the form of this building the feeling of the building is 1860s okay simple gable pioneer structure it's very evocative of the early uh uh era of development in uh in Gold Rush, California. It looks nothing like an 1870s commercial building or an 1880s commercial building. And I just felt that the way it was presented here is to downplay the potential significance and to emphasize the development potential. So it's likely that it was moved to the site from the corner of Lincoln and Park. where the train station was. And it's even possible that it was moved from the historical rush town of Alameda in the East End because it was kind of like an Oklahoma land rush. They pulled buildings from the old town to the new town near the station. This has a feeling it's a very important building, a very important building. And don't let the language suggest that, oh, well, was built by 1885, but it may have been built earlier.

I think the case has been made very strongly. It was built earlier.

And I also want to say that the property owner really needs to have a historic expert on board when they're making these decisions, a firm of historic architects. like ARG or Page Interval who knows these things instead of people out there making comments and suggestions that we need to have experts weighing in on how much of the fabric can be saved. What can be done with this? I would highly suggest that. And so it has great significance. It's a landmark, almost certainly the oldest commercial building in Alameda. This is what landmark ordinances are all about. This is worth fighting for and saving. One last question, if I may. Can I have a question about the tree thing or is that off topic?

It's off topic for this comment. We were looking for comments on this agenda item right now.

Well, that's about it.

Thank you. Thanks, Woody. Really appreciate it. Other comments, either in person or online?

Oh, we have another in-person comment. Bernie? Bernie. Bernie, excuse me.

Thank you. Welcome board member Lee. I think it's just your first meeting. Congratulations. This is great. I will say, you know, I didn't know we were going to have the honor of Woody here tonight. I think I've read a lot of your work and whatnot. So, I mean, that's great that you're, and I just want to echo some of what he said that this truly appears to be a landmark in town. It's arguably the oldest building, I think, from I've been doing a little research following along. I know you all maybe recognize me as a recent student of the HAB and I've been kind of following your work. And this is incredible that it's arguably the oldest building and the saloon and whatnot, I guess. As a tenured resident of Alameda at this point, nobody has any idea about that. That's the true tragedy, I think, from a historical perspective, that when I drop off donations to the Salvation Army, I'm sorry, Goodwill, I see, unfortunately, a derelict building across the street, which is an eyesore. And I'm raising my three daughters a few blocks away, and this is a part of town we avoid. that's a problem, right? So the idea that we have such a historical treasure that no one knows about and people are in fact averse to, I think that in every respect is why we need to give these applicants a chance to do something with it and not be necessarily incredibly, you know, too dogmatic about what it is we're preserving. And Woody and everybody else have done all the research to understand what the history is. And we have an opportunity to preserve it really and actually shed light on what a treasure we have here. And I think we're getting bogged down in a little bit of too much bureaucracy based on what I understand of the history of this applicant. So that's all I have to say.

Thank you. Anyone online?

If anybody online would like to speak, please raise your hand now. It does not appear that we have any more public speakers.

Great. So let's open it up to discussion. The question is, before us, what do we think about this new material? Do we have, if you could pull up that slide with your different points. Yeah, there it is. You know, as far as offering options or thoughts on how we could advise both staff and therefore the applicants on what might be a way in which to move forward and make something more of the building than it is currently, either through redevelopment, rehabilitation or reconstruction. I'll open it up. Anybody want to jump in?

I can start. I have to say, I was here for the first meeting back in 2025. So when the agenda came in my email and I saw the address, I was like, oh, is this going to be good news? And then the report, yeah, made it. It shows that the building was kind of in the condition, the interior, because we didn't really get into the interior discussion about the interior last time, but that the kind of the bones were as in rough shape as we were fearing. So that was disappointing, but it made me also think of a school field trip I went on. I grew up in Sacramento, and one of the big attractions in Sacramento is Old Sacramento. And they managed to preserve a lot of those buildings. A lot of them ended up being moved further away from the river to preserve them. But then a lot of them that were in terrible condition and just weren't feasible to save were demolished. And then for the most part, pretty faithfully reconstructed, brought up to code, made so that they could have a new present day use. And so a lot of those buildings were really, a lot of them were rebuilt in kind. So that gave me some hope for this building because when I was looking at the report, yeah, it was pretty terrible. Yeah, whenever you see... like wood members sitting on soil, that's just not, that's not going to last. So the, yeah, the question is kind of how feasible would it be to, are we talking about like lifting the building up and then doing a new concrete foundation? You know, how does that, how does, does that make sense? And then it starts, I started getting to more of like the the philosophical question, both with this and then when I was thinking about old Sacramento, and not to like personify an inanimate object like a building, but like at what point, the question becomes at what point is it still that historic building if we're taking, have to take so much out of it and replace so much of it is it, are we taking its quote unquote soul out of it? That's the part where I was like, oh, that's personifying a building. But it is kind of like, it is that, that something special about that building. And I do remember Mr. Miner's comments the first time when we discussed this about how it's really the only commercial building from this era left, this old pioneer style, and it's tied to Alameda's railroad history. And I think that, yeah, it kind of brings the question, are we able to, acknowledge and um honor that history by doing a complete rebuild or like tristan was saying are there going to be some materials that we can reuse so you are still putting a little bit of the soul the original soul of the building in place so people can see those those old materials um yeah that was kind of my my thought that it There is that philosophical question, but I also don't believe that complete demolition is a dishonoring of the past. You can still do that. You could still be very honorable to the past by doing a new building in its place.

Thank you. I don't know. I guess I wasn't here, so I don't have some of the context. But do we know what the intended use of this is in terms of the reason for purchase? And are they continuing to use the restaurant space as a restaurant and this space as something new and different? Like where... What is the end product? It doesn't sound like this is intended to be a single family home for the current owners of the space. So it sounds like they have purchased real estate with something in mind that they want to do with it. I assume leverage this asset in some way. Is that-

I think that's fair to say. I think their primary goal is to have a usable structure. I think they've floated many ideas ranging from all commercial, commercial office, commercial mixed use with residential on the upper story. They've come to us with a pretty wide range of proposals.

In the event that it were commercial mixed use, let's say any of them, obviously residential, you've got codes that you've got to get people out, et cetera. But if it were any of these others, in terms of the codes and how it looks now and the structure and layout of the inside, is any of it up to code in such a way that it could be used for those with its current blueprint? Or is it required, if this is going to be a functional space, does all of that have to change? Because based on what you said, it sounds like it's not going to support its upper floors. It needs a new roof structure in addition to a new roof. All of this is already going to have to be done just to be livable or usable.

Certain elements identified in the structural analysis did have the ability to be retrofitted. So it is not the case that all of those elements necessarily needed to be removed. But I think it's fair to say that the majority, especially of the exterior elements, would likely need to be replaced. Now, they could likely maintain, for example, their current footprint. But the stairs are a good example where modern stairs have to meet a particular rise and run. They have to have a particular width. And so the current configuration isn't going to meet that at all. So there will be interior changes for sure. And as a part of that, it's likely to result in maybe minor modifications to things like the layout.

Yeah, without the owners here to speak to their intention, we don't know. We did have a presentation where they had presented a couple of different building facades. The building that is the old saloon looked, you know, roughly speaking like the old saloon, but I think they had intended it to be like a coffee house with maybe some residential above, something like that. And then more of a storefront, facade for the building that is the restaurant now. But again, this is, you know, a couple of year old presentation and they're not here to say what. Sure. But that's my recollection. Yeah, Josh. Okay.

Sorry. I have a few comments and I will apologize in advance for not focusing specifically on these options for redevelopment right away, but I feel like I'm not in a position to confidently do that. So I'm gonna communicate what I can about what would enable me to feel that way in making an important decision like this. Because it's been about a year and a half, maybe a little longer since we had the last study session, which was the first, I did go back to the first meeting and listen to the commentary from HAB. Three of the four of us here today were present there. And there was discussion about what information would help us better understand the history of the building. what features of the building are significant to its history and might be the most precious for retaining when you think about these different development scenarios. And we also heard from a public speaker who was the grandson of Gok Kim Wong, who was one of the founders of Kim's Chinese. And he offered to give information to the applicant about the history of the building and also suggested that his family did live in building A, which is 2320. I think I have that right. I have addresses in my head versus letters. But I will say I looked that up, and they were there in the 40s and 50s, 1940 census, 1950 census. The Wong family was residing in building A. So the questions I have, I appreciate that a structural evaluation was completed because that was one thing that was requested. What I feel is missing from that evaluation, and it didn't have a structural focus, was more of a materials focus. Do we know for sure if this wall of the building can be saved or the siding? What are the conditions of the windows? What are the conditions of some of the trim? And I'll say at the interior, I would be very open to allowing some, you know, extensive modification of the of the interior because the exterior is what the public views and that's part of the public realm and the environment that we're trying to consider a potentially significant impact to. But without that information, I have a really hard time making a sound judgment about. Would demolition be OK, reconstruction, doing an addition, removing an addition? Things like that. I think it's paramount that there be some sort of consultation with an architect, a historic building materials expert, architectural historian. And ideally what that would be is a report not unlike what we saw at 802 Buena Vista when that building was being studied. there was an updated assessment of its historical significance that includes both buildings their integrity because integrity is only able to be analyzed when you understand a building's significance or lack thereof there is a lot of talk tonight about the integrity of building B and its facade, but we don't have any information from past evaluations that says, or it doesn't say the building is or is not significant for its association to people. It just says potentially eligible for association to Chinatown. So integrity would rely on understanding from what period did that building have significance who was residing there or they significant, that mid-century storefront could be equally as contributing to that building's significance as the original one may have been. There's so many variables. So that's my major point is, Three out of the four HABs members said yes, we'd like an updated historical evaluation. It's been a year and a half, and we don't have additional information. Let's see. I also see from the structural evaluation, there is really not much discussion of building B at all. So I would presume that building is in good shape because it's still occupied, the business is continuing. I don't have any evidence that says otherwise. Let's see. And then I'm also curious, it seems based upon these five scenarios that we have here that the applicant has some flexibility in what they may be capable of achieving. And I want to make sure that they understand that as part of this process, My understanding is the project path would be a focused EIR based upon the previous hearing. And I think maybe it's not the most likely outcome that the project could achieve standards compliance. complying with the standards for rehabilitation can reduce impacts to a less than significant level. So that could potentially shift your project path from a focused EIR to, um, I don't know if categorical exemption is possible, but something less than that. Because I'll say with an EIR comes things like mitigation. So you may be looking at things like historic building documentation or interpretive displays. Those would be likely requirements, not just nice options, which I will say are great things to include. And I totally appreciate that the applicant's thinking that way. Yeah, I'll end my comments by saying that I want to be flexible. I just want to understand what is really salvageable from these buildings. I want to make sure that they can continue. If that means that it's more of a reconstruction while retaining true historic fabric, I think that's OK. But I would also not be opposed to a project that if it's clearly demonstrated that it's just not feasible to retain sufficient fabric, maybe it is more appropriate to consider what's the best new construction that can go here. I'm also curious on a project path perspective, if there is a residential use in this building, How does that jive with current zoning? There's a gas station next door. Are we supposed to put residences right next to a gas station? I don't know how that all works, but those could be things that factor into future approvals, project costs. So Yeah, I have some concerns with the amount of information we have. Thank you.

Thanks, Josh. So a couple comments from me. I did some digging and understand that this building was actually vocally supported for maintenance or maintaining its location and structure back when the main library was being rehabilitated. This was 20 years ago now. And I wasn't part of that discussion. I just know this building was part of that discussion. And part of the reason why the main library doesn't have a bigger parking lot that maybe it could have or should have had was because of this, this exact property. So I'm wondering if there's information that may be relevant to these discussions that came up. during those meetings that might be also able to inform us of things like the significance or reports that were generated at that time. Because obviously, it was a big enough deal that the library parking lot wasn't expanded to take over what would have been these specific sites. That being said, when I look at the options for redevelopment, I'm seeing them one through five just listed here. We might want to be thinking about them five to one as far as prioritizing the building and the significance with that assumption. One of the things we talked about at that meeting back in March of 25 or whenever it was, was also the possibility of relocation. I don't see that listed here. So if it were to be that the highest and best use of this property could move forward with some kind of development, that doesn't necessarily mean that building needs to come down. It could just be put somewhere else. So I would very much like to see their reaction to that as a possibility, maybe somewhere else in Alameda. So we were retaining it as a community, as a valuable resource. If this building's moved once or maybe twice before, maybe third times the charm, who knows? In looking at the presentation today, as a general contractor, my answer is always, it's only time and money. Anything's savable. We can fix anything. That doesn't necessarily mean these owners have whatever time and money is required. And I think back to a very disheartening conversation we had to have about a building on the base that had essentially been neglected to the point where it was condemned. The fire department wouldn't go in if there were a fire. So we were here talking about that so that it could be demolished. And what I don't want to see happen is that. kicking around the decision and the death by paper cuts of something happening that would produce a better resource for our community. It's not in our interest collectively to see, yes, the oldest building in Alameda die slowly and then catch fire. and create danger for us and our community. Not to say that's going to happen, but something like that will eventually happen if we do nothing. Now, it's been 20 years since the last time this building, something happened 20 years ago with the library. Maybe it's going to be another 20 years, and some other group of people will be talking about it. It was obviously built well to begin with because it's still there. I should look so good at that age, right? But I think we can collectively as people who care about historic structures in Alameda, obviously, or you wouldn't be on this board, try to lend our hands into helping it become something other than what it is now and put on a path to something other than what it's on the path to now, which is, you know, all I can see is like, we'll be back here in five years and it'll have caught fire and then it's done. So, I mean, that's my personal reaction to it. I wanna see something happen with the building. I'd love for the owner to have the time and the money to restore it and make it, a museum that people can come visit and maybe it's restored to its original saloon glory, that's not gonna be the highest and best use of the building, I get that. But really in my view, building A, just from what I've seen so far and what I can see with my own eyes, that would be the building I'm personally most concerned about having something happen along the preservation track. Building B, again, just based on the evidence that I see, I'm less inclined because I can see it's been so clearly overly redone and redone to the point where you're like, well, I don't even know what it was to begin with, looking at the roof lines. When I look at the property itself and I think about if those buildings were to be demolished, or partially demolished? You know, we're talking about like a 55 by 80 foot lot with zoning issues. It's gonna have setback issues. What can it really be? You know, those are questions obviously for the staff and the owners to tease through. What's the highest and best use from a density housing point of view would be an obvious question. Like, can we put housing there? If so, how much? or what's an appropriate business use for those buildings, given its place in downtown, parking availability, walkability, et cetera. So there's a lot of challenges to the property anyway if those buildings go away as to what they'll become. But my hope is that they can just, something can happen. It can get out of being stuck in, let's just come back to the HAB in another year and talk a little bit more about it. Those are my thoughts.

I'll just say, I was a little surprised we had a study session. thinking we would be moving towards some sort of, here's the updated design concept, because I would love to see something happen with this building. We have apparently a pretty rainy winter ahead of us. And that makes me think there's probably a few more months of potential damage. I think it's really important to get that additional information because if we don't have it now, it's going to have to be put into something later and that will be something that mitigates something going away versus something that informs how it's designed, even if there's just a little bit of preservation. And when I say preservation, I mean rehabilitation, the rehabilitation standards, not we're going to save that piece of trim, every single thing. No, adaption is okay. And I think most of those scenarios that were presented rely on that kind of adaption.

Right.

Yeah, I would echo that. I was surprised this was a study session when it came in the agenda. I was like, wait a minute.

Well, we wanted to get your impression before, you know, again, the applicant I think has lots of ideas. They're not, they wanted to understand as, as was just stated, like how receptive the board is to, um, more or less extreme restoration or reconstruction, renovation, you know, all the R words, you know, what level of preservation are you really expecting given the structural evaluation, especially, I think Tristan might've underplayed the degree of, you know, failure in the structural system of the building that it really, sounds like it's in pretty bad shape.

So what is the path forward? So we've done this study. We've looked at it. We've said the state that it's in currently is not sustainable long term. It's not getting any better with age. These people obviously want to use it for something. What is the next step beyond assessing whether or not we are open to allowing potential changes?

Right. Well, the certificate of approval is the permit that you need to grant. And so the question, so the applicant needs to go talk with an architectural historian or preservation architect or someone who's qualified to help them craft a proposal that incorporates those elements that are most important and salvageable, I guess, or reproducible and come up with an economically viable proposal. I think part of our question really is, well, what about that backyard area? What about connecting the buildings or building up behind? What's your expectation in terms of that part too? I think the They might be able to recreate the street facade, but that probably doesn't give them the floor area and economic return that they need given it's a tight lot, but they could fill the lot with building if they, you know, so chose, but they need to probably, again, get that professional guidance of how far they could go with that concept as well. So assuming that you're open to those proposals, that's what they need to go prepare, I think.

Yeah.

And then come back.

Yeah. And with that same concept, same kind of documentation that we received in other similar types of instances where we're getting information about both buildings. We're obviously got the structural look into one building, but we don't know anything about the other building and if that's part of this discussion. So a more comprehensive, here's what we wanna do, here's the homework we've done, And what we're saying, I believe, is we're open. Please come forward with something. OK, yeah, that makes sense. We're open to a proposal of a project. And I think that's what we said last time, again, but we still need the information, like the analysis.

Yeah, and then I think that the next part would be the CEQA analysis of that proposal and the permit that you would be issuing. So is there a possibility that it is consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards and that it could be tiered from the general planning IR or some other framework? Or is this a different kind of project that requires its own CEQA analysis?

Does that answer your question?

Well, and I think that's what we're looking for, right? We would like to be able to take the next step. So we want something that's actually actionable. I can't speak for everyone else here, but it seems to me when we're looking at the backyard area and these bolted on kind of mismatched puzzle pieces, I don't think anyone here would be like, oh, we've got to keep those. I think if we had something that was you know, cohesive and made sense. But what that is in our minds may be very different than what the owners want. So again, I think we need to see something concrete. Here is our plan of action so that we can make an informed decision on a plan of action.

Yeah. Yeah, I think it's not uncommon to see additions go away. Sorry if I'm not close enough. One of the interesting aspects of this building is that its public realm is multifaceted, you could say. There's the Lincoln side. There is the library parking lot side. And there is the back portions of which you can see from that alley kind of secondary street that runs behind it. But if you can identify the Gareth J. The character defining features of the building, the ones that are primary most important to its significance, I think there's often reasonable arguments to say yeah that can go away, and we can keep enough of this. Gareth J. Or you know kind of bring back that mass and keep keep some materials that way that we'd like to me the ultimate goal is. if somebody who either lived here 50 years ago and remembers that building comes back and says, oh yeah, that thing's still there. I remember that. That is where Chinatown and pioneer era Alameda met. So we have this really interesting collision and adaption of those two aspects of history. If you have a brand new building there, it's not going to have the same kind of value to memory. And I think that's really important to places like Alameda people know when the places they live change, and sometimes that change is very jarring. So I think part of what we're being so critical about is trying to really just be careful about that and make sure it's a good project.

Other thoughts?

OK. Anyone?

Thank you very much.

Do we have enough? Yeah, I think we have. There, there?

Yep, yep. And again, the applicant was at least listening and we'll continue to work with them.

Okay, swell. Well, seeing no other discussion on this item, I say we close for A and move into item five, board communications. Are there any board communications? And this might be where you have an announcement to make about how happy you are to be. Absolutely.

Yeah, I would like to say thank you so much for welcoming me to this board and I'm thrilled to be appointed and I look forward to working with each and every one of you. I don't know if you know about my background, but I'm the executive director of the California Historical Radio Society, which is located on Central Avenue. And we recently completed a massive, job where we redid the facade of that building and the interior that building was built in 1900. It was the original Alameda telephone exchange. And so it's significant. And I think we did something very true to its original roots and left it in better shape than when we found it. So anyway, as that relates to this, very excited to be here.

Thank you. Any other board communications?

Okay.

Staff communications.

Well, we have an incoming new board member and I am outgoing. I will be retiring at the end of the month. And so it's been a pleasure being with you for three years and never a dull moment, really working in Alameda with lots of different angles on every story. So it's been a pleasure and I'm, I hope to do more historic exploration, perhaps in European countries to begin with.

Congratulations again, Stephen. We very much valued your guidance and stewardship over our agendas. So we wish you the best. Thank you. Other staff communication? I guess with that we're adjourned. Thank you very much.