Historical Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

Okay.

Well, we can take roll call first. Board member Burrito? Here. Board member Bevan?

Present.

And chair Hernandez?

Present.

Okay, we have a quorum with two absences, Kratty and Reverczyk.

Super. So first up, non agenda public comments. Do we have anybody online or in person?

If anyone wishes to speak, you can raise your hand on Zoom. We have no speakers.

Okay, super. Next agenda item is the draft minutes from our last meeting. Any comments from the gallery? Nope. Do we have a motion?

I move to accept the comments. I second.

All in favor. So we approve our minutes from the last meeting.

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

Super. Good job on the minutes. Now on to regular agenda items. So this is 802 Buenavista Avenue. We talked about this one, was it last time or the time before? Coming back to us with additional information. Is there presentation on this?

Yes, this evening Tristan Swear will be making the presentation.

Super. Take it away Tristan.

Thank you esteemed chair, board members. I appreciate your time this evening. As noted, the item before you today is the certificate of approval for the project located at 802 Buena Vista. This is a certificate of approval to demolish the existing residential structure pursuant to municipal code section thirty-21.5 which requires the approval of the Historical Advisory Board for demolition of historic structure. I do want to take a quick minute just to give us an opportunity to get on the same page.

I know we've discussed this a little bit previously but just to outline sort of the role of the historical advisory board with regards to certificate of approval. So the item before you is of course a historic building meaning it was, well in this case it is both constructed prior to 1942 including the city's historical building study list. The historical building study list obviously a function of the city's windshield survey conducted in 1979 to identify buildings that had potential for eligibility for inclusion on the statewide historic register. Although the study list inclusion of a building is not sufficient alone to demonstrate eligibility. And so for any of those buildings when a proposal for demolition comes before staff, we're required to get approval from the historical advisory board based on a very specific criteria to allow the demolition.

That criteria of course is that the historic monument and this applies also to buildings prior to 1942 or included on the study list and not just monuments, no longer meets the criteria therefore which is identified as the four part criteria for CEQA historic resources or has become a detriment to the community and that the condition making it a detriment cannot readily be cured. And if that finding can be made, the certificate of approval can be approved. The criteria therefore that's referenced in the sort of former section of that has been sort of delineated here in the findings as the structure to be demolished no longer embodies the distinctive characteristics of a tight period region or method of construction nor does it represent the work of an important creative individual. That there are no events associated with the property that make a historic contribution to the history or cultural heritage of the local or regional history. That the property is not associated with persons important to local, state, or national history.

And that the property does not yield any information important to prehistory or history. And so the reason I bring those up is just to make sure that we focus tonight on those criteria and the finding regarding the certificate of approval. I mentioned that because there have been modifications proposed to the design of the building and while those design considerations are intended to achieve harmony with the architectural character of the building, they will be considered through the design review process which is a staff level approval can be considered up for the planning board. And so just a reminder that our focus tonight here is on the demolition of the structure and not the design of the resulting With that in mind, just a little bit of background to remind you of the subject property. The property located at 802 Buena Vista is a 1,466 square foot single family residential building in a predominantly single family residential neighborhood built in 1908.

It was an exemplary craftsman building likely built by the Strang Brothers as evidenced by both the original DPR form that was under consideration last time and the revised DPR form provided by Page and Turnbull in response to the board's request for additional historic evaluation to provide context on the project. So the subject property underwent a pretty significant fire in 2022. The resulting damage to the fire caused quite a bit of damage both the interior and exterior of the building. The historic conditions as you can see here are really quite a beautiful H shaped craftsman building, single story with a crawl space. Defining architectural features include the front porch, the fieldstone columns, the triangular brackets among other specific architectural features, some of which do actually remain intact after the fire.

But the vast majority of which those character defining features were destroyed as a function of the fire as identified in the DPR format historical evaluation memo provided by Page and Turnbull. So as a result of the fire, the building has lost integrity as a historic resource. Integrity defined by several seven excuse me, elements including setting, location, workmanship, design, all sort of intended to create a comprehensive image of whether the resource is able to convey its historic significance. As noted, the conclusions to both the revised DPR form and the memorandum provided by Page and Turnbull, they conclude that the, and I quote, the building does not appear to retain sufficient overall integrity for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historic Resources. DPR The does identify as well as the memo for that matter elements that do maintain sort of significance or were not significantly damaged by the fire such that they may be retained in the resulting design.

And the applicants have revised their proposed plans to reflect some of those elements. I will acknowledge that staff has received public comment including a letter from our Architectural Preservation Society identifying some elements that were noted in the historic eval memo that were not yet incorporated into the design of the resulting building. It is the intent of staff to pursue through conditions of approval of design review and the design review process to incorporate those elements into the resulting design to ensure that, for example, the triangular brackets that are very clearly well preserved on the rear and I believe eastern side of the building, those are well preserved and should be maintained in the resulting building. Just a little note on the comments we've received regarding the design. Now we're back to the certificate of approval.

It is staff's opinion that the structure due to its significant fire damage both meets the four criteria necessary or rather fails to meet the criteria necessary for the historic monument and is also become a detriment to the community that cannot be readily cured. So just to kind of further that point a little bit, the fire damage has caused the building to be red tagged demonstrating its structural sort of lack of structural soundness. And so we do have some pictures here both from the exterior showing the extent of the fire damage and then there appeared to have been a video provided via public comment that we provided screenshots of to show the extent of the damage to the interior which is significant. I'll add as a personal note, was a little nerve racking to watch because it seems very clear that the interior of the structure is not very sound. And so because of the damage that is evident here, it seems clear that any sort of even attempt at restoration would constitute a 30% demolition or removal of the structure and so would trigger a certificate of approval regardless.

And so the recommendation by staff is to approve the certificate of approval to demolish the structure as it can no longer convey its historic significance and to delist the building from the historic building study list as a result and to proceed following the approval of the certificate of approval with the design review entitlement to ensure that the architectural consistency of the resulting building is maintained in relation to the rest of the neighborhood surrounding buildings. I think I will pause there. I think the only thing I'd like to add is we've provided for you quite a bit of information that's been updated since our last meeting, specifically that DPR form and historic memorandum provided by Page and Turnbull. And so assuming you folks have had the time to review that information, I figure there may be questions or further clarification needed on that. Happy to provide answers to those.

And of course we do have the applicant's architect available if you have specific questions or recommendations that you'd like included as conditions of approval. We can certainly include those to be followed through with on the design review portion of the entitlement process. So with that, I will conclude my presentation. I will also leave up for us if I can. It's on, it's vibrating. JB, are you able to click ahead? Sorry, we can go one more. That's the resulting design in. One more. There we go.

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

Great. Well, you, Tristan. Are there any questions from my fellow board members for Tristan or any of the materials he's presented?

I have a few, but do you wanna I

just I wanna make sure I I understood what you said. Yeah. As soon as the a building needs 30% or more demolition, then that automatically triggers the need for the certificate?

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

Okay.

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

Okay, thank you.

Okay. I have a couple questions. Great. I wanted to note that under exhibit seven in the agenda, there's an attachment called eight zero two Buena Vista Walkthrough Photos. And I came across those earlier this week when I was doing some background research in the property.

So my understanding is that when the property was surveyed by Page and Turnbull, they didn't have access to the interior. And I'm curious when was the building red tagged relevant to that date? That's one question. Yeah. The other question is did the consultant request the access or something like removing some of the plywood from the windows that's obscuring interior visibility?

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

It's very good question. And so maybe just to add a little context there. Yeah, we weren't even aware of those screenshots that were included as that extra exhibit until earlier this week when we saw that the video of the folks entering the building. It is our understanding that that was done illegally. Certainly wasn't given permission by the city or the building official to enter the building. As things stand, the city's position is that the building is not safe to occupy and that nobody should be in there for the purposes of doing a structural eval or for just taking pictures. We believe this was a realtor who was obviously had other incentive for entering the building.

Okay. Yeah, that was one question I had because I know from a lot of the public comments and the conditions assessment, there were some questions about materials that are left. And one of the challenges from a consideration of character defining features perspective is that oftentimes as a historian, when you're looking at a private residential property type, at least as far as SQ was concerned about public realm features or features visible from that perspective, the interior is really not up for discussion. Very rarely maybe a property has something like a preservation covenant that will protect interior features. So in this case, there was a little bit of question about the presence of certain features and their condition.

I also noticed on the conditions assessment diagrams that were pulled together by Page and Trimble, the roof was identified as a non original feature. And I'm wondering if that was perhaps an accident or maybe that's referring to the shingles on the roof being composite versus maybe something like wood. That was a little unclear from the observation history.

Yeah. So I'm gonna take those one at a time. So first regarding the roof, yeah, we have a permit history showing that the roof has been re shingled a number of times. And so I think that's what they're referring to as a non original feature. Okay. And as for the interior, completely agree with you. For a private building, typically, we're not considering the interior whatsoever. However, it is worth noting that the interior images do provide context into the structural sort of damage that was done and the infeasibility of restoration. So I think that was sort of the context we're looking to provide with those, not necessarily identifying features that were worth preserving.

Right.

Okay. I'm also curious, and this may be a question that comes up in the future, hopefully not, but I was reading through the code and I saw mention of interim stabilization plans. Is that specific to building center designated monuments or does that cover study list properties?

Well, I'm not sure what the city's past practice has been with regards to this. I can tell you I'm not familiar with any interim stabilization plans for non monument buildings. And so that would imply to me that it has not been the city's practice to require this for buildings that are simply study list or pre 42. That that would be my understanding of the the city's past practice.

Okay? Alright. Let's see. I think my other question and I'm I'm gonna have a few. Please. But I feel like this is the time to do it. As far as integrity is concerned, one question that came up in the evaluation was there's no express mention of or explicit mention of integrity being required for eligibility to the city's list or as a monument, I versus should California register, national register, they both have that requirement. Is there any insight into how the city's dealt with that

recently? So it's worth noting that what is required for inclusion on our local register is effectively two things. It is property owner application and recordation. So the criteria for inclusion as a local monument is not necessarily as robust as the integrity framework. And so that is why we'll typically defer to the integrity framework as sort of the defining decision making criteria rather than simply the nomination of a particular property by the property owner because they believe it's worthy of inclusion.

Right, Yeah. And I understand some municipalities may have lower thresholds or lack thereof for integrity depending on when ordinance are updated, things like that. Let's see. I do wanna note, I reviewed National Park Service bulletin 15, which is kind of a go to document. I think you had mentioned that seven aspects of integrity and at least for national register eligibility, that's a good guide for how do you evaluate integrity.

And it does know whether the property retains the identity for which it is significant is key to that discussion. But also the property would not be eligible if it has some basic features, massing as an example, but has lost the majority of features that once characterize its style. So I think those sorts of arguments are what patient Trimble's wrestling with as they're going through that discussion.

I

think there could be some amendment, if you will, to these two studies that were done in light of this new information on the interior. Does the assessment of what's left in the interior impact their understanding of integrity as far as what windows are present or repairable? Because I feel like there is some additional information that would inform their conditions analysis, whether it's more features not being intact or more features being intact. And then I think the other questions I have, analysis of integrity usually requires some assessment of comparables. So in this case, there's an indication that this property was designed by or built by the Strang brothers.

And in the DPR forms that were prepared, there were a couple, I think weak points in the analysis of Strangbrothers work. And I wanna make sure that that can be addressed for whatever the final record becomes. For example, I found that buildings at 910 And 914 Buena Vista, one block away, were built by Strang Brothers. So those provide extant examples. And that was just through research on newspapers.com.

I also noticed that there wasn't any research apparently done at Almina Museum. Local permits were referred to that were provided by the city. But I would anticipate some sort of in person archival research to really get to the bottom or at least attempt to answer that question. So I think there's some room for improvement there as far as rounding out the evaluation. When I get to the actual evaluation section in the report, There was obviously mention of Mastic Park being the earliest twentieth century subdivision in the city.

And under criteria A, the finding was the property is one of hundreds of single family craftsman residences built in Massive Park, a 200 lot subdivision built between early twentieth century and World War I. Therefore the subject property does not appear to have been individually associated with any notable local, regional or national events or patents in development. And I will say that for developments like that that were built over time in kind of defined period in a defined geographic area, the likelihood that there will be individually significant buildings, That's one factor, but there's also the ability of buildings that may have kind of non individual significance to that actual development as contributors to the pattern. So I think it would be important and a stronger assessment if there was some indication of whether this particular neighborhood is potentially significant or whether future research additional study is merited to help suss that out. I also think that helps inform integrity arguments too.

Sometimes building center contributors versus individually significant, they can have less integrity and still be a part of the pattern if you will. Finally, under criterion three, the architectural evaluation, it concludes with however research did not uncover notable works built by the Strangs and therefore the building cannot be attributed as the work of a builder or architect of merit. And I think that doesn't sound like it's a very defensible conclusion based upon some of the evidence presented in the DPR as far as the number of houses the Strangs were responsible for and the fact that their work has been documented. So I do see the argument for this being a significant example of its type. But again, just like criterion in one, if rather than conclude that the strings are not builders of merit, I would suggest concluding something that says based on what we found, you know, we don't know because more research may be necessary.

Ultimately this document will serve as the next stepping stone from what was the 1979 evaluation. It will go into some record and a historian in the future will find it and say, okay, here's where they left off. This is what was feasible and this is where we can go from. Those are the comments I have on the deliverables. I think for now that's I'll leave it at that.

I had a question following up on what Mr. Brito said about the valuation determination being the trigger. So was any analysis done of the actual cost of repair? Anything is doable, it's only time and money. But what was the valuation given to the building and what was the estimate of repair that led the city to believe it's over the 30% threshold? So it's the extent

of damage. Typically 30% is calculated by removal of exterior walls and so the necessary reconstruction of the building would result in more than 30 of the demolition of exterior walls. It's a determination made by the building official, so I don't have great insights into how exactly the technical information that's going into that decision.

Got it.

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

I just wanted to clarify what the criteria was. So it's if 30% of the surface area of the exterior of the building needs to be removed, that would trigger the?

My understanding is that the building official's determination does take largely into account the amount of exterior wall percentage that would need to be removed. Again, I think there are other pieces of technical information that go into that determination, but that is something that I have had conversations with the building official in the past and it's been indicated to me that's part of the determination.

Got it. Got it. That would be good to know just for clarity on process. As we think about, well, what if someone came and applied and said, hey, we want to be on the city's historical list, voluntarily filled out the application, what is the process to remove them? I think some more clarity would be helpful. Stephen, you have a

I just want to clarify, that's the threshold for the definition of demolition.

Correct.

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

Yeah, I'm just trying to make sure I have the correct definition of the trigger. There could be something that would cost easily 30% of the value of the home but isn't actually 30% of the surface area of the home.

That's very true. And so there is an interpretation by the building official of also value to whom, in what circumstances. So it's not precise.

Got it. So more clarity would I would find useful. Arthur, did you have any other questions?

In the report, it was mentioned that the East and West facades were in fairly good condition. But I guess that gets back to the 30% question. It's like, well, if

What 30%?

Yes, what 30%. And I guess if the entire front facade is lost, yeah, would it even make any sense to keep those two? And then looking at those interior damage, it's like, well, the outside looks okay. And like was mentioned, they they didn't have access to the interior when they did the report. So, yeah, that's kind of what I'm struggling with a little bit. Yeah.

I'll I'll respond to a little bit to that. It's worth noting, and this is called out in memo as well that the majority of that rear facade is unoriginal. So while that rear facade largely undamaged, it's also not original. Sort of a moot point to that effect. And I'm sorry, Board Member Buffin, you want me to respond to any of your comments that you had made?

I had one more question I thought of. But I mean those are comments and I'm not sure if it's better for me to jot those down and forward them. I do think they're worth looking into to kind of finalize these deliverables. That's my intent there is to say, you know, in the event that this building gets demolished, what's the final record look like? And is it solid? I think we'd want that.

So maybe just to respond to that. The the DPR form was filed with the Northwest Information Center. And so my understanding is that this is the final deliverable.

Okay. Well, I would suggest that the consultant inquire with either the information center or the Office of Historic Preservation to see if they've made a formal determination of eligibility on that record. Typically in my experience, the records aren't actually submitted until the project is deemed complete. So there could be an opportunity there to send in an amendment, a revised edition. My other question is the conclusion of the evaluation is that the property receives a five S1 status code for appears locally eligible through survey evaluation hinging on the integrity or lack of an integrity requirement for local listing.

So does that five S1 code qualify the building as a historical resource under CEQA? That's one part. And if that's the case, if the building's demolished, even due to its status as a red tag property, does that count as a significant impact to a historical resource for CEQA? And is there mitigation tied to that?

Our understanding is that the project is exempt under CEQA. That was the analysis conducted in conclusion reached by staff approved by our city attorney's office. So my understanding is that while it may be not disqualified for eligibility on a local register, without the property owner coming forward and initiating a request for inclusion on that local register, it wouldn't happen. So it doesn't seem to me that it would be possible for it to be included on a local register at this time.

Well, guess I'd like clarification on whether eligible resources, resources identified through a survey that was formally adopted by a city are considered historical resources for CECOA. And this appears to be an update that confirms that at least local eligibility. So I'm not sure.

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

Okay. One more question then. At the first meeting, when I asked, does the 3S status code, which is eligible for National Register, that was assigned in 1979. And I asked if the property was considered a historical resource for CEQA. I believe it was explained that properties that have a historic state historic resource inventory form were considered or treated as historical resources.

Could be eligible for inclusion depending on the outcome of that DPR form. There are DPR forms that conclude that a project or rather a site is ineligible, right? And based on the findings for that eligibility, in this case the architectural character which it has been determined by the most recent evaluation is no longer maintaining its integrity and therefore the initial reasons for inclusion on that study list are moot.

Okay. Alright. I think that's all the comments I have. Thank you.

So, again, back to the DPR form, it's because it lists a few things. So it's it doesn't appear to be qualified based on events or persons, but it does have some architectural significance, but does not from an individual thing in itself have anything that would justify it being on these lists. That's aside from the city's historical significance list to keep these things sort of separated. On the city list side what we're really determining is for the certificate of approval on the demolition should it come off the city list and can it get a demolition approval?

Ultimately, I would say there is one determination that the board needs to make and that is effectively yes or no. Does this site meet the criteria therefore which is laid out before you there, that four point criteria, or has it become a detriment to the community and that the condition of making it a detriment cannot readily be cured?

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

Right, so readily I think is the operative term here. I think readily be cured would imply that it could be cured without a 30% demolition or removal of the value of the structure, right? If it could be readily cured, then it wouldn't require a certificate of approval.

Got it. So from a time material investment point of view, obviously building an entirely new building would be more expensive than curing this building?

I have not actually, yeah.

Yeah, so I mean we don't have any analysis of that but it's just Exactly. Intuitively. A theoretical. I build houses so like okay, I don't know. It seems like building a whole new one would involve some cost.

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

Maybe I can respond very briefly to that. I think one of the things that we want to avoid here is in the event of a significantly bad fire, right? If a project requires demolition in order to restore it, appears to be the case here, when you restore it, it's really a reconstruction and oftentimes using modern building materials and techniques results in a modern feeling building even if the intent is to create a replica of the old. And so I think what we want to avoid is that sort of false historicism. And so in situations where the damage is so significant that it loses its integrity, as is the case here, I think it behooves the board to consider the alternative which is reconstruction or restoration in such a way that results in a structure that maybe doesn't convey any historical significance but does perhaps cost more from the perspective of the applicant or requires more attention to something that isn't desirable.

And so I think that's sort of the reasoning behind why you might not want somebody to be forced reconstruct in such a way after significant damage is done that you know the exterior features can no longer be preserved. Although again I'll note that the preservable features are intended by the applicant to be retained and reused on the resulting building. Hopefully that helps a little bit.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Let's see. Any other questions for Tristan?

Is there anything?

Great, thank you so much. Thank you all. Let's see. Were there any thoughts on the public comment? Are there public comments? Do we have folks either online or?

You'd like to speak online, please raise your hand. Public comments? Already submitted some, excellent, thank you. We have none in person, they've already submitted online and we have one speaker.

Okay, super.

Chris Buckley?

Christopher Buckley with the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. I would like to review some of the points in the letter that we sent that you should have received today or last night in some cases. First, we want to thank the Board for its robust review of the proposal at its March 6 meeting and for the applicant responding both to the Board's comments as well as to ours with significant improvements to the design. There are still some loose ends, though, that we believe should be addressed, though we've listed I believe it's 12 of them in the letter. So starting with item one, incorporate existing porch rafter tails into the design.

We included a photograph showing those attached to the letter. That photograph has also been handed out. The rafter tails provide some texture, important texture there in the, you might say, belly band along the midpoint of the building, and so we think that's an important detail to retain. Item two, retain existing tapered river rock, which they call fieldstone. Not sure whether the river rock is really a type of fieldstone, but we'll leave that to the others.

To the ports column bases, The plan should explicitly show the column bases tapered design. It also says that the bases should incorporate should should be changed to shall. These are notes on the plans. Item three, retain existing front porch railing design, which consists of some very chunky, robust, probably six by six posts that are below the 42 inches minimum height, but we don't think the building code requires, but we don't think that's applicable here because it appears that the porch floor is exactly 30 inches above grade, which is what triggers building code requirements. And if the applicant wants to use a higher railing anyway, recommend they could do it as a booster rail, things just made of inconspicuous materials.

We can provide more information on how to design that the staff or the applicant is interested. Item four, clarify the proposed engineered wood horizontal siding. They have two types indicated LP, true SmartSide, and also Collins Truewood. We don't believe the Collins product is currently available. Both of them seem to be promoting a textured surface.

We recommend that it be a smooth surface. The textured surfaces tend to look synthetic, and also the dimension should be clarified to make sure that actually matches the existing siding. Item five, verify the proposed e brackets match what was there. I believe staff has covered that in their comments. I've run out of time here. Could I have twenty seconds more? Yes, you may. Okay, thank you. Item seven, provide windows that visually match the existing wood windows. It's confusing on the plan.

It lists various window types that we believe would match the existing windows, the Marvin Ulderman wood clad notably, but also others. So they also list the Milgard windows, vinyl windows that were on the previous design, and the Milgard should be deleted and just list those other five window types. Item eight, don't use mold sash for the paired windows. It creates a somewhat artificial, very flimsy divider between the windows, so use a 3.5 wide separation between the windows. Item nine, horizontal, we align the top 90% of the doors and windows on street facing elevations.

Geometrically much more satisfactory that those tops of doors and windows are aligned, at least most of them. It's not clear why they have different horizontal alignments there. And then provide vertical section details through the eaves and porch railings so it's very clear exactly what's being proposed. And then noting finally item 12 in the resolution, correct that to reflect the actual criteria. In other words, this historical monument criteria does not have an integrity component. That's significant the part. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Buckley. Are there any questions for Mr. Buckley? No. Okay, great. So no other public comments. Great. Discussion?

Well, I'll say I'm glad that there are some elements being incorporated into the new building. I think that's a good approach towards sustainability. I do want to acknowledge that as planning staff had mentioned regarding materials and false historicism, I do think it's important that new construction has a chance to be of its own time and not have to rely on exact copies of historic features. I know that can lead to harmony in a neighborhood, but it can also lead to confusion about which fabric is from what period. Things like modern windows, different types of siding, that can help differentiate the new from the old.

But I do, I think as someone who believes in historic preservation, I do think it's important to balance the old and the new. And I'm glad to see that there's materials going into this building. But I also think that project applicants should be able to build the best building they can that will last at least, what is it, 117 like the current building there. I think that's important. And in the long run, fifty years down the road, a new building of its own time will have a chance to be evaluated as a new building of its own time.

So I think that's important. What else? I think the massing and the roof forms are generally compatible with that area. I do like that there's apparently two units going into this building. Yeah, I mean, don't feel like I have any other, any critiques, so to speak.

Great, thanks. Arthur, any? Yeah, just kind of, I was going through my notes from the last meeting and former Board member Sanchez had pointed out some architectural elements that on the proposed design that didn't quite fit in right weren't necessarily period correct. And I'm happy to see that this updated design has kind of corrected some of those things. And yeah, I would agree.

I'm liking the direction that it's going. So it's if something has to be demolished, then I'd like to look that at least it's given the sense to me that instead of just a complete knockdown and let's start over and do whatever, it feels like the design is more like a remodel on an older existing building instead of just kind of starting from scratch. It's like someone did a big addition and so it's still feeling architecturally appropriate. And and I appreciate that the the owners and the the design team is trying to incorporate some some salvaged materials where possible. So I'm overall, I'm I'm feeling feeling better than than I was last time we spoke about this.

I guess I'll go. So I I also wanna thank the the applicants for trusting in the process thus far. It's definitely, I know, a challenge from the other side of the desk. Why do things take so long? Why is there so much back and forth?

But definitely appreciate the efforts that we're seeing both from the city in updating some of the evaluation forms and the updated DPR so we have more documentation to justify our position. Like my fellow board member, I believe that we need to pay attention to the historic artifacts that we're creating in that document. And even though the form has been filed so to speak, Some of the suggestions made I think are worth listening to and seeing if maybe there is ways we can amend or enhance or clarify some of those statements so that whoever is sitting in these desks one hundred years from now will be like, oh, these guys were actually great builders and here's the 10 other buildings they built or whatever. I don't pretend to understand what they'll think is significant in the future. Also I applaud everybody here for helping new housing come to be.

So whether this ultimately ends up being approved as a demolition and this exact building or some version of it gets built, none of us can predict that. But the effort is here to create more housing and I think that's a super important thing in our community. So I applaud that as well. On the subject of the design itself, I will leave that to the architects. I do agree in general I think with a lot of the suggestions made by Christopher Buckley in regards to architectural elements.

It would be my hope that many of those comments should this go forward be pushed through staff into planning for strong consideration. He makes great points and I'm sure there's plenty of folks much more competent than me in architecture that can speak to that. I would also as we look forward to if we're going to entertain the resolution in the same way that we might modify some of the language in the DPR reflect that in the resolution. So there's a little bit of tuning as in some elements have lost significant integrity but it's not like the whole thing is lost. Think in the AAPS letter there was mention of it could yet regain its significance.

We don't really know what will happen here once or if we grant a certificate of approval for the demolition. Maybe it doesn't get demoed. Maybe something happens. Maybe someone new buys the building and restores it. And then what? So I don't want to allow that to happen. If it did what magic that would be, we can't predict. So yeah, think those are my basics. As far as the massing and this is just a personal comment on the design itself. I was noticing the setbacks on the site plan.

And I didn't see that a survey had been done, you know, and I always worry about those things in Alameda, you know, where are the setbacks actually because they tend to vary so much from the public right away because it's a corner facing lot to make sure that's really well articulated. And yes, it's a bigger building. And is it going to stay right faced where the current one is? I didn't go out and measure, so I don't know where this massing relates to the previous massing. But those are just visual considerations.

It's a lot of building. It's a lot more building. But I'm sure planning will have their hand well on that. So yes, those are my comments.

Thank you. So you have a resolution in your packet. And exhibit six four a. And I wonder if you're prepared to make that motion perhaps with some edits. It sounded like you wanted to suggest that we work with the DPR form edits and see what we can accomplish there.

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

Yeah.

Yeah. Or we could put

it out. Yeah.

That I feel like that would be where you have the power to make changes or at least dictate Yeah, to us

some yeah. Here's a question just to start out. So this is one of clarification and this is on page two. The first be it further resolved is that we are hereby removing the building or would be hereby removing the building from the historical study list. So that the certificate of approval could be etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Should it come to pass that this next part never happens, let's say the building does not get demolished, let's say the next building does not get built, then where are we as where does this building stand in limbo if none of those things happen next?

Well, I think we're still recommending that the building doesn't really communicate anymore or have the integrity where it really could be restored Right. In its present form. So I think we're still recommending that you remove it from the list.

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

Well, yeah. Although, I think, again, the the 30% threshold means they still need the COA, certificate of approval

Right.

To do anything because it's going to be demolished more than 30%. So you still have to issue the COA. And I think at that point, the demolition is approved. And at that point, then the design review of whatever comes next shifts to someone else with these sort of suggestions and conditions.

Okay.

I think we're back where we started.

Okay. And we know that the building can be demolished. Let's say this passes, the building can be demolished and will be demolished. But that is materially connected to what happens next on that lot. Like the demolishing is that's a done deal, whether or not they go through the rest of it.

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

Got it. Okay.

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

So

if we were to wordsmith, I guess essentially is where we are. Or do we

want Numbers one through five.

Mean, the whereas's are kind of the whereas's.

I think it's the resolved. Yeah.

Be it further resolved one through five.

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

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

I would say is and I'll say I have some documentation that I'm happy to share through planning. If they want to forward it, I'm happy to do that. So I'll say the builder of the subject property has been identified as Strang Brothers, who through documentation available for this individual property study could not be identified as a builder of merit. Therefore the building was unable to be associated with an important creative individual. I think that I'm

happy to work off of the video recording of the meeting to just

take We don't that have the evidence to say the Strang brothers are not builders of merit based on what we've seen. Like we can't say that because Yeah, we don't know

thank you. So the builder was like the Strang brothers.

Period, period.

Documentation found through research for this study was limited on their career. No additional specific properties that they built were identified through research. Therefore, additional research would be required to make a determination of whether they are a builder of merit.

Okay.

Yeah. I think it's okay to say based on what we found, which was very limited, it's hard to make that judgment. I don't think a builder's merit should be written off just based upon one property.

Words to that.

Yes, fair enough. And I would also suggest that these first four findings are important. But if you make the fifth finding, then it's in terms of more of the current integrity and the condition cannot be readily cured, then the preceding findings help make the case, but they're not they don't have to all be negative because you can also just say, that aside, we think the building has to be demolished. And that would be okay too. So I I don't want you to get too hung up on these first four findings. Mhmm. But I hear that you're trying to clarify the record.

Yeah. I would say for number two, research did not identify the property as individually significant to any patterns of history that are important to local, state or national history. As a building or as a property that is part of the Mastic Subdivision, additional research would be required to determine whether that subdivision is significant as a potential historic district. However, this study was scoped just for this property.

Or rather than wordsmith like that, maybe we're just literally removing words or removing sentences that are making these overly broad descriptions. Like the property was developed as part of the Mastic subdivision period. Okay, we all agree on that. No significant events are associated with the property that we uncovered and that's kind of that or is the rest of that really required if all of the determination really comes down to five? That we're saying it doesn't meet the criteria for historical monument and it's become a detriment and the condition is such that it can't readily be cured.

That's the overriding proclamation. So we're not putting things in record that we can't justify or have to so deeply, know, disclaim, you know, we're disclaiming everything like maybe but. Right.

I think where I'm hung up on that is when you're evaluating a property under a criterion one, that property will be associated with something. Whether it's development of a subdivision or maybe it's a one off property, maybe it's civic development depending on the property. Whether or not that is significant and the subject property's role in that pattern, that's what you're really trying to answer. And I feel like as currently written in the DPR, there was a very quick assessment of that, that the individual property is not significant. Okay.

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

got a subdivision name, you know. Mastic is a name around town. Know, there's Mastic seniors that are for a reason. You know, like it's a thing. So again, back to our conversation, if we were, you know, notifying 12, three and four, you know, so that they're not making proclamations that we're not feeling adequately informed to make, Would that get us to a place where we could vote on this today knowing that the basis is really about number five, it's not readily curable.

I think, I

mean Yeah, three and four I'm totally okay with.

So I think I'm hearing then rather than trying to wordsmith some more neutrality in future research, instead just state what you do know and then say nonetheless.

The project

does not meet the criteria Yeah, at the yeah. Well, right. That it's not readily curable.

Yeah. Then on Page three, first paragraph at the top, for example, the majority of the public facing facade has been damaged and the structural deficits cannot be readily cured. Well, I don't know what is, again, back to this, which 30%, which majority that would strike all that and just say has been vacant for more than two years and the structural deficits cannot be readily cured because that's the rub.

And red tagged and bordered up and fenced and but

again to what we're ready to make a statement as what majority like I don't know because we don't even know which 30% is the criteria that would make up now the majority. I think although for at least for me, albeit further resolved, all that is fine in the notice, etcetera, are just more of the boilerplate.

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

Okay. I

thought you were raising your hand. I saw fingers, I was like, Jennifer is saying something.

Can I ask if there are conditions, are those written into here or do we?

Conditions go in the resolution here and in this case the conditions are you need to demolish it within three years and get a design review approval.

Okay.

Can we add a condition that the DPR forms that were submitted will be updated with information based upon comments or that I can provide as far as a permit reference or I I just wanna make sure that that record that's on file is as accurate as possible. And I mean, I know it's already been submitted, maybe subject to the ability to edit it.

Yeah. I think that's I don't know if it's quite the right legal term, but dicta. I mean, I think you're giving us some commentary, but not necessarily in this resolution. Yeah. But kinda like, and by the way, we think you should do this.

Yeah. I guess that's the question mark of what we had up on our screen, which is what we're here to decide or what is within the purview of our authority, which is do they or do they not get the certificate of approval? Is it or is it not on the list? But that follow-up staff action, just like the comments we may make that we wish to go forward to the planning portion of the adventure should that continue, those are just kind of like our comments. So, I don't know that necessarily there's an official way for us to order that based on our authority.

So it's not to say they won't do it. Just don't know And that we can put it

I'm okay if it's this is my suggestion. I'd appreciate if there was some effort to undertake that, consider it. I think it's for the best. I

agree. I think having a clean record that we all believe in is important. So we'll do what we can.

Yeah. And it sort of goes to the point of, well, should we ever be back here again talking about a fire damaged building? We're going to have a lot more clarity on that process. And

Yeah, I feel like

What we wanna see, like we've already elevated the game. Yeah.

I think updated recordation is a step in the right direction. That's an important aspect of figuring out what's the best thing to do. We have a lot of information we didn't have in March. So yeah.

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

Well,

do we have a motion on the resolution? I should say.

I make the motion to approve the certificate for demolition.

Certificate of approval.

Certificate of approval, pardon me.

And as far as the draft resolution, which is I think the mechanism by which we would do that, do you wanna make a motion about any of the language changes or how would we articulate something along the lines of, you know, a motion to approve the draft resolution with the following changes to be made by staff and reviewed for final adoption. Some wording like that. I can't make the motion. I'm not sure how to say that. Yeah.

I think with the modifications that we've discussed.

Yeah. That's fine. Okay. Yeah.

So then I'll make a motion to approve the certificate.

The draft resolution. The draft

resolution with amendments that we discussed earlier for points one through four and then approve for number five. Is that correct? Did I say that right?

Do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye. And the ayes have it?

The ayes have it. The motion carries.

Hopefully more houses in Alameda.

Yeah.

Ford Communications.

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

We do have a new board member. So that's big news. He wasn't able to join us this evening, but I assume will be joining us shortly. So that's exciting. That brings us up to full staffing, I think we're fully board member up. And other than that, I don't know that I have any other board communications, staff communications.

Oh, can I add to that? I think I saw on Facebook that the radio society is having an event this weekend maybe, something called Radio Days, and I just wanted to bring that up. I think they've done a really nice job with that restoration recently. It's always nice to walk past that building and see that facade brought back. So kudos to them.

I do want to ask in light of some of the conversation tonight, if we have something we'd like to have agenda is just as kind of a discussion session like educating us on what the city's definition of historic resources, I think that would be a valuable topic to have, especially with new, relatively new board members. That'd be really valuable.

Yeah and I would echo that Josh. We've actually had that same discussion previously. You might have noticed that sometimes meetings aren't, they're canceled because there are no put upon us agenda items, there is definitely the opportunity since we're all kind of dedicating the same Thursday every month anyway to have some of those conversations. I think we have to balance it with really clear directions as to what we wanna talk about, maybe developing a list of agenda items so it's not just like, well, I don't know what to talk about, so cancel the meeting because there's no COA or something. But I definitely agree and I think there are enough things that we need more refinement around process and decision making and even just basic education that those would be useful.

And I know that's it leans on staff because you guys have to come be here, but please make us come be here with you so we can talk about some of these things. One prime example is the effort to resurvey what is now the historic study list, fix things that are incorrect, find homes that aren't even there, mistakes, let alone reassess the actual quality of those homes. And that's something AAPS I'm sure has some things they could talk to us about.

Yeah, I recall just as a public attendee at a few past meetings that for certain projects there were committees formed and things like that. And I just encourage that maybe for a future meeting we agendized something like an introduction to base reuse and development or some sort of a way to connect with our peers that are working in those areas around the city because there's a lot of territory to cover even though it's geographically not too big. There's all sorts of aspects that are pretty complex for a local board to navigate. Yeah, And one thing I realized this week, I was on Facebook, Little City of Alameda, I think is the Facebook page. And I saw a lot of pictures of the commissary at Alameda Point and it made me think there are places like that that maybe they did not meet National Register criteria, maybe they're not part of the districts, but they could be important community centers.

Some of them could be kind of flying under the radar. And I think as a professional, I've seen a lot of resources that you might say of the more recent past that they haven't had the ability to be evaluated yet. So I'd encourage the community if you want to reach out to me or the board, you have the historic preservation board email. Mean, I I'd be happy to chat with you about what you really value about culture here and things like that. That's a really important part of preservation.

And I think having a robust preservation planning framework is important. And I mean, we're gonna have difficult decisions like the one tonight to navigate through, but there's a lot of opportunity out there too. Mean, think we've got a lot of local public historians, if you will, they can create tours and they're really institutional when it comes to their knowledge of the city. So I encourage you to engage with that over the summer.

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

Yeah, and counsel. So, yeah, we've been intending to bring you an update on the base reuse activities and their different strategies for property disposition and management. And so maybe by September, we'll be able to do that.

Super. That'd be great. Thank you. Other than that, other staff communications?

No, I don't think so.

Should we adjourn? Let's adjourn. We're adjourned. Excellent.

Thanks all for attending. Thank you.