Historical Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

Air Force meeting of the Historical Advisory Board. Let's start with roll call.

Yes, good evening. Board Member Brito.

Present.

Board Member Bevan.

Present.

And Chairperson Hernandez? Present. Okay. We have a quorum. We also have two absences. Board member Kratty is traveling and board member Rebichek has resigned.

Got it. Non agenda public comments. Do we have anyone either in person or online?

Does not appear we have any public comment online.

Anyone in person who wish to make a public comment? Okay. Seeing none, let's move to the minutes. Any comments from the crew on last few minutes? Nope. Do we have a motion to accept said minutes?

I'll move to accept the minutes.

Do have a second?

I'll second.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye. Minutes approved.

Thank you. And now I guess on to the regular agenda items. First up is 1711 Arbor Street, a certificate of approval to allow demolition of an existing two foot residential building. Are there a presentation on this from staff?

Good evening board members. Thank you very much for taking the time this evening. The item before you is a request for a certificate of approval for demolition of the existing residential structure located at 1711 Arbor Street. This is a building identified on the historical building study list with an H designation. The existing 1,341 square foot two story residential building was built prior to 1942.

The applicants have conducted a historic evaluation to determine the integrity and significance of the historic resource. And we have provided to you a staff report and a brief presentation to explain that. So I'm going to dive right in here. Let's see. The subject property is a 50 foot wide irregular interior lot there located at Arbor Street just north of Pacific Ave.

Generally in a residential neighborhood, mostly single family residences. And while it was originally built in 1894, excuse me, it has had only minor modifications since then although it is pretty clear in the historic evaluation that there was some very early alterations to the building that make identifying its sort of original architectural character a little bit more difficult. The building has undergone some recent modifications. So it's currently vacant and not really considered habitable in its current condition. I will add, sorry, this just reminded me here, mistakenly identified the building as not having an identified builder in our staff report.

We did realize that the George C. Gunn book identifies the original builder as Charles A. Mitchell, so just a correction there. So you can see here from the 1979 survey photo as well as a more recent photo taken just over ten years ago that the existing site was a two story residential building. It has sort of architectural characteristics that might be attributed to a couple of different styles making it sort of coherence as a single architectural entity a little bit questionable.

So you'll find that in the 2025 Garavaglia historic evaluation that was provided by the applicant that they speculate that it may even have been the case that both the upper and lower floors were originally independent buildings although they were not able to verify that. It does seem that the upper and lower floors were at the very least constructed during different periods as indicated by, for example, the fasteners used, the type of fasteners used among other sort of identifying characteristics. While you can see here in the historic photo, the sort of characteristic two story front porch was one of the sort of main elements that was present on this building when it was in relatively good shape. The more recent photo shows the large tree in the front which would eventually collapse that front porch. Its current condition, the front porch has been removed entirely and you can see as have the back stairs and a number of other sort of features and finishes that have either fallen off or been removed as part of the sort of cleanup of the site.

So you can see as compared to the last photo, most of the landscaping in the front yard has been removed, the entire front porch as well as a few other features. So that's the current condition as of July. The unique appearance of the structure with regards to the two story front porch and maybe relatively disparate architectural elements was the likely reason for the initial inclusion in the citywide study list. It was included as an H designation in 1979. There was no DPR form filled out for the structure and it is implied that the inclusion on the citywide study list was intended to warrant additional study in the future, not to indicate any eligibility for statewide or federal register.

It's our understanding that the building was neither at the time of its identification for the study list nor currently eligible for inclusion on either the statewide or national registers. In part to do with the lack of sort of architectural cohesion as far as the styles are concerned, but also due to the significant dilapidation of the building over time, most significantly in the last twenty years or so. We did do a bit of a permit history on the work showing that there were actually a number of reroofs done, replacement of the front stairs and porch, and some other sort of minor alterations to the building. However, we have not received in the past few decades any applications to restore or otherwise rehabilitate the building as it's sort of fallen to disrepair. And so the current applicants have worked with the city to find a solution to creating a usable building on this lot.

As things stand, the applicants have provided the historic evaluation to demonstrate that the building is not historically significant and if it was, it would not retain any of that historic integrity due to its condition. And further that any of the original features identified that would have been warranting its inclusion in the historic building study list are described as few damaged or no longer present. And so the evaluation concludes that the sum of the building's components do not yield a significantly unique or distinguishable entity. And so with that, the determination by staff was that it would be suitable to remove the building from the study list and approve a certificate of approval to allow the demolition of this building. Ultimately, the applicants have proposed to do a remodel in addition, significant addition to the structure in order to create two new units, residential units that would be located in a two story structure that does emulate some of the features of the original building, but is not intended to be a restoration of the original building.

So with that, I'd like to sort of provide a little bit more in case you haven't seen them. These are just some photos from the interior from the historic eval. Not that the interior is really what we're considering here today, but just sort of to emphasize the significant repairs needed. Just an indication there of the current proposal, which is outside of the purview of our meeting here today, but is helpful to know that the intent is for the applicant to actually increase the housing density on-site and to produce a building that will for example emulate the features of the two story front porch, will reuse the existing stained glass window among other things. So these are the findings associated with the certificate of approval which I'm sure you're more than familiar with.

But just as a reminder, the findings in order to issue a certificate of approval would be to determine that the structure does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type period, region or method of construction nor representing the work of an important creative individual, to have no events associated with the property that make a significant contribution to the history or cultural heritage of the local or regional history, that it's not associated with purposes, important to local, state, or national history, and that it doesn't yield any information important to prehistory or history. It is staff's belief that those findings can be made and so we have made a recommendation to approve the certificate of approval to allow the demolition of the subject building and are recommending delisting of the subject property to ensure that there's no confusion about the date of the construction that's proposed. So with that, I will open it up to any questions the Board may have. Comments, concerns? Questions?

A quick question. In the study, it says things about mentions like evidence of a sinking foundation, lots of water in the walls. And then looking at the plans, is there intention to when they say demolition, are they taking everything down and starting again? Or how much I of

the existing do we believe the applicant's architect is here. We can speak a little bit more to it But as based on the plans submitted, it did appear that there was a portion of the sort of northeast corner of the site that was intended to remain whereas the majority of the rest of the front facade and western sort of exterior wall of the building would need to be demolished. Now based on the condition of the building just from the photos, I think it's reasonable to assume that it will require reframing, new foundation, new roof. So while the location of those improvements may remain and certainly they will attempt to salvage what they can, I think it's reasonable to assume that many of those original elements will need to be replaced?

And just to clarify, when it got it that initial H designation, then no one bothered to take the next step or they just figured it just wasn't worth it to

So the H designation, as I noted, is intended to say, hey, we need further study here to determine whether or not it's eligible for inclusion in any kind of register. And so that work typically takes place at the time of a property owner looking to do either work to restore and therefore, you know, either make sure that it is eligible for inclusion in some register or because there is some intent to demolish, right? And therefore we need to demonstrate that that sort of need for additional evaluation has been met. And so those are usually sort of the two typical impetuses for why we might see that evaluation done and this was the demolition was what came across us, our desks first. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. I have a couple questions and the first one I wanted to circle back to something I mentioned that I believe it may have been last meeting. And given that there was some property damage here, I looked at the municipal code again regarding interim stabilization plans. And it does note that buildings on the historical building study list that are, quote, damaged by fire, earthquake, flood or other act of God require this to prevent further deterioration of the structure. And I'm just curious if we can clarify whether or not this building due to the tree damage would if that would be triggered as an act of God or if that's more of an issue of lack of property maintenance, for example.

Yeah. I would tend to think the latter. I think the expectation is that typically there's sort of a major event, natural disaster of some kind that triggers us sort of prompting a property owner to work on something like that. Oftentimes they would happen as a function of a property owner coming to us to do a repair because of an act of God, right? And so that's sort of what triggers this.

They say, well, you know, we need a fire report because there was a significant fire. Okay, well then let's do a damage assessment and sort of catalog that so as to sort of freeze that moment of time. That way they can't say, oh well, you know, the whole building is fire damage. Well we know that the fire actually only took place in this portion sort of a thing. So while I don't think in the past something like a tree fall or a limb falling on the home would have warranted that, I can see how that might fall under the provisions in that code. And so we may want to take a closer look at that. But I think our past practice has been that sort of a limb falling on a tree doesn't quite trigger that.

Yeah, okay. Yeah, more of just a clarifying question.

Yeah, it's a great question. I want to look into it myself.

Yeah, yeah. Thank you. And I do realize that there were some past code violations. And I wasn't sure if interfacing with the chief building official would ever involve interacting with HAB sort of as almost like a study session type thing. Like, hey, here's the situation. What do we do about this?

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

Okay. Alright. Thank you. That's my question about the stabilization plans. Alright. So on to the evaluation. I have a few concerns that I would like to kinda work through about the methodology. And I believe the memo states regarding the h status. Because the building's current status, h, is tied to its architectural significance and not importance of related persons or events. Only the criteria related to architecture and design have been evaluated here as per the instructions from the City of Alameda Planning Department.

So that piqued my curiosity for a few reasons. One is that when I was reviewing the document cities, sorry, have the title here, Architectural and Historical Resources of the City of Alameda, is provided on the city's historic preservation webpage. And that document compiles all the information from this nineteen seventy eight, seventy nine survey. It states that for H, a resource may have historical importance, and I believe historical's italicized, because of its apparent age or location or may have architectural importance because of its similarity to other buildings done by important architects and or builders, historic research should proceed further evaluation of this resource. And when I look at the definition of historical resource in that document, it states that historical significance comes from an association with the lives of persons or important events which have made significant contribution to the community, state, or nation or from an association with broad patterns of cultural, social, political, economic, or industrial history, the whole book, the urban development of Alameda.

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

Right. So sorry to answer your initial question, I think it requires a bit of a careful reading. There is a distinction between what they refer to under H as historical, historical in italics because that is what H stands for, importance and historical significance, which are distinct. I think we need to look at the historical importance because of its apparent age or location, architectural importance or similarity other buildings done by important architects or builders refers solely to the architectural qualities of the building and not to its, for example, consideration for importance and other historical events. So the reason why it was included in the study list in the first place was purely architectural, and in my opinion, probably just for the sake of the novelty of the building, not necessarily because it imported a particular architectural period or style or something characteristic of a particular important builder.

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

Okay. So in practice, current practice, when I'm looking at properties that have been recorded in varying degrees in the past, there's a few definitions that I consider. One is a reconnaissance level survey. So that might equate to in current practice just having a primary record DPR form that says here's the property, maybe you know the year built and you give a description, but there's no evaluation done. And then there's an intensive level survey where you actually go into the process of doing research and performing an evaluation, be it for local, state, or national register.

So in this case, we have an age status assigned back in 1979, and we have a picture. There's no DPR form. So my interpretation of that from a historic preservation professional's perspective is that this property has never been studied intensively. And even if we look at local evaluation criteria separate from California Register and National Register. Under CEQA, if a resource or if a property qualifies for Cal Register, it's a historical resource under CEQA.

And the point I'm trying to get to is if we only evaluate architectural significance or the potential for it with this evaluation, we leave out criterion two of the California Register which is relating to persons. That is also in alignment with criterion B of the National Register. And then we also leave out criterion one which is what relates to historical events, be they singular or be they patterns of development. And that criterion's analogous with criterion A of the National Register. So I feel like when I navigate through this evaluation, it leaves me feeling uncomfortable about being able to make an objective and defensible decision about whether or not there's an impact to a historical resource because we haven't completed the California Register criteria.

We've only looked at architecture. And I honestly think that's quite flawed and it would set a fairly dangerous precedent in terms of the potential to protect buildings that maybe they haven't been evaluated yet, but they do have the potential to be historical resources. I would also like to note, thank you for including the information about the original builder from the late George Gunn's book. This book is entitled Documentation of Victorian and Post Victorian Residential and Commercial Buildings, City Of Alameda, 1854 to 1904. This particular property is actually listed, I think it's on page nine of this book with a year built of 1889.

It does list Charles Mitchell as the original owner, also as the attributed builder. And obviously, in the current evaluation, that information is not provided because apparently this book, it was not reviewed. And I will acknowledge that there's a lot of sources of information here in Alameda, whether they're physical repositories or electronic. But I do think that that information should be incorporated into this evaluation. And I also feel like the documentation presented here, it does say this building is not a high style Queen Anne.

It's not a high style Italianate building, but it has a little bit of those elements infused. And from my perspective, it would be worth looking into or at least explaining that the apparent original owner was a carpenter. And buildings like these, from the examples I've seen in professional practice, they're really examples of vernacular architecture that are communicating, you know, regionally common construction, but also the application of skills and preferences that this particular builder was able to apply to their house. And I think this is a good example whether or not it ends up being significant but we have to consider the contributions of builders, carpenters, not just professional architects to the built environment because they do contribute to the global built environment of the places we live. There's also opportunities with these kinds of vernacular buildings.

You know, you never know who lived here and what contributions to history they made until you research it. So I highly encourage that this evaluation be revisited, amended, And at that point, there is significance, sure, we can consider integrity. If there's no significance, integrity is not really an issue because integrity considers all their retained character defining features and whether or not there's enough left to say, yeah, this thing still communicates its significance. Let's see. Yeah, I will leave it at that.

I have some other comments or feedback, but I think it may be more productive to communicate that to staff or the Board Secretary via email as far as things like minor edits. But I appreciate you

taking my feedback. Thank you. May I ask if it is the case that the findings regarding the architectural significance have determined that there is no historic significance and that if there was, it is unable to convey it because of loss of integrity. Is there anything that could be identified under criterion one or two that would still be able to be conveyed in its current state?

Good question. That really depends upon what information and analysis is done regarding how this building contextually relates to historical development. So hypothetically, this building was built as part of, I don't know, a small enclave of some cultural community, something like that. Or maybe this is the last example of this builder's work. Or maybe it was, I don't know, particularly early or a rare type.

Sometimes those situations will qualify a building. Sometimes there's a historical event that could occur at a property, a singular event like on this date X happened, it had this impact on city history or what have you. The other factor is when it comes to criterion Btwo of the national and California registers, when we're looking at the contributions of people, that really ties into their productive lives. So did they contribute something during their career that is potentially embodied by a building? So in this case, if we're able to present, hey, we looked at census data, here's who was here between 1900 and 1950.

Cause decade by decade, we had that information available. We looked at city directories and these individuals are here for a relatively long amount of time. Here's what they did. If that turns out to be significant and this building is the best representation of their contribution to history, then it could qualify. If it doesn't, that's okay.

We've done the research and we presented really defensible findings that we can say, okay, these are the individuals who occupied this building and it's not significant. I see. When it comes to the integrity argument, you know, there are seven aspects, right? Location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, association. So when we're looking at the architectural criteria, the design materials and workmanship are pretty important.

Those are the ones that we might focus on the most. When it comes to criterion A or criterion B, we're really honing in on what features were present when that significant person was there or during that period of significance. So, you know, maybe there's a fair argument here about the integrity is lost, but we can't truly evaluate integrity until we understand significance or lack thereof. And that's based upon National Park Service guidance, which is actually mentioned in the memo. It's an interesting document to me that, you know, it communicates a methodology that was asked for, but then it also presents other information that kind of conflicts with that.

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

Thank you. Just to understand though, those are criterion under inclusion for a statewide historic register. So to make the findings necessary for the certificate of approval here tonight, one would just need to make the findings regarding, you know, in our code whether or not the structure has distinctive characteristics. And so I would like to distinguish sort of the decision being made here tonight from a decision of whether or not it's eligible for inclusion under these other criterion. It seems to me that the information presented is sufficient to make such a determination under our local ordinance. So I just wanted to kind of distinguish that based on the framework that you had provided.

Well, disagree then because there's been no research conducted apparently at any point on this property's association to any persons or any historical events. The evaluation, it doesn't even mention anything about the development of the city or even the, you know, vicinity where this building exists. So I I don't feel like we have enough information to go beyond

the first one. So so to be clear, you do not have to make all four findings. You would just need to make a finding that the building does not retain sufficient integrity to communicate those historic significances, just to clarify.

Right. But we cannot assess integrity until we understand what the property is or is not significant for. That's the point I'm trying to make. I am not comfortable making any decision based upon the information presented. This evaluation is actually not that much different than the one we had last time for 802 Buena Vista where we needed an updated evaluation.

And that was a was a property where there was apparent architectural significance. This one, all it says is do additional research from 1979. So I think that if I were to see that as you know, if I was hired to do this, I'd say we really have to look at past occupancy and do a little research, put this within the context of the development of the city. And I just think that it's a current professional standard and I think we deserve to have robust documentation to make these important decisions.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I think we should probably make sure that we also have public comment before we deliberate. So I think I'd recommend that questions of staff are great. I think any further sort of deliberation should wait.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks for the comment. Thank you. Given that, are there any public comments either online or in person?

There are none online.

I believe you can fill out we just need your name, right, for the record?

We would we would typically ask for a speaker card, but you can fill that out after you speak if you'd like to up to the microphone.

So you could

be We need to step up and voice is loud.

Yes, please. We need to

There's an online version of the meeting, so that way if anybody's watching on line, they can also hear and and see you for the for the record. Thank you. If you could just introduce yourself so we

Oh. Yeah.

My name is Danai Lam. I have lived in the house directly behind. I'm in the property on Pacific Avenue on the other side of the fence. It's a Joseph Leonard property. And it was built in the same year that 1711 was built, which was 1889.

And I think in 1894, somebody went to the property records office and just wrote it down as 1894, a whole lot of properties. And it doesn't reflect the true year of the properties being built because our house shows up as 1894 all the time, and it's not. But I don't know about the builder having built his house. I do know from gossip that that's the only style of house in that particular design. Gossipal also has it that there's one somewhere in over the hills somewhere east, but that's all I've heard.

And the family who lived in that house, the woman who died, her family occupied that house for most of the twentieth century because Arbor Street was one of the center of Portuguese was a Portuguese neighborhood for a lot of the early and, well, twentieth century. And her family was, through many generations, part of that, as well as a house across the street, which got rebuilt in its Victorian style, rebuilt. But there's going to be one family that shows up in the twentieth century with that house, mostly. And the family who came into my house, builders am I off now?

It's We can extend your time another The

family who built my house, they were in my house for they were actually a well known family. But they were in my house for the shortest amount of time, and then another big family lived in my house for most of the twentieth century until I came along. But the original family were well known painters, a painting family. And one of the sons is responsible for the the, he he had an art glass atelier and did the palace hotel ceiling and. But he didn't live there.

That was just another brother who did. In any case, so my house and the house in question, 1711, pretty much went up at the same time. Although I don't know Mitchell so much as I know my own property. And then I know Delinda's family. And that's sort of legend legendary.

But the house is rotten to the core. It's just it's got history, but it's just rotten. So I'm afraid I'm in favor of tearing it down, even though it's got some historical significance as far as I'm concerned, even with Alameda, with the Portuguese community. So that's what I had to say.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time and your comments. Are there any other public comments?

No. To respond?

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

I just want to say thank you for providing your comments. And to me, the whole point of going through this exercise of doing the research is you can find patterns where certain communities had certain residents, certain types of workers. That's the value in doing this. It doesn't mean that we can't move on and let development happen, but we will have a record of that knowledge that will hopefully be applied to broader planning efforts whenever we get around to that. Without doing that, we're just writing off buildings. Thank you.

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

Yes. Many trees have fallen in Alameda due to these windstorms. Well, thank you. So no other public comments either online or in person? Okay, great. So maybe we can formally move to discussion. Are there any comments or questions?

Do we feel like this is something we want to request a continuance on or do we need to talk about this more?

Yeah. I mean, I guess I would I just wanna express a couple of thoughts that came up for staff and for my fellow board members. I too had some question marks when looking through the memorandum. The fact that it was noted that there was no builder, I immediately reached for my copy which sits on my desk and was like, wait a minute, it's somebody. Not that I had time to flip through the whole book and see if that builder, carpenter has been mentioned on any other page or even, you know, had resources at my disposal to figure out, well, who was this person and, you know, is there other work?

So that aside, I I think my main concern, and it it echoes from a previous review we did on Buena Vista, is it's more about process and completeness of materials so that, you know, we're looking at things and having good confidence to start with rather than needing to like, oh, whoops, the company hired to do the analysis totally missed that there was a builder. So therefore we have no research on that. And I think that's a valid point. So we're missing an element. And it's as much for the record as in our research then gets memorialized and can be of service to future generations.

And we're like in previous meetings saying like, oh there was no significance. Well it's like, we don't know that. Or there was no builder. Well actually there was. So you know, we want to leave accurate records as well.

Not that that again needs to hold back progress, but it's more about can we as a decision making body have, you know, good just administrative practice. And that may be just some of the variations of individual owners hiring different entities to do these kinds of memorandums or research versus what the city guidance is as to what is the scope of the research. Obviously in this case the scope was narrowed to only the specific things that you asked them to do which is I'm assuming true based on the memorandum. So yeah, I too just had some question marks about this and whether or not this builder, this, you know, maybe owner, builder, carpenter was a significant person, you know, we can't say. So obviously that leads into question some of what's in the memo, obviously leads into question some of what's even in our draft resolution would need some modification in my mind.

And I'll say when it comes down to looking at potentially significant people, we do have an identified original owner who was a carpenter. Typically building professionals, design professionals, their professional contributions would be evaluated under the architectural criteria. The other criteria related to significant persons would be reserved for people who don't have occupations in those fields. Like for example, I believe it was the Mirandas who their name appears on a couple building permits. So those would be individuals that would, their lives would be explored a little bit and evaluated to see if they meet significant persons criteria.

I don't know, other thoughts?

I realized we didn't really talk about the plans much, but I think that staff have communicated good guidance when it comes to designing a new building that would be compatible with the general aspects of architecture of a neighborhood without attempting to mimic historic features too much because ultimately that lets the building built in 2025 or 2026 communicate construction from that period versus having to, you know, kind of defer its ability to be of its own time to an outgoing building. So but I do think it's important, you know, if you can incorporate some of the materials, the fabric, that's feasible, that's great. That helps support sustainability.

Let's see. I guess Just

one question for you, Josh. The additional research happens and we find out that this Charles A. Mitchell was a builder of a few properties in Alameda. Given the condition that the survey found, the physical condition, finding out that he was of some significance, in your mind, what would then be the next step in terms of a certificate for this property or no certificate or kind of what would be in your mind the best next step?

Yeah. Well, you would update the architectural evaluation to say, here's the identified builder. These are the other examples of his work that we found.

And

an important part of that process is comparing examples of a construction professional's career, their body of work to say, okay, which ones of these are the most important? Or maybe you find examples of other buildings this person designed, but they're no longer around. So this could be maybe the last example, hypothetically. But I will say one of the classic examples is in National Park Service Bulletin 15, it goes through the evaluation of or definition of what or a master of their trade is. And basically it's someone of generally recognized greatness.

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

Right.

Right. I think that's the hard argument, but we'll see. Pretty significant. But in any case, going through that process and there's a bit of comparison and then you can present those findings. Hypothetically, if if the property is significant, then you go through the process of the integrity analysis. And you can say, okay, what were the apparent features here that were around when Mitchell designed or built this building? Is there enough left?

Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking. Would it be like because we find out that he is he was of some significance and then does that then inform the architect's plans, well, maybe we need to bring you guys can still develop it, but then you're almost kind of then we're almost recreating like, well, he probably did this just because so much of that is not present anymore.

Well, there could be, typically when you have a significance finding, you develop a list of character defining features. There actually was one included in here. You know, sometimes consultants will include them because there is character there. But in terms of significance, you include that list of character defining features. And then if it's feasible or desired to incorporate those, you can try to design a project that is typically secretary of the interiors compliant.

Projects that are are they typically mitigate impacts to historical resources to a less than significant level. If you don't wanna do that, then you have a significant property that has integrity too, then there would be a next step involving some sort of means of trying to mitigate that. But that really depends on this interstitial step that I'm kind of harping on because that's what we wanna get to is conclusion.

Okay, thanks. So

as I'm looking at the resolution, we don't know what we don't know about the builder. And in the resolution number one, as part of what we're resolving would be that there isn't the builders are unknown, but that's not true. The builders are known. Number three is also saying it's not associated with anybody of important local, state, or national history. Well, we don't know that because we don't know anything about the builder who we know his name, but so three isn't true either.

We do know when it was developed, but we can say currently, at least based on its physical appearance, there's not much left. I feel, you know, more comfortable with that, but I'm not being able to reference anything that I don't know. So on the face of it alone, if we're ignoring one, we're ignoring three in our resolution, is that still enough evidence? Is that the question, I guess, at hand? Do we still have enough there where we can say, will resolve to remove it from the list and grant a certificate of approval?

Or

is it better? I mean, better is the wrong word, but should we, would we all feel more comfortable or should we direct staff or the owners to revise the memorandum to include some information? And they may come back and say, yeah, we looked him up and he's nobody. This was the one and only building ever built and other than his name and, you know, maybe whatever they can dig up, there's nothing of significance. So I guess that's the, you know, that's the question. Right?

If if I may again. I think you're onto something there. I mean, I think the reason this report was prepared the way that it was is given the condition and following up on Tristan's comment, I think that in terms of its ability to convey the fact of who built it, it's still very compromised. I mean, obviously, we wanna have accurate records. And I think we can, as we did last time, update a memo or update a record.

You can also obviously, you're free to edit this resolution to your liking. So if you want to, you know, strike some sentences or add something about what you do know, you know, that's your prerogative right now on the on the dais. We encourage that you make the findings that you believe. And And then in terms of, you know, I think you and the commenter have agreed that, you know, there really isn't much left that could be preserved. So it's kind of a question of, as you were saying, this certificate of approval is for the demolition.

You could say leave it on the list. Further research is needed. But this building, you know, isn't really conveying much of anything. Now you might disagree. Maybe this report and the photographs and the maps do record it sufficiently or maybe they don't. But I just wanted to encourage you to think that, you know, there is a there is a path to an action if you so choose. And I'm not telling you you should or shouldn't do one thing or another.

Yeah. I guess that kind of touched on the concern or question that I had is if we grant this certificate for demolition and then it's like, okay, we're done with this property, but that's not the case. We can still gather information.

You could ask that a DPR form be filed and that it be thoroughly completed according to the professional standards and tell us what you've well, you've told us what you think needs to go in it so we can do that. Okay.

May I ask a clarifying question? So my understanding is when a building of this age is demolished or proposed for demolition, Every other municipality I've worked in has required a California register evaluation to determine if it qualifies for that inventory. And I'm curious, it seems like that's not required here, but I'm not, what I'm having a hard time with is how do we get to that evaluation or determination of is this a historical resource? Because when I think of what might qualify a property as a historical resource, I've seen things like it was included on a formally adopted survey. It has a certain status code or it's been found eligible for the California register or national register that results in automatic listing.

But in this case, those those evaluations haven't been done or we haven't been presented with anything besides a status code that says do the research. So, I mean, that's really to me, it's the heart of the matter here is when we're navigating this study list, I'm gonna feel confident that we're going through the steps and checking off all the boxes versus only looking at a local designation. So, you know, that it just doesn't sit right with me. So

Yeah. I I hear you. I think it goes back to the the original scope of the study list. And it was simply a windshield survey kind of to start with and then some more research and and local knowledge and and documentation. But it was really about primarily, I think, the architecture.

Mhmm. And, you know, is it an interesting looking building? So that is kind of all we have to go on that even tells us to do the research. And so in a sense, it's like telling us to do more research. We think mostly, as Tristan said, about what it looks like and is that still interesting. Here we are, you know, fifty years later almost.

Mhmm.

And so yeah. I think you're right, though. I mean, in the meantime, the other criteria have maybe emerged as as also important for decision making. And it's in it's in the criteria and it's in sequel and everything. But the study list, I I think, was mostly about the building itself.

And so this report was really kind of looking at, well, given the condition of this building, and if it was only interesting from the street, it's no longer interesting from the street. You know, the porch is gone. The the it's all deteriorated, you know, and and things like that. I think that was really how this analysis came about.

Okay. If this building was not on the study list but was still at least 50 years old, how would the process differ if the same project was proposed?

Right. So demolition of any pre 1942 buildings still comes to you. Okay. And so we still have to go through the same process.

Yeah.

Yeah. So it's it's kinda like that study list is helpful, but it's not defining in any way of of what comes to you for demolition. It's it's also interesting for alterations, additions, and, you know, other things. But it really only comes to you for demolition. Yeah.

Okay. Because I I'll say the the troublesome thing for me just thinking this through is, say, for example, if I go to San Francisco or Palo Alto or wherever to do an evaluation of of any property, is, again, at least 50, sometimes even forty five years. That's what the Office of Historic Preservation recommends as the starting point because you might have a project that takes five years, and by that time, it's fifty. Right? In those cases, we're looking at local criteria, there is any, or we're going straight to California Register and National to determine if there is an ability to qualify there.

And when I look at the study list, there were, in 1979, were 10,000 buildings in the city per that report I mentioned earlier. I think there were 72 buildings that were identified as potential monuments. And then there were, I could be getting that number wrong. In any case, it was a low percentage. I believe it was less than 1%.

And then there were all these study list properties where somebody went around the street and said, okay, this is among a hierarchy of buildings in our city that either is clearly potentially meritorious or it at least merits this additional study. And to me that's kind of like, okay, here's your first batch of things when you see this come across the dias you know, this is part of a survey that said, here's your potential historic resource. So and that's really how best practice is working right now is if you've got properties that were surveyed back

in

the seventies or the eighties, we're looking at California register criteria, and then we're we're just going through that evaluation. And that that leads to a finding of significance or not, and then you kinda go from there. So, yeah. That's it's interesting to me. I I feel like that puts historians in a very difficult position when it comes to being able to apply the skill set they have to the evaluation.

And I yeah. I'm not sure if that actually serves us all that well. So thank you for answering my questions.

So in looking at the I mean, again, my comment is about process. You know, I think we need to think about our process more when it comes to these kinds of cases. I think this highlights the problem of having a very outdated historic study list with dubious buildings still on the list for whatever reason or buildings that were maybe should have never been put on a list or we need to revisit that I think is a high priority of getting our list updated. My personal take on this is let's do that work. I personally don't want to, you know, stop the ball rolling on getting a new project underway so more houses can be built in Alameda.

I am uncomfortable with some of the things in the resolution. So personally, I would strike two, three and four and revise one because those are things we really have been presented no evidence on. We don't know because no research has been done about historical, cultural or regional events associated with the property, with the builder. We don't have any evidence of that information. Therefore I'm not comfortable resolving those things.

We can say yes, it has some of these elements that were identified in the memorandum because that was the scope of the memorandum. We could also say it was never designated a historical monument. Is this resolution with just one in five as our certificate of approval findings, is that enough from a staff point of view to grant the approval? I guess that's a question.

I would I would say no. I think you need to make all the findings. Okay. Yeah.

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

I mean, I guess the flip side of that is you could say there is no evidence. And so there is no evidence of a significant contribution or person or, you know.

But there is no evidence because no research was done is different than there really is no evidence.

I understand.

So, you know, there's not even something that says staff did research. Well, what research did staff do? You know, the book in the library says who the builder is. So that would be my, you know, personal position, but I'm happy to be swayed by my colleagues.

I agree. I think there's a difference between no evidence and no effort. And I think what we're asking for is just effort that is consistent with current practice. I would suggest we do whatever process that looks like. We request the additional work to be put in and then we come back and say, okay, now we can we can definitively, confidently Make these findings.

Yeah, yeah.

And Stephen, you're saying we need to be responding to all five of these points.

In some form.

In some form.

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

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

I think we have to adopt

it in a meeting publicly, but

Yes. I I think we'll draft you another version and then try to reflect what you've been discussing and then you can edit it further at the next meeting.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

So this is, I guess, tabled.

Would you like to continue it to a date certain? You'll be meeting again next month?

If staff can have that in time, is that a

I would prefer that so that we don't have to re notice and Yeah. Go through all that rigmarole and just, you know, people who are interested will will know to come

Okay.

When you know, at the next meeting.

Okay.

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

October What will that be? First Thursday. The second? Yeah. October 2.

Yes. October 2.

Okay. So if you could make that motion.

I'd like to make a motion to continue this item to the next historic advisory board meeting on October 2.

Second. All in favor. Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Item 4B, 1325 Park Street, another certificate of approval. I'm assuming another presentation.

Good evening Chair Hernandez and members of the board. Brian Maguire, project planner here to present 1325 Park Street, a request for certificate of approval for some storefront modifications to a contributing building to the Park Street Commercial Historic District. The scope of the work is primarily tenant improvements on the interior to convert the old Danish furniture store to a new location for the Monkey King restaurant and bar, which is a couple doors down now. So big, expensive, complicated tenant improvement to add modern kitchen facilities and building code requirements. And so among those improvements that affect the exterior of the building that are relevant for our discussion tonight are they're proposing new storefront windows, which would be operable, and sliding windows, as well as a new emergency exit door on the left side of the facade to meet current building code requirements.

There's no back of house. There's no back door here, so the only way out is through the front of the property. So we need that second exit. So the recommendation tonight is that you make the required findings and seek a determination and approve the certificate of approval with conditions. Maybe I'll just dwell on the picture here for a while.

You can see the building is located next to the old Masonic building at the corner of Park Street and Alameda Ave. It was built as originally as a two story building. Just yeah. I'll come back to this picture maybe, but it's it will be useful. It was originally built as a two story building by George Dodge, a architect draftsperson for the Joseph A.

Leonard Company, pretty prolific builder in the city. Built in 1891, 1892, designed to sort of match the Masonic building next door, originally two stories with arched windows. The interesting thing is we go back to this picture, the building was built without its own north wall, so that right side wall there is actually a Masonic building. So it was just framed right into the building, which I found pretty interesting. And then you can kind of see here, there was sort of a triple set of windows in the middle and then arched windows on the sides on the second Story, they've all been bricked in.

You can see three of the five four of the five windows in this image. So we're asking the HAB for a certificate of approval because per the AMC repairs and alterations of historical monuments, this being a contributing building to the historic district. If they are consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation are the findings you need to make for the certificate of approval. There is a concurrent design review and use permit application for the changes and for the new use and some extended hours. Those are under a separate process but it's all one application.

So the HABS role here is with the certificate of approval. Obviously, you have, you know, the design reviews closely related and if you have feedback and input on that, but those will be handled either via the zoning administrator or the planning board. Again, we went through the history already here. It does have a state DPR form with some good information thanks to our well known Woody Miner who captured a lot of the history here. Just to the staff report goes into this in more detail but just briefly touch the this image didn't render super well on the big screen, but Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation in this case focus on things like there's minimal change, you're retaining the character, we're not having any faux historicism or conjectural features, you're preserving any changes that happened to the building that have acquired significance since the original construction, preserving features and finishes that are distinctive.

You're repairing and matching original features when you do need to if you can, you repair and if you have to fix anything, you're matching the original features. You're treating those features gently when you need to work on them. Obviously, following any archaeological resource requirements that wouldn't typically apply for a project like this and that any alterations differentiate but do not destroy the historic fabric and that any additions or alterations are reversible. So, you know, big picture here coming back to the first image, you know, basically as much of the tenor improvements preserve as much of the historic fabric and the facade as feasible, trying to touch the not touch the brick facade, those clear story windows, the other, you know, historic details that you see. And it really is just is going to have to cut into the bulkhead on the left hand side here for that new recessed egress and then obviously replacing the storefront windows but otherwise keeping the rest of the features and replacing the awning.

So, let's come back up here. We are asking you to make CEQA findings on the project that it is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA based on two different categorical exemptions. And our recommendation is to hold a public hearing, approve certificate approval to allow improvements to the existing commercial storefront at 1325 Park Street with conditions that are there are conditions in this proposed in the draft resolution and obviously open to hearing any other input and, you know, up to you if you have further sort of direction or or suggestions on the design review application. With that, I'm available to answer any questions.

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

Thank you for your presentation. Let's see. I was just curious if because this building is a contributor to a National Register District, if any consideration of California Historical Building Code looked into or kind of, what do you call it, reviewed by the building official for egress?

Yeah. I don't think we have the benefit of the project, the designer here tonight. I think applicant did originally apply for building permits last fall before realizing that there was some more process that was going to be required. And so any of those discussions, I believe, would have happened. But we have been trying to connect with just to double check on some of that.

But my understanding is that they did sort of go through these discussions with plan checkers when they first submitted for the building permits. And the, you know, they were quoting these codes back to them. So, I know the architect is the designer was working with the building plan check planners and this is the requirement that they provided.

Okay. All right. Let's see. I was just doing a little bit of background research on the building and I also did a site visit last week actually. And my understanding is that in, I guess around 1997, this building was at that time still occupied by Danish interiors.

And the owners had, through some subsidy for restoration or renovation, they had kind of brought back some features that were behind wood paneling on the the storefront. So the transom windows, which were also repaired, as well as the blue tiles, which they kind of are the star of the show in in terms of the the staff report here. I was curious if there's any indication that work was done in accordance to the Secretary of the Interior Standards or if it was I. E. True rehabilitation or if that was more of a of like a very well intended effort to bring back as much as possible.

Yeah. I I didn't see any any indications that I mean, it sounds like it was, you know, our maybe a predecessor to our current facade grant program that assisted the tenant. I know around the same time we were looking into the permit history, there was around think they started to apply, but then finally finished the work in around 1999 for the seismic retrofit around the same time. But I didn't come across any evidence of approval like this where it would have gone through any review But for those it doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't. Our records can be a little spotty from back then.

Yeah. I only bring that up because I think there's a couple factors at play here. One is that this building, it's a national registered district contributor. So it's important to think about the period of significance of that district. In this case, it's pretty broad, 1880 up to 1946.

And typically, the way we'll look at these kind of projects is what you're replacing, can you really date that to that purity of significance? And is what you're keeping, is that enough? And I guess I'm not sure if what is there now, although it does appear to be a fairly faithful kind of early twentieth century storefront, I'm not sure if it's actually historic. The tiles are typically 1920s, 1930s, and then the metal framing, the sash bars that hold this glass in place, they have some detailing like corner miters that help join the glass together and they're screwed down. Very similar to some examples that the city of San Francisco includes in its commercial storefront historic context statement.

So it's hard to say, yeah, this is from the period of significance. I just wanted to bring that up because I do think for these cases where district contributors are potentially gonna be altered, it is very helpful to have some building permit and construction history made available. And it is good to, you know, if it's something the project applicant can afford or, you know, feasibly to consider engaging either a building conservator or a historic architect to really take a close look. Yeah. With that said, I don't think I have any other questions.

I will say, although there is going to be removal of this storefront, I think one of the benefits of this building is that it actually appears to have operable transom windows up top. So I just wanted to highlight that. I hope that as part of the project activating those and making sure that that kind of ventilation feature can function and help serve a restaurant use.

Other questions right there? No. I just had one. I think I heard you say it, but it wasn't clear from the plans. They're going to revitalize the canvas canopy over the the front facade?

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

Okay. Great. I personally value that canopy when it's raining and walking down that section

of Anyway, Park

thanks for that clarification. Pending no other questions, do we have any public comments either online or in person?

There do not appear to be any.

Okay, great. Discussion?

I thought and I'm assuming it's the making the windows operable and it's in the plans that said sliding. I'm assuming it's like the windows at not Bowser's Marley Gee's, similar where those those windows slide open so it kind of opens the restaurant to to the to the street a bit.

My pizza tastes are a little more low brow so I don't can't quite place the Marley Juice windows off the top of my head. Yeah, they would I think they're like three or four feet wide sliding panels. Okay.

I think that's a really nice detail.

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

Oh, right,

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

They have side exit out onto Alameda Ave but they do have two Two they sort of front combine two suites. If you know anything about the applicant's business, Monkey King, if you're out there on a Friday or Saturday night, a there's lot of people in there, so you can imagine why. Whether it's the clear store, the transom windows or the new storefront windows, the ability to open those out and let some of that energy and heat out is probably pretty desirable.

Got it. Other discussion? Yeah, I mean I would say personally then, again thank you for the presentation, everything I've seen. It seems thorough and I agree with the basic tenants of the resolution and the findings. I personally have no qualms supporting it as written.

Just looking through real quick here. My memory. Yeah. I think if if this building happened to be individually significant, it it may realistically require a deeper dive to really hone in on exactly when these storefront features date too because they the storefronts are significant when it comes to identifying types of commercial uses over time. And for example, the the awning here is probably something that served the Alameda Market back when it was put in this building in 1924.

But in any case, I I think looking at the the potential alterations here and their impact on the overall district, which is I believe is about three blocks long. I think in this case, the level of retention of other features

is

good. One thing I would suggest is as part of the conditions of approval, since we have an existing DPR form for this property from 1990, which I believe tied into it seismic retrofit or at least documenting before that happened. I would suggest doing a minor DPR form update that just captures these existing conditions with anywhere from five to 10 photographs that are of good quality. Just a simple statement that says this building is being recorded ahead of this project to replace a storefront. And I think that gives us the ability to capture this moment in time just in case a tenant in the future may wish to kind of go through that process and consider

Falling back? Yeah.

And that to me helps support the reversibility, which under standard 10 is basically the key factor there, is this reversible. And I think it's reversible. So

Good feedback. Any motions?

So we are making the motion to

be to allow for the Adopt the resolution as presented by staff.

Let me pull it up here. That was there's five points on there, correct? Yeah, exhibit four.

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

Okay. So I'll make the motion that we approve the certificate of approval for these these changes to the to the building at

And adopt the

And adopt the the resolution as presented by the the city.

Did you want to include the proposed additional condition about the minor update to the DPR form as

Would that be part of the resolution or just advice to staff?

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

The further documentation. The standards.

Yeah.

And so then yeah. And then to add an addendum that the prior to any of this work, they do a full documentation photo documentation of the building as it currently stands prior to any of the work.

And a revision to the DPR be filed, minor revision?

Yes. Okay.

Okay.

That's efficient. All in favor?

Yep. Oh, wait.

Oh, have I a

second that. You. Aye. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you. Thank you. Item

4C, discussion item on further training items for the board and secretary.

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

And so now I've just sort of written that down and shared it here. So I'm happy to hear any clarifying points or questions or suggestions. I mean fundamentally I would find it useful as well I think to understand a little bit more of where you're coming from. I'm definitely picking up some of that vibe from these meetings. But, you know, we the just the the study list.

Where did it come from? What's it for? How is it used? How does that interact with Sequa and our Sequa review processes? And how does it relate to design review?

And, you know, those sorts of what of of topics or or what in your memo. I guess I would also clarify, we're a small department and so we don't have a lot of staff capacity to throw at this. So, you know, I'm happy to sort of host the and and provide information to you for your digestion. But is there is sort of a limited capacity to generate new information or do new studies without some other resources being brought to bear. I know the study list update was suggested by the Alameda Preservation Society, but that also seems like it's sort of languishing a little bit and that's okay.

But it is an example of kind of volunteer efforts also take a lot of organizing. And so we're not really in a position to kind of push that ourselves.

Force their hand. Yeah, exactly. To volunteer to do Yes. That Yeah. Well, thank you for putting on the agenda.

First, I would say I appreciate the limited or the constraints that we're all under as far as time and attention and you know that doesn't escape me at all. That being said I think there may be things that already exist that it would be helpful to have available to us just as you know, I think about what's even on the HAB website. You know, the things that are there, things like George Gunn's book, which I just, you know, personally have copy of. There's other resources that if you start searching around on Google, you'll find in, what's the sorry. I have to pull up the PDF.

This is the Old City Of Alameda historic preservation element document. You know, this one? Mhmm. There's a lot of good stuff there. But some of it I think is just a matter of getting it organized for us that hey, these things exist whether you knew they existed or not so that we can reference them and if there's ways in which we can use even brief moments of existing meetings to just kind of guide us through like, hey, by the way, you know, take a minute and read this if you didn't know it was there.

Those are the kind of things that I really wanted to see. So it's not something that's I would be assuming would be overly burdensome. You know, obviously it takes a little staff time to, stand up at the mic and lead us through stuff. Sure. But I think that would be helpful especially as new board members are coming on. It takes a few meetings to even kind of get your feet under you as far as what am I supposed to be looking at and where do I go find these, you know, these pieces of information. I mean, it's one thing if you're a, you know, a professional architectural historian versus like, well you know.

I'm not an architect or

a builder

so there's gonna, it's good that we have diversity.

A variety of folks. But for me personally whatever we can do and I think this is part of our charter as an entity, is to be able to express to city council and planning that in our opinion it is of the utmost importance that the city make resources available in upcoming budget years to address the historic study list because of the problems that we're encountering seemingly every time something comes up that's on the list. Like, oh, why is this on the list? Well, because someone drove by and thought it was interesting versus oh, no, it's an actual thing or these builders are significant or it's part of so that baseline information, you know, I think we need to come to grips with as a community where we have very clear definitional rules as to how we use it, how it's going to be updated, and set something in motion at the city level so that we can really, I don't want to say honor, but fulfill our obligation as a city that has these processes in place, you know, to really do it. That

would be my So what I'm kind of hearing is, is there a way that we can compile the best guiding documentation? And also just thinking about know the topic of being a certified local government has come up. My understanding is that there's potentially funding there that could be leveraged to help support preservation planning. And, you know, that could involve helping or, you know, collaborating with volunteers like AAPS and other organizations, but also actually kind of leveraging funding that's out there to help us get through costly updates. And yeah, I mean it's tricky.

Usually these surveys or context statements, they can take a couple of years to get done. They can take a couple $100,000 if they're really robust. And it's pretty challenging. Think because we're a kind of a post Brack city, we have a lot of formerly federal property that we're dealing with as far as new development but also kind of a new gateway to our community for the public. And we also have to think about things that have already been studied, you know, to varying degrees, but also not forgetting about them or or being or, you know, thinking that, you know, they're for sure protected, that we have to understand the really complex framework that is local jurisdiction, CEQA, section 106, federal things, it's really difficult to navigate preservation in California because there's so many layers.

So I think, yeah, those kind

of

discussions would be really helpful. Let's see. My first introduction to Alameda was on my bike and I just happened upon Alameda Point one day. And I went, what is this? Is this a film set?

I was amazed by the architecture. And I think a lot of people still are. I would like to have some sort of way to stay in touch with base reuse and development and even maybe some sort of strategic committee likewise with downtown business associations or organizations that are kind of centered on commerce and tourism because I can guarantee that Alameda's heritage is a draw for people and that results in direct investment in our community. So I think it's important to think about ways that we can come up with some sort of programming that is city sponsored or really highlights that because we do have assets here that not a lot of communities have or they'd love to have. And those are things that we should I feel like we should be having more conversations about.

For example, in I think it's November, Urban Land Institute is having their annual meeting in San Francisco. And Alameda

Point

is just across the Bay. So that's always been a place where developers have come to learn about what's going on here. But we also have a lot else on this island on Bayfront Island too, three ferries, right, that we can really look for opportunities to promote. And I think it starts with the history here. So, yeah.

And then I think this project that just came up, it kind of reminded me about potential facade grant and rehabilitation programs and just in general incentives for preservation. I think it's pretty common that there are more sticks than carrots as they say, but learning more about those programs is something I think would potentially help serve applicants at least to have a kind of really in-depth discussion about, you know, here's your options. So, and I think that all goes into helping follow the policies in the general plan that there's quite a bit in there about historic preservation. So as a board member, I wanna make sure we're kind of in sync with all that.

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

To a to a degree. I mean, there's there's a lot more

Right.

That was actually done at the time with the with the forms, the paperwork, the research. There's a context statement. So I don't wanna dismiss it as merely a windshield survey, but there was certainly an element of that, I think, of what struck people's fancy as well as what was relevant in the context statement and things like that. Mhmm.

So when we're talking about yes, I'm not trying to minimize what all goes into the study, but when we're talking about updating it, it's doing kind of a new drive by of these buildings that haven't been really surveyed since the late '70s. Yes. And then given the staff restrictions, then diving into some of these materials a little bit and then adding that as we find them, is that kind of what we're talking about?

Well, it's actually part of my conversation with Chris Buckley, who was kind of organizing that, was it felt like we did need to have some sort of protocols. And, you know, there are professional standards of how to do a survey and a context statement and all that. So it feel feels like to do it right, yeah, we should definitely it needs to be systematic. Yeah. And otherwise, it's not terribly reliable or useful. So I think that's that's the dilemma, really. Yeah. It's it's Once you start, you really need to finish. It it shouldn't on be our duty list.

Yeah. As you know, if you look at, you put AMC subsection thirteen twenty one(three), that's part of our responsibility. It's also part of our charge that we can officially notice the city council that we need to do this in our opinion and obviously we can't make money up here, but they can as far as working with the city manager to create budgets that prioritize this as part of the work plan. So, you know, that alone just says like, well, even if it's preliminary money to establish a partial FTE to come up with the plan and or apply for grants and former member Borthwick was on about that quite a bit as there are monies available so that, you know, at least starts the ball rolling.

Where there used to be money available.

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

Well, I do know that the city council has established a strategic plan that bridges with or correlates with the budget and sets goals for each department on a sort of rolling basis, a five year plan. And the facade grant is one of those priorities in terms of revitalizing and publicizing the facade grant program. So I know that that's in the works.

Yes. I think part of the challenge is understanding what's already been studied. That way you can say, okay, this is it's recent enough or it's solid enough. Now we can move on to everything else that's come of age since 1978 or 'nine. One other question that brings to mind is I'm not sure when the current charter or legislation that ties into our responsibilities was made.

But having the prewar, I think it is cut off for buildings to review, That actually I can see the rationale for it because World War II is so important here. But when we think about potential historic resources, I wonder if that age should be kind of bumped up to more or less correspond with age eligibility or some of those concerns for fifty year rules and things like that Because there is kind of a gray area that it's always difficult to evaluate.

Right. Again, sort of a rolling cutoff. And I think

Yeah.

The seventies would then, you know, be Mhmm. You know, a a close call.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. But And I don't know. Again, and then we would have to obviously figure out, well, what happened in the nineteen fifties that was important and what happened in the sixties that was important in in Alameda. Right? And

Mhmm.

So on and so forth.

Yeah. And the more time that goes by that we don't do that, the harder that becomes. In essence, are living members of our community who can answer questions today. Yes. Won't be able to answer questions, you know. Or provide really valuable public comment. Yeah, exactly.

I think of all this preservation planning stuff is very generational because if you think about fifty years, that's roughly two generations, right? You probably have somebody from the generation before that who's near the end of their lifespan. You probably have somebody who's maybe a teenager or a kid who's just growing up as part of the new generation. And over time they're going to have different experiences with the built environment. And that's really what we're trying to kind of it's all a continuum but we have to sometimes we play catch up, sometimes we get ahead of the game.

Soon 1980 will be 50. It's hard to believe. Yeah. I have a car

built in 1997. When's it going to be a classic? Oh wait, I think it is.

Vintage tax. Yeah. That's great. I just wanna say that I'm not sure how many staff are with the planning department.

Oh. Well, you saw most of them tonight. Yeah.

So Depends on which hats they're wearing. If you wanna count them twice or three times. Right.

Right. So so I'm the planning services manager. Tristan's a planner who works primarily on design review and Brian. Building permit plan checks and customer service. Brian splits his time between land use planning and transportation planning.

And so he's involved in bike lanes and roundabouts and the the free shuttle across the estuary. Mhmm. And then Henry Dong is Planner three. He's been here a while and does a lot of the larger development reviews, Sequa, stuff like that.

Yeah. And is that considered a separate arm or department than the base reuse team as far as

planning? So the base reuse and economic development is a completely separate department. So planning, land use planning where I am is also housed with transportation planning and the sustainability and the building department. And the building department is really the largest group because they have the inspectors and the plan checkers and customer service people.

Yeah. So just to put that in perspective, is that maybe 20 people Yeah.

So there's literally like three and a half planners working for you and the planning board and the city council doing ordinance revisions, sequel reviews, design reviews, so on and

so forth. It's a lot of work. And I mean just to put that in perspective, believe San Francisco's planning department has 20 preservation planners. They have a lot more people there but in the city but still that's one department that is Dedicated to the preservation, entire breadth of planning. I appreciate all the work you do. Yes.

Mean we also we have a new intern. I shouldn't forget her. Carlina is with us now taking over for another intern who was here during the summer break. And so we do get some help. We have, you know, some admin and technical people as well. So it's not quite as dire as it sounds.

We can always tap on AAPS' store. Maybe they have some interns they want to send your way as well. So as far as the background discussion topics, this is great. How do you think we can boil up something to do or an actionable prioritized list that even if it's every other meeting, we'll put something on the list or on those meetings where we don't have a public agenda item come since we've all blocked out our calendars for the year, like, well, can we get together and not to make you guys work harder and stay late and not get to go home to your families, but the rare opportunities and even if it's sleeves up, let's do some work together in the public eye just to get things recorded as far as here's some materials that we want to get on the website or let's draft a letter to the city council explaining our position on the historic study list. You know, I'm happy to dedicate some sitting here time for that.

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

Yes. Well, I mean, these bulleted items on Page two and three of the report, I think there's not exactly in priority order, but it is kind of hierarchical. And we may as well start at the top and work our way through a few things before trying to get too specific, if that's alright.

Yeah.

And I wasn't sure, do we have public comment on this item? No? Just a general discussion of historic preservation in Alameda. Okay. Great. Just checking. Alright. So yeah. So if that's okay, we can just, you know

March down the list.

Go down the list.

Yeah. And I maybe we can look at maybe June 2026, I think which is June is always historic preservation month. So it has a nice ring to it. But that could be a target to kind of get through some of this stuff or, you know. Yeah.

And we have we have some slide shows that we've done in the past. So I think I can dust off some resources without too much trouble. Mhmm.

Yeah. Super.

And hopefully we'll have a full complement of board members.

Make it even more More productive, yeah. But at least you'll record them so That's true. Folks can come back and watch. Yeah.

Other

discussion or shall we declare victory?

Think we just moved to board comments.

Well, thank you, Steven.

Yeah, thank you so much.

Board communications item five. Being none, staff communications.

Just want make one Last weekend I went to one of Alameda Post's tours. This happened to be a Mastic Park which was a neighborhood we studied a couple or learned about a couple of weeks ago. And they did a really nice job. I think they had maybe 30 attendees. And I heard their record is about 80, which is pretty impressive. But yeah, again, I feel like they make architectural history digestible, approachable, and there's always nice humor. So I recommend checking out their tours. Okay.

And on that note, I would say that Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, I don't have it in front of me, but their home tour is coming up, which is also fun. This year will be the Bronze Coast, I believe. So interesting. There should be some interesting homes to check out. Staff communications?

Nothing further.

Adjournment? All in favor.