Title
PLN25-0079 - 2320 Lincoln Ave. - Applicant: Sum Capital Investments. Study session to discuss the structural evaluation conducted for an existing structure built prior to 1942 and included in the City’s Historical Building Study List, for which the applicants have requested a Certificate of Approval for demolition related to its poor condition as part of a project to redevelop the subject property located at 2320 Lincoln Avenue. General Plan: Community Commercial. Zoning: Community Commercial, Theatre Combining District. CEQA Determination: This item is a study session and will not result in any discretionary action, entitlement, or other final approval or decision that would constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Prior to any formal decision by the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) concerning a project at the site, the HAB will conduct a duly noticed public hearing at which time project specific environmental impacts will be considered.
Body
CITY OF ALAMEDA
HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
STAFF REPORT
September 3, 2026
PLN25-0079 - 2320 Lincoln Ave. - Applicant: Sum Capital Investments. Study session to discuss the structural evaluation conducted for an existing structure built prior to 1942 and included in the City’s Historical Building Study List, for which the applicants have requested a Certificate of Approval for demolition related to its poor condition as part of a project to redevelop the subject property located at 2320 Lincoln Avenue. General Plan: Community Commercial. Zoning: Community Commercial, Theatre Combining District. CEQA Determination: This item is a study session and will not result in any discretionary action, entitlement, or other final approval or decision that would constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Prior to any formal decision by the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) concerning a project at the site, the HAB will conduct a duly noticed public hearing at which time project specific environmental impacts will be considered.
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Historical Advisory Board
From: Steven Buckley, Historical Advisory Board Secretary
BACKGROUND
The project site is an irregular quadrilateral lot measuring approximately 55 feet wide by 81 feet deep on the east side and 74 feet deep on the west side. The site is developed with two buildings: a one-and-a-half story residential building at 2320 Park Street, on the west side of the lot referred to here as Building A; and a one-story commercial building at 2322 Park Street, on the east side of the lot, which is referred to here as Building B. The property is neighbored to the west by the public library, to the south by a parking lot serving the library, to the east by a gas station and convenience store, and to the north by a Goodwill consignment store across Lincoln Avenue. The buildings were built in quick succession, Building A was originally built by 1885 (possibly earlier), and Building B in 1890. Both have undergone various alterations since then, including change of use and a number of rear additions and accessory structures, some of which no longer remain. In 1979, the City assigned the property as an “S” designation on the Historical Building Study List. An “S” designation means a historic resource distinguished by its architectural, historical, or environmental significance, eligible for inclusion in the State Historic Resources Inventory, and of secondary priority for inclusion on the list of Alameda Historical Monuments. While Building A has been vacant for at least 20 years, Building B is currently occupied by Gim’s Chinese Kitchen, a restaurant. Building A is included in the Historical Building Study List, and previous historical evaluations have established Building A as a historic resource as defined by CEQA. Further, the existing buildings were built prior to 1942, and therefore a Certificate of Approval is required to allow demolition. The applicants have conducted a structural evaluation of Building A to demonstrate that the existing conditions on the site have so deteriorated that any scope of work, ranging from complete restoration to total demolition, will require 30% or more removal of the value of the structure, and will therefore would require a Certificate of Approval issued by the Board.
DISCUSSION
Historic and Existing Conditions
Building A, 2320 Lincoln Avenue, was constructed no later than 1885 as a one-and-a-half story residential building, and Building B, 2322 Lincoln Avenue, was built in 1890 as a one-story commercial building. In 1979, the address associated with Building A was added to the Historical Buildings Study List with an “S” designation, the address associated with Building B is not included in the study list entry. A DPR form was not prepared for the subject property. The use of the buildings, as recorded in Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, shows Building A was originally a saloon with a residence on the second floor, and Building B is marked as both a store on the west side, and a “Chinese store” on the east side. By 1948, the Sanborn Maps show both buildings as dwellings, but by 1950 the east side of Building B is shown again as a store. Building Permit records indicate that Building A has undergone only slight alterations since construction, many of which concerned the surrounding land. By comparison, Building B has been more substantially altered, with a record of remodel to the storefront and interior from 1953, as well as other subsequent modifications.
Building A is a vacant one-and-a-half story end-gable residential structure with a recessed front entry. There is a rear addition that is not part of the original building, however, subsequent rear additions shown on some Sanborn maps are no longer extant (the 2003 ARG reports notes that all but one rear addition were removed by 1948). The building is clad in wood clapboard with plain corner trim. The roof has been covered with asphalt shingles with a terra cotta chimney extension located just off of the ridge of the roof. The front facing wood windows appear to be original 2/2 double-hung sash, however some windows have been recently damaged and boarded up. The sidelights and transom window at the entrance have been replaced with plain wood panels; and the front door has been removed and replaced with boards to limit access to the interior for safety.
Building B is a single-story commercial building with significant alterations especially to the original façade, currently occupied by a restaurant. The storefront has been completely reconfigured from the original with large windows and a stucco false flat parapet, which covers the end gable of the roof, and which also has a large commercial vent installed on the east slope. The side elevations remain clad in wide, horizonal siding, possibly shiplap. There is a small, extant rear addition that is not part of the original building, however, appears to be shown as an ancillary building on the 1948 Sanborn maps.
In 1979, the City conducted a photographic survey of pre-1942 buildings, which included the project site (Exhibit 4). Based on the photos taken in 1979, the front elevations of both buildings have not been significantly modified since they were taken, although they are noticeably worse for wear, and, especially regarding Building A, in need of repairs.
A historical evaluation prepared by the Architectural Resources Group in 2003 (Exhibit 2) assessed the integrity of the historic resource based on the seven aspects of integrity defined by the National Register of Historic Places: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. According to the 2003 historical evaluation, Building A maintained six of the seven aspects of integrity in 2003, only failing to demonstrate setting integrity because the former railroad tracks and surrounding original commercial and residential buildings no longer exist. By comparison, Building B at the time maintained three of the seven aspects of integrity, only demonstrating location, feeling, and association integrity, in large part due to the reconstruction of the storefront and other alterations over time.
A historical evaluation was also conducted the following year, in 2004, by Elizabeth Krase on behalf of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (Exhibit 3). The information contained in this evaluation suggests that Building A may have been constructed earlier (1864-1868) and was likely located along Park Street but was subsequently moved to its current location around 1875. This evaluation concluded that the building maintains its integrity despite the change in location, and that Building A is eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 3, as a “locally rare and very good example of a period, type, and method of construction”.
On March 6, 2025, the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) conducted a study session to consider the significance of the structures proposed to be demolished and provide feedback to the applicant on the need for historical, structural, and environmental evaluation of the project. During the meeting, the HAB acknowledged there are material contradictions between the historical evaluations that may warrant additional research. Although it was a study session, the HAB had strong consensus that Building A is a historic resource that largely maintains its integrity, whereas Building B has much less integrity due to substantial changes made to the structure over time. The direction to the applicant was to conduct a structural evaluation to determine the feasibility of restoration and explore alternatives for preservation, including moving the buildings. The HAB also recommended additional historical evaluation to clarify discrepancies between the existing evaluations and provide a complete history to the present day that includes the past 22 years since the last evaluation was conducted. Staff maintain that no changes have been permitted since the previous evaluation, so if additional information is needed regarding the history of the site, specific direction needs be provided on what exactly must be researched.
Neither assessment of the historic integrity of the buildings considered the 20 years since the evaluations were conducted, during which time the physical condition of both buildings has deteriorated further. In Spring of 2026, the applicants hired a structural engineer to conduct a structural evaluation of Building A (Exhibit 1). The evaluation included a visual inspection, but no destructive testing, and specified recommendations for a range of individual elements of the building. The evaluation recommends that the foundation be completely replaced, the upper floor framing be partially replaced and retrofitted, the roof framing be heavily retrofitted or alternatively replaced, and complete removal of the rear addition. It also noted that the exterior wall framing may be in good enough condition to be repaired instead of replaced, although couches that recommendation in the observation that there is uncertainty about rotted or damaged framing because of the concealed conditions. The Building Official has reviewed the structural analysis and concurs with the information therein and has acknowledged that any scope of work to make the building usable will require a Certificate of Approval prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Builder
According to City records the original builder of Building A is unknown, however the original builder of Building B is identified in the 2003 ARG historical evaluation as A.R. Denke, who was a prolific Alameda based builder of the time. A.R. Denke was primarily a residential builder, having built many residences over several decades throughout the City. While A.R. Denke was a prominent builder in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s his major contributions to the City are through his many extant residential buildings.
Proposed Uses and Design
The applicants have provided staff with a range of design alternatives and possible uses for the site, and in order to conduct the required environmental review, they must formalize their proposal to clearly define the intended design outcomes. However, the applicant has expressed concern over conducting the environmental review on a scope of work that would not be acceptable to the HAB, given the Building Official’s determination that a Certificate of Approval will be required regardless of whether a proper demolition or restoration is proposed.
With that in mind, staff is seeking feedback from the HAB on what specific range of improvements may be acceptable. The applicants have described to staff a myriad of possible design solutions, many of which would require substantially altering the external appearance of the buildings to varying degrees. A full restoration or rehabilitation of the site may be cost prohibitive; however, the applicant may be able to undertake some rehabilitative work if changes can be made to the buildings to facilitate their new uses. Specifically, would the HAB entertain a proposal that includes: complete demolition of the existing buildings, redesign of the front facades, combining the buildings into one structure, modifications to the footprint, height, and floor area of the existing buildings, modifications to the windows, siding, or other exterior finishes, additions to the rear while maintaining the façade, significant modifications to one of the buildings instead of the other, or any combination thereof.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS
This agenda item is a Study Session and does not propose any action, decision, or other entitlement determination by HAB, therefore no public notice is required.
DESIGN REVIEW
Because this is a study session, no action will be taken by HAB. If, at a later date, HAB considers and approves a Certificate of Approval for a complete demolition, the proposed project to build two new 2-story mixed use buildings on the project site would be subject to Design Review. Staff will review the proposed design for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Citywide Design Review Manual. If a future HAB approval requires restoration or rehabilitation, Design Review will also be conducted under the applicable Secretary of Interior Standards and any design conditions imposed by HAB. If staff determines that the Design Review will generate significant public interest, the Planning Director may refer to the application to either the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Board for review and action.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Study Session is not considered a project under CEQA. The Study Session will not result in any discretionary action, entitlement, or other decisions that would constitute a project under CEQA. Prior to any decision by the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) concerning a project at the site, the HAB will conduct a duly noticed public hearing at which time project specific environmental impacts will be considered.
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a Study Session to discuss and provide feedback to the applicant on the range of acceptable modifications to the design of the building that the Board would entertain as part of a Certificate of Approval.
Respectfully Submitted,
Steven Buckley, Secretary to the Historical Advisory Board
By,
Tristan Suire, Planner II
Exhibits:
1. Building A Structural Evaluation
2. 2003 Historic Evaluation (Architectural Resources Group)
3. 2004 Historic Evaluation (Elizabeth Krase)
4. 1979 Survey Photos