Title
Draft Meeting Minutes - April 6, 2017
Body
DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2017
1. CONVENE
Chair Piziali convened the meeting at 7:00pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Chan, Jones, Piziali, Saxby, Sanchez
3. MINUTES
3-A 2017-4164
Draft Meeting Minutes - December 1, 2016
Board Member Jones made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Saxby seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-0-2 (Chan and Sanchez abstained).
3-B 2017-4165
Draft Meeting Minutes - February 2, 2017
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Jones seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Piziali pointed out that the board received a letter from the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society regarding item 7-A.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2017-4158
Certificate of Approval - PLN14-0059 - 1501 Buena Vista Avenue - TL Partners I, LP. Public hearing to consider a revision to an approved Certificate of Approval for replacement windows and an alternate design for a new roof canopy as part of the restoration of the Del Monte Warehouse Historic Monument. The Environmental Impact Report for the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment and subsequent Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Del Monte Warehouse Project satisfies environmental review requirements for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item and gave a PowerPoint presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at: <https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3009982&GUID=9DB26651-3C10-462A-B080-8E90C73FD8D1&FullText=1>
Mike O’Hara, with Tim Lewis Communities, gave a presentation on their proposed changes to the Del Monte plan.
Susan McComb, with BAR Architects, continued the presentation.
Board Member Saxby asked if it was possible and what the procedure would be to restore the existing steel windows and add new glazing.
Ms. McComb said they can add a certain amount of new glazing. She described the technical process, including lead abatement that would be involved in doing that window by window.
Chair Piziali asked what would happen to the operable vents in the windows.
Ms. McComb said they would keep the existing vents, but that they are not the right height for egress or size for ventilation.
Board Member Sanchez asked why one replacement window was chosen over the other.
Ms. McComb explained the specific performance and cost tradeoffs that they considered.
Board Member Saxby asked if historic windows would be left anywhere on the building.
Ms. McComb said that at the main entries where there is not a need for the residential performance aspects of the replacement windows, they would keep the original steel framed windows.
Chair Piziali asked if the monitor replacement would be sliding windows.
Ms. McComb said they would not be using sliders, in order to try and keep the look of the glazing consistent.
Mr. O’Hara said they are asking to replace the windows because repairing them is an infeasible solution.
Board Member Sanchez asked which requirements the city has been flexible with.
Ms. McComb said the city has been flexible on egress and other issues, but not the noise requirements.
Chair Piziali said the stacked flat replacements are the main issue.
Board Member Saxby agreed and said he is less concerned with the monitor windows due to visibility and location.
Board Member Sanchez agreed that the original steel windows are what gives the building its character. He said he understands the challenge preserving those windows presents.
Board Member Sanchez asked what materials would be used in the new canopy.
Ms. McComb said it would be an aluminum skylight system. She said the color would be silver or white in order to keep the focus on the surrounding wood structures.
Chair Piziali opened the public hearing.
Jay Ingraham said he is frustrated with the design process. He said the canopy would be visible to residents of nearby homes and park visitors.
Chair Piziali closed the public hearing.
Board Member Jones asked if the exterior of the canopy could be a different color than the inside.
Ms. McComb said they could paint it different colors with an additional cost. She said the entire roof surface would be replaced and would be white in order to be more energy efficient and meet new green building standards.
Board Member Saxby asked how much higher the new canopy design would be.
Ms. McComb said they would be about a foot higher. She said they could also look into reducing the pitch of the new canopy.
Board Member Saxby said the steel windows are a very important feature of the building and that wholesale replacement is not the right solution. He said he would like to preserve the steel sash wherever possible. He said he would support replacing the monitor windows to solve the egress, acoustic and energy concerns. He said the canopy is new and he would support the change in design so long as they work to lower the pitch.
Board Member Jones said the replacement windows do not bother her.
Board Member Sanchez said he is struggling with the wholesale replacement of the steel windows. He said the “Hope” window seemed like the happy medium between performance and preserving the historic look. He said the aluminum window was a much larger difference from the original windows in the stacked flats.
Chair Piziali asked Board Members Chan and Jones if they were okay with aluminum replacement windows; they responded affirmatively.
Board Member Saxby said that, from a design standpoint, he thinks preserving the original windows everywhere there is a pediment would be a good compromise.
A representative from Tim Lewis Communities discussed the challenges of achieving sound dampening requirements with rehabilitated steel frame windows.
Mr. O’Hara said they would still like to consider full replacement. He said they could consider preserving windows where there is non-enclosed space behind.
Chair Piziali said he would be okay with the aluminum framed replacements while keeping the original windows in the non-habitable areas.
Mr. O’Hara said the replacement steel framed window option would cost $600,000 more than the aluminum option.
Board Member Saxby asked if preserving the existing windows would be a cost increase.
Ms. McComb said that preserving the existing windows in the non-habitable areas would be least expensive, but that rehabbing each window in residential areas would involve a lot of labor costs.
Chair Piziali reopened the public hearing.
Jay Ingraham said we should not be afraid to ask for the Cadillac version because we are the ones who will have to live with the project. He said Tim Lewis Communities could make up the difference in cost on a few units.
Chair Piziali closed the public hearing.
Chair Piziali said he thinks the aluminum window is the better option.
Board Member Saxby said he would like to preserve as many windows as possible where the performance demands of residential use are not needed. He said he prefers the steel replacement windows but would be okay with the aluminum.
Board Member Sanchez said he agreed with Board Member Saxby.
Chair Piziali said they are asking for the lowest possible pitch on the sky canopy and light colors. He said the board was not very concerned about the monitor windows.
Board Member Saxby said the effort that was made to match the mullion spacing and glazing height were good and he was fine with the changes.
Chair Piziali said that the board wants to keep the facade windows where there are no residences.
Staff Member Thomas said they are looking for a motion, with the conditions he heard: all existing windows within the brick facade that are providing light into non-residential areas would be preserved; use the lowest possible pitch for the canopy structure with a light color on the canopy framing.
Mr. O’Hara asked to clarify whether they wanted to preserve the windows in unoccupied spaces only, or also include the commercial space.
Board Member Saxby said that he wanted to preserve the windows where ever it is not dictated by performance requirements.
Chair Piziali said he agreed with that description of the condition.
Board Member Saxby made a motion to approve the changes as proposed with the following amendments:
o Windows within the brick façade adjacent to spaces that do not dictate a change to address performance requirements for habitable spaces shall be retained and rehabilitated, and
o The canopy roof design shall be modified to provide the lowest feasible slope and the canopy frame shall be painted a light color.
Board Member Sanchez seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Piziali adjourned the meeting at 9:06pm.