Title
Continued from June 1, 2017 -- Public hearing to consider the inclusion of identified historic resources at Alameda Marina on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (formerly Historic Buildings Study List). The proposed update to the Historic Resources Inventory is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15305 Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations and 15308 Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment
Body
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Historical Advisory Board
From: Allen Tai, Secretary to the Board
Date: July 6, 2017
Re: Continued from June 1, 2017 -- Public hearing to consider the inclusion of identified historic resources at Alameda Marina on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (formerly Historic Buildings Study List). The proposed update to the Historic Resources Inventory is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15305 Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations and 15308 Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment.
BACKGROUND
On June 1, 2017, the Historical Advisory Board (Board) held a public hearing to consider inclusion of a potential Alameda Marina historic district on the City’s local historic resources inventory, formally known the Historical Buildings Study List. An action by the Board to place a potential district on the Study List will then inform the historical and cultural resources evaluation within the future Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a proposed Master Plan to redevelop the Alameda Marina site. The June 1, 2017 staff report is attached as Exhibit 1.
At the meeting the Board considered a staff recommendation to include a nine (9) building historic district on the Study List based upon a historic resources evaluation by Christopher VerPlanck (Exhibit 1). After taking public comment and considering the recommendation, the Board continued the public hearing to July 6, 2017, and asked staff to arrange for a peer review by Mr. Michael Corbett, who previously performed an evaluation of the site in 1988.
DISCUSSION
Per the Board’s request, staff contacted Mr. Corbett to request an independent review of the potential resources at Alameda Marina, which Mr. Corbett graciously agreed to do on short notice. As described in more detail in his evaluation (Exhibit 2), Mr. Corbett’s evaluation focused on the potential cultural landscape resources and determined that a larger district at Alameda Marina could be found to be culturally significant.
As described in Mr. Corbett’s evaluation, his approach is different than Mr. VerPlank’s approach, and therefore his evaluation results in a district with more buildings and more physical features than Mr. VerPlank’s evaluation. For example, Mr. Corbett’s focus on the cultural landscape resources results in a district which includes features such as the remnants of rail spurs and the paved open spaces of the yard.
The following table summarizes the difference between Mr. VerPlank’s proposed district and Mr. Corbett’s proposed district.
|
Contributing Building or Feature |
Contributors in Mr. VerPlank’s District |
Contributors in Mr. Corbett’s District |
|
Building 1 |
Included |
Included |
|
Building 3 |
Not Included |
Included |
|
Building 4 |
Included |
Included |
|
Building 6 |
Included |
Included |
|
Building 7 |
Not Included |
Included |
|
Building 10 |
Not Included |
Included |
|
Building 12 |
Included |
Included |
|
Building 14 |
Not Included |
Included |
|
Building 15 |
Not Included |
Included |
|
Building 16 |
Included |
Included |
|
Building 17 |
Not Included |
Included |
|
Building 19 |
Included |
Included |
|
Building 21 |
Not Included |
Included |
|
Building 22 |
Not Included |
Included |
|
Building 27 |
Included |
Included |
|
Building 28 |
Included |
Included |
|
Building 29 |
Included |
Included |
|
Building 31 |
Not Included |
Included |
|
Building 32 |
Not Included |
Included |
|
Building 33 |
Not Included |
Included |
|
Building 34 |
Not Included |
Included |
|
Paved open space of yard |
Not Included |
Included |
|
Remnants of rail spurs |
Not Included |
Included |
|
Graving dock |
Not Included |
Included |
As described in the two evaluations (Exhibits 1 and 2) and shown in the table above, the two experts agree that a potential district should be placed on the Study List; however, the experts disagree on how many buildings and features should be determined to be contributors within the district.
At the June meeting, the Board also requested more information about whether building interiors could be considered when determining if a building is significant.
The interior of a building may be considered when determining if a building is historically significant for the purposes of deciding whether a building should be a designated as a landmark or monument, but the interior of a private building is not significant cultural resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. (CEQA).
In Martin v. City and County of San Francisco (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 392, 404, the California Courts ruled that proposed interior renovations to a historic home that are not visible or perceptible to others outside of the home do not have a physical impact on the environment and are outside the scope of CEQA. While the facts of Martin involve a home, the analysis focuses on the “commonsense” purpose of CEQA as CEQA’s intent relates to matters that can be seen, felt, heard, or smelled, i.e., consequences resulting from physical impacts on the environment. The Court states, “Destruction of an irreplaceable antiquity not being perceived by the public does not qualify as a significant effect. (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064, subd. (e) [absent physical change, “social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment”].)”
Therefore, in the context of the Alameda Marina, if the Historical Advisory Board determined that a building is a contributor solely because of its interior, and that building were proposed to be demolished in the proposed Alameda Marina Master Plan, the EIR would not treat the demolition of the interior as a significant impact on the environment.
As discussed above and at the last public hearing, the Board’s determination provides two important functions to the planning process for the future of the property: 1) the Board’s determination establishes the cultural resource setting for the environmental review for the redevelopment plan for the property, and 2) the Boards’ determination provides guidance for use by the staff, the applicant, the Planning Board and the City Council as to which facilities and structures to attempt to preserve and incorporate into the future redevelopment plan for the Alameda Marina property.
The staff, the applicant, the Planning Board, and the City Council will need to balance multiple public priorities when making decisions about the redevelopment plan for Alameda Marina including: preserve historic resources, reinvest in public lands and maritime infrastructure, bulkheads and facilities, provide new housing opportunities including affordable housing, and improve and expand public access and waterfront open space facilities. Balancing all of these community priorities will require careful planning and important compromises. No carefully balanced plan that achieves the key community priorities will be able to preserve all of the existing cultural resources identified by either of the two consultants. For that reason, any advice or guidance the Board is able to provide to identify the most important resources on the site will be critical to the next steps in the planning and public decision making process.
At this time, staff is recommending that the Historical Advisory Board hold a public hearing, review Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, and identify which buildings and features should be added to the potential district for placement on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory of Alameda Study List.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report is currently being prepared for the Alameda Marina Master Plan pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act requirements.
The proposed update to the Historic Resources Inventory is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15305 Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations and 15308 Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment.
RECOMMENDATION
Hold a public hearing, consider the findings of Mr. VerPlanck and Mr. Corbett, and provide direction on which buildings and features to include as contributors to the Alameda Marina district for inclusion on the Historic Resources Inventory as provided in the Draft Resolution (Exhibit 3).
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Assistant Community Development Director
Allen Tai, Secretary to the Historical Advisory Board
Exhibits:
1. June 1, 2017 Staff Report and Exhibits
2. June 23, 2017 Michael Corbett Report
3. Draft Resolution