Title
Draft Meeting Minutes - July 6, 2017
Body
DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2017
1. CONVENE
Chair Piziali called meeting to order at 7:00pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Piziali, Board Members Chan, Jones, Sanchez, Saxby.
3. MINUTES
2017-4506
Draft Meeting Minutes - May 4, 2017
Board Member Jones made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Sancez seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0 (Chan abstained).
2017-4516
Draft Meeting Minutes - June 1, 2017
Board Member Saxby corrected the number from “2” to “22” of a building that was referenced on page four, paragraph five.
Board Member Jones made a motion to approve to approve the minutes as amended. Board Member Saxby seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0 (Sanchez abstained).
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
Staff Member Tai asked that Board Elections be moved to the beginning of the Regular Agenda.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Two letters were received on the Alameda Marina agenda item.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
2017-4519
Board Elections
Board Member Saxby nominated Board Member Piziali to serve as chair. The nomination was confirmed 5-0.
Board Member Sanchez nominated Board Member Saxby to be vice-chair. The nomination was confirmed 5-0.
Staff Member Tai said that, per the board by-laws, every July, with a full board, a new chair and vice-chair would be elected.
2017-4518
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
Board Member Sanchez recused himself from the item because he is a tenant at the Alameda Marina.
Staff Member Tai introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found at: <https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3093028&GUID=7498B798-FBF6-4D15-96B8-2F725239DEE7&FullText=1>
Michael Corbett gave a presentation on his analysis of the historic nature of the site.
Board Member Jones asked about buildings 31-34 and how being constructed by a different company affects their inclusion in the historic district.
Mr. Corbett said that the site is complicated and more can be done to understand its history. He said that the eastern portion of the site was pushed into service during the last year of the war when the expectation was that we would invade Japan, a period of maximum historic significance.
Board Member Chan asked if the buildings that changed the siding and even have modern windows could still be historically significant.
Mr. Corbett said that in his view the more important issue is the survival of the buildings as building types, including the interiors.
Mr. VerPlanck said he took a much more traditional look at the site. He said he still has a problem with the integrity of the site, with either criteria you choose. He said the waterside infrastructure is almost all missing and most of the buildings have been drastically changed.
Charles Olsen, attorney for Pacific Shops, gave a background on the history of the site, including the terms of the Tidelands lease extension. He asked that the board exercise its discretion judiciously.
Chair Piziali opened the public hearing.
Nancy Hird, Save Alameda’s Working Waterfront, said the board should consider the importance of Alameda’s involvement in the war and include all the buildings on the historic study list.
Woody Minor said we were a substantial shipbuilding community and this site is the largest remnant of that history. He encouraged the board to be as inclusive as possible. He asked what would happen to the interior of building 19. He asked for comments on what would happen to the historic significance of the building if they interior is built out and the sense of interior space is lost.
Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, recommended that the board add the features Mr. Corbett included in the cultural landscape to the study list. He said the board need not consider integrity as strictly when deciding on inclusion of items for the study list.
Chair Piziali closed the public hearing.
Chair Piziali asked Mr. Corbett and Mr. VerPlank to respond to Mr. Minor’s question.
Staff Member Tai said that mitigation considerations would be included in the EIR. He said that if there was a proposal to change the structure of building 19 in the future that it would come to this board for review, but that for now it would be speculative for them to comment.
Board Member Jones said both studies had good points, but she is siding with Mr. VerPlank’s analysis. She said she is on the fence about buildings 31-34. She said that there has been significant change to the landscape.
Board Member Saxby said he felt the initial report was to narrowly focused on appearance of the buildings rather than their function and relationship to the site and each other. He said he would support including the 9 buildings in the initial report and adding 8 new buildings: 15,17, 21, 22, 31-34. He said he would also support including the graving dock in the historic resource inventory. He said a case could be made to include all the buildings in the Corbett report. He said he supported broadening the boundary of the historic district to the full site.
Chair Piziali said he is okay with the staff recommendation. He said he could not see including the east yard because those buildings were only brought on line in the last few months of the war and were not big contributors. He said he would be okay including the graving dock.
Board Member Jones said she is not sure about building 22, and could possibly include it due to its size.
Board Member Saxby said buildings 31-34 were built early in the war but were just not incorporated into the dry dock until later. He suggested including the nine buildings in the draft evaluation and adding buildings 15,17, 21, 22, 31, 32, 33, 34, and the graving dock.
Chair Piziali said he would go along with adding 15, 17, 22, and the graving dock but would not support 31-34.
Board Member Saxby asked about building 21.
Board Member Jones said she thought that building 21 was basically unrecognizable due to the changes.
Board Member Saxby said he disagrees with that assessment.
Board Member Jones said that building 21 was an important building and she would include it. She asked what the original reason was for why they were left off.
Mr. Corbett said they were not excluded in the 1988 report, they were just not evaluated as a part of this property.
Board Member Saxby said the building in the east yard are almost entirely intact and display a high degree of integrity.
Board Member Jones said she thinks the east yard buildings should be included.
Board Member Chan said he would support including them.
Board Member Saxby made a motion to include in the historic resource inventory: the nine buildings in the draft evaluation (1, 4, 6, 12, 16, 19, 27, 28, 29), and add buildings 15, 17, 21, 22, 31-34, and the graving dock and using the boundary outlined in the Corbett memo from 6/23/17.
Board Member Jones asked what the ramifications of the change in boundary would mean.
Staff Member Tai said that the boundary would define the district and the buildings on the list would be the contributing structures.
Board Member Jones seconded the motion. The motion failed 2-2 (Piziali and Chan voted no.)
Board Member Chan said he made mistake. He said he does not support including buildings 32-34. He said he supported Chair Piziali’s proposal and adding buildings 15, 17, 22.
Board Member Saxby said that he believes that buildings 31-34 are contributing structures during the period of significance.
Board Member Jones agreed.
Chair Piziali said he wants this to move forward tonight so he will support including 31-34.
Board Member Saxby made a motion to include in the historic resource inventory: the nine buildings in the draft evaluation (1, 4, 6, 12, 16, 19, 27, 28, 29), and add buildings 15, 17, 21, 22, 31, 32, 33, 34, and the graving dock and using the boundary outlined in the Corbett memo from 6/23/17. Board Member Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-1 (Chan).
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Piziali adjourned the meeting at 8:28pm.