Title
Draft Meeting Minutes - April 4, 2019
Body
DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 2019
1. CONVENE
Board Member Jones called meeting to order at 7:03pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Jones, Lau, Wit.
Absent: Chair Saxby, Board Member Sanchez.
Board Member Jones said that Board Member Saxby was recusing himself today because his office is on the property being discussed tonight. Board Member Jones presided as Chair for the meeting.
3. MINUTES
Board Member Wit made a motion to accept the minutes from the 3/7/19 meeting. Board Member Lau seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai said that they received the newsletter from the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2019-6751
PLN19-0095 - Alameda Marina Certificate of Approval - Alameda Marina - Applicant: Pacific Shops, Inc. Public hearing to consider a Certificate of Approval to allow demolition of contributing buildings (Buildings 1, 4, 6, 12, 22, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, and 34) and non-contributing buildings (Buildings 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 20, 23, 24, 35, 37, and 39) within the Alameda Marina Historic District to meet the objectives of the Alameda Marina Master Plan, and consideration of an interpretive signage and history walk program as a component of the mitigation measures required by the Alameda Marina Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The environmental effects of the proposed project were considered and disclosed in the Alameda Marina Master Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse #2016102064). No further environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
7-B 2019-6752
PLN19-0095 - Amendments to List of Street and Facility Names - Alameda Marina and Citywide - Applicants: Pacific Shops, Inc. and City of Alameda - The applicants request a public hearing to amend the List of Street and Facility Names for the Alameda Marina Master Plan project and other revisions to the List. This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)3, where it can be seen with certainty there is no possibility that amending the City’s street names list will have a significant effect on the environment
Staff Member Tai said he would present both Alameda Marina items together. He gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at: 7-A: <https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3903321&GUID=FAB7F88A-B5CA-4705-81D0-2A4CF7322611&FullText=1> and 7-B: <https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3903322&GUID=373EC0CB-AE16-471D-BA3B-4BCC6F3DB20F&FullText=1>
Sean Murphy, Pacific Shops, spoke about the project’s history and introduced the project team.
Howard Curtis gave a presentation detailing the proposed historic signage plan.
Board Member Lau asked if any of the original materials from the site, such as wood trusses from the historic buildings to be demolished, were considered for use in the signage.
Clay Fry, project architect, said that they have plans to repurpose building materials into things like benches, flooring, and other uses. He said they wanted the signage to reflect the masts and sails of the boats and have something durable as well as to use the historic building materials in a building manner instead of a signage one. He then explained how they ended up with name choices for streets, paths, and parks.
There were no public speakers.
Board Member Lau asked if the applicant considered advertising an opportunity allow someone to haul away intact buildings slated for demolition.
Mr. Murphy said that is part of their plans. He said the project would take five to six years and would advertise those opportunities to the public after anything that has been adaptively re-used.
Staff Member Tai said that cities often require that a home be offered to the public for salvage before demolition. He said it would be difficult to imagine many of the large buildings at the site being moved to a new location.
Board Member Jones asked staff how the discussion should proceed.
Staff Member Tai explained which buildings would be preserved and which would be demolished. He said the board can consider demolitions first. He said the Board could consider whether to require opportunities for salvage and relocation, but to be practical when thinking about what might be feasible. He said the Board could then provide feedback on the signage and the street names.
Board Member Jones asked what would happen if the Board wanted to vote to keep the buildings from being demolished.
Staff Member Tai said that the Board could vote no on the certificate of approval for the demolition. He said that would essentially force the applicant to appeal the decision to the City Council, who would likely refer to the master plan which is based on the demolition of these buildings. He said this step is really a formality and the applicant is required to begin construction in 2019 under Tidelands lease obligations with the City.
Board Member Jones asked if demolishing one building would meet their requirements to begin construction.
Mr. Murphy said the Tidelands lease sets the milestones for what has to begin construction in phase I.
Board Member Jones said the Historical Advisory Board has a unique perspective and role for preserving Alameda’s character in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s standards. She said demolishing everything outside the “golden triangle” would result in a loss of the scale which leads her to being at an impasse.
Board Member Wit said she walked the site today and can see what the developer is trying to accomplish. She said she is having the most trouble with Building 12 which housed Svendsens. She said that building seems very historically relevant.
Staff Member Tai said that the decision about which buildings were historically significant was already made by this board in 2017. He said the City Council has already decided that these buildings can come down. He said the Board can channel those concerns into the historic signage, street names, and walk program to best capture the historic nature of the site.
Board Member Wit asked why the Board is being asked to approve demolition if interpretive signage has already been decided as a mitigation for demolition.
Staff Member Tai said the code requires this Board to issue a certificate of approval for the demolition, however since the Council has already approved a master plan, the build-out of which expects demolition of the historic buildings, this Board’s vote is really a formality. He said the Council’s decision has given them mitigation measures like the interpretive signage and street names for the board to work with.
Board Member Jones said that the signage could be more interactive. She suggested installations to engage the public, like the rigging materials. She also suggested the use of handheld technology that residents can use to enhance the experience, similar to Pokémon Go, a virtual reality mobile application, on the interpretive signage. She said the signage is a decent start, but the proposed content seems stark.
Board Member Lau agreed with Board Member Jones. He said reusing materials from the site would help. He asked if the building designs could be shared with the board as they move forward.
Staff Member Tai said that the architectural designs for new buildings could be brought to the board at the applicant’s wish but that it was not a requirement under the code.
Board Member Jones made a motion to approve the staff recommendation for the demolition of historic buildings set forth in the draft Resolution. Board Member Wit seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0.
Staff Member Tai said the board could approve the signage plan with specific direction on possible changes.
Board Member Jones made a motion to approve the signage plan with a condition that the applicant incorporate more dynamic, interactive, experiential elements that may include use of technology.
Staff Member Tai said the feedback he heard was to include elements that the public can see, feel, and touch.
Board Member Jones said she would like to give people a sense of the scale and that repurposing items from the original buildings into the signage itself. She said it is a challenge to make history relevant to people’s experience today.
Staff Member Tai repeated the motion: “Approving the interpretive sign and history walk program with a condition that the applicant work with staff on the details of a revised plan that includes interpretive signage that integrates more dynamic user interaction, such as things that give the user a sense of scale, feel and touch, and explore repurposing pieces of the historic buildings into the signage as well as the use of mobile or other technology.”
Board Member Lau seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0.
Staff Member Tai explained the board’s options regarding street names.
Board Member Wit said she would prefer to keep the names within and adjacent to Alameda County.
Board Member Lau agreed.
Board Member Jones made a motion to accept staff’s recommendation regarding amendments to the street names list, including deletion of names from the water bodies list, but to keep water bodies in Alameda and San Francisco counties. Board Member Lau seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
10. *None*
11. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
12. ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Jones adjourned the meeting at 8:23pm.