Title
Draft Meeting Minutes - December 5, 2019
Body
DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2019
1. CONVENE
Chair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez.
Absent: Board Member Wit
3. MINUTES
3-A 2019- 7512
Draft Meeting Minutes - November 7, 2019
Board Member Saxby made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Lynn Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
None.
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Items will be included with Regular Agenda Items.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2019-7507
PLN18-0405 - Certificate of Approval and Historic Sign Designation 2070 Lincoln Ave - Applicant: Bill Wong on behalf of OYH LLC. Public hearing to consider a Certificate of Approval, pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30-21.7, for demolition of more than 30% of the value of a one-story, pre-1942 commercial building to construct a second-floor addition. The property is not listed on the Historical Buildings Study List. The project is located in the C-1 (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District.
David Sablan, Planner II, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
<https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4265498&GUID=0BC02F9E-159C-453A-8233-1E76916562AF&FullText=1>
Chair Saxby asked about the proposed storefront elevation and wanted more information on the final design details.
Staff Member Sablan said that was part of the condition of approval, to have more development of that.
Chair Saxby asked about the historic sign and what changes the applicant could make under the historic sign ordinance.
Allen Tai, City Planner Planning, Building, and Transportation Department answered that there is latitude for both the city and the applicant to decide. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards has a brief on historic signs for reference. The Board needs to decide what part of this sign is historic and what characteristics they want to preserve. Any changes need to be reasonable, per City Attorney and Staff.
Board Member Sanchez asked for the age of the sign (not original to the building) and the original purpose of the building.
Staff Member Sablan answered the sign was from 1958 and did not have information on the original tenants of the building. Staff Member Tai said “you can assume these were various retail spaces” and to keep in mind the evolution of the building.
Chair Saxby opens public comment.
Laura Tang, the applicant, confirms they want to keep the building historic as possible and want to be reasonable in regards to the sign. She strongly believes that the new business owner should allow the content of the sign to change. She does not believe the word “liquor” is reasonable to keep.
Chair Saxby closes public comment.
Board Member Sanchez thanked the applicant for listening to the suggestions of the board, conditions need to be added for details of the design such as detailing the windows. The Windows on the Willow St side should be brought closer to the corner but is concerned the current set back sets it out of balance. Also agrees with many of the comments made by AAPS on the upper floor windows. In regards to the sign would lean more toward flexibility for wording on the sign. Suggested to keep the “Lincoln Market” as the historic portion and allow the “Liquour” portion to be altered by new tenants.
Board Member Jones agrees with Board Member Sanchez and has concerns over the new entrance, it looks similar to the original doorways. It should match the new addition more, not contemporary but not trying to replicate history. Also agrees with Board Member Sanchez’s comment on the solution for the sign.
Board Member Lau agrees about signage, to let the applicant decide to change it. He gave a recommendation on a way to do the new signage on the top.
Chair Saxby pointed out the letter from Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, Item 7-A Public Comment, that contains eight suggestions and says he is in agreement with all except item eight in regards to the sign, AAPS does not want any changes. He is more inclined to allow alterations to the sign. Item number five of the letter pertaining to the stucco believes exploratory removal of the stucco should happen on both facades. For the design along the storefront on Lincoln, he would like it to be informed by whatever they discover under the stucco. Concurs with item 4 of the letter that there be a sub-committee, and volunteers himself and Board Member Sanchez to sit on that committee. For the condition of approval would suggest including all of AAPS’s letter and conditions, except for item eight. He also added that they should simplify the parapet on the second floor.
Staff Member Tai commented that on Item 4 of AAPS’s letter, having a subcommittee “would blur the lines between the board’s role in the discretionary review of a certificate of approval vs the ministerial review of the building permit”. Instead, the board could continue the decision until the plans are correct for approval or just be very specific in the conditions for approval on what details the board wants Staff to look for. He then reminds the board about their purview over the project is the Certificate of Approval and there is a separate design review process that is part of the Planning Board.
Board Member Sanchez wanted clarification on the design review process and what is the next step of this project and whose purview that would fall under.
Staff Member Tai said that Staff would work with the Applicant to make sure the board’s comments were noted and that AASP would also be notified.
Staff Member Tai asked clarifying questions about the Willow Street elevations, windows, and setbacks.
Board Member Sanchez explained the board’s concerns about some of the design choices and gave better options.
Chair Saxby wanted to make sure there is a distinction between the historic old building and the new design.
Staff Member Tai asked a clarifying question about window choices.
Board Member Saxby referred to a photo from AAPS where the original building had transom windows. He went on to say how much detail needs to be overseen and wanted to make sure there was someone overseeing the final design. He commended the applicant but says conditions must be added to keep the project on track.
Staff Member Tai summarized the discussion. The Board wants to incorporate the suggestions made by The Alameda Architectural Preservations Society <http://alameda.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=d37a9e61-5a9c-461b-a6c7-a102532813f2.pdf> (specifically points 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7) However for point 8, the board is willing to accept consent change, replacing the word “Liquor” but keeping the “Lincoln Market”. Staff would recommend in the conditions that any words replacing “Liquor” be in the same font type as “Lincoln Market”. On the Willow St side making sure the cornice straddles the full span of the bay. Also, the parapet on the 1st floor should look like the original design and the parapet on the second floor can be with the new design.
Board Member Jones made a comment about Item 3 on AAPS’s letter. They want the new entryway to have a historic look but since it is not original to the building it should look different.
Board Member Saxby said this could be done simply and Board Member Sanchez said it's more about the portions.
Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the resolution with the conditions that were noted and have them added to the city’s draft resolution. Board Member Lau seconded and the motion passed 4-0.
7-B 2019-7508
PLN19-0556 - Amendment to Certificate of Approval for Site A - Block 11 and Waterfront Park Design - Applicant: Alameda Point Partners. Public hearing to consider proposed amendments to the 2016 approved Certificate of Approval for the Block 11 building adjacent to the NAS Historic District and the new Waterfront Park on the Seaplane Lagoon. The environmental effects of the proposed project were considered in the Alameda Point Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2013012043). No further environmental review is required.
Staff Member Tai gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at <https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4265530&GUID=87F820D2-81E3-4079-9865-3F538D9F69A7&FullText=1>
Board Member Sanchez was concerned about the tree selection due to how it can obstruct the view and wanted to know why the Honey Locust Tree was chosen.
Staff Member Tai answered the applicant had more to say on that, but the understanding is it was an environmental decision not choosing palm trees. Also wanting trees that provide more shade.
Kristel Railsback, the applicant, gave a presentation talking more about the amendments for Site A, overall design choices, landscaping, and amenities. She also explained why they decided against palm trees, they are difficult to maintain and don’t provide sufficient shade. Also, the space is wide enough that the trees do not block the view. She also pointed out where a mural would be going once an artist had been selected.
Chair Saxby wanted more information on the historic taxiway.
Ms. Railsback introduced Joe from her team who explained the taxiway was a parking area for planes and wanted to keep the pathway open for views. They would also add bike paths and historical markings.
Board Member Sanchez asked about the open area at the east evaluation, the alleyway facing block 10, and if there are any plans.
The applicant said at this time there wasn’t much value in doing anything since it was not as nice for pedestrians, so a decision was made to trim it down.
Board Member Sanchez asked about the 90% infrastructure completed in phase one and what areas and items are covered.
The applicant said the site A, gutters, pavement, and underground piping is complete but the landscape as part of the retention is not complete. The road system for Site A is in place and space for possible parking will be created.
Board Member Lau made a comment about the street light design and if they could be given a historic look.
The Applicant said since they were a newly added feature (they were not there historically) they would need to follow the National Park Standards.
Chair Saxby asked about west of the Waterfront Park and what would be happening there.
The applicant said this would be a further extension of the park, more hardscape for activities but as it moves further west it would become a softer less sculpted area. They also want to add public boat access.
Chair Saxby asked if the hardscape promenade would continue on.
Applicant believed it will continue on, it has not been designed yet. The goal would be to continue the Bay Trail through the area. They would also need to incorporate sea-level rise into the design.
No public speakers.
Chair Saxby doesn’t see any major changes from 2016 and can support this resolution.
Board Member Sanchez agreed and believed the smaller footprint of the building is a positive thing, believed it respected the original approval.
Board Member Jones appreciated all the thoughts put into the new tree option and wanted to make sure going forward to respect the history of the area.
Board Member Lau would still like to see some historical lighting fixture but understood the choice.
Staff Member Tai reminded the board about upcoming phases and there would be other opportunities to make design comments. He also explained the design choice for the lighting fixtures and why they are appropriate for the area.
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the resolution on the amendments to the original approval on Phase One Site A, as outlined by the CIty. Board Member Jones seconded the motion. The motion passes 4-0.
7-C 2019-7509
Historical Advisory Board 2020 Meeting Schedule.
It was suggested to cancel the meeting in January 2020, due to not having any items for that meeting. If anything comes up they can pool the board for availability.
August is missing due to this is when City Council, Boards, and commissions go to recess.
Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the Historical Board Meeting Schedule for 2020. Board Member Sanchez seconded and the motion passed 4-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai presented to the Board a list of Webinars for training and reference materials from the California Preservation Foundation. Staff can provide access to the board if anything is of interest, keeping up to date on preservation topics is a requirement of the board.
Board Member Jones made the suggestion if anything is very pertinent the Staff make a recommendation and the board can watch the webinar together.
Staff Member Tai said that could work as long as the meeting was made public and proper notice was given.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 8:40 pm.