Title
Draft Meeting Minutes - October 1, 2020
Body
DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2020
1. CONVENE
Chair Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
This meeting was via Zoom.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2020-8359
Draft Meeting Minutes - December 5, 2019
Chair Saxby pointed out a typo on page 2, it should be AAPS. He also corrected a comment made by Board Member Sanchez that was made by himself, Chair Saxby.
Board Member Wit made a motion to approve the minutes with these corrections. Board Member Sanchez seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
*None*
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Christopher Buckley from the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) had submitted a letter on behalf of the society.
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2020-8358
Historic Preservation Ordinance Informational Workshop: The City of Alameda is proposing to update the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Alameda Municipal Code Section 13-21, to ensure that it reflects best practices in the field of historic preservation. The Historical Advisory Board will hold a public workshop to review the existing ordinance and discuss ideas for proposed revisions. No final action will be taken at this meeting. A public workshop to review and discuss amendments to the Historic Preservation Ordinance is not subject to environmental review under CEQA.
Allen Tai, City Planner Planning, Building, and Transportation Department, introduced the item and gave a presentation. Staff report and attachments can be found at <https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4650130&GUID=72BED756-67DB-40FA-A86F-3B4C9B025272&FullText=1>.
Board Member Wit asked about buildings built in 1943, wanting to know if it was 50 years or if 1942 was the cut-off to be included in the Interim Review.
Staff Member Tai answered that 1942 was now the definite cut off. If the building was built in 1943 it would not be subject to the demolition control process.
Board Member Jones clarified that it states “prior” to 1942 so buildings built in 1942 would also not be included.
Staff Member Tai that was correct.
Chair Saxby called on a public comment.
Christopher Buckley wanted to clarify that post-1942 buildings and those that are on the Study List are still subject to Interim Review. He also pointed out that the only demolition proposals the board had purview over before 2003 were those involving historical monuments and Study List properties.
Staff Member Tai believed Mr. Buckley was correct and continued the presentation.
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Board Member Sanchez asked about the tree protection and replacement policy and wanted to know if the required two new trees to replace the Oaktree had to be planted in the same location. He was concerned that the original location wouldn’t have enough room to accommodate the two new Oak trees.
Staff Member Tai said that was a great suggestion and that this concern came up often. He said the City Council has adopted an In-Lieu fee for tree replacements, that money goes into the city tree fund, and currently, that money is intended for Sweeney Park. He thought that the staff’s suggestion should be to consider some flexibility and allow the replacement trees to be off-site.
Chair Saxby suggested that the replacement trees would not have to be species-specific.
Board Member Lau asked about item number 2, and how they calculate 30% of the value.
Staff Member Tai said that is done by the Building Official and they use the replacement value of the building. The building code also has a cost table for reference that uses the building size, square footage, and construction type. The Building Official for the City of Alameda is Gregg McFann and he has many years of experience.
Board Member Lau asked how an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) would affect the value of a historic home, including when demolition of a garage is needed for the ADU.
Staff Member Tai explained how the 30% would apply to ADUs and what steps the staff takes if demolition is required for construction.
Board Member Lau asked for clarification on the process a homeowner needs to take for the demolition of a garage to add an ADU.
Staff Member Tai explained the permit process for the homeowners.
Board Member Sanchez gave Board Member Lau an example of demolition he had done for a client.
Staff Member Tai continued the presentation.
Chair Saxby asked that when a property is added to the Historical Study list does the property owner have to agree to it being added.
Staff Member Tai said currently the ordinance states that the Historical Advisory board will consider the opinion of the property owner and oftentimes cities will allow the owners to object.
Chair Saxby asked about the 2012-2013 revisions to the ordinance and wanted to know what happened to derail it.
Staff Member Tai explained how the Permit Streamlining Act drives the department’s work. In 2013 the amount of permit-related work coming in did not allow much time to work on the ordinance nor did the budget allow for additional staff.
Chair Saxby opened up board discussions.
Chair Saxby thought it would be wise to add the definitions for preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction to be in the ordinance. He also wanted information about exterior walls to be included in structural alterations. Under Duties, he thought it odd that one of the duties of the HAB was to approve construction on buildings on the Historical Study List and wanted to address that. He also believed the term Interim Review needed to be looked at and that new construction that falls in historic areas should be monitored to ensure they work with the existing architecture. He also suggested a review of the approval process, penalties, and even the Historical Study List.
Board Member Sanchez believed the 30% threshold seemed ambiguous and difficult to enforce. He also liked some of the points made in the letter from AAPS, such as the training for contractors under enforcement was a good idea. He also agreed that the HAB should review the Historical Study List.
Board Member Wit wanted to know what tools or resources they could use to provide grants or assistance for historical structures that are deteriorating.
Staff Member Tai said that with funding money to homeowners that would be a decision made by City Council. That is something that the board can recommend, but as for now, there are no resources for this.
Board Member Wit asked who keeps track of the stock trees in the city.
Staff Member Tai explained that street trees are covered in the City Street Tree Masterplan and 8 years ago the city did do a street tree survey.
Board Member Lau wanted to know if fines collected from non-permitted work could be allocated for historical preservation.
Staff Member Tai explained that the fines mainly cover the time and cost of code enforcement. However, the board can make a recommendation to the City Council.
Board Member Lau suggested community service help for low-income owners in need of historical preservation in place of fines or fees. He also had thoughts on the 30% threshold and wanted it to be clearer.
Staff Tai said that was an interesting idea but something like that would need to go through the City Attorney’s office and gave examples of what other cities did for the 30%.
Chair Saxby opened public comment.
Mr. Buckley from the AAPS gave his thoughts on past attempts to update the ordinance and encouraged the board to look at the letter from 2015 from the AAPS.
Chair Saxby requested that staff write up all the recommendations so that the board can look at them thoroughly.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Tai said that on November 12th the Planning Board would be considering the General Plan update.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 8:35 pm.