Title
Public Hearing to Consider a Call for Review of the Historical Advisory Board’s Decision to Approve Certificate of Approval No. PLN20-0431 to Allow the Demolition of Two Main Buildings and Four Accessory Buildings at 620 Central Avenue (the “McKay Wellness Center Project”) and
Adoption of Resolution Approving Certificate of Approval Application No. PLN20-0431 to Allow the Demolition of Two Main Buildings and Four Accessory Buildings at 620 Central Avenue (The “McKay Wellness Center” Project). [The City of Alameda has prepared an Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines and no further environmental review is required.] (Planning, Building and Transportation 481005) [Continued from June 15, 2021]
Body
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 6, 2021, the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) approved Resolution No. HAB-21-01 for a Certificate of Approval to allow demolition of two main buildings (Building 1 and Building 2) and four accessory buildings (Buildings 8, 9, 10 and 13) at 620 Central Avenue (Alameda Federal Center site) (Exhibit 1). The proposed demolition by the applicant, Alameda Point Collaborative, will facilitate future construction of the McKay Wellness Center Project, a mixed-use institutional use that will provide various forms of medical services, assisted living and supportive care for senior and homeless individuals.
The HAB decision to approve a Certificate of Approval to allow demolition of the subject buildings was based on comprehensive expert and authoritative analysis confirming that the subject buildings are not eligible for listing in any national, state, or local register of historic resources. The information available includes federal government analysis from 1996, a State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) determination in 2003, federal and City of Alameda (City) environmental documents, and updated 2021 preservation analysis, all based on established evaluation criteria and historic preservation methodology.
On May 17, 2021, Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog filed a Call for Review of the HAB’s decision (Exhibit 2).
Based on Planning Department staff’s analysis, the Call for Review does not appear to raise any new information or issues that would require re-evaluation of the subject buildings under the established criteria. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and uphold the Historical Advisory Board’s decision and approve a Certificate of Approval subject to conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND
The Certificate of Approval pertains to an approximately 3.65-acre parcel located 175 feet south of the intersection of Central Avenue and McKay Avenue. The property is referenced as 620 Central Avenue and 1245 McKay Avenue (APN: 074-1305-026-02). There are two main buildings (Building 1 and Building 2) and four smaller accessory buildings (Building 8, 9, 10 and 13) on the property. The property is part of what was formerly a larger military campus that served as the Maritime Officers Training School around WWII. After 1961, the property was subdivided and sold for redevelopment and many of the school buildings were demolished. A smaller 7.5-acre remnant (Alameda Federal Center) of the original school continued operating as federal government offices until the 1990s when the federal government began divesting from the remaining site. The subject McKay Wellness Center Project property consists of the northern 3.65 acres of the 7.5-acre Alameda Federal Center remnant. The remaining southern portion is operated by the East Bay Regional Parks District.
The subject Alameda Federal Center property at 620 Central Avenue was one of nearly 4,000 properties in Alameda included on the Historical Building Study List, a 40-year old survey “based on field observation” of potential structures that either had architectural significance, historical significance, environmental significance, or design integrity. Its entry on the Study List included an “s” notation, indicating the property was possibly eligible to be placed on the California Register of Historic Places and warranted further study. The 1979 Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan states the following with respect to the list:
“The list of architectural and historical resources should not be considered a final product, but rather a valuable tool in the on-going process of identification, evaluation, and preservation of Alameda’s architectural and historical resources. The list can be used both as an educational tool and as a preservation tool.”
However, the 40-year old survey listing of the Alameda Federal Center is no longer accurate, as it has been superseded by subsequent analysis, which has determined that there was significant loss of integrity such that the site is not eligible for inclusion on the National Register, California Register, as Alameda Historical Monuments, or on the Alameda Historical Building Study List. In 1996, as part of the federal government process to surplus property, the General Services Administration (GSA) commissioned a historical evaluation of the property (“1996 Page & Turnbull Report”). The 1996 Page and Turnbull Report can be found on the City website at <https://www.alamedaca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building-and-Transportation/Planning-Division/Major-Planning-Projects>, and is hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. The 1996 Page & Turnbull Report concluded that the site was not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. In 2003, the State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with the Page & Turnbull conclusion in a determination letter to the GSA (Exhibit 3). The GSA then proceeded to demolish several additional buildings and began the process to divest from the property.
In December 2018, the City Council adopted a change to the General Plan designation of the site from Federal Facilities to Office and a rezoning of the property to remove the G, Government Combining District Designation to facilitate the redevelopment of the site for the Wellness Center. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), adopted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the General Plan and zoning changes and the redevelopment of the site for the McKay Wellness Center Project. The MND can be found on the City’s website at <https://www.alamedaca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building-and-Transportation/Planning-Division/Major-Planning-Projects>, and is hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. The MND disclosed environmental impacts of the project, including the demolition of buildings on the property, and has been upheld by a California court.
In April 2019, the voters approved a ballot measure (Measure A) affirming the City Council’s December 18, 2018 decision to change the land use designations for the property to facilitate the McKay Wellness Center Project.
In December 2020, the applicant submitted an application to delist the Alameda Federal Center property from the Historical Building Study List; the applicant also filed a Certificate of Approval application to demolish Buildings 1 and 2, and four accessory buildings. On March 4 and May 6, 2021, the HAB held public hearings to consider delisting the 3.65-acre site from the Historical Building Study List and approval of a Certificate of Approval to allow demolition of the two main buildings and accessory buildings. The March 4, 2021 and the May 6, 2021 HAB Agendas (including the respective staff reports and exhibits) can be found at <https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4809153&GUID=A445FD85-3D49-412A-AF2E-C06F94BC4759&Options=&Search> and
<https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4928317&GUID=F79F3F4C-F1FD-421E-857A-E6F1C7FB096D&Options=&Search>, and are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
After considering the submitted material and the public testimony, the HAB approved the request for the Certificate of Approval to demolish the buildings with four members in support and one member in opposition. The HAB was presented with alternative resolutions, one to delist the property from the Historical Building Study List and one to approve a Certificate of Approval. The HAB only took one action and adopted Resolution No. HAB-21-01 approving the Certificate of Approval. On May 17, 2021, Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog filed a Call for Review of the HAB’s decision.
DISCUSSION
Call for Review Process (Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30-25)
AMC Section 30-25 provides that any decision of the HAB may be called for review by two members of the City Council. Calls for review must be scheduled for a public hearing and decision by the City Council no later than the third regularly scheduled and held meeting following submittal of the call for review. The June 15, 2021 public hearing date meets this timing requirement (July 6, 2021 is the third regularly scheduled meeting following submittal of the call for review). AMC Section 30-25.4.c further stipulates that all costs associated with the call for review including staff time, technical assistance, and noticing the public hearing shall be funded by the General Fund and shall not be charged to the project applicant. The costs associated with the Call for Review are discussed below in the Financial Impact section of the report.
The City Council reviews the HAB’s decision de novo. That means that the “City Council may consider the introduction of all pertinent material, including all documents constituting the administrative record.” Id. “At the hearing, any party or person may appear in person or by agent or attorney to provide testimony.” Id. The City Council may reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or may modify the decision of the HAB. Id.
Call for Review Arguments
The remainder of the staff report summarizes the Call for Review arguments, followed by staff’s response.
Call for Review Argument #1 - “Procedure for Preservation of Historical and Cultural Monuments.” The Call for Review claims that the HAB did not make the required Certificate of Approval findings required for Historical Monuments in AMC Section 13-21.5. AMC Section 13-21.5 states that approval of a Certificate of Approval to demolish a Historical Monument requires a finding that “the Historical Monument no longer meets the criteria therefore, or has become a detriment to the community and that the condition making it a detriment cannot readily be cured.”
The Call for Review also claims that the Draft Resolution attached to the HAB Agenda does not accurately reflect the final vote of the HAB.
Staff Response. AMC Section 13-21.5 applies to demolition of Historical and Cultural Monuments, which are local landmarks designated by the City Council. AMC Section 13-21.5 does not apply to properties on the Study List. The subject buildings on the McKay Wellness Center property are not Historical Monuments. Therefore, the findings referenced by the Call for Review do not apply to the HAB’s decision to approve a Certificate of Approval to demolish buildings on the Study List.
Properties on the Study List are those identified from the 40-year old survey that warrant further study to determine if they meet the standards to be considered eligible for Historical Monument designation. In this case, the HAB determined, based on evidence in the record, that the buildings were not eligible for any national, state, or local historic register listing and therefore approved the Certificate of Approval.
The HAB’s Draft Resolution does not reflect the final votes because the draft resolution is published before the public hearing and before the vote of the HAB. The final vote is included in Historical Advisory Board Resolution No. HAB-21-01.
Call for Review Argument #2 - Special Election Measure A in 2019. The Call for Review argues the voters did not vote to demolish the subject property and the applicant’s request to demolish the buildings now should be denied because it conflicts with and contradicts the voters’ decision to allow reuse of the buildings. It further argues that to not reverse the HAB’s decision would be a flagrant abuse of the public trust.
Staff Response. Measure A sought voter confirmation of the City Council legislative actions to change the General Plan and Zoning designations to allow the McKay Wellness Center Project to move forward. Measure A does not, and could not, limit an applicant’s decision on whether to proceed with a specific project. The General Plan Office designation and Administrative-Professional zoning designation allow for a broad range of uses, including senior assisted living and supportive services for homeless individuals as proposed by the applicant. Neither Measure A nor any other applicable local law compels the applicant to reuse (or demolish) buildings on the property, or prohibit demolition of buildings.
Call for Review Argument #3 - Recent steps have been taken to nominate property for the National Register of Historic Places. The Call for Review argues that the subject property has been nominated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, that the recent decision by the HAB to not de-list the property from the Study List confirms that the property retains eligibility for the California Register of Historic Places with an "s" (California Register-eligible) designation, and that it is therefore inappropriate to allow demolition of the buildings until a final decision has been made by the National Park Service on the National Register nomination.
Staff Response. As of June 2, 2021, neither staff, the GSA, nor the applicant has been given the opportunity to review a copy of the National Register nomination that was submitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation at some time prior to the May 6, 2021 HAB hearing.
The National Register nomination process is administered by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO); it is a public process that involves public notification prior to a public hearing by the State Historic Resources Commission. SHPO is expected to refer the nomination application to the property owners and responsible agencies, which includes GSA and the State of California (for the EBRPD portion of the property). The City is also expecting to receive a notice from SHPO soliciting input on the nomination. After public comment, the nomination is presented to the State Historic Resources Commission at a public hearing. If the nomination is recommended for approval by the State Historic Resources Commission, it will be forwarded to the National Register program. According to SHPO, the filing of a National Register nomination does not start a moratorium on the demolition of buildings.
With regard to the merits of the National Register nomination, in a telephone conversation with City staff on May 3, Jane Lehman, GSA’s Regional Historic Preservation Officer, stated that the GSA completed the process to determine National Register eligibility starting in 1996, with SHPO’s confirmation in 2003. Based on the conclusions that the site was ineligible for the National Register, the GSA then proceeded to demolish buildings on the site. The GSA Historic Preservation Officer stated the following in an email dated May 3 (Exhibit 4):
“I don’t believe any recent actions warrant re-opening of the federal 106 [National Register nomination] process. The property was determined not eligible back in 2003 based on its lack of integrity. And after demolition of so many remaining buildings, we know the integrity has not improved. In my professional opinion, this property is not eligible for the National Register.”
Based upon the extensive documentation considered by the HAB confirming that the site is not eligible for the National Register and the written opinion of the GSA Historic Preservation Officer, City staff, State and Federal historic preservation experts, Page & Turnbull, and the HAB agree: the site is not eligible for the National Register.
Staff recognizes the HAB’s decision to retain the site on the Study List for future educational and commemorative purposes may cause confusion. Staff recommended removal of the property from that Study List because the evidence demonstrated that the property is not eligible for national, state, or local listing. If the necessary “study” has been completed to determine that the property is not eligible for historic designation, then the property should be removed from the Study List. By leaving the property listed on the Study List, it is not surprising that someone might conclude that the property might be historic and require future study, when in fact, the HAB determined that the property was not historic and approved demolition of the buildings.
Call for Review Argument #4 - The subject buildings are the last remaining WWII era structures for Merchant Marine training in the United States. The Call for Review argues the existing buildings are the last remaining WWII era structures for Merchant Marine training in the United States. For example, the other WWII era structures at Coyote Point, Sheephead’s Bay and Fort Trumbull have been demolished.
Staff Response. Although Buildings 1 and 2 and the four accessory buildings remain on the Alameda Federal Center site, they do not retain sufficient integrity to be able to convey the historical associations that make the site historic. The Seamanship Building located on the EBRPD property to the south is a historic structure that is not part of the Certificate of Approval request.
The City commissioned a new Page & Turnbull opinion dated April 28, 2021 confirming that the buildings in question are not eligible for inclusion on any national, state, or local historic resources inventory due to a significant loss of integrity. (Exhibit 5.) Page & Turnbull evaluated the buildings for designation as Alameda Historical Monuments and re-evaluated them under Historical Building Study List criteria. The conclusion was the same as its previous conclusion in 1996, that the subject buildings are not eligible for listing on any national, state, or local register. The lack of other surviving Merchant Marine buildings does not make the subject buildings more or less historic because these buildings do not retain sufficient integrity to convey historic significance in and of itself.
Call for Review Argument #5 - American Merchant Marines Veterans Petition. The American Merchant Marines Veterans national organization circulated a petition to support keeping the buildings and not demolishing them that gathered 1000+ signatures, including over 250 resident supporters from Alameda.
Staff Response. The criteria and standards for determining a building’s historic significance is not based on public opinion. Rather, historic preservation in the United States is based on a framework established by the Department of the Interior (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards) that state and local governments follow and implement. All of the previous analysis was performed by qualified professional experts in historic preservation according to established criteria and standards.
Call for Review Argument #6 - Economic Value. The Call for Review argues that economic value of the property can be tied to local tourism related to WWII historic sites including the USS Hornet, Alameda Naval Museum, Rosie the Riveter and the Liberty Ship SS Jeremiah O'Brien.
Staff Response. Potential economic value as the result of some other use of the property is not a criterion for determining the historic significance of the subject buildings.
Call for Review Argument #7 - Restore the Buildings. The Call for Review provides a counterargument to the finding that the subject buildings have been significantly altered and have lost historical integrity. It argues that architectural integrity can be restored because all of the physical modifications are remediable. The buildings can be repainted the original color, windows and exterior staircases can be replaced to more resemble the originals and interior subdivisions can be removed.
Staff Response. The historic significance of the site cannot be restored by simply modifying the existing buildings to their original 1940s appearance. This assertion significantly underestimates the significant alterations that have been made to the buildings and to the overall site. For instance, the current “E” shaped Building 2 is half of the original building footprint after three major wings of the building have been demolished. A number of the primary buildings and facilities of the larger maritime officer’s training school, including the Administration Building, the auditorium/gymnasium, as well as the indoor swimming pool have been demolished. The surviving buildings on the 3.65-acre McKay Wellness Center Project site have been heavily altered and are remnants of a larger site. With the loss of the other key buildings, the site no longer conveys its wartime function as an intact grouping of buildings belonging to a larger campus.
Call for Review Argument #8 - Environmental Review. The Call for Review claims that additional environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the property is listed in a local register of historic resources, and is therefore considered an historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. (Historical Resources, Type 3: Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.)
Staff Response. In December 2018, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in compliance with CEQA for the McKay Wellness Center (Alameda Federal Center Reuse Project). The MND has been upheld by a California court. In accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Alameda, as the lead agency under CEQA, prepared an Addendum to the MND, which provides a detailed and comprehensive review of the minor changes to the project, and concludes that issuance of the Certificate of Approval does not raise important new issues about the significant impacts on the environment that have not been previously disclosed in the MND, and no further environmental review is required.
Although the property is listed on the Historical Building Study List, the MND correctly determined that the property does not include a historic resource under CEQA (as defined by Public Resources Code section 21084.1). The Historical Building Study List is not a “local register of historical resources” as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k) (“‘Local register of historical resources’ means a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution.”) The Historic Building Study List was a preliminary survey, containing over 4,000 buildings, and “should not be considered a final product, but rather a valuable tool in ongoing process of identification, evaluation and preservation of Alameda’s architectural and historic resources.” (Historic Preservation Element p. 51.) The subject property was not incorporated into the Study List by ordinance or resolution. Moreover the Historical Building Study List does not meet any of the four statutory requirements to qualify as a historic survey under Public Resources Code section 5024.1(g), consequently buildings on the list cannot be considered presumptive historic resources.
The City does have a local register titled the “Historic Monuments List,” and express City Council action is required for buildings to be placed on that list. None of the project buildings appear on the Historic Monument List.
Call for Review Argument #9 - Adaptive Reuse Feasibility Study. The Call for Review cites correspondence dated March 5, 2021 between a Principal at Page and Turnbull and a member of the public indicating the possibility of the applicant preparing an Adaptive Reuse Feasibility Study. That study was never done.
Staff Response. The e-mail referenced was in response to a general inquiry and reflects general priorities in historic preservation - that reuse and rehabilitation of historic buildings are preferable options when feasible. The e-mail was not based on detailed information about the property or proposed project.
While useful when considering the adaptive reuse of historic buildings, a feasibility study of this kind is not required by the City of Alameda. The preparation of an adaptive reuse feasibility study or any similar analysis is not required for approval of a Certificate of Approval. The applicant’s request to demolish buildings on the property was submitted after the City Planning Board’s approval of a Design Review application in 2020 for the rehabilitation of Building 2, which was upheld by the City Council on appeal. The applicant performed its own feasibility analysis to arrive at its determination to move forward with the Certificate of Approval process to demolish the subject buildings.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the HAB’s approval of a Certificate of Approval was based on extensive and comprehensive analysis spanning over the past 25 years. The analysis was prepared by historic preservation experts in accordance with established historic preservation criteria. The earlier (1996) conclusions made about the Alameda Federal Center property’s loss of historic integrity have not changed over time. The April 2021 Page & Turnbull memorandum re-affirms that the site is not eligible for any national, state, or local historic resources inventory.
No new information has been presented in the Call for Review that would require re-evaluation of the subject buildings under the established criteria. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a Certificate of Approval, thereby upholding the Historical Advisory Board’s decision, subject to conditions of approval.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives available to the City Council include reversing or affirming, in whole or in part, or otherwise modifying the decision of the Historical Advisory Board.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Pursuant to AMC Section 30-25.4, all city costs associated with the call for review including staff time, technical assistance, and noticing the public hearing shall be funded by the General Fund and shall not be charged to the project applicant.
Staff estimates the costs for preparing this call for review, including staff time, technical assistance, attorney review, and public noticing/correspondence and attendance at the public hearing to be approximately $14,300, which shall be charged to the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
As described in this report, staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code requirements for the site. The project also promotes General Plan policies in support of services for a population with special needs.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In December 2018, the City Council by Resolution No. 15461 adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in compliance with CEQA for the McKay Wellness Center (Alameda Federal Center Reuse Project). In accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to the MND has been prepared in the manner required and as authorized under CEQA, and the City Council has considered the MND, MMRP and Addendum, all of which are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein, prior to making a decision on the call for review (i.e., approve or deny a Certificate of Approval to allow the demolition of Buildings 1 and 2 and four accessory buildings on the subject property). The Certificate of Approval application does not raise important new issues about the potentially significant impacts on the environment that have not been previously disclosed in the MND and no further environmental review is required (Exhibit 6).
CLIMATE IMPACT
The City requires that 65% of all construction and demolition debris from a project be recycled by a certified construction and demolition processor. The goal is to divert as much debris as possible from the landfill through concrete crushing, sorting and salvaging materials to be recycled and reused. The City Council’s 2018 MND for the project includes environmental mitigations that minimize air quality, hazardous materials, and related environmental impacts.
RECOMMENDATION
Hold a public hearing to consider a call for review of the Historical Advisory Board’s decision to approve Certificate of Approval No. PLN20-0431 to allow the demolition of two main buildings and four accessory buildings at 620 Central Avenue (the “McKay Wellness Center” Project) and adopt a related resolution.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is being asked to Review the Historical Advisory Board’s decision on a Certificate of Approval. The Historical Advisory Board (HAB) approved Resolution No. HAB-21-01 for a Certificate of Approval to allow demolition of two main buildings (Building 1 and Building 2) and four accessory buildings (Buildings 8, 9, 10 and 13) at 620 Central Avenue (Alameda Federal Center site). Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Planning, Building & Transportation Director
By,
Allen Tai, City Planner
Financial Impact section reviewed,
Annie To, Finance Director
Exhibits:
1. Historical Advisory Board Resolution No. HAB-21-01
2. Call for Review Petition
3. 2003 Correspondence between U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) and State Office of Historic Preservation
4. Email from GSA to City staff dated May 3, 2021
5. April 28, 2021 Page & Turnbull Memorandum
6. Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration
cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager