[0:20] Are we there? Officially time, isn't it, seven? Well, with that, let's go ahead and call our meeting to order. Start, roll call, roll call. Good evening, board member, Evan,

[0:37] President, board member Brito, President, board member Lee, President, and chair Hernandez, President. Okay, we have a quorum,

[0:46] board member Crottie is out tonight.

[0:50] Let's start off with non agenda public comments.

[0:54] I'm not sure if we have anybody joining us via Zoom today.

[0:57] Or in the audience, but anyone may speak for three minutes on anything not on the agenda.

[1:04] We do have a non-genderized public comment.

[1:07] Mark Douglas minor.

[1:10] Good evening.

[1:11] Thank you.

[1:12] I have some handouts, which was just said I could hand out, but given to you where you can make

[1:16] give them to them.

[1:18] Thank you.

[1:35] Is this thing a reasonable?

[1:36] No.

[1:37] I'm going to have to.

[1:38] It's a strength.

[1:39] We can reset the timer here, too.

[1:41] Okay.

[1:42] Well, thank you.

[1:43] Good evening, Chairperson.

[1:44] And members of the Historical Advisory Board as a, as a Tristan mentioned, my name is Mark

[1:50] Douglas Miner, for presenting a preservation-minded members of the Ferencite District.

[1:55] And I'm proud to see that I'm a fourth-generation

[1:57] Allem Eden, deeply appreciates our city's history.

[2:03] And I commend this board for a legacy of protecting

[2:06] Allemidas living cultural landscapes.

[2:09] Today I submit a formal, a nomination

[2:11] does he aid to designate the given's drive.

[2:13] Sweetcome tree, it can't be as he protected tree corridor.

[2:17] I'm operating into the local code authorities,

[2:21] preservation, ordinance, and public resources code.

[2:25] By request follows established, municipal precedent,

[2:29] which residents, including the island-wide protection

[2:32] of close to light those over ten inches,

[2:35] the historic fan poms on Burbank Street,

[2:38] the Thompson Avenue, median trees, Christmas tree lane,

[2:43] in central Avenue, sick of moors between fur and side and fifth.

[2:47] And I assert that the majestic and historic defense drive

[2:52] canopy deserves the same tier of preservation.

[3:02] The historical significance of this corridor is deeply tied to the narrative of

[3:06] a valamida itself.

[3:08] The landscape was born from the 100 acre Cohen estate, as you all know, called

[3:13] Fernside.

[3:14] Elamida's premier estate established in the 1850s by Alfred A. Cohen, the pioneer

[3:21] who built Elamida's first railroad.

[3:23] When the estate was subdivided in 1925, prominent developer Fred T. Wood designed a grand

[3:30] curving boulevard through the former estate. He named it given Zidraev to honor the maternal

[3:36] line of the co-in family. This is not a random collection of trees. In 1928 at the behest of the

[3:45] neighborhood of homeowner's association, the city of Alameda uniformly planted these rows of

[3:50] as we sit here in 2026 over 100 trees are reaching their centennial milestone.

[3:59] For nearly 100 years, they have stood as a living,

[4:02] breathing monument to the early 20th century city, beautiful movement.

[4:09] The interlocking limbs created cathedral-like archway,

[4:13] that serves as element as most elegant iconic gateway

[4:16] because it early planners smartly routed.

[4:18] utility lines along the back, property lines, these trees are grown entirely wire-free,

[4:24] allowing for under an uninterrupted canopy. The extraordinary seasonal variation,

[4:30] reds, greens, golds, is a foundation to the visual identity of the East End.

[4:37] We've also had the word science partly consulting, indicate that the

[4:42] The best majority, you're in good health.

[4:45] I have to stop.

[4:46] Thank you.

[4:47] We appreciate your comments.

[4:50] And we'll take time to read this as well.

[4:54] Yeah, please do.

[4:55] Thank you for your time today.

[4:57] Thank you.

[5:00] Do we have any other comments? If any online attendees wish to speak please raise your hand now?

[5:10] I do not see any further speakers.

[5:12] Okay, great. Thank you.

[5:22] Okay, great.

[5:24] On to item three, draft meeting minutes, we have two meeting minutes to look at the meeting minutes from June 4th, and the meeting minutes from February 5th.

[5:39] And then just to remind ourselves, you can vote on those minutes if you were either attending those meetings or read those minutes.

[5:51] Right. And in this case, the three of you were at both of those meetings.

[5:56] And if you had watched the video or read the minutes, then you can also vote.

[6:02] Okay. I watched the video and read the minutes.

[6:05] Okay, so let's start with item three A. This is the meeting minutes from our June 4th 2020 26 meeting. Are there any additions, subtractions, corrections to those.

[6:20] Do we have a motion to approve seven minutes.

[6:24] I'll move to approve the minutes from June 4th. Do we have a second. A second. All in favor. Hi. Hi, it's have it.

[6:32] Item 3B, meeting minutes from February 5th, and he changes to those

[6:44] motions to

[6:49] approve the meeting minutes from February 5th, 26th.

[6:54] All in favour?

[6:56] Hi.

[6:56] The eyes have it.

[6:57] Okay.

[6:58] Great.

[6:58] And that brings us to regular agenda.

[7:01] Starting with item 4A.

[7:04] This is 2320 Lincoln Avenue.

[7:07] something that's come before us previously, it looks like we have some updated analysis of the property and my assuming correctly that there's a presentation on this.

[7:20] That is correct.

[7:21] Okay, great. We'll take it away.

[7:32] Not quite so tall.

[7:35] Seemed board members, chair. Thank you very much this evening for joining me.

[7:39] For those of you who don't know me, my name is Tristan Sphere. I'm a staff member here at City of Alameda Planning Division.

[7:43] And the item before the board tonight is a study session to consider some of the additional information that's been provided by the applicant regarding the proposal to pursue a certificate of approval for the properties located at 2320 and 2322 Lincoln just around the corner from where we are here behind the library across the street from the goodwill.

[8:10] So I'm going to take a little bit of time this evening to cover some of the background information that we discussed previously on this item.

[8:17] And part because we have a new board member who I think deserves that context, but also because it's important for us to remind ourselves when it's been a little bit of time since we've last kind of discuss this and refresh ourselves on the actual material changes here. Now I'm having a little trouble with my remote. So I think I'm going to do here.

[8:52] Let me try this one. Thanks, Dealing. Oh, nevermind. I'm sorry. I think I've got it now.

[8:57] Reboot. Yeah. Here we go. Appreciate everybody's patience. A little bit of technical difficulties.

[9:03] So the subject property as noted is

[9:09] fronting onto Lincoln on the south side. It is two buildings located on the same property.

[9:16] both constructed in the late 1800s, although there is a little bit of a discrepancy between the two existing historical valuations as to when exactly the western most building was constructed and also point out that the subject property at 2320 Lincoln is included on our historical building study list with an S designation, which is one of the more significant designations therein.

[9:43] Just in the interest of getting a really important point down first, there's nice historical photo here, but this is the point I want to make, which is going forward and this discussion will be referring to these buildings is building a and building B, just for the sake of clarity and not making me repeat the address many times.

[10:00] The building A refers to the sort of residential appearance building pictured on top there. One and a half

[10:06] story, end-gable dwelling, recess front entry. It was originally constructed as the Ensemble Slune. Although

[10:14] residential upstairs was sort of always the uses as far as we can gather from the Sandborn maps

[10:21] and historical evaluations provided. Building B, of course, pictured on the bottom there, often referred

[10:26] as Kim's Chinese is a restaurant that's still in operation today and seems to have a long history

[10:34] of commercial uses, including references on the same board maps to a historical,

[10:39] quote unquote Chinese store. So while it is substantially modified as identified by several

[10:47] of the changes in the building permit history and this local valuation, it still maintains a similar

[10:54] used to what it once had, and many of the sort of features, including the alterations made over

[11:00] time to the front-to-side pair of pet. The recess front entry remain very much in their current

[11:07] state, permanent reflects the state of the time of the 79 windshield survey that was conducted

[11:14] to identify which buildings ought to be incorporated into the historical building study list. So

[11:19] While the, on both buildings are somewhat worse for where these days, they are more or less in the same,

[11:27] they haven't been substantially modified since that time.

[11:32] Just a brief note on the floor plans here.

[11:34] This is the floor plan for 2320 Lincoln, which is going to be the focus of tonight's conversation,

[11:40] because we have so much more information about it regarding its structural integrity.

[11:45] I just want to point out that there is actually internal connectivity

[11:49] between the rear edition on the first floor and the main building, which was sort of the original construction.

[11:55] It's not shown there to have a doorway, but it does in fact have one.

[11:59] And I can attest to this because I was there earlier today.

[12:03] The 2024 backyard fire is something that we can still see extent damage from on the buildings.

[12:10] Fortunately, the structures themselves were mostly unharmed.

[12:15] And although the burn damage is still very evident, this is really the only substantial

[12:23] change that has occurred to the buildings since the historical evaluations conducted in

[12:28] 0304 as part of the library project, which had considered removal of the buildings as

[12:32] part of it.

[12:33] However, at that time determined building A to be a historic resource and eventually backed

[12:40] off the intent of demolish that constructed the parking lot sort of around it instead.

[12:46] So that brings us to our existing conditions. And this is really the focus of tonight's conversation.

[12:52] As noted, the applicant provided a structural analysis conducted by Steve Fedwa,

[12:59] a rice design group to identify what elements of the structure might be suitable for rehabilitation,

[13:06] what elements might be retained and what is in such poor condition that it will need to be rebuilt as part of any scope of work necessary to

[13:16] get the building up to current building code compliance, which is very much the ultimate goal of the applicants.

[13:21] I guess I want to mention to that there is a bit of flexibility as far as their intent is concerned.

[13:26] I think they're much more interested in getting feedback from you tonight on what exactly the desired outcomes are

[13:34] for a project that you folks would entertain,

[13:36] a certificate of approval for,

[13:39] because ultimately their goal is to have a structure

[13:42] that is habitable, usable ideally,

[13:46] we can operate a business out of there like we do games now.

[13:50] So they're coming to the board with not necessarily new designs,

[13:55] but new information, new pictures to sort of explain

[13:59] these existing conditions.

[14:00] And we took the new structural information, the evaluation provided to us, and discussed with our building official, they are sort of assessment of that structural evaluation to get their take.

[14:17] The reason this is important is because ultimately the trigger for a certificate of approval, which is what we're talking about here and we talk about demolition of a historic structure.

[14:27] That determination is made by the building official, so in our municipal code it's defined as 30% or more of the removal of the value of the structure as a term by the building official and their direction after reviewing the structural evaluation provided was that any scope of work be it full rehabilitation or full demolition would necessitate a certificate of approval because the condition of the building would mean that no matter what you're doing you're going to remove 30% or more.

[14:56] of the value of the structure and the process.

[15:00] Understanding that the only way for a project to move forward here is with a certificate of approval. The applicants wanted to better understand what range of modifications might be acceptable.

[15:13] And what might actually, what range of modifications actually might better constitute a rehabilitation of the structure.

[15:20] And what might be just off the table, because ultimately in order to come before the board for an action item that is to ask you to make a decision on the certificate of approval.

[15:29] approval. The applicant is expected to go through some level environmental review, and before

[15:35] they submit their final designs that that environmental review will be conducted on, it's nice

[15:40] to have a little bit of feedback direction on the expectations of the board. So to that end, we're

[15:48] going to dive in here a little bit more into this existing conditions. The photos here are actually

[15:54] taken back in 2024.

[15:58] So you'll see here that this is actually before some of the windows in front door

[16:02] were damaged. But also before they put a fresh cone of paint and made games current store front

[16:10] look a little bit nicer, which was done much more recently. This is just sort of to give you a street

[16:17] view context. These buildings are on the same lot. They're very close together and they do actually

[16:21] have improvements that span across the two buildings.

[16:25] So they're effectively attached, although they aren't sort of

[16:29] sharing a wall, so to speak.

[16:32] This is three pictures here.

[16:34] Really just intended to show a little bit more of the back area.

[16:38] That's much more hard to see even if you're in the parking lot.

[16:41] The back yard area is sort of fence-dough.

[16:45] In the upper left hand corner, you're seeing the vegetation growth.

[16:48] This is part of what had contributed to the 2024 fire.

[16:53] On the bottom left hand side, you'll see the rear non-original attachment to GIMS.

[17:01] There are several rear additions or accessories structures that were constructed in the rear yard area of these structures over time.

[17:10] Many of them are identified on the Sandboard maps. Others are identified in the historic evaluations.

[17:14] few actually remain today and those that do remain have mostly actually been incorporated into the building.

[17:22] Some are in some portions of either rear edition or in better conditions than others,

[17:28] but generally speaking, without foundations and just in very poor shape,

[17:34] even compared to the main structures.

[17:37] And then on the right side, this is the rear view of the space between the two buildings,

[17:42] I'm just to emphasize their proximity and give you an idea of what that space looks like

[17:47] because it's a little hard to see from the street.

[17:51] Again, these are pictures from 2024 showing some of the replacement sighting that has been put on.

[17:58] It's also worth noting that some of these windows have actually been boarded up from the inside

[18:04] instead of the outside. So, while some of them sort of look like they are relatively intact,

[18:10] the interior appearance is not so great. This is just a close-up of the front step,

[18:16] give you an idea of the condition of that there, and you can see even the threshold and where the

[18:23] floor of the finished floor meets that is pretty uneven because of the damage to the foundation.

[18:29] This is in 2320 Building A. Again, this is 24 before the front door was broken down in that front window,

[18:39] some of its pains have been smashed out since, but giving you an idea of what those looked

[18:43] like before that damage was done. Now we're getting into the interior of the buildings. This

[18:48] is immediately as you walk inside, you're sort of looking down the main hallway here. You can

[18:54] see that because some of those windows are board up, it's quite dark inside. If we were to look over

[19:00] to your left, you can see in the structural evaluation there's a picture of the foundation that's

[19:06] the tractor that gives us the view to it there. And there, of course, is also the street-facing window.

[19:11] I'm the left-hand side of that picture.

[19:15] It's also worth noting sort of to the right here.

[19:18] That's the bar space from the time that we believe from the time that this was the slun although it

[19:23] does look like it was maybe converted into dining room kitchen at space.

[19:29] This is the kitchen, which is actually

[19:32] at non-original rear addition. So this is all the way straight back from that front door and shows

[19:39] you the condition that it's been in for quite some time. The rear door there has actually been

[19:45] boarded up since from the inside.

[19:51] And sort of halfway through the building, you'll see this staircase.

[19:54] Now there's three pictures here. On the far left is the hallway that leads to the staircase,

[19:58] the middle is the staircase itself

[20:00] And then the right-hand side is actually the view as you get to the top of the staircase and are now looking out of the middle window on the street facing side.

[20:09] I want to point out that the picture really does not do stairs justice. These are some of the most narrow steep and, you know, insufficient run stairs you've ever seen. These things were warped and I would not recommend going up them.

[20:27] that being said at the time, you know, narrow staircases weren't terribly uncommon. So we have different rules about that today.

[20:36] As you get into the upper floor to your immediate right is a very small bathroom really more of a powder room.

[20:45] And the sort of wall partitions that you see there delineate the two bedrooms on either side and then that middle hallway all leading to those three street facing windows.

[20:56] And then if we were to turn around, follow the hallway, we get to the two back bedrooms.

[21:03] I chose to omit some of the pictures of the floor area here because they were strewn with human feces.

[21:12] But the walls and ceiling give a good impression of the condition of the building.

[21:18] And you can see here too that the windows in the rear are intact and that appears to be the case to this day.

[21:28] That's a good overview of what the interior of the building looks like and there are some more pictures we can go into.

[21:36] But ultimately I think what's relevant to the applicant's ability to prepare a more complete design for the project is to understand what kind of interior your modifications would be.

[21:47] hypothetically acceptable to the board. And again, I want to emphasize that while we're not making any decisions tonight,

[21:53] this is the sort of information that's used to inform the architect and designer,

[21:59] when they're considering whether or not to try to retain the appearance of a particular feature.

[22:04] Ultimately, I think we're acknowledging based on the structural evaluation provided

[22:11] and the sort of concurring opinion of our building official that

[22:17] Those elements that are intended to be restored as part of the project are rehabilitated would still likely need to be demolished and rebuilt.

[22:26] And so the question for us becomes to what extent would the have prefer to see new construction be distinguished from any original construction, so it's not to give the impression of being part of the original building.

[22:40] But also to understand from your opinion, which features really need to be maintained, such that the buildings can continue to convey their remaining integrity to the extent that they still have it.

[22:54] So with that, I just want to kind of go through the various options that I see being viable here.

[23:03] And I've listed them sort of starting with what would probably be the biggest ask, right?

[23:09] Sort of a full demolition, potentially new buildings, and all the way down to sort

[23:15] of a complete rehabilitation with only those minor modifications to the exterior that are necessary.

[23:23] And there's a couple of different iterations between this.

[23:26] And I think it's important to acknowledge that the applicants have actually proposed a really wide range

[23:30] of creative use cases for any given range of modifications

[23:35] at the boards willing to, excuse me, willing to propose.

[23:39] And so, while there are ideas for what portions should

[23:45] be residential or commercial and what sort of uses

[23:48] might be most suitable for this area,

[23:51] I would like to focus on sort of the exterior appearance

[23:54] and the design of the building rather than these specific use

[23:58] cases because, again, I think that's more sort of materially information that the designer is going

[24:04] to need for their proposals to be submitted for environmental review.

[24:09] So I'm just going to run through these really quickly.

[24:10] I'm not expecting an answer from you on any of them now, but what I'd like to do is have

[24:14] these fresh in your mind as we go through the images at the end of the slideshow for each

[24:19] building facades that we can kind of explore whether certain facades are thought about differently

[24:26] in the terms of each of these sort of options.

[24:29] So the first, of course, as I mentioned,

[24:31] is proper demolition.

[24:32] This would mean effectively scraping the site.

[24:36] Certainly, if possible, retaining some,

[24:38] it may occasionally be possible to retain a window

[24:41] or some feature like that and reinstall it.

[24:44] But ultimately, the only thing that would remain in this first scenario

[24:47] would be any kind of interpretive signage that

[24:50] would be explaining the historical context, its significance.

[24:55] as well as, you know, only those most important and most intact features.

[25:00] That are identified and needing to be reused.

[25:04] I think we're operating under the assumption at this point just based on our previous conversations that this is not likely to be the outcome of this project.

[25:12] So with that in mind, we thought it might be useful to distinguish building a from building b in terms of their significance.

[25:20] And part because the previous historic evaluations conducted acknowledged that building V has much less integrity than building A.

[25:29] It is substantially modified by comparison, especially along the front facade.

[25:35] And so the next sort of most intense option would be to demolish any of the reconstruct building V or construct a new building in its stead.

[25:46] restoration of the facade of building a and then minor alterations throughout the building and new rear additions to maximize the building build the area on the site.

[25:58] Which is obviously important to just sort of the feasibility of the project from the Africans perspective.

[26:05] So this would obviously involve significant new construction in the form of rear additions of some kind.

[26:13] And would also involve the demolition more or less

[26:17] completely of building B.

[26:20] We acknowledge that the historical evaluations

[26:22] do still state that building B has some integrity.

[26:27] And so I think the expectation here would be that

[26:30] any full demolition would need to, you know,

[26:33] still meet the secretary of interior standards

[26:35] and we need to conduct kind of analysis on.

[26:39] It's kind of significant in whether or not

[26:41] anything salvageable there as well. So the third potential option here is arguably maybe the

[26:49] most creative solution and I actually think it compares a lot to option four. So option three

[26:58] would mean significant demolition of portions of either building. Primarily along their walls that are

[27:07] of interior facing each other, such that the floor area could be expanded between them and the

[27:12] buildings could become one. In this situation, I think the applicant would likely intend to

[27:18] rehabilitate the front facade of both buildings, so as to retain sort of their overall appearance

[27:23] and character, as well as perhaps the sort of building face or almost a facade that aligns with

[27:32] the library there facing the parking lot. It's very visible from Lincoln and so, you know,

[27:37] as staff has had discussions internally about this,

[27:40] we've acknowledged that that's probably an important building

[27:42] face as well, but it does allow them to increase the floor area.

[27:47] It would likely involve a similar rear addition to some of the earlier

[27:52] proposals to expand the floor area, but it does allow them to explore

[27:57] a more creative range of the use cases.

[28:00] So there's some impetus on the part of the applicant to pursue that

[28:04] particular method just because it allows for some more interesting use options.

[28:10] Moving on to four, it's noted in both historical evaluations and it's pretty evident

[28:17] when you're on site that the extent rear additions are not part of the original structure.

[28:24] They have different finished floor heights, different foundations, different interior

[28:29] appearance. And so there was a suggestion that may be demolition of those portions of the

[28:35] buildings may not be as significant as far as compromising the integrity of the original structures.

[28:41] And it would allow a much more generous area in the rear to be built upon to kind of maximize

[28:47] the usable floor area in this space. And there was also a question sort of going along with this about

[28:53] So if such an improvement were to occur where you're removing these old rear additions and putting new rear additions in, if it would be more favorable to the have to have, you know, detached structures sort of independent from these, either operating independent they are operating in conjunction with whatever gets rehabilitated in the front, or would the have prefer to see sort of an attached continuation of the style.

[29:23] even though it would be a modern wing of the building.

[29:29] And so I think there's some unanswered questions there.

[29:33] And then finally, if none of the previous sort of expectation,

[29:37] none of the previous options meet the expectations

[29:39] of the habits, as far as the manner in which we would like

[29:44] to see the buildings handled, we acknowledge

[29:47] that rehabilitation would effectively constitute

[29:49] reconstruction of the buildings,

[29:53] but if that were to be the case, our hope is that the

[29:56] have would maybe entertain minor exterior modifications to accommodate things.

[30:00] And that's necessary for building code compliance. In example, would be the applicant's afloat of the idea of converting the upper story into residential units.

[30:08] And bedrooms obviously need egress windows, egress windows cannot easily be met oftentimes with the shape, size and operative type of historic windows.

[30:17] And so it's possible that either the operative type would need to be modified or the size of the window would need to be modified or a new opening would need to be put into the building to accommodate something like

[30:29] new residential units and so our hope would be that even if the board's intention is to

[30:37] expect complete rehabilitation of the structures that there may be some understanding around

[30:43] modifications to achieve building code compliance even if those modifications impact the exterior.

[30:51] So with that, I'm just going to give a very brief overview of

[30:55] of the structural evaluation provided.

[30:59] And then I'm going to get into each of the building faces.

[31:03] And I'd love to get some feedback from the board

[31:07] on whether there are particular aspects of those

[31:10] that we feel are more important than others

[31:13] or have significance beyond sort of already identified

[31:17] in our evaluation.

[31:19] So just a quick acknowledgement,

[31:20] our structural evaluation kind of separates

[31:24] the structure into five sort of building components regarding the foundation. Their recommendation

[31:34] is essentially a complete new foundation. It's very clear from the uneven floors and the

[31:42] frankly lack of foundation entirely on the rear additions that that that will need to be

[31:47] just completely new, it acknowledges that the upper floor frame, excuse me, is overspannous,

[31:55] so we'll need some retrofitting for interior support and because of some of the deflection,

[31:59] they need to, like they do some engineering there to make sure that the connection with the exterior

[32:05] walls is sufficient.

[32:09] The exterior wall framing is actually arguably in the best condition of anything else.

[32:15] They say that some may need to be replaced, although some may be in good enough condition to potentially be repaired.

[32:22] I suspect that would require more exploratory work.

[32:27] The roof framing is in very poor condition, but may be retrofitted, though they do offer an alternative to simply replace it and reframe.

[32:38] So that again has some uncertainty associated with it.

[32:42] And then again, finally, the rear additions,

[32:45] the recommendation of the structural engineers

[32:46] is simply that they need to be removed entirely

[32:48] and rebuilt.

[32:50] I would offer that not being original portions of the structure.

[32:55] The most important thing is that they cannot be maintained

[32:58] at their current condition.

[33:02] And with that, I'm just going to remind you folks

[33:05] about some of the aspects of the building

[33:07] that we might be interested in.

[33:09] Obviously, this is not an exhaustive list.

[33:11] If you see something that's not on this list and you care about it, let me know.

[33:14] But this is just a way to jog your memory and think about some of the things that we typically care about.

[33:19] When we're looking at, you know, especially the facades of these historic buildings and trying to understand,

[33:25] you know, what is important to conveying the integrity of the building.

[33:31] So just a kind of a reminder there of what we often look for.

[33:36] And now, kind of into the meat of it, I'm not going to expect that you folks give me feedback immediately as we pan through these.

[33:44] But what I ask is that you spend some time with each of these photos and maybe make some notes and then as we kind of get back into the discussion.

[33:52] We can go through each of the building faces as the board discusses them and provide feedback to staff that way.

[33:58] So this is the front facade.

[34:01] I'm going to point out the two by two windows.

[34:05] I'm going to point out the recessed front entry

[34:07] and I'm going to point out the overall very simple design.

[34:10] We've got sort of your typical narrow horizontal sighting,

[34:16] very simple corner trim.

[34:19] Its simplicity is what imparts its character, right?

[34:23] Our expectation of this would never be to rebuild it in an

[34:28] I mean, the design of these pioneer buildings was simple, right?

[34:33] They were highly functional.

[34:35] That was their purpose, not necessarily decorative.

[34:39] I also just want to point out that the condition has deteriorated a little bit from the

[34:45] photo you saw earlier, as you can see, the upper middle window has had a pain knocked out

[34:50] and the lower middle window has had two pains knocked out and the panels on the front door

[34:56] have been knocked out, so while the frame of the front door still exists.

[35:00] It is just a frame. So that's sort of the existing condition there.

[35:09] It's move on to the, but I would argue is probably the second most important facade of the building. This is approaching from the west sort of behind the library viewed from the parking lot of the library.

[35:25] And you can really see here how different the addition is compared to the primary structure.

[35:31] You can also see how much worse the shape of the addition is.

[35:36] I'd also point out that you have what we have assumed to be a previous either door or window,

[35:44] sort of near the front of the building along this side.

[35:47] It's since been infilled and it's not entirely clear to us whether this was a door or window.

[35:53] I think probably more likely a door, but there was some sort of an original feature there, or modification that was made in the interim.

[36:04] I think that's all I want to cover with this building face. This is the rear.

[36:11] And it's worth noting all these photos are from today.

[36:14] The fire damage is very evident here, although you can see that it didn't actually

[36:22] really engulf the structure itself, it was it was really a fire of the the brush in the rear yard,

[36:28] which was especially ill-maintained at the time.

[36:32] You can also see sort of the haphazard approach to the rear additions on GIMS there, although we have a better photo of that in a little bit.

[36:41] I'd also point out that you can see how some of the previous openings or there in the rear and some of the windows on the edition have since been boarded up.

[36:54] Interestingly, the windows here on the rear don't actually match the windows on the front. Still single-hung I believe although very well maybe double-hung I need to investigate that a bit more.

[37:06] But you'll notice, one has agreed the other doesn't.

[37:10] This may lend itself to the idea that these replacement windows,

[37:14] just because they're just seemed from one another.

[37:17] But ultimately, I think there's a question here about,

[37:20] to what extent the rear still conveys the historic significance of the building,

[37:26] and whether or not the modifications to the rear have the same impact

[37:30] by virtue of the fact that they sort of front towards a parking lot.

[37:34] This parking lot is sort of ordered on two-ish sides by buildings, and so it's not readily visible from the public right of way, although certainly the one-way corridor

[37:50] sort of between Park and Oak there does allow you to sort of catch a glimpse of this face of the building.

[38:03] The front of GIMS, as I mentioned, is recently had a fresh coat of paint, which makes

[38:10] a bit of difference for sure, but it's still a substantially modified front facade, although

[38:16] I think you'll see from the side view, the parapets are pretty interesting, it used to be a front

[38:29] You did to ventilate the commercial kitchen is pretty impactful to sort of the appearance of the building, especially from this perspective.

[38:41] Again, you can really see the difference between the rear additions and the primary building.

[38:45] It's worth noting here that the building is built up more or less right to the side guard property line.

[38:51] So there's really not a lot of additional buildable area to be had here.

[38:56] This is taken from the parking lot of the gas station there, in case that was unclear at all.

[39:01] And then, of course, the rear of the GIMS building is described it as eclectic.

[39:10] It has clearly evolved over time.

[39:14] This is also evidenced by the sort of evolution of the Sanborn maps where you can see

[39:18] Detached accessories structures, sort of becoming additions, additions being removed and rebuilt in this whole rear area kind of being reconfigured over time.

[39:30] So you notice though that it does seem to keep consistency with the other rear addition, right?

[39:36] It's like the wider horizontal sighting used there still have the substantial sales.

[39:43] So it's not that it's necessarily new construction.

[39:47] It's just that it is in remarkably

[39:49] where shape has compared to the primary sort

[39:52] of original structures.

[39:57] That is all the photos I have for you.

[40:00] We definitely can go back to any of these as needed and what I think I'd like to do is maybe start from the beginning here.

[40:09] But unless there's any specific questions per staff, I think I'd like to turn it over to board discussion and maybe start getting some feedback from you.

[40:18] I do have a couple of questions because I was here back in March of 24 when we talked about this the first time.

[40:25] released the first time that I remember it being talked about and at that time they had a couple of proposed building facades in the presentation or those off the table now.

[40:37] The impression that the applicant's got and I will clarify, I think that was March of 25.

[40:42] the impression that the applicants got was that the very conceptual designs that they provided

[40:50] didn't really meet the expectations of the board and so before designing new conceptual

[40:56] facades they really wanted to hear more from you folks about what might be tolerable. I mean again

[41:04] certainly this isn't any kind of a commitment on the part of the board but it does help them

[41:10] sort of understand what is within the realm of possibility.

[41:15] Okay, got it.

[41:16] So not that they're saying, we don't want to develop two brand new buildings anymore.

[41:23] I think they would like to develop two brand new buildings if that were on the table.

[41:27] Got it.

[41:28] I think this is more of a taking a step back, taking a listening session.

[41:33] To hear more about your expectations and use that to come back with a design that

[41:39] better meets those. Okay. Got it. Thank you. If I could just real quickly, I just want to clarify,

[41:47] Tristan is presenting this material both for staff and but also representing the applicant. The applicant

[41:53] is joining us online, I believe, but doesn't have a presentation. And so I think Tristan is trying to

[42:00] present their questions as much as our questions. So it may be a little confusing in terms of

[42:07] Why were the only people speaking, but I wanted to clarify that he's tried to digest their questions into something for you to discuss, and I think we can just turn it over to you.

[42:18] Okay.

[42:18] Thank you.

[42:20] Thank you.

[42:24] Discussion.

[42:25] I guess we'd be the next work.

[42:28] Oh, yeah.

[42:28] You have a question of.

[42:30] And you may want to ask for a comment at some point.

[42:33] But if anybody else has questions of Tristan before we transition,

[42:44] so next I would say, let's hear any public comments on this agenda item either in person or if there's folks online.

[42:57] We do have a in person public comment.

[42:59] What do you mind or if you'd like to speak?

[43:01] So,

[43:06] it's working hard to hear you.

[43:08] Oh no, I'm sorry.

[43:09] I'm sorry.

[43:10] Yeah, it's like an air noise, kind of like a fan.

[43:16] Sorry about that.

[43:20] Why is this thing sticking?

[43:21] I think this is a projection.

[43:25] But yeah.

[43:25] It's a lecture now.

[43:26] It's not functional, right?

[43:27] I do hear the noise as well.

[43:29] I'll say about that.

[43:30] So I'm glad to comment about that you were speaking for the applicant as well.

[43:35] I was wondering why the applicant was not here.

[43:39] And the report does not seem to be seems a little biased towards pro development in my regard.

[43:47] Sort of downplaying the potential significance of the building, saying constructed by 1885 possibly earlier.

[43:55] The sense of report that I believe you have that Kevin Frederick did, the research makes it highly likely that it was moved from the corner right by the train station.

[44:04] And if you look at old photographs of Alameda from the early years, 1870s, showing like

[44:11] an 1860s, streetscape, or even an 1850s, the form of the building, the feeling of the building

[44:19] is 1860s.

[44:22] Simple, cable, pioneer structure.

[44:24] It's very evocative of the early era of development in Gold Rush, California.

[44:32] Okay, it looks nothing like in 1870s commercial building or in 1880s commercial building and I just felt that the white was presented here is to downplay the potential significance and to emphasize the development potential.

[44:48] So, it's likely that it was moved to the site from the corner of Lincoln and Park where the train station was.

[45:00] It's even possible that it was moved from the historic Gold Rush town of Alameda in the East End because

[45:05] there, it was kind of like an Oklahoma land rush. They pulled buildings from the old town to the new town near the station.

[45:12] This has a feeling, it's a very important building, a very important building.

[45:18] And don't let the language suggest that, oh well, it was built by 1885, but it may have been built earlier.

[45:26] I think the cases that made very strongly was felt earlier, and I also want to say that's a

[45:31] property owner really needs to have a historic expert on board when they're making these decisions

[45:37] of a historic architects like ARG or Page of Terrible who knows these things instead of people out there

[45:45] making comments and suggestions that we need to have experts weighing in on how much of the fabric can

[45:51] be saved. You know, what can be done with this? We, I would highly suggest that. And so it has

[46:00] great significance. It's a landmark, almost certainly the oldest commercial, but you didn't

[46:05] all meet it. This is what landmark ordinances are all about. This is worth fighting for and saving.

[46:11] One last question if I may, can I have a question about the treating or is that off topic?

[46:16] It's a topic for this comment.

[46:19] We were looking for comments on this agenda item right now.

[46:23] Well, that's about it.

[46:24] Thank you.

[46:25] Thanks.

[46:25] We really appreciate it.

[46:28] Other comments either in person or online.

[46:32] Hope you have another in person comment.

[46:36] Bernie.

[46:37] Excuse me.

[46:40] Thank you.

[46:41] Welcome board member Lee.

[46:42] I think it's just your first meeting.

[46:43] Congratulations.

[46:45] This is great.

[46:45] Um, I will say, you know, I didn't know we're going to have the honor of what are you here tonight.

[46:50] I think I've read a lot of your work and whatnot.

[46:53] So I mean, that's great that you're, you're, and I just want to echo somebody.

[46:56] He said that this truly appears to be a landmark in town, if arguably the oldest building, I think,

[47:02] from I've been doing a little research following along.

[47:04] I know you all maybe recognize me as a recent student of the have and I've been kind of following your work.

[47:11] And this is incredible that it's a, it's arguably the oldest building.

[47:14] and, you know, the saloon and whatnot, I guess, as a kind of ten-year-d resident of Alameda,

[47:20] at this point, nobody has any idea about that, right? Which is that's the true tragedy,

[47:24] I think, from a historical perspective, that when I drop off donations to the salvation,

[47:29] or I'm sorry, goodwill, I see, unfortunately, a derelict building across the street,

[47:35] which is an ice ore. And, you know, I'm raising my three daughters a few blocks away,

[47:40] And this is a part of town we avoid, right?

[47:44] That's a problem, right?

[47:46] So the idea that we have such a historical treasure

[47:50] that no one knows about and people are, in fact, a verse two,

[47:54] I think that in every respect is why we need

[47:57] to give these applicants a chance to do something with it.

[48:01] And not to necessarily incredibly, you know,

[48:06] to dogmatic about what it is we're preserving.

[48:08] And you know, the Woody and everybody else have done all the research to understand what the history is.

[48:14] And we have an opportunity to preserve it really and actually shed light on what a treasure we have here.

[48:20] And I think we're getting bogged down in a little bit of too much bureaucracy based on what I understand of the history of this applicant.

[48:26] So that's all I have to say.

[48:27] Thank you.

[48:31] Anyone online?

[48:32] If anybody online would like to speak, please raise your hand now.

[48:41] It does not appear that we have any more public speakers.

[48:44] Great.

[48:45] So let's open it up to discussion.

[48:49] The question is, before us, what do we think about this new material?

[48:55] Do we have, if you could pull up that slide with your different points?

[49:01] Yeah, there it is.

[49:03] You know, as far as offering options or thoughts on how we could advise both staff,

[49:11] and therefore the applicants on what might be a way in which to move forward

[49:17] and make something more of the building than it is currently either through redevelopment,

[49:23] rehabilitation, or reconstruction. I'll open it up. Anybody want to jump in?

[49:31] I can I can start. I have to say I'm I was here for the first meeting back in in 2025.

[49:39] So when the agenda came in my email and I saw the address, I was like,

[49:43] oh, this can be good news and then the report, yeah,

[49:48] made it shows that the building was kind of in the condition, the interior,

[49:53] because we didn't really get into the interior discussion about the interior last time,

[49:56] but that the kind of the bones were in rough shape.

[50:00] As we were fearing.

[50:05] So that was disappointing.

[50:09] But I was, I made me also think of a school field trip I went on. I grew up in Sacramento and one of the big attractions in Sacramento is Old Sacramento and they managed to preserve a lot of those buildings, a lot of them ended up being moved further away from the river to preserve them.

[50:30] but then a lot of them that were in terrible condition

[50:33] and just weren't feasible to save were demolished

[50:39] and then for the most part pretty faithfully reconstructed

[50:44] brought up to code made so that they could be,

[50:48] so they could have a new present day use.

[50:54] And so a lot of those buildings were really,

[50:56] a lot of them were rebuilt in kind.

[50:58] Um, so that gave me some hope for this building because when I was looking at the report, yeah, it was pretty, pretty terrible. Yeah, when you're going to receive, uh, like wood members sitting on on soil, that's that's just not, that's not going to last. Um, so the, yeah, the question is kind of how feasible would it be to, or are we talking about like lifting the building up. And then doing a new concrete foundation, you know,

[51:27] How does that, how does it does that make sense,

[51:33] and then it starts, I start getting to more of like the, the philosophical question both with this and then when I was thinking about old Sacramento and not to like personify an inanimate object like a building but like it at what at what point the question becomes at what point is it still that historic building if we're taking half to take so much out of it and replace so much

[51:57] of it, is it, are we taking, it's quote-unquote soul out of it?

[52:05] That's the part where I was saying that's personifying a building, but it is kind of like,

[52:09] it is that something special about that building.

[52:13] I do remember Mr. Miner's comments the first time when we discussed this about how,

[52:19] it's really the only commercial building from this era left,

[52:22] This old pioneer style and it's tied to Palamita's railroad history and I think that, yeah, it kind of brings the question, is it, are we able to acknowledge and honor that history by doing a complete rebuild?

[52:50] or like Tristan was saying, are there going to be some materials that we can reuse, so you are still putting a little bit of the soul, the original soul, the building in place.

[53:01] So people can see those those old materials.

[53:06] Yeah, that was kind of my thought that there is that philosophical question.

[53:13] But I also don't believe that complete demolition is a dishonoring of the past.

[53:20] You could still be very honorable to the past by doing a new building in this place.

[53:35] I don't know, I guess I wasn't here, so I don't have some of the context, but do we know

[53:40] what the intended use of this is in terms of the reason for purchase and are they continuing

[53:47] to use the restaurant space as a restaurant. And this space as something new and different, like

[53:54] where what is the end product? It doesn't sound like this is intended to be a single family home

[54:01] for the current owners of the space. So it sounds like they have purchased real estate with

[54:09] something in mind that they want to do with it. I assume leverage this asset in some way. Is that

[54:15] I think that's fair to say, I think their primary goal is to have a usable structure.

[54:20] I think they've floated many ideas ranging from all commercial, commercial office,

[54:24] commercial mixed use with residential on the upper story, that they've come to us with a pretty wide range of proposals.

[54:32] In the event that it were commercial mixed use, let's say, any of them obviously residentially you've got codes that you've got to get people out, et cetera.

[54:41] But if it weren't any of these others, in terms of the codes and how it looks now and the structure and layout of the inside is any of it up to code in such a way that it could be used for those with its current blueprint.

[55:00] Or is it required if this is going to be a functional space, does all of that have to change?

[55:06] Because based on what you said, it sounds like it's not going to support its upper floors.

[55:10] It needs a new roof structure in addition to a new roof.

[55:14] All of this is already going to have to be done just to be livable or you know, feasible.

[55:20] Certain elements identified in the structural analysis did have the ability to be retrofitted.

[55:26] So, it is not the case that all of those elements necessarily needed to be removed, but I think it's fair to say that the majority, especially of the exterior elements, would likely need to be replaced.

[55:40] Now, they could likely maintain, for example, their current footprint.

[55:45] But, you know, the stairs are a good example where modern stairs have to meet a particular rise and run, right? They have to have a particular width.

[55:51] And so, the current configuration isn't going to meet that at all, so there will be, you know, interior changes for sure, and as a part of that, it's likely to result in, you know, maybe minor modifications to things like the layout.

[56:13] Yeah, without the owners here to speak to their intention, we don't know.

[56:18] we did have a presentation where they had presented a couple of different building

[56:24] facades, the building that is the old saloon looked, you know, roughly speaking,

[56:31] like the old saloon, but I think they had intended to be like a coffee house with

[56:37] maybe some residential above something like that.

[56:40] and then a more of a storefront facade for the building that is the restaurant now.

[56:49] But again, this is, you know, a couple of your old presentation and they're not here to say what,

[56:56] but that's my recollection.

[57:00] Like it. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. I have a few comments and I will apologize

[57:10] in advance for not focusing specifically on these options for view of them right away, but I feel

[57:17] like I'm not in a position to confidently do that. So I'm going to communicate what I can

[57:26] about what would enable me to feel that way in making an important decision like this.

[57:34] Because it's been about a year and a half maybe a little longer since we had the last

[57:38] site session, which was the first. I did go back to the first meeting and listen to the commentary

[57:47] from Hab, three of the four of us here today were present there. And there was discussion about

[57:57] what information would help us better understand the history of the building, what features of

[58:05] building our significant to its history, and might be the most precious for retaining when you

[58:10] think about these different developments in areas.

[58:16] And we also heard from a public speaker

[58:20] who was the grandson of Gok Kim Wang, who was one of the founders of Kim's Chinese. And

[58:32] he offered to give information to the applicant about the history of the building and also

[58:40] suggested that his family did live in building age, which is 2320. I think I have that right.

[58:47] I have a dress system. I had versus letters. But I will say I look that up and they were there in

[58:56] the 40s and 50s, 1940s census, 1950s census,

[59:00] the long-family was residing in building A.

[59:07] So, the questions I have,

[59:09] I appreciate that a structural evaluation

[59:12] was completed, because that was one thing

[59:14] that was requested.

[59:18] What I feel was missing from that evaluation,

[59:21] and it did have a structural focus

[59:23] was more of a materials focus.

[59:26] Do we know, for sure, if this while the building can be saved or deciding, what are the conditions of the windows, what are the conditions of some of the trim?

[59:39] And I'll say at the interior, I would be very open to allowing some extensive modification of the interior, because the exterior is what the public views.

[59:55] And that's part of the public room and the environment that we're trying to consider.

[1:00:00] You're a potentially significant impact too. But without that information, I have a really hard time making a sound

[1:00:07] judgment about, with demolition B. OK, reconstruction, doing an addition, removing an addition,

[1:00:16] things like that. I think it's paramount that there will be some sort of consultation with an

[1:00:24] Architect, a historic building materials expert, architectural historian, and I, ideally, what that would be is a report not unlike what we saw at 802.1 of VISTA when that building was being studied.

[1:00:41] There was an updated assessment of its historical significance.

[1:00:47] includes both buildings,

[1:00:51] they're integrity because integrity is only able to be analyzed

[1:00:55] when you understand building significant or lack thereof.

[1:01:00] There is a lot of talk tonight about the integrity of building B and its facade,

[1:01:06] but we don't have any information from past evaluations that says or doesn't say

[1:01:15] The building is there is not significant for it's association to people it just says potential eligible for association the Chinatown, so

[1:01:24] Integrity would rely on understanding from what period to that building have significant

[1:01:31] Who was residing there or they sing a pickin that

[1:01:35] Mid-century storefront could be equally as contributing to that building significant as

[1:01:42] The original one may have been it

[1:01:45] there's so many variables.

[1:01:48] So that's my major point is three out of the four habits and members said,

[1:01:57] yes, we had an updated historical evaluation. It's been a year and a half and we don't have

[1:02:03] additional information.

[1:02:15] I also see from the structural evaluation, there is really not much discussion

[1:02:19] of building V at all.

[1:02:22] So I would presume that building is in good shape

[1:02:24] because it's still occupied.

[1:02:27] The business is continuing.

[1:02:29] I don't have any evidence that says otherwise.

[1:02:41] And then I'm also curious.

[1:02:43] It seems based upon these five scenarios

[1:02:46] that we have here that the applicant has some flexibility

[1:02:51] and what they may be capable of achieving.

[1:02:53] And I want to make sure that they understand that as part of this process, my understanding

[1:03:05] is the project path would be a focused EIR based upon the previous hearing.

[1:03:14] And I think maybe it's not the most likely outcome that the project could achieve standards

[1:03:24] compliance, complying with the standards for rehabilitation, can reduce impacts to a less

[1:03:31] incentive level. So that could potentially shift your project path from a focus

[1:03:39] DIR to, I don't know, if a category of Oracle exemptions possible, but something,

[1:03:51] something

[1:03:52] like mitigation.

[1:03:55] So you may be looking at things like historic building documentation or

[1:04:02] interpretive displays that those would be likely requirements, not just nice options,

[1:04:11] which I will say are great things to include and I totally appreciate that the applicant's thinking

[1:04:17] that way.

[1:04:21] Yeah, I'll end my comments by saying that I want to be flexible. I just want to

[1:04:30] understand what is really salvageable from these buildings, and I want to make sure that they

[1:04:38] can continue. If that means that it's more of a reconstruction and while retaining true historic

[1:04:46] fabric I think that's okay but I would I would also not be opposed to a project that if it's

[1:04:54] if it's clearly demonstrated that it's just not

[1:05:00] feasible to retain sufficient fabric. Maybe it is more appropriate to consider what's the best new

[1:05:11] construction that can build here.

[1:05:16] I'm also curious on a project path perspective.

[1:05:30] If there

[1:05:31] are we supposed to put residences right next to a gas station?

[1:05:35] I don't know how that all works, but those could be things that factor into future approvals

[1:05:40] project costs.

[1:05:44] So yeah, I have some concerns with the amount of information we have.

[1:05:50] Thank you. Thanks, chef.

[1:05:52] So a couple of comments from me.

[1:05:57] I did some digging and understand that this building was actually

[1:06:05] vocally supported for maintenance or maintaining its

[1:06:11] location and structure back when the main library was being

[1:06:15] rehabilitated. This was 20 years ago now.

[1:06:18] And I wasn't part of that discussion.

[1:06:21] I just know this building was part of that discussion.

[1:06:25] And part of the reason why the main library

[1:06:27] doesn't have a bigger parking lot

[1:06:30] that maybe it could have or should have had

[1:06:32] was because of this exact property.

[1:06:36] So I'm wondering if there's information

[1:06:39] that may be relevant to these discussions

[1:06:41] that came up during those meetings,

[1:06:44] That might be also able to inform us of things like the significance or reports that were generated at that time.

[1:06:55] Because obviously it was a big enough deal that the library parking lot wasn't expanded to take over what would have been, you know,

[1:07:05] these specific sites that being said when I look at the options for redevelopment you know I'm

[1:07:14] I'm seeing them one through five just listed here we might want to be thinking about them five to

[1:07:20] one as far as you know prioritizing the building and the significance you know with that assumption

[1:07:29] One of the things we talked about at that meeting the back in March of 25 or whenever it was was also the possibility of relocation.

[1:07:40] I don't see that listed here. So if it were to be that the highest and best use of this property could move forward with some kind of development that doesn't necessarily mean that building needs to come down.

[1:07:54] it could just be put somewhere else. So I would very much like to see their reaction to that

[1:08:04] as a possibility. Maybe somewhere else in Alameda, you know, so we were retaining it as a community

[1:08:10] as a valuable resource if this building's moved once or maybe twice before, maybe third times

[1:08:17] the charm who knows. In looking at the presentation today, as a general contractor,

[1:08:29] my answer is always, it's only time and money, anything's saveable. We can fix anything. That

[1:08:36] doesn't necessarily mean these owners have whatever time and money is required. And I think back

[1:08:44] to a very disheartening conversation we had to have about a building on the base that had essentially

[1:08:52] been neglected to the point where it was condemned. The fire department wouldn't go in if there

[1:08:59] were a fire. So we were here talking about that so that it could be demolished. And what I don't

[1:09:08] want to see happen is that kicking around the decision and the death by paper cuts of something

[1:09:23] happening that would produce a better resource for our community. It's not in our interest collectively

[1:09:32] to see, yes, the oldest building in Elameda die slowly and then catch fire and create danger

[1:09:42] for us in our community. Not to say that's going to happen, but like something like that will

[1:09:49] eventually happen if we do nothing. Now, it's been 20 years since the last time this building

[1:09:56] something happened when you used to go with the library maybe.

[1:10:00] It's going to be another 20 years, you know, and some other group of people will be talking about it.

[1:10:05] It was obviously built well to begin with, because it's still there. I should look so good at that age, right?

[1:10:12] But I think we, you know, we, we can collectively, as people who care about historic structures in Alameda, obviously, or you wouldn't be on this board.

[1:10:24] try to lend our hands into helping it become something other than what it is now and put on a path to something other than what it's on the path to now.

[1:10:37] Which is, you know, all I can see is like, eh, we'll be back here in five years and it'll have caught fire and then it's done.

[1:10:45] Um, so I mean, that's that's my personal reaction to it.

[1:10:49] I want to see something happen with the building.

[1:10:53] I'd love for the owner to have the time in the money to restore it and make it a museum that people can

[1:11:01] come visit and maybe it's, you know, restored to its original saloon glory.

[1:11:06] That's not going to be the highest and best use of the building.

[1:11:09] I get that, but really, in my view, building A just from what I've seen so far and what I can

[1:11:19] see with my own eyes, that would be the building I'm personally most concerned about having

[1:11:26] something happen along the preservation track, building B. Again, just based on the evidence that

[1:11:37] I'm less inclined because I can see it's been so clearly overly redone and redone to the point where we're like, well, why don't we even know what it was to begin with looking at the roof lines.

[1:11:52] When I look at the property itself and I think about if those buildings were to be demolished or partially demolished, you know, we're talking about like a 55 by 80 foot lot with

[1:12:05] zoning issues. It's going to have setback issues. What can it really be? You know,

[1:12:12] those are questions obviously for the staff and owners to tease through. What's the

[1:12:20] highest in best use from a density housing point of view would be an obvious question.

[1:12:25] Like can we put housing there if so how much or what's an appropriate business use for

[1:12:31] those buildings, give it, you know, it's place in downtown, parking availability, walkability, etc.

[1:12:40] So, you know, there's a lot of challenges to the property anyway.

[1:12:45] If those buildings go away as to what they'll become.

[1:12:51] But my hope is that they can just, something can happen.

[1:12:55] It can get out of being stuck in, let's just come back to the lab in another year, and talk a little bit more about it.

[1:13:06] Those are my thoughts.

[1:13:08] I'll just say, I was a little surprised we had a study session.

[1:13:15] I was thinking we would be moving towards some sort of, here's the updated design concept,

[1:13:23] because I would love to see something happen with this building.

[1:13:27] We have apparently a pretty rainy winter ahead of us.

[1:13:33] And that makes me think there is probably a few more months of potential damage.

[1:13:41] I think it's really important to get that additional information because if we don't have it now,

[1:13:51] It's going to have to be put into something later and that will be, that will be something that mitigates something going away versus something that informs

[1:14:01] how it's designed.

[1:14:03] Even there's just a little bit of preservation.

[1:14:06] And when I see preservation, I mean, rehabilitation, the rehabilitation standards, not.

[1:14:12] We're going to save that piece of trim of every single thing.

[1:14:18] And I think most of those scenarios that were presented

[1:14:22] rely on that kind of deduction.

[1:14:25] Right.

[1:14:27] Yeah.

[1:14:28] I would echo that.

[1:14:29] I was surprised.

[1:14:31] This was a steady session when it came in the agenda.

[1:14:34] It was like, wait a minute.

[1:14:38] Well, we wanted to get your impression before,

[1:14:43] you know, again, the applicant.

[1:14:44] I think has lots of ideas.

[1:14:46] They're not, they wanted to understand

[1:14:47] as was just stated, like, how receptive the board is to more or less extreme restoration or

[1:15:00] Reconstruction, renovation, you know, all the, all the rewards, you know, what, what level of preservation

[1:15:08] are you really expecting? Given the structural evaluation, especially I think Tristan might

[1:15:15] have underplayed, the degree of, you know, failure in the structural system of the building

[1:15:23] that it's, it really sounds like it's in pretty bad shape.

[1:15:30] So what is the path forward?

[1:15:34] So they we've done the study, we've looked at it,

[1:15:36] we've said the state that it's incrementally

[1:15:39] is not sustainable long term,

[1:15:41] it's not getting any better with age.

[1:15:45] These people obviously want to use it for something.

[1:15:47] What is the next step beyond assessing

[1:15:50] whether or not we are open to allowing potential changes?

[1:15:55] Right, well, the certificate of approval

[1:15:59] is the permit that you need to grant.

[1:16:02] And so the question, so the applicant needs to go talk

[1:16:07] with just architectural historian or preservation

[1:16:11] architect or someone who's qualified

[1:16:14] to help them craft a proposal that incorporates

[1:16:21] those elements that are most important and salvageable,

[1:16:26] I guess, or reproducible.

[1:16:30] And come up with a economically viable proposal.

[1:16:33] I think part of our question really is,

[1:16:35] well, what about that backyard area?

[1:16:38] What about connecting the buildings or building up behind?

[1:16:42] What's your expectation in terms of that part too?

[1:16:45] I think they might be able to recreate the street facade,

[1:16:50] but that probably doesn't give them the floor area

[1:16:52] and economic return that they need, given it's a tight lot,

[1:16:57] But they could fill the lot with building, if they, you know, so chose, but they need to probably, again, get that professional guidance of how far they could go with that concept as well. So assuming that you're open to those proposals, that's what they need to go prepare, I think, and then come back.

[1:17:15] Yeah, and with that same kind of documentation that we received, you know, in other similar types

[1:17:26] of instances where we're getting information about both buildings, we're obviously got the

[1:17:32] structural look into one building, but we don't know anything about the other building. And if that's

[1:17:39] part of this discussion. So, you know, a more comprehensive, here's what we want to do, here's

[1:17:46] the homework we've done, you know, and what we're saying, I believe, is we're open.

[1:18:10] We

[1:18:10] still need the information, you know? Like the analysis. Yeah, and then I think that the next part

[1:18:17] would be the sequo analysis of that proposal and the permit that you would be issuing. So is it

[1:18:23] is there a possibility that is consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards and that it

[1:18:27] could be tiered from the General Plan AIR or some other framework or is this a different kind of

[1:18:42] Does that answer your question?

[1:18:46] Well, I think that's what we're looking for, right?

[1:18:48] We would like to be able to take the next step.

[1:18:51] We want something that's actually actionable.

[1:18:55] I can't speak for everyone else here,

[1:18:57] but it seems to me when we're looking at the backyard area

[1:18:59] and these bolted on kind of mismatched puzzle pieces.

[1:19:03] I don't think anyone here would be like,

[1:19:06] oh, we've got to keep those.

[1:19:08] I think if we had something that was,

[1:19:11] You know, cohesive and made sense, but what that is in our minds may be very different than what the the owners want. So again, I think we need to see something concrete. Here is our plan of action so that we can make an informed decision on on a plan of action.

[1:19:29] Yeah. Yeah, I think it's not uncommon to see additions go away. One of the, sorry, if not close enough. One of the interesting aspects of this building is that it's public realm is multifaceted. You can say there's the Lincoln side. There is the library parking lot side.

[1:19:54] And there is the back portions of what you can see from that alley kind of secondary street.

[1:20:00] That runs behind it. But if you can identify the, the, the character defining features of the building, the ones that are primary, most important to its significance, I think there's often reasonable arguments to say, yeah, that can go away and we can keep enough of this, or you know, kind of, bring back that mass and keep keep some materials that way. That way, like to me, the ultimate goal is.

[1:20:30] If somebody who either lived here 50 years ago and remembers that building, comes back and says oh yeah that thinks so there.

[1:20:40] I remember that.

[1:20:41] That is where Chinatown and Pioneer Era element of Met.

[1:20:47] So we have this really interesting collision and adaption of those two aspects of history.

[1:20:56] If you have a brand new building there, it's not going to have the same kind of value to memory,

[1:21:06] and I think that's really important to places like Alameda. People know when the places

[1:21:14] they live change and sometimes that change is very jarring. So I think part of what we're being so critical about

[1:21:21] is trying to really just be careful about that

[1:21:25] and make sure it's a good project.

[1:21:32] Are there thoughts?

[1:21:36] OK.

[1:21:39] Thank you very much.

[1:21:40] Do we have enough?

[1:21:41] Yeah, I think we have there there.

[1:21:43] Yep, yep.

[1:21:44] And again, the applicant was at least listening.

[1:21:48] And we'll continue to work with them.

[1:21:52] OK, so well.

[1:21:54] Well, seeing no other discussion on this item,

[1:21:58] I say we close for A and move into item five board communications.

[1:22:07] Are there any board communications?

[1:22:09] And this might be the way we have an announcement to make about how happy you are to be.

[1:22:17] Absolutely. Yeah, I would like to say thank you so much for welcoming me to this board.

[1:22:21] And I'm thrilled to be appointed and I look forward to working with each and every one of you.

[1:22:26] I don't know if you know about my background, but I'm an executive director of the California Historical

[1:22:30] Radio Society, which is located on Central Avenue, and we recently completed a massive

[1:22:36] job where we re-did the facade of that building and the interior. That building was built in

[1:22:41] 1900. It was the original Alameda Telephonic Exchange, and so it's significant. And I think we did

[1:22:48] something very true to its original roots and left it and better shaped them when we found it. So

[1:22:55] Anyway, as that relates to this, they're excited to be here.

[1:22:59] Thank you. Any other board communications?

[1:23:08] Okay, staff communications.

[1:23:10] Well, we have an incoming new board member and I am out going. I will be retiring at the

[1:23:17] end of the month and so it's been a pleasure being with you for three years.

[1:23:22] And never a dull moment, really, working in Alameda with lots of different angles on every

[1:23:30] story. So it's been a pleasure and I hope to do more historic exploration, perhaps in European

[1:23:41] countries to begin with. Congratulations against Stephen. We've very much valued your guidance

[1:23:50] and stewardship over our agenda, so we wish you the best. Thank you.

[1:23:59] Other staff communication?

[1:24:00] I

[1:24:04] guess without wordjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Historical Advisory Board on 2026-09-03 7:00 PM

Agenda

Transcript