2008-01-15 5-B SubmittalThy
~~ ~
.~,
~~
~T ~ ~ ,
~..
~~.. P.re~e~v~tia>~......~;~
~~
~Q~.I~~Y
V
~y electronic Transmission}
1Vlayor and ounciirnembers
pity of Alameda
~z~3 ~ ante Clara Avenue
Alameda, California, 94~ ~ 1
~an~ary 1 ~, ~~$
~ubject:~Appeal of I~istarical Advisory ~aard ~eni~i of ~ ~erti~cte o~ Approval for
I~emoliti~n fir ~ '~'~yl~~ Avenue Item ~-B on January 1~} ~0~1~ pity ouncll agenda}
i~enorable Nla~yar and Councihrierrlbers:
In letters dated l~Ioven~ber 2, 20~~ ~. day 3, 4~7 included as attachments to your staff
report), the Alameda Architectural Preservation society ~AA~} stated that ifi `ibis no objection
to demolishing the existing building as long as the replacement structure is corripatil~le wzth the
neighborhood as described in the pity's amide ~o ~esi~~n~ial ~esi~ ", As noted in our two
previous fetters, AAP considered the replacement structure then being considered to be
a~cornpatible with the neighborhood according to the ~id~ criteria. AAA 1s therefore 1s very
supportive of the l~la~u~ing lepartt~ent's denial of the l~esigu }review appiication for tie
replacement structure.
~ believes that any demolition of the existing structure should net be approved until a
building permit is issued for a replacement structure that is compatible with the neighborhood has
campat~b~lity is defined in the ~'ui~e and in AAPS~s two previous letters) and conforms with all
provisions oi`the amide. AAF~ there#`oxe recommends that eonsidexatian of the subject
appear either be denried {upholding the ~A~'s denial of the ertif~cate of Approvai for
demolition} ar deferred untll at least a design review approver has been obtained for a
replacement structure that meets the above criteria. If and when a certificate of Approval
is issta~e~, the certificate of Approval should have a candrtrpn of approval that the actual
dernalitiaa permit net be issued until a building permit Ys issued for the replacerr~ent
structure.
AAFS would also life to Hate that although the front ofthe existing building has been badly
remodeled, the sides and rear have retained sig~i#~icant inte,~ity. There may also be significant
historic fabric under the front fa~adezs existing stucco and brick surfaces, AAI~ therefore
considers the ~~7,~00 cost estimate submitted by the applicant to grossly exaggerate the
probable cosfi of restoring the front elevation and believe that it should net be relied on to
eva~~l~.te the feasib~l~ty ~f retaining the exl5ting bui~ding ~r Its restorafilon. The estlrnate also
includes procedures such as sandbiastxng existing wood sidi~ag, which is a ~.estructYVe process
P.O. ~o~ 1G7~
.~~~rr~ cda, ~ 9~5~~
spa-~~~-~~~
~~
-~~ 5
. ~ ._~~
and inappropria#e ~ar'sof~ rna~~rial Tike weed siding. The e~#in~ate ~.~~~ includes a "hut" rehab
has ~ppased to se~ec~ve rehab, which is usually not the most econo~nicall~r efficient a~~roach
and results in dest~iction of ~vlnble ~~~ mafierials such a~ old growth woodwork, unless thcsc
materials are savaged and recycled,
Thank ~~~ for ~e oppo~unity to comment. Please contact Birgitfi Bvans at 10- ~ w~ # 77 ox
chick^~ir~i##a ~la~ne~~.net,net if you have ~nesfions o~ ~ronld like to discn~s these ~~rnrnenfis.
very truly yours,
~,.
.~
,~ ..
Birgififi vans, Acting chair
AAP~ Preservation Action omrr~ifitee
cc: ~atl~y woadbury, Planning and Building I~irectar {By electronic trans~nission~
Jon Biggs, Pla~g Il~an~ger ~~ elecfiranic transmi~~ion}
L~cnnis frighten, planning and BuY~ding I~e~artnxcnt~By electronic transmisslon~
City ~lerk~By electronic tr~n~n~ission}
Historical Advisory Board y~ electronic transrnissron}
~ Board and Preservation Action committee mernber~ {By e~ectronlc transrnission~
~k Y
t k. Sip ~~.# ~~ ~ I ~!h h~ r~:+} ~~ hYhY~
v r ~ vx ~, x, ~ ~ 4..
:~ ~
rye u