From: Abby Thorne-Lyman
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Historic guidance materials to peruse on your morning tour Date: Friday, December 8, 2023 7:21:33 AM
Attachments: image.png
VerPlanck.docx
image001.png
Lara and Ashley, public comment on today’s tour for your records. I have shared with other staff.
Abby Thorne-Lyman (she/her)
Director
Base Reuse and Economic Development
City of Alameda
[email protected]
c: 510-872-2686
From: Shelby S <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2023 4:35 AM
To: Abby Thorne-Lyman <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]>; Tracy Jensen <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Historic guidance materials to peruse on your morning tour
For the Tourists—
I hope you all enjoy your tour of the Point in the morning. As you know, I am pretty zealous about preserving those view corridors along West Tower and Monarch and across the Bay, and I am continuing to be disappointed when I see factual errors in documents written by City staff and officials that intentionally mis-state the content of the governing regulations.
I have provided mountains of lengthy emails with excerpted references (with page numbers to check for veracity!) from numerous regulations and guidance documents enumerating the multitude of land use regulations protecting the Historic vistas. I have combed through all the land use plans, EIRS, zoning codes and permits, and I have demonstrated that the City is intentionally thwarting the public process… I even asked the City Attorneys to brief the issues and begged to be corrected---All I got back was crickets.
I have vociferously complained about the egregious abuse of process for those City as-lead-agency- and-developer-and-tax-beneficiary Projects. I have vehemently asserted the lack of transparency gives the appearance of backdoor deals and conflicts of interest--and each project appears to intentionally chip away at the integrity of the Historic character of Alameda Point at the expense of the public.
Worst of all, when Ybin Shen was asked in a City Council Meeting if there were any Historic Protections for the Hangars on the Base, he said: “I don’t think so—ask Andrew or Allen, ..and--- keep the advice I gave in closed session confidential.” (That’s weird…so he knows better than to overtly breach his Bar ethics in public. Interesting)
What will it take? What more evidence do you need?
What if a “Definitive” report could be created as a “Gold Standard” to evaluate Projects for compliance with the Historic District Guidelines.
Better yet, one the City would “officially recognize”. This Report would obviously apply to any project—any use permit—any zoning determination, etc.—and of course the Historical Advisory Board would use it too.
What if: this “Gold Standard” guidance document already exists?
Here’s the good news: It does!
Did YOU know that?---Do you know who does know?---Andrew Thomas. He even commissioned it!
In 2016, Andrew Thomas (yes, THAT Andrew Thomas) personally commissioned the February 25, 2016 Memorandum from VerPlank Historic Preservation Consulting, entitled: “Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Cultural Landscape Guidelines”. This report was generated as part of the environmental review for Site A Block 11 in 2016 (Ah, the good ole days!... when the City hadn’t quite perfected their methods yet). --Holy moley why aren’t we already using this for every project?? What have we even been doing for the last 8 years?
Well, better late than never: That time can start TODAY. à I call your attention to the 2016 VerPlank Historic Preservation Consulting Memo, commissioned by none other than Andrew Thomas himself.***
***This report will be especially helpful when looking at the existing conditions along Hangar Row. ((àprint out the attachments to take along with you on the tour today)) --The standards here might be a bit different than what is in your Exhibit 4 handout, though- --You be the judge.
Spoiler Alert: Just about the FIRST thing VerPlanck says is that all Projects (this includes discretionary/conditional use permits of course) within the Historic District must receive a Certificate of Approval from the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) —so why does the Planning Dept tell them they only have limited “recommendation” authority? Suspicious….
Quick tangent: --HAB is currently wasting away, having been robbed of all its power under the stranglehold of the Planning Department. It is currently operating only as the “demolish an old garage” committee. The Board can’t even make their own agendas! Your first question about that is likely the same as mine: How could a City employee have absolute control over a Citizen Oversight Board? I know, right!? (…mind blown..)
But before we look at the report…
Here are the author’s credentials (they look pretty solid to me):
A. Credentials
Mr. VerPlanck meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for both History and Architectural History, with 18 years of experience analyzing Projects with historical properties in the San Francisco Bay Area for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, including a decade of experience working in Alameda. à Indeed, Mr. VerPlanck authored Page & Turnbull’s NAS Alameda Historic District Assessment and Historic Preservation Strategy in 2004. (!!!), and as an independent preservation consultant he has consulted on several other projects in Alameda, including most recently the Del Monte Cannery.
B. Methodology
Christopher VerPlanck met with Mr. Andrew Thomas at Alameda Point. He developed his guidance procedure consistent with the following documents: (1) JRP National Register Nomination for Naval Air Station Alameda, (2) JRP Cultural Landscape Report for Naval Air Station Alameda, (3) Page & Turnbull’s NAS Alameda Historic District Assessment and Historic Preservation Strategy, (4) Guide to Preserving the Character of the Naval Air Station Alameda Historic District (1997), (5)The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (1996), and (7)The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1997).
The Memorandum describes the procedures to be undertaken when projects are located within the boundaries of the NAS Alameda Historic District, concentrating on the methodology for evaluating Projects in the NAS Historic District for compliance with the Rehabilitation Standards and Cultural Landscape Guidelines. The analysis in this memorandum follows the format outlined in Attachment A of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for Site A of the Alameda Point Project per the Alameda Point EIR’s Mitigation Measures 4.D-1a to 4.D-5.
ATTACHMENT--------------------------------------------------------- The thing we’ve all been waiting for” VerPlanck’s Guidance for new uses, infill buildings, and alterations to landscape features in the NAS Historic District
Review these as you tour, and consider whether those ugly tall construction view-blocking chain link fences and any other view-blocking or property enclosing feature OR a bus lot is compliant with these Guidelines or if they've even undergone any type of proper procedure..
The following is also attached for printing.
NAS Historic District Character-defining Features
The National Register nomination found the district to be significant for its architecture, contributions to community planning and development, landscape architecture, and military history.
Per VerPlanck’s guidance, the first step in ascertaining whether a project complies with the Secretary's Standards is to determine if the project would retain the bulk of the property’s seven “character-defining features, including the potential effect relating to visual impacts to the historic district’s setting--as compared to the Secretary’s ten “Rehabilitation Standards”.
VerPlanck’s Guidance Memo specifically addresses impacts to the existing sightlines of Building 77 and the row of the Seaplane Lagoon Hangars—which just happens to be about the best possible example for comparison to what you are going to see during the morning’s tour! There are seven characteristic features of importance to be preserved when determining compliance of new buildings or landscape features (LIKE A FENCE): Spatial Organization; Views/Vistas; Topography; Vegetation; Circulation; Water Features; and Structures, Furnishings and Objects.
General Management and Design Guidelines should address ways to ensure that new building siting, massing, parking areas, and landscape areas are designed in a manner that is compatible with the character-defining circulation features of the large, open areas within the Operations/Hangars Areas. --Dont forget that every single land use policy and/or regulation explicitly states the primary importance of maximizing and protecting the viewscapes from the Point to the SF Bay. --Thats the opposite of minimizing it to 60 feet wide by the way.
#1. Preservation of Spatial Organization:
The design guidelines should address ways to maintain, to the extent feasible, the open qualities of the character-defining spatial organization and views in the Operations/Hangars Areas. ·
Important view corridors should be retained and enhanced by removing existing fencing and other intrusive obstacles and by directing the eye along these views through the orthogonal layout of the proposed park.
· Compliant Projects:
o Retain the orthogonal pattern established by the roads and building mass and volume. o Retain and preserve the north-south bi-laterally symmetrical alignment from the Main Gate through Building 39 and the Seaplane Lagoon.
o Preserve and maintain the deep setback of low ground cover around Buildings 77, 20, 21, and 22.
#2. Preservation of Views/Vistas:
The design guidelines should address ways to Preserve and retain the signature view corridors. · Compliant Projects do not disrupt the large, open vistas:
Along Monarch Street and the west side of the Landplane Hangars -Along Tower Avenue and along the south side of the Seaplane Hangars -Southward to the Seaplane Lagoon and piers.
-Westerly across Airfield
.#3. Preservation of Flat Topography:
The design guidelines should minimize impact to the flat topography within the historic district. · Compliant Projects maintain, to the extent feasible, the appearance of the flat topography.
· minimize the visual appearance of any modifications to the topography. · Protect and maintain the low ground cover east of landplane hangars Buildings 20, 21, and 22.
#4. Preservation of Vegetation Characteristics:
The design guidelines should protect and maintain the vegetation within the historic district. · Compliant Projects
· Protect and maintain the low ground cover on the south and southeast corner of Building 77 and surrounding the Control Tower.
· Avoid adding foundation planting beds or trees at Building 77 within the open space area created by the setback.
·
Protect and maintain the low ground cover east of landplane hangars Buildings 20, 21, and 22.
#5. Preservation of Circulation:
Circulation within the NAS Alameda historic district is preserved by the large, open areas within the Operations/Hangars Areas.
· Compliant Projects
· Have no permanent enclosed buildings or other high featur · es that would disrupt the large, open vistas and view corridors in the area. #6. Preservation of Water Features:
· Compliant Projects
o Retain and preserve the Seaplane Lagoon, including its bulkhead and ramps on the north edge, the rip-rap sides, and jetties on the south side. o New features, such as pedestrian, visitor and boating facilities, docks, and/or piers should be designed to be compatible with character-defining features of the Seaplane Lagoon.
#7. Preservation of Structures, Furnishings and Objects:
There are no character-defining structures, furnishings, and objects (e.g., benches, planters) in the Operations/Hangars Area.
·
There is no precedent for features like the future construction of an entertainment pavilion at the east end of Seaplane Lagoon.
· Compliant Projects are low-profile, transparent, or otherwise unobtrusive to ensure that the taxiway area retains its character as a large, open area with few large obstructions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation: Alterations and New Development in the Historic District
Rehabilitation Standard #1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
Rehabilitation Standard #2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided.
Rehabilitation Standard #3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historical properties, will not be undertaken.
Rehabilitation Standard #4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right
will be retained and preserved.
Rehabilitation Standard #5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
Rehabilitation Standard #6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced.
When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
Rehabilitation Standard #7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
Rehabilitation Standard #8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken Rehabilitation Standard #9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property.
Rehabilitation Standard #10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
VerPlanck's Memo provides a complete procedure for evaluating compliance of proposed discretionary actions..
One more thing: I defy anyone to find a Certificate of Approval for any of the fences blocking the public views between the Hangars. Even if you could find a CoA, look to see if the fence is compliant with the CoA, and/or if there fraudulent entries on the permit application---so far the closest is the Bladium permit western side, but the rest have scant/fraudulent documentation, or none at all.
It is my hope and intent that distribution of these guidelines empower the public to demand Transparency for all current and future City-projects at Alameda Point.
Enjoy your tour!
--
Shelby
510-435-9263
VerPlanck’s Project Evaluation Guidance
NAS Historic District Character-defining Features
The National Register nomination found the district to be significant for its architecture, contributions to community planning and development, landscape architecture, and military history.
Per VerPlanck’s guidance, the first step in ascertaining whether a project complies with the Secretary's Standards is to determine if the project would retain the bulk of the property’s seven “character-defining features, including the potential effect relating to visual impacts to the historic district’s setting--as compared to the Secretary’s ten “Rehabilitation Standards”.
VerPlanck’s Guidance Memo specifically addresses impacts to the existing sightlines of Building 77 and the row of the Seaplane Lagoon Hangars—which just happens to be about the best possible example for comparison to what you are going to see during the morning’s tour! There are seven characteristic features of importance to be preserved when determining compliance of new buildings or landscape features (LIKE A FENCE): Spatial Organization; Views/Vistas; Topography; Vegetation; Circulation; Water Features; and Structures, Furnishings and Objects.
General Management and Design Guidelines should address ways to ensure that new building siting, massing, parking areas, and landscape areas are designed in a manner that is compatible with the character-defining circulation features of the large, open areas within the Operations/Hangars Areas.
#1. Preservation of Spatial Organization:
The design guidelines should address ways to maintain, to the extent feasible, the open qualities of the character-defining spatial organization and views in the Operations/Hangars Areas. • Important view corridors should be retained and enhanced by removing existing fencing and other intrusive obstacles and by directing the eye along these views through the orthogonal layout of the proposed park.
• Compliant Projects:
o Retain the orthogonal pattern established by the roads and building mass and volume. o Retain and preserve the north-south bi-laterally symmetrical alignment from the Main Gate through Building 39 and the Seaplane Lagoon.
o Preserve and maintain the deep setback of low ground cover around Buildings 77, 20, 21, and 22.
#2. Preservation of Views/Vistas:
The design guidelines should address ways to Preserve and retain the signature view corridors. • Compliant Projects do not disrupt the large, open vistas:
Along Monarch Street and the west side of the Landplane Hangars -Along Tower Avenue and along the south side of the Seaplane Hangars -Southward to the Seaplane Lagoon and piers.
-Westerly across Airfield
.#3. Preservation of Flat Topography:
The design guidelines should minimize impact to the flat topography within the historic district. • Compliant Projects maintain, to the extent feasible, the appearance of the flat topography. • minimize the visual appearance of any modifications to the topography. • Protect and maintain the low ground cover east of landplane hangars Buildings 20, 21, and 22.
#4. Preservation of Vegetation Characteristics:
The design guidelines should protect and maintain the vegetation within the historic district. • Compliant Projects
• Protect and maintain the low ground cover on the south and southeast corner of Building 77 and surrounding the Control Tower.
• Avoid adding foundation planting beds or trees at Building 77 within the open space area created by the setback.
• Protect and maintain the low ground cover east of landplane hangars Buildings 20, 21, and 22.
#5. Preservation of Circulation:
Circulation within the NAS Alameda historic district is preserved by the large, open areas within the Operations/Hangars Areas.
• Compliant Projects
• Have no permanent enclosed buildings or other high featur • es that would disrupt the large, open vistas and view corridors in the area. #6. Preservation of Water Features:
• Compliant Projects
o Retain and preserve the Seaplane Lagoon, including its bulkhead and ramps on the north edge, the rip-rap sides, and jetties on the south side. o New features, such as pedestrian, visitor and boating facilities, docks, and/or piers should be designed to be compatible with character-defining features of the of the Seaplane Lagoon.
#7. Preservation of Structures, Furnishings and Objects:
There are no character-defining structures, furnishings, and objects (e.g., benches, planters) in the Operations/Hangars Area.
• There is no precedent for features like the future construction of an entertainment pavilion at the east end of Seaplane Lagoon.
• Compliant Projects are low-profile, transparent, or otherwise unobtrusive to ensure that the taxiway area retains its character as a large, open area with few large obstructions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation: Alterations and New Development in the Historic District
Rehabilitation Standard #1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
Rehabilitation Standard #2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided.
Rehabilitation Standard #3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historical properties, will not be undertaken.
Rehabilitation Standard #4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
Rehabilitation Standard #5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
Rehabilitation Standard #6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced.
When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
Rehabilitation Standard #7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
Rehabilitation Standard #8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken
Rehabilitation Standard #9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property.
Rehabilitation Standard #10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
defy anyone to find a Certificate of Approval for any of the fences blocking the public views between the Hangars. Even if you could find a CoA, look to see if the fence is compliant with the CoA, and/or if there fraudulent entries on the permit application---so far the closest is the Bladium permit western side, but the rest have scant/fraudulent documentation, or none at all.