01/03/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REVISED had been provided did not adequately address the impact of removing the buildings. Requested that the developer proactively support relocation if necessary. Commissioner Richardson expressed concern regarding the issuance of a demolition permit prior to review of the EIR. Ben Kaufman, Assistant City Attorney, provided an overview of the demolition provisions contained in Chapter 30 of the Municipal Code. Charles View advised the demolition process and the EIR process are not the same when not associated with a development project. He also advised that the applicant ' could choose to demolish the structures even if the project does not move forward. Ms. Nelson, Deputy City Manager, noted that this is not a request for action but a request for public comment and to give the Commission time to formulate their recommendations and request any additional information needed. Commissioner Richardson requested information regarding potential mitigation measures. Mr. View advised that as a public body they can identify what they believe appropriate. The City Council will review all suggestions and make their decision. Ne noted that cost issues normally are best left to the Council but whatever the Commission considers beneficial should be included and presented to the Council. Commissioner Chinn requested back-up information for structural engineering report and ex ressed concern regarding traffic issues ~a4 ~~jGilq't~a~~~~~iii~js'N~ii`tgjj~~ipfgp~~~~~~~l$jq R~~11~h;>~61 He requested information regarding the developer's responsibility to replace low-income housing lost and was advised by Mr. Kaufman that as the project was not utilizing any Redevelopment Agency funds it was not subject to relocation requirements but that the loss of affordable housing could be an impact depending on the EIR. Madam Chair Kings made the following comments: Report Scope 1. The report does not address the collective loss of these structures as part of the Historic Broadway Corridor or the effects of the proposed development on the existing historic structures/district to remain. Presumably, this will be assessed in the Cultural Resource Assessment (by Discovery Works) which we have not been given yet. 2. Report does not address the site/setting associated with the structures in questions which are part of the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Appendices A & B clearly do not provide enough information to indicate the true loss of structures and the associated environments. Nor does the report satisfactorily assess or recognize this cultural loss should these buildings be relocated. Report Findings 3. Deferred maintenance and the failure to maintain these structures is a detrimental role in the cost of rehabilitating these structures. It appears that the owner sees this as way to hasten the demolition of these structures. The Commission would ask that the owner provide reasonable care and maintenance of these properties. 4. The structural assessment findings of this report (Section VIII) are contradictory to the findings that were presented in regards to the condemning of the Yale Apartments (Correia Evaluation). Both reports document problems mostly ' associated with negligence, yet the Garavaglia report finds no evidence of structural stress or failure. The Garavaglia report also properly suggests that a more detailed analysis would credit much of the strength of the floor and wall framing. In light of this new evidence, I would like to request that staff review the reports and the decision to allow demolition and propose a third report to confirm the structural soundness of the Yale Apartments. 5. Section VII Historic Significance assessment and findings are inadequate and inconsistent to the findings of this Commission. The report only considers National Register Criterion B; however, the Yale Apartments were found to be significant under Criterion C. The Koenig House and the Twist-Basler Home were both found significant under Criteria A, B, and C. Had the report adequately addressed these other criteria, the sites and significance of these HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES 5 JANUARY 3, 2002