Blogging Bayport Alameda

June 22, 2022

Red flags, part 7

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:02 am

So recall that there was some drama about how closed connected the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) was in the maritime school nomination. SHPO/SHRC staff explicitly wrote in the last staff report that the nominating party was AAPS:

However shortly after this was released the denials from AAPS connected individuals started rolling in, the first from the president of AAPS’s board:

And then via verbal communications with Alameda City Staff:


With this information being presented the pressure was on the nominating individual to get some sort of message of solidarity from her allies on the AAPS Board and she managed to get one of the two Vice Presidents on the Board to send out this letter:

It’s pretty obvious that other SHPO/SHRC staff was asking about the inconsistencies which prompted the SHPO/SHRC staff leading this nomination sent out this to, it looks like, his bosses:

The “attached support letter” is the one signed by Conchita Perales above who made sure to explain in the email what is not expressed in the formal letter:

And that it is AAPS that is also an applicant because they “supported her as the lead applicant on the nomination with AAPS listed as the organization.”

When the lead of AAPS’s Preservation Action committee (you’ll notice that Conchita Perales referenced Carmen Reid’s membership on the Preservation Action Committee) Chris Buckley was asked by City Staff if AAPS was recommending that the 100 units allocated to the Wellness Center to meet Alameda’s RHNA be removed, Chris Buckley balked at that suggestion:

At the June 13 Planning Board meeting, using these details presented by AAPS and SHPO/SHRC, City Staff called AAPS “the applicant” in reference to this nomination. When Alameda resident Amelia Amy Rose asked AAPS via Facebook Messages about this, AAPS denied, again, that they were the applicant:

The “Appropriate responses” ended up being this letter:

So, at this point what it sounds like is that AAPS is trying to play both sides because there’s disarray in their organization. They want to be “affiliated” loosely with Carmen Reid’s application when it comes to determining whether or not AAPS is looking to remove 100 very low income units from our RHNA — honestly at this point someone should probably send a letter to HCD to say that these units are in question because of the actions of AAPS — but when SHPO/SHRC comes calling to lend an air of legitimacy to this nomination they are 100% behind the nomination.

The back and forth of this whole affiliation, attribution, who’s behind the nomination should have thrown huge red flags for SHPO/SHRC and cast a pall on the entire nomination but somehow it did not. At this point it looks like the SHPO/SHRC staff lead on this nomination is going to try to dig his heels in and get this nomination pushed through by any means necessary because it was so bungled from the start that to admit that now would be to admit failing to do basic due diligence on this nomination. But, maybe given the attention to this nomination, hopefully other folks with less invested in this nomination will provide some temperance. This was an email I received yesterday from THE SHPO saying that they’re still trying to sort out who is the nominating party:

8 Comments »

  1. Is anyone sharing these with the SHRC or SHPO? This is all great info.

    Comment by Carmen Reid's Coal Black Heart — June 22, 2022 @ 9:01 am

  2. I wonder how many other AAPS members like me who joined for love of Victorians are upset about the political turn the group is taking. In addition to the campaign you are highlighting to block the Wellness Center, AAPS is now contacting members to help the Alameda Citizen’s Task force raise funds to sue to city to protect Article 26. That is definitely NOT what I signed up for when I joined AAPS more than 20 years ago. I am reconsidering my membership.

    Comment by Allan Mann — June 22, 2022 @ 10:25 am

    • Alan Mann I think there may be a lot of us in the same position as you are. This political stuff is not what I signed up for either, but I love the events on painting your house, earthquake safety, lighting, etc., that I was hoping would occur again post COVID.

      Comment by AAPS Member — June 22, 2022 @ 1:40 pm

    • We have a lot more architectural heritage here than the Victorians. We have loads of craftsman, Tudor, Queen Anne, Spanish style, colonial, and many other beautiful examples of residential architecture.

      Why is it always the Victorians that people lionize?

      Comment by There's more to Alameda — June 22, 2022 @ 1:59 pm

  3. Ah ha ha ha.
    “AAPS is now contacting members to help the Alameda Citizen’s Task force raise funds to sue to city to protect Article 26.”

    Comment by Hahahahah — June 22, 2022 @ 1:08 pm

    • If true, this is bullshit. Aren’t they a non-profit? If they become political, then they are jeopardizing their non-profit status. Between this and their sham application to stop the wellness center – which will land them in financial hot water, by the way – AAPS might either get revoked or bankrupt. Karen Lithgow needs to get her people in line and help them remember their mission statement.

      Comment by AAPS ACT ABA WABA DABA ACRONYMS! — June 22, 2022 @ 3:56 pm

  4. “At this point it looks like the SHPO/SHRC staff lead on this nomination is going to try to dig his heels in and get this nomination pushed through by any means necessary because it was so bungled from the start that to admit that now would be to admit failing to do basic due diligence on this nomination.”

    You have done a lot of terrific, well documented research. Other than questioning who submitted the nomination, what have you shared with them?

    Comment by FBT — June 22, 2022 @ 7:33 pm

    • Nothing yet, I’m still in the process of writing a letter which will present all the information I’ve outlined here. But I’ve mentioned that folks should feel free to crib and use any of the sourcing I’ve provided to beef up their letters to SHPO.

      Comment by Lauren Do — June 23, 2022 @ 7:57 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: