body,date,page,text,path
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,1,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Chair McPherson called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Secretary Eliason called the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair McPherson; Vice-Chair Anderson; Boardmembers Lynch
and Miller
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Boardmember Tilos (arrived at 7:30 p.m.)
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Eliason, Acting Recording Secretary Rosemary Valeska
MINUTES:
Consensus by Chair and Boardmembers to continue minutes of the Special Meeting of March 10,
2005 to the next meeting in order to allow more time for review.
Consensus by Chair and Boardmembers to continue minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 7,
2005 due to the lack of a quorum present for these minutes.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
None
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
M/S (Lynch/Miller) to elect Vice-Chair Anderson as Chair. 4-0-1.
Ayes: 4;
Noes: 0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
M/S (McPherson/Anderson) to elect Boardmember Miller as Vice-Chair. 4-0-1.
Ayes: 4;
Noes: 0;
Absent:
1;
Motion carries.
ACTION ITEMS (Discussion/Action)
1. Consideration of Independent Consultant's Findings and Issuance of Certificate of Approval
CA-05-0012 - City of Alameda (DSD) - Alameda Theatre- 2317 Central Avenue.
Jennifer Ott of Development Services gave an overview of this item and introduced Naomi
Miroglio of Architectural Resources Group (ARG), who gave a PowerPoint presentation
regarding the Historic Alameda Theatre Rehabilitation.
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,2,"*
Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the
Planning & Building Department, at 510.747.6850 or 510.522.7538 (TDD
number) at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.
*
Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs)
is available.
Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
Audiotapes of the meeting are available upon request.
Please contact the Planning & Building Department at 510.747.6850 or
510.522.7538 (TDD number) at least 48 hours before the meeting to request
agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of
the meeting.
G:\PLANNING\HAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05\09-01-05 draft Agenda. HAB.doc",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,3,"Chair McPherson opened the floor to public comment.
Richard W. Rutter commended Bruce Anderson's Section 106 Findings Report. He explained
that there was a process called ""jacketing"" that could be used to make the window columns
appear smaller. He stated that he would like to see more detail on the proposed automatic movie
ticket dispensing machines - wants to be sure that they don't look like BART ticket machines.
He also noted that there are companies back East that specialize in salvaging vitolight from old
buildings.
Ani Dimusheva stated concern that the Historic Theatre Rehabilitation portion of the project
could bear the burden of a budget shortfall.
Christopher Buckley stated that he was speaking for himself and not on behalf of the Alameda
Architectural Preservation Society. He recommended the HAB approve the Certificate of
Approval with the conditions that the details of the storefront, ticket booth and concession stand
are brought back for further review and that the HAB should request material and color samples.
Birgitt Evans criticized the design of the cinema multiplex. She commended Bruce Anderson's
Section 106 Findings report and agreed with the finding recommending redesign of the ticket
booth for the Historic Theatre. Secretary Eliason noted that the ticket booth would be redesigned.
Chair McPherson closed public comments and opened the floor to Boardmember comments.
Vice-Chair Anderson stated that even though the HAB could not turn its back on the Theatre's
historic status, we need to move forward on retrofitting for seismic safety. Automatic ticket
booths are the wave of the future but these will need to be redesigned. The concession stand is
OK to be in the center of the lobby but should have architectural features with Art Deco
elements.
Chair McPherson stated her concurrence with Vice-Chair Anderson.
Vice Chair Anderson summarized the need for the HAB to see: 1) material samples, 2) storefront
details, 3) material colors, and 4) further detail regarding the ticket booths.
Boardmember Miller asked about the suggestion regarding column jacketing. Ms. Miroglio
stated that would follow up with her engineer regarding this item.
Judith Altschuler, who was in attendance in the audience, addressed the Board, stating that the
HAB's purview was for the exterior only - not the interior design. Exterior elements could come
back to the HAB and that could be part of the overall design approval. HAB's advice to staff
would be taken into consideration regarding the structural changes and exterior design, only.
Chair McPherson stated that she wanted the details of the ticket machine and the window and
door system to come back to the HAB. The HAB wants to see a finished sample of the
Vitrolight.
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,4,"Secretary Eliason noted that staff would craft into the conditions of the Resolution: 1) final
design of ticket machines and 2) return with storefront window details, including finished
samples and materials.
M/S (Tilos, Miller) to approve per the staff recommendation with conditions as noted. 5-0-0.
Ayes: 5;
Noes: 0;
Absent:
0;
Motion carries.
2. Review and Comment on Independent Consultant's Findings regarding Proposed Cineplex -
City of Alameda (DSD) - 2305 Central Avenue.
Secretary Eliason stated that the HAB's purview was to provide comments for the Planning
Board's Final Design approval.
Ms. Ott addressed the Board and noted that the City does not agree with the consultant's findings
regarding aluminum door and window systems.
Chair McPherson opened the floor to public comment.
Richard W. Rutter noted that the consultant was only referring to the aluminum color. Alcoves
for the recessed entry doors should be required. Consistency of column treatments would unify
the building façade.
Ani Dimusheva stated that the proposed new buildings ""bully"" the surrounding historic buildings
and were examples of ""disposable architecture.""
Kevin Frederick stated that the original vision of the multiplex has been blown out of proportion.
This is not what Alamedans expect. The Planning Board was pressured by the developer.
Christopher Buckley stated that he was representing the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society. He gave an overview of AAPS comments to the Planning Board regarding Section 106
and read from Item 2, page 9 of the consultant's report. Mr. Buckley stated that he endorsed the
consultant's recommendations. The Chair granted Mr. Buckley additional public speaker time in
order for him to show samples of other architecture on the projector. One of the examples shown
was a theater in Livermore designed by Rob Henry, the architect for the cineplex.
Chair McPherson closed public comments and opened the floor to Boardmember comments to
recommend to the Planning Board regarding exterior design elements of the cineplex.
Boardmember Miller stated that he agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments. He doesn't think
we're there yet. Asked how much room there was for change.
Boardmember Lynch stated that people at Twin Towers were concerned about looking at a blank
wall. In fact some church members have discussed taking slides of their own historic art glass
church windows and projecting the images onto the blank surface of the Oak Street façade.
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,5,"Vice-Chair Anderson stated that there was too much of a difference between the Historic Theatre
and the proposed cineplex and parking structure - not compatible with historic standards. A
stronger connection is needed - cited the Livermore example.
Secretary Eliason stated that the Planning Boards May 9 preliminary design approval was to
provide consistency for the Section 106 findings study.
Boardmember Tilos stated that the vertical elements needed work.
Chair McPherson suggested making a recommendation requiring clear anodized aluminum.
Vice-Chair Anderson would like to ask the architect to design an alternate façade.
Chair McPherson stated that the Oak Street façade needs to be looked at.
Boardmember Miller stated that it would be a good idea to ""Send it back to the drawing board. ""
Chair McPherson stated that she did not think it was awful but it could be reworked.
Boardmember Lynch stated that we began with the preliminary massing design that was a
building with a refrigerator box at the corner and now we are presented with a building with a
grain silo on the corner. It is still not compatible. She recommended telling Rob Henry to take a
look at his design for Livermore.
Chair McPherson stated that greater design detail on the façade was needed and the vertical
elements needed to be more consistent.
Boardmember Lynch stated that true Art Deco moldings and details could be introduced and
cited the example of the apartment building on the corner of Shattuck and Haste in Berkeley.
Chair McPherson summarized as follows: 1) more attention to the Oak Street façade; 2) use
elements like Livermore; 3) use clear anodized aluminum framing; 4) more attention to vertical
elements; 5) more Art Deco details; 6) the architect needs to revisit the Livermore project
elements for an alternative design.
Ms. Ott noted that the Livermore project had been brought up at a previous Planning Board
meeting. Mr. Henry had cited the Alameda projects' site constraints compared to Livermore.
Chair McPherson noted that Art Deco elements could complete with the Historic Theatre and be
at odds with the Federal standards.
Vice-Chair Anderson stated that you don't have to repeat the Alameda Theatre but more
elements are needed on the façade so it won't read as a blank wall.
Boardmember Miller stated that the design competes with and overwhelms the Historic Theatre.
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,6,"Boardmember Tilos stated concern with the horizontality of lobby windows.
Secretary Eliason noted that the Planning Board wants the mezzanine ""punch out.""
Vice-Chair Anderson stated that the architect should revisit the design and incorporate elements
from the Livermore theatre.
Secretary Eliason stated that the Board had provided quite a bit of direction.
3. Review and Comment on the Independent Consultant's Findings regarding Proposed Civic
Center Parking Garage - City of Alameda (DSD) - 1416 Oak Street.
Secretary Eliason stated that the HAB's purview was to provide comments for the Planning
Board's Final Design approval.
Ms. Ott gave an overview to the Board.
Chair McPherson opened the floor to public comment.
Kevin Frederick stated that he was concerned about potential traffic and circulation problems
along Oak Street and stated that the garage would have been better sited on the Elks property. He
also stated that the garage drawing did not look proportional.
Richard W. Rutter stated that he supposed that the reason there were no architect's comments in
the Section 106 Findings report was due to the garage being a design/build project. He agrees
with the recommendations regarding lighting and signage in the 106 Report, but with a caveat
that there should be an emphasis on the lights being easily accessible for effective maintenance.
He also agrees with the recommendation for a graphics consultant.
Christopher Buckley stated that he was representing the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society. He stated that he had made a recommendation to the Planning Board to ""dress things up
a
bit."" The design looks massive - maybe moldings would help. It is obvious that there are
budget concerns with this project.
Ani Dimusheva stated concerns with traffic issues - ingress and egress on Oak Street. Asked if
the drawing proportions were correct - the height to width ratio did not look right.
Chair McPherson closed public comments and opened the floor to Boardmember comments to
the Planning Board regarding exterior design elements of the parking garage.
Chair McPherson stated that there needs to be a focus on signage and lighting.
Vice-Chair Anderson explained the concept of ""design/build.""
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
5",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,7,"Ms. Ott noted that if the façade did change, the project would be required to go back to the
Planning Board.
Chair McPherson stated that more needs to be done on the street level - They can do better than
four movie posters. Secretary Eliason noted that the Planning Board did require additional
framing around the posters.
Chair McPherson asked about landscaping. Secretary Eliason stated that there would be street
trees along Oak St. Ms. Ott noted that landscape design would be required as part of the
design/build and that sidewalks would be widened.
Chair McPherson stated that the detailing on the façade needs revisiting - too vanilla, not
consistent with the architecture in the area. The whole thing needs revisiting with special
emphasis on the public walkway.
Boardmember Tilos asked how HAB's previous comments would be incorporated. Ms. Ott
stated that at this meeting, HAB was being requested to comment only as it related to the Section
106 Findings.
Secretary Eliason stated that a recommendation could be made for a signage and lighting
program to go back to the Planning Board for approval and this condition could be added to the
cineplex recommendations, also.
REPORTS: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Boardmember Miller asked about the status of the code enforcement action against the house
demolition at 616 Pacific Avenue. Secretary Eliason took this opportunity to introduce Emily
Pudell, a new member of the Planning Staff. Ms. Pudell stated that she is preparing the agenda
report for this item. The property owner is appealing the five-year stay imposed by Code
Enforcement. The owner states that he intends to re-use architectural elements from the original
structure.
Chair McPherson directed that discussion of 616 Pacific Avenue be agendized for the next HAB
meeting.
Vice-Chair Anderson thanked Chair McPherson for her service to the HAB.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
ADJOURNMENT:
M/S (Lynch/Miller) to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
6",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard,2005-06-02,8,"Respectfully submitted by:
Cynthia Eliason, Secretary
Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNINGUHAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05\06-02-05 minutes.do
Minutes of June 2, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
7",HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf