{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-06-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD\nREGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2005\nCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nChair McPherson called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Secretary Eliason called the roll.\nMEMBERS PRESENT:\nChair McPherson; Vice-Chair Anderson; Boardmembers Lynch\nand Miller\nMEMBERS ABSENT:\nBoardmember Tilos (arrived at 7:30 p.m.)\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nSecretary Eliason, Acting Recording Secretary Rosemary Valeska\nMINUTES:\nConsensus by Chair and Boardmembers to continue minutes of the Special Meeting of March 10,\n2005 to the next meeting in order to allow more time for review.\nConsensus by Chair and Boardmembers to continue minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 7,\n2005 due to the lack of a quorum present for these minutes.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:\nNone\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)\nNone\nELECTION OF OFFICERS:\nM/S (Lynch/Miller) to elect Vice-Chair Anderson as Chair. 4-0-1.\nAyes: 4;\nNoes: 0;\nAbsent:\n1;\nMotion carries.\nM/S (McPherson/Anderson) to elect Boardmember Miller as Vice-Chair. 4-0-1.\nAyes: 4;\nNoes: 0;\nAbsent:\n1;\nMotion carries.\nACTION ITEMS (Discussion/Action)\n1. Consideration of Independent Consultant's Findings and Issuance of Certificate of Approval\nCA-05-0012 - City of Alameda (DSD) - Alameda Theatre- 2317 Central Avenue.\nJennifer Ott of Development Services gave an overview of this item and introduced Naomi\nMiroglio of Architectural Resources Group (ARG), who gave a PowerPoint presentation\nregarding the Historic Alameda Theatre Rehabilitation.\nMinutes of June 2, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n1", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-06-02", "page": 2, "text": "*\nSign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the\nPlanning & Building Department, at 510.747.6850 or 510.522.7538 (TDD\nnumber) at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.\n*\nAccessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs)\nis available.\nMinutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.\nAudiotapes of the meeting are available upon request.\nPlease contact the Planning & Building Department at 510.747.6850 or\n510.522.7538 (TDD number) at least 48 hours before the meeting to request\nagenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable\naccommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of\nthe meeting.\nG:\\PLANNING\\HAB\\AGENMIN\\Agemin.05\\09-01-05 draft Agenda. HAB.doc", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-06-02", "page": 3, "text": "Chair McPherson opened the floor to public comment.\nRichard W. Rutter commended Bruce Anderson's Section 106 Findings Report. He explained\nthat there was a process called \"jacketing\" that could be used to make the window columns\nappear smaller. He stated that he would like to see more detail on the proposed automatic movie\nticket dispensing machines - wants to be sure that they don't look like BART ticket machines.\nHe also noted that there are companies back East that specialize in salvaging vitolight from old\nbuildings.\nAni Dimusheva stated concern that the Historic Theatre Rehabilitation portion of the project\ncould bear the burden of a budget shortfall.\nChristopher Buckley stated that he was speaking for himself and not on behalf of the Alameda\nArchitectural Preservation Society. He recommended the HAB approve the Certificate of\nApproval with the conditions that the details of the storefront, ticket booth and concession stand\nare brought back for further review and that the HAB should request material and color samples.\nBirgitt Evans criticized the design of the cinema multiplex. She commended Bruce Anderson's\nSection 106 Findings report and agreed with the finding recommending redesign of the ticket\nbooth for the Historic Theatre. Secretary Eliason noted that the ticket booth would be redesigned.\nChair McPherson closed public comments and opened the floor to Boardmember comments.\nVice-Chair Anderson stated that even though the HAB could not turn its back on the Theatre's\nhistoric status, we need to move forward on retrofitting for seismic safety. Automatic ticket\nbooths are the wave of the future but these will need to be redesigned. The concession stand is\nOK to be in the center of the lobby but should have architectural features with Art Deco\nelements.\nChair McPherson stated her concurrence with Vice-Chair Anderson.\nVice Chair Anderson summarized the need for the HAB to see: 1) material samples, 2) storefront\ndetails, 3) material colors, and 4) further detail regarding the ticket booths.\nBoardmember Miller asked about the suggestion regarding column jacketing. Ms. Miroglio\nstated that would follow up with her engineer regarding this item.\nJudith Altschuler, who was in attendance in the audience, addressed the Board, stating that the\nHAB's purview was for the exterior only - not the interior design. Exterior elements could come\nback to the HAB and that could be part of the overall design approval. HAB's advice to staff\nwould be taken into consideration regarding the structural changes and exterior design, only.\nChair McPherson stated that she wanted the details of the ticket machine and the window and\ndoor system to come back to the HAB. The HAB wants to see a finished sample of the\nVitrolight.\nMinutes of June 2, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n2", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-06-02", "page": 4, "text": "Secretary Eliason noted that staff would craft into the conditions of the Resolution: 1) final\ndesign of ticket machines and 2) return with storefront window details, including finished\nsamples and materials.\nM/S (Tilos, Miller) to approve per the staff recommendation with conditions as noted. 5-0-0.\nAyes: 5;\nNoes: 0;\nAbsent:\n0;\nMotion carries.\n2. Review and Comment on Independent Consultant's Findings regarding Proposed Cineplex -\nCity of Alameda (DSD) - 2305 Central Avenue.\nSecretary Eliason stated that the HAB's purview was to provide comments for the Planning\nBoard's Final Design approval.\nMs. Ott addressed the Board and noted that the City does not agree with the consultant's findings\nregarding aluminum door and window systems.\nChair McPherson opened the floor to public comment.\nRichard W. Rutter noted that the consultant was only referring to the aluminum color. Alcoves\nfor the recessed entry doors should be required. Consistency of column treatments would unify\nthe building fa\u00e7ade.\nAni Dimusheva stated that the proposed new buildings \"bully\" the surrounding historic buildings\nand were examples of \"disposable architecture.\"\nKevin Frederick stated that the original vision of the multiplex has been blown out of proportion.\nThis is not what Alamedans expect. The Planning Board was pressured by the developer.\nChristopher Buckley stated that he was representing the Alameda Architectural Preservation\nSociety. He gave an overview of AAPS comments to the Planning Board regarding Section 106\nand read from Item 2, page 9 of the consultant's report. Mr. Buckley stated that he endorsed the\nconsultant's recommendations. The Chair granted Mr. Buckley additional public speaker time in\norder for him to show samples of other architecture on the projector. One of the examples shown\nwas a theater in Livermore designed by Rob Henry, the architect for the cineplex.\nChair McPherson closed public comments and opened the floor to Boardmember comments to\nrecommend to the Planning Board regarding exterior design elements of the cineplex.\nBoardmember Miller stated that he agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments. He doesn't think\nwe're there yet. Asked how much room there was for change.\nBoardmember Lynch stated that people at Twin Towers were concerned about looking at a blank\nwall. In fact some church members have discussed taking slides of their own historic art glass\nchurch windows and projecting the images onto the blank surface of the Oak Street fa\u00e7ade.\nMinutes of June 2, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n3", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-06-02", "page": 5, "text": "Vice-Chair Anderson stated that there was too much of a difference between the Historic Theatre\nand the proposed cineplex and parking structure - not compatible with historic standards. A\nstronger connection is needed - cited the Livermore example.\nSecretary Eliason stated that the Planning Boards May 9 preliminary design approval was to\nprovide consistency for the Section 106 findings study.\nBoardmember Tilos stated that the vertical elements needed work.\nChair McPherson suggested making a recommendation requiring clear anodized aluminum.\nVice-Chair Anderson would like to ask the architect to design an alternate fa\u00e7ade.\nChair McPherson stated that the Oak Street fa\u00e7ade needs to be looked at.\nBoardmember Miller stated that it would be a good idea to \"Send it back to the drawing board. \"\nChair McPherson stated that she did not think it was awful but it could be reworked.\nBoardmember Lynch stated that we began with the preliminary massing design that was a\nbuilding with a refrigerator box at the corner and now we are presented with a building with a\ngrain silo on the corner. It is still not compatible. She recommended telling Rob Henry to take a\nlook at his design for Livermore.\nChair McPherson stated that greater design detail on the fa\u00e7ade was needed and the vertical\nelements needed to be more consistent.\nBoardmember Lynch stated that true Art Deco moldings and details could be introduced and\ncited the example of the apartment building on the corner of Shattuck and Haste in Berkeley.\nChair McPherson summarized as follows: 1) more attention to the Oak Street fa\u00e7ade; 2) use\nelements like Livermore; 3) use clear anodized aluminum framing; 4) more attention to vertical\nelements; 5) more Art Deco details; 6) the architect needs to revisit the Livermore project\nelements for an alternative design.\nMs. Ott noted that the Livermore project had been brought up at a previous Planning Board\nmeeting. Mr. Henry had cited the Alameda projects' site constraints compared to Livermore.\nChair McPherson noted that Art Deco elements could complete with the Historic Theatre and be\nat odds with the Federal standards.\nVice-Chair Anderson stated that you don't have to repeat the Alameda Theatre but more\nelements are needed on the fa\u00e7ade so it won't read as a blank wall.\nBoardmember Miller stated that the design competes with and overwhelms the Historic Theatre.\nMinutes of June 2, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n4", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-06-02", "page": 6, "text": "Boardmember Tilos stated concern with the horizontality of lobby windows.\nSecretary Eliason noted that the Planning Board wants the mezzanine \"punch out.\"\nVice-Chair Anderson stated that the architect should revisit the design and incorporate elements\nfrom the Livermore theatre.\nSecretary Eliason stated that the Board had provided quite a bit of direction.\n3. Review and Comment on the Independent Consultant's Findings regarding Proposed Civic\nCenter Parking Garage - City of Alameda (DSD) - 1416 Oak Street.\nSecretary Eliason stated that the HAB's purview was to provide comments for the Planning\nBoard's Final Design approval.\nMs. Ott gave an overview to the Board.\nChair McPherson opened the floor to public comment.\nKevin Frederick stated that he was concerned about potential traffic and circulation problems\nalong Oak Street and stated that the garage would have been better sited on the Elks property. He\nalso stated that the garage drawing did not look proportional.\nRichard W. Rutter stated that he supposed that the reason there were no architect's comments in\nthe Section 106 Findings report was due to the garage being a design/build project. He agrees\nwith the recommendations regarding lighting and signage in the 106 Report, but with a caveat\nthat there should be an emphasis on the lights being easily accessible for effective maintenance.\nHe also agrees with the recommendation for a graphics consultant.\nChristopher Buckley stated that he was representing the Alameda Architectural Preservation\nSociety. He stated that he had made a recommendation to the Planning Board to \"dress things up\na\nbit.\" The design looks massive - maybe moldings would help. It is obvious that there are\nbudget concerns with this project.\nAni Dimusheva stated concerns with traffic issues - ingress and egress on Oak Street. Asked if\nthe drawing proportions were correct - the height to width ratio did not look right.\nChair McPherson closed public comments and opened the floor to Boardmember comments to\nthe Planning Board regarding exterior design elements of the parking garage.\nChair McPherson stated that there needs to be a focus on signage and lighting.\nVice-Chair Anderson explained the concept of \"design/build.\"\nMinutes of June 2, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n5", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-06-02", "page": 7, "text": "Ms. Ott noted that if the fa\u00e7ade did change, the project would be required to go back to the\nPlanning Board.\nChair McPherson stated that more needs to be done on the street level - They can do better than\nfour movie posters. Secretary Eliason noted that the Planning Board did require additional\nframing around the posters.\nChair McPherson asked about landscaping. Secretary Eliason stated that there would be street\ntrees along Oak St. Ms. Ott noted that landscape design would be required as part of the\ndesign/build and that sidewalks would be widened.\nChair McPherson stated that the detailing on the fa\u00e7ade needs revisiting - too vanilla, not\nconsistent with the architecture in the area. The whole thing needs revisiting with special\nemphasis on the public walkway.\nBoardmember Tilos asked how HAB's previous comments would be incorporated. Ms. Ott\nstated that at this meeting, HAB was being requested to comment only as it related to the Section\n106 Findings.\nSecretary Eliason stated that a recommendation could be made for a signage and lighting\nprogram to go back to the Planning Board for approval and this condition could be added to the\ncineplex recommendations, also.\nREPORTS: None.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoardmember Miller asked about the status of the code enforcement action against the house\ndemolition at 616 Pacific Avenue. Secretary Eliason took this opportunity to introduce Emily\nPudell, a new member of the Planning Staff. Ms. Pudell stated that she is preparing the agenda\nreport for this item. The property owner is appealing the five-year stay imposed by Code\nEnforcement. The owner states that he intends to re-use architectural elements from the original\nstructure.\nChair McPherson directed that discussion of 616 Pacific Avenue be agendized for the next HAB\nmeeting.\nVice-Chair Anderson thanked Chair McPherson for her service to the HAB.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nADJOURNMENT:\nM/S (Lynch/Miller) to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m.\nMinutes of June 2, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n6", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard", "date": "2005-06-02", "page": 8, "text": "Respectfully submitted by:\nCynthia Eliason, Secretary\nHistorical Advisory Board\nG:\\PLANNINGUHAB\\AGENMIN\\Agemin.05\\06-02-05 minutes.do\nMinutes of June 2, 2005\nRegular Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n7", "path": "HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2005-06-02.pdf"}