Alameda Planning Board Workshop on Radium Theatre Performing Arts Center – June 10, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Alameda Planning Board Workshop on Radium Theatre Performing Arts Center – June 10, 2024
The Alameda Planning Board held a public workshop on June 10, 2024, to discuss the proposed Radium Theatre Performing Arts Center at 2151 Ferry Point (Blocks 12 & 13 of Site A). No final action was taken. The board also approved consent calendar items and heard public comments.
Consent Calendar
- Minutes from the April 22, 2024, meeting were approved with a 4-0-1 vote (Board Member Sahiba abstained, two absent).
- Minutes from the May 13, 2024, meeting were approved with a 5-0 vote (all members present).
- Minutes from the April 8, 2024, meeting were carried over due to lack of a quorum (two absent members were not present at that meeting).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Trisha Spencer (City Council member, speaking individually) urged the board to protect the view corridor from the Naval Air Museum to the seaplane lagoon, emphasizing its historic significance and the unique experience from the museum’s balcony.
- Christopher Buckley (Alameda resident) endorsed preserving the view corridor between the museum and the lagoon, supporting shifting the theater westward.
- Josh Bevan (Alameda resident, architectural historian) noted that view corridors on paper may not reflect actual experience and suggested shifting the building eastward to leverage views to the southwest and better connect with existing park space.
Discussion Items
- Staff Presentation (Brian McGuire, Planner 2): Provided background on the Alameda Point Town Center and Waterfront Precise Plan (2014), the Site A Development Plan (2015), and the exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) approved by City Council in December 2023. Key issues include view corridors: a character-defining view from the Naval Air Museum (Building 77) to the lagoon, and a secondary view along the west side of Hangar 41. Staff noted that the property line between Hangars 41 and 40 (Bladium) has changed, making infill there unlikely. Three alternative siting options were presented, with the third shifting the theater 60 feet west to preserve the museum view corridor while partially blocking the west hangar view.
- Applicant Presentation (Christopher Seawald, Michael Tingley of Bora Architecture, Stacey Farr of ARG): The team described design goals for a community amenity with a 600-seat theater, flexible studio, lobby, and plaza. The original siting faced Pan Am Way but blocked the museum view. ARG’s analysis recommended prioritizing the museum view corridor over the west hangar view, as the latter is more flexible. Parking is proposed via shared use with the ferry terminal and a shuttle, with drop-off on the north side.
- Board Discussion:
- Board Member Ariza: Asked about parking and arrival experience; emphasized the need for a well-designed walk from parking to the plaza.
- Board Member Sahiba: Inquired about parking on the north side (between site and museum), truck access, and property line flexibility. Suggested that the view corridor from the museum is critical and that the building could be shifted west.
- Board Member Ruiz: Recommended shifting the building completely west of the current boundary line to make it a “jewel box” visible from the water and West Tower Avenue, and to restore the museum’s prominence. Also urged consideration of disabled access and multi-modal transportation.
- Board Member Sonaros: Asked about studying eastward shift; noted the ENA’s 12-month timeline (staff explained it is standard but aggressive).
- President Hom: Emphasized the need for a holistic site plan considering future development, and that the museum view corridor is the most important. Volunteered for a subcommittee.
- Subcommittee Formation: Board members Ariza, Sahiba, and Hom volunteered to serve on an ad hoc joint subcommittee with the Historical Advisory Board to advise on siting and design before returning for final approvals in fall 2024.
Key Outcomes
- The board will form a joint subcommittee (three members) with the Historical Advisory Board to work with staff and the applicant on siting and view corridor issues.
- The project team will provide additional site studies and views from the plaza and water for future meetings.
- Staff anticipates returning to the Planning Board in fall 2024 for development plan approval and design review.
- No vote was taken on the project itself; the workshop was informational.
Meeting Transcript
Uh for June 10th 2024 and board member Soneros will lead us in the pledge. Under the whole liberty and justice rolls, thank you. And thank you for all in the audience that are attending tonight. So we'll start with the roll call. Staff, please. Yes, good evening. Board member Ruiz. Here. Sahaba. Present. Mrs. Narrows. Here. Are present. And Hom. Present. Board members Wang and Sue are absent. Okay. So we have uh we have five presents, so we have a quorum. So we can uh run the meeting. That's good news. Any agenda changes from staff or from any of the board members? I suspect not since we just have one item on the agenda. So let's see. Uh now's the time for any non-agenda public comments. This is a time for anyone in the audience or online. Um allow up to three minutes to speak on any item that's not on the agenda. So if you have you would like to speak from the audience, please let staff know. I don't know where staff uh you're you wanting people to submit speaker cards. Uh but anyway, anyone in the audience? Uh we've speak public comments, not on the agenda item. Okay, no one anyone online still not in person, not online at the moment. Okay, so no uh public comments. So it's a item number four, consent calendar item, and the only items we have on is approval of the minutes. And I was looking at the minutes, and some of the first two meetings were missing some board members, but um I think we let's see. Oh, wait a minute. Uh board members, I wrote I saw that board member Sonaris and board member reese was not at the April 8th meeting. So it looks like we don't have a quorum to approve the minutes for April 8th. So we'll need to carry that over if that makes sense. And um looks like uh minutes of the April 22nd meeting. Well, only board member Sahiba was not present, so we have enough enough uh board members present so we can vote on uh the mint minutes for April 22nd. Are there any uh there are any uh amendments to those minutes? None? Okay. Um I guess we need to allow opportunity or any have to be any public comments on these minutes. Okay, I assume not. So I'll take a motion to approve the minutes of the April 22nd planning board meeting. I can move to approve the units. Uh board member uh arisa I second and seconded by board member Ruiz. All in favor, I and abstention, yes.
openpublica.com