Loading...
2005-08-16 5-A SubmittalMegaplex and Parking Structure An Alternative Proposal Presented by Estuary Park Action Committee August 11, 2005 Dorothy Freeman 2050 Eagle Ave. #3 Alameda, CA 94501 510- 748 -9811 Re: Agenda Item #5 -A 08 -16 -05 1 Megaplex and Parking Lot - An Alternative Proposal. Problems associated with the Megaplex /Parking structure A great majority of Alameda citizens do not seem to be in line with the City Council plan to convert the Alameda Theatre to a Megaplex and the Long's parking lot into a parking structure. The Megaplex is financial risky and offers little benefit to most of our citizens. Citizens who've studied the numbers will detail why the Megaplex project is a highly risky financial adventure. The risk is certain in an era when home and boutique theater easily outcompete large movie establishments for comfort, convenience, price, and safety, not to mention their support of family unity and neighborhood solidarity. The Megaplex is not a solution the people want, nor will it result in the desired outcome. In fact, it threatens to dissipate the City's treasury, not increase it, while degrading the Park Street area with disproportionate development that will clog streets at best. We also question if there has been thought about where the target audience for the Megaplex will come from. The citizens of Alameda will not be able to support all 7 screens proposed for the Megaplex. These images give a clear picture of where the off island Megaplex customers will draw from. Park Street, High Street, and Fruitvale Avenue bridges lead directly to the International Blvd. part of East Oakland; an area lacking in movie theaters. East Oakland is home to young movie attendees. Considering the audiences targeted by films that will be shown at the Megaplex, 12 to 30 year olds coming from off island areas will be entering Alameda. These are not people who will shop or eat dinner at Park Street businesses and can force away the attendees we really want 2 to come to Park Street away. The crowds will bring problems. How many of you have attended movies at the Regal Cinemas in Jack London Square in Oakland and been bothered by the constant presence of armed police officers on the street and in the theater? The planned Megaplex and a towering parking lot can flood the Park Street/Civic Center Plaza area with traffic carrying people with little interest in Alameda other than the Megaplex destination. Such problems are not the answer to our or the City's need for more sales tax revenues. We all understand the desire of Park Street merchants to bring more people to the street to shop and increase their profits. We all understand the desire of city government to attract shoppers to Alameda who increase the tax revenues for the city. We understand the hope for a tax increment on increased property values. But we question the Megaplex plan as a means of accomplishing these goals. In narrowly focusing on merchant profits and the small percentage passed to the City in sales tax, and a vain hope for any tax increment, the City's plan overlooks the advantages of more creative, inclusive plans the could enrich us all. We should rethink how best to spend an estimated $25 million of our community's money ($45 million including interest) on a project that has a very dubious financial outcome. That kind of money could be spent on improvements that benefit the commercial district, benefit residents, and invite East Bay and Peninsula neighbors to join us in pleasant, safe, and enriching activities. Alternatives are possible EPAC is certainly opposed to the 7 screens and the parking structure, especially now that the City has passed over $1.5 million to the owner of the Alameda Theatre before the citizens have endorsed that project. EPAC would like to propose that Estuary Park should be considered as an alternative to the Megaplex and Parking Garage plan, as a keystone in development extending from the Estuary through the Park Street commercial area. A more modest 3 screen movie theater is a more viable plan, good for Alameda, and good for Park Street. It would cost less, and risk less. But it won't yield events that by themselves create a better, more attractive environment that could extend from the Estuary to South Shore. The City knows it must improve Park Street and has already begun. Let's elaborate on that vision and see what we might build if we agree to spend the millions in a different way. In other presentations before this Council, EPAC has detailed our ideas for developing an active park on the Estuary near the Marine base on Clement. The City has agreed. Specifically, the council voted to set aside one million dollars as seed money for acquiring land there, a necessary step in the Recreation and Parks Department application for Prop 40 grant money available for urban park development. Approximately ten acres of this part of Alameda is planned for the active Estuary Park and parking lot. A history of the struggle for Estuary Park, extending from the City's plan for that park in the 1991 Master Plan to recent activism that supported the City's decision to acquire the land can be found at http://www.alamedareport.org/epac We support the development of Estuary Park linked by water taxi to Union Point Park and to City Hall by a promenade along Oak Street, then along Park, extending ultimately to South Shore, east and west by light rail and bike paths. 3 What does this alternative development look like? I've used Google satellite maps to create a possible scenario of what could be done with the Dutra, Fox, Collins properties, referred by us as Estuary Park, and how that land, combined with Park Street development could be a feasible alternative to the Megaplex plan. Eminent Domain would be a great idea to use to acquire this land because it really does qualify as a blighted area. This picture shows the relationship between City Hall, the Dutra, Fox, Collins properties, and Union Point Park presently being constructed by Oakland. Our first point is the location of parking where parking is better situated to provide access to Park Street and City Hall without producing the increased traffic, pollution and congestion in the Civic Center area that the parking structure will. The long, thin section of the Fox property is approximately 2000 feet from the city hall, less than half a mile! City Hall to A _ _ _ 1900 feet A to B 580 feet A to C 2587 feet 1/2 mile = 2640 feet One Environmental Impact statement shows the Fox property is heavily polluted and would require a lot of cleanup before the land could be used for residential property. In the park acquisition plans written by Alameda Recreation and Parks, part of the polluted Fox land would be used for a parking lot because it really isn't suitable for much else and would limit the degree of exposure and cleanup required. First, lets move the parking area: Why not move the parking lot from the middle of town to just 2480 feet down the street to the side of downtown? Move traffic off Park Street instead of adding more to an all ready crowded street. 4 Second, this plan reduces real urban blight: This proposal is more than just an alternative for the parking lot. It is a plan to add to the beauty of Alameda by taking a blighted section of town and making it a useful area that would solve several problems for the city. Alameda Parks and Recreation has already designed an active park on Dutra and as stated before, the parking area on part of i :.oCtui 1110 DI LAW, aatiANo .AAI lalen TOM RAY II/1.13 /VW1MADORTAKI roum>oan nnn ,w M.T. MS 9010111 M5A11311! MK WE WARR MORK& .tieC ARIAS A/IOW TAWS 11.137110016 MIANG LOT - CITY OF ACAMI.DA F.. MrMRAU!5* 1IMIC —'- Fox. The entire Fox property is perfect for a parking lot since it is long and extends from Clement Avenue to the waters edge. Third, connections to downtown: Connections to downtown could be easy and healthy by using water taxi, bicycle, walkway, and light rail. As mentioned previously, plans are also in proposal stage to create a light rail/bicycle trail on Clement as part of the Rails to Trails, Bay Trails, and Beltline projects. A light rail on Clement would pass directly in front of the parking lot providing Park Street connections for those who don't want to walk. These maps, from Legend: FWD Proposed CLS5tl I SO* POO wm. Meuu3o r,.ls CWS 1181 0Lwles �^+ Cleis MOW Ae.dn Wafer WI Sm (1. &km* Rs p F(,ty r YRM.Ib mnsu6nbn Ndh n sourco .genOos end connanIyprows. http: / /www.bikealameda.com show the water taxi traveling from the Bay Ferry landing to Jack London Square to provide North Island travelers access to BART. 5 The water taxi continues to Marina Square, Grant Street and Government Island. Strange that the water taxi doesn't extend to our end of the Island. Oakland is presently building Union Point Park directly across the Estuary from the Dutra property. Extending the water taxi just a bit further to join Union Point Park and Estuary Park would provide access from Oakland to Park Street shops and provide bike riders a safe crossing from Alameda to Oakland. Alameda city should work with Oakland to develop a bicycle path from Union Point Park to the Fruitvale BART Station. The water taxi would help to remove pedestrians and bike riders from the bridges and out of harm's way; safer for all of us. Moving pedestrian and bike traffic from Union Point Park to Park Street shops would let the visitors park their cars in Oakland instead of bringing them into Alameda; another win for us. A bike path and Bay Trail where Estuary Park is planned along Clement Street and then to Oak Street. These proposed routes fit right into the idea of using the Dutra, Fox, Collins property to create a beautiful addition to. the Civic Center Plaza section of Alameda and Park Street improvements. The dotted line in this drawing shows the proposed pathway along the Estuary on the Oakland side. The voters of Oakland approved over $100 million dollars in bonds for this project. When given the opportunity to protect their side of the Estuary, the people and city government stepped up to the idea. r,. *V Mon RO6ill Ptirlc µ s Dutra, Fax. Collins —11Is. Alameda Oakland San Frrarx scup dby 9 MIL F &in Leandro S'• Marlin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline Oakland International Airport 6 Fourth: Fox parking will help the neighbors of Hamilton Park:. The Fox parking lot would be within a block of the high school recreation field at Hamilton Park. Neighbors around the football field are in constant conflict with the influx of traffic and parking problems when there are activities at Hamilton field. The Fox parking lot would be a most welcome addition toward solving these problems for several blocks around the field; another win for all. Fifth: The Collins Property: The Collins Property: could include an outdoor stage for theatrical and musical events, like Shakespeare in the Park. What a marvel idea in a beautiful setting. The Collins property, lying at the comer of Clement and Oak Streets, is the largest section of land in our Dutra, Fox, Collin's proposal. The Collin's property isn't part of the Alameda Parks and Recreation proposal. Why not use the money from the proposed parking lot and acquire the entire blighted area and make it a show case park for Alameda. To quote the 1991 Master Plan, "This park will require a major funding commitment by the City, but will probably do more than any other single project to ensure Alameda's long -term quality. It could have the character of San Francisco's marina Green and would attract all age groups to enjoy large and small boats on the Estuary, views of the Oakland skyline and hills, and active sports. The new park would serve a sector of the City that is short of park space, and would guarantee the high quality of housing proposed for the area." We propose the Collin's lot be used to build an open air amphitheater. An amphitheater rounds out a complete open space solution to this part of Alameda. With a bit of imagination you can see: local bands presenting free summer concerts for teenagers, Shakespeare in the Park presentations for the more cultured among us, a short walk down a beautifully landscaped promenade from our new Library provides a place to hold outdoors reading and presentations, an active park for children to play in and additional resources for Alameda Park and Recreations. The park will become a much needed addition to a part of town that is sadly lacking in such resources, but will serve all of Alameda. Example of what can be done! This is a beautiful example of what can be done with an open air amphitheater. The permanent tent covers a seated area that can be used during inclement weather so events don't have to be cancelled due to rain and the raised field gives a wonderful view for lawn seating of the performance, the Estuary, and the Oakland hills. A structure like this could be designed for the Collins property. With an open air amphitheater, citizens of Alameda will really get to enjoy the Estuary. Revenue 7 earned from renting the amphitheater and grounds would bring in the needed revenue that could exceed the desired sales tax from the theater and parking structure. Sixth: Make Oak Street one -way from the waters edge to City Hall. A plan I have presented to this City Council before is to make Oak Street from City Hall to Clement Street a one lane, one -way street. Take the freed up lane on Oak Street and make it a beautifully landscaped promenade (promenade means "to go on a leisurely walk ") joining a wide boardwalk along the Estuary. The one lane would allow business owners and residences who live on Oak to retain access to their properties while providing near by shoppers and workers (city hall included) a place to stroll from Park Street to the Estuary during lunch time or before an evening meal and a movie; a place to relax and enjoy a resource our citizens should be benefiting from. Rap up: How will it all work together? Extending our imagination a bit further: The park and expanded parking lot can be a lot more than an active soccer field. People come to the park during the day time to enjoy a wonderful open space with resources for relaxation and recreation, regattas, and festivals. Some continue on to Shore Line to enjoy the beach, shopping, and eating before returning back to Park Street. They can travel by light rail, riding bikes, or just enjoying a stroll up Park Street to shop and have dinner. Then they go to the 3 screen renovated theater to enjoy a movie. Fewer cars will have traveled up Park Street but people will be encouraged to come and enjoy themselves. They will have left their cars on the side of town, shopped and been entertained. Everyone can appreciate that: visitors, merchants, the city treasurer, but most importantly, all citizens of Alameda will gain a beautiful addition to their city. The City Hall and Library plaza will be extended to the water. What an urban possibility. What synergy. Estuary Park, when combined with the City Hall, Library, Park Street to South Shore, as well as West to Webster and points East, is a far richer idea that a risky Megaplex and traffic snarl. People are encouraged to travel to Alameda from Union Point Park. The smaller movie theater performs the purpose intended, to provide safe entertainment and is not a magnet for those we would rather not invite to Alameda. Bikers are provided a means of crossing the Estuary other than the bridges. The south end of the Island is provided with easier, safer access to Fruitvale BART and the water taxi to the Bay Ferry landing. The Light Rail, Bay Trail and bike paths on Clement and Oak Street help move people around Alameda that is healthier for them, for us, and for the environment. Estuary Park can be a landing on a necklace of parks circling Alameda, creating possibilities for large and small scale sports and aquatic events, an outdoor stage for theatrical and musical events; shopping, dining, movies, and unrivaled scenery from the Estuary to the Bay. Isn't this a much better, environmentally friendly, comfortable, safe, and enriching project that yet another Megaplex tied to a parking structure, even if such a project could make money? 8 Summary: 1. Moving the parking lot from the Long's parking lot to the Fox property: A. Provides a solution to the Megaplex parking structure that most don't seems to want B. Provides parking within walking distance to Park Street but on the edge of town instead of bringing cars into the center of town where they aren't wanted. C. Makes use of a blighted section of the Estuary that isn't suited for much more than a parking lot due to the pollution known to be there. D. Provides a connecting spot for the proposed light rail and bike path planned for Clement Street and Oak Street needed to move people to Park Street and on to South Shore. E. Provides much needed access to the water taxi for connections to Fruitvale BART and the Bay Ferry landing. F. Solves the long time problem of parking during sports activities at Hamilton Park and makes the neighbors very happy. G. Provides parking for visitors to activities at Estuary Park. 2. Creating a landscaped promenade down Oak Street from City Hall to the water would: A. Provide a one way street that would give the home owners and businesses on Oak Street access to their properties. B. Provides a pleasant environment for a walk or bike ride from the parking lot to Park Street shops, the Library, City Hall, the movie theater, and restaurants. Also provides a nice place for Park Street workers to walk during their lunch time and work breaks. C. Extends the Civic Center Plaza to the waters edge. 3. Building the proposed active park on the Dutra property: A. Fulfills the plans from the 1991 master plan to provide a park on this land. B. Provides needed open space for a section of Alameda that is very limited in park space. C. Provides a much needed active park to be used by the youth of Alameda. 9 D. Provides open space on the Estuary for all of Alameda's citizens to enjoy. E. Provides a place on the Estuary for connections to Union Point Park and the Bay Ferry. F. Provides a place for bicycle connections to the Fruitvale BART Station. 4. Building an open space park and amphitheater on the Collins property. A. Provides additional open space on the Estuary for all of Alameda's citizens to enjoy. B. Provides an extension to the Civic Center Plaza that preserves a beautiful area on the Estuary. C. Provides space for an outdoor amphitheater to be used for many different kinds of activities that would bring outdoor enjoyment and activates to Alameda. D. Parking and rental revenues would bring new resources to the city. E. Activities would bring shoppers, dinners, and movie attendees to Park Street while extending the influence to the beach and South Shore shops as well. Conclusion: This project would do more to improve Park Street than 7 movie screens and a very large parking lot that brings unwanted cars onto Park Street and into the Civic Center Plaza area. It would add parking, beauty, recreation, and leisure open space that is beneficial to all of Alameda. It improves an area of Alameda that has been mostly forgotten and increases property values for the area. It also preserves the last part of the Estuary available to be used by all of Alameda citizens instead of the few who would live in a housing development on these properties. Best of all, much of this plan has already been achieved by the combined efforts of many citizen groups united in the push for a better Alameda. Our plan brings these projects together into one effort designed to improve a very large area of Alameda and the Estuary, an area that includes Alameda Civic Plaza. This project improves Alameda for all of Alameda not a small group. Dare to Dream - then work to make the dream come true. 10 This is what we have the opportunity to clean up. and make beautiful. View from Park Street Bridge. View of Collins property from across the Estuary View of Fox and Dutra from across the Estuary Pictures from EPAC web site: Joseph Woodard http : / /www.alamedareport.org /epac/ 11 Here are some example of simple amphitheatres that I found on the Internet 2.ti WI del oilit Clit Elf gif. , ow City Hall to A = 1900 feet A to B = 580 feet A to C = 2587 feet '/2 mile = 2640 feet A = Corner of Clement Street and Oak Street B = Fox property at Clement Street C = Waters edge at the Estuary T Q EDA URA C Preservation j Society Mayor and City Council City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94601 0157 1 r d„ rr TiN7 Subject: Alameda Theater Cineplex and Parking Garage Design Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: August 15, 2005 The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) has been submitting oral and written comments on the cineplex and parking garage design since January. Initially these comments were submitted to staff and the Planning Board and later to the Historical Advisory Board. All of these comments have been provided to the Mayor and Councilmembers by email. As stated in its February 14, 2005 letter to the Planning Board, AAPS believes that the cineplex and parking garage should: • Reflect the Art Deco, Neoclassical and other traditional early 20th century architecture used for the historic theater, Twin Towers Church, Historic Alameda High School and the significant contributing buildings in the Park Street District and not to be too modernistic; and • Emphasize vertical rather than horizontal proportions to relate well to the strong vertical articulation of the historic theater, church and high school. Although the designs of the Cineplex and parking garage are somewhat improved over the initial designs, they still do not meet the basic design objectives stated above. Here are our specific comments: (1) Cineplex (a) The cineplex continues to be too Modernistic and does not relate well to the surrounding historic buildings. The cineplex should instead use well designed traditional "Main Street" architecture such as that used for Santana Row in San Jose, "The Grove" Shopping Center in Los Angeles and many of the new P.O. Box 1677 Alameda, CA 94501 510- 986 -9232 1 Re: Agenda Item #5 -A 08 -16 -05 buildings in downtown Santa Cruz (see Attachment A photos). Although inspired by traditional architecture, all of these buildings have a clearly contemporary quality and would therefore conform with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects, as required for the project because of its Federal funding. The Art Deco inspired addition to the Berkeley Main Library is another good prototype (see Attachment B) and was formally determined by State and Federal regulators to conform with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. (b) The 20" projection at the cineplex corner block and strongly horizontal 3' projection of the second floor lobby adjacent to the historic theater visually compete with the historic theater, Twin Towers church and Historic Alameda High School. These projections also create a jumbled composition, emphasize the building's massiveness and, by encroaching into the public right of way's air space, set a bad precedent for future projects. The cineplex developers say they need the 20" projecting corner block to provide adequate seating and space for the upper level screens but it is not clear why elimination of the 20" projection would place the whole project in jeopardy. Using the historic theater's closed -off balcony for two screens now, rather than reserving them for future use, might be a way to reduce the size of the cineplex and eliminate the need for the 20" projection. (c) The cineplex's proportions need to be more consistently vertical. This would help it relate better to the very strong vertical proportions of the historic theater, Historic Alameda High School and Twin Towers Church. (d) The cineplex's corner block still has extensive blank wall surfaces that should be broken up by additional articulation and /or textures. A good model is the tall closely spaced projecting piers on the historic theater's similarly windowless front facade. Vertically proportioned "punched out" false windows or recessed panels, possibly with grills, are another option. (Real windows would not be feasible since the corner block's upper level will contain theater screens along the street elevations). Included as Attachment C are sketches of a possible redesign of the cineplex that addresses the above concerns. This redesign may assist visualizing the cineplex's potential to relate better to the historic theater, high school and church. The redesign is very schematic, could be significantly improved and represents only one of many different possibilities for a more appropriate design. The sketch does not include the 20" and 3' projects, but is otherwise consistent with the height, massing, floor levels and fenestration of the design as proposed. 2 (2) Parking Garage. The parking garage still looks too much like a parking garage and has various design features that unnecessarily emphasize its bulk. The following issues should be addressed: (a) The facade is too asymmetrical. Distribution of materials, patterns of openings and the line along the top of the parapet should be uniform, rather than differentiating these elements to emphasize the shear walls, stair tower, and other massing features. Blind openings (i.e. panels) could be used in the shear walls to continue the pattern of the actual openings. (b) The proportions are too horizontal. The width of the openings should be reduced, if possible, and more vertical elements, such as projecting piers, should be added. Vertically patterned muntins or grills within the openings would give the openings a more window -like appearance and make the structure look less like a parking garage. Open rather than solid railings would increase the heights of the openings and give them a more vertical proportion. (c) The paneled concrete or stuccoed spandrels above and below the openings look too heavy and unnecessarily emphasize the horizontality of the spandrels. Flat surfaces for the spandrels might be better. Another option is metal spandrels, which could give more lightness to the design. (d) Make the stair tower more vertical. The tower should also have a better defined architectural "top" (see photo of Walnut Creek garage stair tower). The curved roof element above the stair tower seems inconsistent with the rest of the design. Attachment D shows examples of parking garages in Walnut Creek and Staunton, Virginia that address the above comments and use design techniques that would relate well to the neighboring historic buildings. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, Alameda had a strong tradition of architectural excellence. This tradition is reflected in such buildings as the historic theater, Twin Towers Church and Historic Alameda High School. The parking garage and Cineplex represent a major design opportunity for exemplary infill construction that would help re- establish this tradition. The proposed designs fail to meet this challenge. Please contact me at 523 -0411 or at cbuckley @alamedanet.net if you would like to discuss thes comment Christoph-' Buckley, C Preservatio Action Com 3 ATTACHMENTS A. Examples of "contemporary architecture" that would be good models for the cineplex's architecture: Santana Row in San Jose, "The Grove" in Los Angeles and buildings in downtown Santa Cruz. B. Berkeley Main Library addition. C. Illustrative alternative design for the Cineplex. D. Illustrations of parking garages in Walnut Creek and Staunton, Virginia. cc: AAPS Board and Preservation Action Committee Members 4 ATTACHMENT A: EXAMPLES OF "CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE" THAT WOULD BE GOOD MODELS FOR THE CINEPLEX'S ARCHITECTURE: SANTANA ROW, "THE GROVE" IN LOS ANGELES AND NEW BUILDINGS IN DOWNTOWN SANTA CRUZ SANTANA ROW SAN JOSE ATTACHMENT B: BERKELEY MAIN LIBRARY ADDITION ATTACHMENT C: ILLUSTRATIVE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN FOR THE CINEPLEX 11111111111111,110.1■mmommimmivmmorb... trtior.Freg.,71,9■12/OSZMI....., ATTACHMENT D: ILLUSTRATIONS OF WELL DESIGNED PARKING GARAGES IN WALNUT CREEK AND STAUNTON, VIRGINIA ..tdir IMIC.400201 CADC•021100 4 irk4 0.. 140024.'i c4c.:40171401.410 1 gimpieror,,itee OCitegilir! Cht."..07,-M2-420:4 kz=twairdie.4. larjeK4 1 C:1Q4211,1023010 i fpeargleilitIO :4401044110/ Kg.-11:41t1k7120102 I Ogig100124 1 400001 trAllitIC4001:4 tielgt.41120121 h I 1001601 C":::46PC-1q*C41511 j ine4C471:74120. ( niqt74cel ociatiociontio! etiliac4c40! --!!".4.0`ip-comiecti.2.12c, (v*1,000002'. , i 21110747;105:202riV__ 4200'; givig 90 Ppizeocdc400 gnarq4 C4 C4 arA WO. tvilg00000l 4coo • cow0000 c44,riitittoo‘ 4ocic44 , c-Ipc4como=, c.c.* ook:octi Q4.;;Iflocrecocii NOool ctc4v Oen.,11,2 4C40111',X CPI"' T o 64.7.4 cicLiok..44:loo smvoc. to,;-ooeili co:lrizeo?c4 4 = "rn•41111111111— Susan Brandt- Hawley Paige J. Swartley BRANDY HAWLEY LAW GROUP GwirC)r)ir)cot /Preserv:atiOf Chauvet House PC) Box 1659 Glen Ellen, California 95442 MEMORANDUM fax TO: Office of the Mayor FAX: (510) 747 -4704 FROM: Shannen Jones DATE: August 16, 2005 RE: . Cincplcx/Garage Appeal Agenda Item 5 -A, August 16, 2005 UP -05 -008, DR05 -0028 DOCUMENT(S) ATTACHED: 05111,'G 15 .S r ;f ail fm,,x: eaj41..A55istant> t ! C�'S�16icw5 Shannen Jones Raciel`Howlett RECEIVED AUG o 2005 CITY OF ALAMEDA MAYOR'S OFFICE Please deliver the attached letter to Mayor Beverly Johnson for tonight's hearing. Thank you very much. Re: Agenda Item #5 -A 08 -16 -05 707.938.3908 0 707.576.0198 C x 707.576.0175 susanbhOeconef.ory T'd SL1O- 9LS -LOL RajmeH- q.pue,ag uesng 4 dEI :a0 SO 91 Znd Susan Brandt- Hawley Paigc 1. Swartley y BRAN D HAIAI LEY LA'W'S ri!R Y 0V rivironmei l/ I)reservaticon Chauvet House PO Bog 566P►G Glen Ellen, Calirornias 42,-.,,i •13 -I tclbU August 16, Mayor Beverly Johnson and Members of the City Council City of Alameda by fax: 510- 747 -4704 510- 747 -4805 Re: Cineplex/Garage Appeal Agenda Item 5 -A, August 16, 2005 UP -05 -008, DROS -0028 Dear Honorable Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers: ;.'1 l LecyyI Assistants 5ara Hcws Shannon Jones Law Clerk Rachel Howlett On behalf of Citizens for a Megaplex -Free Alameda, Ani Dimusheva, and Valerie Ruma, I am writing to request the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report to inform the City's consideration of the Cineplex/Garage project. The mitigated negative declaration proposed as the basis for the City's project use permit and design review approvals violates CEQA. An Environmental Impact Report is required because there is a "fair argument" before you that this project may have significant environmental impacts relative to aesthetics, historic resources, and inconsistencies with City land use plans, policies, and regulations that were adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects. Legal Summary. By way of introduction, since C have not previously appeared before the City, my law practice throughout California focuses on the California Environmental Quality Act and particularly on historic resource issues. Among the hundreds of CEQA cases that my firm has handled at the administrative and trial court Ievels, our nineteen published decisions in.cludc Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, at the California Supreme Court, and Architectural Heritage Association v. County of Monterey, Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, Lighthouse. Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz, League for Protection of Oakland's Architectural and Historical Resources v. City of Oakland, Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County ofStanislaus, and Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, at the Court of Appeal. 707.938.3908 J 707.576.0198 ,i iv( 707.576.0175 susan1,114?ceonet.or9 2 'd SLIO- 9LS -LOL RatmeH- .4pueug uesnS dEI :20 SO 91 2nd Letter re Cineplex/Garage ...August 16, 2005 Page 2 CEQA requires the City to prepare an EIR whenever a project "may" have a significant impact on the environment. CEQA "creates a low threshold requirement for initial preparation of an EIR and reflects a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review when the question is whether any such review is warranted." (Pub. Resources Code § 21151; league for Protection of Oakland's historic and Architectural. Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 905.) The admittedly low threshold requires preparation of an EIR if substantial evidence supports a "fair argument" that significant impacts may occur, even if a different conclusion is also supportable. (CEQA Guideline § 15064, Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1317 - 1318.) The holding in the Sierra Club case, including its statement that a mitigated negative declaration can be allowed only if there is no "credible evidence" of potential environmental impacts, has been repeatedly cited with approval in major C1-.:,QA cases since its publication in 1992. Two cases have recently reaffirmed the fair argument standard and ordered the lead agency to prepare an EIR instead of a negative declaration in cases involving aesthetics and historic resources. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903; Architectural Heritage Association v. County of Monterey (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1095.) Substantial Evidence Supporting a Fair Argument. Substantial evidence supporting a "fair argument" includes facts and reasonable assumptions and expert opinions based on facts. •(Pub. Resources Code § 21082.2(c); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927 - 928, 935 -938; Architectural Heritage Assn., supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at 1112- 1118.) Substantial evidence supporting a fair argument thus includes expert opinion if supported by facts. "If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR." (The Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928; CEQA Guideline § 15064(g).) I -Iere, the expert report provided by consulting architectural historian Woodruff Minor provides adequate basis, standing alone, to trigger the preparation of an EIR. M.r. Minor's comprehensive report explains the factual basis for his professional opinion that "the bulk, massing, and scale of the project have the potential to substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the setting, both in terms of surrounding buildings and scenic vistas." Under CEQA Guideline Appendix G, as recently supported by The Pocket Protectors, potential significant aesthetic impacts trigger the preparation of an EIR. even in an urban setting. E'd SL10- 9LS -LOL Ra1meH- wueug uesnS dE1 :z0 20 91 Znd Letter re Cineplex/Garage .,August 16, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Minor further provides thc professional, fact -based opinion that the project may have a significant adverse material impact on its environment in light of inconsistency with Standard No. 9 of the Secretar)l of the Interior's Standards for .Rehabilitation relating to incompatibility "with surrounding historic buildings, in particular Alameda Theater and Twin Towers Methodist Church." Such potential, impacts are environmental impacts triggering preparation of an MR. (E.g., CEQA Guideline § 1 5064.5; see Architectural Heritage Association. v. County of Monterey.) The City's Initial Studyfl3nvironmentai Assessment and Section 106 Review, even though prepared with the able assistance of very well- respected historic preservation architects Carey & Co., cannot substitute for preparation of an E.ER in Tight of the presence of credible dissenting expert opinion comprising a "fair argument" of potential significant project impacts. The appeal also documents credible arguments that the Cineplex/Garage project may be inconsistent with multiple local regulatory and planning provisions relative to use permit inadequacy and unharmonious transitions in scale and character between designated land uses; General Plan parking, dcsi.gn. clement, and land use revitalization goals and policies; and the City's Design Review Manual. In the City Council's de novo project review, there is no need to apply the "supplemental environmental review" provisions of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project approval is now being considered for the first time at the highest decisionmaking level of the City, and CEQA provides that objections to thc adequacy of environmental review are timely if presented "prior to the close of the public hearing on thc project before issuance of the notice of determination." (Pub. Resources Code § 21177 (a).) Moreover, the eloquent Minor Report is indeed significant new information. Please return this project back to planning for preparation of an EIR to assist the Council in making an environmentally sound decision on this project. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely , Susan Brandt- ITawley cc: Citizens for a Mcgap1ex -Free Alameda Debra Kurita, City Manager Alatncda Planning Department 17 'd SLTO- 9LS -LOL RajmeH- ..pue..ra uesns d9I:20 SO et Znd • Susan Brandt- I•lwley Paige). Swartley BRANDT- HAWLEY LAW GkOVP Ei-jvi ror I Merit/ Preservi tior) Chauvet House PO Box 1659 Glen Ellen, California 95442 August 16, 2005 Mayor Beverly Johnson and Members of the City Council City of Alameda by fax: 510- 747 -4704 510- 747 -4805 Re: Cineplex/Garage Appeal Agenda Item 5 -A, August 16, 2005 UP -05 -008, DR05 -0028 Dear Ilonorablc Mayor Johnson and Councilmcmbcrs: Legal Assistants San) Hew; 5hannen Jones Law CIerk Rachcl Howlett On behalf of Citizens for a Mcgaplcx -Free Alameda, Ani Dimusheva, and Valerie Ruma, I am writing to request the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report to inform the City's consideration of the Cineplex/Garage project. The mitigated negative declaration proposed as the basis for the City's project use permit and design review approvals violates CEQA. An Environmental Impact Report is required because thcrc is a "fair argument" before you that this project may have significant environmental impacts relative to aesthetics, historic resources, and inconsistencies with City land use plans, policies, and regulations that were adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effeels. Legal Summary. By way of introduction, since I have not previously appeared before the City, my law practice throughout California focuses on the California Environmental Quality .Act and particularly on historic resource issues. Among the hundreds of CEQA cases that my firm has 1iandled at the administrative and trial court levels, our nineteen published decisions include Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of-Sierra Madre, at the California Supreme Court, and Architectural Heritage Association v. County of 'Monterey, Pocket. Protectors v. City of Sacrarnento, Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz, League for Protection of Oakland's Architectural and Historical Resources v. City of Oakland, Stanr.'slaus Natural heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus, and Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, at the Court of Appeal. 707.9383908 0 707.576.0198 , fax 707.576.0175 o susanbkaeconet.org T'd SLTO- 9L2-L0L RaImeH- '4pue,1a uesnS dLT :20 SO 91 Znd Letter re Cineplex/Garage ..August 16, 2005 Page 2 CEQA requires the City to prepare an EIR whenever a project "may" have a signilicant impact on the environment. CEQA "creates a low threshold requirement for initial preparation of an EIR and reflects a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review when the question is whether any such review is warranted." (Pub. Resources Code § 21151; League for Protection of Oakland's Historic and Architectural Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal,App.4°i 896, 905.) The admittedly low threshold requires preparation of an EIR if substantial evidence supports a "fair argument" that significant impacts may occur, even if a different conclusion is also supportable. (CEQA Guideline § 15064, Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1317 - 1318.) The holding in the Sierra Club case, including its statement that a mitigated negative declaration can be allowed only if there is no "credible evidence" of potential environmental impacts, has been repeatedly cited with approval in major CEQA cases since its publication in 1992. Two cases have recently reaffirmed the fair argument standard and ordered the lead agency to prepare an E1R instead of a negative declaration in cases involving aesthetics and historic resources. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4`h' 903; Architectural Heritage Association v. County of Monterey (2004) 122 Ca1.App.4th 1095.) Substantial Evidence Supporting a Fair Argument. Substantial evidence supporting a "fair argument" includes facts and reasonable assumptions an.d expert opinions based on facts. (Pub. Resources Code § 21082.2(c); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927 -928, 935 -938; Architectural Heritage Assn., supra, 122 Cal.App.4t at 1112- 1118.) Substantial evidence supporting a fair argument thus includes expert opinion if supported by facts. "If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on thc environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR." (The Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4`h 903, 928; CEQA Guideline § 15064(g).) iere, thc expert report provided by consulting architectural historian Woodruff Minor provides adequate basis, standing alone, to trigger the preparation of an RIR. Mr. Minor's comprehensive report explains the factual basis for his professional opinion that "the bulk, massing, and scale of the project have the potential to substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the setting, both in terms of surrounding buildings and scenic vistas." Under CEQA Guideline Appendix G, as recently supported by The Pocket Protectors, potential significant aesthetic impacts trigger the preparation of an EIR even in an urban setting_ 'd SLTO- 9LS -LOL RaTmeH- .4pueug uesnS dLT :20 SO 91 2nU g•d Letter re Cineplex /Garage August 16, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Minor further provides the professional, fact - based opinion that the project may have a significant adverse material impact on its environment in Light of inconsistency with Standard No. 9 of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation relating to incompatibility ``with surrounding historic buildings, in particular Alameda Theater and Twin Towers Methodist Church," Such potential impacts arc environmental impacts triggering preparation of an EIR. (E.g., CEQA Guideline § 15064.5; see Architectural Heritage Association v. County of Monterey.) The City's Initial Study/Environmental Assessment and Section 106 Review, even though prepared with the able assistance of very well - respected historic preservation architects Carey & Co., cannot substitute for preparation of an EIR in light of the presence of credible dissenting expert opinion comprising a "Lair argument" of potential significant project impacts. The appeal also documents credible arguments that the Cineplex/Garage project may be inconsistent with multiple local regulatory and planning provisions relative to use permit inadequacy and unharmonious transitions in scale and character, between designated land uses; General Plan parking, design element, and land use revitalization goals and policies; and the City's Design Review Manual. In the City Council's de novo project review, there is no need to apply th.c "supplemental environmental review" provisions of. the CEQA Guidelines, because the project approval is now being considered for the first time at the highest decisionmaking level of the City, and CEQA provides that objections to the adequacy of environmental review are timely if presented "prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before issuance of the notice of determination." (Pub. Resources Code § 21177 (a).) Moreover, the eloquent Minor Report is indeed significant new information. Please return this project back to planning for preparation of an EIR to assist the Council in making an environmentally sound decision on this project. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely , Susan Brandt- IIawley cc: Citizens for a Mcgaplcx -Free Alameda Debra Kurita, City Manager Alameda Planning Department SLTO- 9LS -LOL RatmeH- '4pueJE uesng dLt :zO SO 91 Znd A-41-41912 I worked for the Naval Air Rework Facility (NARF) for 25 years, starting as an apprentice and as a supervisor when the facility was ordered to close. Almost everything that was reworked at NARF Alameda had a workload standard. The facility was reimbursed at a rate of the workload standard times a labor rate. For example, the workload standard of five hours to rework a radio times a labor rate of $97 per hour would produce an income of $485. If the NARF could produce the radios in less than five hours, a profit would be made. If it took more than five hours to produce the radio, a loss was incurred. My memory is that most production was close to cost, on schedule, and of fairly reasonable quality. However, there were programs that were perennial losers. In the last years of my employment at NARF, I was responsible for looking at the most egregious losers and to make recommendations for improving performance. The production and planning managers of some of those top losers insisted that losses were not a real problem, that some agency would come along and "bail us out" - that the NARF could continue operating at a loss. Finally, there was no organization left to bail us out and the facility was ordered to close in 1993. The mega -plex project looks like a guaranteed loss. It appears that the city will have to sell well over $10 million in bonds. The mega -plex may produce some income, but it doesn't look like enough to cover the interest or the principle on the bonds. I don't see any deep pocket agency willing to bail out Alameda. The city can't just close like the base did. ate, 7 2270 Sah Ss� /lve, 5g-14g677 Re: Agenda Item #5 -A 08 -16 -05 Memorandum To: City Clerk — Alameda, CA 011 /*IL .0 CLE, PK. S RE C171\1 05 AUG 15 111„10-32 DISTRIBUTION: From: Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda Date: 8/15/2005 Re: August 16, 2005 City Council Meeting/de novo hearing Item #5-A — Materials to be added to permanent record. 11,6„544.47‘,se_ 240/42,04 /faezi3 To City Clerk; Please:accept the enclosed report as part of the permanent record pertaining to the above mentioned item #5A on the agenda of the August 16, 2005 City Council meeting/de novo hearing. Thank you; Valerie Ruma and Ani Dimusheva Re: Agenda Item #5-A 08-16-05 1 Partial Aesthetic Impacts Analysis (Bulk, Massing, and Scale) Proposed Cineplex and Parking Structure Alameda, California Prepared for Citizens for a Megaplex -Free Alameda (CMFA) August 2005 Woodruff Minor Consulting Architectural Historian 1325 St. Charles Street Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 433-7033 Introduction The comments contained in this brief report address the proposed cineplex addition on the west side of the Alameda Theater, at the corner of Central Avenue and Oak Street, and the adjoining parking structure to the rear of the addition, facing Oak Street. Comments are limited to the issue of bulk, massing, and scale, which comprise the most intrusive and aesthetically disturbing element of the project. The report focuses on the immediate environment of the project, in particular the cluster of architecturally and historically significant buildings on or near the intersection of Central Avenue and Oak Street, and also discusses scenic vistas along these streets. Although the findings are at variance with previous reports submitted to the City, such as the "Aesthetic Impacts Analysis" prepared by Wagstaff and Associates in December 2004, it is not the purpose of this report to make a point -by -point rebuttal but simply to proffer a dissenting opinion on certain aesthetic impacts of the proposed project. This opinion is informed by 25 years of experience as a professional architectural historian who has researched and written extensively about Alameda history and architecture. It is my considered opinion that the bulk and massing of the proposed cineplex and parking structure are out of scale with their setting. If built, they would vitiate an important architectural ensemble and mar significant scenic vistas along adjacent streets. The project also does not appear to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as regards Standard No. 9, which states in part: "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction ... shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment." In sum, the project may have a potentially significant environmental impact on surrounding buildings and vistas. Setting The project site —the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Oak Street —is of extraordinary importance to Alameda from the point of view of urban design and historical associations. For it is here, at the juncture of the historic downtown and civic center, that the city's architectural heritage coalesces into an ensemble of unparalleled force and vigor. Rising on the west from one corner is Twin Towers Methodist Church (1909), a buff brick and tile- roofed monument of early 20`h century eclecticism combining Renaissance and Mission motifs; its twin campanili proclaim the presence of the civic center with lofty dignity. On the far corner, the neoclassical wings of Historic Alameda High School (1926) recede into the distance, a stately vision of civic pride. Adjoining the project site on the east is Alameda Theater (1932), the city's best -known commercial landmark. The vertical elan of this Moderne masterpiece simultaneously echoes the skyward thrust of the church and counterpoints the horizontal sweep of the school. Its marquee lifts the name of the city high above the street, branding a distinguished architectural ensemble with an indelible sense of place. Together, these three buildings encapsulate the development of commercial and civic design in America in the early 20t century, from the varied historicist modes of the church and school to the theater's emergent modernism. They also embody significant themes in local history, from the role of the church as the city's pioneer religious body to the expansive confidence of the local government and business community expressed by the school and theater. The architects who designed them— Meyers & Ward (Twin Towers Methodist Church), Carl Werner (Historic Alameda High School), and Miller & Pleuger (Alameda Theater) —were prominent and prolific San Francisco firms, particularly Miller & Pfleuger, widely considered the region's foremost practitioner of the Moderne style. The school and theater have both been listed on the National Register, and the church is eligible for listing. It is only on the project site, at the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Oak Street, that this commercial -civic ensemble can be seen and experienced in all its evocative power. Here one may simultaneously gaze up to the towers of the church, take in the perspective of the school, and peer past the rounded corner of the theater to the name - bearing marquee. (Figure 1.) The site is unlike any other in the city, ensconced in a uniquely important historical and architectural setting at the very meeting -place of the downtown and civic center. Any project undertaken there should be held to the highest standards of sensitive and contextual design, demonstrating a deferential and respectful awareness of the significance of the site. The proposed cineplex addition and parking structure demonstrate neither. Their bulk and massing, accentuated by the lack of setbacks, impose a big -box idiom, more suitable to a generic mall, on a complex historic setting resonant with pre - existing harmonies of scale. The size and placement of the development would diminish the monumentality of both the Alameda Theater and Twin Towers Methodist Church. The long horizontal facade of the addition, rising nearly to the height of the theater parapet, would compete with and undermine the theater's visual prominence and sense of verticality. The looming mass of the addition and parking structure would also overwhelm the church across the narrow divide of Oak Street. As designed, both structures would rise above the roof level of the church and part way up the height of the campanili, vying with the towers' symbolic meaning as announcers of the civic center. The visual power of the high school, with its heroically scaled wings, would also be diminished by the competing presence of the new structures. The cumulative impact of the project on surrounding landmarks would be to trivialize them, and in the case of the theater and church, make them feel smaller than they actually are. Scenic Vistas The cineplex addition and parking structure would also spoil several critical scenic vistas, or sightlines, in the project area. Most obvious are the views up and down Oak Street, from Santa Clara Avenue on the north and vicinity of Alameda Avenue on the south, which would be truncated by the bulk and massing of the proposed structures. Less obvious, perhaps, is the vista west on Central Avenue from Park Street. From an urban design perspective, Central Avenue is the principal cross -town route through the downtown and civic center, providing the most visually rich encounter of the areas in sequential manner. Currently, drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians heading west on Central Avenue are presented with an unimpeded vista of the theater and church at Park Street. Here the two landmarks are suddenly seen in juxtaposition, iconic symbols visually knitting the heart of the downtown to the civic center. (Figure 2.) This vista is as important as the individual buildings of which it is composed, creating a deeply satisfying and meaningful aesthetic experience. The bulk, massing, and scale of the cineplex addition would spoil the vista from Park Street, obscuring most of the church and hence destroying a richly layered and irreplaceable view of the city's historic center. Conclusion Having reviewed architectural renderings and site plans for the proposed development, it is my opinion that the bulk, massing, and scale of the project have the potential to substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the setting, both in terms of surrounding buildings and scenic vistas. In terms of scale, the project appears to be incompatible with surrounding historic buildings, in particular Alameda Theater and Twin Towers Methodist Church. As such, the project may have a potentially significant adverse material impact on its environment. Signed, Woodruff Minor Consulting Architectural Historian Figure 1. Looking west on Central Avenue form Park Street, showing juxtaposition of Alameda Theater and Twin Towers Methodist Church, iconic symbols of the downtown and civic center. This scenic vista would be marred by the proposed cineplex addition, which will obscure most of the church. Figure 2. Looking west on Central Avenue from the project site, showing the twin towers of the church directly across Oak Street and the receding perspective of Historic Alameda High School on the far side of the intersection. Note how the buildings frame the scenic vista down Central Avenue. The church would be blocked by the proposed cineplex, destroying the balanced vista. 1 Figure 1. Looking west on Central Avenue form Park Street, showing juxtaposition of Alameda Theater and Twin Towers Methodist Church, iconic symbols of the downtown and civic center. This scenic vista would be marred by the proposed cineplex addition, which will obscure most of the church. Figure 2. Looking west on Central Avenue from the project site, showing the twin towers of the church directly across Oak Street and the receding perspective of Historic Alameda High School on the far side of the intersection. Note how the buildings frame the scenic vista down Central Avenue. The church would be blocked by the proposed cineplex, destroying the balanced vista. WOODRUFF MINOR Architectural Historian 1325 St. Charles Street Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 433-7033 I. EDUCATION Master of Urban & Regional Planning, University of Oregon (1976). B.A., History, University of California, Berkeley (1971). II. WORK EXPERIENCE: CONSULTING Conducted surveys, assessed National /California Register eligibility, and recorded resources for projects listed below (1985 present). All projects in California unless otherwise noted. 1. Basin Research Associates Coyote Valley Specific Plan, San Jose (2003 -05). City of San Jose Specific Plan, San Jose (2003). East Santa Clara Street/Alum Rock Avenue Extension, Valley Transit Authority, San Jose (2002 -04). Acoustical Treatment Program, San Jose International Airport (2002 -03). Alameda County Juvenile Hall, San Leandro (2002). Central Avenue Widening Project, Fremont (2001 -02). Preliminary Reconnaissance Survey, City of Hayward (2001). History of Leona Quarry, Oakland (2001). Phase II Inventory of Historic Resources, City of Fremont (1999- 2002). Vasona Corridor Project, Valley Transit Authority, San Jose and Campbell (1998 -99). Phase I Review of Primary and Secondary Resources, City of Fremont (1997 -98). Estuary Training Walls and Western Pacific Mole, Port of Oakland (1997). Acoustical Treatment Program, San Jose International Airport (1997). Wild Goose Gas Storage Project, Butte County (1996). State Route 120 Project, Escalon (1996). Grant Line Road/I -205 Interchange Project, Tracy (1994). Replacement of Forest Street Bridge over Miller Slough, Gilroy (1994). Vasco Road Project, Livermore (1993). Mexican Gardens Project, San Jose (1993). Guadalupe River Project, San Jose (1990 -91). Crane Ridge Lookout, Alameda County (1990). Chestnut Street Reconstruction Project, Redwood City (1990). Outbuildings of the River Street National Register Historic District, San Jose (1990). Route 17 at Lexington Reservoir Interchange Project, Santa Clara County (1989 -90). Redwood Road/A Street, Widening Project, Alameda County (1989). National Register Nomination, San Jose Water Works Building, San Jose (1989). Route 87 Freeway Upgrading Project, San Jose (1988 - 1989). 2. Other firms: Endo, Oishi, and Sakai Nurseries, Richmond (Eden Housing, Inc., 2004). Historical signage text, West Oakland Bike Path, Oakland (Pattillo & Garrett, 2003 -04). Saratoga Lanes Bowling Alley, San Jose (Preservation Architecture, 2003). Todd Shipyard, Alameda (Gaia Consulting, Inc., 2003). Architectural - Historical Survey, West Linn, Oregon (Winterbrook Planning, 2002 -03). North Waterfront NR Historic District, Port of San Francisco (URS Corp., 2002). Dry Creek Cottage and Gardens, EBRPD (Robert Bruce Anderson, 2001 -02). Fill Activity in Oakland Outer Harbor (Baseline Environmental Consulting, 2001 -02). Calistoga General Plan Update (Design, Community & Environment, 2000 -02). Assessment of 11 Nottingham Place, San Francisco (Mark Cavagnero Associates, 2000). George Mark Hospice, Fairmont Hospital, San Leandro (Lamphier & Associates, 2000). Horner House, Fremont (Ward Hill, 2000). Historical signage text, WindRiver campus, Alameda (HDR Architects, 2000). Historical display text, Port View Park, Port of Oakland (Terry Lim, 1999 - 2001). Historical signage text, Embarcadero Bike Path, Oakland (Pattillo & Garrett, 1999 - 2000). Morgan Hill General Plan Update (Design, Community & Environment, 1998- 2000). Alameda Federal Center, Alameda (Page & Turnbull, 1995). HABS, Grove Street Pier, Port of Oakland (Brady and Associates, 1994). Charles P. Howard Terminal Extension, Port of Oakland (Brady and Associates, 1994). Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center, Oakland (Brady and Associates, 1993). University High School, Oakland (Brady & Associates, 1991). Preservation Maintenance Plan, Presidio of Monterey (Page & Turnbull, 1990 -92). HABS, Champion House and Santos Farm, Fremont (Page & Turnbull, 1989). 3. Independent consulting: Survey of Historic Resources, Eastern Alameda County (County of Alameda, 2004 -05). Alameda Land Company Speculative Bungalow, 1104 Oak Street, Alameda (City of Alameda, 2004). George House, Centerville District, Fremont (City of Fremont, 2004). Yarbrough- Butterfield Barn, Niles District, Fremont (City of Fremont, 2004). Driscoll- Medeiros House, Mission San Jose District, Fremont (City of Fremont, 2004). Kell House, Mission San Jose District, Fremont (City of Fremont, 2004). De Salles House, Central District, Fremont (City of Fremont, 2003). Amaral and Silva Houses, Centerville District, Fremont (City of Fremont, 2003). Christensen - Hygelund House, Centerville District, Fremont (City of Fremont, 2003). Pereira House, Mission San Jose District, Fremont (City of Fremont, 2003). Grimmer House and Office, Irvington District, Fremont (City of Fremont, 2002). 711 Harrison Street and 1345 Sixth Street, Berkeley (BOSS, 2001 -02). Superintendent's Residence, Fairmont Hospital (County of Alameda, 2001). Pereira and Hirsch Houses, Irvington District, Fremont (Tri -City Homeless Coalition, 2001). Dias Property, Centerville District, Fremont (City of Fremont, 2001). 4153 Bay Street, Irvington District, Fremont (Tri -City Homeless Coalition, 2000). Site history for WindRiver Project, Alameda (City of Alameda, 1997). Laundry and Firehouse, Fairmont Hospital (County of Alameda, 1994). Survey of Commercial Buildings, Alameda (City of Alameda, 1992). Evaluator, Oakland Cultural Resources Survey (City of Oakland, 1990 -95). Survey of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings, Alameda (City of Alameda, 1990). I -880 Replacement Project, Oakland (City of Oakland, 1990). Survey of Webster Street District, Alameda (City of Alameda, 1989). History of Bay Farm Island, Alameda and Oakland (Doric Construction Co., 1987). HABS, U.S. Naval Hospital, San Diego (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1985). III. WORK EXPERIENCE: EMPLOYMENT 1. Page, Anderson & Turnbull /Page & Turnbull, San Francisco, CA Employed as architectural historian (1981 -88) in firm specializing in historic architecture and preservation planning. Projects included: Determination of Eligibility, Nellis Air Force Base, Las Vegas, NV (1988). National Register Nomination, United States Courthouse, Los Angeles (1984). National Register Nomination, Palmcroft- Encanto Historic District, Phoenix, AZ (1983). Comprehensive Survey of Tarrant County, Fort Worth, TX (1981 -88). 2. City of Alameda Planning Department, Alameda, CA Assistant Planner (1977 -80), supervised citywide survey of historic resources, wrote landmark nomination reports, and produced Historic Preservation Element of General Plan. IV. PUBLICATIONS 1. Books Ratcle The Bay Area's Oldest Architectural Firm (publication in 2006). The Crossans: Saga of a Family in Ireland and America (publication in 2006). Alameda at Play: A Century of Public Parks and Recreation in a Bay Area City (2001). Pacific Gateway: An Illustrated History of the Port of Oakland (2000). On The Bay: A Centennial History of the Encinal Yacht Club (1994). Historic Commercial Buildings of Alameda (1993; second edition, 2005). 2. Booklets Leonardville Heritage Area (1992). Burbank - Portola Heritage Area (1989). Park Avenue Heritage Area (1988). Bay Station Heritage Area (1986). 3. Articles Contributor, Alameda Magazine (2002 — present). Columnist, Alameda Sun (2001— present). Columnist, Alameda Journal (1987 -95). Columnist, Island Journal (1982 -83).