Historic advisory board approves Radium Theatre certificate after debate over CEQA and view corridors

The Historical Advisory Board voted to approve a certificate of approval for the Radium Theatre Performing Arts Center on March 5, advancing the project toward the planning board and city council stages.

City planner Brian McGuire told the board the proposal — a new performing arts building at Alameda Point — had been evaluated against the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the Alameda Point Environmental Impact Report (EIR). McGuire said staff and the Architectural Resource Group (ARG) concluded the design "does not destroy the character‑defining features" of the NAS Alameda Historic District and that the project differentiates itself from historic structures while remaining compatible with them. He also summarized infill guidelines, view‑corridor protections and CEQA findings incorporated into the staff recommendation.

Why it matters: the site sits inside the NAS Alameda Historic District and near Building 77 (the Naval Air Museum). The HAB’s certificate of approval is one step in a multi‑stage process: design review and development‑plan consideration at the planning board, council action on a ground‑lease/purchase option, and later design review and permits before construction.

During public comment, supporters framed the project as a catalytic arts anchor. Tara Pilbrow, executive director of the West End Arts District and a Radium board member, said the center could transform Alameda’s arts ecosystem and urged approval. Architect and West End resident Ben Micas said relocating the building footprint had produced additional public open space and preserved the 40‑foot view corridor to Building 77.

But several public commenters urged more legal and environmental review. Todd Hickman, an online commenter, and Shelby Sheehan, who submitted a lengthy written comment, both argued the project has not fully complied with CEQA and related rules and said the proposed alterations would degrade the historic district. Sheehan urged an alternatives analysis and said certain approvals could risk legal challenge if review is incomplete.

Board members pressed staff and the applicants on specifics: interim parking on the taxiway, how parking obligations would be written into lease terms, how the plaza and elevation changes address sea‑level rise, and the project timeline. Staff said interim parking is expected to be specified in the ground‑lease terms but the final configuration and permanent parking solutions will be addressed later in the planning and design review phases. The applicant described a 600‑seat house, a 70‑foot fly tower and a design intent to reference hangar character while adding public plaza space.

Motion and outcome: Board member Bevin moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness with a requested wording change to the draft resolution; the board voted in favor and the chair announced the motion carried. Staff said the certificate and findings will accompany the project to the planning board and then to city council for action on the ground‑lease and purchase option.

What remains: staff and the applicant said further design review, fundraising and permit work remain; the project team estimated multiyear timelines before potential construction. Opponents’ legal concerns about CEQA and alleged alteration of historic character — raised during public comment — remain unresolved in this meeting; the record includes written submissions the board will review as the project moves forward.

Speakers quoted in this article are drawn directly from the meeting record: Brian McGuire (City planner), Christopher Seiwold (founding member, Radium Presents), Tara Pilbrow (Executive Director, West End Arts District), Ben Micas (architect), Todd Hickman (public commenter), Shelby Sheehan (public commenter) and board members (Bevin, Chair Hernandez). The HAB’s action does not itself authorize construction; it transmits the board’s certificate and findings to subsequent decision stages.