body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-05-23,1,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
May 23, 2005
Present: Berger, Bunker, Chadow, Chair Cooney, Fort, Vice-Chair Gwynne, Longley-Cook,
McGaughey, Moore, Steffens
Absent/Excused: None
Guests: Greg Stoia, City Senior Construction Inspector
Mary Louis Lambert
MINUTES: The minutes of April 28, 2005 where approved.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Event Parking:
Commissioner Toby Berger informed the commission that the East Bay Regional Park
District would again provide additional disabled parking spaces for the summer concert
events scheduled for the 2nd Friday of June, July and August. Secretary to provide revised
table sign.
2. Curbside Mailbox Reductions:
Chair Ed Cooney concerned about the reduction in street mailbox locations contacted the
Postal Agency (748-4156). They informed him that if contacted they will provide the
location of the nearest box. They also informed him that a person could make arrangements
with the postal delivery person to have the mail picked up. A commissioner suggested that
Braille be provided in the inside of the door flap as to pick-up times, etc.
3. Pedestrian Access During Construction Projects:
Commissioners and Greg Stoia, City's Senior Construction Inspector, discussed pedestrian
access during the Webster Street project. Though contractor assistance is available to
provide assistance to the public during working hours, it is sometimes difficult during non-
working hours for the visually impaired to ascertain the location of bus stops or street
crossings. The committee made some suggestions and discussed forming a subcommittee to
make additional recommendations on current and future projects.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-05-23.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-05-23,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
May 23, 2005
Minutes
Page 2 of 2
4. Bylaws - Absences:
Discussion on number of absences allowed per the commission bylaws was tabled.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
1. The Secretary informed the Commissioners that Commissioner Elaine McCoy had resigned.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Commissioners Toby Berger and Alysa Chadow shared information on audible signal
products through their discussions with Mr. Ed Campbell, an audible signal supplier.
Secretary informed the commission that Mr. Campbell has provided audible signal products
to the City in the past via bidding process, the most recent being the audible signal upgrades
at the intersection of Park Street at Santa Clara Avenue and Park Street at Otis Drive.
2. Commissioner Jody Moore would like that the local newspaper(s) publish an article on
disability awareness. Commissioner Toby Berger stated that this could coincide with
Disability Awareness Month, which is held annually in October, and that it be placed on the
September agenda for further discussion.
3. Guest Ms. Mary Louis Lambert informed the commission that there is a video relay system
that works that interfaces with the internet to provide video sign language translation for the
hearing impaired, similar to TTY's which is a phone line based interface. The video relay
system requires a 256MB uplink that is available only with the ""business' level cable service.
The ""business level service is available by AP&T for an additional $10/month above the
Basic package. A commissioner suggested if AP&T could provide a medical discount.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-05-23.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2005-05-23,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
May 23, 2005
Minutes
Page 3 of 3
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, June 27th in Room
391, City Hall.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By:
Ed Sommerauer
Associate Civil Engineer
ES:lc
G:\PUBWORKS\LT\MCD Disability Committee/2005\0523min.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
May 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:03 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Vice President Cook
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,
McNamara, and Piziali.
Board member Mariani was absent from roll call and arrived during Oral Communications.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,
Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of May 9, 2005.
Mr. Piziali advised that page 6, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, ""Mr. Piziali suggested the
use of dark anodized aluminum glass.""
Mr. Piziali advised that page 6, bullet 2, should be changed to read, ""2. The aluminum storefront
would have dark anodized frames glazing.'
Vice President Cook advised that on page 1, regarding the minutes for April 25, 2005, she did not
believe she seconded the minutes, and indicated that she abstained.
Ms. Eliason advised that staff would confirm that item.
M/S Piziali/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of May 9, 2005, as amended.
AYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cunningham advised that staff had received a letter regarding Items 8-B and 8-C, and that
while public comment would be taken, there would be no Board discussion or action on the item until
staff had a chance to address the issues raised by the letter. Board discussion would be continued until
the Planning Board meeting of June 13, 2005.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,2,"Ms. Barbara Nemer expressed concern about a sign to be erected at Donald Lum School on Otis
Drive, and that the sign is to be over eight feet tall. She noted that it was larger than any other sign in
Alameda schools, and expressed concern that it would be plastic and illuminated. She believed it
would be a safety hazard because of its location at a crosswalk and a corner, and believed it would be
hideous. She would like to see a wooden sign, illuminated by plant lights. She noted that this school
was one of the nicest on the Island.
Mr. Piziali noted that this sign was not the purview of the Planning Board, and that the Board of
Education would be the property entity to address. The Planning Board has no control over this sign.
Mr. Lynch advised that the designs, plans, building inspections and contracts for schools go through
the school board of the local jurisdiction, including design review.
Ms. Diane Voss, 1815 Otis Drive, expressed concern about the Donald Lum School sign, which
would cost over $8,000, and the monthly cost would also be at taxpayer expense. She would consider
a ""No"" vote on the taxpayer-funded school assistance if her money were to be spent this way.
Ms. Liz Cleves, 1815 Otis Drive, spoke in opposition to this sign, and expressed concern about safety
at the corner and the crosswalk with respect to the proximity of the sign.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,3,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
7-A.
Use Permit, UP05-005; John Kienoski, John's Bargain Imports, 1770 Viking Street,
Alameda, CA. (Alameda Point) (ATh). The applicant requests a Use Permit modification to
allow retail sales at an existing wholesale facility. The site is located in the M-2-G, General
Industry/Manufacturing Zoning District/Government Combining District.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-15 to approve
a Use Permit modification to allow retail sales at an existing wholesale facility.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,4,"7-B.
Interim Use Permit UP05-0004: Alameda Point Collaborative/Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, 2580/2700 Barbera Point Road Near Main Street at
Singleton Avenue, Parcel 99, Alameda Point (ATh). The applicant requests an Interim Use
Permit to allow establishment of a 4-acre retail plant nursery. The site is located in the M-2-G
General Industry/Manufacturing Zoning District/Government Combining District.
M/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-16 to approve
an Interim Use Permit to allow establishment of a 4-acre retail plant nursery.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,5,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
8-A. Variance V05-0003.Major Design Review DR04-0109 - KDArchitects, Inc. for Kwan Li
- 2411 Webb Avenue (AT). Applicants request a Major Design Review and two Variances
to construct a two-story residential/commercial mixed use building on a vacant parcel. The
project proposes two ground floor retail spaces approximately 800-860 square feet in size and
two residential units on the second floor with approximately 700-1,000 square feet of floor
area for a total gross floor area of 3,383 square feet. The design of the building resembles a
streamlined moderne appearance with a combination of stucco exterior siding and clear
anodized aluminum trim. Access to parking located at the rear of the building is through a
driveway located along the right side of the building under a portion of the second story. The
project requires a total of twelve parking spaces, and the plans provide eight total spaces with
residential parking in the form of stacked parking lifts. Two variances are requested for the
deficiency of four parking spaces and a reduced landscaping separation between one parking
space and the north and east property lines, where three feet is required. The site is located at
2411 Webb Avenue, within the Park Street C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District.
Mr. Tai presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this application.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand whether this site would qualify for the in lieu parking fee,
Ms. Eliason confirmed that it would.
Ms. Kohlstrand liked the traditional, old-downtown look of Park Street, which provided a continuous
street frontage. She expressed concern about providing required parking on-site, particularly when
there was public parking available across the street at the Bank of America site. The possibility of
stacked parking concerned her, and would rather see a Variance for six parking spaces.
President Cunningham inquired how much the stacking devices cost, and whether it would be better
to put the money into the in lieu fund instead.
Mr. Piziali noted that he liked the stacking device at first, given the Board discussion of open space
and tandem parking. He agreed with the idea of putting the money intended for the lifts into the in
lieu fund instead, and to grant the applicant a Variance.
Mr. Lynch complimented the applicant on a beautiful architectural design and layout.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,6,"President Cunningham did not want the lifts to be used all over the City as an unintended
consequence.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she would normally prefer continuous store frontage, but she would accept
a driveway through the building. She agreed that the design was very nice, and was a positive mixed-
use proposal.
Mr. Piziali noted that he would not object to stacked parking if it were inside a structure elsewhere in
the City.
Mr. Lynch would be willing to entertain the Variance that reflects the withdrawal of the lift, and those
funds being placed into the City in-lieu fund.
Ms. Harryman suggested that the Board give direction to staff as to what it would like to see, and
continue the item to the next meeting so it may be placed on the Consent Calendar.
At Vice President Cook's request, Mr. Tai summarized the changes in the design.
President Cunningham suggested that taller landscaping be planted in the back, instead of the
boxwood. She noted that several other buildings had a view to the back of the site.
Ms. McNamara expressed concern about the architectural design of this building that seemed to have
been designed without regard for the adjacent building.
President Cunningham noted that the trashcans as illustrated were shown to be half the size of real
trash cans, and suggested that the space under the stairs be used to house the trash containers.
Ms. Eliason summarized the Board's direction: a Variance for six spaces rather than providing the
stacked units and payment of an in lieu. Four parking spaces would be for the residential units, and
would be dedicated for residential use.
Mr. Tai noted that there may be required handicapped accessible spaces for the commercial spaces,
and added that two spaces each may be for the residential units; the remaining two spaces may be
devoted to handicapped accessible parking for the commercial use.
M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June 13,
2005.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,7,"8-B.
Zoning Text Amendment ZA05-0002, Applicant: Alameda Theatre Project Inc., - All
Neighborhood Business Districts (C-1) within the City of Alameda (DG/CE). The
applicant requests an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.8(c) to add
""Boutique Theater"" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit
approval. ""Boutique Theater"" would be defined as ""A theater with audiences of 49 persons or
less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one
screen in the theater.' (Continued from the meeting of April 11, 2005.)
Mr. Piziali noted that many speaker slips were for both Items 8-B and 8-C.
Mr. Lynch requested that staff clarify the distinctions between Items 8-B and 8-C for the public; Ms.
Eliason explained the difference for the audience.
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report.
President Cunningham advised that public comment would be taken, but that no Board discussion or
action would be taken.
President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received
M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, noted that he had acutely aware of the absence of a movie theater
in
Alameda; he described the background of this application and noted that his intent was to create a
positive influence on the community. He noted that this theater was the smallest commercial movie
theater in the country. He presented a petition in opposition to closing the theater which was signed
by 1,500 people; he noted that he did not initiate the petition.
Mr. Peter MacDonald, attorney for the applicant, noted that he would like to present the response
regarding CEQA at the next meeting. He noted that the General Plan presented the ideal of a less
automobile-oriented city with mixed uses and a traditional ambience, also known as the ""new
urbanism."" He noted that included pedestrian orientation with places worth patronizing within the
city, as opposed to megaplexes at the edge of the city center or further. He noted that the seats were
low-density seating featuring couches and easy chairs, as opposed to airline-type seating. He did not
believe that many boutique theaters would be created, and that this zoning amendment would indicate
the City's commitment to entrepreneurs. He noted that the applicant often found available parking
space in the vicinity when his theater has sold out. He surveyed his customers, and found that only 15
cars were driven by customers on a Friday night, and 13 cars on a Saturday night, which was less than
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,8,"projected by staff. On both nights, about 40% of his customers walked to the theater. He believed this
theater was an asset to the community. He noted that the movie could not be heard from the
neighbor's fence. He noted that he would respond to Ms. Barbara Thomas' comments in opposition
to the theater at the next meeting. He expressed concern about the condition requiring a 20-minute
gap between movies, and did not believe it was necessary during the day when there were seldom
more than 15 people during those showings. He suggested that that condition be applicable only after
6 p.m.
Mr. David Penney, 1620 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and noted that he
lived a half mile away from the theater. He believed this business was a good fit for the neighborhood,
and would like to see a few more throughout the City.
Mr. David Hart, 712 Taylor, spoke in support of this application, and believed that the cinema was an
unqualified positive feature for the neighborhood. He liked the family-friendly atmosphere of the
theater, and had never found parking to be a problem. He noted that most of the patrons walked to
the theater.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and noted that he
lived within walking distance of the theater. He believed this was an excellent and creative solution to
the conflicts that arose earlier, and supported local ownership. He believed this size and type of
business ownership should be encouraged.
Ms. Chantal Currid, 834 Taylor Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and would like to see
the City encourage this type of business.
Mr. Richard Archuleta, 1406 9th Street, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he had
seen many people walking and riding their bicycles, which has brought a good atmosphere to the
neighborhood. He would like to see a stop light near the cinema for safety. He believed this use
would be a good activity for families and children in a small-town atmosphere, and would not cause
any spending leakage to off-island cities.
Mr. Matthew Callahan, 1822¹/² Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and believed that
the Central Cinema was a jewel in the City. He would like to see more boutique theaters in Alameda.
He supported the zoning change, and noted that there were many members of the audience who
supported it as well.
Ms. Eve Abrahams Shutt, 927 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and enjoyed
walking to the theater. She liked the friendly atmosphere of the theater, and added that there had
never been any parking problems.
Mr. Ethan Rafferty, 1217 Central Avenue, spoke in support of this application. He discussed the
economic benefit of this theater to other small businesses in the surrounding neighborhoods. He noted
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,9,"that the small theaters often showed family-friendly movies that may not be supported by the
megaplex theaters.
Ms. Nancy Sewell, 11709th Street, #23, spoke in support of this application, and noted that she lived
three blocks away from the theater.
Ms. Allison Martin, 1519 St. Charles, spoke in support of this application. She noted that there had
been a lot more traffic when the site housed a mortuary. She noted that she had been able to bring her
elderly father to the theater easily. She agreed that a crosswalk would be a good addition for safety.
Ms. Barbara Thomas, PO Box 1381, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that she represented
clients in opposition to the application, and that she would reserve her specific comments until after
the Planning Board has been able to review her letter. She believed that the theater was a wonderful
idea, but that it was in the wrong place. She recalled several permitted Alameda theaters that had
closed, and that they all had sufficient parking. She asked the Board to look at this application from a
macro view, rather than from a micro view. She noted that the General Plan and the Alameda
Municipal Code encourage businesses that draw traffic to go to the major C-C zones, such as
Webster Street. She noted that the transportation plans also support those goals, and believed lack of
parking had contributed to failure on Webster Street and Park Street. She noted that good businesses
were spread out in that zone and that they bought parking lots for their clientele, which she believed
should be dissuaded under the General Plan.
Mr. Allen Rawl, 48 Invincible Court, spoke in support of this application, and had moved here
because of the small-town character of Alameda. He agreed with the other speakers who supported
this application. He hoped the residents did not take the ability to walk to the theater for granted.
Mr. Don Coughlan, 2008B Clinton, spoke in support of this application and noted that he grew up in
the West End; he appreciated the small-town neighborhood feel and businesses. He noted that when
he worked at the mortuary as a young man, there were many cars parked in the neighborhood without
complaint.
Ms. Holly Ackley, 3015 San Jose Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and appreciated being
able to stay on the Island for dinner and a movie. She noted that she often walked there, but never
had trouble finding a parking space even when the movie was sold out. She liked the non-rowdy
nature of the patrons.
Ms. Louise Elsea, 470 Lincoln Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and noted that
Alameda's small-town atmosphere was very different than the rest of the Bay Area. She believed this
theater helped neighbors get to know each other.
Mr. Robert Lundy Paine, 2056 Pacific, spoke in support of this application and introduced his
daughters Bridget and Jessica. He believed that Central Cinema was a small and comfortable addition
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,10,"to a unique community.
Mr. Richard Archuleta, 1406 9th Street, spoke again in support of this application. He did not believe
this theater could be compared to the theater on Alameda Point, and that this was a neighborhood
theater that people could walk to. He noted that there was sufficient parking for theater patrons.
Mr. Robert Todd spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern that this business may
expand its services as it became more successful, and would not want to see additional uses, such as
a
restaurant that may serve alcohol. He expressed concern about the actions of patrons as they leave,
causing noise or hazards on the road. He inquired whether this use would have the same noise
restrictions as residential districts, and was concerned that it would become a nuisance in the future.
He expressed concern about the operation of the Building Department.
Dr. Carol Gerdes noted that she was an obstetrician and spoke in support of this application. She
noted that the theater held a Baby Brigade evening on Tuesdays. She appreciated Alameda's family
community, and believed it was important to support this use. She noted that the mortuary use was
more intense.
Ms. Karya Lustig, 838 Central Avenue, spoke in support of this application and noted that she lived
next door to the theater. She and her family appreciated the family atmosphere, and added that their
initial noise and traffic concerns had not been borne out. She complimented the applicant on the way
in which he kept the property up.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1282 Caroline Street, spoke in support of this application and believed this was
a good use of the site. He liked the design of the theater.
Ms. Michele Bealhimer, PO Box 2933, noted that she lived three blocks away from the theater, and
liked the small-town feel that was particular to Alameda. She added that there was no adverse noise
impact from the theater.
Mr. Ronald Pineda, 748 Lincoln, noted that he liked the theater, but was concerned that Alameda
might emulate the character from other towns rather than be a unique community. He believed
Central Cinema was an important component of Alameda's character.
The public hearing was closed.
There was no Board discussion.
M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June
13, 2005.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,11,"Page 11
Planning Board Minutes
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,12,"8-C.
Use Permit UP05-0009, Applicant: Mark Haskett (Alameda Theatre Project Inc.), - 842
Central Ave. (DG/CE). The applicant requests the granting of a Use Permit allowing the
operation of a Boutique Theater located in a C-1 Zoning District. (Continued from the
meeting of April 11, 2005.)
Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report, and recommended that this item be continued to the
Planning Board meeting of June 13, 2005.
President Cunningham advised that public comment would be taken, but that no Board discussion or
action would be taken.
President Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received
M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- - 0
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, declined to speak again.
Ms. Mallory Penney, 1620 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application. She stated that
she often walked to the theater with her friends, and often saw people at the theater that she knew.
She liked the welcoming atmosphere of the theater. She liked the theater on Alameda Point, but
preferred the smaller theater.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application. He recalled the
amount of emotional opposition to the Multicultural Center, which had turned out to be a valuable
addition to the community. He believed this use was a good response to local needs, and that it would
be more widely use. He believed that every request by the Building Department for Code upgrades to
the building should be met as soon as possible. He worked on the pilot program for the Safe Routes
to School program at Franklin Elementary School, and noted that the crosswalk in question would be
included in that program for Washington Elementary at Taylor and 8th, as well as Grand Avenue and
other intersections.
Ms. Darnell Arniola, 3039 Fernside, spoke in support of this application, and complimented the
applicant's service to the community.
Mr. David Little, 2046 San Antonio, spoke in support of this application, and noted that Alameda has
had very few theaters to choose from. He believed the Central Theater had enhanced the cultural
atmosphere in Alameda. He did not want to spend his film dollars off the Island.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,13,"Mr. Dean Ironside, 1206 Ninth Street, spoke in support of this application. He had not noticed any
change in the traffic patterns in the 43 years he had lived in the neighborhood.
Ms. Barbara Thomas, PO Box 1381, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed that the applicant
took it upon himself to open this business, obtained a business license that did not construe Use
Permits. She stated that the applicant was cited by Planning Staff on December 17, 2004, as
committing a misdemeanor for operating an illegal use. She noted that on January 18, 2005, the
Building Official and the Fire Marshall posted a notice on the door that the building was unsafe, and
recorded that notice with the County Recorder. She noted that Mr. MacDonald, the applicant's
attorney, removed the sign. She inquired whether the applicant had liability insurance. She believed
there would have been no opposition to the use had he appeared before the Planning Board at the
beginning of the process. She noted that the patrons parked in the residents' parking spaces.
Ms. Nancy Sewell, 1170 9th Street, #23, spoke in support of this application, and noted that the
Alameda Cultural Club did not have any parking for five blocks away. She noted that the noise, traffic
and harassment from that use had been difficult to bear. She noted that this use did not cause noise,
parking problems or harassment, and that the neighborhood was generally supported.
Mr. Dren McDonald, 740 Santa Clara, spoke in support of this application and noted that there were
not many movie theaters that a toddler could attend. He added that this theater was very different
from the average multiplex, and did not believe it was comparable to other theaters that had been in
Alameda in the past. He did not find the building to be unsafe, and did not believe the applicant would
bring his own children to the building if it were.
Ms. Antoinette Lajoie, 1170 9th Street, #18, spoke in support of this application, and added that she
walked to the theater from her home, as do her neighbors. She liked the friendly atmosphere of the
theater, and believed it was child-friendly. She had never noticed any traffic problems.
The public hearing was closed.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani regarding other courses of action regarding this application,
Ms. Harryman advised that there were two ways that this particular business could be allowed in the
Alameda Municipal Code: as of right, and with a Use Permit. The Zoning Code currently only
allowed theaters in the Central Business District (C-C). The Use Permit would be the more restrictive
of the two methods, and there was no means of getting a Variance for this use.
M/S Mariani/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June 13,
2005.
AYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,14,"9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATION:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice
President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that she had requested regular updates on the APAC's work (see Item
11-A).
b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).
Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.
d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).
Board Member Mariani advised that Mr. Thomas had made a presentation, which she would defer
until the next meeting. The Chinatown group was very pleased with the planning so far, resulting
from the Alameda Point proposed development.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Staff update on status of Planning for Alameda Point.
Mr. Andrew Thomas advised that he had distributed a flier for the sixth and final workshop regarding
the preliminary development concept. The final draft of the preliminary development concept and
transportation program would be presented at the June 8 community workshop, and the written
documents would be presented at that time. The land use plans and the associated development
principles would be presented, as would the transportation program and all its phases, and the historic
preservation program. An infrastructure plan that supported the preliminary development concept
would be presented, as well as other documents. Staff would take community comment on June 8,
and would get a sense from the community in terms of work to date, and what would need further
work. Those comments would be brought to the ARRA Board on July 14, 2005. Mr. Lynch
expressed concern about the type of partners sought by the City as build out approaches. He inquired
whether the agreement structure was such that the Master Developer reserves the right to move
forward with the development, whether they can request an extension, and what the triggers in the
agreement were. Mr. Thomas recalled the background of the project, and noted that a Conditional
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,15,"conveyance. He believed that the decision to move forward with the business plan was an internal
decision of the organization.
Vice President Cook commended staff on an excellent job in conducting the workshops, which have
been very informative. She asked the Planning Board to become more involved in the community
workshops. She noted that transportation on/off and within the Island was a critical issue, and there
was expertise on the Board regarding that issue. She noted that Measure A was a critical issue as
well, and believed that staff had been given the direction to look at only Measure A-compliant
alternatives. Many members of the community believed that Measure A should be examined more
carefully, and that non- Measure A-compliant alternatives should be examined as well. She believed
that the community wanted Alameda Point to ""look like Alameda,' but there may not be consensus
about what that means, especially with respect to single-family homes or a fine-grained mixed use
seen throughout Alameda. She believed there was a tendency to not look at both alternatives in an
equal capacity.
President Cunningham requested the City Attorney's perspective on the possibility of a non-Measure
A-compliant alternative being preferred. Ms. Harryman advised that Mr. Brandt and Mr. Thomas
were the most knowledgeable about that issue.
Mr. Thomas noted that they had started the workshop process 12 months ago, and staff had been
very straight-forward detailing the constraints, including Measure A. Because Measure A is in the
City Charter, it would require a ballot measure to change; staff would not spend an excess amount of
time exploring a non-Measure A-compliant alternative. He noted that the City, through the
Chinatown agreement, had agreed to look at a higher density alternative in the EIR, and to give it a
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,16,"full analysis.
Mr. Lynch noted that a number of communities have gone forward with the environmental documents
first, then the plan. The voters would then be provided with the alternatives and an idea of the general
concept as it related to the baseline data.
Ms. Kohlstrand believed that Alameda Point provided the perfect opportunity to have a meaningful
community debate about whether Measure A should prevail, or whether another development
approach should be considered for that area.
Mr. Thomas believed that the last meeting would be productive if it could be devoted to evaluating
the two plans that had been developed through the process. He added that this would not be the end
of the planning process.
Mr. Lynch noted that he would be out of the country on June 8, but suggested that the City election
schedule be presented to the public at that time; a special election would be very costly. He noted that
would help structure the planning timeline so that any possible ballot issues may be considered.
Mr. Piziali suggested that issue be considered at a separate meeting.
Ms. Eliason noted that it may be best to hold the discussion after the Navy's decision was known.
b.
Staff update on current stafflevels in the Planning Division of the Planning & Building
Department.
Ms. Eliason advised that Mr. Cormack would retire in mid-June, and his position was slated to be
frozen. In the next budget cycle, Ms. Altschuler's position would be eliminated. She noted that
staffing would be thin for the time being, and that the recruitment effort for a Planning & Building
Director was underway. Greg McFann and Jerry Cormack shared the Interim Planning & Building
Director position.
The entire Planning & Building Department was in the process of conducting a fee study and
evaluation of staffing. Those results will be available in the next month or two; it was hoped that it
would show that the staffing levels were too low, given the volume of work on both the Planning
&
Building sides, allowing the Development Review Manager position to be unfrozen.
Mr. Lynch noted that because of the time lags involved, some of the fees may not be recovered during
the current fiscal year. He noted that the expectations of processing applications must be considered.
Mr. Lynch inquired how many city and county jurisdictions in the State were fully funded and staffed.
Ms. Mariani suggested that point be brought before City Council.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
May 23, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-05-23,17,"12.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary
City Planning & Building Department
These minutes were approved at the June 13, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio
and video taped.
:PLANNINGIPB\Agendas_Minutes)Minutes.05\May 23_Minute
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
May 23, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf