body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
June 13, - p.m.
1.
CONVENE:
7:14 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mr. Lynch
3.
ROLL CALL:
Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, and
Piziali.
President Cunningham and Board Member Gina Mariani were absent.
Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Assistant City Manager Paul
Benoit, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler,
Contract Planner Chandler Lee, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai,
Planner II Dennis Brighton, Jennifer Ott, Development Manager, Development Services
Department, Leslie Little, Development Services Department.
4.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the meeting of May 23, 2005.
M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of May 23,
2005, as presented.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Ms. Eliason suggested that Item 7-C be moved from the Regular Agenda to the Consent
Calendar so that it may be continued.
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 7-C from the Regular Agenda
to the Consent Calendar.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,2,"7.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Ms. McNamara advised that she would vote ""No"" on the Consent Calendar because she
still had concerns about the design of the approved residence in Item 7-D; she continued
to voice her opposition to the design review.
Ms. Harryman advised that she and Ms. McNamara had discussed this issue before the
meeting.
7-A.
DA-99-01 -- Catellus Development Corporation (CL). The applicant requests a
Periodic Review of Development Agreement, DA-99-01, for the period from
January through December 2004, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-
95.1. The properties are zoned MX (Mixed Use Planned Development District).
M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-17 to approve a
Periodic Review of Development Agreement, DA-99-01, for the period from January
through December 2004, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,3,"7-B. DA89-1 -- Harbor Bay Business Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle
Associates and Harbor Bay Entities -- Bay Farm Island (Primarily Harbor
Bay Isle) (CE). A request for a Periodic Review of Development Agreement
DA89-01, for the period through April 4, 2005, as required under Zoning
Ordinance Section 30-95.1. The properties are zoned R-1-PD, One Family
Residence/Planned Development Zoning District; C-M-PD, Commercial
Manufacturing Planned Development Zoning District; O, Open Space Zoning
District and R-1-A-H, One Family Residence with Special Agricultural and
Height Limit Combining Zoning District.
M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-18 to approve a
Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4,
2005, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,4,"7-C.
UP05-0007 - West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and City of
Alameda - Public Parking Lot at Taylor Avenue and Webster Street (DB).
Applicants request approval of an amendment to Use Permit UP-98-53 to allow
an extension of operation of the existing farmers' market which currently operates
on Tuesday morning to include late Thursday afternoons/evenings, from 4:00
p.m. through 8:00 p.m., during the summer and early fall. This would be located
in City Public Parking Lot D. The site is located within the CC (Community
Commercial) Zoning District and is located within the boundaries of the Business
and Waterfront Improvement Project.
M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 7-C from the Regular Agenda
to the Consent Calendar.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-19 to approve an
amendment to Use Permit UP-98-53 to allow an extension of operation of the
existing farmers' market which currently operates on Tuesday morning to include
late Thursday afternoons/evenings, from 4:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m., during the
summer and early fall. This would be located in City Public Parking Lot D. The
site is located within the CC (Community Commercial) Zoning District and is
located within the boundaries of the Business and Waterfront Improvement
Project.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,5,"7-D.
Variance V05-0003/Major Design Review DR04-0109 - KD Architects, Inc.
for Kwan Li - 2411 Webb Avenue (AT). Applicants request a Major Design
Review and two Variances to construct a two-story residential/commercia 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 style 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 project will provide six spaces with a variance and in-lieu fees paid to the
City for six deficient spaces. A variance is requested for a reduced landscaping
separation between one parking space and the north and east property lines, where
three feet is required. The site is located within the Park Street C-C, Community
Commercial Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of May 23, 2005.)
M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-20 to approve 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 style
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 project will provide six spaces with a variance and in-lieu
fees paid to the City for six deficient spaces. A variance is requested for a reduced
landscaping separation between one parking space and the north and east property lines,
where three feet is required.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,6,"8.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
8-A. 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 May 23, 2005.)
Vice President Cook advised that there were more than five speaker slips submitted for
this item.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Robert Gavrich noted that it appeared that there was support for boutique theaters,
and that the Planning Board should rethink the City's strategy to build big box, megaplex
theaters in Alameda. He noted that Alameda's small town atmosphere should promote
family businesses, and believed that Central Cinema should not be the only boutique
theater on the Island. He noted that the support for such a neighborhood cinema was
heavily supported in Alameda, versus the Cineplex. He believed the City would rely on
the Cineplex to replace the lost tax revenues previously received from Ron Goode
Toyota. He noted that Central Cinema would not use any tax dollars, and that the
entrepreneur would take all the financial risk.
Mr. Peter MacDonald, attorney for the applicant, believed that the 164 pages submitted
by Barbara Thomas were adequately responded to in the Negative Declaration and the
staff report. He noted that the applicant was comfortable with that response, and added
that a neighborhood with no impacts was a neighborhood with no life. He believed that
the scale of the impacts was the main issue, and he believed the staff report demonstrated
that. He asked the supporters of the Central Cinema to stand up.
Ms. Lisa Griffith noted that she and her husband owned the home next to Central
Cinema, and were not opposed to the idea of a boutique theater itself. She was concerned
about the parking impact on her home, and noted that many evenings, cars had been
parked in front of her driveway, some belonging to theater patrons, and some not. She
was opposed to this particular use because of its impacts on her home; she noted that
many supporters of the theater either lived elsewhere or had a usable driveway.
Ms. Barbara Thomas, PO Box 1381, spoke in opposition to this item, and wished to
ensure that the 16-page letter had been received by the Board. She had not seen a
response to that letter. She noted that the first letter she wrote was submitted after staff
stated that CEQA did not apply; staff reread the letter and then stated that CEQA did
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,7,"apply. She noted that staff stated that CEQA did not apply in terms of a full-scale
environmental impact report because each subsequent conversion requested by the
applicant would be subject to that categorical exemption. She stated that staff asserted
that it would be subject to discretionary review. She believed that if the applicant wished
to have a similar use elsewhere on the Island, staff would state that it was categorically
exempt under CEQA, which she believed would subvert the intent of CEQA. She
believed a complete CEQA analysis would be required. She noted that the Alameda
Municipal Code stated that parking for commercial purposes could not be places in
residential zones, which was what happened with respect to this use. She noted that the
Webster Street plan included a theater, and suggested that a theater in that district would
be sufficient. She noted that the movie industry released films on DVD within three
months of theatrical release to take advantage of advertising, and did not believe this
theater would be financially feasible. She advised that the General Plan stated that
commercial parking in residential areas should be dissuaded, and believed that should be
taken at its meaning. She noted that movie attendance has been declining, and did not
believe that boutique theaters would be able to succeed.
Mr. David Hart, 712 Taylor, spoke in support of this application, and agreed with Mr.
Gavrich's comments. He noted that he was familiar with parking challenges for a
homeowner in a retail district. The residents supported positive businesses coming into
the neighborhood, and against negative businesses. He believed the neighbors were
supportive of positive businesses in the area, and he believed that public's opinion had
been heard clearly. He recalled Ms. Thomas' statements regarding the possibility of the
theater failing, and noted that in America, an entrepreneur had the right to try and to fail.
He noted that the applicant has been succeeding so far, and he supported the applicant's
efforts to succeed in other districts. He noted that the applicant was not using any public
dollars or City funds, and that he was risking his own dollars. He noted that there was
overwhelming neighborhood support for Central Cinema and boutique theaters in
Alameda.
Mr. Chuck Millar noted that the boutique theater was in keeping with the other charming
aspects of Alameda. He noted that any ordinance should include parking guidelines, and
believed that the patrons should be considerate of the neighbors.
Mr. Kirwin agreed with the other supporters of boutique theaters in Alameda, and
believed that the free market would prevent oversaturation of boutique theaters in
Alameda. He lives next to a park, and understands the parking problems inherent; he did
not want to eliminate soccer games in Alameda because of the inconvenience of a
homeowner. He did understand residents' concerns about parking, and has found that
Alamedans generally respect one another. He suggested that the applicant post a sign
asking the patrons to respect the adjacent neighbors with respect to parking.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali, Ms. Eliason confirmed that the residential
properties within the 17 C-1 districts, as well as the residential areas within 100 feet of
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,8,"those districts were given notices by mail, legal notices in the newspaper and posted ads.
All responses were provided to the Board.
Mr. Piziali noted that he had not noticed any strong reaction to the proposed zoning
language change.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Eliason confirmed that this use would be a
conditional use in all C-1 districts. She confirmed that it would not allow this commercial
use within a residential zone.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding retail and other parking within the
C-1 districts, Ms. Eliason replied that the C-1 District was subject to the City's overall
parking standards within the Zoning Ordinance. There were special provisions for new
uses; buildings over ten years old with uses that do not change substantially according to
the Zoning Ordinance, parking is not required to be provided.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the validity of the CEQA findings, Mr.
Garrison stated that everything under CEQA may be challenged. If it was determined to
be categorically exempt, the City must prove that.
Vice President Cook advised that a speaker slip had been received from the applicant.
Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, wished to address the parking issue and noted that they
were trying to get cars off the street. He noted that he lived a block from the theater, and
the population density in Alameda was such that people could walk to the theater. He did
not believe there was a serious parking problem, and recalled that an adjacent neighbor
spoke at the last meeting and stated that on one occasion, they had to park a block away.
He noted that he did not advertise because the theater was intended for the neighbors'
use.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding avenues for challenging this use if
parking was determined to be a problem, Ms. Eliason replied that each individual
boutique theater would come before the Planning Board for a discretionary review. A use
permit would be associated with it, and individual cases would be considered by the
Board.
Vice President Cook advised that periodic review for a variety of parking issues had been
attached to use permits in the past.
Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she supported this kind of activity in neighborhood areas, and
that it was a positive contribution to neighborhood commercial districts.
Vice President Cook noted that she was in favor of this amendment.
M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-05-21 to
recommend approval of an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.8(c) to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 8
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,9,"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.""
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 9
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,10,"8-B.
Use Permit UP05-0009, Applicant: Mark Haskett (Alameda Theater 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 May 23, 2005.)
Mr. Piziali noted that there were more than five speaker slips on every item on the
agenda.
M/S Piziali/Ms. McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes
throughout the remainder of the meeting.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Hart, 712 Taylor, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he had
taken a terminally ill family member who lived three houses from the theater to a movie,
and that they were able to walk. He noted that he walked through the neighborhood
frequently, and did not see any crowding in the neighborhood. He believed that Central
Cinema was an unqualified positive feature for the neighborhood.
Mr. Robert Gavrich spoke in support of this application, and noted that he lived near a
theater on High Street. He noted that it was not even a minor nuisance, and that it was a
feature in neighborhoods in support of culture. He had patronized Central Cinema six or
seven times, and had never had a problem parking on Central Avenue. He suggested
assessing a dollar per ticket to mitigate the parking impacts on the neighborhood.
Mr. Lisa Griffith noted that she did not have a parkable driveway, and has never parked
her car in front of that driveway. She appreciated that the theater was quaint, but did not
want to drive around for half an hour looking for a place to park. She had experienced
people parking in front of her driveway, sometimes by patrons of the theater.
Mr. Dave Kirwin wished to reiterate his opinion that this is a positive feature for the
neighborhood. He noted that he would not be able to stay for Items 8-D and 8-E, and was
happy to hear that the historic theater would be revitalized. He did not believe the scale of
the Cineplex would fit Alameda, and suggested that it be downscaled.
Ms. Barbara Thomas noted that there was a parking requirement (AMC 30-7.2), and
noted that offstreet parking was intended to protect neighborhoods from parking and
vehicular traffic congestion generated by adjacent nonresidential district. She noted that
theaters require one space per 350 square feet in a C-1 zone, and was dismayed to find
that information was not in the staff report. She noted that she had served Mr. Haskett at
his house, which was not one block from the theater.
Mr. Chuck Millar believed this use should be made conditional, to be reviewed from time
to time, and that the City should proceed with caution. He believed it could be the start of
a wonderful use in Alameda.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 10
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,11,"Ms. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow, spoke in support of this application. She wished to
address the parking issues, and noted that she had attended the Central Cinema on the
weekends. She had never had a problem with parking, even five minutes from showtime.
Ms. Janin Von Furst, 917B Santa Clara, noted that she was a renter, and was very
concerned about not being able to park near her home. She believed that Alameda should
have residential parking permits. She was in favor of the Central Cinema, but would like
the owner to take the onus of ensuring that neighborhood parking is not made more
difficult for the residents.
Mr. Kopps noted that he enjoyed going to Central Cinema because his mother was
comfortable with him attending on his own. He noted that he had his tenth birthday party
there, and enjoyed the family atmosphere. He promised to walk to the Cinema if it were
allowed to remain open.
Mr. Kevin Frederick noted that he had lived in the neighborhood for 20 years, and
preferred to bicycle and walk around the Island. He supported the Central Cinema, and
believed it was a great neighborhood use.
Mr. Peter Macdonald, attorney for the applicant, noted that he had performed an informal
parking survey on two nights, and noted that on both nights, 40% of the patrons walked
to the theater. He added that 15 and 13 cars, respectively, were driven by patrons. He did
not believe it would be viable or necessary to put a parking lot in this neighborhood when
street parking was available. He believed the existing parking should be used. He noted
that the 15 minute intervals between shows was not a problem during the day with an
audience size of five to 10 people. He noted that the applicant had spent $7,400 to
process this case to date, and suggested that the amount of fees should be capped for
certain types of cases. He was concerned that smaller businesses may not be able to get
through the process. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali whether fines were included
in those fees, Mr. Macdonald replied that they were planning processing fees.
Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, noted that he kept track of spaces available during sellout
nights, and added that there were often spaces available during those times. He corrected
Ms. Thomas' assertion that he did not live near the theater, and added that he had moved
to a house one block from the theater during the past week. He noted that businesses that
draw pedestrians serve to enliven the neighborhood and make it a safer place to live.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding intervals between shows, Ms.
Eliason replied that the 20-minute interval was staff's recommendation in order for the
theater to clear out and for the new patrons to arrive; the parking would be cleared
between the shows.
Mr. Haskett noted that some people will arrive 30-45 minutes early because the theater
only have 45 seats. The parking capacity will sometimes accommodate two shows.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 11
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,12,"Mr. Piziali noted that Condition 8 called for a 20-minute interval between screenings, and
suggested that a 15-minute interval would be sufficient.
Vice President Cook noted that she had visited the site three times, including an evening
show and a morning show. The theater was not crowded either time. She also attended a
sold-out show on a weekend evening, and had no problem parking. She had enjoyed her
visits, and noted that it was a good place for teens to attend. She noticed there were no
bike racks, and strongly suggested that a bike rack be included in the conditions of
approval. She noted that the audiences cleared the theater very quickly, and believed that
a 15-minute interval would be sufficient. She believed it was important for the patrons to
realize that they were in a district bordering a residential neighborhood. She believed the
small district businesses would support each other.
Ms. Kohlstrand supported this use, but believed that an interval of one year to bring the
building up to code was excessive.
Mr. Douglas Garrison, project planner, noted that was a combination of an existing
standard condition of approval for such projects. He noted that could be changed to six
months.
Ms. Kohlstrand agreed with Ms. Thomas' assertion that the staff reports should be more
specific regarding the parking requirements for particular projects, and how they relate to
the Code requirements. She did not believe that substantial new parking requirements
should be introduced in such uses, and believe they could exist with available on-street
parking.
Mr. Piziali noted that traffic and parking would always be a problem in compressed urban
areas.
Ms. Harryman advised that the prime broker may have this item come back directly for a
hearing, or it may request a staff report as an item under ""Staff Communications."" If the
Board decided to hear the item further, it may agendized. She noted that the Building
Code violations were being handled by the Building Division on a separate track; the
planning issues were being separated from the building issues.
Mr. Haskett advised that everything requested by the Building Division had been
submitted to them.
Ms. McNamara noted that she had not attended Central Cinema, but was impressed by
the outpouring of support from the neighborhood. She was very sensitive to the parking
issues, and noted that her neighborhood would be affected by the zoning changes. She
noted that sensitivity to the neighborhoods was a very important component to those
changes. She supported the idea of an analysis report. She believed this was a good
business.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 12
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,13,"Mr. Lynch believed the Planning fees were reasonable, and noted that the items on this
agenda reflected an evolving community, in an evolving world. He noted the mixed uses
had a long tradition in this country, particularly before the end of World War II. He noted
that the City would be facing the question of merging uses constantly. He commended
the applicant in beginning to merge commercial uses in a residential community.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-22 to grant a
Use Permit allowing the operation of a Boutique Theater located in a C-1 Zoning District.
The following modifications would be included:
1. Condition 8 - Parking requirements would be minimized by allowing the
theater to provide a minimum of 15 minutes between movie screenings before
6:00 p.m., and 20 minutes after 6:00 p.m.;
2. A compliance report would be required to be submitted to Planning staff one
year after the approval of this resolution. If needed, staff would bring it before
the Planning Board; and
3. A bicycle rack would be installed.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Vice President Cook called for a five-minute recess.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 13
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,14,"8-C.
DR04-0051, 616 Pacific Avenue, Applicant: Erwin Roxas (AT/EP). The
proposal is an appeal of the code enforcement action which determined that the
demolition of a single-family residence, located at the above address, is in
violation of the AMC $13-21-10 b (removal or demolition of an historic structure
without proper permits) and is, therefore, subject to the five (5) year stay that
prevents the issuance of any building or construction-related permits for the
property. The applicant had received Major Design Review approval in July 2004
for proposed 1st and 2nd story additions, enlargement of the detached garage,
interior remodel, porch additions, etc. that would add approximately 1,562 square
feet to the dwelling and 225 square feet to the garage and storage shed. The
property is within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential District.
M/S Piziali/Lynch to continue Item 8-C to the meeting of June 27, 2005.
AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0
Planning Board Minutes
Page 14
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,15,"8-D.
DR05-0041 - Final Design Review of the Proposed New Cineplex - City of
Alameda (CE/JO). Final design review, including consideration of Section 106
findings for the proposed Cineplex at the corner of Oak Street and Central
Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site. This site is located at 2305 Central
Avenue within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial and Community
Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts.
Ms. Kohlstrand advised she would recuse herself from Items 8-D and 8-E because she
was involved in the analysis for the parking garage and the theater.
Ms. Jennifer Ott summarized the staff report, and noted that the Planning Board
preliminarily accepted the Cineplex design on May 9, 2005, to serve as a basis for
Section 106 findings. The findings were brought before the Historic Advisory Board;
those draft minutes were included in the packet. Staff recommended approval of the
design of this project.
Mr. Rob Henry, Henry Architects, project architect, displayed and discussed the changes
made to the project design since the last meeting. Input from the Planning Board and the
HAB led to the following changes:
1.
The corner sign was replaced by additional detailing, continuing the
horizontal band element in the corner for a more Art Deco feeling on the
corner;
2.
HAB believed that there should be a more continuous feel in the columns;
the white element was replaced by brick;
3.
The dome was eliminated from the corner element (Oak and Central), and
was replaced by a flat corner element;
4.
The roofline was notched down to provide softening to the corner; a
recessed element was placed further from the face of the building;
5.
The mechanical screens were reduced in size, and would not be visible
from the street level;
6.
The historic theater mezzanine level would be connected to the elevator in
the new facility; and
7.
The aluminum window and door systems were changed to clear anodized
aluminum to match the retail spaces of the Alameda Theater.
Mr. Henry discussed the materials and colors, and noted that a colors and materials board
was available.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Ott confirmed that this item was to discuss
the design review of the new theater. No restoration issues would be discussed.
Vice President Cook confirmed that all comments would be three minutes long as
previously voted upon. She advised that City Council agreed with the developer through
Disposition and Development Agreement to proceed with this project. She noted that the
Planning Board's job was to provide the best design for this project, which was located
on a small site.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 15
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,16,"The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Janin Von Furst, 917B Santa Clara, spoke in opposition to this item. She expressed
concern about the environmental impact that such projects have on a city the size of
Alameda, particularly with respect to parking. She noted that the design reminded her of
Jack London Square, but that Alameda could not handle that amount of traffic from
outside the city. She noted that the bridges and tubes would be busier, bringing more
traffic through the residential neighborhoods. She was concerned that people would park
in the neighborhoods to avoid paying for parking in the parking garage. She suggested
the use of residential parking permits for neighborhoods near projects of this size.
Ms. Nancy Hird, 1519 East Shore Drive, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that
she was not speaking on behalf of AAPS. She believed that the massing of this building
was excessive although it was improved. She believed that a three-screen theater would
be sufficient, and did not want to bring more traffic into Alameda from outside the City.
She noted that the success of the Central Cinema disproved the theater that multiple
screens were necessary to be economically feasible.
Ms. Paula Rainey, 556 Palace Court, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this
project was too big for this district, which was pedestrian-oriented and too crowded with
traffic. She believed the new design had been improved, but did not believe this design
would enhance the neighborhood. She noted that the design was not pedestrian-friendly,
and was too close to the street without softening. She suggested that the old theater be
restored, but that the new Cineplex be eliminated. She believed this was a megaplex, and
the lack of freeway frontage roads made the situation more difficult.
Ms. Pat Bail, 825 Paru, believed the design had improved since the beginning, but that
the residents were unprepared for the scope of this project and its impact on the
neighborhood. She believed this design was overpowering and inappropriate for the area.
She supported the garage, and believed there should be more land area for the garage.
She believed this design was too massive for the area, and suggested rethinking the
Cineplex.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She
supported the elimination of the Cineplex from the site, and did not believe that Alameda
wanted or needed a Cineplex. She would like an open, walkable, sunny area in that
district without excessive traffic.
Ms. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow, spoke in opposition to this item. She submitted
petitions signed by residents who opposed the Cineplex on this site, and believed that the
restoration of the historic theater had been lost in the design of the Cineplex. They were
concerned about the traffic impacts, and that opposition to the Cineplex design had not
been fully heard. The petition called for the immediate halt of this process, and to discuss
the alternatives with the Mayor, City Council and the Planning Board. She believed the
historic theater rehabilitation had been a ""bait and switch,"" with the Cineplex.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 16
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,17,"Mr. Bill Woodle spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that he had also circulated a
petition against this design. He had also heard from people who supported a large
Cineplex, and had been called a ""Nimby"" by one person.
Ms. Linda Hanson, 1816 Wood Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that
the design as published in the newspaper wad presented as a fait accompli. She noted that
hundreds of people had signed the petition, asking that the project be put on hold. She
believed the scale and design conflicted with the unique historic character of Alameda,
and that traffic would be impacted. She was concerned that there was no open area for
people to gather, and that it ignored the green building principles. She believed that this
design was more reminiscent of Fisherman's Wharf, and was not convinced that it would
be financially successful. She urged the Planning Board and City Council to reconsider
this project.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 17
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,18,"Mr. Carl Lasagna spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that the design was
slightly less offensive than the last design. He compared the design to an electric razor.
He supported alternatives to this project, which he believed was overwhelming and
unattractive, and did not believe that the use of eminent domain was unethical. He
supported the combination of live performing arts with the historic theater. He suggested
that the Planning Board work with the community to redesign this project, so that the
parking structures needed for downtown be built, and that the historic theater be left
intact. He believed that the negotiations should be held ethically.
Mr. Jim Strela noted that his family had previously owned the Neptune Theater in the
1930s, and added that to get first-run films, multiple screens were necessary. He believed
the historic theater was being lost in this design.
Mr. Rich Tester noted that he owned a business on Santa Clara, and noted that their
business would be in the shade of this structure. He expressed concern about the impact
on his business by traffic congestion.
Ms. Jennifer Van Arsdale spoke in opposition to this item, and agreed that the Cineplex
should be eliminated. She noted that the renderings had improved, but that the
combination of the Cineplex and the garage dwarfed the historic theater. She expressed
concern that the only way the historic theater could be renovated was to include the
Cineplex as well.
Mr. Michael Cote spoke in opposition to this item, and added that this project began as
the restoration of the historic theater. He noted that the historic theater was dwarfed by
the garage and the Cineplex, and that the historic theater was reduced to a façade through
which people would walk to the Cineplex. He expressed concern about the installation of
new stadium seating, which would gut the interior of the theater. He was concerned about
cost overruns, and the possibility of public service positions being cut to fund this project.
Mr. Lee expressed concern about this design, and believed it was too large for the site.
He believed the Cineplex would be an eyesore, and was very concerned about the traffic
impacts. He believed the financial risk to Alameda in funding the project was too big.
Mr. Vern Marsh spoke in opposition to this item, and did not approve of the plan; he did
not like the design of the building. He would support a theater on the scale of the Grand
Lake Theater, with three or four screens. He believed this was excessive and was too
expensive.
Mr. George Hubbard noted that he had previously worked for Skywalker Sound, and
worked in the industry. He suggested that the Planning Board consider alternate uses for
this theater, and was concerned that this theater would fail without freeway access.
Mr. Robert Van Der Wall spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that Alameda
was the antidote to sprawl. He did not believe that massive parking garages and
Planning Board Minutes
Page 18
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,19,"megaplexes were compatible with Alameda's character and scale. He displayed his own
design for a scaled-down theater.
Ms. Joan Boucher noted that in her household, they called Alameda ""Ala-Mayberry."" She
enjoyed the neighborliness and pedestrian access in Alameda. She looked forward to
walking to the historic theater, with three screens. She noted that many Alamedans did
not know about this plan that far in advance, and had been taken by surprise; many of her
neighbors did not like the new design. She believed this design would be a mistake for
the Island.
Morgan spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that Alameda was the only city that
she felt comfortable in. She believed this design was wrong for the Island, and noted that
walking and bicycling in the City was already hazardous.
Ms. Nancy Kerns, 1175 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this
design has far exceeded the original vision, but did not believe this project was
appropriate for the Island. She had not found anyone in town who believed that this many
screens would be a good idea. She was very concerned about the traffic impacts, and
believed that critical mass on this theater proposal had been reached very quickly. She
did not believe anyone in town wanted this complex in town.
Ms. Birgitt Evans, AAPS, 2829 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and
noted that AAPS had been involved in this project for a long time. She had spoken with
Christopher Buckley, who was very concerned about staff's report that this design was
""highly responsive"" to AAPS' concerns. Neither he, Dick Rutter, nor she believed this
design reflected their concerns. They did support Bruce Anderson's Section 106 review,
as well as the HAB's comments at their June 2 meeting, in which four out of five HAB
members stated that the design should be returned to the drawing board. She noted that
the Henry Architects had created a very nice design for an Art Deco theater in Livermore
that featured vertical elements. She believed the current design was a cacophony. She
was very concerned that the big box look and the second story gallery window would
overwhelm the buildings next door.
Mr. Rob Ratto, PSBA, noted that the Board of Directors of PSBA had reviewed this
design and approved it unanimously. He commended Kyle Connors (architect) for taking
so much community feedback, dealing with the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines, and
integrating the comments by the Planning Board and City Council to design a workable
theater. PSBA believed this design would work, and believed the downstairs retail would
be a good addition. He urged the Planning Board to accept the final design.
Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed
that the design was offensive and did not believe the architecture was compatible with
Alameda's vision for a theater design that would be appropriate to the neighborhood. He
noted that there was considerable opposition to this design in town, and that it would be a
financial disaster for the City.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 19
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,20,"The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Ms. Harryman advised that the Bylaws required that the meeting adjourn at 11:00 p.m.,
but that the Board may make a motion to adjourn it at a later time certain.
Mr. Lynch suggested that Items 8-D and 8-E be continued to the next meeting because of
the lateness of the hour. He did not believe it would be possible to properly consider both
items in a timely fashion.
M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to continue the meeting to 11:30 p.m.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)
Mr. Piziali preferred to have the public comment all at one meeting.
Ms. Eliason noted that Items 8-D and 8-E would be the first items on the next agenda.
Vice President Cook expressed concern about moving forward with this item without a
full Board.
Mr. Lynch wished to discuss the issue of eminent domain, and noted that when the
property has not been maintained by the owner, it is incumbent upon the public body to
do so. He noted that the question of eminent domain is the right vehicle may be
addressed, but believed that the suggestion that the City may not exercise it was a gross
overstatement.
Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, noted that this project had been much
larger in its earlier forms, and that it had been downsized considerably. She noted that
there had been a lot of discussion about the new theater component at this meeting, and
emphasized that the idea of the project was to utilize the historic theater in the grandest
way possible. She noted that it was important to bring as many people into the historic
theater as possible; there would be no separate entrance for the new theater. She noted
that the concerns about the stadium seating gutting the historic theater; she noted that the
original seating had been gone for some time, and that the theater had other uses for
many years, including as a roller rink. She noted that the ceiling would be patched, and
that the holes had been made by previous tenants to install lighting. She noted that as
conceived, parking on the street would be as it is now; it would be free in the evenings,
and metered during the day. She advised that all of the theater parking would be validated
by the theater operator, and there should be no concern for incursions into the
neighborhoods for parking. She noted that the General Plan required that all new
construction in the commercial district be constructed right on the street so that it
repeated the same pattern of the historic district. The tools of the General Plan, including
the economic development strategy and the Downtown Vision Plan, have been used to
help guide this design.
Ms. Little wished to address the size of the new Cineplex, and the suggested that it be
eliminated to gain more parking. She noted that the new Cineplex structure would be
only 35,000 square feet on two stories; the footprint would be 17,000 square feet. Parking
Planning Board Minutes
Page 20
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,21,"structures require a certain size to be workable, and that 17,000 square feet may
accommodate 43 extra spaces. The new complex did not sit on a large site. She noted that
the operator, Kyle Connor, was not a large corporate entity, and was an independent
operator; he knows the community and the residents. She noted that this theater never did
have the 2,200 seats that had been discussed. She noted that the $25 million price tag
included the $10 million for acquisition and seismic upgrades and stabilization to meet
Code requirement. Another $10 million of public money would go into the parking
structure, which had been identified by PSBA as being a priority for the business
association and downtown. She noted that a shade analysis would be performed; she did
not believe it would cast a shadow onto Santa Clara Street because of the location of
Long's. Staff would follow up on that item at the next meeting. She noted that other retail
uses, such as restaurants, already provided patrons on the street; those patrons would be
drawn to the theater as well. She did not expect the theater to be patronized by all new
people, and that there would be some crossover trips.
Mr. Piziali understood that there was concern in the City about this project, but that he
had not been approached by anyone who has expressed that opinion. He emphasized that
this project has been discussed for five years, starting with the Downtown Visioning
Process. He noted that he listened very carefully to people in the City about this and other
projects.
Vice President Cook believed it was important to take into account all the comments
throughout the process. She noted that she had been Chair of the Visioning Process, was
on the EDC six years ago, and knew how important this project has been over the years to
enliven downtown. She acknowledged this was not the perfect project on the perfect site.
She stated that the people working for the City had the City's best interests in mind. She
wanted to make it clear throughout the process that full restoration of the historic theater
had not been possible, and had stated that on the record in the past.
Ms. McNamara noted that her concerns were regarding the financial nature of the
restoration. She noted that the City budget was in a critical state right now, and
questioned whether this was the time to spend the money on the restoration of the historic
theater.
Ms. Little advised that the project used tax increment dollars, as well as Section 108
dollars, neither of which can be used to pay for services, salaries, or overhead. She added
that they were economic development dollars that were specifically intended to create
new revenues in communities. She noted that they could be used in other capital interest
projects within a certain period of time, but could not be used for fire, police, or social
services.
In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Little stated that it was not the case that
the only choices were to build a seven-screen theater or to tear it down.
Ms. Little stated that staff went through six public meetings about setting the ultimate
design criteria regarding what would be dealt with, to identify the major issues for
Planning Board Minutes
Page 21
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,22,"Alameda regarding what this project should or should not do. She noted that was
performed before the DDA, and before the City entered into a contractual arrangement.
Vice President Cook stated that the Board was happy that was the sequence of events for
this project, and that other projects had a DDA before design discussions took place. She
noted that months of design discussions had taken place before the DDA was put in place
for this project.
Mr. Lynch requested that staff detail the parameters of the funding mechanism at a future
meeting. He noted that some members of the public did not want a garage, and noted that
would affect the DDA. He noted that the Planning Board had specific authority, and
could not modify the project outside those parameters.
Mr. Piziali noted that it was the City Council's job to decide whether this project was
done or not, and that it was not the Planning Board's charge to do SO.
Ms. Eliason advised that the speaker slips would be maintained in the Planning file.
M/S McNamara /Lynch and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board
meeting of June 27, 2005.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)
Planning Board Minutes
Page 22
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,23,"8-E.
UP05-0008/DR05-0028 - Use Permit and Final Design Review of the
Proposed New Civic Center Parking Garage - City of Alameda (DSD).
Consideration of a Use Permit and Final design review, including consideration of
Section 106 findings, for a new 352-space parking structure at the corner of Oak
Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site. This site is
located at 1416 Oak Street within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial
and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts.
M/S McNamara/Lynch and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board
meeting of June 27, 2005.
AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)
9.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
10.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
a.
Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC
(Vice-President Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that the final community meeting was held the previous
week, at which time the staff presented the preferred development concept, as well as the
Non-Measure A alternatives to that in greater detail. Staff will work on a final copy of
that report, which would be available in several weeks. That report would be the subject
of hearings with the ARRA Board and the Planning Board over the next 12 to 18 months.
She noted that the community hearings had been well-attended.
b.
Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President
Cook).
Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings.
c.
Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member
Piziali).
Board member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report at this time.
d.
Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee
(Board member Mariani).
Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.
11.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 23
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf
PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,24,"12.
ADJOURNMENT:
11:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary
City Planning Department
These minutes were approved at the June 27, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This
meeting was audio and video taped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 24
June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf