{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, February 14, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,\nMariani, McNamara and Piziali.\nAlso present were Interim Planning Director Jerry Cormack, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,\nSupervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Planner III David\nValeska, Bruce Knopf, Development Services, Leslie Little, Development Services, Eric Fonstein,\nDevelopment Services.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of January 24, 2005.\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of January 24, 2005, as\npresented.\nAYES - 5; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 2 (Mariani, McNamara)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that a speaker slip had been received for Item 7-B.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-B from the Consent Calendar and to place it\non the Regular Agenda.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,\nnoted that the AAPS submitted written comments for the Alameda Theater proposal. He apologized\nfor the lengthy comments presented so close to the meeting, and requested email addresses for the\nBoard members to provide written comments sooner.\nMr. Lynch noted that Mr. Buckley's comments raised the larger question of adhering to the noticing\nrequirements and the challenges presented by overworked and understaffed Planning Departments.\nHe noted that some Planning Departments publish their meeting notices two meetings out in order to\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 2, "text": "invite communication and participation from the public.\nVice President Cook noted that it was important for members of the public to have access to meeting\nmaterials, especially prior to high-interest items such as the Alameda Theatre.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 3, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nTM04-0005 SRM Associates Harbor Bay Parkway (MG). Applicant requests approval of\nTentative Map 8574 in order to subdivide three parcels into nine parcels. The parcels are\nlocated within the Harbor Bay Business Park and are zoned C-M-PD: Commercial\nManufacturing, Planned Development District. (Continued from the meeting of January\n24, 2005.)\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that the number of parcels in the subdivision was listed differently in the\nresolution and on the agenda.\nMs. Harryman advised that this item would be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar and renoticed\ndue to the discrepancy.\nM/S Piziali/Kohlstrand and unanimous to continue this item so that it may be renoticed.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 4, "text": "7-B.\nUP01-0022/DR01-0089: American Tower Corporation. Washington Park, 740 Central\nAvenue (DV). Renewal of expired Use Permit and Major Design Review for 90 foot tall\npainted metal monopole communications tower in place of an existing 47 foot tall light pole\nalong the upper baseball diamond left field fence at Washington Park. Associated ground\nequipment would be placed in a building of up to 825 square feet with screen-fenced ground\nequipment. A Use Permit is required by AMC Sections 30-4.1(c)(1) and (2) for any structure\nand above ground utility installation in the O Open Space Zoning District. (Continued from\nthe meeting of January 24, 2005.)\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to remove Item 7-B from the Consent Calendar and to place it on\nthe Regular Agenda.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Bruce Knopf, Development Services Department, requested that this item be continued to the\nMarch 28, 2005, meeting to give staff additional time to address comments made recently.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Lil Arnerich, 3275 Encinal, noted that the proposed building was very large, and would encroach\non the park's recreational activities. He noted that the current Board contained five members who did\nnot approve the original application in 2001; he believed the item should have been discussed\npublicly.\nMr. Jay Ingram, noted that while he was the Chair of the Recreation & Parks Commission, he was\nspeaking as an individual. He distributed packets containing information about the towers. He noted\nthat since the original agreement was created, several cellphone companies had merged. He inquired\nwhether a monopole capable of accommodating six cellphone providers was still needed. He hoped\nthat American Tower would be willing to move the fence and move the container away from the\nsoftball field; the applicant stated that the hum from the container would be muffled. A member of\nthe public had suggested that the 10-foot container be sunk five feet in order to minimize the visual\nimpact.\nMr. Jason Peary, project manager, American Tower, noted that they would address the suggestions\nmade in the comments and that they would work with Mr. Arnerich and Mr. Ingram.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Piziali noted that he spoke with Mr. Ingram the previous week. He agreed that the building's\nvisual impact should be minimized.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about the visual impact of the container.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 5, "text": "Mr. Lynch would like to see the applicant's business model, including the wave repeater, various\ntechnologies, and the FCC requirements as they relate to the Planning Board. He would also like to\nknow why this site is critical to the applicant's operation.\nMs. Kohlstrand requested that the applicant respond to the height issues raised by Mr. Ingram at the\nnext hearing.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board of March 28, 2005.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 6, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nStudy Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session for a proposal to rehabilitate the Alameda\nTheatre and construct a new 7 screen Cineplex and 350 space parking structure on the Video\nManiac site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC-CCPD, Community\nCommercial and Special Planned Development Districts.\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal\nwith the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which performed the traffic analysis for the combined\nparking garage/theater analysis.\nMs. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, summarized the history of this project and noted\nthat the environmental review for this project had been completed. She noted that this project had\nthree components: 1) the restoration of the historic Alameda Theater; 2) the construction of a new\nseven-screen cineplex that would be integral to the historic theater; and 3) the construction of a 352-\nspace parking garage along Oak Street. The comments of the Board regarding significant design\nelements were sought in this study session; a three-dimensional model of the theater was presented to\nshow the massing elements of the building. She emphasized the importance of the components\nworking in an integral manner, rather than independently of one another. She introduced the\nmembers of the development team.\nMr. Michael Stanton, project developer, presented a detailed PowerPoint presentation on the\nproposed Alameda Theater renovation construction and project site. The presentation included a\nvariety of buildings in the historic commercial district of varying architectural styles.\nMs. Naomi [Morolio], Architectural Resources Group, gave a presentation detailing the history,\napproach and proposed renovation of the Alameda Theater. She described the interior design and\nlayout features of the theater, and noted that full ADA access would be provided throughout the\ntheater, as well as structural and mechanical upgrades.\nMr. Stanton noted that this would be one of the most important buildings in town, and added that the\ndesign guidelines included a clear differentiation between the historic portion of the building and the\nnew construction. He described the layout of the theater and the disabled access, as well as the\nsupporting functions of the project. He requested Board comment on five principle aspects of the\ndesign guidelines as sent by staff:\n1.\nBulk and massing;\n2.\nArchitectural form and articulation;\n3.\nLighting;\n4.\nSignage; and\n5.\nMaterials and colors.\nThe design team believed that the massing should be oriented toward Oak and Center. They believed\nthat both facades were equally important in terms of design significance. While the ground level\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 7, "text": "retail, the auditoriums, the second-level lobby, and multilevel connection to the historic theater\nshould be expressed as individual elements, the team believed the Cineplex should be designed to\nread as a single structure. The building also should acknowledge the garage presence at Oak Street.\nThe design team had six recommendations for the Board to consider under Architectural Form and\nArticulation:\n1.\nThe second-level lobby will project three feet beyond the property line at Central to\nbring the activity of the lobby into the public domain, and to animate the street.\n2.\nThe strong horizontal line created by the existing marquees will be acknowledged in\nthe new design;\n3.\nThe design should have continuous fixed glass, metal or concrete canopies to shelter\nthe pedestrians in the street;\n4.\nThe frontage should have consistent transparent retail (80% of the retail space should\nbe left open), and the activity of the shops should spill onto the street;\n5.\nAll mechanical equipment should be fully screened from view; and\n6.\nThe individual cinema at Oak and Central should project two feet beyond the\nproperty line to improve the general massing of the theater.\nThe lighting recommendations were:\n1.\nThe overall lighting should be subdued and indirect;\n2.\nThe canopies over the retail spaces should have continuous downlights onto the\npublic sidewalk;\n3.\nConcealed lighting will be employed to illuminate the rosette and the curved section;\n4.\nExterior lighting will be controlled on a photocell or a timer; and\n5.\nLighting will be available in a vacant retail space.\nThe signage should be subdued. Materials and colors will use a broad palette that will be consistent\nwith the range found in the downtown district, and will be of high quality. Metal panels, glass panels,\nglass block, architecturally treated and painted concrete, ornamental stone, and masonry units will be\navailable to the developers.\nMr. Stanton described the parking garage, which will be brought before the Board in more detail at\nthe next meeting. He noted that gates should not be necessary; there will be six levels, with the\ngreatest massing in the middle of the block.\nPresident Cunningham advised that seven speaker slips had been received.\nM/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 8, "text": "Page 8\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 9, "text": "speak.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. McNamara inquired how many seats the theater would have; Ms. Little replied that the main\nauditorium would seat 450 people, and that it would not always be filled; it would be able to\naccommodate blockbuster films if needed. She believed that the historic feel of the theater would be\nevoked through the new design. She described the refinishing and stabilizing processes planned for\nthe renovation; the estimated cost for the renovation of the historic theater was $5.1-5.2 million for\nconstruction, plus associated soft costs of up to $2 million; these figures do not include the cost of\nacquisition; the new construction costs were not included in this estimate.\nPresident Cunningham inquired about the seismic upgrades; Ms. Little replied that ARG had\nintegrated the upgrades in such a way that it would not detract from the design.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Ms. Little replied that there was considerable\noriginal fabric inside the theater; she described the original finishes and previous renovations.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani, Ms. Little confirmed that the study session was to focus on\nthe exterior of the building. Ms. Mariani supported Mr. Buckley's input, particularly the removal of\nthe big box and emphasizing the vertical elements.\nVice President Cook wished to ensure that there was easy pedestrian access from the garage towards\nthe library. Mr. Stanton stated that the garage was planned to be expandable should Long's become\navailable to the City; the parking would then be available in the center of the block; a second lobby\nwith a separate elevator and staircase would enable people to exit at the center of the block.\nMs. McNamara expressed concern about traffic impacts on the narrow street and the parking garage\nexits; Ms. Little noted that their environmental impact studies would address those concerns.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about the blank exterior walls.\nRegarding public art, Ms. Little noted that the historic theater itself would be an art piece; she\ndescribed the \"phantom gallery\" program, in which community artists rotate displays of their artwork\nin a single venue. Vice President Cook believed the north side of the building would be a good\nlocation for a mural or similar art piece. Ms. Little noted that staff was concerned about a mural\nbecause the project may be expanded and the mural would be blocked.\nPresident Cunningham believed the blank wall should have some modulation.\nVice President Cook did not object to the horizontal nature of the new theater; she liked the idea of\nthe interior public space along Central Avenue being part of the street scene; she did not like the\nlarge square edifice on the corner. Mr. Stanton suggested that the Board direct the developer's team\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 10, "text": "to present a handsome articulation of the wall so it is not an urban eyesore.\nPresident Cunningham suggested that some articulation be written into the design guidelines to craft\nprotection of the visibility of the marquee; he did not want to block of the view of the Twin Towers\nChurch, and believed that scale of the intersection should be respected; he believed this was a golden\nopportunity to create an attractive and understated contemporary building that would blend into the\nexisting community; the lighting plan of the project would be very important.\nMr. Stanton advised that the historic theater can function by itself; however, the Cineplex cannot\nfunction without the historic theater.\nVice President Cook would like the architecture team and the developer to address the corner; she\nsuggested striking the language in 6-c that stated it \"shall project two feet over the sidewalk\"; Mr.\nStanton replied that #6 could be stricken completely, or the wording could be strengthened so that\nthe false brick materials could only be used after a public hearing before the Planning Board. Vice\nPresident Cook would like more specific language in the materials list; Mr. Stanton detailed some of\nthe exterior materials.\nPresident Cunningham requested that the applicants speak to City staff to provide specific definitions\nas they pertain to the project.\nMs. Altschuler noted that the size of the Cineplex sign was not yet clear; the developers were aware\nof the signage requirements in Alameda.\nMr. Stanton described the ticket windows, and noted that purchasing tickets online would be used\nmore often in the future; Ms. Little noted that they would endeavor to reduce the impact of ticket\nqueuing as much as possible; bicycle parking would be in the garage.\nMr. Stanton noted that they would incorporate comments from the public and the Board, and return\nfor another hearing; the garage design would be considered in a separate study session in more detail;\nNo action was taken.\nPresident Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.\nBoard members Lynch and Mariani left the dais following the recess.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 11, "text": "8-B.\nTheater Overlay District Designation (CE). Recommendation to the City Council to adopt\nan ordinance establishing a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties in the\nTheater Overlay District designation.\nMr. Eric Fonstein, management analyst, Development Services Department, summarized the staff\nreport. Staff recommended that the Planning Board recommend that the City Council approve the\nzoning text amendment and the reclassification based on the findings contained in the Draft\nResolution.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nVice President Cook advised that some text of the amendment was not included in her packet.\nMs. Harryman advised that the attached ordinance was included when she saw it the previous week.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of\nFebruary 28, 2005 to allow staff to re-circulate the report with all attachments.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 12, "text": "8-C. Design Review DR04-0082; Variance V04-0014; Peter Braun for Michele and Frank\nMulligan; 1608 Santa Clara Avenue (AT/MG). The project involves Code Enforcement\naction on an unauthorized conversion of a two car garage in the rear yard into a dwelling\nunit. The applicants are requesting approval of a Major Design Review and seven variances\nto legalize the conversion. The variances required to legalize the dwelling unit include:\na. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(6), for the eight-inch side yard, where five feet is\nrequired for the first story and seven feet is required for the second story.\nb. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(7), for the eight-inch rear yard, where twenty\nfeet is required.\nc.\nVariance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d)(8), for the approximate 15' separation between\nthe main building and the proposed cottage, where a twenty foot separation is required.\nd. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a)(2), for not having a landscaped separation\nbetween the proposed parking spaces and buildings/property lines, where a three foot\nlandscaped separation is required.\ne.\nVariance to AMC Subsection 30-7.9(f)(1), for the proposed driveway, which is\napproximately twenty feet wide, where residential driveways are limited to a maximum\nof ten feet.\nf. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.10(a)(3), for not having a landscaped separation\nbetween the proposed driveway and the property line, where a one foot landscaped\nseparation is required.\ng. Variance to AMC Subsection 30-7.6(a)(1), for the proposed three parking spaces, where\na minimum of four off-street parking spaces is required for two dwelling units.\nMr. Valeska summarized the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the Variances and Major\nDesign Review, and recommended that the applicant explore other solutions as part of the Code\nEnforcement.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Frank Mulligan, applicant, detailed the history of this application and stated that he was\nsurprised to find that the cottage was permitted for a garage. He emphasized that the structure was\nnever a garage, and distributed an appraisal form to the Board members. He noted that the cottage\nwas intended to house his mother following surgery, and added that the cottage had always been\nthere. He noted that he intended to appeal any denial.\nMr. Leo Beaulieu, 1430 Paru Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that when his\nneighbor built the cottage, it was never intended to be a garage; the builder originally called it a\nworkshop.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Piziali noted that there were no permits for a house to be built on that site; the permits were for a\ngarage. He did not believe the structure was built with good workmanship, as stated on the appraisal.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 13, "text": "President Cunningham advised that the Board must act on the Variances and the findings as they\nconform to the Alameda Municipal Code.\nMs. Kohlstrand expressed concern about the residential structure not meeting the building code; Mr.\nPiziali noted that even in 1984, a house could not be built on a zero property line. He emphasized\nthat the Board was severely limited in their ability to help the applicant without making the required\nfindings.\nM/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to uphold staff's recommendation to deny the Variance and\nMajor Design Review.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 14, "text": "9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice\nPresident Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that they continued to meet monthly, and were preparing for the\nworkshop on March 3, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in Chambers; community participation was strongly\nencouraged.\nb. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since her last report.\nc. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nBoard Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since his last report.\nd. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).\nBoard Member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nPresentation in preparation for March 3 Alameda Point Community Workshop.\nMr. Thomas displayed a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Planning Board with a preview of\nthe issues associated with development of Alameda Point, which will be discussed at the workshop\nto be held March 3, 2005. He distributed a hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation and advised\nthat the presentation and other materials can be found on www.alamedapoint.com. He anticipated\nhaving a preliminary land use concept and a conveyance strategy accomplished with the Navy by\nsummer. He noted that the four key issues to be addressed at the March 3 workshop were: financial\nfeasibility, historic preservation, Measure A and transportation. The following workshop at the end\nof March will be co-hosted by the Transportation Commission and the APAC, and will focus on the\nEstuary crossing issues. He emphasized that the project must pay for itself, and not rely on the City's\nGeneral Fund; it must also be fiscally neutral in the long run.\nMr. Thomas detailed the policy background, environmental constraints, land use constraints,\nchallenges and opportunities of the site. He summarized the issues to be covered during the March 3\nworkshop, including the Officer's Club, Big Whites, BOQ, historic preservation, transportation\nconstraints.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-02-14", "page": 15, "text": "M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMs. Kohlstrand believed the issue of transportation constraints should be linked to the land use\ndiscussion.\nMr. Thomas noted that no decisions would be made at the end of the workshop.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:14 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJerry Cormack, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning Department\nThese minutes were approved at the February 28, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nFebruary 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-02-14.pdf"}