{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-09", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, May 9, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:04 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Lynch, Mariani,\nMcNamara, and Piziali.\nBoard member Kohlstrand was absent.\nAlso present were Building Official Gregory J. McFann, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,\nSupervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, and Jennifer Ott, Development Manager, Development\nServices.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of April 25, 2005.\nM/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of April 25, 2005, as\npresented.\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cook)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that staff requested that Item 8-B be heard before Item 8-A.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION None.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nMay 9, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-09", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nEndorsement of the Webster Street Strategic Plan (BK). A request for endorsement of\nthe Webster Street Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan analyzes retail market opportunities and\nrevitalization goals and strategies for the Webster Street Corridor.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to endorse the Webster Street Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan\nanalyzes retail market opportunities and revitalization goals and strategies for the Webster Street\nCorridor.\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cook)\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nMay 9, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-09", "page": 3, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nDR05-0041 - City of Alameda (CE/JO). Acceptance of preliminary design for the Cineplex\ngenerally at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue on the Video Maniac site. This site\nis located at 2305 Central Avenue within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial and\nCommunity Commercial - Planned Development) Districts.\nThis item was presented after Item 8-B.\nMs. Ott presented the staff report, and noted that the DDA (Development Disposition Agreement)\nwas approved by the City Council on May 3, 2005.\nMr. Kyle Connors, Alameda Entertainment Associates, developer, presented an overview of the site\nplan, and noted that the project architect was very experienced in theater design.\nMr. Rob Henry, Henry Architects, project architect, presented the project in detail on the overhead\ndisplay.\nM/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 6 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, noted that the project architect did a good job in fitting\na lot of function into a small space, which he also believed was part of the problem. He believed there\nwas too much energy in the site, and suggested that one theater be dropped from the project. He\nsuggested that the corner adjacent to the rosette be curved to mirror the historic theater's curve. He\nnoted that the lines did not flow from one theater to the other.\nMr. Kevin Frederick did not like the design of this theater, and did not like the fact that no major\nchanges had been considered by the Board since the inception of this project. He did not agree with\nthe inclusion of the retail spaces, and did not believe they blended with the overall layout of the\ntheater.\nMs. Debbie George disagreed with Mr. Frederick's stated belief that the Planning Board did not listen\nto proposed changes and noted that PSBA's comments and input had been incorporated into the\nproject. She complimented the architect in meeting the challenge of maintaining the integrity of the\nneighborhood.\nMs. Annie Rutter, 2329 Santa Clara Avenue, #204, noted that there had been many improvements\nsince the beginning of the project, but did not like the 20-inch overhang. She would like to remove\nthe 26 seats and the four-foot screen, but realized that the project needed to move forward. She liked\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nMay 9, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-09", "page": 4, "text": "the bow window, and believed the signage should be on the front to identify the building.\nMr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, PSBA, commended the architect for taking the economic issues\ninto account with this project, and for placing the retail space in the area. He liked the inclusion of the\npublic's comments into this design. He believed the 20-inch overhang on the Central Avenue side\nwould be softened by the canopies; on the Oak Street side, the plan for the extension of the sidewalk\nwas unanimously approved by the PSBA Board of Directors. Regarding the number of screens, the\nDDA was already in effect between Movietex and the City. He liked the design, and realized it would\nbe tweaked somewhat.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that they would have preferred a\nless modernistic design, but would address the other concerns such as the integration of different\nbuilding masses and design elements. He noted that he would submit comments regarding the design\nelements. He recommended that the vertical columns be made more consistent from the street level to\nthe top to reinforce the established rhythm, and to tie in with the vertical elements of the established\ntheater.\nMr. Dick Rutter, AAPS, 2329 Santa Clara #204, noted that he had been against the 20-inch\nprojection, but agreed that they should be consistent. He believed that fine-tuning could be done, and\nthat the 20-inch depth on the two sides of the corner should be reduced.\nMs. Elizabeth Krase, 3520 Chester Street, noted that she was an architectural historian, and\nexpressed concern about compliance with the Secretary of State standards regarding additions to\nhistoric properties. She believed the historic color scheme and finishes should be identified now in\norder to guide the choices of the colors and finishes on the Cineplex, so it will be compatible with the\nold theater. She expressed concern that the Planning Board and the HAB may not be able to make an\ninformed decision about whether the project may meet the Secretary's standards until the City has\nrequested the architectural resources group to identify the original exterior colors and finishes of the\nhistoric theater. She supported the extension of the pilasters up the front of the Cineplex to suggest\nthe pilasters on the old theater.\nMr. Chuck Millar, believed there was a missed opportunity in that he had not seen any members of\nthe general public without any commercial interest in the theater say that they loved the design. He\nhoped the actual theater would look better than the design. It bothered him that the design was not\nsite-specific, with the exception of the massing.\nMr. Robert Wood, 259 Oyster Pond, spoke in support of this project, and noted that he was a citizen\nwith no vested interest in the project. He believed the seven theaters were necessary to make the\nproject financially feasible. He believed the 20-inch overhang was a positive aspect by modulating the\nfa\u00e7ade of the building.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nMay 9, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-09", "page": 5, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook, Ms. Ott confirmed that there would not be any\npainting on the exterior of the historic theater.\nMr. Piziali wished to emphasize that this was a separate project on a separate parcel from the historic\ntheater, and was not a historic addition.\nMs. Mariani noted that she did not have a problem with the canopies or the extension any more, and\nbelieved it would all blend in together. She would like to see more vertical elements. She believed it\nwas a good project and would like to move forward.\nMs. McNamara asked what elements resulting from the subcommittee meetings were included in the\ndesign.\nPresident Cunningham noted that there had been an effort to erode the strong horizontal and vertical\nlines at the corner. The articulation of the corner was also addressed by adding a dome. He\ncommended the project architect on his work given the budget. The 20-inch setback had been\ndiscussed in the subcommittee, which added more shadow; without the setback, the sheer wall would\nhave detracted from the project.\nVice President Cook noted that she was not comfortable with the additional vertical elements. She\nagreed with Ms. Krase's comments about the color scheme. She agreed that the columns were busy.\nShe noted that the original concept of the project included retail space on the ground floor to enliven\nthe street. Although she did not favor the ball on top, she appreciated the improvements in the corner\nelements. She liked the increase in size of the Oak Street sidewalk. She requested that the architects\ndo whatever they can to step the new building down with respect to the old theater to soften the\nconnection.\nPresident Cunningham expressed concern about the dark glazing on the upper level, and understood\nthe concerns about the heat gain. He encouraged the use of low-e double-pane glass instead.\nMr. Connors noted that they chose the bronze glass to avoid the reflection inherent in the low-e glass.\nMr. Piziali suggested the use of dark anodized aluminum glass.\nA discussion of the dome element ensued.\nM/S McNamara/Lynch and unanimous to accept the preliminary design for the Cineplex generally at\nthe corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue on the Video Maniac site. The following modifications\nwould be included:\n1.\nThe dome would be eliminated;\n2.\nThe aluminum storefront would have dark anodized frames glazing;\n3.\nThe angles on the right-hand side of the building would be softened;\n4.\nThe original exterior color would be researched by staff,\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nMay 9, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-09", "page": 6, "text": "5.\nThere would be no uplight wash on the exterior wall; and\n6.\nPossible improvements where the buildings meet would be considered.\nAYES - 6 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nMay 9, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-09", "page": 7, "text": "8-B.\nCity of Alameda - 1416 Oak Street (CE/JO). Applicant requests acceptance of preliminary\nDesign for a 352-space parking structure, at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue,\ngenerally on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street site within the C-\nC-PB Community Commercial, Community Commercial - Planned Development Zoning\nDistricts.\nThis item was heard before Item 8-A.\nMs. Ott presented the staff report\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding change in the width of Oak Street, and\nproviding more space for bicycles, Ms. Ott replied that was brought up during the Transportation\nCommission meeting. It was important that the possibility be maintained for Class II bike lanes to be\nincluded; the current plan was to place stenciling on the ground identifying it as a shared bike lane.\nPublic Works agreed with this plan.\nMs. Ott introduced Michael Stanton, project architect. Mr. Stanton summarized the proposal,\ndisplayed the site plan on the overhead screen, addressed the modified items since the last\npresentation, and presented the concepts for the exterior lighting.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that he wrote a brief letter to the\nBoard, and distributed a handout to the Board. He commented on the displayed elevation, and\nsuggested carrying the molding above the open bays along the tops of the solid brick walls to provide\nmore continuity to the top. He believed that would relieve the undifferentiated wall masses of the\nshear walls. He suggested adding a belt course or sill course that ran along the base of the openings to\nbreak up the massing into a three-part vertical composition: the base, the shaft and the top, with more\nfocus to the top as the culmination of the design. He suggested enlarging the movie poster boxes to a\nstorefront size. He suggested that artwork or posters for special Park Street events could be displayed\nin those boxes as well. He suggested that the arch pattern be extended to the stairwell to maintain\ncontinuity with the other openings. He suggested that the spandrels between the opening be lightened\nby using a different material such as delicate or ribbed metal. He suggested that the brick on the\nbottom level be a slightly lighter buff color.\nMs. Debbie George, treasurer of Park Street Business Association (PSBA), and representing a 30-\nyear business property owner on Park Street, spoke in support of this application. She had waited for\nmany years for this addition to the district.\nMr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, PSBA, spoke in support of this application. He noted that their\nBoard of Directors supported this design as presented by staff. He believed the public has had\nsufficient opportunity to comment on this design, and noted that some of their ideas had been\nincorporated. He believed it was time for this project to go forward, and noted that the additions to\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nMay 9, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-09", "page": 8, "text": "the parking structure must be weighed against the total budget of the project.\nMr. Robert Wood, 259 Oyster Pond, noted that he would reluctantly criticize the design because the\nparking garage had been anticipated by the area for decades. He believed this structure had the most\nminimal of design aspirations of almost any structure in the area. He supposed the garage was\nmechanically ventilated, and was afraid that the massing and scale of the building would be\noppressive. He believed a massing study should be done, and that the top two floors of the garage\nshould be set back; he believed that 15 parking spaces would be lost in that scenario. He would like to\nsee a Specific Plan for this area, and was concerned that Long's may develop a 60-foot-high building\non the block because the City did not take the initiative to study and provide limitations on such\nstructures.\nMr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item and believed the structure\nwas extremely unattractive and uninspired.\nMr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that in his seven years of residence in Alameda, he's\nnever had a problem parking on Park Street, partly because he rode a bicycle often, and partly\nbecause he did not mind walking a few blocks. He endorsed Mr. Buckley's comments. He agreed\nwith Mr. Woods' comments about the massing, and believed the sunlight would be blocked in the\nmorning. He did not believe the massing would be appropriate, and expressed concern about the\nvisual pollution that would be caused by the uplighting. He believed planters should be interspersed\nbetween the storefront-size poster displays. He did not believe artwork and vinyl were compatible; he\nsuggested that a bas relief mural would be appropriate. He believed bike logo signs and bike text signs\nthat specify that bikes are allowed to enter at the bike logo area, and in the main driveway. He noted\nthat this was not the first design choice, and would like the design to be redone so that it is the first\nchoice. He urged the Board to take Mr. Buckley's and Mr. Woods' comments into account.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding parking, Mr. Stanton confirmed that the sixth\nfloor would contain parking on the whole floor. He displayed the fa\u00e7ade and stated that the rationale\nbehind the vinyl art wall was that it was a property line wall that required significant four-hour\nconstruction. The Building Official believed that penetrations would be inconsistent with safety\nstandards for the City, particularly with a relatively high hazard occupancy like a garage. Given the\nlimited budget for the project, they tried to invest in the best quality materials and desirable on the\npermanent Oak Street fa\u00e7ade. It was hoped that the Long's site will eventually be redeveloped in a\nway more consistent with downtown Alameda; a corner parking lot on a major intersection was not\nthe standard pattern of Alameda's commercial districts. He noted that vines had been considered, but\nthe north facing fa\u00e7ade and height of the building made that impractical. A reciprocal easement with\nLong's for trees had been explored, but did not pan out. He noted that any art may stay on the fa\u00e7ade\nfor up to three years, but that the form and medium was in the preliminary stage.\nMs. Ott described the Public Art Ordinance, and noted that they were making a good faith effort to\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nMay 9, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-09", "page": 9, "text": "include public art in the project. She noted that it would not contain advertisements.\nMs. McNamara supported public art in this project.\nIn response to Ms. McNamara's request, Mr. Stanton described the shear wall and entrances in detail.\nHe stated the garage was mechanically ventilated, because of the lack of adequate opening to the\noutdoors prevented natural ventilation. He noted that the mechanical ventilation would activate only\nwhen the carbon monoxide sensors detected a buildup; this would be safe and energy efficient.\nMr. Lynch believed the extra costs should be borne by the project. At his request, Mr. Stanton\ndescribed the different colors and materials of the fa\u00e7ade, and how it would relate to long-term\nmaintenance of light colors at the base, moving up the structure. He noted that the sample board\nrepresented the original color choices. He preferred a honed finish, which discouraged some forms of\ngraffiti and abuse. He believed a darker, warmer red at the base of the building would be appropriate,\nand would like further Board feedback.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Ott confirmed that the garage would not be costed out\nuntil after the final design approval.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether cars would be visible from the outside, Mr.\nStanton replied that the cars should not be visible from the street. He noted that the lighting would be\nvisible, but anticipated that the lighting fixtures would be as inconspicuous as possible. He added that\nhe would create the view angles from across the street, but did not believe they would be visible.\nVice President Cook believed the time had come to have a parking garage in Alameda, and added that\nthe parking availability had become more limited. She was not happy that an appropriate solution\ncould not be worked out with Long's She noted that with planning, nothing was ever perfect and\nbelieved that it was time to move forward. She believed the architect had been responsive to the\nsevere constraints of the site. She agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments, although she did not believe\nthey were all feasible. She liked the idea of arching the area in the tower to match the other arches, as\nwell as having a darker shade at the base to create grounding. She appreciated what the architect did\nwith the doors closest to City Hall. She believed the poster size insets were too small, but did not\nbelieve they should be storefront-sized; the poster casing should be framed, perhaps similar to the\ntreatment around the doors. She appreciated the architect's responsiveness on the stair tower.\nMr. Stanton agreed with Vice President Cook's assessment that the posters did indeed look \"dinky,\"\nand would be happy to bring an alternative back to the Board.\nMr. Piziali agreed that the posters should not be larger, but that they should be framed.\nPresident Cunningham noted that there was an additional speaker due to the reverse order of the\nitems.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nMay 9, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-09", "page": 10, "text": "M/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.\nMs. Annie Rutter, 2329 Santa Clara Avenue, #204, did not believe tearing down the design at this\npoint would be very constructive. She believed the project would move forward, and would like to\ngive Mr. Stanton some ideas to work with. She supported the underground vault, and was concerned\nabout the inexpensive materials on the large exterior wall. She liked the color palette and the darker\nbase. She believed the lighting as represented on the drawing looked inaccurate, particular with\nrespect to the upthrow from the fixtures. She hoped the lighting fixtures would be integral throughout\nthe design, and that they would not be removed because of cost concerns. She noted that there was\nnot much design on the fa\u00e7ade, and the lighting should be very important. She expressed concern\nabout property and personal security inside the garage, and was disappointed that there would not be\na security kiosk in the garage. She believed the handicapped spaces could be closer to the elevators.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Mariani would like see the Cineplex in relation to the parking garage.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Ott replied that a shading study had not been\nperformed on this structure. Mr. Stanton noted that this placement of the parking garage was ideal\nwith respect to minimal shading impact. There may be some morning shade onto the Oak Street right-\nof-way, but for the most part, the rising sun would be screened by the historic cinema.\nMr. Piziali liked the lighting, and believed they would wash on the building fa\u00e7ade more than\nindicated on the drawing. He supported this project, and believed it would be beneficial for Park\nStreet. He noted that the design could be tweaked forever, and that it may never get built.\nPresident Cunningham fully supported this project, and believed it would be good for Alameda. He\nagreed with Mr. Piziali's assessment. His biggest concern was the control of the design/build process,\nand the budget concerns.\nMs. Ott advised that with respect to the design/build team, the Board's specifications would be\nincluded in the contract. If the bids exceeded the anticipated budget, and no funding sources could be\nfound or moved around, she advised that it was very likely that a floor of the parking garage would be\nremoved.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the performance of the construction management\nwork, Ms. Ott replied that staff was in the process of completing an internal draft of an RFP for those\nservices. She anticipated it would be released in the next few weeks. Mr. Lynch noted that parking\ngarage construction was a specialty field, and that this bifurcated process would force a firm to figure\nout how to bid on the project. He suggested that staff consider that possibility before sending the\nRFP.\nPresident Cunningham agreed that the arches on the stair tower should be left as is, and would like to\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nMay 9, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-09", "page": 11, "text": "retain the ability to detail the brick around the posters. He supported the darker base.\nIn response to Vice President Cook concern about pedestrian safety if a pay booth were to be used,\nMs. Ott noted that there would be no pay booth, and there would be two stations at the two exits.\nM/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution to provide acceptance of\npreliminary Design for a 352-space parking structure, near the corner of Oak Street and Central\nAvenue, generally on the Video Maniac site. The following modifications would be included:\n1.\nThe darker base as recommended by the architect;\n2.\nNo additional arches on the tower building;\n3.\nFraming or detailing around the posters; and\n4.\nWhere possible, a change in the brick courses to add interest to the large facades.\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Cook)\nPresident Cunningham called for a five-minute recess before Item 8-A.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nMay 9, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-09", "page": 12, "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 noted that there was much to discuss, and would like to agendize the item to\ngive a complete report.\nb. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.\nc. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nBoard Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.\nd. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani).\nBoard Member Mariani noted that the last meeting had been canceled, and that another meeting\nwould be held in two weeks.\nVice President Cook requested that the current staffing situation in the Planning & Building\nDepartment be agendized for discussion.\n10.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n11.\nADJOURNMENT:\n10:21 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nGregory J. McFann, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the May 23, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio\nand video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nMay 9, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf"}