{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nMay 23, 2005\nPresent: Berger, Bunker, Chadow, Chair Cooney, Fort, Vice-Chair Gwynne, Longley-Cook,\nMcGaughey, Moore, Steffens\nAbsent/Excused: None\nGuests: Greg Stoia, City Senior Construction Inspector\nMary Louis Lambert\nMINUTES: The minutes of April 28, 2005 where approved.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None\nNEW BUSINESS:\n1. Event Parking:\nCommissioner Toby Berger informed the commission that the East Bay Regional Park\nDistrict would again provide additional disabled parking spaces for the summer concert\nevents scheduled for the 2nd Friday of June, July and August. Secretary to provide revised\ntable sign.\n2. Curbside Mailbox Reductions:\nChair Ed Cooney concerned about the reduction in street mailbox locations contacted the\nPostal Agency (748-4156). They informed him that if contacted they will provide the\nlocation of the nearest box. They also informed him that a person could make arrangements\nwith the postal delivery person to have the mail picked up. A commissioner suggested that\nBraille be provided in the inside of the door flap as to pick-up times, etc.\n3. Pedestrian Access During Construction Projects:\nCommissioners and Greg Stoia, City's Senior Construction Inspector, discussed pedestrian\naccess during the Webster Street project. Though contractor assistance is available to\nprovide assistance to the public during working hours, it is sometimes difficult during non-\nworking hours for the visually impaired to ascertain the location of bus stops or street\ncrossings. The committee made some suggestions and discussed forming a subcommittee to\nmake additional recommendations on current and future projects.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMay 23, 2005\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 2\n4. Bylaws - Absences:\nDiscussion on number of absences allowed per the commission bylaws was tabled.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. The Secretary informed the Commissioners that Commissioner Elaine McCoy had resigned.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. Commissioners Toby Berger and Alysa Chadow shared information on audible signal\nproducts through their discussions with Mr. Ed Campbell, an audible signal supplier.\nSecretary informed the commission that Mr. Campbell has provided audible signal products\nto the City in the past via bidding process, the most recent being the audible signal upgrades\nat the intersection of Park Street at Santa Clara Avenue and Park Street at Otis Drive.\n2. Commissioner Jody Moore would like that the local newspaper(s) publish an article on\ndisability awareness. Commissioner Toby Berger stated that this could coincide with\nDisability Awareness Month, which is held annually in October, and that it be placed on the\nSeptember agenda for further discussion.\n3. Guest Ms. Mary Louis Lambert informed the commission that there is a video relay system\nthat works that interfaces with the internet to provide video sign language translation for the\nhearing impaired, similar to TTY's which is a phone line based interface. The video relay\nsystem requires a 256MB uplink that is available only with the \"business' level cable service.\nThe \"business level service is available by AP&T for an additional $10/month above the\nBasic package. A commissioner suggested if AP&T could provide a medical discount.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nMay 23, 2005\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 3\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, June 27th in Room\n391, City Hall.\nSincerely,\nMatthew T. Naclerio\nPublic Works Director\nBy:\nEd Sommerauer\nAssociate Civil Engineer\nES:lc\nG:\\PUBWORKS\\LT\\MCD Disability Committee/2005\\0523min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMay 23, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nVice President Cook\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,\nMcNamara, and Piziali.\nBoard member Mariani was absent from roll call and arrived during Oral Communications.\nAlso present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,\nSupervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of May 9, 2005.\nMr. Piziali advised that page 6, paragraph 1, should be changed to read, \"Mr. Piziali suggested the\nuse of dark anodized aluminum glass.\"\nMr. Piziali advised that page 6, bullet 2, should be changed to read, \"2. The aluminum storefront\nwould have dark anodized frames glazing.'\nVice President Cook advised that on page 1, regarding the minutes for April 25, 2005, she did not\nbelieve she seconded the minutes, and indicated that she abstained.\nMs. Eliason advised that staff would confirm that item.\nM/S Piziali/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of May 9, 2005, as amended.\nAYES - 5 (Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that staff had received a letter regarding Items 8-B and 8-C, and that\nwhile public comment would be taken, there would be no Board discussion or action on the item until\nstaff had a chance to address the issues raised by the letter. Board discussion would be continued until\nthe Planning Board meeting of June 13, 2005.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nMay 23, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 2, "text": "Ms. Barbara Nemer expressed concern about a sign to be erected at Donald Lum School on Otis\nDrive, and that the sign is to be over eight feet tall. She noted that it was larger than any other sign in\nAlameda schools, and expressed concern that it would be plastic and illuminated. She believed it\nwould be a safety hazard because of its location at a crosswalk and a corner, and believed it would be\nhideous. She would like to see a wooden sign, illuminated by plant lights. She noted that this school\nwas one of the nicest on the Island.\nMr. Piziali noted that this sign was not the purview of the Planning Board, and that the Board of\nEducation would be the property entity to address. The Planning Board has no control over this sign.\nMr. Lynch advised that the designs, plans, building inspections and contracts for schools go through\nthe school board of the local jurisdiction, including design review.\nMs. Diane Voss, 1815 Otis Drive, expressed concern about the Donald Lum School sign, which\nwould cost over $8,000, and the monthly cost would also be at taxpayer expense. She would consider\na \"No\" vote on the taxpayer-funded school assistance if her money were to be spent this way.\nMs. Liz Cleves, 1815 Otis Drive, spoke in opposition to this sign, and expressed concern about safety\nat the corner and the crosswalk with respect to the proximity of the sign.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nMay 23, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 3, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nUse Permit, UP05-005; John Kienoski, John's Bargain Imports, 1770 Viking Street,\nAlameda, CA. (Alameda Point) (ATh). The applicant requests a Use Permit modification to\nallow retail sales at an existing wholesale facility. The site is located in the M-2-G, General\nIndustry/Manufacturing Zoning District/Government Combining District.\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-15 to approve\na Use Permit modification to allow retail sales at an existing wholesale facility.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nMay 23, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 4, "text": "7-B.\nInterim Use Permit UP05-0004: Alameda Point Collaborative/Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, 2580/2700 Barbera Point Road Near Main Street at\nSingleton Avenue, Parcel 99, Alameda Point (ATh). The applicant requests an Interim Use\nPermit to allow establishment of a 4-acre retail plant nursery. The site is located in the M-2-G\nGeneral Industry/Manufacturing Zoning District/Government Combining District.\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-16 to approve\nan Interim Use Permit to allow establishment of a 4-acre retail plant nursery.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nMay 23, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 5, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A. Variance V05-0003.Major Design Review DR04-0109 - KDArchitects, Inc. for Kwan Li\n- 2411 Webb Avenue (AT). Applicants request a Major Design Review and two Variances\nto construct a two-story residential/commercial mixed use building on a vacant parcel. The\nproject proposes two ground floor retail spaces approximately 800-860 square feet in size and\ntwo residential units on the second floor with approximately 700-1,000 square feet of floor\narea for a total gross floor area of 3,383 square feet. The design of the building resembles a\nstreamlined moderne appearance with a combination of stucco exterior siding and clear\nanodized aluminum trim. Access to parking located at the rear of the building is through a\ndriveway located along the right side of the building under a portion of the second story. The\nproject requires a total of twelve parking spaces, and the plans provide eight total spaces with\nresidential parking in the form of stacked parking lifts. Two variances are requested for the\ndeficiency of four parking spaces and a reduced landscaping separation between one parking\nspace and the north and east property lines, where three feet is required. The site is located at\n2411 Webb Avenue, within the Park Street C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District.\nMr. Tai presented the staff report, and recommended approval of this application.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand whether this site would qualify for the in lieu parking fee,\nMs. Eliason confirmed that it would.\nMs. Kohlstrand liked the traditional, old-downtown look of Park Street, which provided a continuous\nstreet frontage. She expressed concern about providing required parking on-site, particularly when\nthere was public parking available across the street at the Bank of America site. The possibility of\nstacked parking concerned her, and would rather see a Variance for six parking spaces.\nPresident Cunningham inquired how much the stacking devices cost, and whether it would be better\nto put the money into the in lieu fund instead.\nMr. Piziali noted that he liked the stacking device at first, given the Board discussion of open space\nand tandem parking. He agreed with the idea of putting the money intended for the lifts into the in\nlieu fund instead, and to grant the applicant a Variance.\nMr. Lynch complimented the applicant on a beautiful architectural design and layout.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nMay 23, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 6, "text": "President Cunningham did not want the lifts to be used all over the City as an unintended\nconsequence.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that she would normally prefer continuous store frontage, but she would accept\na driveway through the building. She agreed that the design was very nice, and was a positive mixed-\nuse proposal.\nMr. Piziali noted that he would not object to stacked parking if it were inside a structure elsewhere in\nthe City.\nMr. Lynch would be willing to entertain the Variance that reflects the withdrawal of the lift, and those\nfunds being placed into the City in-lieu fund.\nMs. Harryman suggested that the Board give direction to staff as to what it would like to see, and\ncontinue the item to the next meeting so it may be placed on the Consent Calendar.\nAt Vice President Cook's request, Mr. Tai summarized the changes in the design.\nPresident Cunningham suggested that taller landscaping be planted in the back, instead of the\nboxwood. She noted that several other buildings had a view to the back of the site.\nMs. McNamara expressed concern about the architectural design of this building that seemed to have\nbeen designed without regard for the adjacent building.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the trashcans as illustrated were shown to be half the size of real\ntrash cans, and suggested that the space under the stairs be used to house the trash containers.\nMs. Eliason summarized the Board's direction: a Variance for six spaces rather than providing the\nstacked units and payment of an in lieu. Four parking spaces would be for the residential units, and\nwould be dedicated for residential use.\nMr. Tai noted that there may be required handicapped accessible spaces for the commercial spaces,\nand added that two spaces each may be for the residential units; the remaining two spaces may be\ndevoted to handicapped accessible parking for the commercial use.\nM/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June 13,\n2005.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nMay 23, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 7, "text": "8-B.\nZoning Text Amendment ZA05-0002, Applicant: Alameda Theatre Project Inc., - All\nNeighborhood Business Districts (C-1) within the City of Alameda (DG/CE). The\napplicant requests an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.8(c) to add\n\"Boutique Theater\" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit\napproval. \"Boutique Theater\" would be defined as \"A theater with audiences of 49 persons or\nless for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one\nscreen in the theater.' (Continued from the meeting of April 11, 2005.)\nMr. Piziali noted that many speaker slips were for both Items 8-B and 8-C.\nMr. Lynch requested that staff clarify the distinctions between Items 8-B and 8-C for the public; Ms.\nEliason explained the difference for the audience.\nMr. Garrison summarized the staff report.\nPresident Cunningham advised that public comment would be taken, but that no Board discussion or\naction would be taken.\nPresident Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Mark Haskett, applicant, noted that he had acutely aware of the absence of a movie theater\nin\nAlameda; he described the background of this application and noted that his intent was to create a\npositive influence on the community. He noted that this theater was the smallest commercial movie\ntheater in the country. He presented a petition in opposition to closing the theater which was signed\nby 1,500 people; he noted that he did not initiate the petition.\nMr. Peter MacDonald, attorney for the applicant, noted that he would like to present the response\nregarding CEQA at the next meeting. He noted that the General Plan presented the ideal of a less\nautomobile-oriented city with mixed uses and a traditional ambience, also known as the \"new\nurbanism.\" He noted that included pedestrian orientation with places worth patronizing within the\ncity, as opposed to megaplexes at the edge of the city center or further. He noted that the seats were\nlow-density seating featuring couches and easy chairs, as opposed to airline-type seating. He did not\nbelieve that many boutique theaters would be created, and that this zoning amendment would indicate\nthe City's commitment to entrepreneurs. He noted that the applicant often found available parking\nspace in the vicinity when his theater has sold out. He surveyed his customers, and found that only 15\ncars were driven by customers on a Friday night, and 13 cars on a Saturday night, which was less than\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nMay 23, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 8, "text": "projected by staff. On both nights, about 40% of his customers walked to the theater. He believed this\ntheater was an asset to the community. He noted that the movie could not be heard from the\nneighbor's fence. He noted that he would respond to Ms. Barbara Thomas' comments in opposition\nto the theater at the next meeting. He expressed concern about the condition requiring a 20-minute\ngap between movies, and did not believe it was necessary during the day when there were seldom\nmore than 15 people during those showings. He suggested that that condition be applicable only after\n6 p.m.\nMr. David Penney, 1620 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and noted that he\nlived a half mile away from the theater. He believed this business was a good fit for the neighborhood,\nand would like to see a few more throughout the City.\nMr. David Hart, 712 Taylor, spoke in support of this application, and believed that the cinema was an\nunqualified positive feature for the neighborhood. He liked the family-friendly atmosphere of the\ntheater, and had never found parking to be a problem. He noted that most of the patrons walked to\nthe theater.\nMr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and noted that he\nlived within walking distance of the theater. He believed this was an excellent and creative solution to\nthe conflicts that arose earlier, and supported local ownership. He believed this size and type of\nbusiness ownership should be encouraged.\nMs. Chantal Currid, 834 Taylor Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and would like to see\nthe City encourage this type of business.\nMr. Richard Archuleta, 1406 9th Street, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he had\nseen many people walking and riding their bicycles, which has brought a good atmosphere to the\nneighborhood. He would like to see a stop light near the cinema for safety. He believed this use\nwould be a good activity for families and children in a small-town atmosphere, and would not cause\nany spending leakage to off-island cities.\nMr. Matthew Callahan, 1822\u00b9/\u00b2 Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and believed that\nthe Central Cinema was a jewel in the City. He would like to see more boutique theaters in Alameda.\nHe supported the zoning change, and noted that there were many members of the audience who\nsupported it as well.\nMs. Eve Abrahams Shutt, 927 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and enjoyed\nwalking to the theater. She liked the friendly atmosphere of the theater, and added that there had\nnever been any parking problems.\nMr. Ethan Rafferty, 1217 Central Avenue, spoke in support of this application. He discussed the\neconomic benefit of this theater to other small businesses in the surrounding neighborhoods. He noted\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nMay 23, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 9, "text": "that the small theaters often showed family-friendly movies that may not be supported by the\nmegaplex theaters.\nMs. Nancy Sewell, 11709th Street, #23, spoke in support of this application, and noted that she lived\nthree blocks away from the theater.\nMs. Allison Martin, 1519 St. Charles, spoke in support of this application. She noted that there had\nbeen a lot more traffic when the site housed a mortuary. She noted that she had been able to bring her\nelderly father to the theater easily. She agreed that a crosswalk would be a good addition for safety.\nMs. Barbara Thomas, PO Box 1381, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that she represented\nclients in opposition to the application, and that she would reserve her specific comments until after\nthe Planning Board has been able to review her letter. She believed that the theater was a wonderful\nidea, but that it was in the wrong place. She recalled several permitted Alameda theaters that had\nclosed, and that they all had sufficient parking. She asked the Board to look at this application from a\nmacro view, rather than from a micro view. She noted that the General Plan and the Alameda\nMunicipal Code encourage businesses that draw traffic to go to the major C-C zones, such as\nWebster Street. She noted that the transportation plans also support those goals, and believed lack of\nparking had contributed to failure on Webster Street and Park Street. She noted that good businesses\nwere spread out in that zone and that they bought parking lots for their clientele, which she believed\nshould be dissuaded under the General Plan.\nMr. Allen Rawl, 48 Invincible Court, spoke in support of this application, and had moved here\nbecause of the small-town character of Alameda. He agreed with the other speakers who supported\nthis application. He hoped the residents did not take the ability to walk to the theater for granted.\nMr. Don Coughlan, 2008B Clinton, spoke in support of this application and noted that he grew up in\nthe West End; he appreciated the small-town neighborhood feel and businesses. He noted that when\nhe worked at the mortuary as a young man, there were many cars parked in the neighborhood without\ncomplaint.\nMs. Holly Ackley, 3015 San Jose Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and appreciated being\nable to stay on the Island for dinner and a movie. She noted that she often walked there, but never\nhad trouble finding a parking space even when the movie was sold out. She liked the non-rowdy\nnature of the patrons.\nMs. Louise Elsea, 470 Lincoln Avenue, spoke in support of this application, and noted that\nAlameda's small-town atmosphere was very different than the rest of the Bay Area. She believed this\ntheater helped neighbors get to know each other.\nMr. Robert Lundy Paine, 2056 Pacific, spoke in support of this application and introduced his\ndaughters Bridget and Jessica. He believed that Central Cinema was a small and comfortable addition\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nMay 23, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 10, "text": "to a unique community.\nMr. Richard Archuleta, 1406 9th Street, spoke again in support of this application. He did not believe\nthis theater could be compared to the theater on Alameda Point, and that this was a neighborhood\ntheater that people could walk to. He noted that there was sufficient parking for theater patrons.\nMr. Robert Todd spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern that this business may\nexpand its services as it became more successful, and would not want to see additional uses, such as\na\nrestaurant that may serve alcohol. He expressed concern about the actions of patrons as they leave,\ncausing noise or hazards on the road. He inquired whether this use would have the same noise\nrestrictions as residential districts, and was concerned that it would become a nuisance in the future.\nHe expressed concern about the operation of the Building Department.\nDr. Carol Gerdes noted that she was an obstetrician and spoke in support of this application. She\nnoted that the theater held a Baby Brigade evening on Tuesdays. She appreciated Alameda's family\ncommunity, and believed it was important to support this use. She noted that the mortuary use was\nmore intense.\nMs. Karya Lustig, 838 Central Avenue, spoke in support of this application and noted that she lived\nnext door to the theater. She and her family appreciated the family atmosphere, and added that their\ninitial noise and traffic concerns had not been borne out. She complimented the applicant on the way\nin which he kept the property up.\nMr. Kevin Frederick, 1282 Caroline Street, spoke in support of this application and believed this was\na good use of the site. He liked the design of the theater.\nMs. Michele Bealhimer, PO Box 2933, noted that she lived three blocks away from the theater, and\nliked the small-town feel that was particular to Alameda. She added that there was no adverse noise\nimpact from the theater.\nMr. Ronald Pineda, 748 Lincoln, noted that he liked the theater, but was concerned that Alameda\nmight emulate the character from other towns rather than be a unique community. He believed\nCentral Cinema was an important component of Alameda's character.\nThe public hearing was closed.\nThere was no Board discussion.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Piziali and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June\n13, 2005.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nMay 23, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 11, "text": "Page 11\nPlanning Board Minutes\nMay 23, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 12, "text": "8-C.\nUse Permit UP05-0009, Applicant: Mark Haskett (Alameda Theatre Project Inc.), - 842\nCentral Ave. (DG/CE). The applicant requests the granting of a Use Permit allowing the\noperation of a Boutique Theater located in a C-1 Zoning District. (Continued from the\nmeeting of April 11, 2005.)\nMr. Garrison summarized the staff report, and recommended that this item be continued to the\nPlanning Board meeting of June 13, 2005.\nPresident Cunningham advised that public comment would be taken, but that no Board discussion or\naction would be taken.\nPresident Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received\nM/S Kohlstrand/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Mark Haskett, applicant, declined to speak again.\nMs. Mallory Penney, 1620 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application. She stated that\nshe often walked to the theater with her friends, and often saw people at the theater that she knew.\nShe liked the welcoming atmosphere of the theater. She liked the theater on Alameda Point, but\npreferred the smaller theater.\nMr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, spoke in support of this application. He recalled the\namount of emotional opposition to the Multicultural Center, which had turned out to be a valuable\naddition to the community. He believed this use was a good response to local needs, and that it would\nbe more widely use. He believed that every request by the Building Department for Code upgrades to\nthe building should be met as soon as possible. He worked on the pilot program for the Safe Routes\nto School program at Franklin Elementary School, and noted that the crosswalk in question would be\nincluded in that program for Washington Elementary at Taylor and 8th, as well as Grand Avenue and\nother intersections.\nMs. Darnell Arniola, 3039 Fernside, spoke in support of this application, and complimented the\napplicant's service to the community.\nMr. David Little, 2046 San Antonio, spoke in support of this application, and noted that Alameda has\nhad very few theaters to choose from. He believed the Central Theater had enhanced the cultural\natmosphere in Alameda. He did not want to spend his film dollars off the Island.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nMay 23, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 13, "text": "Mr. Dean Ironside, 1206 Ninth Street, spoke in support of this application. He had not noticed any\nchange in the traffic patterns in the 43 years he had lived in the neighborhood.\nMs. Barbara Thomas, PO Box 1381, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed that the applicant\ntook it upon himself to open this business, obtained a business license that did not construe Use\nPermits. She stated that the applicant was cited by Planning Staff on December 17, 2004, as\ncommitting a misdemeanor for operating an illegal use. She noted that on January 18, 2005, the\nBuilding Official and the Fire Marshall posted a notice on the door that the building was unsafe, and\nrecorded that notice with the County Recorder. She noted that Mr. MacDonald, the applicant's\nattorney, removed the sign. She inquired whether the applicant had liability insurance. She believed\nthere would have been no opposition to the use had he appeared before the Planning Board at the\nbeginning of the process. She noted that the patrons parked in the residents' parking spaces.\nMs. Nancy Sewell, 1170 9th Street, #23, spoke in support of this application, and noted that the\nAlameda Cultural Club did not have any parking for five blocks away. She noted that the noise, traffic\nand harassment from that use had been difficult to bear. She noted that this use did not cause noise,\nparking problems or harassment, and that the neighborhood was generally supported.\nMr. Dren McDonald, 740 Santa Clara, spoke in support of this application and noted that there were\nnot many movie theaters that a toddler could attend. He added that this theater was very different\nfrom the average multiplex, and did not believe it was comparable to other theaters that had been in\nAlameda in the past. He did not find the building to be unsafe, and did not believe the applicant would\nbring his own children to the building if it were.\nMs. Antoinette Lajoie, 1170 9th Street, #18, spoke in support of this application, and added that she\nwalked to the theater from her home, as do her neighbors. She liked the friendly atmosphere of the\ntheater, and believed it was child-friendly. She had never noticed any traffic problems.\nThe public hearing was closed.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani regarding other courses of action regarding this application,\nMs. Harryman advised that there were two ways that this particular business could be allowed in the\nAlameda Municipal Code: as of right, and with a Use Permit. The Zoning Code currently only\nallowed theaters in the Central Business District (C-C). The Use Permit would be the more restrictive\nof the two methods, and there was no means of getting a Variance for this use.\nM/S Mariani/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June 13,\n2005.\nAYES - 7; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nMay 23, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-23", "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 she had requested regular updates on the APAC's work (see Item\n11-A).\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 advised that Mr. Thomas had made a presentation, which she would defer\nuntil the next meeting. The Chinatown group was very pleased with the planning so far, resulting\nfrom the Alameda Point proposed development.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nStaff update on status of Planning for Alameda Point.\nMr. Andrew Thomas advised that he had distributed a flier for the sixth and final workshop regarding\nthe preliminary development concept. The final draft of the preliminary development concept and\ntransportation program would be presented at the June 8 community workshop, and the written\ndocuments would be presented at that time. The land use plans and the associated development\nprinciples would be presented, as would the transportation program and all its phases, and the historic\npreservation program. An infrastructure plan that supported the preliminary development concept\nwould be presented, as well as other documents. Staff would take community comment on June 8,\nand would get a sense from the community in terms of work to date, and what would need further\nwork. Those comments would be brought to the ARRA Board on July 14, 2005. Mr. Lynch\nexpressed concern about the type of partners sought by the City as build out approaches. He inquired\nwhether the agreement structure was such that the Master Developer reserves the right to move\nforward with the development, whether they can request an extension, and what the triggers in the\nagreement were. Mr. Thomas recalled the background of the project, and noted that a Conditional\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nMay 23, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 15, "text": "conveyance. He believed that the decision to move forward with the business plan was an internal\ndecision of the organization.\nVice President Cook commended staff on an excellent job in conducting the workshops, which have\nbeen very informative. She asked the Planning Board to become more involved in the community\nworkshops. She noted that transportation on/off and within the Island was a critical issue, and there\nwas expertise on the Board regarding that issue. She noted that Measure A was a critical issue as\nwell, and believed that staff had been given the direction to look at only Measure A-compliant\nalternatives. Many members of the community believed that Measure A should be examined more\ncarefully, and that non- Measure A-compliant alternatives should be examined as well. She believed\nthat the community wanted Alameda Point to \"look like Alameda,' but there may not be consensus\nabout what that means, especially with respect to single-family homes or a fine-grained mixed use\nseen throughout Alameda. She believed there was a tendency to not look at both alternatives in an\nequal capacity.\nPresident Cunningham requested the City Attorney's perspective on the possibility of a non-Measure\nA-compliant alternative being preferred. Ms. Harryman advised that Mr. Brandt and Mr. Thomas\nwere the most knowledgeable about that issue.\nMr. Thomas noted that they had started the workshop process 12 months ago, and staff had been\nvery straight-forward detailing the constraints, including Measure A. Because Measure A is in the\nCity Charter, it would require a ballot measure to change; staff would not spend an excess amount of\ntime exploring a non-Measure A-compliant alternative. He noted that the City, through the\nChinatown agreement, had agreed to look at a higher density alternative in the EIR, and to give it a\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nMay 23, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 16, "text": "full analysis.\nMr. Lynch noted that a number of communities have gone forward with the environmental documents\nfirst, then the plan. The voters would then be provided with the alternatives and an idea of the general\nconcept as it related to the baseline data.\nMs. Kohlstrand believed that Alameda Point provided the perfect opportunity to have a meaningful\ncommunity debate about whether Measure A should prevail, or whether another development\napproach should be considered for that area.\nMr. Thomas believed that the last meeting would be productive if it could be devoted to evaluating\nthe two plans that had been developed through the process. He added that this would not be the end\nof the planning process.\nMr. Lynch noted that he would be out of the country on June 8, but suggested that the City election\nschedule be presented to the public at that time; a special election would be very costly. He noted that\nwould help structure the planning timeline so that any possible ballot issues may be considered.\nMr. Piziali suggested that issue be considered at a separate meeting.\nMs. Eliason noted that it may be best to hold the discussion after the Navy's decision was known.\nb.\nStaff update on current stafflevels in the Planning Division of the Planning & Building\nDepartment.\nMs. Eliason advised that Mr. Cormack would retire in mid-June, and his position was slated to be\nfrozen. In the next budget cycle, Ms. Altschuler's position would be eliminated. She noted that\nstaffing would be thin for the time being, and that the recruitment effort for a Planning & Building\nDirector was underway. Greg McFann and Jerry Cormack shared the Interim Planning & Building\nDirector position.\nThe entire Planning & Building Department was in the process of conducting a fee study and\nevaluation of staffing. Those results will be available in the next month or two; it was hoped that it\nwould show that the staffing levels were too low, given the volume of work on both the Planning\n&\nBuilding sides, allowing the Development Review Manager position to be unfrozen.\nMr. Lynch noted that because of the time lags involved, some of the fees may not be recovered during\nthe current fiscal year. He noted that the expectations of processing applications must be considered.\nMr. Lynch inquired how many city and county jurisdictions in the State were fully funded and staffed.\nMs. Mariani suggested that point be brought before City Council.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nMay 23, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-05-23", "page": 17, "text": "12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJerry Cormack, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the June 13, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio\nand video taped.\n:PLANNINGIPB\\Agendas_Minutes)Minutes.05\\May 23_Minute\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 17\nMay 23, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf"}