{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nJune 13, - p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:14 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMr. Lynch\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nVice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, and\nPiziali.\nPresident Cunningham and Board Member Gina Mariani were absent.\nAlso present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Assistant City Manager Paul\nBenoit, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler,\nContract Planner Chandler Lee, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai,\nPlanner II Dennis Brighton, Jennifer Ott, Development Manager, Development Services\nDepartment, Leslie Little, Development Services Department.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of May 23, 2005.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Piziali and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of May 23,\n2005, as presented.\nAYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nMs. Eliason suggested that Item 7-C be moved from the Regular Agenda to the Consent\nCalendar so that it may be continued.\nM/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 7-C from the Regular Agenda\nto the Consent Calendar.\nAYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nMs. McNamara advised that she would vote \"No\" on the Consent Calendar because she\nstill had concerns about the design of the approved residence in Item 7-D; she continued\nto voice her opposition to the design review.\nMs. Harryman advised that she and Ms. McNamara had discussed this issue before the\nmeeting.\n7-A.\nDA-99-01 -- Catellus Development Corporation (CL). The applicant requests a\nPeriodic Review of Development Agreement, DA-99-01, for the period from\nJanuary through December 2004, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-\n95.1. The properties are zoned MX (Mixed Use Planned Development District).\nM/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-17 to approve a\nPeriodic Review of Development Agreement, DA-99-01, for the period from January\nthrough December 2004, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1.\nAYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 3, "text": "7-B. DA89-1 -- Harbor Bay Business Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle\nAssociates and Harbor Bay Entities -- Bay Farm Island (Primarily Harbor\nBay Isle) (CE). A request for a Periodic Review of Development Agreement\nDA89-01, for the period through April 4, 2005, as required under Zoning\nOrdinance Section 30-95.1. The properties are zoned R-1-PD, One Family\nResidence/Planned Development Zoning District; C-M-PD, Commercial\nManufacturing Planned Development Zoning District; O, Open Space Zoning\nDistrict and R-1-A-H, One Family Residence with Special Agricultural and\nHeight Limit Combining Zoning District.\nM/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-18 to approve a\nPeriodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4,\n2005, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1.\nAYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 4, "text": "7-C.\nUP05-0007 - West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and City of\nAlameda - Public Parking Lot at Taylor Avenue and Webster Street (DB).\nApplicants request approval of an amendment to Use Permit UP-98-53 to allow\nan extension of operation of the existing farmers' market which currently operates\non Tuesday morning to include late Thursday afternoons/evenings, from 4:00\np.m. through 8:00 p.m., during the summer and early fall. This would be located\nin City Public Parking Lot D. The site is located within the CC (Community\nCommercial) Zoning District and is located within the boundaries of the Business\nand Waterfront Improvement Project.\nM/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 7-C from the Regular Agenda\nto the Consent Calendar.\nAYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nM/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-19 to approve an\namendment to Use Permit UP-98-53 to allow an extension of operation of the\nexisting farmers' market which currently operates on Tuesday morning to include\nlate Thursday afternoons/evenings, from 4:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m., during the\nsummer and early fall. This would be located in City Public Parking Lot D. The\nsite is located within the CC (Community Commercial) Zoning District and is\nlocated within the boundaries of the Business and Waterfront Improvement\nProject.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 5, "text": "7-D.\nVariance V05-0003/Major Design Review DR04-0109 - KD Architects, Inc.\nfor Kwan Li - 2411 Webb Avenue (AT). Applicants request a Major Design\nReview and two Variances to construct a two-story residential/commercia mixed\nuse building on a vacant parcel. The project proposes two ground floor retail\nspaces approximately 800-860 square feet in size and two residential units on the\nsecond floor with approximately 700 - 1,000 square feet of floor area for a total\ngross floor area of 3,383 square feet. The design of the building resembles\na streamlined Moderne style with a combination of stucco exterior siding and\nclear anodized aluminum trim. Access to parking located at the rear of the\nbuilding is through a driveway located along the right side of the building under a\nportion of the second story. The project requires a total of twelve parking spaces,\nand the project will provide six spaces with a variance and in-lieu fees paid to the\nCity for six deficient spaces. A variance is requested for a reduced landscaping\nseparation between one parking space and the north and east property lines, where\nthree feet is required. The site is located within the Park Street C-C, Community\nCommercial Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of May 23, 2005.)\nM/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-20 to approve a Major\nDesign Review and two Variances to construct a two-story residential/commercial mixed\nuse building on a vacant parcel. The project proposes two ground floor retail spaces\napproximately 800-860 square feet in size and two residential units on the second floor\nwith approximately 700 - 1,000 square feet of floor area for a total gross floor area of\n3,383 square feet. The design of the building resembles a streamlined Moderne style\nwith a combination of stucco exterior siding and clear anodized aluminum trim. Access\nto parking located at the rear of the building is through a driveway located along the right\nside of the building under a portion of the second story. The project requires a total of\ntwelve parking spaces, and the project will provide six spaces with a variance and in-lieu\nfees paid to the City for six deficient spaces. A variance is requested for a reduced\nlandscaping separation between one parking space and the north and east property lines,\nwhere three feet is required.\nAYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 6, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n8-A. Zoning Text Amendment ZA05-0002, Applicant: Alameda Theatre Project\nInc., - All Neighborhood Business Districts (C-1) within the City of Alameda\n(DG/CE). The applicant requests an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code\nSection 30-4.8(c) to add \"Boutique Theater\" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning\ndistrict, subject to Use Permit approval. \"Boutique Theater\" would be defined as\n\"A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the\nscreening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater.\"\n(Continued from the meeting of May 23, 2005.)\nVice President Cook advised that there were more than five speaker slips submitted for\nthis item.\nM/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Robert Gavrich noted that it appeared that there was support for boutique theaters,\nand that the Planning Board should rethink the City's strategy to build big box, megaplex\ntheaters in Alameda. He noted that Alameda's small town atmosphere should promote\nfamily businesses, and believed that Central Cinema should not be the only boutique\ntheater on the Island. He noted that the support for such a neighborhood cinema was\nheavily supported in Alameda, versus the Cineplex. He believed the City would rely on\nthe Cineplex to replace the lost tax revenues previously received from Ron Goode\nToyota. He noted that Central Cinema would not use any tax dollars, and that the\nentrepreneur would take all the financial risk.\nMr. Peter MacDonald, attorney for the applicant, believed that the 164 pages submitted\nby Barbara Thomas were adequately responded to in the Negative Declaration and the\nstaff report. He noted that the applicant was comfortable with that response, and added\nthat a neighborhood with no impacts was a neighborhood with no life. He believed that\nthe scale of the impacts was the main issue, and he believed the staff report demonstrated\nthat. He asked the supporters of the Central Cinema to stand up.\nMs. Lisa Griffith noted that she and her husband owned the home next to Central\nCinema, and were not opposed to the idea of a boutique theater itself. She was concerned\nabout the parking impact on her home, and noted that many evenings, cars had been\nparked in front of her driveway, some belonging to theater patrons, and some not. She\nwas opposed to this particular use because of its impacts on her home; she noted that\nmany supporters of the theater either lived elsewhere or had a usable driveway.\nMs. Barbara Thomas, PO Box 1381, spoke in opposition to this item, and wished to\nensure that the 16-page letter had been received by the Board. She had not seen a\nresponse to that letter. She noted that the first letter she wrote was submitted after staff\nstated that CEQA did not apply; staff reread the letter and then stated that CEQA did\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 7, "text": "apply. She noted that staff stated that CEQA did not apply in terms of a full-scale\nenvironmental impact report because each subsequent conversion requested by the\napplicant would be subject to that categorical exemption. She stated that staff asserted\nthat it would be subject to discretionary review. She believed that if the applicant wished\nto have a similar use elsewhere on the Island, staff would state that it was categorically\nexempt under CEQA, which she believed would subvert the intent of CEQA. She\nbelieved a complete CEQA analysis would be required. She noted that the Alameda\nMunicipal Code stated that parking for commercial purposes could not be places in\nresidential zones, which was what happened with respect to this use. She noted that the\nWebster Street plan included a theater, and suggested that a theater in that district would\nbe sufficient. She noted that the movie industry released films on DVD within three\nmonths of theatrical release to take advantage of advertising, and did not believe this\ntheater would be financially feasible. She advised that the General Plan stated that\ncommercial parking in residential areas should be dissuaded, and believed that should be\ntaken at its meaning. She noted that movie attendance has been declining, and did not\nbelieve that boutique theaters would be able to succeed.\nMr. David Hart, 712 Taylor, spoke in support of this application, and agreed with Mr.\nGavrich's comments. He noted that he was familiar with parking challenges for a\nhomeowner in a retail district. The residents supported positive businesses coming into\nthe neighborhood, and against negative businesses. He believed the neighbors were\nsupportive of positive businesses in the area, and he believed that public's opinion had\nbeen heard clearly. He recalled Ms. Thomas' statements regarding the possibility of the\ntheater failing, and noted that in America, an entrepreneur had the right to try and to fail.\nHe noted that the applicant has been succeeding so far, and he supported the applicant's\nefforts to succeed in other districts. He noted that the applicant was not using any public\ndollars or City funds, and that he was risking his own dollars. He noted that there was\noverwhelming neighborhood support for Central Cinema and boutique theaters in\nAlameda.\nMr. Chuck Millar noted that the boutique theater was in keeping with the other charming\naspects of Alameda. He noted that any ordinance should include parking guidelines, and\nbelieved that the patrons should be considerate of the neighbors.\nMr. Kirwin agreed with the other supporters of boutique theaters in Alameda, and\nbelieved that the free market would prevent oversaturation of boutique theaters in\nAlameda. He lives next to a park, and understands the parking problems inherent; he did\nnot want to eliminate soccer games in Alameda because of the inconvenience of a\nhomeowner. He did understand residents' concerns about parking, and has found that\nAlamedans generally respect one another. He suggested that the applicant post a sign\nasking the patrons to respect the adjacent neighbors with respect to parking.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali, Ms. Eliason confirmed that the residential\nproperties within the 17 C-1 districts, as well as the residential areas within 100 feet of\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 8, "text": "those districts were given notices by mail, legal notices in the newspaper and posted ads.\nAll responses were provided to the Board.\nMr. Piziali noted that he had not noticed any strong reaction to the proposed zoning\nlanguage change.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Eliason confirmed that this use would be a\nconditional use in all C-1 districts. She confirmed that it would not allow this commercial\nuse within a residential zone.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding retail and other parking within the\nC-1 districts, Ms. Eliason replied that the C-1 District was subject to the City's overall\nparking standards within the Zoning Ordinance. There were special provisions for new\nuses; buildings over ten years old with uses that do not change substantially according to\nthe Zoning Ordinance, parking is not required to be provided.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the validity of the CEQA findings, Mr.\nGarrison stated that everything under CEQA may be challenged. If it was determined to\nbe categorically exempt, the City must prove that.\nVice President Cook advised that a speaker slip had been received from the applicant.\nMr. Mark Haskett, applicant, wished to address the parking issue and noted that they\nwere trying to get cars off the street. He noted that he lived a block from the theater, and\nthe population density in Alameda was such that people could walk to the theater. He did\nnot believe there was a serious parking problem, and recalled that an adjacent neighbor\nspoke at the last meeting and stated that on one occasion, they had to park a block away.\nHe noted that he did not advertise because the theater was intended for the neighbors'\nuse.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding avenues for challenging this use if\nparking was determined to be a problem, Ms. Eliason replied that each individual\nboutique theater would come before the Planning Board for a discretionary review. A use\npermit would be associated with it, and individual cases would be considered by the\nBoard.\nVice President Cook advised that periodic review for a variety of parking issues had been\nattached to use permits in the past.\nMs. Kohlstrand noted that she supported this kind of activity in neighborhood areas, and\nthat it was a positive contribution to neighborhood commercial districts.\nVice President Cook noted that she was in favor of this amendment.\nM/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-05-21 to\nrecommend approval of an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.8(c) to\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 9, "text": "add \"Boutique Theater\" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning district, subject to Use\nPermit approval. \"Boutique Theater\" would be defined as \"A theater with audiences of\n49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where\nthere is only one screen in the theater.\"\nAYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 10, "text": "8-B.\nUse Permit UP05-0009, Applicant: Mark Haskett (Alameda Theater Project,\nInc.), - 842 Central Ave. (DG/CE). The applicant requests the granting of a Use\nPermit allowing the operation of a Boutique Theater located in a C-1 Zoning\nDistrict. (Continued from the meeting of May 23, 2005.)\nMr. Piziali noted that there were more than five speaker slips on every item on the\nagenda.\nM/S Piziali/Ms. McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes\nthroughout the remainder of the meeting.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. David Hart, 712 Taylor, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he had\ntaken a terminally ill family member who lived three houses from the theater to a movie,\nand that they were able to walk. He noted that he walked through the neighborhood\nfrequently, and did not see any crowding in the neighborhood. He believed that Central\nCinema was an unqualified positive feature for the neighborhood.\nMr. Robert Gavrich spoke in support of this application, and noted that he lived near a\ntheater on High Street. He noted that it was not even a minor nuisance, and that it was a\nfeature in neighborhoods in support of culture. He had patronized Central Cinema six or\nseven times, and had never had a problem parking on Central Avenue. He suggested\nassessing a dollar per ticket to mitigate the parking impacts on the neighborhood.\nMr. Lisa Griffith noted that she did not have a parkable driveway, and has never parked\nher car in front of that driveway. She appreciated that the theater was quaint, but did not\nwant to drive around for half an hour looking for a place to park. She had experienced\npeople parking in front of her driveway, sometimes by patrons of the theater.\nMr. Dave Kirwin wished to reiterate his opinion that this is a positive feature for the\nneighborhood. He noted that he would not be able to stay for Items 8-D and 8-E, and was\nhappy to hear that the historic theater would be revitalized. He did not believe the scale of\nthe Cineplex would fit Alameda, and suggested that it be downscaled.\nMs. Barbara Thomas noted that there was a parking requirement (AMC 30-7.2), and\nnoted that offstreet parking was intended to protect neighborhoods from parking and\nvehicular traffic congestion generated by adjacent nonresidential district. She noted that\ntheaters require one space per 350 square feet in a C-1 zone, and was dismayed to find\nthat information was not in the staff report. She noted that she had served Mr. Haskett at\nhis house, which was not one block from the theater.\nMr. Chuck Millar believed this use should be made conditional, to be reviewed from time\nto time, and that the City should proceed with caution. He believed it could be the start of\na wonderful use in Alameda.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 11, "text": "Ms. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow, spoke in support of this application. She wished to\naddress the parking issues, and noted that she had attended the Central Cinema on the\nweekends. She had never had a problem with parking, even five minutes from showtime.\nMs. Janin Von Furst, 917B Santa Clara, noted that she was a renter, and was very\nconcerned about not being able to park near her home. She believed that Alameda should\nhave residential parking permits. She was in favor of the Central Cinema, but would like\nthe owner to take the onus of ensuring that neighborhood parking is not made more\ndifficult for the residents.\nMr. Kopps noted that he enjoyed going to Central Cinema because his mother was\ncomfortable with him attending on his own. He noted that he had his tenth birthday party\nthere, and enjoyed the family atmosphere. He promised to walk to the Cinema if it were\nallowed to remain open.\nMr. Kevin Frederick noted that he had lived in the neighborhood for 20 years, and\npreferred to bicycle and walk around the Island. He supported the Central Cinema, and\nbelieved it was a great neighborhood use.\nMr. Peter Macdonald, attorney for the applicant, noted that he had performed an informal\nparking survey on two nights, and noted that on both nights, 40% of the patrons walked\nto the theater. He added that 15 and 13 cars, respectively, were driven by patrons. He did\nnot believe it would be viable or necessary to put a parking lot in this neighborhood when\nstreet parking was available. He believed the existing parking should be used. He noted\nthat the 15 minute intervals between shows was not a problem during the day with an\naudience size of five to 10 people. He noted that the applicant had spent $7,400 to\nprocess this case to date, and suggested that the amount of fees should be capped for\ncertain types of cases. He was concerned that smaller businesses may not be able to get\nthrough the process. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali whether fines were included\nin those fees, Mr. Macdonald replied that they were planning processing fees.\nMr. Mark Haskett, applicant, noted that he kept track of spaces available during sellout\nnights, and added that there were often spaces available during those times. He corrected\nMs. Thomas' assertion that he did not live near the theater, and added that he had moved\nto a house one block from the theater during the past week. He noted that businesses that\ndraw pedestrians serve to enliven the neighborhood and make it a safer place to live.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding intervals between shows, Ms.\nEliason replied that the 20-minute interval was staff's recommendation in order for the\ntheater to clear out and for the new patrons to arrive; the parking would be cleared\nbetween the shows.\nMr. Haskett noted that some people will arrive 30-45 minutes early because the theater\nonly have 45 seats. The parking capacity will sometimes accommodate two shows.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 12, "text": "Mr. Piziali noted that Condition 8 called for a 20-minute interval between screenings, and\nsuggested that a 15-minute interval would be sufficient.\nVice President Cook noted that she had visited the site three times, including an evening\nshow and a morning show. The theater was not crowded either time. She also attended a\nsold-out show on a weekend evening, and had no problem parking. She had enjoyed her\nvisits, and noted that it was a good place for teens to attend. She noticed there were no\nbike racks, and strongly suggested that a bike rack be included in the conditions of\napproval. She noted that the audiences cleared the theater very quickly, and believed that\na 15-minute interval would be sufficient. She believed it was important for the patrons to\nrealize that they were in a district bordering a residential neighborhood. She believed the\nsmall district businesses would support each other.\nMs. Kohlstrand supported this use, but believed that an interval of one year to bring the\nbuilding up to code was excessive.\nMr. Douglas Garrison, project planner, noted that was a combination of an existing\nstandard condition of approval for such projects. He noted that could be changed to six\nmonths.\nMs. Kohlstrand agreed with Ms. Thomas' assertion that the staff reports should be more\nspecific regarding the parking requirements for particular projects, and how they relate to\nthe Code requirements. She did not believe that substantial new parking requirements\nshould be introduced in such uses, and believe they could exist with available on-street\nparking.\nMr. Piziali noted that traffic and parking would always be a problem in compressed urban\nareas.\nMs. Harryman advised that the prime broker may have this item come back directly for a\nhearing, or it may request a staff report as an item under \"Staff Communications.\" If the\nBoard decided to hear the item further, it may agendized. She noted that the Building\nCode violations were being handled by the Building Division on a separate track; the\nplanning issues were being separated from the building issues.\nMr. Haskett advised that everything requested by the Building Division had been\nsubmitted to them.\nMs. McNamara noted that she had not attended Central Cinema, but was impressed by\nthe outpouring of support from the neighborhood. She was very sensitive to the parking\nissues, and noted that her neighborhood would be affected by the zoning changes. She\nnoted that sensitivity to the neighborhoods was a very important component to those\nchanges. She supported the idea of an analysis report. She believed this was a good\nbusiness.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 13, "text": "Mr. Lynch believed the Planning fees were reasonable, and noted that the items on this\nagenda reflected an evolving community, in an evolving world. He noted the mixed uses\nhad a long tradition in this country, particularly before the end of World War II. He noted\nthat the City would be facing the question of merging uses constantly. He commended\nthe applicant in beginning to merge commercial uses in a residential community.\nM/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-22 to grant a\nUse Permit allowing the operation of a Boutique Theater located in a C-1 Zoning District.\nThe following modifications would be included:\n1. Condition 8 - Parking requirements would be minimized by allowing the\ntheater to provide a minimum of 15 minutes between movie screenings before\n6:00 p.m., and 20 minutes after 6:00 p.m.;\n2. A compliance report would be required to be submitted to Planning staff one\nyear after the approval of this resolution. If needed, staff would bring it before\nthe Planning Board; and\n3. A bicycle rack would be installed.\nAYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nVice President Cook called for a five-minute recess.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 14, "text": "8-C.\nDR04-0051, 616 Pacific Avenue, Applicant: Erwin Roxas (AT/EP). The\nproposal is an appeal of the code enforcement action which determined that the\ndemolition of a single-family residence, located at the above address, is in\nviolation of the AMC $13-21-10 b (removal or demolition of an historic structure\nwithout proper permits) and is, therefore, subject to the five (5) year stay that\nprevents the issuance of any building or construction-related permits for the\nproperty. The applicant had received Major Design Review approval in July 2004\nfor proposed 1st and 2nd story additions, enlargement of the detached garage,\ninterior remodel, porch additions, etc. that would add approximately 1,562 square\nfeet to the dwelling and 225 square feet to the garage and storage shed. The\nproperty is within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential District.\nM/S Piziali/Lynch to continue Item 8-C to the meeting of June 27, 2005.\nAYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 15, "text": "8-D.\nDR05-0041 - Final Design Review of the Proposed New Cineplex - City of\nAlameda (CE/JO). Final design review, including consideration of Section 106\nfindings for the proposed Cineplex at the corner of Oak Street and Central\nAvenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site. This site is located at 2305 Central\nAvenue within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial and Community\nCommercial -- Planned Development) Districts.\nMs. Kohlstrand advised she would recuse herself from Items 8-D and 8-E because she\nwas involved in the analysis for the parking garage and the theater.\nMs. Jennifer Ott summarized the staff report, and noted that the Planning Board\npreliminarily accepted the Cineplex design on May 9, 2005, to serve as a basis for\nSection 106 findings. The findings were brought before the Historic Advisory Board;\nthose draft minutes were included in the packet. Staff recommended approval of the\ndesign of this project.\nMr. Rob Henry, Henry Architects, project architect, displayed and discussed the changes\nmade to the project design since the last meeting. Input from the Planning Board and the\nHAB led to the following changes:\n1.\nThe corner sign was replaced by additional detailing, continuing the\nhorizontal band element in the corner for a more Art Deco feeling on the\ncorner;\n2.\nHAB believed that there should be a more continuous feel in the columns;\nthe white element was replaced by brick;\n3.\nThe dome was eliminated from the corner element (Oak and Central), and\nwas replaced by a flat corner element;\n4.\nThe roofline was notched down to provide softening to the corner; a\nrecessed element was placed further from the face of the building;\n5.\nThe mechanical screens were reduced in size, and would not be visible\nfrom the street level;\n6.\nThe historic theater mezzanine level would be connected to the elevator in\nthe new facility; and\n7.\nThe aluminum window and door systems were changed to clear anodized\naluminum to match the retail spaces of the Alameda Theater.\nMr. Henry discussed the materials and colors, and noted that a colors and materials board\nwas available.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Ott confirmed that this item was to discuss\nthe design review of the new theater. No restoration issues would be discussed.\nVice President Cook confirmed that all comments would be three minutes long as\npreviously voted upon. She advised that City Council agreed with the developer through\nDisposition and Development Agreement to proceed with this project. She noted that the\nPlanning Board's job was to provide the best design for this project, which was located\non a small site.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 16, "text": "The public hearing was opened.\nMs. Janin Von Furst, 917B Santa Clara, spoke in opposition to this item. She expressed\nconcern about the environmental impact that such projects have on a city the size of\nAlameda, particularly with respect to parking. She noted that the design reminded her of\nJack London Square, but that Alameda could not handle that amount of traffic from\noutside the city. She noted that the bridges and tubes would be busier, bringing more\ntraffic through the residential neighborhoods. She was concerned that people would park\nin the neighborhoods to avoid paying for parking in the parking garage. She suggested\nthe use of residential parking permits for neighborhoods near projects of this size.\nMs. Nancy Hird, 1519 East Shore Drive, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that\nshe was not speaking on behalf of AAPS. She believed that the massing of this building\nwas excessive although it was improved. She believed that a three-screen theater would\nbe sufficient, and did not want to bring more traffic into Alameda from outside the City.\nShe noted that the success of the Central Cinema disproved the theater that multiple\nscreens were necessary to be economically feasible.\nMs. Paula Rainey, 556 Palace Court, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this\nproject was too big for this district, which was pedestrian-oriented and too crowded with\ntraffic. She believed the new design had been improved, but did not believe this design\nwould enhance the neighborhood. She noted that the design was not pedestrian-friendly,\nand was too close to the street without softening. She suggested that the old theater be\nrestored, but that the new Cineplex be eliminated. She believed this was a megaplex, and\nthe lack of freeway frontage roads made the situation more difficult.\nMs. Pat Bail, 825 Paru, believed the design had improved since the beginning, but that\nthe residents were unprepared for the scope of this project and its impact on the\nneighborhood. She believed this design was overpowering and inappropriate for the area.\nShe supported the garage, and believed there should be more land area for the garage.\nShe believed this design was too massive for the area, and suggested rethinking the\nCineplex.\nMs. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She\nsupported the elimination of the Cineplex from the site, and did not believe that Alameda\nwanted or needed a Cineplex. She would like an open, walkable, sunny area in that\ndistrict without excessive traffic.\nMs. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow, spoke in opposition to this item. She submitted\npetitions signed by residents who opposed the Cineplex on this site, and believed that the\nrestoration of the historic theater had been lost in the design of the Cineplex. They were\nconcerned about the traffic impacts, and that opposition to the Cineplex design had not\nbeen fully heard. The petition called for the immediate halt of this process, and to discuss\nthe alternatives with the Mayor, City Council and the Planning Board. She believed the\nhistoric theater rehabilitation had been a \"bait and switch,\" with the Cineplex.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 17, "text": "Mr. Bill Woodle spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that he had also circulated a\npetition against this design. He had also heard from people who supported a large\nCineplex, and had been called a \"Nimby\" by one person.\nMs. Linda Hanson, 1816 Wood Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that\nthe design as published in the newspaper wad presented as a fait accompli. She noted that\nhundreds of people had signed the petition, asking that the project be put on hold. She\nbelieved the scale and design conflicted with the unique historic character of Alameda,\nand that traffic would be impacted. She was concerned that there was no open area for\npeople to gather, and that it ignored the green building principles. She believed that this\ndesign was more reminiscent of Fisherman's Wharf, and was not convinced that it would\nbe financially successful. She urged the Planning Board and City Council to reconsider\nthis project.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 17\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 18, "text": "Mr. Carl Lasagna spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that the design was\nslightly less offensive than the last design. He compared the design to an electric razor.\nHe supported alternatives to this project, which he believed was overwhelming and\nunattractive, and did not believe that the use of eminent domain was unethical. He\nsupported the combination of live performing arts with the historic theater. He suggested\nthat the Planning Board work with the community to redesign this project, so that the\nparking structures needed for downtown be built, and that the historic theater be left\nintact. He believed that the negotiations should be held ethically.\nMr. Jim Strela noted that his family had previously owned the Neptune Theater in the\n1930s, and added that to get first-run films, multiple screens were necessary. He believed\nthe historic theater was being lost in this design.\nMr. Rich Tester noted that he owned a business on Santa Clara, and noted that their\nbusiness would be in the shade of this structure. He expressed concern about the impact\non his business by traffic congestion.\nMs. Jennifer Van Arsdale spoke in opposition to this item, and agreed that the Cineplex\nshould be eliminated. She noted that the renderings had improved, but that the\ncombination of the Cineplex and the garage dwarfed the historic theater. She expressed\nconcern that the only way the historic theater could be renovated was to include the\nCineplex as well.\nMr. Michael Cote spoke in opposition to this item, and added that this project began as\nthe restoration of the historic theater. He noted that the historic theater was dwarfed by\nthe garage and the Cineplex, and that the historic theater was reduced to a fa\u00e7ade through\nwhich people would walk to the Cineplex. He expressed concern about the installation of\nnew stadium seating, which would gut the interior of the theater. He was concerned about\ncost overruns, and the possibility of public service positions being cut to fund this project.\nMr. Lee expressed concern about this design, and believed it was too large for the site.\nHe believed the Cineplex would be an eyesore, and was very concerned about the traffic\nimpacts. He believed the financial risk to Alameda in funding the project was too big.\nMr. Vern Marsh spoke in opposition to this item, and did not approve of the plan; he did\nnot like the design of the building. He would support a theater on the scale of the Grand\nLake Theater, with three or four screens. He believed this was excessive and was too\nexpensive.\nMr. George Hubbard noted that he had previously worked for Skywalker Sound, and\nworked in the industry. He suggested that the Planning Board consider alternate uses for\nthis theater, and was concerned that this theater would fail without freeway access.\nMr. Robert Van Der Wall spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that Alameda\nwas the antidote to sprawl. He did not believe that massive parking garages and\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 18\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 19, "text": "megaplexes were compatible with Alameda's character and scale. He displayed his own\ndesign for a scaled-down theater.\nMs. Joan Boucher noted that in her household, they called Alameda \"Ala-Mayberry.\" She\nenjoyed the neighborliness and pedestrian access in Alameda. She looked forward to\nwalking to the historic theater, with three screens. She noted that many Alamedans did\nnot know about this plan that far in advance, and had been taken by surprise; many of her\nneighbors did not like the new design. She believed this design would be a mistake for\nthe Island.\nMorgan spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that Alameda was the only city that\nshe felt comfortable in. She believed this design was wrong for the Island, and noted that\nwalking and bicycling in the City was already hazardous.\nMs. Nancy Kerns, 1175 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this\ndesign has far exceeded the original vision, but did not believe this project was\nappropriate for the Island. She had not found anyone in town who believed that this many\nscreens would be a good idea. She was very concerned about the traffic impacts, and\nbelieved that critical mass on this theater proposal had been reached very quickly. She\ndid not believe anyone in town wanted this complex in town.\nMs. Birgitt Evans, AAPS, 2829 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and\nnoted that AAPS had been involved in this project for a long time. She had spoken with\nChristopher Buckley, who was very concerned about staff's report that this design was\n\"highly responsive\" to AAPS' concerns. Neither he, Dick Rutter, nor she believed this\ndesign reflected their concerns. They did support Bruce Anderson's Section 106 review,\nas well as the HAB's comments at their June 2 meeting, in which four out of five HAB\nmembers stated that the design should be returned to the drawing board. She noted that\nthe Henry Architects had created a very nice design for an Art Deco theater in Livermore\nthat featured vertical elements. She believed the current design was a cacophony. She\nwas very concerned that the big box look and the second story gallery window would\noverwhelm the buildings next door.\nMr. Rob Ratto, PSBA, noted that the Board of Directors of PSBA had reviewed this\ndesign and approved it unanimously. He commended Kyle Connors (architect) for taking\nso much community feedback, dealing with the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines, and\nintegrating the comments by the Planning Board and City Council to design a workable\ntheater. PSBA believed this design would work, and believed the downstairs retail would\nbe a good addition. He urged the Planning Board to accept the final design.\nMr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed\nthat the design was offensive and did not believe the architecture was compatible with\nAlameda's vision for a theater design that would be appropriate to the neighborhood. He\nnoted that there was considerable opposition to this design in town, and that it would be a\nfinancial disaster for the City.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 19\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 20, "text": "The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Harryman advised that the Bylaws required that the meeting adjourn at 11:00 p.m.,\nbut that the Board may make a motion to adjourn it at a later time certain.\nMr. Lynch suggested that Items 8-D and 8-E be continued to the next meeting because of\nthe lateness of the hour. He did not believe it would be possible to properly consider both\nitems in a timely fashion.\nM/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to continue the meeting to 11:30 p.m.\nAYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)\nMr. Piziali preferred to have the public comment all at one meeting.\nMs. Eliason noted that Items 8-D and 8-E would be the first items on the next agenda.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about moving forward with this item without a\nfull Board.\nMr. Lynch wished to discuss the issue of eminent domain, and noted that when the\nproperty has not been maintained by the owner, it is incumbent upon the public body to\ndo so. He noted that the question of eminent domain is the right vehicle may be\naddressed, but believed that the suggestion that the City may not exercise it was a gross\noverstatement.\nMs. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, noted that this project had been much\nlarger in its earlier forms, and that it had been downsized considerably. She noted that\nthere had been a lot of discussion about the new theater component at this meeting, and\nemphasized that the idea of the project was to utilize the historic theater in the grandest\nway possible. She noted that it was important to bring as many people into the historic\ntheater as possible; there would be no separate entrance for the new theater. She noted\nthat the concerns about the stadium seating gutting the historic theater; she noted that the\noriginal seating had been gone for some time, and that the theater had other uses for\nmany years, including as a roller rink. She noted that the ceiling would be patched, and\nthat the holes had been made by previous tenants to install lighting. She noted that as\nconceived, parking on the street would be as it is now; it would be free in the evenings,\nand metered during the day. She advised that all of the theater parking would be validated\nby the theater operator, and there should be no concern for incursions into the\nneighborhoods for parking. She noted that the General Plan required that all new\nconstruction in the commercial district be constructed right on the street so that it\nrepeated the same pattern of the historic district. The tools of the General Plan, including\nthe economic development strategy and the Downtown Vision Plan, have been used to\nhelp guide this design.\nMs. Little wished to address the size of the new Cineplex, and the suggested that it be\neliminated to gain more parking. She noted that the new Cineplex structure would be\nonly 35,000 square feet on two stories; the footprint would be 17,000 square feet. Parking\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 20\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 21, "text": "structures require a certain size to be workable, and that 17,000 square feet may\naccommodate 43 extra spaces. The new complex did not sit on a large site. She noted that\nthe operator, Kyle Connor, was not a large corporate entity, and was an independent\noperator; he knows the community and the residents. She noted that this theater never did\nhave the 2,200 seats that had been discussed. She noted that the $25 million price tag\nincluded the $10 million for acquisition and seismic upgrades and stabilization to meet\nCode requirement. Another $10 million of public money would go into the parking\nstructure, which had been identified by PSBA as being a priority for the business\nassociation and downtown. She noted that a shade analysis would be performed; she did\nnot believe it would cast a shadow onto Santa Clara Street because of the location of\nLong's. Staff would follow up on that item at the next meeting. She noted that other retail\nuses, such as restaurants, already provided patrons on the street; those patrons would be\ndrawn to the theater as well. She did not expect the theater to be patronized by all new\npeople, and that there would be some crossover trips.\nMr. Piziali understood that there was concern in the City about this project, but that he\nhad not been approached by anyone who has expressed that opinion. He emphasized that\nthis project has been discussed for five years, starting with the Downtown Visioning\nProcess. He noted that he listened very carefully to people in the City about this and other\nprojects.\nVice President Cook believed it was important to take into account all the comments\nthroughout the process. She noted that she had been Chair of the Visioning Process, was\non the EDC six years ago, and knew how important this project has been over the years to\nenliven downtown. She acknowledged this was not the perfect project on the perfect site.\nShe stated that the people working for the City had the City's best interests in mind. She\nwanted to make it clear throughout the process that full restoration of the historic theater\nhad not been possible, and had stated that on the record in the past.\nMs. McNamara noted that her concerns were regarding the financial nature of the\nrestoration. She noted that the City budget was in a critical state right now, and\nquestioned whether this was the time to spend the money on the restoration of the historic\ntheater.\nMs. Little advised that the project used tax increment dollars, as well as Section 108\ndollars, neither of which can be used to pay for services, salaries, or overhead. She added\nthat they were economic development dollars that were specifically intended to create\nnew revenues in communities. She noted that they could be used in other capital interest\nprojects within a certain period of time, but could not be used for fire, police, or social\nservices.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Ms. Little stated that it was not the case that\nthe only choices were to build a seven-screen theater or to tear it down.\nMs. Little stated that staff went through six public meetings about setting the ultimate\ndesign criteria regarding what would be dealt with, to identify the major issues for\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 21\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 22, "text": "Alameda regarding what this project should or should not do. She noted that was\nperformed before the DDA, and before the City entered into a contractual arrangement.\nVice President Cook stated that the Board was happy that was the sequence of events for\nthis project, and that other projects had a DDA before design discussions took place. She\nnoted that months of design discussions had taken place before the DDA was put in place\nfor this project.\nMr. Lynch requested that staff detail the parameters of the funding mechanism at a future\nmeeting. He noted that some members of the public did not want a garage, and noted that\nwould affect the DDA. He noted that the Planning Board had specific authority, and\ncould not modify the project outside those parameters.\nMr. Piziali noted that it was the City Council's job to decide whether this project was\ndone or not, and that it was not the Planning Board's charge to do SO.\nMs. Eliason advised that the speaker slips would be maintained in the Planning file.\nM/S McNamara /Lynch and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board\nmeeting of June 27, 2005.\nAYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 22\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 23, "text": "8-E.\nUP05-0008/DR05-0028 - Use Permit and Final Design Review of the\nProposed New Civic Center Parking Garage - City of Alameda (DSD).\nConsideration of a Use Permit and Final design review, including consideration of\nSection 106 findings, for a new 352-space parking structure at the corner of Oak\nStreet and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site. This site is\nlocated at 1416 Oak Street within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial\nand Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts.\nM/S McNamara/Lynch and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board\nmeeting of June 27, 2005.\nAYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand)\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC\n(Vice-President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that the final community meeting was held the previous\nweek, at which time the staff presented the preferred development concept, as well as the\nNon-Measure A alternatives to that in greater detail. Staff will work on a final copy of\nthat report, which would be available in several weeks. That report would be the subject\nof hearings with the ARRA Board and the Planning Board over the next 12 to 18 months.\nShe noted that the community hearings had been well-attended.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President\nCook).\nVice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member\nPiziali).\nBoard member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report at this time.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee\n(Board member Mariani).\nBoard member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 23\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-13", "page": 24, "text": "12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:26 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nPaul Benoit, Interim Secretary\nCity Planning Department\nThese minutes were approved at the June 27, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 24\nJune 13, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf"}