{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nJune 27, 2005-7:00 - p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:13 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Lynch, Mariani, and\nPiziali.\nBoard members Kolhstrand and McNamara were absent.\nAlso present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,\nLeslie Little, Development Services Director, Jennifer Ott, Development Manager, Development\nServices Department, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005.\nVice President Cook advised that page 8, paragraph 9, should be changed to read, \"Vice President\nCook advised that periodic review for a variety of parking issues had been attached to use permits in\nthe past.\"\nM/S Piziali/Cook to approve the minutes for the meeting of June 13, 2005, as corrected.\nA quorum for a vote on the minutes was not present. They will be carried over to the next meeting.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cunningham advised that the Board had requested that all Consent Calendar items with the\nexception of Item 7-E, be placed on the regular agenda.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:None.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nPDA05-0003 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant proposes a\nPlanned Development Amendment to amend the Harbor Bay Business Park landscaping and\nlot coverage provisions as established in Resolution 1203. This Amendment would affect\nLots 1-6, 8-12 and14 of Tentative Parcel Map 8574. These lots are fronting on or southerly\nof 1900 and 2000 North Loop Road. The proposed Planned Development Amendment\nwould allow a five percent (5%) increase in building coverage for parcels larger than 5.5\nacres. Currently, maximum allowed building coverage is thirty five percent (35%) for lots\nlarger than 5.5 acres and forty percent (40%) on lots smaller than 5.5 acres. The maximum\nlot coverage allowed on lots smaller than 5.5 acres would not be affected. The proposed\nPlanned Development Amendment would also decrease the minimum landscape coverage by\nfive to ten percent (5 to 10%), depending on lot size. Currently, 30% landscaping coverage\nis required on lots smaller than 5.5 acres and 25% landscaping coverage is required for\nparcels larger than 5.5 acres. The proposed Planned Development Amendment would\ndecrease the landscaping requirement to twenty percent (20%) for these lots regardless of\nsize. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned\nDevelopment.)\nThis item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.\nMr. Garrison summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern\nthat this item would chip away at the rules established for building on Bay Farm Island. He had not\nheard any good reasons for allowing slightly less landscaping or more construction density of\nwarehouse structures on these parcels. He inquired whether further subdivision would then be\nallowed.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Garrison noted that this business park was originally conceived as a campus-like setting with\nlarger office buildings, and some high-rise office buildings as well, with open space between the\nbuildings. He noted that kind of development has not materialized, and the developer found a market\nfor somewhat smaller buildings that focused more on warehousing, distribution and light\nmanufacturing. From their perspective, it was not feasible for convey a larger lot to an individual\nbusiness owner, and then require extensive landscaping. This item was proposed to make things\neconomically feasible for the developer, and to balance that against the public interest.\nMs. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, stated that it was important to note that the\ndeveloper was not just trying to make an economical development, but to respond to a drastic change\nin the office market in the Bay Area. She noted that more density had originally been planned for\nthis park vertically; the floor plate was spread over a greater area, but the buildings would be lower.\nShe added that the applicant overlandscaped in other parts of the park.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 3, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the future possibility of building up, Ms.\nEliason noted that the Final Development Plans would preclude that choice because the applicant\nwould have to meet parking requirements; parking was based on a partial warehouse-type use, which\nwas less dense than office. She noted that the entire lot would have to be redeveloped entirely; they\nwould not be able to just add a second story.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about having a balance in the public interest, including\nsafety for children and traffic. She had been uncomfortable approving these speculative projects\nwithout more information about traffic, parking and other issues. She suggested a potential\nmitigation by allowing 7-B to be approved without also approving all the parcelization and changing\nthe landscaping requirements.\nMs. Eliason noted that the PDA could be limited to only Parcel 14 (Ettore). That would not allow 7-\nC (four flex warehouses) to move forward at this time. The Parcel Map referenced was already\napproved by the Planning Board and will be heard by City Council in July.\nVice President Cook did not feel she had enough information, and needed more environmental\nanalysis and examination of the schools and roads. She believed the business park as a whole was\nexcellent quality.\nMr. Lynch suggested that the 15 parcels be brought back for discussion of circulation, landscaping,\nand building design, and to move the Tentative Map forward.\nMs. Eliason noted that the Tentative Map had been approved, and that the entire business park was\nunder a development agreement, which specified the land uses that may be included in the business\npark. Those uses included Office, R&D, as well as any use in the C-M District, which also included\nwarehouse/light manufacturing. She noted that the Board had limited ability to change the uses.\nVice President Cook would like the parcels, except for Ettore, to return for further analysis and\ndiscussion of compatibility of uses with schools and future plans for the other side of North Loop\nRoad, as well as the impacts associated with trucks and related uses.\nMr. Joe Ernst, applicant, SRM Associates, would like to avoid putting the entire Parcel Map on hold\nbecause portions of that Map would not be affected by the PDA. He noted that transactions were tied\nto those portions that were conforming uses with respect to current development standards.\nM/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-23 to continue\nthis item with the exception of Lot 14.\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 4, "text": "7-B. FDP05-0001/DR05-0050 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates for Ettore Products\n(DG). 2100 North Loop Road. The applicant requests a Final Development Plan and\nDesign Review for a new 88,630 square foot warehouse, office and light manufacturing\nfacility located at 2100 N. Loop Road (Parcel No. 14 on Tentative Parcel Map No 8574).\nThe property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing - Planned Development.)\nThis item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.\nThis item was discussed under Item 7-A.\nM/S Lynch/Mariani and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-24 to approve a\nFinal Development Plan and Design Review for a new 88,630 square foot warehouse, office and\nlight manufacturing facility located at 2100 N. Loop Road (Parcel No. 14 on Tentative Parcel Map\nNo 8574).\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 5, "text": "7-C.\nFDP05-0002/DR05-0057 Applicant: Joe Ernst/SRM Associates (DG). The applicant\nrequests a Final Development Plan and Design Review for four (4) new flex warehouse,\noffice and light manufacturing facilities ranging in size from 13,900 to 33,272 square feet on\n6.41 acres adjacent to and southerly of 2000 North Loop Road (Parcels 8-12 on Tentative\nParcel Map No. 8574). These facilities will be on one lot of approximately 11.53 acres until\nthe final map is approved. The property is zoned C-M - PD (Commercial-Manufacturing- -\nPlanned Development.)\nThis item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.\nThis item was discussed under Item 7-A.\nM/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to continue this item, which will be renoticed following discussion\nwith the applicants.\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 6, "text": "7-D.\nTM05-0001 - Regency Realty Group, Inc. 2599 Blanding Avenue (AT). Applicants\nrequest approval of Parcel Map 8725 to reconfigure four parcels of land at the Bridgeside\nShopping Center. The site is located within the C-2 PD, Central Business Planned\nDevelopment District.\nThis item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.\nMr. Tai summarized the staff report\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the timing of this action, Mr. Tai replied\nthat it was appropriate because before the public access easements can be recorded on the site, the\nparcels must be recorded first. He noted that should not be affected by any change in public access\neasements. Those easements would be recorded by a separate instrument at a later time. The Broadway\nStreet right of way through the site would be permanently abandoned.\nVice President Cook noted that she was concerned about the current proposed location for the\ntransformers in the view corridors and welcoming area.\nMr. Tai noted that staff was reviewing those issues, which were unrelated to this item.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-25 to approve Parcel\nMap 8725 to reconfigure four parcels of land at the Bridgeside Shopping Center.\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 7, "text": "7-E.\nDR04-0051, 616 Pacific Avenue, Applicant: Erwin Roxas (AT/EP). The proposal is an\nappeal of the code enforcement action which determined that the demolition of a single-\nfamily residence, located at the above address, is in violation of the AMC $13-21-10 b\n(removal or demolition of an historic structure without proper permits) and is, therefore,\nsubject to the five (5) year stay that prevents the issuance of any building or construction-\nrelated permits for the property. The applicant had received Major Design Review approval\nin July 2004 for proposed 1st and 2nd story additions, enlargement of the detached garage,\ninterior remodel, porch additions, etc. that would add approximately 1,562 square feet to the\ndwelling and 225 square feet to the garage and storage shed. The property is within the R-4,\nNeighborhood Residential District. (Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.)\nM/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to schedule this item for the City Council.\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 8, "text": "7-F.\nUP05-0012 - Regency Realty Group, Inc. 2523 Blanding Avenue (AT). Applicants request\napproval of an amendment to Use Permit UP03-0016 to allow operation of the Service Station\nbetween the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No changes are proposed to the car wash. The\nsite is located within the C-2 PD, Central Business Planned Development District.\nThis item was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda.\nMr. Tai summarized the staff report. He noted that the extension of hours would apply only to the\nservice station, not the car wash, and added that there would be no alcoholic beverage sales\nassociated with the gas station. Delivery trucks would be prohibited from idling their engines during\ndelivery. Staff recommended approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that a service\nstation was needed, but not on a 24-hour basis. He believed that Bridgeside should be a good\nneighbor to the Fernside homeowners. He would agree to hours from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.\nMr. Rich Bennett, Windsor Drive, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed a 24-hour operation\ncould become an attractive nuisance. He expressed concern about automotive and noise pollution\nfrom cars with loud stereos. He was also concerned about loitering late at night, and did not want\nextra traffic in the neighborhoods at that time of night. He was very concerned about the potential\nfor increased crime.\nMr. Harold MacKenzie, 3263 Thompson Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item and expressed\nconcern about noise, traffic and the potential for increased crime in their neighborhood. He opposed\na 24-hour operation, but would support a moderated schedule. He suggested the use of a sound wall.\nMr. Doug Wiele, applicant, noted that their existing conditions of approval allowed for a 24-hour\noperation for the supermarket, with a limitation on the car wash and gas station. He noted that this\napplication was a request for modification for the operating hours allowed for the gas station. He\nnoted that the notion of a sound wall was interesting, and added that the gas station faced into the\nproject, not out onto the street. He noted that many residential gas stations operated 24 hours a day,\nand because the grocery store was open 24 hours, there would be eyes on the gas station. They\nwould adopt security monitoring, and a teller window would be open for after-hours operation.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Mariani noted that she did not feel comfortable with a 24-hour gas station in this center.\nPresident Cunningham noted that he would not favor a sound wall, but that a landscaped berm might\nwork.\nMr. Piziali noted that he could not support a 24-hour gas station use, and noted that Park Street had\n24-hour gas stations. He did not want homes to view the 24-hour use. He would favor a minor\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 9, "text": "change in hours, such as 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.\nMr. Tai advised that the applicant would be willing to set the hours from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-26 to approve an\namendment to Use Permit UP03-0016 to allow operation of the Service Station between the hours of\n6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. No changes are proposed to the car wash.\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 10, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nDR05-0041 - Final Design Review of the Proposed New Cineplex - City of Alameda\n(CE/JO). Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings for the\nproposed Cineplex at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video\nManiacs site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the C-C and C-C-PD\n(Community Commercial and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts.\n(Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.)\nMs. Ott summarized the staff report. The changes proposed during public and Board comment were:\n1.\nThe dome element was eliminated;\n2.\nThe aluminum system was changed from clear to dark; and\n3.\nThe roof lines were set back as much as possible on the walls closest to the Alameda\nTheater.\nMs. Ott noted that the dome element was eliminated, but that staff recommended that the clear\naluminum system be retained. The project architect was able to set back the corner slightly at the\njoining of the Cineplex and the historic theater. She noted that the architect, Rob Henry, was not able\nto attend this meeting.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Kyle Connor, Alameda Entertainment Associates, displayed the revised plans for the proposed\nCineplex on the overhead screen.\nPresident Cunningham advised that more than five speaker slips had been received.\nM/S Mariani/Piziali and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Wilbur Richards, 2235 Clement Street, spoke in support of this item. He noted that the island\nwould continue to change, and that it could not return to the past. He noted that the parking lot\nwould be difficult to change to another use, and hoped the proper street trees would be chosen.\nMr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He believed this project\nwas too massive for this corner and should be scaled down. He did not believe the Cineplex would\nbe financially viable.\nMs. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She would miss the view\nof the Oakland Hills, and did not want that kind of change in Alameda. She noted that the design in\npeople's environment was very important. She suggested building retail uses and incorporating it\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 11, "text": "into the parking structure. She did not believe the Cineplex would be financially feasible in five\nyears.\nMs. Linda Hansen spoke in opposition to this item, and displayed photographs of the site with\nprojected massing superimposed on the existing site. She noted that while the Twin Towers Church\nis taller than the proposed structure, the massing of the Cineplex overwhelmed them. She suggested\nbuilding an open plaza at the Video Maniacs corner with a two-story retail space and a gathering\nplace. She displayed her sketch, and noted this was more in line with contemporary design theory.\nShe believed this would be more pedestrian-oriented.\nMs. Debbie George, speaking as AN individual, not PSBA, spoke in support of this item. She noted\nthat there had been at least ten public meetings on this subject, and noted that the designers had been\nresponsive to public and Board requests.\nMr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that he was a\nbusiness owner and a member of the Chamber of Commerce. He did not believe this project\nbelonged on this particular corner, and believed that the building was too massive. He noted that\nover 1,500 signatures had been gathered in opposition to this project. He believed that Alameda\ndeserved a better fit than this design, and would like to see alternatives that fit Alameda's character\nbetter.\nMs. Barbara Marchand, spoke in support of this item. She believed that no matter how many\nmeetings are held, that there would not be 100 percent agreement on this project. She believed the\nretail establishments and the people of Alameda would benefit from this project.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue,\nnoted that AAPS has gone on record supporting the project concept, but had some concerns about\nthe design. He read an excerpt of the report (page 9, item 2) written by the consultant, Bruce\nAnderson, expressing concerns about the design, and suggesting that refinements of the design\nshould be made. He believed this report had been glossed over by staff. He displayed an illustration\nof the project, and noted that the transom windows were misaligned.\nMr. Chuck Millar, 2829 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that he has\nbeen very critical of the design from the beginning. He was very concerned that the City would be\nsaddled with a regrettable design. He believed that Bruce Anderson's comments had been treated on\nthe same level as public comment, and added that HAB had been very critical of the design, which\nwas also not apparent. He noted the walls made of precast concrete would be very suitable for Art\nDeco. He strongly urged that more design elements be included in this project so that it would not be\nso plain.\nMs. Holly Rose, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that this project overwhelmed the\nintersection in a claustrophobic manner. She did not like the aesthetics of the building.\nMs. Melody Marr, CEO Chamber of Commerce, noted that the community had been waiting a long\ntime for this theater. She noted that the visitors and tax revenue were needed badly in Alameda,\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 12, "text": "particularly to support police and fire services.\nMr. Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, spoke in support of this item, and believed the parking structure\nwas also necessary to create a viable and vibrant outdoor downtown.\nMs. Deborah Overfield, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she had discussed her\nconcerns with Mayor Johnson. She would like to see a two level parking structure, and only one\nscreen instead of multiple screens. She realized this project had been going on for a long time, but\ndid not believe the current design fit Alameda's character. She was very concerned that the new\nstructure would block the Twin Towers Church, which had just installed new stained glass. She\nbelieved that more people should walk in town and not worry so much about parking. She did not\nlike the design at all.\nMs. Valerie Ruma, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she would speak on Items 8-A\nand 8-B simultaneously. She realized that a lot of work had gone into this project, and believed that\nmany Alameda citizens were not aware of the reality of the designs. She noted that some of the\nrecipients of the RFP were not in an appropriate position to do the work, and was not surprised that\nthere were so few responses. She believed the height of the buildings were excessive, and while they\ndid not exceed the decorative structures of the nearby buildings, the structure did overwhelm the\nmain adjacent structures. She suggested that there be sensitive renovation of the Alameda Theater to\nits original three screens, elimination of the Cineplex building, which would allow for a more\ndistributed parking solution, and public open spaces or smaller scale retail included in the design.\nMs. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, spoke in opposition to this item. She had attended or\nwatched many HAB and Planning Board meetings, and believed that the general public had only\nrecently understood what was happening. She opposed the 20-inch overhang, and to it being SO close\nto the street. She suggested building a big theater in Harbor Bay if the City wanted the revenue. She\ndid not believe the decision must be made at this time, and believed that there was more information\nto be heard.\nMs. Birgitt Evans, 2829 San Jose, spoke in opposition to this item, and complimented staff on\nsummarizing her comments on June 13, 2005. She agreed with Bruce Anderson's Section 106\nreview, as well as HAB's comments on the design of the Cineplex. She noted that four out five\nmembers of the HAB recommended that the architects \"go back to the drawing board.\" She\ncomplimented the project architects on their Deco-style cinema in Livermore, and would like to see\na design like that in Alameda. She particularly liked the strong vertical elements. She noted that\nmost proponents of the Cineplex had a vested financial interest in it. She believed that Alameda\nshould have a better design for such a major project.\nMr. Anders Lee spoke in opposition to this item. He believed this could be a much better design, and\nstated that there was considerable public opposition to this design.\nMr. Vern Marsh spoke in opposition to this item. He did not like the proposed design, and would\nfavor the designs suggested by the other speakers. He would like a smaller-scale theater such as the\nOrinda Theater. He believed the transit congestion on and off the Island would not attract visitors\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 13, "text": "from other communities.\nMr. Don Grappo, spoke in opposition to this item. He did not oppose the concept of a theater and\nparking structure, and did not believe it was a good design. He suggested valet parking, and inquired\nwhether the changing technology of movies would make this theater obsolete. He suggested a\nsmaller and more aesthetically pleasing design.\nMr. Harry Hartman, 1100 Peach Street, spoke in support of this application. He believed the design\nwas a positive compromise, and noted that the City did not have the financial resources to fund an\nelaborate design at this time. He noted that the business district was set up to benefit from a draw\nsuch as this theater. He noted that 352 new spaces in the parking structure would take a lot of\npressure off the downtown streets. He believed the cost-benefit analysis showed clearly that the\nbenefits of the Cineplex far outweighed the detriments.\nRose, P.O. Box 640353, San Francisco, noted that she was an Alameda resident. She supported the\nrestoration of the theater, and believed that this type of theater could be a model for other specialized\nmovie theaters.\nMr. Rudy Rubago spoke in opposition to this item and noted that this was the first time he had seen\nthis design, and inquired about what had happened to the South Shore movie theater. He expressed\nconcern that this theater might not last very long, and what would happen to the building. He did not\nlike the design. He believed the evolving movie technologies for in-home viewing may make\ntheaters obsolete. He inquired whether the owners or employees of this theater live in Alameda. He\nexpressed concern that the money generated from this use would be spent off the Island. He\nexpressed concern about potential crime in the parking structure. He would like to see a cultural\ncenter for the performing arts in Alameda.\nMr. Rich Tester, 2020 Pacific Avenue, noted that he was a Park Street business owner, and spoke in\nopposition to this item. He expressed concern about the size and shading of the structure; he inquired\nabout the shade study. He was concerned that there would be an alleyway feel to the side of the\nparking garage, and noted that there were no businesses on that side. He expressed concern about the\ntraffic congestion on Oak Street, which many people used to traverse Alameda.\nMs. Ott advised that right after the June 13 meeting, staff contacted a firm to do a shading analysis,\nwhich had a two to three week turnaround time. Staff will report on the results of the shade analysis\nwhen it is complete. She noted that the revised HAB minutes were available.\nMs. Pat Pane spoke in opposition to this item, and did not believe the construction of the building in\nthe middle of a historic district was appropriate. She pointed out that the economics of movies was\nchanging, and did not believe that spending money on an outmoded structure and technology would\nbe appropriate. She did not like the design.\nMs. Scott Corkens spoke in opposition to this item, and believed the Cineplex was grossly out of\nscale. He believed this use would spur more development in the district, and would add to traffic\ncongestion. He was very concerned about danger to pedestrians due to increased traffic. He believed\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 14, "text": "this building was grossly out of scale for the street, and did not believe anyone would want to\nrenovate the proposed design in the future.\nMr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, did not understand the pedestrian flow from the parking\ngarage, which forced customers to walk outside before entering the theater. He did not see much\ndetail for the historic theater portion, and would like to see more information. He wished to ensure\nthe historic theater was not dwarfed. He would like to see live performances in that theater, and\nwould like the Planning Board to plan accordingly.\nMr. Robert Gavrich, 1517 Fountain, spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern about\nthe design and the financial details of this project with respect to the developer.\nPresident Cunningham suggested that the financial questions be directed to the City Council, and\nthat the design issues be addressed at this hearing.\nMr. Gavrich noted that the elevation was drawn from a distance of 200 feet, and noted that\nperspective would not be available in reality. He was concerned about the canyon and wind effect on\nthe street, as well as the noise from the cars driving in the parking garage.\nMr. Richard Rutter noted that the staff report for the parking garage stated that the site survey raised\nquestions regarding the property line along Oak Street and the associated width of the public right-\nof-way. He noted that there would be a ripple effect into the right-of-way or the building. He\ncomplimented historical consultant Bruce Anderson on a good and reasoned analysis. He believed\nthe staff report was at odds with his findings. He would be hesitant to support this project at this\npoint before such open issues were resolved.\nMr. Jerrold Connors, 2531 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, but would favor a\nmore modest three-screen theater like Piedmont Cinema or the Grand Lake. He would like a theater\nwith more character befitting Alameda, and believed it should be scaled back.\nMs. Judith Lynch, 1372 Versailles Avenue, noted that she was a member of the HAB but was\nspeaking as an individual. At the June 13 meeting, she had been concerned that the staff report was\nbased on inaccurate HAB minutes. She thanked staff for making those corrections, but believed that\nthe staff report was still inaccurate with respect to Bruce Anderson's comments on page 9. She\ngenerally supported the project, but would like it to look better; she did not believe it was compatible\nor harmonious in its present state. She believed the Art Deco heritage of Alameda should be\ncelebrated in this design. She displayed an example of a Deco theater, and urged the Board to\nconsider changing the design.\nMs. Paula Rainey spoke in opposition to this item and didn't believe this project met the needs of\nAlameda. She believed it was too big, and believed that Ms. Hanson's sketch demonstrated how\ngood design can bring people together.\nMr. Mike Corbitt, Harsch Investments, 523 South Shore Center, spoke in support of this application.\nHe noted that this theater would help stop leakage to Oakland, San Leandro and surrounding\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 15, "text": "communities. He noted this was a catalyst site, and believed the developer was trying to respond to\nthe community's concerns as much as possible. He believed the parking structure was critical to the\nsuccess of downtown businesses.\nMr. Robb Ratto, Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in support of this item. He noted\nthat the Board of Directors voted unanimously in favor of the design, and that the majority of PSBA\nbusiness owners support the design. He noted that this has been a difficult process, and commended\nthe architect for his design and responsiveness to the comments received.\nMr. Frank George, 1419 Park Street, spoke in support of this item. He noted that there was a 10-\nscreen cinema in Twain Harte, a smaller town than Alameda, and that they had no problem filling it.\nHe noted that economic diversity was a critical element of financial success, and that there had been\neight theaters in Alameda that functioned at the same time. He noted that this was a centrally-located\nand oriented parking structure and theater, and that the crossover traffic would benefit the other\nbusinesses. He originally thought the building was too massive, but believed it would be a benefit to\nAlameda.\nMr. Harvey Brook, 2515 Santa Clara Avenue, #208, spoke in support of this application, and noted\nthat he was a Park Street business owner. He was aware of the petitions circulating against the\nproject, with approximately 1,800 signatures, 2.4% of Alameda's 75,000 residents. He noted that\nthere would be impacts on property tax revenues if this project did not go forward. He was very\nconcerned that if this project were to be delayed, the City would no longer be able to afford the\nproject.\nMr. Walt Jacobs, President, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of this item. He\nnoted that this project has been going on for a long time, and that there had been considerable public\ninput. He believed that it was needed to make Alameda more vibrant and attractive to downtown\nbusinesses. He believed the design was acceptable, and complimented staff on incorporating the\nrequested changes.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Cunningham called for a five-minute recess.\nPresident Cunningham thanked the public for its comments, and noted that financial issues were\nwithin the City Council's purview, not the Planning Board's. Because a quorum of four Board\nmembers was required for an up-or-down vote, he requested a straw poll of the Board members to\ndetermine whether they wished to move the discussion forward.\nMr. Lynch noted that a number of different ideas regarding the value and design of this project had\nbeen heard. He was not inclined to deny this project because he believed the City was getting close\nto a workable project. He respected the emotions felt by members of the public, and was ready to\nmove forward with this project. He encouraged Alameda citizens to continue to be involved with the\nprocess.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 16, "text": "Mr. Piziali echoed Mr. Lynch's comment, and added that he was ready to move forward with the\nproject. He supported the project at this point.\nMs. Mariani noted that she rejected the design as it stands, and agreed with the HAB's opinion of\nstarting again with the design.\nVice President Cook noted that she would like to continue the discussion, and added that scale was\none of the fundamental issues she heard from the public. She noted that City Hall, the new Library\nand the Twin Towers church were also large-scale projects. She believed it was time to make a final\ndecision. She noted that someone would probably appeal the decision and to bring it to City\nCouncil, which would open up further dialogue about the details of the project. She strongly\nbelieved that the project should be sent forward with very clear design direction. She would have\nliked to have had the agreement with Long's, allowing a larger site. She encouraged the residents to\nrevisit the Long's issue with City Council.\nPresident Cunningham agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and believed the 106 findings\nshould be reviewed to help improve the project. He believed the design of the project had progressed\nconsiderably, and noted that some projects can take many years to design. He requested staff's\nresponse to the 106 findings.\nMr. Lynch agreed with the speakers who wanted the architect and owner to work with the HAB and\nPSBA to fill in some Art Deco features along the Central Avenue and Oak Street elevation.\nVice President Cook expressed concern about including faux historic elements in the design, which\nmay dilute the genuine historic design. She believed that a theater similar to the Livermore example\nmay overwhelm the historic theater. She believed the architecture should reflect the constant\nevolution of the City.\nMr. Lynch noted that some of the speakers had modified their comments, and he would incorporate\nthat increased acceptance into his decision-making process.\nMr. Piziali would prefer to send the design to City Council with the Planning Board's comments,\nand if the Council wished to redirect it to the Board, that would be fine.\nPresident Cunningham believed the aversion to the blank panels would be a major part of the\nBoard's comments to the Council.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Ms. Eliason confirmed that the HAB has\nalready provided their comments and given a certificate of approval for the historic Alameda\nTheater; that element would not be within the Planning Board's purview.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani, Mr. Lynch replied that the Board did not have the ability\nto scale the project back; the Board may either approve or deny the project.\nMs. Harryman advised that if the Board approved this item, it would only go to Council if someone\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 17, "text": "appealed it. She noted that the Council may send it back to the Board.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding the changed color of the aluminum and\nglass on the upstairs element, President Cunningham replied that he agreed with the HAB's\nrecommendation to use the clear aluminum. He wished to clarify that low-E glazing was available in\nmany tints; the Board would prefer the clear low-E glazing.\nPresident Cunningham noted that with respect to page 3, Item 2.2, regarding the base along the\ntheater, a spandrel would provide a base in accordance with the findings. He would like the wording\nto be modified to provide for a base.\nPresident Cunningham noted that with respect to Item 6, he would not recommend 6-inch aluminum\nclad element depths in the doors; there should not be any recessed openings.\nVice President Cook agreed with President Cunningham's assessment; although historic buildings\nhad an increased depth, the narrowness of the retail spaces would not accommodate that depth; she\nwould prefer that be changed to enliven the retail space. The Board agreed that item would be\ndeleted.\nPresident Cunningham noted that with respect to Items 8 and 9, a professional lighting designer\nshould be employed for the Cineplex, rather than an electric subcontractor. That design and the\nsignage should come back to the Board. Ms. Eliason advised that Condition 4 of the Draft\nResolution already stated that the signage and lighting programs be brought back to the Board.\nVice President Cook liked the addition of the brick veneer, which broke up the larger planes.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the stucco column caps could be eliminated.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether the color of the brick veneer would be\nmonotone or variegated, Ms. Ott replied that it would be variegated.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the sunlight/shading study should be included in the conditions.\nVice President Cook noted that she was not extremely concerned about the shading study, and\nbelieved that the shade should fall on the Long's parking lot; she believed it was important to\nrespond to the public's concerns.\nMs. Eliason noted that because the Cineplex was a permitted use, the Board would not be asked to\nconsider any operational limitations. However, the Board will consider operational limitations for\nthe parking garage.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding how questions and concerns regarding operational\nissues for the theater could be voiced, Ms. Eliason suggested that could be expressed before the City\nCouncil; those concerns will also be reflected in the record.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 17\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 18, "text": "Mr. Lynch noted that after the theater opens, it may be necessary for the police to direct traffic at the\nowner's expense, as they did after the Jack London Square Theater opened.\nMs. Ott noted that there were provisions to handle large crowds for a blockbuster presentation at\nvarious times during the year. There would be some education programs so the public could become\naccustomed to the operation.\nVice President Cook fully agreed with Bike Alameda's comments regarding the bike path on Central\nAvenue, especially with respect to their call to remove the diagonal parking on Central, and having a\nbike lane.\nMs. Eliason noted that City Council had made the commitment to remove the diagonal parking, and\nto have parallel parking and a bike lane in its place.\nVice President Cook was concern about losing the landscaping along the Oak Street fa\u00e7ade; she\nnoted that a landscaping plan would soften the large scale of the building. She would like the\ndetailed landscaping plan to return to the Board, addressing both the Cineplex and the garage. Ms.\nOtt recommended that be conditioned for the garage, because the funding for the landscaping plan is\npart of the garage contract. She noted the project would have to comply with the City's ordinance,\nand that there would be street trees for Oak Street. Central Avenue will have street trees along\nCentral as part of the City's ordinance.\nMr. Lynch noted that he had concerns about the large DBH; he would like to see trees that were tall\nenough to soften the building.\nM/S Piziali/Cook to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-27 to approve the Final design\nreview, including consideration of Section 106 findings for the proposed Cineplex at the corner of\nOak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site, with the following\nmodifications:\n1.\nThe blank panels will be resolved;\n2.\nClear aluminum storefronts will be acceptable;\n3.\nLow-E clear glass will be used;\n4.\nA base for retail spaces will be provided;\n5.\nThere will not be recessed openings on retail spaces;\n6.\nThe lighting plan prepared by a lighting designer will be returned to the Planning\nBoard;\n7.\nThe added brick veneer will be retained;\n8.\nThe brick veneer will be variegated as specified on the material board;\n9.\nThe end caps will be deleted;\n10.\nThe shading study will be returned to the Planning Board if there will be shading on\nSanta Clara; and\n11.\nA sign program will be brought to the Planning Board.\n12.\nThe additional brick detail around the movie poster boxes.\nAYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 18\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 19, "text": "8-B.\nUP05-0008/DR05-0028 - Use Permit and Final Design Review of the Proposed New\nCivic Center Parking Garage - City of Alameda (DSD). Consideration of a Use Permit\nand Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings, for a new 352-\nspace parking structure at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the\nVideo Maniacs site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street within the C-C and C-C-PD\n(Community Commercial and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts.\n(Continued from the meeting of June 13, 2005.)\nM/S Cook/Piziali and unanimous to continue the meeting to 11:30 p.m.\nAYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0\nMs. Ott summarized the staff report.\nM/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, suggested revisiting the idea of removing the garage\nfrom Oak Street to an earlier proposed location behind the Elks' Lodge, which would be a bigger\nsite. He noted that a more efficient garage could be built there, next to a four-lane road. He\nexpressed concern that a six-story garage could invite trouble, and that a smaller garage would\nreduce that risk.\nMs. Melody Marr, CEO, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of this application, and\nnoted that this garage was badly needed in Alameda. She noted that there was no place in Alameda\nwhere people could park for a long time without getting parking tickets.\nMs. Nancy Hird was not in attendance to speak.\nMr. Robb Ratto, Director, PSBA, spoke in support of this application, and noted that their Board of\nDirectors had voted unanimously in favor of this design.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, noted that he was speak as an individual. He\nnoted that the Board requested a design change to include stronger framing around the posters on the\nlower level. He had gotten the impression that the Board wanted some sort of depression in the wall\nso the posters could be inserted in them. He suggested the use of opaque spandrel glass around the\nperimeter, with the movie posters exposed inside. He believed the use of variegated brick on the\nCineplex would be an improvement, and suggested that it be used on the parking garage as well.\nMr. Noel Folsom spoke in opposition to this item. He did not believe this was a true Art Deco\ndesign, and believed that it was too large for the site. He did not like the design of the parking\ngarage.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 19\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 20, "text": "Mr. Harold McKenzie, 3263 Thompson Avenue, spoke in support of this item. He would like the\ngarage to be constructed in such a way that would make it work for the City.\nMr. Eric Strimlin noted that there was an increasing public groundswell against this structure\nbecause of its massiveness. He believed it was out of scale with Alameda, and did not understand\nwhy the size of the garage could not be reduced. He asked the Board to inspire, not to compromise.\nHe expressed concern that this garage could weigh the downtown down, and requested that the\ndesign be reduced.\nMr. Harry Hartman noted that he had a business on Oak Street, and added that parking garages were\nprimarily about functionality. He believed this garage would be an improvement, and that it was not\na nondescript structure. He suggested that some work be done to the panels, or that cornices be\nadded for some visual interest. He believed that if the garage were to be well-designed, the ingress\nand egress would be easy for people.\nMr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Street, noted that he supported the project, but was concerned\nabout its size. He requested information about free parking, and hoped the plans for the garage were\nfiscally sound so that it could be self-sustaining. He suggested that fewer levels would enable to City\nto reach that goal, and that there should be subsidized parking validation for the Cineplex, to be paid\nback by the theater owner. He suggested that there should be parking validation for the library as\nwell. He encouraged monthly parking rental revenue, and some methodology to determine how\nmany people would buy monthly passes for the garage.\nMr. Robert Gavrich, 1517 Fountain, believed this parking garage was not big enough and was\nconcerned that it would be inadequate for evenings when the Cineplex was at capacity. He believed\nthat would be a parking and traffic nightmare, and did not believe the current plan was unworkable.\nHe noted that the City estimated the creation of 300 new jobs, but that many of them would be in\nconstruction. He inquired where the employees would park. He noted that the City was invoking\neminent domain against the owner of the Alameda Theater, and inquired why that could not be\ninvoked against Long's for the portion of their parking lot that would make this garage publicly\nacceptable.\nMs. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun Street, read an excerpt from the Alameda Journal entitled \"More\nParking is Not Always the Answer:\"\n\"Oak Street between Central and Lincoln Avenue should be Alameda's civic center.\nThat was the advice to Mayor Ralph Appezzato from his counterparts in other cities\nand urban design professionals during last week's seminar of the Mayors' Institute\non City Design. The area from historic Alameda High School to the new main library\nto be built at Oak Street and Lincoln Avenue could be a vibrant area that will bring\nresidents together.\n\"Alameda doesn't have the land for a civic plaza, but the City could improvise to get\nthe feeling of an open gathering space into the existing compact area, the group told\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 20\nJune 27, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 21, "text": "Appezzato. Probably the most controversial thing was they strongly recommended\nnot building a parking garage in the Long's lot. Both mayors and design\nprofessionals said that a garage, especially one without retail on the ground level will\ndestroy the Civic Center.'\nMs. Dimusheva did not want to suggest that there be no parking garage, but she requested that the\nBoard to pay attention to the fact that this area is the civic center, which should be designed on open\nspace, not a canyon. She encouraged the addition of retail on the ground level. She read an excerpt\nfrom The Whole Building Design Guide:\n\"Parking has often been reduced to the construction of the most minimal standalone\nstructure or parking lot, without human, aesthetic or integrative considerations. This\nhas given parking a poor public perception, and frequently disturbs or disrupts the\nexisting urban fabric.\n\"However, many architects, engineers and planners have envisioned and constructed\nfar more complex, aesthetic and integrated structures. This should be the goal of\ngood parking design\n\"Aesthetics of garage design has become very important to communities across the\ncountry. Recently, garage design has become part of an architectural style of the\nsurrounding architecture. It becomes part of the architectural style of the surrounding\narchitecture, respecting the language of design and using the design process.\"\nMs. Dimusheva believed that the City did not need a Cineplex, but did need a parking garage. She\nsuggested that the parking garage be built with two or three levels of retail space on the bottom, with\nthe addition of a garden and coffee shops on the top, and a cutout corner for public gathering.\nMr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that he had expected more from the Planning Board with\nrespect to the design of the parking garage and that he usually respected their work. He suggested\nthat people use bicycles for transportation more often, and added that parking structures were not\ngenerally beautiful. He was not sure that this was the right place for the parking garage. He would\nrather see the garage without a Cineplex than a Cineplex without a parking garage. He inquired what\nthe City would do when the parking structure is declared obsolete, perhaps before the bonds were\npaid off. He inquired about the City's exit strategy regarding what would be done with an empty\nCineplex when technology makes it obsolete in the future.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. Leslie Little noted that a number of years ago, a parking assessment was performed in the\ncentral business district in which a number of different locations were analyzed to accommodate\nfuture parking. A number of public lots were examined, but they did not have the dimensions to\naccommodate that use. The three top sites were prioritized, and the site was identified as the single\ngreatest priority; it included the Long's parking lot at the time, which yielded 508 parking spaces.\nShe noted that after 6 p.m., the parking structure would be free. She described the payment method\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 21\nJune 27, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 22, "text": "proposed for the garage. She noted that it would not staff-intensive, and that there would be no pay\ngate to queue up for at the end of the evening.\nVice President Cook noted that there had been more opposition to the theater than the garage, and\nadded that the Board listened carefully to each public speaker. She noted that some items had been\naddressed previously, such as retail on the ground floor.\nMr. Piziali supported the use of variegated brick to add more detail to the fa\u00e7ade.\nMs. Ott noted that Michael Stanton believed that the symmetry of the pattern with respect to the\nhorizontal openings would look better with a more subtle brick design.\nPresident Cunningham believed that the header courses should be fixed, and he was very concerned\nabout the current brick detail design.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Ott confirmed that one of the criteria was that the\nexterior fa\u00e7ade would be consistent with whatever the Planning Board approves. She noted that\nMichael Stanton specified the quality of the materials in a very detailed way, based on the sample\nboard provided.\nVice President Cook noted that the DDA discussed the City's parking operations plan, which would\nbe submitted in a timely manner and examined in detail by the City Council.\nPresident Cunningham addressed Mr. Spangler's comment regarding an exit strategy, and noted that\nthere was no way to tell what would happen in the future. He believed the floor-to-floor heights\ncould be adjusted, and that the conversion of a parking garage was problematic. He noted that\ndesigning structures with an eye towards adaptive reuse before the intended use has begun will\ncompromise the project from the beginning. He hoped that Park Street business would require this\nvolume of parking.\nVice President Cook believed that without the Cineplex, this parking structure would appear too\nmassive on its own.\nMr. Lynch requested the inclusion of the financials at the next presentation. He suggested that with\nthe recent Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain, that the City Council and City\nAttorney provide information with respect to potential litigation.\nMs. Mariani noted that she agreed with the modifications suggested by the Board. She did not agree\nwith the scale of the parking garage, and agreed that the City needed parking.\nM/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-28 to approve a\nUse Permit and Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings, for a new 352-\nspace parking structure at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video\nManiacs site, with the following modifications:\n1.\nThe size of the poster boxes would be enhanced with contrasting brick detail and\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 22\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 23, "text": "accents;\n2.\nThe header courses would be corrected;\n3.\nA lighting consultant would be utilized;\n4.\nA landscaping plan would be included, and returned to the Planning Board.\nAYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN -\n0\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nPresident Cunningham advised that a letter from Sarah [Unavolta], commenting that she was not in\nfavor of Item 8-A.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice\nPresident Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that their last meeting was held the previous week. Staff will make a\npresentation before the Planning Board to discuss the future of the project, and what kind of regular\nreview the Board would like.\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 Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nBoard Member Mariani advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Eliason advised that the preliminary concept for Alameda Point was distributed to the Board\nmembers. There will be a meeting on that subject in July.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:25 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nPaul Benoit, Interim Secretary\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 23\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-06-27", "page": 24, "text": "Planning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the July 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio\nand video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 24\nJune 27, , 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf"}