{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-29", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting\nThursday, September 29, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMr. Piziali\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Lynch, Mariani,\nMcNamara, and Piziali.\nMs. Kohlstrand was absent.\nAlso present were Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman,\nDevelopment Services Director Leslie Little, Public Works Director Matt Naclerio, Bruce Knopf,\nJennifer Ott and Dorene Soto all of Development Services, Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson.\n4.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Irene Dieter wished to discuss parking in the downtown area, and noted that consultants were\nhired by the City to study a parking structure. She recounted the background of that study, and stated\nthat the Elks Lodge was the first choice for a site, followed by Long's Drugs. After the Long's deal\nfell through, the City did not reinvestigate the Elk's site but instead chose to develop a parking\ngarage, which she did not believe was the best land use in the downtown area. She believed this\ngarage promoted parking in the garage, seeing the movie and driving away. She would like to\nencourage walking through the neighborhood by using smaller parking lots, dispersed through the\nCity. She believed that shared parking would be economical, and listed several sites. She identified\n265 spaces that were not used in the evening hours, and encouraged the City to approach those\ncompanies. She requested that the Planning Board to encourage the City to vacate its Negative\nDeclaration and reconsider dispersed parking.\nMr. Richard Bangert noted that he was not a critic of the theater project, but would like to obtain\nmore facts from the City; his concern was growing due to the lack of facts. Midway through the\ndevelopment process, the theater and garage projects had combined into one project and that he had\nnot seen any public notice stating they had combined. He believed that contributed to the level of\npublic controversy.\nMs. Victoria Ashley strongly objected to the theater project, and added that she had degrees in\narchitecture and psychology. She believed there was a social impact of this project on the\ncommunity. She was disappointed with the last several meetings, and that of 70 people, there was an\napproximately five-to-one ratio of speakers opposed to the project. She believed their opinions had\nbeen ignored.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nSeptember 29, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-29", "page": 2, "text": "Ms. Alice Ray and her husband Lew Brentano spoke on child safety and the importance of not\nbuilding the parking structure to breed criminal activity towards and by children. She implored the\nBoard to look at solutions to keep children safe to help the community.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nSeptember 29, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-29", "page": 3, "text": "6.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n6-A.\nUP05-0018 - Kyle Conner/Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P. - 2305, 2317\nCentral Avenue (JO). The applicant requests a Use Permit approval for the following: 1)\nmulti-screen theatre, live theatre, and public assembly use in the C-C T district pursuant to\nAMC Subsection 30-4.22; b) fifty-eight (58') foot building height for the Cineplex pursuant\nto AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.g.2; and c) extended hours of operation until 3:00 AM for the\ntheatre pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.c.1( for occasional special events and\nscreenings. The site is located within the Park Street C-C T, Community Commercial\nTheatre Combining District.\nMs. Eliason summarized this staff report.\nMr. Kyle Conner, developer, gave a presentation. He was aware of the public feedback, and stated\nthat he was willing to make changes in order to get the Use Permit approved, including retracting the\ngame room. He noted that he requested the extended hours in order to play blockbuster films such as\n\"Star Wars\" to be screened at 12:01 AM according to the licensing agreements.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the average number of blockbuster films\nreleased each year, Mr. Conner replied that there may be 15-18 blockbusters this year. On average,\nthere may be 15-30 films with licensing agreements that would allow a 12:01 showing.\nM/S McNamara/Cook and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nAYES - 6 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Linda Hansen, 1816 Wood Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She suggested that story\npoles be erected to show the size of this building. She displayed pictures on the overhead screen to\nillustrate the views that would no longer be visible if the building were to be constructed. She\nbelieved the 58-foot height limit was excessive.\nMr. Karva Sales, 1719 Pacific Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He agreed with Ms.\nHansen's opinion of the garage's appearance and believed that it was out of character with the rest of\nthe neighborhood. He agreed that dispersed parking would be a good idea.\nMr. Rick Tabor, 1821 Santa Clara Avenue, spoke in support of this application. He believed this was\na good use for an underused site, and added that he was associated with the Alameda Civic Light\nOpera, which has a youth internship program. He was offended by the previous speaker's statement\nthat the parking garage would invite gang rapes. He believed that with the proper judgment in\nfinding appropriate and rewarding youth activities, this project would be a positive influence.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nSeptember 29, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-29", "page": 4, "text": "suggested restoring the theater to only three screens.\nMs. Kristi Koenen, 1360 Pearl Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed the proposed\nCineplex would overwhelm the parking garage capacity, and cited the parking study that projects the\ngarage capacity being up to 200 spaces short of satisfying peak demand. She noted that the study\nrecommended parking capacity of 450-550 spaces, and expressed concern about a parking nightmare\nduring blockbuster openings. She believed the planned parking capacity would violate the Alameda\nMunicipal Code, and urged the matter to be sent back to the City Council.\nMr. Dick Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that he submitted\na letter to the Board, and that he had no objections to Item A, proposing a Cineplex on the site.\nRegarding Item C, extended hours of operation, he understood the applicant's reasoning for the\nextension. He understood the game room had been pulled from the Use Permit. Regarding Item B\n(height and bulk considerations), he believed the building height should be dropped as it gets farther\naway from Park Street. He noted there was a legal loophole for height limits for the parking\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nSeptember 29, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-29", "page": 5, "text": "structures, and that they were not as stringent. He believed the 40-foot height limit on this parcel was\njustified. He believed the height and bulk restrictions were being ignored on the Oak Street side.\nMs. Jasmine Tokuda was called to speak, but was not in attendance.\nMr. Ron Schaeffer was called to speak, but was not in attendance.\nMs. Hanna Fry, 1507-A Chestnut Street, spoke in support of this application, and believed it would\nbe beneficial to Alameda.\nMr. Court Summerfield, 1507 Park Street, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he was\na merchant on Park Street and would be happy to see additional parking in the district.\nMs. Jan Schaeffer, 1184 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that she had\npreviously been the Director of Theater Operations for Alan Michaan's Renaissance Rialto Theaters.\nShe disagreed with those who believed that a smaller house would not be financially feasible, and\nnoted that the Grand Lake Theater, a four-screen house, was very successful because of low\noverhead and a quality project. She noted that people traveled long distances to attend that theater,\nand believed that a scaled-down theater could be successful without eight screens. She urged the\napplicant to restore the interior of the theater.\nMs. Pat Payne, 2121 Alameda Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that the\nsurrounding neighborhoods were already short of parking, and did not believe the City needed this\ntheater.\nMr. Vern Marsh, P.O. Box 800, spoke in opposition to this item. He did not believe the cineplex\nshould be built at all. He believed that a majority of people did not want it, and that the Planning\nBoard and the City Council passed the project through despite their wishes.\nMr. Anders Lee, PO Box 800, spoke in opposition to this item, and was concerned about the series\nof events that led to this meeting. He believed the building was too massive for Alameda. He\nbelieved the parking demand would exceed the capacity.\nMs. Carol Fairweather, 920 Walnut Street, spoke in support of this application. She noted that she\nand her husband would be able to walk to the theater.\nMs. Pauline Kelley, 1121 Sherman Street, spoke in support of this application. She did not wish to\ngo out of town to attend movies.\nMr. Frank George, 2600 Otis Drive, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he was a Park\nStreet merchant and a member of Property Owners on Park Street (POPS), which had approximately\n100 members. He noted that there were approximately 400 merchants on Park Street, and has spoken\nwith many merchants who strongly supported this project.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nSeptember 29, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-29", "page": 6, "text": "Ms. Debbie George, 2600 Otis Drive, spoke in support of this application. She noted that the current\nAlameda Theater was 58 feet height, and that this project would balance that building out with a 58-\nfoot building. She noted that the developer would allow the community to use the theater 12 days a\nyear for community events, and looked forward to those events.\nMs. Irene Dieter spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this project ran counter to the\nDowntown Visioning process, and added that the theater restoration and parking garage had been on\nseparate tracks until summer 2004. Following the demise of the Long's deal, they coalesced into one\nproject, and she did not believe there was any publicity in the local newspaper for the November\n2004 scoping meeting. She expressed concern that the balcony will not show movies, and asked why\nit was not included. She was concerned that if the developer backed out of the deal, the theater may\nnever be restored. She encouraged the Board to maintain the goal of a fully restored theater. She\nbelieved that full restoration should be a requirement, not an option.\nMr. Robert Gavrich, Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda, 1517 Fountain Street, spoke in\nopposition to this item. He opposed the height and the extension of the hours. He expressed concern\nthat the theater attendance would overwhelm the parking capacity, and noted that this ran contrary to\nthe City Ordinance requiring that parking is sufficient for the use. He believed that the proposed\nproject, regardless of height, violated Standard 9 of the Secretary of Interior's standards for\nrehabilitation according to the City's hired consultant, Robert Bruce Anderson. He quoted Tony's\nDaysog's concerns about financial feasibility vis-\u00e0-vis incoming revenue.\nMs. Deborah Overfield spoke in opposition to this item, and was concerned that the Planning Board\nhad already made up its mind regarding this project. She believed the mix of apartments around the\ntheater was tacky. She did not believe a six-level parking structure on this site was a good idea, and\nthat it did not comply with the Alameda Municipal Code.\nMs. Sally Rudloff, 1828 Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of this application. She believed it would\nbe a good diversion for the youth of Alameda.\nMs. Judith Altschuler, 3015 Bayview Drive, spoke in support of this application. She noted that the\nCity had worked on this project since 1994 with a considerable amount of public speaking and\noutreach. She noted that the cineplex carried all the ADA requirements for the Alameda Theater. She\nbelieved the restoration of the Alameda Theater would be more magnificent and significant because\nof that; any intrusion of an elevator would diminish the restoration of the theater. She noted that\nsome speakers had referred to the theater as a fa\u00e7ade, and she did not recall that on the plans at all;\nthe Alameda Theater would be a fully integrated part of the project, and the main lobby would be the\nlobby for the entire theater.\nMr. John Rossilon, 1525 Park, spoke in support of this application. He did not believe there would\nbe investors for two movie theaters, and added that it would not be reasonable to put kids on a bus to\nJack London Square. He strongly believed that kids and families should have a theater on the Island\nthey can attend easily.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nSeptember 29, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-29", "page": 7, "text": "Mr. Dwayne Watson spoke in support of this item, and echoed Mr. Rossilon's comments. He noted\nthat he had worked on the Parking Committee, and believed this was the best arrangement that was\nfeasible. He believed the design for the two theaters was fantastic, and that it had been falling apart\nfor years.\nMs. Ani Dimusheva, 2911 Calhoun, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed it was contrary to\nthe City's General Plan because it did not fit into Alameda's small-town character. She believed the\nCity's historic architecture should be preserved. She urged the City to start again with the design.\nMs. Michelle Misino deLuca, 1506 Lincoln Avenue, spoke in support of this item. She disagreed\nwith the characterization of this project as a megaplex, and supported the benefit to Park Street\nbusinesses. She said it would be a good source of revenue to the City.\nMs. Monica Pena, 1361 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed the 3 AM\nclosing time would be a safety hazard, both on the streets and in the parking garage; it would also\nplace a burden on the City's law enforcement officers. She expressed concern that Board member\nPiziali had signed and circulated a pro-theater petition.\nMr. Harvey Brook spoke in support of this item, and noted that he was a consultant who worked\nwith other theater restorations in the state. He disagreed with the opponents' assessment of the\nparking capacity, and noted that there were approximately 578 spaces available, which would be\nsufficient for a busy Saturday night.\nMs. Pamela McBride, 909 Shorepoint Court, indicated she was in favor of this project but was not in\nattendance to speak.\nMr. Gail Wertzork, 3452 Capella Lane, spoke in support of this item. He believed this was a\nmarquee project for the City, and noted that he had been involved with this project since its\ninception. He had spoken to many small business owners surrounding Park Street whose customers\nhad a difficult time finding a place to park. He believed the parking garage would be a benefit to the\nCity.\nMr. Fritz Mayer, 146 Purcell Drive, spoke in support of this item, and believed it would be critical to\nthe vibrance of the City. He read into the record a letter from Walt Jacobs, president of the Chamber\nof Commerce.\nMs. Kathy Shaughnessy, 619 Willow Street, spoke in support of the Use Permit and the extended\nhours of operation.\nMs. Barbara Marchand, Marchand and Associates, 1212 Regent Street, spoke in support of this item,\nand believed that it would help the City's economic condition.\nMr. Blake Brydon, 1033 Camino del Valle, spoke in support of this item. He supported the multiple\nscreens, height requirements and the extended hours of operation for occasional special events and\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nSeptember 29, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-29", "page": 8, "text": "screenings. He believed the multiple screen configuration was the only way to make the theater\nfinancially feasible. He did not believe the height was out of scale to other, taller nearby structures.\nHe believed the extended hours of operation would be appropriate for special releases or community\nevents.\nMr. Harry Hartman, 1100 Peach Street, spoke in support of this item. He agreed there would be\nsome mitigation with this project, and believed the quality of life in Alameda would be enhanced by\nthis theater.\nMr. Robert McKean, 46 Steuben Bay, spoke in support of this item, and noted that he had published\nAlameda Magazine for the past four years. He believed this project would be an enhancement to\nAlameda.\nMs. Angela Lazear, President of Board of Directors, Alameda Civic Light Opera, spoke in support\nof this item.\nMr. Burny Matthews, 556 Kines Road, spoke in support of this item. He believed that the City\nshould be run like a business to enhance the use of the retail tax revenue to benefit the City as a\nwhole. He noted that well-staffed police and fire departments, and other staff positions are\ndependent on tax revenue. He believed that visitors would be drawn to the theater, which is located\nin a safe community. With respect to the concerns about crime connected with the theater, he noted\nthat the Alameda Police Department can handle any crowd situation generated by the theater.\nMs. Doree Miles spoke in support of this item, and noted that she has always wanted to walk to a\nrestored Alameda Theater. She believed this project can make that dream come true, and believed\nthe design would blend well with the historic theater.\nMs. Jackie Green, 1109 Park Avenue, indicated she was in favor of this project, but was not in\nattendance to speak.\nMs. Kathleen Woulfe, 3208 Monte Vista Avenue, spoke in support of this item. She looked forward\nto walking to the theater, having dinner and attending a movie.\nMr. Lars Hansson, PSBA President, spoke in support of this item and noted that PSBA completely\nsupported this project. He believed the restoration of the theater and use of the theater for first-run\nmovies was a worthy goal. He recalled the closure of the Lafayette Theater and the impending\nclosure of the Orinda Theater, and emphasized that financial feasibility was essential for its long-\nterm success. He believed it would act as an economic catalyst for downtown Alameda.\nMs. Janice Gatewood, 2029 Alameda Avenue, spoke in support of this item. She believed that the\nyoung people of Alameda would benefit from this project, including employment. She recently\nmoved from Southern California, and looked forward to attending a movie with her granddaughter in\ntown.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nSeptember 29, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-29", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Lew Brentano expressed concern about the business plan of the development, which had not\nbeen revised since 2003 to reflect current trends in the movie industry. He did not have any\nproblems with an elevator in the historic theater, and noted that would prevent him from attending\nthe restored theater. He encouraged the Planning Board to reject this Use Permit because the current\nADA plans did not meet the spirit of the ADA.\nMr. Daniel Pollart, 127 Capetown Drive, indicated he was in favor of this project but was not in\nattendance to speak.\nMs. Debbie Pollart, 127 Capetown Drive, spoke in support of this item. She noted that she had been\na planning professional for 20 years, and generally had to travel outside Alameda to attend a movie.\nShe supported the extended hours and height limit, and noted that the theater could bring social and\neconomic benefits to the community. She believed this building was in context with its surroundings\nwith a cohesive visual pattern and sense of place. She supported the limited late-night showings,\nallowing City oversight. She noted that if the applicant did not comply with the conditions of\napproval, or unforeseen problems arise later, the City always has the option of reviewing the Use\nPermit, and either adding additional conditions of approval or revoking it. She agreed with the\nwithdrawal of the video game component, and that in the city where she works, that is a constant\nenforcement issue with respect to loitering regulations.\nMr. Bruce Reeves, 2527 Santa Clara, spoke in support of this item, and noted that he was the past\nchair of the Housing Commission and currently on the Recreation and Parks Commission. He noted\nthat the Board had the benefit of 27 years of meetings, consultant reports and other information\nregarding this project. He believed that this was the best alternative for the crumbling theater.\nMs. Pat Colburn, 1340 Park Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she was the\nfounder and former president of the Alameda Arts Center. She believed the current project was out\nof scale in Alameda, and hoped the City would consider the installation of solar panels on the roof of\nthe building.\nPresident Cunningham called for a ten-minute recess.\nMs. Minnie Patino, 1513 Paris Street, Alameda Taqueria, indicated she was in favor of this project\nbut was not in attendance to speak.\nMr. John Grigsby, 1566 Pacific Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and drew a parallel\nbetween the theater complex project in San Jose and this project. He noted that the San Jose theater\nclosed down four years later, and inquired why City money was needed if it was a good economic\nidea. He urged the Board to reject the Use Permit and the subsidy.\nMs. Dawna Dondell, 960 Shorepoint Court, indicated she was in favor of this project but was not in\nattendance to speak.\nMr. John Jacobs, 2130 Otis Drive, did want wish to speak, but indicated his support of this item.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nSeptember 29, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-29", "page": 10, "text": "Ms. Ana Rojas, 1129B Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and recalled the last City\nCouncil hearing of this item. She did not wish the small-town character of Alameda to drastically\nchange with the addition of a Cineplex and parking garage. She noted that the view of the Twin\nTowers Church would be lost. She expressed concern that this would be a white elephant.\nMr. Douglas Mitchell, 2922 Gibbons Drive, indicated he was in favor of this project but was not in\nattendance to speak.\nMs. Abigail Wagg spoke in support of this item, and noted that she was a Park Street merchant. She\nrecalled the small downtown theaters in Sacramento during her youth, and would like to see a\nsimilar small-town community unifier in Alameda. She believed that theaters were an asset to any\ncommunity, and would be a good tax benefit to the city. She did not wish to go off the Island to\nattend a movie.\nMr. Mel Waldorf, 1715 Otis Drive, spoke in support of this item. He noted that he had to work\noutside the city, and would like to attend a movie with his family in town. He noted that there were\nmany busy families in Alameda who supported this project.\nMr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item. He wished to protect\nthe small-town qualities of Alameda, and would like to see a three-screen theater. He did not believe\nthis theater would generate revenues for the City, and that it would lose its historic status as a\nbuilding.\nMs. Susan Battaglia, 1351 Burbank Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She did not agree with\nthe height of the building, and was concerned that if the theater failed, the garage would turn into a\nskateboard park. She would like to see a three-screen theater instead. She did not agree with the\nproposed site, and suggested that Harbor Bay Parkway would be a better site.\nMs. Rosemary McNally, 2145 San Antonio, spoke in opposition to this item. She recalled seeing the\nmassing model and was immediately concerned with the mass of the building. She was pleased that\nthe game room had been deleted, and hoped that it was not reintroduced. She was concerned that the\nvideo game idea was introduced at the last minute, and that a late-night permit 45 nights a year\nwould invite customers from off the Island, contrary to the developer's letter to the newspaper. She\ndid not believe this use would be compatible with the General Plan.\nMs. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She noted that this was not\nthe result of a unanimous agreement of the Visioning process. She preferred to the see the complete\nrestoration of the historic theater without a Cineplex. She noted that the movie business was\ndeclining already, and would rather see a smaller, three-screen theater.\nMr. Joe Cloren, 1245 Tahiti, spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that Alameda was a unique\ncity, and did not want to add more cars to the traffic mix. He was concerned about the impact on\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nSeptember 29, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-29", "page": 11, "text": "traffic if there was a fire, or even if the drawbridge went up with an extra 500 cars on the street. He\nexpressed concern about emergency vehicle access in such an event.\nMs. Karen Bay, 2911 Santa Clara, spoke in support of this item, and noted that she had taken part in\nthe Downtown Visioning process.\nMr. Jim Strehlow, 3122 Gibbons Drive, spoke in support of this item, and noted that he frequently\nwalked and biked within Alameda. He recommended that a projectionist technician be required to be\navailable within 15 minutes of a failure. He suggested that a website complaint number within an\nonsite kiosk be available for feedback. He would like to see the number of days with allowable after-\nhours operation reduced from 45 to 24 days.\nMs. Reyla Graber, 3120 La Cresla Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this project\nwas wrong for Alameda, and added that the scale of the garage and footprint of the project was too\nlarge. She was not confident of this use of public funds, and did not agree with the 3 AM extension\nof hours. She would not like to see the developer return with a request for a game room and for 15\nscreens. She noted that the Marina Theater was being restored in San Francisco, and suggested that\nbe a model for Alameda.\nMr. Douglas Mitchell submitted a speaker slip, but was not in attendance to speak.\nMs. Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, 1416 Park Street, spoke in support of this item\non behalf of the Board of Directors. She asked that the 45 days of extended hours be reduced to 24\ndays. She supported the live theater proposal, and did not want to see dollars leaving Alameda for\nmovies and associated activities. She read the following names of members who supported this\nproject, but could not attend: Debbie McBride, Barbara Johnson, Allison Bliss, Pamela\nChristiansen, Cathy Leong, Kevin Leong, Kathy Moehring, Terrence Brewer, Cathy Brewer, Chuck\nBianchi, Julia Park, Lorre Zuppan, Josh Lipps, Jennifer George, Renee Tripprudeen of 3235 Central\nAvenue.\nMr. Bill Smith, PO Box 2009, spoke in opposition to this item and expressed concern about parking\nand traffic congestion.\nMs. Norma Henning, 1361 Park Street, spoke in support of this item and noted that she was a Park\nStreet merchant.\nMs. Lorna Dowell submitted a speaker slip but was not in attendance to speak.\nMr. Harry Singh, 12 Shepardson Lane, spoke in support of this item, and noted that he would like to\nkeep his dollars on the Island.\nMs. Lisa Jasper submitted, 117 Chinaberry Lane, a speaker slip but was not in attendance to speak.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nSeptember 29, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-29", "page": 12, "text": "Ms. Jasmine Tokuda, 867 Cedar Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She would support a\nsmaller-scale theater similar to the Grand Avenue Theater in Oakland. She noted that market\nchanges in the oil and the movie businesses may not point to off-Island business coming to this\ntheater. She believed the size of this project would be an issue following those changes.\nMr. Elijah Moore noted that he had been a resident of Oakland and Alameda, and had been stationed\nat the Coast Guard base.\nMr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item and believed there were\nmany flaws in this project. He encouraged the Board to present their opinions frankly and clearly.\nHe believed the business owners were presenting their support of this project in an emotional\nframework, and would like to see a logical presentation. He encouraged the widening of Oak Street,\nand suggested that the Elks Lodge location would be a better location for the parking garage.\nMs. Alice Ray, 2808 Bayview Drive, believed there could be a solution to bring the community\ntogether to meet the goals of community safety and keeping Alameda dollars on the Island.\nMr. Ivan Rudenko, 727 Haight Avenue, #7, submitted a speaker slip in opposition to this item but\nwas not in attendance to speak.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nVice President Cook proposed that the Board discuss each issue separately.\nMs. McNamara requested that the developer address the live theater portion of the project, and\nadded that she supported a live theater component. Mr. Conner explained the alterations that would\ntake place to accommodate live performances, and added that he planned to return the auditorium to\nits original condition.\nMs. Ott noted that the old orchestra pit was not standard in a movie theater, but that it could be used.\nIn response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani's regarding the balcony, Ms. Ott noted that there were no\nseats in the first balcony at this time, and that the second balcony had already been compromised and\nturned into two additional theaters. The old theatre walls would be demolished per Building Code\nrequirements, but may be rebuilt some time in the future.\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the renovation cost, Ms. Ott advised that it was\nprojected to cost $9.6 million.\nRegarding Item A, Vice President Cook believed that this use was consistent with the General Plan's\ngoal of revitalizing the downtown district, as well as the Downtown Visioning process. She believed\nthis use was consistent with the General Plan, and would be adequately served by the City's\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nSeptember 29, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-29", "page": 13, "text": "transportation system. She believed the traffic impact would be staggered because of the theater\nshow times, and did not believe there would be 500 cars pouring in simultaneously.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook regarding ADA access, Ms. Eliason replied that\nthe historic theater restrooms would not be ADA accessible, and that the new theater would be fully\naccessible. The movie theater itself would be accessible and ADA compliant. The women's restroom\nin the historic theater would be able to accommodate a handicapped stall, but the men's room would\nnot. There would also be a unisex bathroom on the first floor.\nMr. Lynch noted that the suppositions put forth by some speakers opposing the project that this\nproject was not legally consistent with the General Plan were incorrect. He noted that the General\nPlan was a statement of goals and policies, but in order for the Board to take an affirmative action,\nthere must be findings created. He believed there was consistency, and that the findings may be\nmade to support those policies and goals.\nMr. Piziali agreed with the comments made by Vice President Cook and Mr. Lynch.\nPresident Cunningham agreed with Vice President Cook's statements. He believed the new theater\nwould revitalize the historic theater and conformed with uses elsewhere in the district.\nRegarding Item B (Extended Hours of Operation), President Cunningham inquired about the criteria\nand plans for blockbuster showings. Mr. Conner noted that there were many factors involved,\nincluding staggering show times to minimize traffic congestion occurring at one time. He added that\nwas also the benefit of having multiple screens. He added that the historic theater would be the\ncatalyst for those showings, unless it was a major blockbuster release such as \"Star Wars.\"\nIn response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch whether he would agree with a condition that only the\nblockbuster releases be shown at 12:01 AM, Mr. Conner replied that would be limiting, but it would\nbe acceptable to him.\nMr. Piziali expressed concern about police coverage when a show lets out at 3 AM, and inquired\nwhether the Police Department had weighed in on this issue. He believed that extra staffing should\nbe borne by the theater.\nMs. Eliason noted that no comment had been received by the Police Department, but that the Use\nPermit could be conditioned so that the applicant paid for extra police services.\nMs. McNamara inquired about queuing control in the event of a major blockbuster, and did not want\npeople camping out for tickets days in advance. Ms. Eliason advised that the operator must provide a\nqueuing plan, including provisions for crowd control and police coverage.\nMr. Piziali believed there were City ordinances against camping overnight.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nSeptember 29, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-29", "page": 14, "text": "Vice President Cook noted that she often bought her tickets online in order to avoid long lines. She\nsuggested that camping be restricted.\nMr. Lynch acknowledged that people may line up for tickets at 10 AM, but opposed people sleeping\nover in front of the theater. He suggested that the applicant hire a private security guard for such\nevents.\nPresident Cunningham noted that St. Joseph's was required to hire private security to monitor excess\nparking for special events.\nMr. Piziali wished to ensure that there was no additional taxpayer expense on police services for\nsuch an event.\nVice President Cook suggested the following language: \"The queuing plan shall be viewed by the\nPublic Works Director, Planning & Building Director and the Chief of Police, and shall specifically\naddress overnight queuing, and the cost of extra police services, if and when necessary, shall be\nborne by the applicant.\"\nMr. Lynch and President Cunningham agreed with that language.\nMs. Mariani inquired about inside and outside surveillance, and the specifics of the security.\nMs. McNamara believed that 10 extended hour events per year would be sufficient, and added that\nafter the first night, it was no longer a special event for a blockbuster movie. She was also concerned\nabout the impact on the neighborhoods by attendees leaving the late movies at 3 AM\nVice President Cook noted that if the 10 days per year went well, the Board could consider adding\nmore dates.\nMr. Lynch suggested reviewing the extended hours every six months, rather than projecting a\nnegative.\nVice President Cook suggested making that interval slightly longer to accommodate a learning\ncurve, but supported the general idea. She suggested 24 events in a year, and reviewing the extended\nhours after a year.\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.\nAYES - 6 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nVice President Cook believed it would be useful to cap the number of theaters being used on a late-\nnight showing.\nPresident Cunningham did not want to place unreasonable economic restrictions on the applicant.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nSeptember 29, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-29", "page": 15, "text": "Mr. Conner suggested using only the ground level theaters on those evenings. He noted that there\nmay be 400-500 people on a very full night.\nMr. Lynch would like specific information on impacts on public services.\nRegarding Item C (Building Height), Vice President Cook noted that had always been her greatest\nconcern. She had preferred the Long's parking lot project, but that project did not go forward. She\nnoted that there were not many opportunities for the City to find a developer willing to take on such\na project. She noted that public funds were often used for projects with a public benefit. She was\nwilling to strike a balance and approve the height limit.\nMs. Mariani had no comment on this item.\nMr. Lynch noted that the cost of a project was the overall driving factor for this project, and\nappreciated and respected the passion of the public speakers. He noted that $10 million of debt to\nrestore this building must be offset by revenue generated by the business. He was comfortable with\nthe discussion regarding the design and operations, and added that the financial aspect of this project\nwas the driving factor for him. He noted that a three-screen theater cannot satisfy a $10 million debt.\nMr. Piziali agreed with Mr. Lynch's comments, and noted that this project was necessary to support\nthe restoration.\nMs. Mariani noted that she would like to see a movie theater in Alameda, and added that she would\nprefer the three or four-screen idea.\nM/S Cook/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-41 to approve a Use Permit\napproval for the following: a) multi-screen theatre, live theatre, and public assembly use in the C-C\nT district pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.22; b) fifty eight (58') foot building height for the\nCineplex pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.g.2; and c) extended hours of operation until 3:00\nAM for the theatre pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.c.1 (a) for occasional special events and\nscreenings. The following modifications will be added:\n1. Additional queuing shall be specifically addressed. The cost of extra police service and\nsecurity, if and when necessary, shall be borne by the applicant.\n2. The third paragraph will be revised from \"45 days\" to \"24 days per year,\" and a\nprovision will be added for a report back to the Planning Board after one full year of\noperation. The late-night showings will be limited to screens on the ground floor of the\ntheater.\nAYES - 5 (Kohlstrand absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)\n7.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nSeptember 29, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-09-29", "page": 16, "text": "9.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:13 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nGreg McFann, Acting Secretary\nPlanning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the October 24, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nSeptember 29, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf"}