pages: PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 6 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 8-A. Zoning Text Amendment ZA05-0002, Applicant: Alameda Theatre Project Inc., - All Neighborhood Business Districts (C-1) within the City of Alameda (DG/CE). The applicant requests an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.8(c) to add "Boutique Theater" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning district, subject to Use Permit approval. "Boutique Theater" would be defined as "A theater with audiences of 49 persons or less for live performances or for the screening of motion pictures where there is only one screen in the theater." (Continued from the meeting of May 23, 2005.) Vice President Cook advised that there were more than five speaker slips submitted for this item. M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Gavrich noted that it appeared that there was support for boutique theaters, and that the Planning Board should rethink the City's strategy to build big box, megaplex theaters in Alameda. He noted that Alameda's small town atmosphere should promote family businesses, and believed that Central Cinema should not be the only boutique theater on the Island. He noted that the support for such a neighborhood cinema was heavily supported in Alameda, versus the Cineplex. He believed the City would rely on the Cineplex to replace the lost tax revenues previously received from Ron Goode Toyota. He noted that Central Cinema would not use any tax dollars, and that the entrepreneur would take all the financial risk. Mr. Peter MacDonald, attorney for the applicant, believed that the 164 pages submitted by Barbara Thomas were adequately responded to in the Negative Declaration and the staff report. He noted that the applicant was comfortable with that response, and added that a neighborhood with no impacts was a neighborhood with no life. He believed that the scale of the impacts was the main issue, and he believed the staff report demonstrated that. He asked the supporters of the Central Cinema to stand up. Ms. Lisa Griffith noted that she and her husband owned the home next to Central Cinema, and were not opposed to the idea of a boutique theater itself. She was concerned about the parking impact on her home, and noted that many evenings, cars had been parked in front of her driveway, some belonging to theater patrons, and some not. She was opposed to this particular use because of its impacts on her home; she noted that many supporters of the theater either lived elsewhere or had a usable driveway. Ms. Barbara Thomas, PO Box 1381, spoke in opposition to this item, and wished to ensure that the 16-page letter had been received by the Board. She had not seen a response to that letter. She noted that the first letter she wrote was submitted after staff stated that CEQA did not apply; staff reread the letter and then stated that CEQA did Planning Board Minutes Page 6 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |