pages: PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 7 | apply. She noted that staff stated that CEQA did not apply in terms of a full-scale environmental impact report because each subsequent conversion requested by the applicant would be subject to that categorical exemption. She stated that staff asserted that it would be subject to discretionary review. She believed that if the applicant wished to have a similar use elsewhere on the Island, staff would state that it was categorically exempt under CEQA, which she believed would subvert the intent of CEQA. She believed a complete CEQA analysis would be required. She noted that the Alameda Municipal Code stated that parking for commercial purposes could not be places in residential zones, which was what happened with respect to this use. She noted that the Webster Street plan included a theater, and suggested that a theater in that district would be sufficient. She noted that the movie industry released films on DVD within three months of theatrical release to take advantage of advertising, and did not believe this theater would be financially feasible. She advised that the General Plan stated that commercial parking in residential areas should be dissuaded, and believed that should be taken at its meaning. She noted that movie attendance has been declining, and did not believe that boutique theaters would be able to succeed. Mr. David Hart, 712 Taylor, spoke in support of this application, and agreed with Mr. Gavrich's comments. He noted that he was familiar with parking challenges for a homeowner in a retail district. The residents supported positive businesses coming into the neighborhood, and against negative businesses. He believed the neighbors were supportive of positive businesses in the area, and he believed that public's opinion had been heard clearly. He recalled Ms. Thomas' statements regarding the possibility of the theater failing, and noted that in America, an entrepreneur had the right to try and to fail. He noted that the applicant has been succeeding so far, and he supported the applicant's efforts to succeed in other districts. He noted that the applicant was not using any public dollars or City funds, and that he was risking his own dollars. He noted that there was overwhelming neighborhood support for Central Cinema and boutique theaters in Alameda. Mr. Chuck Millar noted that the boutique theater was in keeping with the other charming aspects of Alameda. He noted that any ordinance should include parking guidelines, and believed that the patrons should be considerate of the neighbors. Mr. Kirwin agreed with the other supporters of boutique theaters in Alameda, and believed that the free market would prevent oversaturation of boutique theaters in Alameda. He lives next to a park, and understands the parking problems inherent; he did not want to eliminate soccer games in Alameda because of the inconvenience of a homeowner. He did understand residents' concerns about parking, and has found that Alamedans generally respect one another. He suggested that the applicant post a sign asking the patrons to respect the adjacent neighbors with respect to parking. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali, Ms. Eliason confirmed that the residential properties within the 17 C-1 districts, as well as the residential areas within 100 feet of Planning Board Minutes Page 7 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |