pages
24 rows where "date" is on date 2005-06-13 sorted by path
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Link | body | date | page | text | path ▼ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,1 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 1 | Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, - p.m. 1. CONVENE: 7:14 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Mr. Lynch 3. ROLL CALL: Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch, Mariani, and Piziali. President Cunningham and Board Member Gina Mariani were absent. Also present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Assistant City Manager Paul Benoit, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner Judith Altschuler, Contract Planner Chandler Lee, Planner III Douglas Garrison, Planner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Jennifer Ott, Development Manager, Development Services Department, Leslie Little, Development Services Department. 4. MINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of May 23, 2005. M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of May 23, 2005, as presented. AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: Ms. Eliason suggested that Item 7-C be moved from the Regular Agenda to the Consent Calendar so that it may be continued. M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 7-C from the Regular Agenda to the Consent Calendar. AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. Planning Board Minutes Page 1 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,2 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 2 | 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: Ms. McNamara advised that she would vote "No" on the Consent Calendar because she still had concerns about the design of the approved residence in Item 7-D; she continued to voice her opposition to the design review. Ms. Harryman advised that she and Ms. McNamara had discussed this issue before the meeting. 7-A. DA-99-01 -- Catellus Development Corporation (CL). The applicant requests a Periodic Review of Development Agreement, DA-99-01, for the period from January through December 2004, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30- 95.1. The properties are zoned MX (Mixed Use Planned Development District). M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-17 to approve a Periodic Review of Development Agreement, DA-99-01, for the period from January through December 2004, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1. AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 2 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,3 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 3 | 7-B. DA89-1 -- Harbor Bay Business Park Association, Harbor Bay Isle Associates and Harbor Bay Entities -- Bay Farm Island (Primarily Harbor Bay Isle) (CE). A request for a Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4, 2005, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1. The properties are zoned R-1-PD, One Family Residence/Planned Development Zoning District; C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing Planned Development Zoning District; O, Open Space Zoning District and R-1-A-H, One Family Residence with Special Agricultural and Height Limit Combining Zoning District. M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-18 to approve a Periodic Review of Development Agreement DA89-01, for the period through April 4, 2005, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section 30-95.1. AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 1 (McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,4 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 4 | 7-C. UP05-0007 - West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and City of Alameda - Public Parking Lot at Taylor Avenue and Webster Street (DB). Applicants request approval of an amendment to Use Permit UP-98-53 to allow an extension of operation of the existing farmers' market which currently operates on Tuesday morning to include late Thursday afternoons/evenings, from 4:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m., during the summer and early fall. This would be located in City Public Parking Lot D. The site is located within the CC (Community Commercial) Zoning District and is located within the boundaries of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project. M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand and unanimous to move Item 7-C from the Regular Agenda to the Consent Calendar. AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-19 to approve an amendment to Use Permit UP-98-53 to allow an extension of operation of the existing farmers' market which currently operates on Tuesday morning to include late Thursday afternoons/evenings, from 4:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m., during the summer and early fall. This would be located in City Public Parking Lot D. The site is located within the CC (Community Commercial) Zoning District and is located within the boundaries of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project. Planning Board Minutes Page 4 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,5 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 5 | 7-D. Variance V05-0003/Major Design Review DR04-0109 - KD Architects, Inc. for Kwan Li - 2411 Webb Avenue (AT). Applicants request a Major Design Review and two Variances to construct a two-story residential/commercia mixed use building on a vacant parcel. The project proposes two ground floor retail spaces approximately 800-860 square feet in size and two residential units on the second floor with approximately 700 - 1,000 square feet of floor area for a total gross floor area of 3,383 square feet. The design of the building resembles a streamlined Moderne style with a combination of stucco exterior siding and clear anodized aluminum trim. Access to parking located at the rear of the building is through a driveway located along the right side of the building under a portion of the second story. The project requires a total of twelve parking spaces, and the project will provide six spaces with a variance and in-lieu fees paid to the City for six deficient spaces. A variance is requested for a reduced landscaping separation between one parking space and the north and east property lines, where three feet is required. The site is located within the Park Street C-C, Community Commercial Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of May 23, 2005.) M/S Piziali/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-20 to approve a Major Design Review and two Variances to construct a two-story residential/commercial mixed use building on a vacant parcel. The project proposes two ground floor retail spaces approximately 800-860 square feet in size and two residential units on the second floor with approximately 700 - 1,000 square feet of floor area for a total gross floor area of 3,383 square feet. The design of the building resembles a streamlined Moderne style with a combination of stucco exterior siding and clear anodized aluminum trim. Access to parking located at the rear of the building is through a driveway located along the right side of the building under a portion of the second story. The project requires a total… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,6 | 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.… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,7 | 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 t… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,8 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 8 | those districts were given notices by mail, legal notices in the newspaper and posted ads. All responses were provided to the Board. Mr. Piziali noted that he had not noticed any strong reaction to the proposed zoning language change. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Eliason confirmed that this use would be a conditional use in all C-1 districts. She confirmed that it would not allow this commercial use within a residential zone. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding retail and other parking within the C-1 districts, Ms. Eliason replied that the C-1 District was subject to the City's overall parking standards within the Zoning Ordinance. There were special provisions for new uses; buildings over ten years old with uses that do not change substantially according to the Zoning Ordinance, parking is not required to be provided. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the validity of the CEQA findings, Mr. Garrison stated that everything under CEQA may be challenged. If it was determined to be categorically exempt, the City must prove that. Vice President Cook advised that a speaker slip had been received from the applicant. Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, wished to address the parking issue and noted that they were trying to get cars off the street. He noted that he lived a block from the theater, and the population density in Alameda was such that people could walk to the theater. He did not believe there was a serious parking problem, and recalled that an adjacent neighbor spoke at the last meeting and stated that on one occasion, they had to park a block away. He noted that he did not advertise because the theater was intended for the neighbors' use. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding avenues for challenging this use if parking was determined to be a problem, Ms. Eliason replied that each individual boutique theater would come before the Planning Board for a discretionary review. A use permit would be associated with it, and individual cases would be considered by… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,9 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 9 | 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." AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 9 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,10 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 10 | 8-B. Use Permit UP05-0009, Applicant: Mark Haskett (Alameda Theater Project, Inc.), - 842 Central Ave. (DG/CE). The applicant requests the granting of a Use Permit allowing the operation of a Boutique Theater located in a C-1 Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of May 23, 2005.) Mr. Piziali noted that there were more than five speaker slips on every item on the agenda. M/S Piziali/Ms. McNamara and unanimous to limit the speakers' time to three minutes throughout the remainder of the meeting. The public hearing was opened. Mr. David Hart, 712 Taylor, spoke in support of this application. He noted that he had taken a terminally ill family member who lived three houses from the theater to a movie, and that they were able to walk. He noted that he walked through the neighborhood frequently, and did not see any crowding in the neighborhood. He believed that Central Cinema was an unqualified positive feature for the neighborhood. Mr. Robert Gavrich spoke in support of this application, and noted that he lived near a theater on High Street. He noted that it was not even a minor nuisance, and that it was a feature in neighborhoods in support of culture. He had patronized Central Cinema six or seven times, and had never had a problem parking on Central Avenue. He suggested assessing a dollar per ticket to mitigate the parking impacts on the neighborhood. Mr. Lisa Griffith noted that she did not have a parkable driveway, and has never parked her car in front of that driveway. She appreciated that the theater was quaint, but did not want to drive around for half an hour looking for a place to park. She had experienced people parking in front of her driveway, sometimes by patrons of the theater. Mr. Dave Kirwin wished to reiterate his opinion that this is a positive feature for the neighborhood. He noted that he would not be able to stay for Items 8-D and 8-E, and was happy to hear that the historic theater would be revitalized. He did not believe the scale of the Cineplex would fit Alameda, and suggested that it be… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,11 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 11 | Ms. Valerie Ruma, 1610 Willow, spoke in support of this application. She wished to address the parking issues, and noted that she had attended the Central Cinema on the weekends. She had never had a problem with parking, even five minutes from showtime. Ms. Janin Von Furst, 917B Santa Clara, noted that she was a renter, and was very concerned about not being able to park near her home. She believed that Alameda should have residential parking permits. She was in favor of the Central Cinema, but would like the owner to take the onus of ensuring that neighborhood parking is not made more difficult for the residents. Mr. Kopps noted that he enjoyed going to Central Cinema because his mother was comfortable with him attending on his own. He noted that he had his tenth birthday party there, and enjoyed the family atmosphere. He promised to walk to the Cinema if it were allowed to remain open. Mr. Kevin Frederick noted that he had lived in the neighborhood for 20 years, and preferred to bicycle and walk around the Island. He supported the Central Cinema, and believed it was a great neighborhood use. Mr. Peter Macdonald, attorney for the applicant, noted that he had performed an informal parking survey on two nights, and noted that on both nights, 40% of the patrons walked to the theater. He added that 15 and 13 cars, respectively, were driven by patrons. He did not believe it would be viable or necessary to put a parking lot in this neighborhood when street parking was available. He believed the existing parking should be used. He noted that the 15 minute intervals between shows was not a problem during the day with an audience size of five to 10 people. He noted that the applicant had spent $7,400 to process this case to date, and suggested that the amount of fees should be capped for certain types of cases. He was concerned that smaller businesses may not be able to get through the process. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali whether fines were included in those fees, Mr. Macdonald replied that they were plannin… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,12 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 12 | Mr. Piziali noted that Condition 8 called for a 20-minute interval between screenings, and suggested that a 15-minute interval would be sufficient. Vice President Cook noted that she had visited the site three times, including an evening show and a morning show. The theater was not crowded either time. She also attended a sold-out show on a weekend evening, and had no problem parking. She had enjoyed her visits, and noted that it was a good place for teens to attend. She noticed there were no bike racks, and strongly suggested that a bike rack be included in the conditions of approval. She noted that the audiences cleared the theater very quickly, and believed that a 15-minute interval would be sufficient. She believed it was important for the patrons to realize that they were in a district bordering a residential neighborhood. She believed the small district businesses would support each other. Ms. Kohlstrand supported this use, but believed that an interval of one year to bring the building up to code was excessive. Mr. Douglas Garrison, project planner, noted that was a combination of an existing standard condition of approval for such projects. He noted that could be changed to six months. Ms. Kohlstrand agreed with Ms. Thomas' assertion that the staff reports should be more specific regarding the parking requirements for particular projects, and how they relate to the Code requirements. She did not believe that substantial new parking requirements should be introduced in such uses, and believe they could exist with available on-street parking. Mr. Piziali noted that traffic and parking would always be a problem in compressed urban areas. Ms. Harryman advised that the prime broker may have this item come back directly for a hearing, or it may request a staff report as an item under "Staff Communications." If the Board decided to hear the item further, it may agendized. She noted that the Building Code violations were being handled by the Building Division on a separate track; the planning issues were being se… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,13 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 13 | Mr. Lynch believed the Planning fees were reasonable, and noted that the items on this agenda reflected an evolving community, in an evolving world. He noted the mixed uses had a long tradition in this country, particularly before the end of World War II. He noted that the City would be facing the question of merging uses constantly. He commended the applicant in beginning to merge commercial uses in a residential community. M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-22 to grant a Use Permit allowing the operation of a Boutique Theater located in a C-1 Zoning District. The following modifications would be included: 1. Condition 8 - Parking requirements would be minimized by allowing the theater to provide a minimum of 15 minutes between movie screenings before 6:00 p.m., and 20 minutes after 6:00 p.m.; 2. A compliance report would be required to be submitted to Planning staff one year after the approval of this resolution. If needed, staff would bring it before the Planning Board; and 3. A bicycle rack would be installed. AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Vice President Cook called for a five-minute recess. Planning Board Minutes Page 13 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,14 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 14 | 8-C. DR04-0051, 616 Pacific Avenue, Applicant: Erwin Roxas (AT/EP). The proposal is an appeal of the code enforcement action which determined that the demolition of a single-family residence, located at the above address, is in violation of the AMC $13-21-10 b (removal or demolition of an historic structure without proper permits) and is, therefore, subject to the five (5) year stay that prevents the issuance of any building or construction-related permits for the property. The applicant had received Major Design Review approval in July 2004 for proposed 1st and 2nd story additions, enlargement of the detached garage, interior remodel, porch additions, etc. that would add approximately 1,562 square feet to the dwelling and 225 square feet to the garage and storage shed. The property is within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential District. M/S Piziali/Lynch to continue Item 8-C to the meeting of June 27, 2005. AYES - 5 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 14 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,15 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 15 | 8-D. DR05-0041 - Final Design Review of the Proposed New Cineplex - City of Alameda (CE/JO). Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings for the proposed Cineplex at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts. Ms. Kohlstrand advised she would recuse herself from Items 8-D and 8-E because she was involved in the analysis for the parking garage and the theater. Ms. Jennifer Ott summarized the staff report, and noted that the Planning Board preliminarily accepted the Cineplex design on May 9, 2005, to serve as a basis for Section 106 findings. The findings were brought before the Historic Advisory Board; those draft minutes were included in the packet. Staff recommended approval of the design of this project. Mr. Rob Henry, Henry Architects, project architect, displayed and discussed the changes made to the project design since the last meeting. Input from the Planning Board and the HAB led to the following changes: 1. The corner sign was replaced by additional detailing, continuing the horizontal band element in the corner for a more Art Deco feeling on the corner; 2. HAB believed that there should be a more continuous feel in the columns; the white element was replaced by brick; 3. The dome was eliminated from the corner element (Oak and Central), and was replaced by a flat corner element; 4. The roofline was notched down to provide softening to the corner; a recessed element was placed further from the face of the building; 5. The mechanical screens were reduced in size, and would not be visible from the street level; 6. The historic theater mezzanine level would be connected to the elevator in the new facility; and 7. The aluminum window and door systems were changed to clear anodized aluminum to match the retail spaces of the Alameda Theater. Mr. Henry discussed the materials and colors, and noted th… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,16 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 16 | The public hearing was opened. Ms. Janin Von Furst, 917B Santa Clara, spoke in opposition to this item. She expressed concern about the environmental impact that such projects have on a city the size of Alameda, particularly with respect to parking. She noted that the design reminded her of Jack London Square, but that Alameda could not handle that amount of traffic from outside the city. She noted that the bridges and tubes would be busier, bringing more traffic through the residential neighborhoods. She was concerned that people would park in the neighborhoods to avoid paying for parking in the parking garage. She suggested the use of residential parking permits for neighborhoods near projects of this size. Ms. Nancy Hird, 1519 East Shore Drive, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she was not speaking on behalf of AAPS. She believed that the massing of this building was excessive although it was improved. She believed that a three-screen theater would be sufficient, and did not want to bring more traffic into Alameda from outside the City. She noted that the success of the Central Cinema disproved the theater that multiple screens were necessary to be economically feasible. Ms. Paula Rainey, 556 Palace Court, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this project was too big for this district, which was pedestrian-oriented and too crowded with traffic. She believed the new design had been improved, but did not believe this design would enhance the neighborhood. She noted that the design was not pedestrian-friendly, and was too close to the street without softening. She suggested that the old theater be restored, but that the new Cineplex be eliminated. She believed this was a megaplex, and the lack of freeway frontage roads made the situation more difficult. Ms. Pat Bail, 825 Paru, believed the design had improved since the beginning, but that the residents were unprepared for the scope of this project and its impact on the neighborhood. She believed this design was overpowering and inappropri… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,17 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 17 | Mr. Bill Woodle spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that he had also circulated a petition against this design. He had also heard from people who supported a large Cineplex, and had been called a "Nimby" by one person. Ms. Linda Hanson, 1816 Wood Street, spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that the design as published in the newspaper wad presented as a fait accompli. She noted that hundreds of people had signed the petition, asking that the project be put on hold. She believed the scale and design conflicted with the unique historic character of Alameda, and that traffic would be impacted. She was concerned that there was no open area for people to gather, and that it ignored the green building principles. She believed that this design was more reminiscent of Fisherman's Wharf, and was not convinced that it would be financially successful. She urged the Planning Board and City Council to reconsider this project. Planning Board Minutes Page 17 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,18 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 18 | Mr. Carl Lasagna spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that the design was slightly less offensive than the last design. He compared the design to an electric razor. He supported alternatives to this project, which he believed was overwhelming and unattractive, and did not believe that the use of eminent domain was unethical. He supported the combination of live performing arts with the historic theater. He suggested that the Planning Board work with the community to redesign this project, so that the parking structures needed for downtown be built, and that the historic theater be left intact. He believed that the negotiations should be held ethically. Mr. Jim Strela noted that his family had previously owned the Neptune Theater in the 1930s, and added that to get first-run films, multiple screens were necessary. He believed the historic theater was being lost in this design. Mr. Rich Tester noted that he owned a business on Santa Clara, and noted that their business would be in the shade of this structure. He expressed concern about the impact on his business by traffic congestion. Ms. Jennifer Van Arsdale spoke in opposition to this item, and agreed that the Cineplex should be eliminated. She noted that the renderings had improved, but that the combination of the Cineplex and the garage dwarfed the historic theater. She expressed concern that the only way the historic theater could be renovated was to include the Cineplex as well. Mr. Michael Cote spoke in opposition to this item, and added that this project began as the restoration of the historic theater. He noted that the historic theater was dwarfed by the garage and the Cineplex, and that the historic theater was reduced to a façade through which people would walk to the Cineplex. He expressed concern about the installation of new stadium seating, which would gut the interior of the theater. He was concerned about cost overruns, and the possibility of public service positions being cut to fund this project. Mr. Lee expressed concern about this de… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,19 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 19 | megaplexes were compatible with Alameda's character and scale. He displayed his own design for a scaled-down theater. Ms. Joan Boucher noted that in her household, they called Alameda "Ala-Mayberry." She enjoyed the neighborliness and pedestrian access in Alameda. She looked forward to walking to the historic theater, with three screens. She noted that many Alamedans did not know about this plan that far in advance, and had been taken by surprise; many of her neighbors did not like the new design. She believed this design would be a mistake for the Island. Morgan spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that Alameda was the only city that she felt comfortable in. She believed this design was wrong for the Island, and noted that walking and bicycling in the City was already hazardous. Ms. Nancy Kerns, 1175 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this design has far exceeded the original vision, but did not believe this project was appropriate for the Island. She had not found anyone in town who believed that this many screens would be a good idea. She was very concerned about the traffic impacts, and believed that critical mass on this theater proposal had been reached very quickly. She did not believe anyone in town wanted this complex in town. Ms. Birgitt Evans, AAPS, 2829 San Jose Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that AAPS had been involved in this project for a long time. She had spoken with Christopher Buckley, who was very concerned about staff's report that this design was "highly responsive" to AAPS' concerns. Neither he, Dick Rutter, nor she believed this design reflected their concerns. They did support Bruce Anderson's Section 106 review, as well as the HAB's comments at their June 2 meeting, in which four out of five HAB members stated that the design should be returned to the drawing board. She noted that the Henry Architects had created a very nice design for an Art Deco theater in Livermore that featured vertical elements. She believed the current design w… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,20 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 20 | The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Ms. Harryman advised that the Bylaws required that the meeting adjourn at 11:00 p.m., but that the Board may make a motion to adjourn it at a later time certain. Mr. Lynch suggested that Items 8-D and 8-E be continued to the next meeting because of the lateness of the hour. He did not believe it would be possible to properly consider both items in a timely fashion. M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to continue the meeting to 11:30 p.m. AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand) Mr. Piziali preferred to have the public comment all at one meeting. Ms. Eliason noted that Items 8-D and 8-E would be the first items on the next agenda. Vice President Cook expressed concern about moving forward with this item without a full Board. Mr. Lynch wished to discuss the issue of eminent domain, and noted that when the property has not been maintained by the owner, it is incumbent upon the public body to do so. He noted that the question of eminent domain is the right vehicle may be addressed, but believed that the suggestion that the City may not exercise it was a gross overstatement. Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, noted that this project had been much larger in its earlier forms, and that it had been downsized considerably. She noted that there had been a lot of discussion about the new theater component at this meeting, and emphasized that the idea of the project was to utilize the historic theater in the grandest way possible. She noted that it was important to bring as many people into the historic theater as possible; there would be no separate entrance for the new theater. She noted that the concerns about the stadium seating gutting the historic theater; she noted that the original seating had been gone for some time, and that the theater had other uses for many years, including as a roller rink. She noted that the ceiling would be patched, and that the holes had been made by previous tenants to install lighting. She noted… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,21 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 21 | structures require a certain size to be workable, and that 17,000 square feet may accommodate 43 extra spaces. The new complex did not sit on a large site. She noted that the operator, Kyle Connor, was not a large corporate entity, and was an independent operator; he knows the community and the residents. She noted that this theater never did have the 2,200 seats that had been discussed. She noted that the $25 million price tag included the $10 million for acquisition and seismic upgrades and stabilization to meet Code requirement. Another $10 million of public money would go into the parking structure, which had been identified by PSBA as being a priority for the business association and downtown. She noted that a shade analysis would be performed; she did not believe it would cast a shadow onto Santa Clara Street because of the location of Long's. Staff would follow up on that item at the next meeting. She noted that other retail uses, such as restaurants, already provided patrons on the street; those patrons would be drawn to the theater as well. She did not expect the theater to be patronized by all new people, and that there would be some crossover trips. Mr. Piziali understood that there was concern in the City about this project, but that he had not been approached by anyone who has expressed that opinion. He emphasized that this project has been discussed for five years, starting with the Downtown Visioning Process. He noted that he listened very carefully to people in the City about this and other projects. Vice President Cook believed it was important to take into account all the comments throughout the process. She noted that she had been Chair of the Visioning Process, was on the EDC six years ago, and knew how important this project has been over the years to enliven downtown. She acknowledged this was not the perfect project on the perfect site. She stated that the people working for the City had the City's best interests in mind. She wanted to make it clear throughout the process that full restorat… | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,22 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 22 | Alameda regarding what this project should or should not do. She noted that was performed before the DDA, and before the City entered into a contractual arrangement. Vice President Cook stated that the Board was happy that was the sequence of events for this project, and that other projects had a DDA before design discussions took place. She noted that months of design discussions had taken place before the DDA was put in place for this project. Mr. Lynch requested that staff detail the parameters of the funding mechanism at a future meeting. He noted that some members of the public did not want a garage, and noted that would affect the DDA. He noted that the Planning Board had specific authority, and could not modify the project outside those parameters. Mr. Piziali noted that it was the City Council's job to decide whether this project was done or not, and that it was not the Planning Board's charge to do SO. Ms. Eliason advised that the speaker slips would be maintained in the Planning file. M/S McNamara /Lynch and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June 27, 2005. AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand) Planning Board Minutes Page 22 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,23 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 23 | 8-E. UP05-0008/DR05-0028 - Use Permit and Final Design Review of the Proposed New Civic Center Parking Garage - City of Alameda (DSD). Consideration of a Use Permit and Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings, for a new 352-space parking structure at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts. M/S McNamara/Lynch and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June 27, 2005. AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand) 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that the final community meeting was held the previous week, at which time the staff presented the preferred development concept, as well as the Non-Measure A alternatives to that in greater detail. Staff will work on a final copy of that report, which would be available in several weeks. That report would be the subject of hearings with the ARRA Board and the Planning Board over the next 12 to 18 months. She noted that the community hearings had been well-attended. b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Board member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report at this time. d. Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board member Mariani). Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None. Planning Board Minutes Page 23 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf,24 | PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 24 | 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary City Planning Department These minutes were approved at the June 27, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 24 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );