pages: PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf, 18
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
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 design, and believed it was too large for the site. He believed the Cineplex would be an eyesore, and was very concerned about the traffic impacts. He believed the financial risk to Alameda in funding the project was too big. Mr. Vern Marsh spoke in opposition to this item, and did not approve of the plan; he did not like the design of the building. He would support a theater on the scale of the Grand Lake Theater, with three or four screens. He believed this was excessive and was too expensive. Mr. George Hubbard noted that he had previously worked for Skywalker Sound, and worked in the industry. He suggested that the Planning Board consider alternate uses for this theater, and was concerned that this theater would fail without freeway access. Mr. Robert Van Der Wall spoke in opposition to this item, and believed that Alameda was the antidote to sprawl. He did not believe that massive parking garages and Planning Board Minutes Page 18 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |