pages: PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-06-27 | 13 | from other communities. Mr. Don Grappo, spoke in opposition to this item. He did not oppose the concept of a theater and parking structure, and did not believe it was a good design. He suggested valet parking, and inquired whether the changing technology of movies would make this theater obsolete. He suggested a smaller and more aesthetically pleasing design. Mr. Harry Hartman, 1100 Peach Street, spoke in support of this application. He believed the design was a positive compromise, and noted that the City did not have the financial resources to fund an elaborate design at this time. He noted that the business district was set up to benefit from a draw such as this theater. He noted that 352 new spaces in the parking structure would take a lot of pressure off the downtown streets. He believed the cost-benefit analysis showed clearly that the benefits of the Cineplex far outweighed the detriments. Rose, P.O. Box 640353, San Francisco, noted that she was an Alameda resident. She supported the restoration of the theater, and believed that this type of theater could be a model for other specialized movie theaters. Mr. Rudy Rubago spoke in opposition to this item and noted that this was the first time he had seen this design, and inquired about what had happened to the South Shore movie theater. He expressed concern that this theater might not last very long, and what would happen to the building. He did not like the design. He believed the evolving movie technologies for in-home viewing may make theaters obsolete. He inquired whether the owners or employees of this theater live in Alameda. He expressed concern that the money generated from this use would be spent off the Island. He expressed concern about potential crime in the parking structure. He would like to see a cultural center for the performing arts in Alameda. Mr. Rich Tester, 2020 Pacific Avenue, noted that he was a Park Street business owner, and spoke in opposition to this item. He expressed concern about the size and shading of the structure; he inquired about the shade study. He was concerned that there would be an alleyway feel to the side of the parking garage, and noted that there were no businesses on that side. He expressed concern about the traffic congestion on Oak Street, which many people used to traverse Alameda. Ms. Ott advised that right after the June 13 meeting, staff contacted a firm to do a shading analysis, which had a two to three week turnaround time. Staff will report on the results of the shade analysis when it is complete. She noted that the revised HAB minutes were available. Ms. Pat Pane spoke in opposition to this item, and did not believe the construction of the building in the middle of a historic district was appropriate. She pointed out that the economics of movies was changing, and did not believe that spending money on an outmoded structure and technology would be appropriate. She did not like the design. Ms. Scott Corkens spoke in opposition to this item, and believed the Cineplex was grossly out of scale. He believed this use would spur more development in the district, and would add to traffic congestion. He was very concerned about danger to pedestrians due to increased traffic. He believed Planning Board Minutes Page 13 June 27, , 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf |