pages: PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-09-29 | 6 | Ms. Debbie George, 2600 Otis Drive, spoke in support of this application. She noted that the current Alameda Theater was 58 feet height, and that this project would balance that building out with a 58- foot building. She noted that the developer would allow the community to use the theater 12 days a year for community events, and looked forward to those events. Ms. Irene Dieter spoke in opposition to this item. She believed this project ran counter to the Downtown Visioning process, and added that the theater restoration and parking garage had been on separate tracks until summer 2004. Following the demise of the Long's deal, they coalesced into one project, and she did not believe there was any publicity in the local newspaper for the November 2004 scoping meeting. She expressed concern that the balcony will not show movies, and asked why it was not included. She was concerned that if the developer backed out of the deal, the theater may never be restored. She encouraged the Board to maintain the goal of a fully restored theater. She believed that full restoration should be a requirement, not an option. Mr. Robert Gavrich, Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda, 1517 Fountain Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He opposed the height and the extension of the hours. He expressed concern that the theater attendance would overwhelm the parking capacity, and noted that this ran contrary to the City Ordinance requiring that parking is sufficient for the use. He believed that the proposed project, regardless of height, violated Standard 9 of the Secretary of Interior's standards for rehabilitation according to the City's hired consultant, Robert Bruce Anderson. He quoted Tony's Daysog's concerns about financial feasibility vis-à-vis incoming revenue. Ms. Deborah Overfield spoke in opposition to this item, and was concerned that the Planning Board had already made up its mind regarding this project. She believed the mix of apartments around the theater was tacky. She did not believe a six-level parking structure on this site was a good idea, and that it did not comply with the Alameda Municipal Code. Ms. Sally Rudloff, 1828 Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of this application. She believed it would be a good diversion for the youth of Alameda. Ms. Judith Altschuler, 3015 Bayview Drive, spoke in support of this application. She noted that the City had worked on this project since 1994 with a considerable amount of public speaking and outreach. She noted that the cineplex carried all the ADA requirements for the Alameda Theater. She believed the restoration of the Alameda Theater would be more magnificent and significant because of that; any intrusion of an elevator would diminish the restoration of the theater. She noted that some speakers had referred to the theater as a façade, and she did not recall that on the plans at all; the Alameda Theater would be a fully integrated part of the project, and the main lobby would be the lobby for the entire theater. Mr. John Rossilon, 1525 Park, spoke in support of this application. He did not believe there would be investors for two movie theaters, and added that it would not be reasonable to put kids on a bus to Jack London Square. He strongly believed that kids and families should have a theater on the Island they can attend easily. Planning Board Minutes Page 6 September 29, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-09-29.pdf |