The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-03-21 Joint CC CIC 1 Submittalhttp://rosewhite.net/form1.html Petition We, the undersigned, support the Historic Alameda Theater Project including the cineplex and the parking garage. Please fill in all fields marked with a * 0 First Name 1 * Last Name I * 0 Email I 0 Address 0 City 0 State Zip code * Country Gender F • 0 Age Submitted by Kevis Brownson at the 03 -21 -06 Joint City Council/ CIC Meeting Re: Agenda Item #1 3/21/06 3:32 PM 1 support construction of a new movie theater and parking garage, AND restoration of Alameda I Theater. Restoring the historic theather needs to be mandatory part of the redevelopment project. Our family supports the Alameda Theater project. Please approve this badly needed project. Don't let the vocal minority rule in Alameda!!! do not currently attend very many movies because I do not like getting in my car on weekends. I would probably attend movies once a month or so if I could (walk, which is possible at most every address in Alameda. It is absurd that we have no movie theatre in Alameda. Please pass this measure so that we can get started.Thank you,Michael J. Castro I have lived in Alameda all my life and I have been waiting for many years to have our wonderful theatre retumed to us. Please do not let this opportunity pass us by. We have waited so long for this improvement. Thanks to all, City Council and others, who have tirelessly worked towards making this project possible I support the theater restoration and multiplex. Alamedans needs a place to no to the movies!!! I grew up in Alameda and am glad to see it has retained it's 'small town charm.' However, I would I love to see the area around Park St. continue to develop and thrive. we need it! 94502 94502 L 94502 94502 94502 94502 in S Ln ' 94501 94502 pN NO O OO O 1O P o 94502 00 to V 94501 N 3 N 94124 1 x"00 94501 945021 95436 [ O OHO 94502 1 13 E S2 'Alameda Alameda RI .° EE as CO �i E . CO CO E E as I Alameda ii EE a IAlameda .1 a Alameda Alameda Alameda CO Zi E as CO d E Alameda CO CO 2 2 EE E as CO v E a Alameda alameda 1 ' as �i E os Alameda 1 339 Creedon Circle 1 3325 Constance Circle 13325 Constance Circle 1419 Sheffield Rd. 12222 San Antonio Ave 1554 Everett St 2606 Bayview Drive 1183 Regent St. 1 Kofman Court 3116 Central Avenue 1815 Chestnut Street 1250 Park Ave 1250 Park Ave 1201 Park Avenue 1401 Femside Blvd 302 Court St 300 Anderson Road 615 sheffield rd 1717 san jose av 1218 Ninth Street 902 Regent Street Blackburn y o .1 g ogm2 ai IBoese a� . Botts Bradshaw Brennan Bridges Bridges Brin• as Brownson Brownson Brownson Brownson Burton 3 XI a L.) T U Carey Castro cates Cates Cecconi . O at 'j Ch man Chin C cry CLETO dine Cook •er p� U "� U c. Dacumos Dahmen Oliver Michelle Nance .aA E IHAnnah hd: Brittney Greg Carmen Kevis Sall Daniel David Lu 5 Kristine Y af 2 c d Z Z' � rn2Y Bobbie V. Constance Jeanne = �wf3f WyZ�y .•c -� �. �y ,,Q The very extreme (and rude) "Stop The Multiplex° group happen to be very uneducated on the true FACTS of the actual plans for the multi-plea, its revolting. I totally support the new plans. Alameda deserves a beautiful, historic theater just like Oakland has, as well as Piedmont, Lafayette and Orinda. Why not us too?     My vote is to STOP and EDUCATE the extremists and give Alameda a new beautiful movie theater. Its just what we need around here, think of all the business restaurants will get in the area, as well as other merchants.     Thank you,   Daphne Dahmen & nbsp: Being an Alamedan, born and raised,) feel a great need for this project to go through. For the nay sayers, I believe they are a small yet vocal group that have no viable argument. Traffic, bad elements coming from other communities and other concerns they might have are over estimated compared to the positve impacts that this development will have on the Park St. businesses and surrounding areas. Please make sure this is a gotnm This would be a great oportunity for teenagers to get jobs.Also having more things to do, instead of I having the opportunity of using drugs or joining gangs in the community. Initially, I had some reservations about the Alameda Theater Project, but having had a chance to review it, I I have decided that it Will be a tremendous plus for the citv of Alameda. an 33 VI 1 94501 333 1 1 94502 O 1) y 94501 1 94501 94502 1 94502 1 95401 94080 1 94501 1 94502 94501 1 Ji a¢ Alameda a Alameda ,Alameda a s a Alameda Alameda 1 a Alameda 1 Alameda Alameda Alameda Alameda 300 Westline Drive #A301 300 Westline Drive, #A301 310 Lincoln Aveune 1234 Hawthorne St. 2624 Eagle Ave 2704 Otis Dr 3476 Catalina Avenue 1095 Park Ave al 3001 Gibbons Dr 6 . 8 21 Stonin on Pointe 965 Shorepoint Ct #207 8 Vista Road 342 Tideway Drive 2534 Lincoln Ave 107 Centre Court / 2 d a Daum oue-jaa suAea wnea 0 u s Q . t�Q Doumitt 1 Doumitt Doumitt Draemel 1 a Edwards ETZEL Fallon Flani . an Flowerda • • Kevin Define Jan boo ILauren •cc � Katnenne I Lakeisha -1 -)20� I David ng z i.� 1p .�f y 4W 0 0 0 a 0 1 Q 5 Alameda Native bom   Property owner, business owner for 34 years,comercial property I m owner on Park St I support the new theater... no center of attraction which will bring people downtown in the hours outside standard business Ihours.     A theatre would serve as a magnet for business, driving additional revenue into other businesses in the downtown area. This would be a boost for everything from retail ,business to coffee shops to restaurants.   & nbsp; 1 can simply think about what I did with my family last Sunday afternoon to see what could be a typical weekend afternoon in Alameda:     We had to go to a store to pick up some items for the house. After buying those items, we decided to go to the theatre, which was just down the street. We watched a movie with the kids and had a great time. After the movie, we went to a small restaurant down the street for dinner. On the way back to the car, we stopped at a coffee shop for a cup of coffee and a cookie for the kids.     Unfortunately, we spent all of that money and time in Emeryville rather than Alameda. If the theatre was here, we would never have left town (n, • rn co X ea a x co co 5 • E ti oa 5 a f/1 b 'lit is being demolished through benign neglect   2. An island population of 75,000+ people warrants a bona fide theater option.  3. Alamedans have spoken loudly and dearly: they want the Alameda Theater renovated and reopened.  4. The theater will be a tremendous catalyst for downtown business.  5. The City has presumably done due diligence on the argument that a cineplex concept is the most viable approach to operating a downtown movie theater.  6. Nobody has stepped forward in the past 27 years to prove otherwise.   7. The businesses in the Park Street district have lobbied for increased parking capacity for decades; this is the ideal location and will put the issue to rest  8. The cineplex and parking structure will help obscure what is perhaps the ugliest piece of real estate downtown, namely the Longs parking lot   9. Inactivity is absolutely no way to run a City.   10. If problems develop, we will address them; that is what good organizations do. The city of Alameda desperately needs a movie theater to stay alive and thrive. I Get Park Street to be avivable shopping area by approving the renovation of the theather. Please indude our entire family as in favor of the theatre—we want one here and want to give our town the business. With three teenagers who go the movies a lot, it would be nice to have them here as opposed to figuring out ways to get to Jack London or Bay Street 94502 94502 94502 94502 t!) o) 94501 1 a) g g N m N Tr. a) 94502 94502 94501 94502 1 94502 94502 94501 C 95003 1 L1. m N a) v. as E a Alameda m E a Alameda EEEEEEE 1addcoaaa gg ¢a Alameda ms E a g as E a Alameda 1324 Maitland drive 1419 Park St 1340 pearl Street 1240 Pearl STreet 1340 Pearl Street 1625 Dayton Ave 318 Tipperary Lane 318 Tipperary Lane a E+ o0 m '1109 Park Ave 1422 Gibbons Drive 1232 Park Avenue 2903 Bayview Drive LL Gehrett t 0 t 0 George 00 'o 00 Giardino Gordon Grace C7 Grady Graybeal Graybeal 0 Greene Grey Guevara Guevara Gunning H. as c 3 Harmon 1 g Megan Stephen Lora Stephen Frank Julia Gina a uorI Cynthia w I David A Patricia A 2NV a Brad 1 z° m 5 d V W a) 5 5 N a m 5) .8 R 8 m • C w 6 2 co ca gum a) 2 O) C .O d U E Ea d f m o E E -g 5 a) 5 M u, u,3 O cac ca a E' U c 466 Ec m Ea 0 aZ, f eu o 0Y >4E a7 C O C t way to attract more people to the 4-E-6 a6 • Ea • '4 •a 3° o — Y V > 01 E 4.2 $ A w a =At d'O e Egym gd 0 C 104.° � p 5 • 8 ea °:S d o au > , o°_ 9 • dO =tEt gi 4-+ N G c222 li o 0 . •,>rd- �o Q Y ' o z 800 a° a g7. 4) 0:1;10,02! . a. 'ys,-o E w a V v as o-ts agsU g � G o 8 ,•O �O �r a •o I1• i, ...4 A°� �'>s. o.a0g8• 5)v P; a A o age &.� 0 es Es "a Y 'c •o o f 0 4 w o 4 o o 2 IMtgI01E003 ta 5.0 y —A 1 -C 8 i' E a a. ,,o m.t °' PS� • o 1"Z o11ai12 d r Y Q l q i d A4 01 1 121.' WW d 0 a 0 M t .J 4- a co l0 cd' E a o 2 co r� 3 • co 4A m. �a ✓ izo 'O ▪ y N We've been waiting so long for a theatre!! £_cc wd) v cm E c g g c V Q) `86 7 A N2y B 'O E ,PcTit E e t W 54,7;5= 111 O ;0 h ▪ °) m O a EF 5a>,6 c • Tr c a.(�.*L. Q) E5.m !:)g g15! g `_ Npd43 y 0 T t fm0 �+ aj • y C lO W � V (5 = = —m a= O erf 07 O u.1 a7 O N 0) O h 0) O O et 0) 0 0) N O u a• 0) N ix) 0) O .O- at 01 O N 0) O N et 0) O Y9 0) O N 0, 0) N 0 1P) at 0) O I 0) N 0 d- d- eft N O N 0) O u) 0) O u') 0, m E a E (o E a (o A E E a (o E (o E E (o E Q 8 1 E a m 1 E a 1) A E 1 m O LO 2790 Pearl Harbor Rd 710 Limerick Lane N c J E J 3 v 6 a -O n Q ti CD LA 706 Buena Vista Ave #A P.O. Box 1665 5 b % n' co 8 0 0) N 0 l0 a M 1635 EAgIe Ave 2 CN J E J a m a 0 2120 Alameda Ave. 467 Central Ave eo E 2 E cc t rn c aci 0 x s S S 8 d 1 j c 1 E 1- c (a '5 S co a 0 E F c Pro Historic Alameda Theater Project E- Signatures 1Please keep the selfish oppononents of the theater out of our hair Lwould you want to go to oakland, when you could just walk out of school and go to the movies across the street think about it people pay off some of the debt in this town Stop complaining & start building. I would urge the council to consider the opinion of a majority of Alamedans, not the noisy few who try to make their voice louder than everyone else's (and the time to harass the council at every meeting). 11 would prefer a more sympathetic design to the old theatre. It'd be really great to finally have a theatre in Alameda, so we don't have to travel far to just to see a movie Lets get it on! lOur'family can't wait for opening night!! Alameda needs a movie theatre! Having a nice movie complex with parking is a great idea. Alameda needs a movie theatre! 1994, as the parent of a US Marine, as an active citizen, as a small business owner in Alameda, as frequent patron of businesses on Park Street and the South Shore Mall, as a member of the Harbor Bay Club, I have been anxiously awaiting the day when Alameda would finally have a movie house. I'm tired of driving to Oakland or San Francisco or Piedmont. I'd prefer to walk to the movies, have a coffee or dinner afterwards in Alameda, and see my long time friends and neighbors doing the same. I'd also like to have a parking lot where I can park my car on those rare occasions when I need to drive my vehide to the Park Street area on rainy nights, when my knee is bothering me, when my mother -in -law is in town, when I'm dressed -up and can't walk the eight blocks in heels.Let's make Alameda a community of thriving businesses, a community that brings residents, again and again, to Park Street for a variety of reasons and occasions. Personally I walk to the Park Street area at least 3 times a week. I shop. 1 get my hair done. I have lunch. 1 have dinner. I buv coffee. 1 ao to the librar The upside to creating the cinepiex far out weigh the downside to the project. be sure the community knows this is GOOD for business which means tax dollars for Alameda which means fewer tax increases across the board. thank you I am signing this petition to support the Alameda Theater and restoration and dneplex. k k2 k 94501 kkk III /N «# 94502 C. \iII2)72 C) 94502 94502 94501 1 ` k) II 94502 94502 94501 1 94502 94502 1 94502 1 94502 94502 1 1 Alameda ¢ !Alameda J J Alameda 2 Alameda 1 444 /\ 'Alameda Alameda RR co 2 Alameda Alameda 1 Alameda Alameda 1 370 Bryant Ave 12 Shepardson Lane k / \ NI 13333 Washington Court 2836 Johnson Avenue 1606 Santa Clara Ave 671 Centre Court 11340 Pearl Street 113 Crdls Garden Court 2504 Noble Ave \ \ 2 / 101 Shannon Cirde 101 Shannon Cirde 1210 Union Street 1826 Fremont Drive 36 Britt Court 36 Britt Court 48 Kara Road 48 Kara Road 1106 Bismarck Lane kahn Kaur }Ne t Khadder lKhadder �2 2r, Kok Koutoulakis ) $\ Kusiak Kusiak Kuttner Kuttner Kuttner Kuttner 1Lau 'Lau Lawson Lea • hart Lee Lee Lehane Lei•h Leonard Leonard Leon. Leon Leun k§ 2m li.i Meresa an ie ]3 � /22�7§)2k) k�42,8 _ § Rose Eddie Marla Sandra Tara Daphne Edmund Kevin ]: 1 I wish there would have been a nice local theatre for my children to see current movies when they I were growing up, but maybe my grandchildren can reap the benefits! 'o au E ca R 5 N t ar O C Na O 1 .0 5 i N '0 E E ■ • O to 94502 94502 94502 94502 94501 O — In e•• 0 If) 0 0 In 0 u') O N 94501 94501 0 to 0 In 94501 94502 94501 94501 it) cr) 94501 94502 94502 I 94502 1 1O el- 94502 1 O en 94502 1 al E E ad a B lAlameda Alameda Alameda Alameda alameda or E I Alameda Alameda Alamneda et CO E �aa CO E Alameda ..:c— Alameda Alameda Alameda 1 E 855 Portola Ave. 3275 San Jose Avenue Lua 1560 Everett Street Lua 1560 Everett street Mahler 1100 Paru St. malenk 2963 gibbons drive Manscal 2624 Clay Street Martin 507 Tideway Dr. Martin -Moe Matarrese 2850 Johnson Avenue Matarrese 29 Courageous Court Mathieson 1185 Park Avenue Matsuoka 1842 Fremont Dr. Mazumdar 1082 Armitage Street j��V " �+ ,�pa�1 ,� rndachlan fry 50 moss pointe McLaren 268 Ratto Road McLean 1171 Park Ave McMahon 1139 Verdemar Dr McNamara 3120 Gibbons Drive Medved 174 Justin Cir g Lew u = Ol 0, C =J 0 CJ t/y� N C N � L••ez Lord - Hausman Lothian Lothian cc Zo> - i= 1 1011 Olive t0 x�ii2Qlna 1p G, Theresa S tralde Joni marianne -, I6Ti Frank i N ca w -,Z za"2`J�''m "IG Everett Peter Let this project go forward!!       Jim Miller LYES - keep the project. I am very happy to have an opportunity to skin this petition rm the mother of 2 girls, ages 15 and 9, and would dearly love to have a good -sized local cinema for I them to attend. Having worked as a municipal investment banker in California for over 8 years, redevelopment and sales taxes are critical to the health of general funds. This project will help our city be able to deliver the services everyone expects and wants. The people who are against the theater complex are in the employ of Oakland interests that wish to I suppress the Alameda Economy. � E co a z E co 5 • s N s I support the movie palace in Alameda _ E The Alameda Theater will continue the progress of downtown Alameda by increasing foot traffic in I the area and by adding a modern, attractive facility for Alamedans. a • c a o. u) _ we need the theatre! While a huge dneplex is not my first choice, it must be understood that no one could make the financial numbers work for a small theater and still preserve the Historic Theater portion. This leaves the alternative...no theater at all. Restore this Motion Picture palace for the Alameda commuity to enjoy. It will strengthen the community. Huny up PLEASE!!!!! kevis thanks for speaking out on this issue. we need to hear'from the silent maioritv. Everyone would enjoy a nice dinner and a show here, instead of going to Bay Street or Jack London. It would be good for the commerce and people of Alameda. Also, having children, I would love to have them ride their bikes to this theatre.Kelly L. Ransil 94501 94501 94502 in 94502 94502 94502 j in in 94502 in 94501 94501 i 94501 94502-1 94502 94502 in 94502 1 c 94501 1 . in 94502 1 in 94502 u) i as i a J Alameda .5 as E Alameda E a 'Alameda s Alameda Alameda E < Alameda E co W w a Alameda o a c �, < Alameda 1 w W in l- m � m E W Alameda Alameda 11635 Eagle Ave 338 Channing Way 11808 Nason Street 1823 Moreland Drive 1713 Alameda Ave. 3115 Bayo Vista Biscay bay 117 Bisacy Bay 46 Salmon Road 11217 Park Avenue y C co ~ 1719 clinton ave � G a El 0 o 40 Basinside Way 154 10th Street Apt. 2 Buena Vista Ave 1720 Versailles Ave. 313 Ta for ave. 313 to for ave 313 to for ave. 127 C. • etown Drive 9 Ennis Place 1541 Eastshore Drive J G rn •C G I Montone Morrison Mosher Mosher .0 to e0 C t Murray Nannizzi Narayanan Nova Nowicki Olken oneil 'Oreshkov osterdock Padway Pak Palkovic Pao Patterson N C a Perkins Peterson V� f0 M f I co •S a'a'aaa Vl z 6 ga > i Dawn Mama c m C m co 2c , = w• Richard R U.� ___l ` Tara Caine Denise Charles a A' NY o fa ° � 53Jm a x lonn marcus merilee Dan Jean • Second generation Californian, born and raised in Alameda, in favor of movie complex, wish the rest of the original Alameda's would "step up to the plate" and support this. 1 We want a movie theater in downtown Alameda!!! thanks for doing this Kevis, please give my regards to Dave.cheers.Adair Roberts I support the current plans to renovate the theatre and add the parking garage. We need more reasons for Alamedans to stay on the island to eat, shop, and find entertainment, andd this will help. [A Target store at South Shore, however, I can do without] . Why any Alameda citizen would rather have an unused eyesoar other then something fun and useful! is beyond me. multiplex theaters are the only ones economically viable - and Alameda needs one for its businesses and citizens Alameda needs a theatre. There has been a good process to make this decision. Alamedans support this decision - do not let a few dissuade the City Council. Having my pre -teen and teenage kids walk to the movies on a Friday night? SIGN ME UP! Building up Park Street into a fabulous area that makes me want to stay local on a Saturday night instead of hitting Rockridge or San Frandsco? Sign me up.Congratulations on working toward building an inviting, exciting Alameda. We are in favor of the theatre We need the theater!!! 1 I think that a cineplex in Alameda would be a fabulous idea, as i am quite sure that no one enjoys driving at least 15 minutes in any direction just to see one movie that they could see easily —and probably in walking/bildng distance from their homes. Thank you for asking my opinion. I am very much in support of the theater. It will be a great opportunity to restore a historic building and revitalize our downtown. We need a place like this in Alameda. 94502 94502 0 tn m 94502 0 in m 94546 94546 94501 0 � m 94501 94501 94502 Iu°)ILn mm m 94502 94501 • u°�I�N mmmm 94501 'no mm 94501 .1 94501 Is 94502 1 94502 1 inn m vi 94502 1 94502 in m 94501 m E m m E m s !ALAMEDA ALAMEDA �a Castro Vall e m E m a m E m a Alameda m y EE�E m aaaa m y m m N m - 'too N EE m as 'pm N m Alameda 1 m ��2ii 111 aaaaa m m 1 m 2 E m a m Z E m a Q Alameda Alameda Alameda 27 Thurles Place 876 Oak Street I9 GARDEN RD. 3208 SAN JOSE AVE 18071 Knight Dr. 118071 Knight Dr. 12931 Northwood Dr. 939 Park Street 8 0 0 1339 Bay Street 1339 Bay Street 929 Central ave a 8 a g g 1202 Versailles Ave. 3293 Briggs Avenue 506 Tideway Drive 506.Tidewa Drive 506 Tidewa Drive 1507 Chestnut Street A . J 307 Capetown Drive 1801 Shoreline #308B 137 Brighton Rd 137 Brighton Road 1811 Versailles Ave 320 Jack London Ave 1, Ratto 1Ratto REGAN REYNOLDS cli Ruan Rumber er Rumber er Rumber er Rustad Saidman Schneider Scott Scott Shea. Shea Sheatsl Shen Stark Stark Stauder o�t to mow.' Q YZQ IJohn 1=-: Timothy P. Lilianna Lily Antoinette Arlene 1T rni— a) 8 !!! . 'Marie I' _co:¢ Pro Historic Alameda Theater Project E- Signatures Wonderful project which will benifit all who live in Alameda. New part compliments the old and brings life back to the old building. 1 definitely want a movie theater that I can walk to. Please keep this project moving forward. 1 With the beatification of the Park Street parking taking spaces, we need this garage for replacements. the merchants deserve it I am not sure why the stop the multiplex group is just starting to complain now. This plan has been on the board for quite awhile. I think a compromise of a few Tess screens would be OK.Has anyone approached the Alameda Sun or Joumal about supporting a non - partisan on -line poll? It would have to include a way to make sure no one 'stuffed the ballot box'!    I support the Alameda Theater Project! I am in favor of a cinema in Alameda. I grew up here and have since moved back in order to raise my kids. I remember going to the movies at South Shore and it was always a treat. I would like to take my children to a movie without driving 20 minutes through Oakland. I hope the restortation of the Alameda movie theater continues. We are loosing too many neighborhood theatres. This is needed badly. I support the Alameda Cinema complex In a town where there is not enough for teens to do in the evenings, and that ultimatiey forces us to send our children to Oakland, Emeryville and Union City so they can enjoy an evening with their friends, there should be no arguement about why we need this theatre. We came to Alamdea to raise our children because it is a safe bedroom community. Now lets continue to keep them safe by keeping them off the freeways and out of the cities that have higher crime rates. This is a much needed addition to our town. I can't wait for the theatre to open. Since we moved here in 2000, I've been hoping that my kids would have a local movie theatre to walk to with their friends, as we had where we used to live in the Midwest. This project MUST go through!!It will be a MAJOR boon to the whole city. 9" i 1 94502 O v) 1 94502 1 94501 0 v1 0 u) 1 94502 0 v) 94502 0 11) 0 �n a 94501 94502 v V� 945791 O �A 94502 O ,fl 94502 94501 1 94501 94501 1 N 0 94502 1 v0) a, 14 T 94502 1 Alameda Alameda Alameda Alameda Alameda Alameda Alameda EE aadad ig.1 � a Alameda E s E a 3 d iEE daa E E co Alameda ai 310 Jack London Ave 1106 Roxburg Lane 2205 San Antonio #C 418 Ironwood Road 418 Ironwood Road 12704 Bayview Drive 1710 Moreland Drive 11026 Taylor Ave 3304 Femside Blvd 618 Willow St. Apt E 1608 unio st APT A 8 > a 1339 Bay Street 329 Channing Way 742 Palmera Ct d > 9. a 3221 Thom ... n Ave 1012 Mound St. 1026 Ta Ior Avenue 3117 Bayo Vista Ave f 3117 Bayo Vista Ave Stephens 1Stevens Stilin Storar Storar Sutter c i.+� --i- `d Treakle Tung Urzua Valler Vaughn Verduzco z -a a � f0 3a3 A .� Westernoff Wheat Rum White Whitton y EA g3 • "r y3 O a NZ a ;3 Won Won Yajko Yu Jce Penny -, N� Ya IJohn c ' Kan Q ' Lauren I Linda Kathy _ •E•� 0 F 'Barbara C. co Tco co z0. {c 6' a 4 Anne b• 1:3 (�7• 'Sue c C7 Comments to City Council /CIC March 21, 2006 Good Evening Mayor Johnson, Members of the Council and Citizens of Alameda my name is Valerie Ruma and I am a 19 year resident of Alameda. It seems rather pointless, my being up here tonight spending my time speaking when it appears that the majority of you with a few notable exceptions have made up your minds to plow forward with this monstrosity of a project regardless of not only the opinions of the citizens who elected you to office, but also against the recommendations of your own appointed Historical Advisory Board and the AAPS both of who's opinion on matters such as this are highly esteemed in Alameda. But, I do believe in miracles and maybe some one of you somewhere might have a small opening through which a small shred of reason may penetrate. Now, I have to ask you, if you are not listening to any of the afore mentioned groups, the citizens, the AAPS (Alameda Architectural Preservation Society) or the HAB, then to whom are you listening ? ?? My guess is that you are listening to the monied interests who want to do business in this town on their own terms - in their own suburban, big box, throw away style rather than the interests of those who have built and preserved Alameda for many years as a community with unique and lasting value. People like the late Mayor Chuck Corica spent their lives making Alameda the kind of place where citizens and community mattered over big business and the almighty dollar. It is my impression that you are here tonight to put the finishing touches on minor decisions regarding the revised design of the cineplex and parking garage. To address that issue, I say simply that no matter what color you paint it, no matter how you tweak the architectural flourishes the size and scale of this project have not changed one bit. It is still far too massive and invites far too much environmental impact for it to be acceptable to those who care about the quality of life in this Alameda. Submitted by Valerie Ruma at the 03 -21 -06 Joint City Council /CIC Meeting Re: Agenda Item #1 As an example, I point to our new library being constructed just a block from here and two blocks from the project being proposed. That building seems massive to me. It towers over Oak Street at 41 feet tall and turns Oak Street into a wind tunnel. It seems to create a giant shadow on the entire block. If you feel the same, then consider that the proposed cineplex and garage project will be higher still at a top height of 70 feet and with narrow streets bordering not one, but both sides. Can you imagine the claustrophobic feeling that will create? Finally, I want to let everyone here in the room and everyone watching on TV know that this decision is not complete regardless of what has been decided previously and regardless of what gets decided tonight. There is a lawsuit pending that if successful will force this project to be submitted to the scrutiny of an Environmental Impact Report. Currently we ask for you help in funding that lawsuit and if an EIR is mandated, we ask for you to participate in the project so that the true impacts of this proposed plan will be evident and a safe and sane alternative solution found. Stay informed at www.stopalamedamegaplex.com Alameda City Council March 21, 2006 Re: Vote on final design of Megaplex For public record Once again there is another opportunity to listen to the people of Alameda. Tonight we discuss the controversial megaplex project. I vehemently request that an EIR be performed to understand the impact of this project to our Civic Center and community. As you have heard on many occasions, the size and scale of this project is NOT what the people of Alameda want. This is based on credible evidence. Consider the following: Alameda's own Historic Advisory Board (HAB) and The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) have both weighed in with the opinion that the entire project is too big for the Historic District. HAB unanimously denounced the scale of the project at its January 5th meeting. In numerous City Council meeting, citizens have overwhelmingly voiced their concerns and have on multiple occasions requested that an EIR report be performed due to the size ad scale of the megaplex and garage for reasons ranging from aesthetic to traffic impacts. We are concerned that the City would like to move forward on this project in the Civic Center before it has developed a Civic Center Specific Plan, as required by the General Plan. Please perform the EIR. Ple se understand the impact of this project to the Civic Center. Please finalize the Civic pl eylor Submitted by Joe Meylor at the 03 -21 -06 Joint City Council /CIC Meeting Re: Agenda Item #1 March 21, 2006 To the Mayor, City Council and Voters of Alameda, I just learned that the vote to continue on the plan of the theater complex and parking garage is up for a vote today. It seems most of the informed citizens of Alameda are against this plan. I have learned there are many reasons people are opposed to it. There seems to me to be eight reasons so egregious that each of them alone should be considered a deal- stopper. Yet, there are many other important reasons. The basic eight I will list and then explain include: 1. Public Safety 2. Changing Technology will continue to remove profitability from movie theaters. 3. The terrible lease deal where the city will only receive 20% of market rate for theater space. 4. Actual construction costs are well beyond budget. 5. The plan violates the City's General Plan, in both the stated theme and the requirement that before any construction in the City's Civic Center takes place there must be an accepted Civic Center Specific Plan, and to date none has been developed. 6. It violates the aesthetics of our community. The Alameda Historic Advisory Board is unanimously opposed to this plan. 7. There are many Superior Alternatives to this plan which would unify this community with pride, enhancing the quality of our town center while saving the city's revenue. 8. There is huge public aversion, so much so that those elected to represent us should be forced to remember that they are our public servants, and not entitled to force their will on the community. Public Safety: There have been many parking studies in Alameda over the last decades. Every one ruled out the site of the planned location for the seven -level parking structure. The reason has been consistently that it is not safe because Oak Street is too narrow. That is why 5 other sites have been chosen as superior locations. For comparison, Oak Street between Central and Santa Clara is 35' 6" from curb to curb and the High Street Bridge is 43' 9 ". Making matters worse is that portion of Oak Street is to be part of Alameda's bicycle blvd system, though not providing a bicycle lane because of lack of room. The high volume of pedestrians to be expected with the local schools, library, church, increasing retail, the bicycle boulevard, and movie theater, (hopefully without 2nd multi- plex), and the growing traffic density will place enough increased risk in this area without the parking structure being placed at this previously dismissed location. In light of all that has been made public, to continue this plan would demonstrate willful disregard for public safety and likely open the city to lawsuits for neglect when injuries or fatalities occur. Technology vs. movie Theaters: Intelligent business plans always consider trends in the business environment. Fifty years ago the IATSE, the union representing stage hands, movie workers, and projectionists, declined pursuing television work stating that "television was just a fad that would pass." Television of course was not a fad and technology still guides our entertainment industry. The numbers of movie houses and live theaters continued to decline as Submitted by David Kirwin at the 03 -21 -06 Joint City Council /CIC Meeting Re: Agenda Item #1 televisions became a household appliance across the nation. We are in the midst of another entertainment technology revolution affecting theaters which only a fool would ignore. It began with the introduction of home theaters and is expected to continue as home entertainment centers continue to improve and costs continue to decline. This new revolution has resulted in the decrease in movie house box office revenues for many years despite being masked by increased ticket costs during the early years of the decline. Also the early years of this technology revolution was heralded because of the availability and improvements of home movie media, while now the visual image is being improved with bigger yet less obstructive screen formats - the big, lightweight wall mounted flat screens. Home presentation technology will continue to improve as costs will continue to decline. Every reasonable market analyst knows movie house attendance will continue to decline. This is a terrible time to invest in this movie theater plan which is why it requires taxpayer money to drive the deal - market forces can read the writing on the wall and refuse to invest. It would be terribly irresponsible for our elected public servants to waste our future general funds on such a poor risk especially since the architect does not provide for easy retail conversion with the likely event of the theater's failure. Lease Deal: According to the agreement the City is entering with the theater operator, the lease is only about 20% of the average lease cost for movie theater space in the Bay Area. This is a horrible deal considering it is for a newly "renovated" historic theater of the period and style of this, Alameda's 'grand gem'. Council member Daysog has cited this as his reason to vote against the plan. Others should show the same fiduciary sense of responsibility. Despite the proposed operator's argument that he will be providing some of the theaters furnishings, there is nothing to insure what he installs as far as quality and aesthetics. His past failure at operating a movie house in this city when operating the South Shore Theater, while that multiplex was the only movie house in town was perhaps due to his low investment in furnishings as well as the maintenance and custodial shortfalls that gave that theater its bad reputation. Construction Costs: Despite the fact that Alameda's Development Dept did try to pad some of the cost projections, the construction costs in the last half decade have soared well beyond what would have been reasonably expected. Before the first shovel of dirt we all know that the project will go beyond budget. The 'reserve funds' for the project have already been gobbled up. The negotiation failure with Long's for the shared footprint of the shorter version of the parking structure altered the project considerably, and also increased the costs. It is unfair to the Citizens of Alameda that all of the City's departments will further suffer the loss of the future tax increments to repay further bonds to bail us out of this mess. If this plan is pursued, cost considerations will also require cutting corners with aesthetics and quality as it has with other recent projects like the loss of the copper roof of the library for a cheaper painted steel roof which is more likely to require higher maintenance costs in the future. With the continued loss of future tax increments what will be left to cover the increased costs of providing for our citizens. We all now know the only tax revenue from this project is the concessions sold in the theater, not the tickets. There is basically no payback for the budgeted costs, let alone the over - budget costs. This plan will certainly not bring more shoppers to the downtown area than a more appropriate, in -scale theater project would bring. Alameda's General Plan: Alameda has an established General Plan whose policies reinforce specified themes and serve as guidelines to growth. Part of the themes explanations (Section 1.2) directly states "The City does not have or want tall buildings, freeways, highway commercial strips, or vast tracts of look -alike housing." Section 3.4 of the General plan deals with the Civic Center Specific Plan, outlines it needs, delineates the 12 acre area which is from Lincoln to Central, roughly splitting the block between Walnut and Oak and Oak and Park. It includes the Alameda Theater as well as the new Library despite being completed and accepted in 1991. It is a twenty year plan. Part of 3.4d states "Prepare and adopt a Civic Center Specific Plan for the 12 acre Specific Plan Area delineated on the General Plan diagram. The plan is to include uses, building footprints and envelopes (location and bulk), architectural and landscape design character, street and pedestrian way design, and schematic design of parking areas /structures. The level of regulation and means of the Specific Plan can vary over a broad range. Initial actions may include only library design and parking management or construction, but these must occur in the context of a plan for the entire area." Note the word "must ", it does not say "should ". Despite the fact that subsequent City budgets have always carried the item of Civic Center Specific Plan Development since 1991, it has never been funded. To continue to pursue this theater plan without the context of the civic center plan is to willingly put the cart before the horse. Why? It seems apparent that certain members of council want to set new precedents which seem diametrically opposed to the established will of the people as established in the themes of the City's General Plan. I was recently appalled at a public planning meeting when one of our City Council appointees to the Planning Board was encouraging a developer who wanted to construct a building under 40' to instead build a nine story building in our city! Until the Civic Center Specific Plan is funded and completed no construction projects should be initiated. This of course would delay this project, but that is a good thing as it will allow time to review other aspects of the concept as a whole, weighing it against the other seemingly superior options. The structures proposed will stand for many decades; it is prudent to take the time to do what our children will be proud of, rather than this fast tracked questionable deal which could prove a real objectionable blight within a decade. City Aesthetics: The location of this project is in the location of the heart of our historic civic center area. Therefore, it is imperative it meet the standards of this district. Every member of the Alameda Historic Advisory Board voted against this plan. What else needs to be said? In addition to unanimously rejecting the idea, on January 5, 2006, members of the Board also spoke of the political pressure they were under to approve the project and others spoke publicly on how out of touch the present council is with their constituents. I applaud all of those members of AHAB for maintaining their personal integrity as well as the integrity of that Board. The Superior Alternatives: Several clearly superior alternatives have been presented to the city. Our elected officials owe the tax payers an honest explanation of why they are trying to pursue this severely objectionable project and not the better cheaper, aesthetically palatable options that meet the concepts of our City's General Plan which they have been presented with. When the vast majority of theaters in this country have five or fewer screens, why does an isolated island community that could not support a three screen theater require and 8 to 10 screen theater to be successful? One of the members of our community has been successfully operating a small single screen theater, and has done so by presenting movies that people in this community want to take their families to see. That is a good business practice. Why does the proposed operator require so many screens? How does this City Council choose who it will listen to? Mass Public Aversion: No other issue in Alameda has started such a large vocal response in the almost ten years I have lived here. All kinds of Alamedans have responded as individuals or gathered together in organized groups to voice their opinions to try to prevent this plan. Public meetings held with ample notification show that Alamedans oppose the project by a 10 to 1 margin. Of the 10% who have spoken at meetings in favor of the project, most of those speakers seem to have a vested financial interest. It is clear that the people of this city do not want this in our community. Honorable Mayor and City Council, would you please read and respond to the above points? I would also like to hear from you regarding the use of Special Meetings for City business. Who decides on the use of Special Meetings and what are the criteria that necessitate the Special Meeting? As a tax payer, I was shocked to see the decision of the bond issue taken up at a special meeting instead of a properly noticed General meeting. This seems to be an affront to the laws of open government, though it may not be against those laws. It is very difficult for caring members of this community, so many of whom are parents of young children, to gather, read and process the related documents and form an intelligent opinion on complex issues which have a dramatic and prolonged affect on our community, while trying to arrange for baby sitters, etc., especially when getting less than a 24 hour notice, or even to learn of the notice of the meeting. This is an import question for the relationship of Alameda's City Council and the Sunshine Laws. Thank you for your time. David Kirwin Hello City Council and Public, I am voicing my vote in favor of the current plans for our Alameda Cineplex. I believe having a Cineplex on the Island will be met with long- awaited applause from the vast majority of Alamedans. Just as important is the parking lot, which provides a real solution for creating a viable shopping district in Alameda. I am NOT in favor of big -box retailers and the mall sprawl which pervades our nation's suburbs. What makes Alameda so great is the small town -feel which still emanates on this island. Our fellow residents feel like local neighbors; our city still a hidden secret in the Bay Area. Park Street, Webster Street, and other shopping districts with smaller boutique stores help shape the flavor of Alameda. But so many of us drive off the island to Bay Street, Walnut Creek, and Stoneridge Mall when the shopping bug hits us. And we take our tax dollars with us. The most common reason I hear... there are no cool shops in Alameda. No Gap. No Bed, Bath, and Beyond. No recognizable name -brand stores. I believe a nice mixture of family -owned operations and national chains will strengthen Park Street. We all see how much Peet's, Starbucks, and Tomatina have increased foot - traffic on Central Ave. They have also given Pillow Park, Toy Safari, and other local outfits a boost in new faces. They have made Park Street cool again. To increase shopping on Park Street we must have foot - traffic. To keep our tax dollars within our City, we must have foot - traffic. To maintain our small -town feel while balancing the reality that we live in the Bay Area, we must have foot - traffic. The Cineplex and Parking Structure will provide this. In the two years it has taken to complete our construction of an 800 square foot addition, we have seen our construction budget double because of rising costs. Please, let's not make the same mistake with this project. I too value the City's money to fund this project. My fear is that we will spend even more of it five years from now if we delay construction any longer. I ask that we put our smaller differences aside and do what's best for all Alamedans. Let's get the Cineplex built, and enjoy a popcorn and a picture together. Sincerely, Gene Oh, long -time resident and proprietor of Alameda Bicycle Submitted by Robb Ratto at the 03 -21 -06 Joint City Council /CIC Meeting Re: Agenda Item #1 TO BE ENTERED ON THE RECORD CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, March 21, 2006 Good Evening Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers, My name is Anders Lee. I am a citizen of Alameda. We're here again at another meeting where the issue of the $'Screen theater is being brought up again. o�� Again, I say please vote NO on this roJ 'ect(There is g yp p currently a lawsuit against the city. If the City Council decides to again push forward with this project, I hope that the council and city staff have the foresight to accept construction bids based on contingency. The contingency of the city being allowed by the law to build the theater. If the city cannot build the planned Cscreen theater than I would hope that the City of Alameda is not stuck with expenses that could have been avoided. Thank you. Submitted by Anders Lee at the 03 -21 -06 Joint City Council /CIC Meeting Re: Agenda Item #1 A Better Solution for Alameda Theater As controversy about the Alameda Theater /Cineplex/Parking project swirls on, one issue that should have been prominent has barely been mentioned. Of the projected project cost of $25 million, about half is for restoration of Alameda Theater, but that isn't the highest and best use of the money, especially with $9 million devoted to invisible seismic and code upgrades. For less than the restoration would cost, Alameda could have a world class civic center for the performing arts surpassing even Hayward, Walnut Creek, and other similar communities. It doesn't make sense to embalm an essentially unusable 20th century architectural artifact with money that could otherwise be used to create a vital, functional civic theater complex that would be actively usable by Alamedans young and old throughout the 21st century and perhaps beyond. Kofman auditorium is not a suitable substitute for a bona fide community theater, and even if fully restored, Alameda Theater, lacking a stage, could not begin to serve that purpose. Nor is Alameda Theater needed for movies - occasional blockbusters could be shown on multiple cineplex screens as is common elsewhere. Assuming the cineplex and parking structure go forward, it would be far more useful to replace Alameda Theater with a contemporary performing arts center than to restore it. For historical and aesthetic purposes, the lobby might still be preserved, and examples of architectonic elements in the auditorium might be integrated into design of such a completely new facility. Restoration of Alameda Theater would be a tragic civic mistake. There is still time to choose a positive, forward - looking course rather than to persist in focusing dysfunctionally on the past. Tom Billings Theater Critic The Alameda Journal 1005 -B Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 himself @tnbillings. com 510- 0769 -2000 Submitted at the 03 -21 -06 Joint City Council /CIC Meeting Re: Agenda Item #1 wL i rk,e( 121.12 rVLOL 1/0 "t2)- `0 n twoircts t Ly2A-- afi) -1-19 Fie.pt 71,k. an9i(1 2e.e 'tuiciaAw Cur � °Iv lAAVN\ FOLIO SHORT- TRIMMED RULED PAGES Submitted by Ani Dimusheva at the 03 -21 -06 Joint Council /CIC Meeting Re: Agenda Item #1 01988, 2001, DAY - TIMERS, Inc. ALLENTOWN, PA • MADE IN USA Rosemary McNally March 21, 2006 City Council Meeting Regardless of what you call the proposed- structures at Oak and Central, one thing is clear. They are SUPERSIZED I was told by Bob Hahn of the Alameda Planning Department that the new library is 37'10' tall. If you include the mechanical penthouse, it is41'11. Now, how does that relate to tonight's discussion? Put yourself on Santa Clara, in the Long's parking lot. Now look toward Central Street and imagine a wall 70' tall. This would be the north wall of the parking garage. This is almost twice as tall as the new library. Submitted by Rosemary McNally regarding the 03 -21 -06 Joint Council /CIC Meeting Re: Agenda Item #1 Relative to today's Alameda, this would be a SUPERSIZED building. We don't see a sketch of this northwall. Why not? Now, if you are convinced this is what the citizens of Alamed want, I ask you to do what you did with the library. At the least, create a model of this project. Then include the other buildings at Oak and Central and Oak and Santa Clara. Include City Hall. Architects are trained to do models like this, and it should have been included in all of the public discussions of this project. Let your constituents see what you are voting on. If the project is right for this intersection it will be clear. If it's not, that will be clear. Then we can get a design that is the right size for the most important corner in the true center of Alameda. A true town center. That's how TALL the parking garage is going to be. Relative to today's Alameda, this would be a SUPERSIZED building. Now, if you are convinced this is what the citizens of Alameda want, I ask you to do what you did with the library. At the least, create a model of this project. Then include the other buildings at Oak and Central and Oak and Santa Clara. (,0 Architects are trained to do models like this, and it should have been included in public discussions of this project. Let your constituents see what it is you are voting on. The project you have before you is SUPERSIZED for Alameda. If you truly want what is best for Alameda in the long run, I'm compelled to ask why you didn't require a model encompassing the Oak Street corridor months ago. If the project is right for this intersection, it will be clear. If it's not, that will be clear. Then we can get a design that is the right size for the most important corner in the true center of Alameda. UI/LI!fl1!Iif1N Mar 21,06 05:04p • NOIJVA313133I1S )IVO a' IlMlI l—RN 11 ALAMEDA CtNEMAPLDC AND PARKING STRUCTURE [oMrW Arenas and Meted of KOMOROUS -TOWEY ARCHITECTS an rou.TI41T4 STR/fr DAKLAY0. CA Mfll Aft Hf.N� rr:f aNf artWoOmps S Lara Weisiger - for the record Page..,. From: To: Date: Subject: Hello, Ani Dimusheva <antzv @earthlink.net> <clerk @ci.alameda.ca.us> 3/28/2006 9:58:41 AM for the record below is a copy of my statement from the last City Council meeting. Please include in the record. Thank you, Ani Special Meeting of the City Council and the Community Improvement Commission March 21, 2006 FOR THE RECORD Mayor and Councilmembers, I am here tonight to reiterate my opinion that the project is too big for its proposed location, and will have significant environmental impacts on its environment, such as increased traffic and diminishing the value of historic resources. To mitigate these impacts you must perform an Environmental Impact Report and I'm confident that you will. I am also here to remind you that your own appointed advisory body HAB, as well as the AAPS, as well as architectural historian Woody Minor, as well as Councilmember DeHaan, as well as thousands of Alameda citizens, have also stated that the scale of the project is too big. SHPO's approval of external features and colors is hardly an endorsement of scale. If you listen to your constituents and your advising groups and scale down the project, SHPO would be just as happy or happier. Some of you have stated as a reAson for not going with a smaller project the assumption that a theater with less than 8 screens would not be viable. This is not supported by fact. The Grand Lake, the Piedmont, the Elmwood, the Parkway, the Cerrito, and the Balboa and our own Central Cinema to name only a few contradict that assumption. Just because you have found an operator that can only work with 8 to 10 screens doesn't mean a smaller configuration is not viable with a different operator. This brings me to a question I would like to hear answered tonight. The City is going to pay the entire bill for work on the historic theater - -an amount now estimated at $12 million. Councilwoman Gilmore justified this expense because in her words, the historic theater is a public amenity. I wouldn't disagree with this assessment, and I also take it to mean that the City is willing to invest in the historic theater without expecting a full return. What I don't understand and what has never been explained adequately is why are then additional screens needed, especially since the addition Submitted by Ani Dimusheva regarding the 03 -21 -06 Joint Council /CIC Meeting Re: Agenda Item #1 Lara Weisiger for the record �� .v.�.. �,�....... Page 2 actually raises the price for the historic theater restoration, as the building would have to have connections, be ADA compliant, etc? This need is based entirely on the assumption that I said is not supported by fact. Common sense implies that if the City were to restore the historic theater only, with the money already slated for it, and were than to issue a new request for proposals, for operators of an already restored 3 to 5 screen theater, the pool of operators to choose from would be very different. This option, which you can view as phasing, has always been avoided, and I would like to know why. If your intentions with this project are really sincere and public opinion really does matter than you must act on this option now. Thank you. Ani Dimusheva 2911 Calhoun Street Alameda CA 94501