The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-07-26 SubmittalsCity of Alameda: EFMHome Page 1 of 2 Case Details Print Close Case Number: Customer: ii 15538 Yeaton - Risley, Claire external customer 1101 Grand Street Alameda CA 94501 (map) 501 864 -1103 cyeatonrisley @hotmail.com Preferred Contact Method: Email Submitted By: Yeaton - Risley, Claire customer Topic: Mayor /City Council >E -mail the Mayor and Councilmembers Status: Resolved Location of Request: Request Type: Primary Owner: Date /Time Created: Date /Time Closed: Suggestion Baines, Christina 07/26/2006 15:18 07/26/2006 15:36 Original Request Skimping on construction quality and margins for contingencies is certain to create huge problems in the future. If you must proceed with the megaplex, please consider saving money by shaving a couple of floors off the parking garage and applying doing quality work on the megaplex. Customer Communications No records of communication activities found Internal Activity Internal Notes Date From Note 07/26/06 Baines, Details » 15:36 Christina Tasks Complete Due Subject Assigned By Assigned To Status Case Contacts Role Name Email Phone Primary Owner Secondary Owner Baines, Christina cbaines @ci.alameda.ca.us 510- 747 -4701 Weisiger, Lara Iweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us 747 -4801 Attachments No attachments found Re: Agenda Item #1 Special Joint CC & CIC Mtg. 7 -26 -06 https: // clients. comcate.com /reps /caseDetail.php 7/26/2006 Elizabeth Acord - Tonight's CIC meeting - -Value Engineering for Civic Center Parking Garage Page 1 1 From: "Buckley,Christopher" <cbuckley @alamedanet.net> To: "'Beverly Johnson "' <bjohnson @ci.alameda.ca.us >, <mgilmore @ci.alameda.ca.us >, <tdaysog @aol.com >, < frank _matarrese @alamedanet.net >, <ddehaan @ci.alameda.ca.us> Date: 7/26/2006 4:15:30 PM Subject: Tonight's CIC meeting - -Value Engineering for Civic Center Parking Garage Dear Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers: I 'm concerned that some of the items proposed for deletion or modification in the value engineering report will compromise the architectural integrity of the proposed parking garage design. These items are: 4,9,10 ,13.27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35 and 36 as shown in Attachment 1 (Value Engineering Log for Parking Garage) to the staff report. These items involve various architectural details and surface treatments and are very important to maintaining the high quality of the design, complimenting the architectural character of the Civic Center's architecturally significant buildings and mitigating the garage's scale and massing. Some of the items I have listed are probably more important than others, but it is difficult to prioritize them due to: (1) the lack of architectural graphics showing what the garage would look like if these items were deleted or modified; and (2) no indication of the costs associated with each item. I urge the CIC to direct staff to: (1) explore alternatives to the changes listed above; and (2) for any future Council /CIC discussions of these changes, to provide clear graphic representations for any exterior architectural impacts of the changes and an approximation of the cost savings for each change. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am sorry that I will be unable to attend tonight's CIC meeting due to another commitment. Chris Buckley CC: <dkurita @ci.alameda.ca.us >, "'Leslie Little "' <LLittle @ci.alameda.ca.us >, Re: Agenda Item #1 Special Joint CC & CIC Mtg. 7 -26 -06 Downtown Theater Project: Other Costs Breakdown Items Budget Parking Garage Outside Consultants Michael Stanton Architecture Conceptual Design $48,426 Komorus Towey Conceptual Design $209,740 CPM/TAG Construction Management $607,935 Treadwell & Rollo Soils Engineering $33,854 Bluewater Environmental Demolition $51,893 Russell Resources /NGEM Haz Mat Demo $20,826 West Advertising Public Outreach $12,355 Temporary Mural Project $0 Building Permit & Plan Check Fees $325,000 Public Works Inspection $40,000 Video Maniacs Buyout $50,000 Subtotal Other Costst11 $1,400,000 Alameda Theater Rehabilitation Outside Consultants Architectural Resources Group Design $676,689 CPM/TAG Construction Management $506,501 Northgate Environmental Hazardous Materials $1 1,500 Keyser Marston Economics $60,724 BKF Survey $46,500 Degenkolb Engineers Structural Engineering $5,000 SJ Engineers Mechanical Engineering $4,500 Robert Bruce Anderson Historic Preservation $12,032 The Browning Group Relocation Services $1,274 Miscellaneous Misc. $5,600 Building Permit & Plan Check Fees $400,000 FF &E Contingency $125,000 Subtotal Other Costs(2) $1,855,000 (1) This subtotal differs from the 7/26/2006 budget by $10,000 due to the elimination of the temporary mural project. The parking garage architect/contractor proposes a shear wall on the inside of the structure, not on the northern elevation. As a result, there is no need for a wall and associated mural on this elevation. The project satisfies the public art ordinance through the restoration of the historic Alameda Theater, per CIC approval of the project DDA; see Section 605 of the DDA. (2) This subtotal differs from the 7/26/2006 budget by $15,000 due to the termination of environmental /engineering contracts at the end of the fiscal year. These professional services for predevelopment were no longer required for the project. Re: Agenda Item #1 7/26/06 Special Joint Meeting Provided by the City Manager 7/26/2006 Historic Theater Project Presentation to the Joint Meeting of the CIC and City Council July 26, 2006 Parking Garage Contract Power Point presentation at the 7/26/06 Special Joint Meeting Re: Agenda Item #1 1 Parking Garage Value- Engineering (VE) Major Non - Architectural Items — Included in VE 1. Reduce quantity of multi - space meters 2. Delete storage room 3. Delete one elevator car 4. Delete rock under slab 5. Delete upper level to line G $70,000 $7,900 $74,000 $16,000 $43,300 Parking Garage Value- Engineering Major Architectural Items — Included in VE 1. Replace precast spandrels with CIP walls 2. Delete 4 of 6 canopies 3. Simplify mullions to sheet metal 4. Delete marquee canopy /blade sign 5. Use tile granite instead of slab $80,000 $18,200 $24,000 $90,500 $40,500 2 Parking Garage Value- Engineering Major Architectural Items — To Be Excluded from VE 1. Eliminate "scallops" at column tops $1,200 2. Delete plaster picture frames $17,900 3. Delete walls not part of elevator shaft $8,500 4. Delete El FS "cornice" effect $9,500 TOTAL $37,100 Alameda Theater Contract 3 Theater Scope of Work Site Work & Demolition $777,020 (9 %) Concrete Work $1,568,300 (18 %) Structural Steel $365,750 (4 %) Roofing $156,000 (2 %) Steel Doors & Frames $215,400 (2 %) Plaster $667,655 (8 %) Scaffold $148,383 (2 %) Carpet $217,005 (2 %) Acoustical Wall & Ceiling Panels $153,000 (2 %) Theater Scope of Work Painting $585,100 (7 %) Plumbing $237,900 (3 %) Fire Protection $285,700 (3 %) Mechanical $433,645 (5 %) Electrical $1,064,200 (12 %) Marquee /Signage $179,834 (2 %) Other $585,242 (7 %) Overhead /Fee /Insurance $1,160,866 (13 %) TOTAL * May not total to 100% due to rounding $8,800,000 (100 %)* 4 Additional Scope Reductions — Not Recommended Elimination of carpet replication Elimination of air - conditioning Reuse existing electrical conduit; precludes restaurant use Limitation of full disabled access Subtotal $40,000 $40,000 to $60,000 $50,000 to $75,000 Undetermined $130,000 to $300,000 Evaluation of Historic Theater Project Alternatives 5 Scheme 1: Smaller Cineplex, Reduced Retail Development Program Number of Parking Spaces 350 Number of Parking Levels 6+ Roof Number of Screens 6 Retail Square Footage Existing Theater New Retail Total Square Footage 2,700 1,500 4,200 Scheme 1: Smaller Cineplex, Reduced Retail Public Uses of Funds Parking Garage $11,007,000 Cineplex $1,500,000 Alameda Theater $15,471,000 Total Uses $27,978,000 6 Scheme 1: Smaller Cineplex, Reduced Retail Public Sources of Funds HUD Section 108 Merged Bonds 2002 BWIP Bonds Parking Meter Funds Total Sources $7,000,000 $21,003,000 $500,000 $1, 700,000 $30,203,000 Scheme 2: No Cineplex, Theater Reuse, Garage w /Retail Development Program Number of Parking Spaces 319 Number of Parking Levels 3 +Roof Number of Screens 1 -3 Retail Square Footage Existing Theater 2,700 New Retail 9,400 Total Square Footage 12,100 7 Scheme 2: No Cineplex, Theater Reuse, Garage w /Retail Public Uses of Funds Parking Garage $10,032,094 Cineplex $0 Alameda Theater $17,500,000 Total Uses $27,532,094 Scheme 2: No Cineplex, Theater Reuse, Garage w /Retail Public Sources of Funds HUD Section 108 $0 Merged Bonds $21,003,000 2002 BWIP Bonds $500,000 Parking Meter Funds $1,700,000 Total Sources $23,203,000 8 Scheme 3: Cineplex, Theater Reuse, Elks Garage Development Program Number of Parking Spaces 540 Number of Parking Levels 4 -5 Number of Screens 9 -11 Retail Square Footage Existing Theater New Retail Total Square Footage 2,700 8,000 10,700 Scheme 3: Cineplex, Theater Reuse, Elks Garage Public Uses of Funds Parking Garage $21,982,229 Cineplex $1,500,000 Alameda Theater $15,471,000 Total Uses $38,953,229 9 Scheme 3: Cineplex, Theater Reuse, Elks Garage Public Sources of Funds HUD Section 108 $0 Merged Bonds $21,003,000 2002 BWIP Bonds $500,000 Parking Meter Funds $1,700,000 Total Sources $23,203,000 Scheme 4: No Cineplex, Theater Reuse, Elks Garage Development Program Number of Parking Spaces 540 Number of Parking Levels 4 -5 Number of Screens 1 -3 Retail Square Footage Existing Theater 2,700 New Retail 8,000 Total Square Footage 10,700 10 Scheme 4: No Cineplex, Theater Reuse, Elks Garage Public Uses of Funds Parking Garage $21,982,229 Cineplex $0 Alameda Theater $17,500,000 Total Uses $39,482,229 Scheme 4: No Cineplex, Theater Reuse, Elks Garage Public Sources of Funds HUD Section 108 $0 Merged Bonds $21,003,000 2002 BWIP Bonds $500,000 Parking Meter Funds $1,700,000 Total Sources $23,203,000 11 Scheme 5: Cineplex, Theater Reuse, US Bank Garage Development Program Number of Parking Spaces 320 Number of Parking Levels 4 +Roof Number of Screens 9 -11 Retail Square Footage Existing Theater New Retail Total Square Footage 2,700 15,000 17,700 Scheme 5: Cineplex, Theater Reuse, US Bank Garage Public Uses of Funds Parking Garage $15,063,543 Cineplex $1,500,000 Alameda Theater $15,471,000 Total Uses $32,034,543 12 Scheme 5: Cineplex, Theater Reuse, US Bank Garage Public Sources of Funds HUD Section 108 $0 Merged Bonds $21,003,000 2002 BWIP Bonds $500,000 Parking Meter Funds $1,700,000 Total Sources $23,203,000 13 Attachment 3 Proposed Budget for Downtown Theater Project Item Budget 3/21/2006 Budget 6/7/2006 Proposed Budget 7/26/2006 Difference between 6/7- 7/26 I. SOURCE OF FUNDS(') Sources of Funds Add'I Redevelopment Bond Proceeds (Library) Add'I Redevelopment Bond Proceeds TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS II. USE OF FUNDS Parking Garage Land Acquisition Construction Costs Other Costs Construction Contingence) Subtotal Cineplex Public Contribution /Loan Hazardous Materials Clean -up(3) Theater Connections Subtotal Alameda Theater Rehabilitation Property Acquisition /Relocation Rehabilitation Costs Other Costs Additional Soft Costs(4) Construction Contingence) Subtotal TOTAL USE OF FUNDS III. NET BALANCE/ REVENUE SURPLUS $29,003,000 $0 $29,003,000 $811,000 $8,300,000 $1,410,000 $786,000 $11,307,000 $2,800,000 $200,000 $675,000 $3,675,000 $2,500,000 $7,373,600 $1,870,000 $0 $1,106,000 $12,849,600 $27,832,000 $1,171,000 $29,003,000 $0 $29,003,000 $811,000 $8,300,000 $1,410,000 $786,000 $11,307,000 $2,800,000 $200,000 $675,000 $3,675,000 $2,500,000 $8,500,000 $1,870,000 $45,000 $1,106,000 $14,021,000 $29,003,000 $0 $29,003,000 $1,000,000 $200,000 $30,203,000 $811,000 $8,371,00 $1,410,000 $415,000 $11,007,000 $2,800,000 $250,000 $675,000 $3,725,000 $3,418,000 $8,800,000 $1,870,000 $277,0 $1,106,00 $15,471,000 $30,203,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $200,000 $1,200,000 +$37,000 $0 $71,000 $0 ($371,000) ($300,000) $0 $50,000 $50,000 $918,000 $300,000 $0 $232,000 $1,450,000 1,200,000 - $37,000 (1) Assumes $1 million in library redevelopment bond funds and $200,000 in uncommitted bond funds no longer required for cash reserves are committed to the Theater project under the 7/26/2006 budget. (2) The contingency for the theater under the 7/26/2006 budget is approximately 13% instead of 15% with the increase in construction budget; and the garage was reduced to 5% still exceeding industry standards. (3) This contingency was incorrectly stated as a $200,000 in previous budgets. The DDA states it is a $250,000 contingency. (4) As part of the value- engineering process for the the theater, these funds are likely to be required for additional soft costs. Provided by the Project Manager at the 7/26/06 Special Joint Mtg. Re: Agenda Item #1 7/26/2006 Alternatives v0 7 a) 0 N n9 ce C U 2 a) O m co Z = co i- 0 r y L X a) a) a) rx t E C a) Cl) U E N O 0 O O co. i Q o I` o I` t O O O N C) 0 am� L) 0 0 I.0 0 0 0 0 O 0 CD 0 N O ( d- 0 0 LO N 64 N— M x— 64 CO N N 64 64 Ea E9 OO LO CO OOO N604 0 Cnd'v- 000 N O N CO O 600) O 664 69 0) N N N- CO 0) M 64 Cn 0 818 0) 0 0 0) NOON 0 N O O N cc> N O O N O O N 64 — M 0 64 Efl164 M - 00.-- 000 00)) 000)) CO Ct I's V- 0 0 0 CO 6 0,- M 0 M 0 LO L[) OI-- r-- N 64 (/4 0 0 C0 000 000 17 0 M Ce � Lo N O O O + 6 O o I` O O us_ .1' 6464 9— 0 ao M} O 000 N CO CO N- C() O N 64 64 CO U N O a) cm 2 CO J O D O Q) CA co . C 2'000 2 LL d Y Y a) LL ro O O U a) N 46 L _ ) 0 d CO F 43 E O O O C O) a) cr rap `- Cr C W CO D - -O .On _0 _0 = .co 3 m U O > I` � � X O O O > > > N W Z I— in ozzzc 0 0 0 0 O 64o00 o o h- 64 0 0 0 64 0 o O 0 0 O 044) f- N 64 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O O O 664 0 O 0 M O N M N 64 O O O c') O N M N (1 O O O O N M N 64 0 000 00 oo o0 i r- 0 0 0 0 0 0) O O co h N 64 v- N 69 N 64 M 69 69 69 0 0 0 CO" 0 N 0 M 64 Cn LL a) O co ca O a) U CO ~ a) 0 X CO O U) CD a) - � c "EL 0 a- < 0 0 O O M O N 0 M 64 Alternatives N X a) 2 a) a) c0 Ear N a) a) Y V •C a) co U a) m F- co 0))2o a c2oa C cp O a) CD O O N Y Z ai S a) a) . CDD E a @ c a) 0 v U as v) L � W N_ m N ax) S 4) a) 0. E C " .cU °) o z� o CD N E 4- 0 .D 0)) a) `) cL CC CC 0 0 a) Cf CT Cr O 64 m O O O O O O 0 0 V) j 0 O N N E0 0 0 a) >. o Lc) y D CO E4 J w i 64 cf) Q >, o c0 _ 0 O i o0 .D U) -° C °o o° o °O CO 0) N N a) Eo 00 a) T mrE O N N 6� J w ct CD 0 N 2 O Q w O 64 F 'O .0 •0 y C 0 0 N N 0 C O 0 N N cr 00 a) ° a) ai N a) p WWil �D Mte .-1 ca Q = () 'O"0 5 c0 y0O C3 E5 ID a) N 0) (O "C o0 N ° co (0 '� N a) aa) 0 J E 4- 0 0 a) >, f0 if- a) oN o o Wz >, w_ �� CU .CE a)� 2 Q 0 w -> 3c a) -o °o i o O O 13 C � 00 O O N .? .j a C N O- O O a` + J 07 J W W . � W N o 0 64 O EFT 0 69- CD a) a) 0 _ a) 0) > m aaa a) w 0 0 0 UUU Project r HUD Repayment Sources Additional Design /Entitlement Construction Start Date Addl City Operations /Maintenance Alternatives N E m )(Li a) .0 0 p co C N c _ D 2 O) To 0 N L 0 a) N 7 o E N N N y N N C E v m co) E E v E o (a m N m C N a co m 7 N a 70 O v o a) O c!) 'O Trn �a) in o " a) . f rn o o c a o a) a) m a) o o • y m v . o o o C) a > a o, co a o ° a 3 as m a a o_ ° aa) C O O c o C C N c c U C U N O U c C p) a E 8 aNi 8 g E 8 N a� a) 2O a -O O. ca n O a U la C N 'a N ~O (� C X m N w a`) a a n W U 43 a Ti. a O C O- C a) a1 C ao. NU N a) D w c °- o v 'm t t °• m v 'N t 'v NC U) (a 7 w 7 O a) o. N 7 ,, .0 > m N N c N > p) O a) N rn > C •Op p1 'C 7 O D 7 > 'C 7 O D N p) >, N a) O_ U D a a3 a) a) O_ U D N i 5 '2 N 2 wN, N ..co:) O Q a) O C O a) c 0) O O N N 0 N m O 2 U 8 p U: N-o U O p 2 .p C> m (0 5 C U m U p Q C N C y c 2 a 'N o 0 y C U O N O T 'p O c d I N U N 7. C 3 a) aa) c 3 N N c; E gyc d y N E a) 5 a 0 0 a N d 1 9 5 a E a) -p V- x N 7 > c o w- 0 _ u< O O U N a U C O N T1 N C U U N O N m • °° 0 00 o G w U 00 0 0 S E W S u_ W CS o co m 9 U o Q a p U m LL U U o m c O m — C ' o ° = oW — D 7 — L C C N c o ° o 0 7 O p) ',.2 172 to E) a a C 7 o N x N > o 1 0. 0 7 0 x 7, > Y s O T O C U N C N a co 'O 8 • a _ O C U d O v C p a O 72 C 2 — o ° o cuto 2 o a5 0 o c c o .2:5171-5,,,,,- N d, o m >, 0 . w 2 E as E 2 E 2 73 ° E m 0 U E o •E >,..c2 5 x N N ' in > e g- >,0‘_ O CN U 2 U N 8 N O c L0 '7 d .] - a N 0 fn >, N a N > a) t. 0 N teN te Ea m 0 -0 v N c a— o m o c 7 o 2 m o m a 2_ o a N U a (D U ) p) C U C N — -C C -.0 U PC -. U m 0C U c > • C O N a) N y U m > N C > l C t N N O m fm E8 0—E coo 7 -o U a o- y U a) a ' m °.2 8 10 E • W (� O L C N C C ` U a ,..3, C U C C G N p) N x N N o 0 N 6.) ,,g, a N :2 O O t` • a) y C p N C O- N 0,'--- = N O co a C N cn N •N o 0 O a a C a c o .m j° � a rn N . O ' oo. C O U O. y C r N E U tO a cp x N a) E C o c m O c N c N rn m �a '8 E(a ° E c w o) , c 8' -0 N N 'O y a N a @ C 'O •- O . N o O 0 O- c 4'. N N C r N a '" N p N U C ) g O a 8 . � o m O U .p7 f, EN d y c f 0 E� E f E? a c a E> E a E> a ,_ c , 6s N 4_ 5 0 0 0 0¢ C.) 5 o Q s o o a 0¢ 8 o a sS ¢ g o o a o Z Ri a r City of Alameda City Council Council Meeting July 26, 2006 Madam Mayor and City Council Members: My name is Joe Meylor and I am a resident of Alameda. Regardless of discussions or outcomes tonight, Citizens for a Megaplex -Free Alameda, CMFA, continues to believe the project in its current or revised form presents significant environmental impacts and that an Environmental Impact Report needs to be conducted. We also believe that city failed to take the recommendations from the HAB, as documented in the January 5, 2006 Historic Advisory Board meeting minutes, under consideration in which the HAB overwhelmingly opposed the project as designed citing concerns of size and mass. As you may know, last Friday our attorney, Susan Brandt - Hawley, appealed the decision by Judge Sabraw to deny CMFA's request for an Environmental Impact Report. The appeal was filed in the Alameda County Superior Court and will be moved to an Appellate Court in the near future. We continue to believe that all facets of the project include design, size, mass, environmental impact, financial and community support continue to be incongruent with the desires of the citizens of Alameda. We ask that an EIR be performed. Th 4/0 ebin44,/,- //vi 51 2DUE /J r //ter Submitted by Joe Meylor at the 7/26/06 Special Joint Meeting Re: Agenda Item #1 January 5, 2006 Historic Advisory Board Meeting Alameda, California Members Present: Chair Ms. Anderson; Vice -Chair Mr. Miller; Boardmembers Ms. Lynch, Mr. Tilos and Ms. Iverson. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Secretary Ms. Eliason, Emily Pudell, Planner II, Jennifer Ott, Development Services Department, Debbie Gremminger, Recording Secretary. MS. ANDERSON: If you would all be seated please. (whistle - - background conversations inaudible] Roll call of boardmembers, please. MS. ELIASON: Chair Anderson? MS. ANDERSON: Here. MS. ELIASON: Vice -Chair Miller? MR. MILLER: Here. MS. ELIASON: Boardmember Iverson? MS. IVERSON: Here. MS. ELIASON: Lynch? MS. LYNCH: Here. MS. ELIASON: Tilos? MR. TILOS: Here. MS. ELIASON: You have a full board. [The Board discusses topics not relative to the Cineplex and is not transcribed at this time.] MS. ANDERSON: Okay. Item No. 4: Review and Comment on Section 106 Findings Regarding the Revised Designs for the 350 -Space Parking 1 Garage and Cineplex at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue. This is a Board discussion and comments only. MS. ELIASON: That is correct and we're gonna let Emily go home and recuperate and Jennifer Ott is going to make the presentation from Development Services Department. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. MS. OTT: Good evening President Anderson. [Is this on ?] and Boardmembers. My name is Jennifer Ott and I'm Development Manager with Development Services Department and I'm here to discuss the proposed Cineplex, 7- screen Cineplex and 350 -space parking garage located at approximately at the corner of Oak and Central Avenue. I wanted to give a just a little history for the record and I see we have some new Boardmembers. But as you may recall, I was here before you on June 2 to discuss the previous designs of the Cineplex and the garage and a Section 106 consultation report that was developed and provided with regard to those previous designs. Based on your comment - - you're comments were forwarded on to the Planning Board - - um and were used as part of their approval action on June 27th. And they approved the designs of both, the previous designs of the Cineplex and the garage with some conditions that was appealed, and then came before the City Council on August 16th. And those previous designs were then approved with conditions, as well. In response to City Council direction, Development Services Department retained a new architect for the exterior designs of the garage and the Cineplex that is Komorous -Towey Architects of Oakland. And we are now - - what's before you are these revised exterior designs including an updated Section 106 consultation report prepared by our consultant Bruce Anderson and - - the next step from here is to hear your comments with regard to that report, the revised designs and we will take your comments to the Council for a final approval action in early February. I just want to speak briefly about the comments that or the findings that were made by Bruce Anderson with regard to the updated revised designs; most of his findings require very little response from the City with regard to the Cineplex. His one comment was - - regarding maintaining Komorous -Towey Architect's as, maintaining their involvement in design development of the Cineplex exterior of the City is, will in conjunction with the developer Alameda Entertainment Associations, we will be contracting with KTA to help essentially make that transition from schismatic to design development for the Cineplex architect of record which will be Henry Architects. So we will be - - addressing Bruce Andersons' concern by continuing to contract with KTA for this transition. The other comment, the noteworthy comment, or finding that Bruce Anderson made was with regard to the 2 colors of the garage and toning down the garage - - making it distinct from the Cineplex - - and less prominent in terms of its colors. We have - - at the time we didn't, they hadn't had the time to consider new colors we - - I do have the architect here, Thomas J. Towey of KTA, and - - I thought it might be worthwhile to have him show you the colors that they are considering - - the new colors that they are considering for the garage. Have you look at it, provide us comments and have that be in the record for the Council to consider when they consider that - - in early February. And he is also here to answer any other questions you may have about the designs or the Section 106 report. Do you want to, TJ do you want to_ MR. TOWEY: Thank you President and Board. Jennifer is passing around a little color sample board that we put together. These are the sorta family of colors that we have come up as a revision to what had been presented earlier and what Bruce Anderson reviewed. His chief comment on the parking structure was we had, and I have included the A3 image that he referenced in his report. You can see that the vertical elements on the parking structure are very light, almost white, and the contrast between those verticals and the horizontals he suggested be toned down. If you look at the colors there above what is labeled parking structure, you'll see that we have brought those two colors very much more together. We still think it is important that this building not be one color. It would increase its appearance of mass. We do want to break down the scale of the building, but we have brought those colors much more together. We had also used one of the body colors of the cinema and we had used that exact color on the parking structure in an attempt to tie them together as an overall project. He suggested we don't do that, so we actually have separated the color schemes tilted one - - kept the cinema this sort of sandy -beige color and then tipped the parking structure away from that. We've used and we have also simplified the color pallet on the parking structure. It's basically just two colors and just a tiny bit of a lighter color for maybe some ornamental metal detailing, and then of course, the canopies are the green; and we put a couple of different greens that we are sorta honing in on for the green color for the canopies. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. I have 14 speaker slips on this subject, so I would just like to remind you that your comments should be clear and concise and I will restrict you to the 5 minutes. So, if you have any overhead projects to show us that will be within the 5 minutes. Our first speaker will be Susan Denault. MS. DENAULT: Good evening to the Board. I don't have any visuals to give you, I just have my opinion as a brand new Alameda 3 resident. I've only been here a few months. I am movie lover. I grew up in the movies. I worked my way through UC Berkeley at the Northside Theater. Some of you may remember that on Euclid Avenue. And its really not about my opposition to the design of this garage and the Cineplex and has nothing to do with my feeling about the movies. I love the movies. But I also have come to love Alameda and its very, very special atmosphere and personality. I discovered only a few weeks ago that the Twin Towers Church was built in 1853 and after 25 years of teaching U.S. History at Skyline and Oakland Tech High Schools, history is also very important to me. And I just have a very strong and gut level feeling that this proposal is way, way too much building for the space that they are trying to put in to, and that it will substantially have a sense of invasion in that it is a very sort of - - old, interesting, lovely neighborhood. And I have been sitting here listening to you and obviously you are the right people to come and talk to this about, because you have a sense of history and you have a sense of the architectural integrity of the City. And I have this horrible feeling that in an effort to restore the old theater, which everyone wants, deals have been made for the creation of something which has - - is actually like a foreign body this behemoth that is going to go onto this corner of Oak and Central. And in order to save the theater, we've sort of sold a part of our soul to moneyed interest that want to put in this huge - - this huge structure that doesn't fit into the neighborhood and does violation to the architectural ambiance of that neighborhood and the other buildings that are there. So, I appeal to you to do whatever - - bring whatever powers you have to bear - - the opposition has already made it possible for some changes to be made in terms of the - - what was an angular and violating modernistic design into something a little softer. But really I'm concerned about the size and what it is going to do to the whole ambiance of what is a really lovely small town here in Alameda. And that's the thing that really is special about Alameda, not that they are going to make it more like Gilroy or more like South San Jose, but that it be preserved to be special. And that means keeping things on the small side, keeping the historical beautiful and preserving the spirit of the small town which is SO special. Thank you very much. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Our next speaker is Nita Rosen. MS. ROSEN: I am very much against this huge building. We started out about 10 - 15 years ago with a building that was the biggest thing in South Shore. I don't know - - was it Circuit City or something? Now we have another one, Safeway. My god and then we're gonna put this over here! I can't understand how anybody that 4 loves Alameda like I do. I'm the Class of 1946 from Alameda High. Would want ANYTHING like this in their town! Thank you very much. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Next speaker is Monica Pena. MS. PENA: Hi my name is Monica Pena and thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you on this critical matter that will impact Alamedans for the rest of their lives, the Cineplex and garage proposal. I have read the report and it appears that the Board has commented on the recent redesigns of the theater and garage. However, the report does not tackle the most important issue before us and that is the size and scale of this project. While the changes to this design may be slightly more in alignment with the architectural surroundings, it does not address the impact of the size and scale to the downtown Alameda. Why is this important? Size and scale drives how the citizens of Alameda will interact with these surroundings. The current design is overbearing on the area and will make it simply a destination point for moviegoers. Rather, it should be a design that is integrated part of the environment that not only attracts moviegoers but also provides people a sense of community. As has been discussed in many Planning Board meetings and City Council meetings, I believe there is a better alternative that can meet the requirements of this Board, City Council and the people of Alameda. We have an opportunity to create a legacy for the City and the people of Alameda. I ask that further consideration be made to the size and scale of this project. Thank you. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Next speaker is Nancy Hird. MS. HIRD: Good evening, I'm Nancy Hird. I am a member of AAPS and I am very active in that organization. Some of the things that I'd like to say are a reflection of AAPS, but a lot of it has to do with my own personal feelings. I have said time and time again that I believe project is way too large - - for the particular area that we are talking about putting it. The new architectures really did a nice job of redesigning, but it's still too large. The other thing is that - - the potential still remains that the Long's parking lot may someday be useful as a town center. A real town center, not a shopping center out at South Shore. And in that case, it would like a plaza and this whole project started not really with the attention of everybody in town, but it is now that we should start thinking about what's going to happen to the Long's parking lot and what is the back drop going to look like with this parking garage right behind it. So I would like to bring to this peoples attention now, so we can start thinking about that now. But again, I do feel like the whole thing is way too big. Thank you. 5 MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. I apologize for mispronouncing your name, but Ani Dimusheva. MS. DIMUSHEVA: Good evening. My name is Ani Dimusheva and - - dear Boardmembers I would like to bring to your attention tonight that the revised design - - before you does nothing to reduce the size and mass of the proposed complex and the potential negative impacts on the environment that would result from it. A supplemental report by Mr. Bruce Anderson discusses design changes to what he wants, again refers to as a large box -like Cineplex, repeating his finding from his original report of May 2005 of a box- like massive feeling of the Cineplex. This particular feeling has been a major - - has been of major and documented concern to the community and is still present even though an attempt has been made to minimize it by adding vertical elements and other features to the proposed structures. These attempts do not effect the actual size of the complex regarding of whether it is a pretty mass or an ugly one. It is still a big boxy mass. The question I urge you to consider tonight is whether this massive box fits in its environment or not. The Secretary of Interior Standard 9 specifically says that new construction must differentiate itself from the old and is compatible with the massing size scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The supplemental report does answer the question of differentiation of the Cineplex from the historic theater and compatibility of the storefronts to others in the district; however, it does not specifically say whether the proposed construction protects the integrity of the environment or not. The reference to the relatively large size and box -like shape of the Cineplex structure does not suggest that it does and relatively, of course, means relative to the surrounding buildings. One reason I imagine Mr. Anderson's report is inconclusive on this point is because consistently no visual context has been provided for reference. This community has been upset over the project precisely because we are very intimately aware of the environment for which this development is planned and we know that it is simply too big. This environment includes in addition to other historical buildings the Twin Towers Church, which is very unbox -like and consists of delicate towers, cornices features and which pales in comparison to the proposed new structures across from it. The much sited fact that the building - - the buildings would not exceed the height of the towers of the church is irrelevant since the height of the church is due to two thin towers, while the height of the Cineplex and garage is due to shear walls rising directly up from the property line. You cannot compare a carrot and melon and say that because one is as tall as the other they are comparable in mass. In addition the garage is now in fact taller than both the church 6 towers and the plate sign of the Alameda Theater at 71% feet at its highest point, and it is visibly looming even behind the Cineplex as viewed from the south. My suggestion therefore would be that any decision regarding the compatibility of the project to the area be held off until we have a 3- dimensional model of the neighborhood including the buildings across Oak and across Central and the back of the parking garage over the Long's parking lot. A model which would help us to make an objective decision about what constitutes acceptable bulk and mass. In connection with this I want to point out something that the Staff report fails to mention, and that is that the new plan for the garage now calls for a 70 -foot wall facing the Long's parking lot. My assumption is that this wall would hold a temporary mural until the Long's lot is available for - - in order to complete the block. At this point it would be too late to argue about height, we would be stuck with a building that is 70 -feet or above completely doing away with the low profile of our current downtown. I hope that this not something we have set out to do. Regarding the attempt to reveal more of the rosette of the theater by rounding the coroner on the Cineplex which is mentioned on page 2 of the Staff report, I will repeat what I have said earlier and that is that the theater has a distinctive rounded facade of which the rosette is just an element. If we really appreciate the architecture of this building, we should respect the distinctive feature and set construction back so that the entire facade can be experienced as intended not just allow the decorative rosette to be viewed through a window. The last issue, if I have some time, is that of encroachment on the property line. The third sentence of the last paragraph on page 2 of the Staff report, which I could read or you can read yourself, does not make a lot of sense. I would ask that you look carefully into whether any elements such as the projections on Oak Street and the bay windows on Central continue to encroach on the property line which is in clear violation of the California Building Code. Once again I urge you to give careful consideration to the entire project in the context of its historically significant environment over which you have preview and not as presented in isolation. I sincerely hope that your comments tonight will finally show this community that we have a body here that understands only this character, and has the courage to stand up only for development that could preserve and enhance it and not destroy it. Thank you. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Valerie Ruma. [Tape 1, Side 1 ends. Tape 1, Side 2 picks up with Ms. Ruma's comments already in progress.] 7 MS. RUMA: ... regarding this proposed project. I'd like to read a statement submitted by Woody Minor who wrote an expert opinion last summer regarding the proposed new Cineplex and parking garage prior to the revised design. He has reviewed the revised design and could not be here tonight because he is attending a memorial services, but he had the following to say which I have distributed to you in written form. "Dear City Officials: It is my considered opinion that the revised designs of the proposed Cineplex addition and parking structure at Central Avenue and Oak Street do not significantly mitigate the potential adverse impacts proposed by their bulk and massing. Even in revised form, the proposed structures would still be out of scale with their historic setting. If built, they would compromise an important architectural ensemble and mar significant vistas along adjacent streets. In sum, the project as redesigned still has a potentially significant environmental impact on surrounding buildings and vistas." - Woodruff Minor, consulting architectural historian. An then in addition, I personally want to remind you that there are still potentially significant impacts and there has thus far been no adequate CEQA review, by which I mean no environmental impact report which is required by law under CEQA if there is fair evidence of potential significant impact. Thank you. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Scott Brady. MR. BRADY: Good evening Chair Anderson, members of the Board. My name is Scott Brady. I am a former chairman of the Historic Advisory Board. I'm also a member of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. On November 1, 2005, the AAPS Board sent a letter to the Mayor and City Council describing the Board's position on the proposed Cineplex and parking garage. I believe a copy of this letter was inserted in your package. I would like to highlight a few main points from that letter. "The AAPS has been involved in the planning and design review process for the Alameda Theater Project for many months. The Board of Directors would like to reiterate its position that the project should make the restoration of the entire original Alameda Theater building the initial goal not a deferred plan." AAPS has been commenting on the Cineplex and parking design to help ensure that they are compatible with the neighboring historic buildings especially the historic theater, Twin Towers Church and Historic Alameda High School, and to minimize adverse visual impacts on these properties. The Board would like to state its position that the scale of the Cineplex and garage as they currently stand is much too large for the location. The bulk and massing will have an adverse effect on the surrounding civic core. If the project does indeed go forward based on its current scope, I 8 hope the HAB will incorporate the suggestions outlined in the letter into their motion on this item. Other AAPS members Dick Rutter and Chris Buckley will be addressing most of these issues. I would like to discuss one item that does not appear to have been given adequate consideration. The north wall of the parking structure includes a large blank wall 6- stories high. This wall is adjacent to the Long's parking lot. There has been some recent discussion of Long's developing the site or perhaps creating a civic plaza for public use there. In either case, this wall represents a looming shadow casting element that faces Alameda City Hall and the Carnegie Library and as such has a large impact on Alameda's Civic Core. It is too large an element to leave blank or provide only minor articulation. As a major exposed facade, the entire elevation should receive the same design consideration as the front elevation and be as richly articulated. One final point, to date all I have seen of this project have been drawing plans and computer renderings. They show just the proposed garage and Cineplex, plus the existing theater. Missing from this is visual context. How does the proposed project relate to the adjacent church, historic high school, Long's and the buildings across Central Avenue? It would seem reasonable that for a $20 million dollar plus project, a physical model including buildings across the street down to City Hall should be required as part of the review and approval process. As an architect, I have been required to provide physical models on projects of much lesser value. Such a model would allow for a more complete understanding of the projects impact on the site and surrounding buildings. I strongly encourage the HAB to require that a model be provided. Thank you for your consideration. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. MS. LYNCH: That's a good idea. MS. ANDERSON: The next person, I'm not exactly sure - - i looks like G- R- A -B -S. May be Grable. I can't tell. Raylin? Rayla? That's what I think it is. May be you can give us the... MS. GRABER: Next time I'll print. Ms. ANDERSON: Correct name. Do you want to give us your correct name? MS. GRABER: Oh, Rayla Graber. MS. ANDERSON: Graber. Thank you. 9 Ms. GRABER: Yes. Good evening Boardmembers. It's the first time I'm speaking before you and although I'm not familiar with all of your duties as an advisory board, I do know your comments carry significant weight at City Hall. So that's why I'm here to urge you - you who are guardians of this City's architectural integrity -- to decline approval of the present Cineplex and garage design. While the present plan being considered is an improvement over the original, I think it was an odious design. It is still fundamentally flawed in its overwhelming size and scope. There is no relationship to the charming historical buildings surrounding the area. Some of you may be inclined to improve it because its been marketed as the last great chance to reopen the Historic Alameda Theater, which is an admirable goal, but if this reopening comes with the price tag of severally compromising not only the original theater, but also having severe detrimental effect on the surrounding historical area, then that's not right for this City, which treasures its architectural history. I appeal to you - - you as the historical guardians to do the right thing and do not give your support to this present plan. Thank you. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Christopher Buckley. MR. BUCKLEY: Christopher Buckley representing the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. Scott Brady made mention of the letter that we wrote to the City Council which we are reviewing with you. Am I correct that all Boardmembers have a copy of the letter? MS. ANDERSON: Yes. MR. BUCKLEY: I have extras, okay. I also brought an enlarged version of the rendering probably a better version than what you have. Can I pass this out? MS. ANDERSON: Yeah, we have it in our packet. MR. BUCKLEY: Okay, if you consider that adequate, then I won't. MS. ANDERSON: Yes. MR. BUCKLEY: I will need to use the overhead projector, though. Is that ready? MS. ELIASON: Yes. MR. BUCKLEY: Okay. As Mr. Brady pointed out - - AAPS still has concerns over this design. It's a major improvement though over 10 the previous design. We really appreciate the efforts of the City and the architects to address many of the issues that AAPS had raised. One of the major outstanding concerns that does not get fully addressed is the 20 -inch projection [inaudible. MS. ANDERSON: Uh huh, but I don't think you are being recorded. MR. BUCKLEY: Is the 20 -inch in the projector? [inaudible discussion regarding projection.] MS. LYNCH: Can it get bigger? Good. MR. BUCKLEY: Okay, that's good. Thank you. One of the major unresolved concerns is the 20 -inch projection of the Cineplex which is shown [inaudible] and - - we've in the letter we suggest - - we're concerned that that's adding significantly to the visual bulk of the building and making it larger than it really needs to. And it's not clear to us why it's essential for the project to succeed. The developer has been saying that it is necessary for - - to ensure adequate seating and a wide enough screen in the corner cinema, which is cinema number 7. And it seems to us that there might be some other options that would still achieve that objective. One, we're told is that - - the Cineplex could be pushed back 20- inches shrinking the width of the parking garage 20- inches. Staff and the new architects have indicated that might involve conversion of existing regular parking spaces to compact and we'd be interested in that idea being explored further, and whether any further conclusions on its feasibility has been achieved. With regard to the Oak Street elevation - - half of the projection is basically dead space and if you look in the floor plan, which is in your packet. This area is essentially dead space. So it's really only this area, which serves as part of the portion of the number 7 auditorium. And we would like to think that there would be away of shifting the arrangement of the interior toward the Alameda Theater, picking up a few inches here and there. Perhaps shrinking the width of some of these - - hallways that would allow elimination of the 20 -inch projection on the Oak Street side. The next point in our letter concerns the - - roll of the 20 -inch projection over the second floor lobby underneath the bay windows in this area, and - - Dick Rutter will address this further. But there the projection, from what we can tell, doesn't have any real functional purpose and we think that the design of the - - of the second floor lobby would be improved if it the bay windows were allowed to be projecting out as bay windows without the projection underneath them. They are basically resting on top of the projection and that would give more verticality to the overall design, and enhance it's relationship to 11 the historic theater which is highly vertical and also the surrounding Twin Towers Church and Historic Alameda High School which also very strong vertical emphasizes. I am going to Dick Rutter will complete this presentation. However, with regard to the colors I'd just like to add my own comment. I don't think any of us [beep]. I will stop. Thank you. MS. ANDERSON: Will Mr. Rutter use those same graphic? Do you just want to leave it here? MR. BUCKLEY: He'll have a different one. MS. ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Rutter. MR. RUTTER: My name is Dick Rutter and I'm a member of AAPS and also an architect here in town. This particular drawing which you got in a screened down version in your packet - - indicates some of the concerns that AAPS has identified with the new design. We do have a major concern with the 20 -inch projection of the second floor. One comment I will make about that projection is if it could be eliminated, I think you would see some major cost savings in structure. When you have a cantilever like that - - you pay for it. We looked at, if you look at the windows in the middle on the second floor lobby, we've turned those into bay windows and have increased the upward angles to them, and also made them a little bit more of a "v" shape, and that has been reflected in the mullions. And we've also put some vertical mullions in to give it a more vertical look. If you notice the pilasters that break -up the major massing of the facade have been made narrower. We feel that the ones that are in the present scheme are on the wide side. We have a curved window, which is about the same height as the rest of the facade that faces the rosette in the Alameda Theater. That curved window is basically a glazed curve, which reflects the design of the unglazed curve on the Oak Street /Central Avenue corner. We have also lowered the awnings on the storefronts. If you get much above 8 -feet, the awnings don't really start to protect people, and so the awning elements have been broken up between the pilasters and they have been lowered. However there is still a band that goes around the building, which is broken up by the vertical elements, which ties into the marquee on the existing theater. The architects that have prepared the new plan have said that there should be tile at the base of the pilasters as well as along the storefronts. We believe that a more substantial material should be used on the bases of the pilasters. Stone comes to mind - - to give it more of a feel of permanency and bulk. Let's see, I think that is pretty much it. AAPS would like to review materials and color samples when they 12 become available and if you have any questions with these particular - - this particular sketch, we're happy to answer any. That's it. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Leslie Fishback. MS. FISHBACK: My name is Leslie Fishback and I was born and raised in Alameda and so I've been in the Alameda Theater when it was a beautiful theater. I was in it when it became 3 theaters, and I was in it when it was Bay Island Gymnastics with my grandchildren, and when I heard it was being restored I was very happy. I am not happy anymore. The theater is not being restored. That's what I thought was happening, but the theater isn't being restored. You're building a huge, gigantic overgrown Cineplex with 7- theaters and from an article I saw in the Chronicle last week it's entitled "Cineplexes are Hemorrhaging Everywhere How Do We Stop Them." The second concern and this is a big one is this building is way out- sized. It is putting in a parking garage that I understand is going to have 350 - parking places for a theater that someone hopes is going to hold 1,500 people. Of course, that is going to leave you 350 more cars circling the blocks that are being circled now on weekends by people who are looking for parking places. And in the end, we have a huge structure that is very ugly to look at, that oversizes the area, that doesn't fit with the area which is right now a very nice area. The church is beautiful. The old high school, we have the old Alameda Theater and then comes this building that you cannot even describe. I don't care how you change it, how you modify that. The structure overwhelms the entire area and in the end we still don't have a restored Alameda Theater, and that's where we started. And that's all I have to say. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Susan Batta. MS. BATAILIA: Good evening. I'm Susan Batailia. Thank you for letting me speak before you this evening. I have some copies of the article which was previously mentioned and I'll hand these out in case anyone missed it. I really appreciate that so many people are trying to find common ground on this issue and that there have been some modifications made. However, before I speak any further without using too much time. Can someone tell me the extent to which this advisory board will influence the City Council or Planning Board? MR. MILLER: Zero. MS. ELIASON: They will not be making anything but recommendations. They will not be approving or denying the project. 13 The project is already approved. They will simply be providing comments to the City Council. MS. BATAILIA: Okay. So we'll focus on size and scope of the project. My opinion is that the size and scope of this project, the scale of it is going to be commensurate with the cost of the project, which will be passed onto the taxpayers eventually in the City of Alameda. All - - this I strongly believe inspite of the beautifully printed and widely distributed brochure that insists there will be no new bonds. On common ground, I think that the majority of citizens are in agreement that the original theater is a treasured landmark that must be preserved. An oversized addition to the theater which would be a 7- screen Cineplex would dwarf the building especially with a design allowing a maximum height as close to the height of the original theater marque, as has been granted with such leniency, which I think is 70 -feet now. The Twin Towers Church will not be visible from Central Avenue as you drive down Central toward the west end of town if they put a building of this size there. A large garage at the back of the Cineplex will cause more traffic problems, more than ever imagined in town. And the alternative to the garage has already been brought to the City's attention a number times by diversifying parking, and getting contracts with existing parking lots that are not used during the evening. I did hear something new tonight that Jennifer pointed out that the new design is less prominent - - intended to make it less prominent in terms of colors, and I don't care so much about the color of this particular addition as I do the size of it. In other words if you're fat and you wear black, you're still fat. [Laughter] It's - - you know - - there has been, the bigger the building the bigger the loss in terms of architectural purity for that center section of town. The bigger the loss monetarily for the citizens of this town. And the consultant's report I actually haven't reviewed in detail myself, but I assume that we're paying KTA, and all of these are taxpayers dollars, I would like someone to - - you know get it scaled down to where we will actually have something nice there that the citizens can appreciate and it will preserve the town as a town. And when I've talked to so many people on the street, someone last week said to me, "Well something is better than nothing and it's just been sitting there unused." Well if I agreed with that, I'd probably be married today, but thank you. [Laughter.] MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Russ Button. MR. BUTTON: Good evening. I've been living here in Alameda about 7 years and my name is Russ Button. The proponents of the project would like to point out that they're bringing back the 14 movies and they say that those who are opposed are against progress. The objections to this project are always involved in the size, the scale. Everybody here tonight has been talking about scale. We're not saying that you shouldn't renovate the theater. There is no doubt that there will impact to this project, and your job here isn't just about architecture. It's also the impact on the whole neighborhood, it's not just you're gonna dwarf Twin Towers. Consider what this project will do. And you can see what it'll do. You go to South Shore, now known as Towne Centre [laughter] and you look at Trader Joe's, and you know with the Grand Imperial Poobah Safeway and you look at the congestion and the parking, that's what Park Street is gonna look like. You put - - you know, you bring up a 7- screen Cineplex - - your gonna - - where are all those people coming from? They're all coming from out -of -town. So they're all gonna come here. Park Street is gonna be mess. Oak Street is gonna impossible. And what's gonna happen? Well you're gonna have a lot more foot traffic on Park Street. This is what the merchant's there want. They get more business. Well this is great, except what happens where there is more traffic? The property becomes more valuable. The property becomes more valuable, the rents go up. The mom and pop businesses that are Alameda will all go. This sort of thing happens in cities all across California. It's already happening - - look what's happening on Park Street already. Who are the new businesses there? It's all big chain businesses. You got Peet's, Starbucks, Tomatina's, Half Price Books, what's next? Do you want to have Luciano's replaced by Olive Garden? Tucker's replaced by 31 Flavors? Ole's Waffle Shop we don't need that anymore, we can have International House of Pancakes! La Pinata we don't need that, we can have Chevy's! We'll make Park Street look like Emeryville. It will look at like every mall in America. If you have a project like this, that's the catalyst for change, for change that I don't think you want to see. You'll change Alameda in a major way. You're job as the Historical Advisory Board is to keep Alameda, Alameda. You know if you look at the property values nowadays, homes - - the lot value is much greater than the value of the buildings. If we didn't have the Historical Advisory Board, people would be buying up buildings, tearing them down, putting up big mansions, it happens all over the country. It's happening in Palo Alto. In Palo Alto they're tearing down 3,000 square foot house to put up of a 7,000 square foot house. And that could happen here in Alameda, if it weren't for you guys. And you're responsibility here is to keep Alameda, Alameda. And that all starts right now with this Cineplex project. Thank you very much. 15 MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Rosemary McNally. MS. McNALLY: Thanks. It was a year ago that I sat here and saw the massing model and my immediate response was "WOW, that's Big!" Well, it's a year later and after other HAB meetings, Planning Board, City Council meetings, informal meetings with City Staff, we're here again and we're on the road to development, aren't we? We still have this proposed theater and the parking garage that cause me to say, "WOW, that is Big!" We've seen the drawings. We've seen them get slicker and slicker, but what we haven't seen is a model, and several other people have already spoken about this model. We saw the massing model - - this big box. Then no more model. No more relationship to the other buildings in the neighborhood. And I know the high school architectural students build models of their projects, so certainly architects and developers can do that also. So, I'd like to see a model of the entire area including Paul's Produce - - all of them. The library, the Long's parking lot. And if the City is responsible about this project and wants to even pretend to be listening to the public, the City will jump at the opportunity to build this model and show people that this is not the horrible monster that some people believe it is. I would think that the City would jump at this opportunity and I'm questioning why they didn't do this months ago. To show us with a little model - - put a little 5 foot tall person there, so that we can see and feel what this development will look like in relationship to me walking down the street at 5' 6 ". So we're on the road to development and tonight is really a crucial point in this. I am urging you to take the high road and to tell your higher -ups that the size, the scale and the massing of this proposed project will not only detract from Alameda's historical character, but it's actually going to ruin it. So, I'm asking you to take the high road and consider that this project is way too big for this site. Thank you. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Irene Dieter. MS. DIETER: Hello Boardmembers my name is Irene Dieter, and I debated about coming tonight. I spoke to two of my friends who happen to not know each other, and when I told them I thought about coming here tonight and I didn't know if it would be a waste of my time, they both had the same response, that this Board is different than the rest of the Boards in Alameda. So, I've spoken at a few meetings and I think that you should be complimented by that, if that is the rumor going around. It's my first time speaking in front of you. I do appreciate the eye contact and the intensity that you're listening to people. I can see it as being a member of the audience and you don't know how important that is, because many 16 times it takes a lot of energy and makes people nervous, myself, to speak. And so it's important to be heard and I thank you for that. Like I've said, I've already spoken at a few other meetings on this same topic and I will repeat what I've said at - - what I've said before and the fact that I think that one of the main problems with this project is that the garage is in the wrong place, that we should revisit putting the garage on the Elk's site. There was no reason given by the City of why we abandoned that idea, and it's not too late. I do think it's wonderful that we own the property that is next to the theater and we can utilize that property in various ways as a - - for a town plaza or whatever. But most importantly, what I've come here to ask you about tonight is that what the people of Alameda really wanted was a fully rehabilitated theater, and as being that you are part of the Historical Advisory Board - - I think that you should recommend to the City that that is what we truly get, because there is no guarantee that we get a fully rehabbed theater. Right now it is set up as an option, and should the developer decide to back out on this deal 5 years from now, we could be back to where we are that we have spent years trying to avoid, and that's getting our fully - - full use of the theater back to order. So I would like to see the balcony to be used also. At the very least, we should have a commitment from the developer, a timetable by which all of the full restoration should take place. So once again I just encourage you to recommend to the City Council that we should be sure that having a fully - - to have full use of theater should be a requirement and not an option. Thank you. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Charles Kasdorf. MR. KASDORF: My name is Charles Kasdorf. I'm just hear speaking on my own behalf and my own thoughts supporting the enormity of this structure that it seems to be very out of line for the area, and for what I think most of the people of Alameda want. I think the original thought was to restore the Alameda Theater. As it is going now, it's about a half job, may be not even that. As far as money is concerned and the efforts being put into it, we've had tours of the theater in the past few weeks and an explanation of what's going to be done and what's not going to be done. And it seems like it's - - or missing the main point of this whole project is to get a restoration of the old Alameda Theater. The 7- screen Cineplex and parking garage or something that seems to be entirely out of line with the whole situation. So my hope is that you will understand this and give your best thoughts toward just the restoration of the Alameda Theater and the rest can come at a future time. Thank you. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Paula Rainey. 17 MS. RAINEY: My name is Paula Rainey and thank you for sitting and listening to all of the people here tonight. I'll be very brief. I basically want to echo what we've heard from so many people tonight. Namely that the size and scope of the project I think will really have a severely detrimental effect to the neighborhood, the business neighborhood the adjacent home neighborhoods too. And I think we'll also have a detrimental effect to the quality of life. Previous suggestions tonight were made to request a 3 -D model of the Cineplex, parking garage, the neighboring buildings and I think that is an excellent idea. I think you have so much to offer because you are looking at the historical aspects of this project and I don't know, I just keep hearing repeated that it doesn't add up to the people in town and I hope you'll be able to pass that on. Thank you. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Kristianne Koenen: MS. KOENEN: Should I begin? MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. MS. KOENEN: Hi. My name is actually Kristianne Koenen and I have been an Alameda resident for 14 years and we kind of found Alameda by accident. My husband's law firm had a lobster feast at Crab Cove and everybody who was going to this picnic, who was new to this yearly picnic had the same reaction - - where the heck is Alameda? We were pretty much newlyweds and as soon as set foot on Alameda we fell in love with it and immediately began to look at homes. We must have looked at over a 100 homes before we chose our wonderful home on Pearl Street. The thing that really attracted us to Alameda was its uniqueness. It's different from any place that I can think of. Any place I've ever seen in the Bay Area. And you know our family has had the great good fortune to be able to travel a lot around the United States and even do a little international travel and - - I can tell you that Alameda actually compares very favorably to the really wonderful towns that are written up in places like Fodor's and Lonely Planet and such. I recently read an article about Walnut Creek and what is happening there. You know, there is some really lovely shops there. They're some beautiful landscaping and such; however, you know the thing that really saddens me when I travel, even when I go to Alameda, and see the same shops in the different towns. It is the sense that I have that I'm in anytown, USA. It's like - - you know, why did I bother to come here it looks just like anywhere else. And that's what I hope we don't do to Alameda. I really do hope that you members of the Historical Advisory Board have the courage, and I think at this point, it's fair to say it would take courage, because there is some 18 real momentum that's been going on here towards a certain type of development. The courage to allow Alameda to continue to hold a unique charm that really draws people to it and elicits the comment that I get all the time when I make a new friend here in the Bay Area and tell them that Alameda is my home, and the reaction that I hear is, "You are so lucky to live in Alameda. I love Alameda!" And if the development turns towards the Walnut Creek type of development, I don't think that we're going to hear those kind of comments and I think that it's, it's not too late, so I do just really beseech you guys and gals to please hear what we've all been saying and really consider that - - you know, we're not a bunch of rabble - rousers those of us who don't like the whole design of this - - not just the design but - - you know, I echo Irene's comments about the garage being misplaced. You know I joined a group called Citizens for a Megaplex Free Alameda and I know that we could be said to have taken liberties in using that term "megaplex free" but nevertheless, I think you understand where we are coming from. You know, people in that group worked very hard and tried to come up with an alternative plan and my goodness, we have people who are very smart and have a lot to offer and have come up with wonderful ideas that would allow this area of Alameda where the old theater is, and down towards the high school, and the church to be a civic center as Ani Dimusheva has been beseeching the City to consider that we have a City Center. [Beep] Well, thank you. MS. ANDERSON: Thank You. Kevin Frederick. MR. FREDERICK: Hello. My name is Kevin Frederick and I am against this project as it is proposed. We didn't ask for this project it was put upon us, and with that I have a few points to make. This project still has not been given a set back from Oak and Central. The scale of this structure is still too large for the site and the neighborhood, and I agree if this does go through that - - I agree with AAPS that a model should be done of the surrounding area because people do not have a sense of the size of the structure. They will be appalled by how vast this buildings will be especially the garage. It will be the tallest structure in this part of town and the garage is still in the worst location next to a narrow 2 -lane road, which is Oak Street, and that is the worst location for a garage. Other locations such as the Elk's Lodge next to a 4 -lane avenue would be a better choice. Yet that has been ignored by City Staff. The economic feasibility is still yet to deter me to go, and I believe DVD release on the same date as movie release is going to happen. This will destroy the movie industry. And this is considered a redevelopment project where the issuing bonds without the vote from the people is a standard practice. We do not have a say and since the issuing or the movement to push this 19 project forward by business interests, local business interest, we the people have come to each and everyone of these meetings and made our voice heard in large numbers, and in doing so we've taken a lot of abuse from those who don't care what we have to say and want to push this project forward. While I say, we'll keep coming until this project is scaled back and put in a sensible scale that will work for the better of Alameda. And I do have other aspects. I want an environmental impact report to prove that this project will not be feasible, and I do believe that other aspects of the building such as the 2 -foot - - I don't know, but anyway. That is all for now. Thank you for listening. Bye -bye. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Rob Ratto. MR. RATTO: Hi Rob Ratto, Executive Director of the Park Street Business Association. Actually I wasn't gonna speak this evening which would have made everybody very happy, I'm sure. However, one of the speakers indicated his concern about the project actually being successful and raising rents and what have you, and I was concerned that mom and pop operations such as Tucker's, La Pinata and Ole's would be replaced by national chains. Well as you can see Ole's, La Pinata and Tucker's are three my favorite PSBA members and I go there a lot. And I happen to know all the three owners of those particular businesses as I know most of the owners of the businesses in the Park Street District. And I find it ironic that he mentioned those three in particular, because there are no more strong supporters of this project than Kate Pryor at Tucker's, the Summerfield's over at Ole's, and Octavio and his sister over at La Pinata. And in fact most of the mom and pop owners, the people who own their own businesses like the Pauline Kelly's, the Lisa Oyon's of Lauren's Closet, the George's at the Pillow Park, Scottie Erwin at Scott's Shoes, all support this project, have supported this project. And I just could not sit there this evening being their executive director, and having someone come up and imply that there was some sort of implication that may be the vast majority of members of my organization were concerned about this. They are not concerned about this. They want this project to go forward and I just wanted to make sure that this Board understand that fact. Thank you very much for your time. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Robert Wood. MR. WOOD: Members of the Board, Staff, good evening. I like Rob Ratto did not intend to speak tonight, I just came to hear this conversation. The last time I was in this chamber, I think was last May to speak to the Planning Board about it when I first saw it. I'm a relative newcomer to Alameda, lived here for 35 years. That 20 makes you a newcomer in Alameda. I've been an East Bay architect for those entire 35 years and have great interest in, among all things that architects do. Scale - - and I'm finally in a room where an awful lot of people seem to understand it, and I'm hoping that at least the majority of this Board understands scale. It's obvious that the primary objections to this project from the very beginning have been scale. And I want to expand the conversation a little bit, because I'm very fearful of what's going to happen to the scale of not just that block that area, but on further to the north including the Civic Center. If this project goes ahead in its current visualization, which by the way I think is much improved over what it was last May. When I spoke to the Planning Board in May, and I was a member of the Planning Board for 12 years here in Alameda - - I mentioned that I thought the parking garage was going to be without a doubt the ugliest building that this City has ever seen. It has improved quite a lot in its appearance, but of course, as someone has mentioned, it's still an elephant. And no matter how you dress it and what color, or how many details, it's still the scale that is a problem. And we all know, I think that this project is on a site that's really too small for its program, and that's unfortunate. I probably without any knowledge would blame Long's for not cooperating and making that the rest of that site available. I don't really know if that is true, but it's a gut feeling I have. And that is very unfortunate. Long's, by the way, I think in the future, and one of the things that makes me fearful is if Long's is very shrewd, there property is going to see a building of at least this mass in the future. It's a prime piece of property. And once this project goes ahead at the size it is, the theater project, the parking garage project, it's going to establish a precedent for the rest of that block and it's going to do that in a vacuum, because this City has no Master Plan for its Civic Center area and the surrounding blocks. They've never had it. I can remember distinctly 20 years ago Bill Norton called me in my office and asked me one day what I thought it would cost to do a master plan for the Civic Center of this City. You know, I probably came up with some number at the time, I don't remember. But I was excited because I thought something was going to happen. It hasn't happened. And when I spoke to the Planning Board in May from this very same rostrum, I URGED them to finally do something about getting a specific plan, a Master Plan for this Civic Center and its surrounding blocks that affect it visually. The people behind me have come up here and spoken eloquently about the need for a model - - a massing model. And if so, it should expand and include not just down to Santa Clara, but all the way to Lincoln. We have a new library going up there. There is other properties. The Elk's should be included, and the property behind the Elk's because of its potential for perhaps more parking. So, I would like to by 21 expanding this just tell you that I think this Board and the Planning Board are the only two Boards in this City who kind of understand the meaning of scale. And if you do nothing else, please as leaders and with a voice with a recommendation to the City Council, insist on such a Master Plan, a massing model to include this part of town. Because this project is going to set a precedent that will ultimately, I picture start to overwhelm and impact just the way Twin Towers is being impacted with this project. The one on Long's is going to impact [beep] the Carnegie Library and the City Hall and it will be shame. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Linda Kibler. MS. KIBLER: Good evening. My name is Linda Kibler. I moved here 8 years ago from the sprawl of San Jose. And it was very disheartening for me to move there to begin with from a beautiful place in Oregon. But to watch in 10 years the sprawl, and I continually got lost because there were no landmarks everything was a video store and a pizza parlor. I moved here in Alameda because of the size and because of the beautiful historic - - everything historic and the quaintness about it. And I am unable to articulate anything different than what's been said tonight, other than I am not in favor of the scope of this project. I was very excited and in favor of the project for the theater to be renovated. Our old historic theater to be renovated, but this has turned into just this big monumental snowball that I am really fearful of where it will take our town years to come if we are unable to stop it, and really sit back and look at where does a project like this really belong. It just seems so large and over - powering and out of place for our downtown area, which personally I think really ought to be our community center, and our gathering place - - will you call it a "town center "? I am just very much against the size and scope of the project. Thank you. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. David Kerwin. MR. KERWIN: Good evening. I want to first thank all of you Staff and Members of the Board, because this is, I understand, a lot of voluntary civic contribution that you make, and it takes a lot of time especially in this difficult and confusing issue. I think its difficult because of the division it seems to be causing or creating between the - - some of the business owners and a lot of the citizens of this community. And I think its confusing because of one hand it's getting this go -ahead because of the redevelopment dollars because of this being a "blithe district" at least that's how its labeled by the CIC, so that they can do the bonds without - - you know voter approval. And at the same time - - you know the 22 CIC can then click their heels three times and become City Council and say that the - - you know the parking is mandatory because of the fact that - - you know it's a thriving downtown, and its, for me at least confusing to be both thriving and blithe. [Laughter] One thought that I really think is important its something that a friend of Bill's taught almost 20 years ago is that anything that causes a problem is a problem. And it took me awhile to understand that, but I want you to try to keep that in mind as I kind of, my thoughts, are kind of jumping around, I'm a little nervous. I measured the Park Street Bridge last week, not the width of the entire bridge or girder -to- girder, but just green curb to green curb, and I found out that it's 43 -feet 9- inches. I don't think anybody here would think about putting a bicycle lane or - - not a bicycle lane, a bicycle route where it doesn't have the lane just the pictures of a bicycle. I don't think anybody would decide to put the entrance and the exits to a 7 or 8 -level parking garage. I know it's 6- level, but Jennifer you said that now there will be possibly parking on the roof level and perhaps maybe underground. So I'm thinking, how ever many levels, 350 - spaces into a bike route that is only 36 -feet 6- inches wide. So, Park Street from green curb to green curb is 25% wider than Oak Street where they want to have the main thorough fair. The main transit for all of the parking in downtown Alameda and a bike route, and I just think that for the safety - - you know of our pedestrians, especially our children, that this is a horribly unsafe thing to enter into. You know - - I'm not sure really of the full purpose of this Board. You know - - I don't think its to preserve the, you know Historic Alameda. Hopefully its to preserve the historic quality of Alameda that we all value. We as citizens - - you know that's why we moved here. We're real newcomers. We've only been here for 9 years. But what drew us here was this historic neighborhood quality. You know we didn't want a bustling area like Walnut Creek or Berkeley. I work for Berkeley Unified School District. I read the Daily Planet a lot and I've been paying attention to a lot of the problems that they're having because of the way that they did their development without listening to the people. You know first its like chop down all the trees so people can see the signs. And then - - oohhh, we better plant trees because people like shade. You know, I hope that we can do our planning better than Berkeley did their planning. Because despite all of the development dollars that have been spent in Berkeley, they don't have money now to even deal with their drainage problems on the streets. I have to wonder how City Council or PSBA will feel when the first fatality of a child in that congested area of Park Street becomes, if this is as successful business with the multi- plex and all of the parking, and having children on bicycles in that narrow street. I mean that's why the street was never considered for parking before, because it's just too narrow. [Beep] 23 MS. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Kerwin. MR. KERWIN: In closing, again want to thank you all for deep thoughts and these are hard decisions, because I'm sure there is a lot of pressure on you to make a decision that developers want you to make. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. MR. KERWIN: Thanks. MS. ANDERSON: No other speaker slips. Public hearing is closed. Open for Board discussion. I am just going to start one by one and each one of us give our opinion and comments. Go ahead Janet. MS. IVERSON: Oh, I'll let somebody else go. MS. LYNCH: Okay. I'll leap in. The fellow who just spoke said that this is very difficult and confusing, and I feel confused, and I feel that it's been difficult. I feel like we're on kinda of a jugger knot, and I've just been on this Board a year and I feel we're on this jugger knot. We are being pressured, not in a bad way, but you know it is important, it's gotta get through, we're on a fast timeline, we've gotta push it through. And it seems to me, I remember it beginning for us, this Board, a year ago. We were shown this design with like - - I called it like a silo on the corner and - - no, no it was a refrigerator box on the corner, and then design guidelines to go with it. And somehow it seemed like the design guidelines devolved so that the only possible design was this refrigerator box. Then it was changed to a silo on the corner, but we still, I still felt, it was too big and the design was not compatible. Then, the new architects did what I thought was a really a wonderful job of taking both the parking garage and the Cineplex and improving the design, but it is still as big as it was. And this, may be I haven't been paying attention, but I didn't realize until tonight that there could have been some other parking alternatives. I read something about the Elk's and then I read an editorial in the Journal that said the Elk's refused it. Then I read a letter from somebody who did research and said it was refused, so that's still a possibility. So what I'm wondering about is - - I mean it sorta of like it's all squeezed in - - you know into this one little lot. And I'm wondering does this mean that we could have parking elsewhere like at the Elk's and disbursed to other lots. So that the Cineplex could kinda like stop holding its breath and kinda spread out on to the entire lot now so that it is shorter. I mean, I'm just - - it is confusing and um - - I was very 24 surprised to hear from Bob Wood that there was no Civic Center Plan, because for some reason I thought that there was one. Something that several people brought up that I think is extremely important and I would like to see a model. But not a little bitty model where if you are 5 -feet tall you're just that high, but more of a model so that we can either like take video of it, or slides so that we can feel what it would feel like to walk through it if it's built at the size and scale that has been suggested. And I have a lot of other things, but I think I'll defer to the rest of the Board. MS. ANDERSON: Okay. Ben? MR. TILOS: [Inaudible] ... does the association need the money for - - need the taxes that they are trying to build this garage and the Cineplex to upgrade or to push architect. And at that time, I was inclined to approve it and I said "Oh, would it need money ?" And let's go for it. But as I read all these articles and listen to people, I think the garage is not this building that should be built on that area there. And I have just heard that there are some alternate sites. So, may be we will reconsider. Personally, this building is large and I don't know if I could recommend to the Council that to build it. MS. ANDERSON. Randy or Janet? MR. MILLER: Well, I think I know that I've tried to convey ever since this first came up that this building is awful, it's big, too big. And I think as a Board we've all kinda conveyed that to whoever is listening. I think that the majority of the City Council did what I think they've gotten use to doing is ignoring their constituents completely. They don't listen to anything. [Clapping from audience] [End of Tape 1, Side 2] [Start of Tape 2, Side 1] ... I always felt that we, I didn't have much power to change it. It was - - it's already happened. You know, we missed it. We weren't included in the initial planning. The garage colors - - I think they should be a whole lot less contrast, more of a monotone to help that building disappear if it has to be built the way it is. I thought it was kind of funny on one of this elevations in our plans here, this perspective can only be visualized if we demolish Twin Tower's Church, and I don't know if that's in the works or not. But that is the only way you are going to see this view. So, anyway that - - it's way too big and it's awful. I quit. [Clapping.] 25 MS. IVERSON: Um, I. Is this on? Okay. I know the amount of work that architects put into presentations like this and I have to thank them for trying to address the issue. However, I feel that the size and scale is incompatible with the rest of the buildings in the area and the historical fabric of the area. I believe that no matter how much icing you put on this really large cardboard box, it's just not going to go away. I was interested to learn that it might be possible to reduce the scale of this by diversifying the parking locations. I think that the detailing is not very consistent with what is supposedly going to be an Art Deco style building with the flat concrete and the way that the base of the building isn't as substantial, and I refer back to the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society comments. I think they were very good. I think that the mechanical enclosure at the top of the building is way too prominent, and just increases the overall height further. That the 70 -foot wall shown on A -7 is basically not detailed. It is a shear wall. There may be an opportunity for public art or something to try and save Alameda's charm. And I was really hoping that we could consider the area as a whole fabric. That all of the aesthetic parts and I do agree with the suggestion of 3- dimensional model incorporating the City Center. I would suggest that it would be at a half inch scale equals a foot. Something so that it's not going to look like a breadbox. I think that the detailing as it is at the streetscape level is not very historically in keeping with the style of the parking garage. And I guess that's my comments for now. Thank you. MS. ANDERSON: Well, I'm basically just summarizing what everybody is saying or reiterating what everybody is saying, but like Bob Woods I'm a newcomer. I'm an immigrant from Oregon. I've only been here 35 years. But when I heard that we were going to be able to restore the Alameda Theater, I think I said this before, I was excited, delighted and making every effort to push it forward. I feel like we've been made hostage by the attached Cineplex and parking garage that went along with it. The report that we have and I don't know why it just kind of jumped out at me tonight when I read it. But, and correct me if I'm wrong by the Staff, but reads the Alameda Theater complex will consist of an 8- screen movie theater in the Historic Alameda Theater and 7- screens in the new Cineplex. MS. OTT: That's incorrect. MS. ANDERSON: That's on our second page. Is that correct? MS. OTT: No it's not. There will be one screen in the historic theater and 7 screens... 26 MS. ANDERSON: Okay. MS. OTT: It's an 8- screen movie complex. MS. LYNCH: You're right. It does say that. MS. ANDERSON: Well, it's reading it as if it were 15 screens. MS. LYNCH: Yeah. MS. ANDERSON: I don't think Alameda can support 15 screens nor do I think... MS. OTT: That is incorrect. MS. ANDERSON: Nor do I think it can support 8 screens. MS. LYNCH: Great. MS. ANDERSON: I think that the size and scale even though the new design that was presented to us tonight was an improvement over, I think we've seen actually two schemes prior to that or maybe even three, are an improvement. But I don't think that it is to scale and proportion to the site. I think it is too massive and I would propose, being an architect, that yes you do a 3 -D model, but there is software out there that makes it available to do like a sketch -up and a fly- through, walk - through were you can actually be moving through the spaces. And then I think we would get an accurate accounting of Twin Towers relationship, the Alameda Historical High School - - I believe it was Rosemary that brought up Paul's Produce. You know, if you start thinking about Paul's Produce that's a one - story building and you're putting it next too this 54 or 48 -feet high building across the street. I think it's a mistake. I think everything is out of proportion and I think that we probably do need the parking structure for our downtown area to help keep our small town viable and all of our businesses in operation, because we do want the small owner run businesses to remain in Alameda. But there is no reason why we couldn't have possibly put it in the center up against the building - - up against the Alameda Theater, and put one or one and a half story retail on the perimeter. Something that is not looming out at us and being so high right at the sidewalk. I guess I'm just opposed to the Cineplex. I'm opposed to the parking garage as it is designed. But I am totally in favor of restoring the Alameda Theater. [Clapping.] MS. LYNCH: Nancy I had a question. What goes to City Council? Would it be all the comments of all the public tonight? 27 MS. ELIASON: We will be providing them a copy of the minutes. MS. LYNCH: Okay. MS. ANDERSON: No other discussion? Anybody else have any comments? Okay. Any written communication? MS. ELIASON: There is none. MS. ANDERSON: I thought we had one from Alameda on the Alameda Point? MS. ELIASON: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Yes, there is a written communication from AAPS regarding Alameda Point. [Discussion continues with Alameda Point and non - related subjects.] ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: MS. ANDERSON: If there is no further discussion on this item or Judith go ahead. MS. LYNCH: Oh, no this is oral communication. MS. ANDERSON: Okay. All right. Any other comments? I have a couple of oral communications. Ani. MS. DIMUSHEVA: I am certainly not going to take a lot of time. I just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your comments tonight, and how much I appreciate the courage that you people have to say what you think. I've been at too many meetings regarding the Cineplex and garage, and I have never felt heard as I have tonight, and I was really moved. I was moved by the people that spoke and I was really moved by you people. And I want to thank you, I mean deeply for the work that you do and for the courage that you have. So, that's all. Thank you. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Irene Dieter. MS. DIETER: Ditto. I am extremely pleased also that the fact that you know, it is really hard to oppose something where you have a lot of pressure. I mean even as a person who speaks in front a lot of meetings to be kind of like labeled as an opponent, as just as a opposed to a citizen who wants to have input. But I also wanted to point out that in terms of a downtown Civic Plan, there actually was one put together. It was the 2002 Park Street Streetscape and Civic Center Plan, or something like that is the name of it. And in 28 that plan it actually said that there should be no traffic on Oak Street that that was designated as a pedestrian street. So what is being pushed right now is actually going against what was recommended by over 30 experts, and they did suggest putting parking right next to City Hall here. So, and it was later where they actually talked to the Elk's and that still is an alternative. It is a viable alterative. MS. LYNCH: Do you know where this is available? MS. DIETER: Well, I am sure that the City has it. I actually have a copy myself. I could send it to you. MS. LYNCH: Okay, thanks. MS. ELIASON: We can provide you a copy of the Streetscape Plan. This was a facade program that, of course, was sort of the basis for the grants that we've received for the streetscape facade. MS. LYNCH: Thank you. MS. DIETER: Yes, so anyway it's just to let you know that there was a lot of work that went into that, that is just actually being ignored for this project. So, anyway thank you so much again for being speaking your mind, not being pressured. Thanks. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Christopher Buckley. MR. BUCKLEY: Christopher Buckley with the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. Just clarifying what I recalled the ARRA Board did on the NAS on the study list. I think what they asked for and Cynthia, were you there? MS. ELIASON: No. This project is being handled by Andrew Thomas. MR. BUCKLEY: Yeah, Andrew is doing it. I think what they asked for is that they were very concerned that the plans not be "set in stone" before all of the potential historic buildings be identified. And so they asked for a schedule, Staff to put together a schedule, of how the various steps in dealing with historic buildings would occur including taking a look at some of the buildings, the buildings that AAPS suggested adding to the study list. And also considering other suggests that AAPS made which are included in this letter, such as a adaptive reuse study for buildings to be demolished and how all this ties in with the Section 106 process, which is the Federal Historic Preservation Review 29 Process that conveyance of the NAS property the City must go through. And so our understanding was Staff was gonna come back to the ARRA with that schedule and I think it's suppose to happen at the February meeting. So, and our expectations is that ARRA will look at that schedule and probably give some input as to whether they think it's, you know, it's an appropriate schedule, including what the schedule says about dealing with this request to put properties on the study list. So, I thought I would pass that on. MS. LYNCH: Chris, which February meeting? MR. BUCKLEY: It would be the first Wednesday in February. MS. LYNCH: But I mean, it's not our meeting? MS. ANDERSON: Whose February? MS. LYNCH: ARRA meeting? MR. BUCKLEY: Yes. MS. LYNCH: Okay. MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Staff Communications. MS. ELIASON: Yes. I want to remind you the Planning and Building Department would like to invite to you an open house to meet the new Planning and Building Director, Kathy Woodberry. That will be on Monday, January 9th between 5 and 6 p.m. in Council Chambers here. I hope to see you there. MS. LYNCH: Yes. MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. I entertain a motion to adjourn. MS. LYNCH: No, there's oral communication. MS. ANDERSON: One more. MS. LYNCH: Well, another one of my dead horses. 500 Central? MS. ELIASON: That will be coming back to you at your next meeting. 30 MS. LYNCH: But I just wonder. I know I printed. I just wonder if you could just tell us. I mean I just was driven by there and it's like, there is a blue tarp that's just like flapping in the rain and wind. I just wonder has it been sealed? I just couldn't tell by looking. MS. ELIASON: I don't know. MS. LYNCH: Okay. Because the last time we talked about this. MS. ELIASON: Right. They were supposed to weatherize, seal the building and they will be coming back hopefully in February with their reconstruction plans. MS. LYNCH: And then I also got via e -mail, and I just, may be there wasn't a date on it, in relation to 500 Central imposing a 5 year moratorium. Is this something old? MS. ELIASON: I did not receive that e -mail. I can't speak to it. MS. ANDERSON: I didn't either. I don't think so. MS. LYNCH: Okay. MS. ELIASON: That is, of course, the option that is available within the preservation ordinance. We have it... MS. LYNCH: Because it popped up in my e -mail and I printed it out before tonight's meeting. MS. ELIASON: Okay. If you would like to provide it to me then I can provide it to all of the Board. MS. LYNCH: And then I also have a December 12, 2005, letter about 500 Central from the City to the people who were helping the owner City Shapers. MS. ELIASON: Hmm. MS. LYNCH: Oh, I'll show you this. MS. ELIASON: Yes, that letter is regarding how we wish that reconstruction plan to be developed. also? MS. LYNCH: And this is part of what will come to us next month 31 MS. ELIASON: Yes, hopefully. MS. LYNCH: If it's still there. Thank you. MS. ANDERSON: Entertain for a motion. MR. MILLER: Now do you want a motion. MS. ANDERSON: Now you may. MR. MILLER: I move that we adjourn. MS. IVERSON: I second. MS. ANDERSON: It's been moved and second that we adjourn the meeting. All those in favor? ALL: Aye. MS. ANDERSON: Those opposed? Meeting is adjourned at 9:32 p.m. 32