2005-11-01 5-B SubmittalOCT n t n.
October 28, 2005
Alameda City Hall
ATTN: City Council Members
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Mayor and Council members,
I plan to speak at the appeal hearing on November 1 regarding the theater /garage project.
I write ahead of time to encourage you to revisit the Elks Lodge site for our downtown
parking garage, an idea that was abandoned for no apparent reason.
In response to the 2002 parking study, Downtown Vision task force members noted that
"The Elks Lodge site will produce the most parking for the least money and has better
ingress and egress than the other possibilities (Alameda Journal, Oct. 22, 2002).
For your convenience, I have enclosed the results from the parking study and my
comparison between the proposed Oak Street garage and a garage on the Elks Lodge site.
I think the Elks Lodge site is a viable alternative that should be reconsidered.
The desire to locate the garage on Oak Street seems to be based on the assumption that
people will not walk. To the contrary, people walk long distances at airports, shopping
malls, on beaches and trails, at Disneyland, and on treadmills. Furthermore, the distance
between these two locations is only one block.
Thank you for your consideration,
Irene Dieter
2524 Calhoun Street
Alameda
Enclosures
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
11-01 -05 Council Meeting
r•-.... ' o'
5 7
N -
•e
'��ParIntk
Des
awIJGAAblillg
lots and one east
ofBofA
Longs Drugs
Store along Oak
Street
tmes Way
Parking Lot
between Oak
and Park Streets
ELKS Parking
Lot
On Lincoln
Avenue
T'
1J
xA
.-•
N
N
K
A
U
.0Z1 +,ZL1
.50ZY,5Z1
aim
Dimension
U A
U
U
Number of
Parking
Levels
•
r
A
0
A
a
A
O.
A W
a a.
A
O.
A
a
Approximate
Building
Height
N
1.4
_
J
125,340
J
i..r
A
N O0O
in T
N
N A
CO H
C
OO
A
O`
:-.
OP
0
am
m a
7
O➢
M
SUMMARY UN REVIEW
OF VARIOUS DOWNTOWN SITES
FOR THE PROPOSED
CITY OF ALAMEDA DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE
r
323
W
A
N
A
ur
O.
W N
.- a
03 CO
N
tr.
U
VI
-
W
Number of
Parking
Spaces
•
b
p
J
W
P
LA
W
.O
W W
01 b
tJ J
W
A
W
b
Design ERiciencl
/square feet I
per stall
LA
O.
D
O
W
O.
O
W
Number of
Existing
Spaces
i
U
.p
J
T
.O
N
U CO
O.
J
U
W
0
9 n G Z
w 6
w 0.
FA
H
-.1:,.
o
O
p
i
$4,413,000
$5,707,000
M
J
a
O
N
0
0
Estimated
Construction
Cost
42.83
A A
o.
N J
O U
u
T
.O
Construction
cost per square
foot
_
a
J
A
r
r
$17,794
517,890
r
H
A
I.
Construction *
cost per stall
This site was considered not viable for a parking
structure, as it would require replacing tennis courts at
top the Parking Structure at a high cost of about S300,00
per tennis court.
Does not include cost of improvements to existing
properties.
Due to restricted site and other site constraints this site is
not considered viable for a packing structure.
Due to restricted site and other site constraints this site is
not considered viable for a parking structure.
This site is owned by Longs Drugs and the construction
cost does not include improvements to Longs or possible
relocation costs.
Due to restricted site and other site constraints this site is
not considered viable for a parking structure.
Project includes potential development of 12,200 s.f. of
Elk's Gym & 16,390 s.f. of City offices.
Remarks
00
C C
n n
0 0'
7 0
nn
0 0
0v
d C
- G
ro
T n•
tit c'o
H G
•
c
C ff.
N
0 7
C
0
,II �
7
II
:1SOJ UOIlOtJ 5UOJ Ie1014,
0.
0
O
w T V. P J
IJ IJ004-
O 0 0 0
O O O O O
0 0000
w A -O'-
J J V.
0 0000
0 0000
I w 0O J V. I o
I .D 5D O V. 0 1 O IJ
I0100001 C O
O i 0 0 0 0 0 0
V.
0
C
W
rn
O
w V. o f
0 00
0 lo
0 . 00
01
ta "NI
o o
O D
00
060
� 3
:ADN31314d3 NOIS30
11tl1S /dS 9L 6E£
G)
0
()
0 m
0
VI
T
V. — J
0000
0 0 0
000
A
VI 0
0 0
0 0
n
S N
-Oi H
n
O
N
U
O
t0
4-
OO J
O O
3 5N
N 7 ..
(10
ce,
0
0
0
O
0 •0 a 0
f01...3 S
0
CA n n C, S
C C H V1 n Z
G n is _ m -0
N =•_ :T. >
VI -Arn ^ r-' I n
IJ 1 IJ OC C6^ — f ("�
1 0 0- °_ 5 z
`� n —1
O 00° n(N O fn {
to
1 �n 0
. = c o r O -_I C� a
o o. 1- r
7 7. 0 0 n A m
r 0 . 0 H m
a
oow `.:.'2 m=
ra -I m
G rn+• i m a
T Os ..J l.) i W i d N r; V) ✓) V)
-0.0 r.•
0 0 r(`1 _ -I -
O I O R y
2 8 G p, •••I 1
C O()) • o m In
(0 R •! T -i
• 0 y C
0
IJ r -‹ - J IJ J 0 I
OD J IJ .1" C O
'O 00 O '.O
J 0 0 0 7"
O N N O C G
VI N G
o n
Lo
3 2 n
2
A
a n
O
003
w
U
1 1 1
J
001
0 I
m
c
m
0
0
n
W
u1
Ow>
u+ in
a
OmD
s a
JA
3B
N
OOV
I
'
m0007
AREA
1 40.590
12.000
12.200
8.195
8,195
ON -GRADE
SLAB(S.F.)
1
oo
12.200
"
10 N
•0 N
oo oo
N
i...,
g
12.200
12,000
12.200
12.200
12.000
12.200
N
0
00
ELEVATED
SLAB(S.F.)
0
CO
0 a
S
W
W
W 1O
m
C..7
W ID
G7
W ID
m
0
+
a 0
W
O
0
r
CO
W
O)
W W
W (D
W W W
CO W f0
W
CO
W W
W ID
W
CO
W
CO
ID N W
(D �
Co.,
W
f0.
U
W Ca
N
N
W W CO
-& (W� N
N G N in
W
+ f�..
N
Co j
N
N
W
+
N
0
aN
011
a W W
+ 0 0)
NI> co
W
W
W
(D
11
Q
AadwwnsV3dV
•0 .
D
O
,zrn
1_.
m -I
DZC
CO
< 'n 0c0
c m
ID D
0
m
° N m
Z W m
Z N (mi D
J
•
0
0
c
Z
E
DRIVEWAY (ELKS)
GYu
11 111 SjB.�.1+1 111 I IL,I
F RAMP VP
-n
IC -34
• -n
°I� °B.6I4 11111 if.
\
•
J
OAK STREET
° cu ° f = n. n�, m O -o, b n , ' y y
D) w.� w �-- CD p - zo C v, 0.0-w -p co v, •
. 5 a.. v, 7� CD -wi ;' a' w 3 w u, w c°D 0 w w
w o Fi,
C fD < CC • v, v) C
o •
CD -1 V f g F2 -
rD cr • y • f� "y C 3' y O
CD C w , C C 6
v, o C- N CD .Z b O O p E. w G E D . D. O 0 D v3 (� C O • �' w O. C w o
. F. C
• 00 g ril O p. W O' (r, w Vi n w -. p in. n. fD C�7
O en C y' (D O n w p w rn v
o --, v, C w O' '. r. (D u) n y �. v, n = co
3 CD O a• C v' 't7 (D b `< D. o .- • • S 0. o
.0 ,: E 5' 75. C. O C w p, i ~O < CyD a, N rn y a-I (o aMca v, 9 ID -v (c n.�
w DC) 7 -, n' U p CD
co OQ m O.
,..< _, W .1] v, (D .w1 M � f�/, ,› . (n 0. '.' A� UQ
p t7 -, ,w,, • 7 (D O N = O
? E. '. CD p• U QQ 0. D) R. n) CD '-h
CD (1D o N (D
[T7
(ails 30(1oi sJ1 1)
311N3AY N100Nf1
Based on 2002 dollar projections.
Based on 2004 dollar projections.
CD o * ° CD CD H
ac_0�' �� oo a
9, Li 0 A- ,b
cu aC O g- y CI, L"
O
Y• =, �
N t c
'C p '3 O
't3 N .P
0 'C O 0 n O
CD p, 'd
A. O CD O 5 CD `< ''d � O CD CD
Cr y
a -I,� ' 0 'CS -•
-.0 -0 Y °Q `� N E. a
N N .1 k 0 CD
o o CA.) C/2 u. it
MI �0 + b
OQ S O N CD (IQ cD
N <
`
N A ,..r:
].. N 0 vOi n �i 0
Ft � O CAD a.
0 v,.o o o A
0 �-
•�
CCDD r-+ 0 `� '-� N O
0 '") .'�. - . = CD
cD
CD O '-� v) ,, <
0 � A� 00 Q4
N v) "�
CA 0 0. R
P. 0 p O .^
`t 0 6' ,c; . v
a r 0
o .. s -
0 = � c 0 UI
C 0 rr, .z1 m cm
N N '0 C
��a A.�a
a
... -r. • p cD
o o • ¢.
o '+ • - ,--,<
1 (gyp
ao p- ■t
$3.6 million – redevelopment bonds
Funding:
$10.6 million, which includes land acquisition costs
Project Costs
None proposed at time of study
0
0
C
arch
Total: $10 million, which does not include land acquisition costs (if
needed— perhaps $1 annual 50 -year lease ?)
City Offices: $1.7 million
Elks Gym: $ .7 million
Parking Structure: $7.6 million
Project Costs
Sites for potential shared parking. The number of spaces available is
based on a Friday and Saturday (Sept. 23 -24, 2005) night scan.
Encinal High School — 55
Paul's Produce - 4
Small business lot on Oak Street across from city hall - 22
Goodwill - 8
Alameda Credit Union - 19
The Party Warehouse - 20
CCA Calif. Counseling Associates - 8
Dentist – Teordoro Eusebio - 13
ARPD Library Staff lot - 6
Medical offices next to public lot - 7
US Bank - 15
Berg Injury Lawyers - 33
Berkeley Academics - 6
Alliance Title et al. lots - 17
Late hours:
The Marketplace – 12+
Longs – 22+
Wagstaff and Associates is a Bay Area firm providing urban planning and environmental documentation services
to public and private clients. The six - person office offers professional services in the following areas:
• Environmental impact assessment (California Environmental Quality Act compliance),
• Community general plan and specific plan formulation,
• Contract planning and CEQA compliance staff support to cities and counties, and
• Site planning and analysis
The firm has successfully completed numerous environmental impact reports (EIRs), specific plans, and other
environmental and urban planning programs for cities and counties throughout Northern California. Private and
quasi - public clients have included real estate developers, public utilities, medical centers, colleges and universities.
All professionals in the six - person office have masters degrees and extensive professional experience in urban
planning. The office is committed to direct principal involvement on a day -to -day basis on all its projects, which has
resulted in highly satisfied clients and substantial repeat business.
As urban planners with broad experience in general and specific plan formulation, the office is able to combine
planning, design, and environmental impact assessment skills to provide CEQA documents which are highly
responsive to local development review needs and policies. Wagstaff and Associates views the CEQA compliance
process as an effective community planning tool, with significant benefits to both lead agency and applicant. The
firm's urban planning strengths have been effectively applied in all of its CEQA compliance programs. The office
also offers special skills in visual analysis and urban design, and is often contracted by public agencies and prime
contractors to address specific urban design and visual impact issues.
Wagstaff and Associates' work is guided by two principles: first, that study recommendations are realistic and
implementable; and, second, that study findings are effectively presented through a clear and concise
organizational style, good graphic design, and skillful public presentation.
Consultant qualifications provided
by Development Services staff
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
11 -01 -05
Wagstaff and Associates
City of Alameda
July 29, 2004
Proposal for Services
Park Street Area Project
Page 6 -1
6. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE CONSULTANT TEAM
6.1 WAGSTAFF AND ASSOCIATES
Wagstaff and Associates is a Bay Area firm providing urban planning and environmental
documentation services to public and private clients. The five - person office offers professional
services in the following areas:
• Environmental and community impact assessment (CEQA compliance);
• Community general plan and specific plan formulation; and
• Contract planning and environmental review for local agencies.
The firm has successfully completed numerous EIRs, MNDs, specific plans, and other
environmental and planning documents for cities and counties throughout Northern California.
Private and quasi - public clients have included real estate developers, public utilities, hospitals,
colleges, and universities. All professionals in the five - person office have masters degrees and
extensive professional experience in urban planning. The office is committed to direct principal
involvement on a day -to -day basis on all its projects, a factor which has resulted in highly
satisfied clients and substantial repeat business.
Over the past 15 years, Wagstaff and Associates has prepared over 100 EIR and expanded
Mitigated Negative Declarations for projects of varying scope and scale throughout the state. In
particular, Wagstaff and Associates has recently prepared the following EIRs and MNDs for
projects involving locally or nationally listed historic resources, multi -plex cinema structures, and
multi -level parking structures:
• College of Notre Dame Master Plan EIR for the City of Belmont, which addressed the
visual and historic resources impacts of a proposed renovation, expansion and
intensification of a private college campus on a number of listed on- campus historic
buildings and features, including Ralston Hall, a designated National Historic Landmark
constructed in 1853;
• the Varsity Theatre Remodel Project EIR for the City of Palo Alto, which addressed the
visual and historical impacts of a proposed conversion of the vacant Varsity Theatre
building on University Avenue in downtown Palo Alto, a locally listed Mission Revival
cinema building constructed in 1927, to retail use (Carey & Co. Architecture were the EIR
historic preservation architects);
C:1 Wp9.01 Propos a11040910409 -6pro. frm
Wagstaff and Associates
City of Alameda
July 29, 2004
Proposal for Services
Park Street Area Project
Page 6 -2
▪ Immaculate Heart of Mary Parish Master Plan Project MND for the City of Belmont, which
addressed the aesthetic (visual) and historical resources impacts of proposed additions,
expansions, and renovations to a K -12 parochial school campus, including evaluation of
the consistency of proposed modifications and additions to St. Michael's Hall, a locally
listed historical landmark, with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b)(3));
▪ the Sunnyvale Town Center Mall Modifications Project EIR, for the City of Sunnyvale, the
Del Norte Mixed -Use Project EIR for the City of El Cerrito Redevelopment Agency, and the
Great Mall of the Bay Area Expansion Project SEIR for the City of Milpitas, which each
addressed a comprehensive range of environmental impacts associated with construction
of similar 20- screen cinema multi - plexes, and associated new parking structures or
parking structure expansions;
. the Block One Office and Parking Structure Project MND for the City of Sunnyvale which
addressed the visual, parking, and traffic impacts of a proposed new downtown, multi -level
parking structure;
. the Sierra Vista Regional Shopping Center Expansion EIR for the City of Clovis which
addressed the potential impacts of a proposed new 70,000- square -foot, 3,300 -seat
cinema multi -piex and associated parking modifications;
▪ the Oracle World Headquarters Expansion EIR for the City of Belmont, which addressed
an extensive range of issues, including the visual and traffic impacts of a proposed new
visually prominent, multi -level parking structure; and
▪ most recently (currently undergoing public review), the Bayside Mixed Use Project EIR for
the City of Redwood City, which addresses the visual and traffic implications of relocation
of an existing 12- screen cinema multi -piex and construction of a new multi -level parking
structure.
As urban planners with broad experience in general and specific plan formulation, Wagstaff and
Associates is able to combine planning, design, and impact assessment skills to provide
environmental documents which are responsive to the city's development review needs and
policies. Wagstaff and Associates views the environmental assessment and EIR procedure as
an effective community planning tool, with significant benefits to both city and applicant. The
firm's urban planning strengths have been effectively applied in all of its environmental
documentation programs. The office also offers special skills in visual analysis and urban
design, and is often contracted by public agencies and prime contractors to address specific
urban design and visual impact issues.
The firm is headed by John Wagstaff, a graduate architect with a Master's degree in Urban and
Regional Planning from the University of Oregon, and more than 29 years of professional
experience in urban and environmental planning and design. Wagstaff and Associates' work is
C: IWp9.01 Propos al1040910409 -6pro. frm
Wagstaff and Associates
City of Alameda
July 29, 2004
Proposal for Services
Park Street Area Project
Page 6 -3
guided by two principles: first, that study projects and recommendations are realistic and
implementable; and, second, that study findings are effectively presented through a clear and
concise writing style, good graphic design, and skillful oral presentation.
Wagstaff and Associates' Recent Clients
City of Alameda*
City of American Canyon
American Canyon Redevelopment Agency
City of Arvin
Barzo Corporation
City of Belmont*
City of Benicia
City of Berkeley*
Berkeley Redevelopment Agency
City of Citrus Heights
City of Clovis
City of Concord
Contra Costa County*
Contra Costa County
Redevelopment Agency*
City of Cupertino
Town of Corte Madera*
Town of Danville
City of Daly City*
John B. Dykstra & Associates
East Bay Municipal Utility District
City of El Cerrito*
El Dorado County
Environmental Science Associates*
David Evans Associates, Inc.
City of Folsom
Ford Motor Land Development
Corporation*
City of Foster City*
City of Fremont*
Fremont Redevelopment Agency
City of Half Moon Bay
City of Hayward*
Hayward Redevelopment Agency
City of Hollister
Hollister Redevelopment Agency
Katz Hollis Coren & Associates, Inc.*
Keenan Land Company, Inc.
C: I Wp9.01Proposa11040910409 -6pro. frm
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
City of Larkspur
City of Lincoln
City of Livermore*
City of Lodi
City of Martinez
County of Mendocino
City of Menlo Park*
City of Milpitas
M/J Properties, Inc.*
Town of Moraga*
City of Morgan Hill*
Napa County
Napa County LAFCO
Naphtali Knox & Associates
NBBJ Architects, Inc.
Oliver de Silva, Inc.
City of Oakland*
City of Orinda
City of Palo Alto*
City of Palmdale
City of Petaluma*
Petrie, Dierman & Kughn
City of Pittsburg*
Rancho Arroyo Development Company
Redding Redevelopment Agency
City of Redwood City*
Redwood City Redevelopment Agency
Remy, Thomas and Moose, Attorneys
John Northmore Roberts Associates
City of Rohnert Park
Ross Drulis Architects
City of Sacramento
Sacramento County
Port of San Francisco
City of San Leandro
City of San Ramon*
City of Sausalito*
Wagstaff and Associates
City of Alameda
July 29, 2004
City of Scotts Valley
Elizabeth Seifel Associates*
Shepherd Canyon Heights
Development Company
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Attorneys
City of Sonoma*
County of Sonoma*
Sonoma County Community
Development Agency
City of South San Francisco*
South San Francisco Redevelopment
Agency
State Coastal Conservancy
*Indicates repeat clients.
6.2 CAREY & CO. ARCHITECTURE, INC.
Proposal for Services
Park Street Area Project
Page 6 -4
City of Sunnyvale*
Sunnyvale Community Redevelopment
Agency*
Sunset Development Company, Inc.*
Michael Swerdlow Companies, Inc.
City of Tiburon
City of Tulare
City of Turlock
University of California
City of Vallejo
City of Walnut Creek*
Town of Windsor*
Town of Woodside*
Carey & Co., Inc., provides high - quality design services for the restoration, rehabilitation, and
adaptive use of historic and architecturally significant structures. The firm's integrity,
unwavering commitment to quality, and leadership in the preservation community has led to a
growing national reputation.
Carey & Co. has been involved with historic preservation since it was founded by Alice Ross
Carey in 1983. Since then the firm has grown and currently has a twelve- person staff including
five licensed architects, three preservation planners, an architectural historian, and an
architectural conservator. The staff has experience using the State Historical Building Code
and the special ADA provisions for disabled access in historic buildings. The staff brings a
diversity of experience and talents to the firm's projects and a commitment to good
management and a quality product.
Carey & Co. has a portfolio of projects reflecting the services they provide in historic
preservation (see section 8.2 of this proposal for a list of relevant work). These range from the
rehabilitation of large -scale civic structures damaged in the Loma Prieta earthquake to small
vernacular buildings. The firm and its staff has a proven track record and has successfully
completed over 300 rehabilitation projects.
C: IWp 9.01 Propos a11040910409 -6pro. frm
Wagstaff and Associates
City of Alameda
July 29, 2004
6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL VISION
Proposal for Services
Park Street Area Project
Page 6 -5
Environmental Vision provides specialized visual and aesthetic impact assessment services,
focusing on computer - generated visual simulation for land development projects. Firm
principals' project experience includes visual assessment assignments for environmentally
sensitive sites located throughout Northern California and the western states. Environmental
Vision technical capabilities are enhanced by state -of- the -art computer applications including
high - resolution visual simulation, three - dimensional modeling, computer -aided design, and
video production.
Environmental Vision principals collectively possess over 35 years of professional experience in
the fields of landscape /urban planning and design. Relevant recently completed projects
include visual impact analyses with simulations for the Redwood City Downtown Cinema Multi-
plex Project, a San Mateo downtown multi -plex cinema development, the Hearst Mining
Building restoration project at UC Berkeley, and the Woodfin Suites Hotel in Emeryville.
Previous project experience includes visual analyses for the Charlotte Wood residential
development in Danville, Hyatt Rickey's Hotel and Residential Project in Palo Alto (for Wagstaff
and Associates), the Blue Rock County Club Master Plan project in Hayward (for Wagstaff and
Associates), the Alves Ranch Master Plan project in Pittsburg (for Wagstaff and Associates),
the Haas Pavilion expansion in Berkeley, and the Bernal Property Specific Plan EIR in
Pleasanton. Environmental Vision is currently preparing view corridor studies with simulations
for the South Bayfront development in Emeryville and the Thomas Ranch development EIR in
San Ramon.
C: I Wp9.01 Propos a11040910409 -6pro. frm
Wagstaff and Associates
City of Alameda
July 29, 2004
Proposal for Services
Park Street Area Project
Page 7 -1
7. RELEVANT WORK EXPERIENCE
7'1 WAGSTAFF AND ASSOCIATES
Varsity Theatre Remodel Project EIR for the city of Palo Alto. Wagstaff and Associates
completed a unique EIR program that addressed the implications of a proposed conversion of
the vacant Varsity Theatre building on University Avenue in downtown Palo Alto to
accommodate a large Borders book and music store. The Mission Revival cinema, constructed
in 1927, is highly - valued locally as a prominent architectural landmark and longstanding focus
of downtown activity, and is listed in the city's Historic Resources Inventory. As a result, the
proposed adaptive use required an EIR under the provisions of AB 2881 (1992) and Chapter
1075 of the State Public Resources Code. The principal focus of the EIR was on the
architectural and historic resource impact implications of the project. The evaluation scope was
dictated by the U.S. Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitating Historic Structures and
included an assessment of impacts on both the exterior and interior of the historic structure. As
a result of the EIR recommendations, the project was substantially redesigned to retain most of
the structure's exterior and interior historic features. (Subcontractors: Carey & Co., historic
preservation architects; Rutherford & Chekene, structural engineers; Landry & Bogan, theater
design consultants; and Wilbur Smith Associates, transportation engineers.)
College of Notre Dame Master Plan EIR for the city of Belmont. Wagstaff and Associates
prepared a project EIR for a proposed 300,000- square -foot expansion of the existing College of
Notre Dame campus located in the city of Belmont. The campus occupies the historic Ralston
estate and includes Ralston Hall, a designated National Historic Landmark constructed in 1853.
The proposed Master Plan, which would be implemented over a 15 -year period, calls for
construction of new student dormitories, a student center, a technology center, athletic facilities,
a parking structure, circulation improvements, and various urban design amenities such as a
new college quadrangle. A key provision of the Master Plan is a new vehicular entry way from
Ralston Avenue, the city's only east -west arterial roadway; the EIR evaluated the traffic
progression, safety implications, and visual effects of the Master Plan- proposed Ralston
Avenue entrance and a city - proposed alternative entrance. In addition to these traffic and
visual impacts, the EIR addressed concerns relating to land use (due to the campus location
adjacent to single - family residential neighborhoods), soils and geology, drainage and water
quality, cultural and historic resources, and utility capacity. (Subcontractors: Crane
Transportation Group, Illingworth and Rodkin, Questa Engineering Corporation, and CADP
Associates.)
Immaculate Heart of Mary Parish Master Plan MND for the city of Belmont. Wagstaff and
Associates prepared this Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed campus -
wide (10 -acre) master plan that included demolition of an existing, vacant parish hall structure,
C: I Wp 9.01 Prop os a1104 0910409 -7pro. frm
Wagstaff and Associates
City of Alameda
July 29, 2004
Proposal for Services
Park Street Area Project
Page 7 -2
construction of two new buildings, modifications to four other buildings, campus -wide
circulation, access, and parking improvements, and other school play area, garden, and
landscaping enhancements. Issues addressed included: impacts to a locally listed historic
resource, visual impacts and other potential scenic resource degradation, creek and riparian
impacts, unstable soils concerns, lead -based paint and asbestos hazards, limited emergency
access, stormwater runoff, noise /land use compatibility, emergency water availability, traffic and
safety impacts, insufficient parking, inadequate onsite sewer capacity, and construction period
concerns (air quality, water quality, and noise). (Subcontractors: Crane Transportation Group,
Sycamore Environmental Consultants, and Illingworth & Rodkin.)
Town Center Mall Modifications EIR for the city of Sunnyvale. Wagstaff and Associates
prepared this EIR for a proposed modification and expansion of the existing Town Center Mall
regional shopping complex in downtown Sunnyvale. The project included modifications to the
existing 710,900- square -foot shopping center and adjoining pad areas to accommodate the
addition of an 82,000- square -foot 20- screen cinema, plus approximately 205,000 square feet of
other additional retail, entertainment, and restaurant space. Environmental issues addressed
included project visual compatibility with an adjacent historic district and adjacent residential
neighborhoods; project downtown circulation and parking impacts; the effects of a multi- screen
cinema on police, fire, and emergency medical services; and project noise and air quality
impacts. (Subcontractors: Fehr & Peers, Illingworth & Rodkin, and Donald Ballanti.)
Del Norte BART Station Mixed -Use Project EIR for the city of El Cerrito. Wagstaff and
Associates prepared an EIR for this joint development proposal (BART and a private developer)
to construct a four -story, mixed -use residential - commercial - parking complex adjacent to the Del
Norte BART station. The project included a 20- screen cinema complex, 216 multiple - family
residential units, 41,000 square feet of general retail space, a BART police facility, and a BART -
shared parking structure. Principal impact issues included visual /urban design compatibility
with surrounding residential, commercial, BART and other land uses; transportation and parking
impacts, including the adequacy of the proposed multifaceted parking program to serve varying
cinema, housing, commercial and BART needs; and public services impacts, including
additional security and police protection needs (city and BART). (Subcontractors: Fehr &
Peers Associates, Questa Engineering Corporation, Freedman Tung & Bottomley, Parker &
Associates, Illingworth & Rodkin, and Donald Ballanti.)
Great Mall of the Bay Area Modifications Project SEIR for the city of Milpitas. Wagstaff and
Associates prepared this supplement to the previous Great Mall of the Bay Area Regional
Shopping Center EIR, also prepared by Wagstaff and Associates. The SEIR addressed the
land use, visual, traffic, public services, air quality, and noise impacts of a proposed program of
modifications to the existing 1.55- million- square -foot Great Mall. The proposed modifications
included the addition of a 20- screen cinema and related 337 - foot -high theme tower, plus other
new restaurant and entertainment space. (Subcontractors: Hexagon Transportation
Consultants, Environmental Vision, Illingworth & Rodkin, and Donald Ballanti.)
C: I Wp9.01 Propos a1104 0 9104 09 -7pro. frm
Wagstaff and Associates
City of Alameda
July 29, 2004
Proposal for Services
Park Street Area Project
Page 7 -3
Bayside Gardens Project EIR for the city of Redwood City. Wagstaff and Associates is
currently completing an EIR for a proposed 600 -unit apartment development project. The
project would include removal of an existing 12- screen cinema and 900 -space parking lot, and
construction of three 4 -story apartment buildings, plus a recreational center, swimming pools, a
sports court, play lawns, three 4 -story parking structures, and 8,300 square feet of retail floor
area. The 14.13 -acre project site is located in northeastern Redwood City near Smith Slough
tidal channel and Bair Island Wildlife Refuge. The EIR addresses the following issues:
aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards &
hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and
housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems.
(Subcontractors: Fehr & Peers, Environmental Vision, Illingworth & Rodkin, and Donald
Ballanti.)
Block One Office /Retail Project IS /MND for the city of Sunnyvale. Wagstaff and Associates
prepared this Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed office /retail complex
and multi -level parking structure in downtown Sunnyvale. The project proposed removal of an
existing parking lot, demolition of an existing two -story building, and construction of three
buildings ranging between five and six stories, along with underground and new surface
parking. Issues addressed in the Initial Study included: visual impact from possible design
incompatibilities, potential disturbance of unidentified archaeological and historic resources,
contaminated soils concerns, traffic noise, police and fire /emergency services adequacy,
cumulative traffic impacts, safety concerns from obstructed views, insufficient bicycle support
facilities, inadequate sewer service, and construction period concerns (air quality and noise).
(Subcontractors: Fehr & Peers Associates, Illingworth & Rodkin, and Donald Ballanti.)
Vallco Fashion Park Shopping Center EIR for the city of Cupertino. Wagstaff and Associates
recently prepared a program EIR for a redevelopment plan encompassing the Vallco Fashion
Park regional shopping center and adjacent Rose Bowl site in the city of Cupertino. The EIR
addressed the environmental implications of a proposed Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
plan to eliminate blighting conditions and facilitate and assist with the expansion, renovation,
and revitalization of the shopping center, including introduction of a 10- screen multi -plex cinema
and associated parking expansions. The EIR described the redevelopment program's
implications for land use and planning; aesthetics /urban design; transportation and parking;
population, housing, and employment; public services; air quality; noise; and cultural resources.
(Subcontractors: Fehr & Peers, Illingworth & Rodkin, and Donald Ballanti.)
Sierra Vista Regional Shopping Center Expansion EIR for the city of Clovis. Wagstaff and
Associates prepared this EIR for a proposed expansion of an existing regional shopping mall.
The project included construction of up to 200,000 square feet of additional major retail space;
construction of a new 70,000- square -foot, 3,300- square -foot cinema or a 70,000- square -foot
anchor /general retail store; and possible conversion of an existing onsite 22,750- square -foot
cinema to general retail use. The EIR focused on three issues of concem identified by the city
of Clovis: (1) transportation factors, including critical peak hour effects on local and regional
roads, and project access, internal circulation, and parking adequacy; (2) air quality factors,
C: I Wp 9.01 Prop os a11040910409 -7pro. frm
Wagstaff and Associates
City of Alameda
July 29, 2004
Proposal for Services
Park Street Area Project
Page 7 -4
including estimated decreases in ambient local and regional air quality due to project
construction and long -term project - related traffic congestion, and the relationship of these
impacts to state, federal, and local standards; and (3) project relationships to adopted plans.
(Subcontractors: Crane Transportation Group and Donald Ballanti)
Oracle /Island Park Office Project EIR for the city of Belmont. Wagstaff and Associates
prepared an EIR for the proposed 330,000- square -foot office expansion and associated new
multi -level parking structure by Oracle, Inc., in the Island Park area of Belmont. Three new
office buildings were proposed on two separate sites, linked to the existing Oracle headquarters
in Redwood City via a pedestrian bridge over Belmont Slough and neighboring wetlands. The
EIR scope included the interjurisdictional implications of the proposed bridge, which required
approvals from Redwood City, the Bay Conservation Development Commission, the California
State Lands Commission, and the Army Corps of Engineers. The EIR addressed a range of
environmental issues, including land use, visual, transportation and parking, soils and geology,
drainage and water quality, vegetation and wildlife, noise and vibration, air quality, and utility
capacity effects. Wetland and bayfront jurisdictional issues were also evaluated.
(Subcontractors: Crane Transportation Group; Illingworth and Rodkin; CADP Associates;
Andrew Leahy, R.C.E.; and Charles Patterson.)
C: I Wp 9.01 Prop o s a 1104 0910409 -7pro. frm
Wagstaff and Associates
City of Alameda
October 28, 2005
7.2 CAREY & CO. ARCHITECTURE, INC.
C: IWp9.01Proposa11040910409 -7pro. frm
Proposal for Services
Park Street Area Project
Wagstaff and Associates
City of Alameda
October 28, 2005
7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL VISION
C: I Wp 9.01 Pro p o s a 11040910409 -7pro. frm
Proposal for Services
Park Street Area Project
July 29, 2004
Ms. Cynthia Eliason, AICP
Supervising Planner
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190
Alameda, California 94501
RE: PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES TO COMPLETE THE REQUIRED CEQA AND
NEPA DOCUMENTATION FOR THE PROPOSED PARK STREET AREA
PARKING GARAGE, MULTI -PLEX CINEMA, AND ALAMEDA THEATRE
HISTORIC REHABILITATION PROJECT
Dear Cynthia:
Wagstaff and Associates is pleased to submit this proposal for services to prepare the
required environmental documentation for the Park Street area project.
In addition to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance requirements,
the combined involvement of the Alameda Theatre, which is a locally designated
"Historic Monument" and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and the
HUD Section 108 loan guarantee application, will require completion of National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 historic review documentation. These two project
aspects also raise National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) compliance questions
that will need to be resolved at the outset in consultation with HUD (NEPA authorizes
individual federal agencies like HUD to adopt their own NEPA compliance regulations
tailored to situations unique to their activities).
At this preliminary point, prior to completion of formal consultation between City /CIC
staff and HUD, it appears that the project will require preparation of either:
. a "CEQA -Plus" Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) document (Option 1) with
special formatting designed in consultation with HUD to meet their historic resource
impact assessment protocols (HUD may determine that this approach, in
combination with the companion Section 106 historic review documentation which is
also described in our proposal, may be sufficient to make a finding of no significant
impact and avoid additional NEPA documentation); or
. a more formal combined Mitigated Negative Declaration /Finding of No
Significant Impact (MND /FONSI) document (Option 2) designed to meet both
CEQA and NEPA compliance requirements (including a NEPA - complying
C:M .OWripasaA040910409.1trwpd
Ms. Cynthia Eliason, AICP
July 29, 2004
Page 2
Environmental Assessment with comparative evaluation of "Alternatives to the
Proposed Action "); or
. if determined to be absolutely necessary, a combined focused Environmental
Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) document (Option 3)
designed to meet both CEQA and NEPA requirements.
Our attached proposal outlines a separate work scope, budget, and schedule for all
three of these options. As one of our proposed initial tasks, we would participate with
City /CIC staff in their consultations with HUD to advocate and identify the appropriate
approach.
Our office is particularly interested in this project because it would benefit from our
established working relationship with City and CIC staff, and our extensive recent
experience in preparing MNDs and focused EIRs for Bay Area projects involving historic
resources, multi -plex cinemas, and multi -level parking structures.
Wagstaff and Associates would perform as prime contractor with overall responsibility
for completion of the environmental documents. To properly address the various key
technical issues associated with the project, we would be assisted by the following
experienced subcontractors:
. Carey & Co. Architecture, Inc., historic rehabilitation architects and planners, who
would complete the necessary "peer review" architectural and historic resource
impact evaluations and any associated mitigation recommendations, as well as the
required NHPA Section 106 review documentation (a separate document) in
support of the requested HUD Section 108 loan guarantee;
. Environmental Vision, visual simulation consultants, who would prepare
computer - generated photomontage "before and after" visual simulations of the
proposed project from two selected City- approved vantage points; and
. Donald Ballanti, air quality management consultant, to complete the modeling and
narrative necessary to address project construction period (dust) and long -term
(traffic) air emissions impacts.
In making your consultant selection, please also consider the following specific assets
that the Wagstaff and Associates team will bring to this CEQA/NEPA compliance
program:
1. General CEQA /NEPA Expertise. Wagstaff and Associates has had extensive
experience preparing defensible environmental documentation for numerous
commercial, industrial, residential, and institutional projects of varying scale (over 150)
throughout California. Our assigned technical assistance team also includes strong
NEPA compliance experience.
CIVVp9.01Propa il1040910409./trwpd
Ms. Cynthia Eliason, AICP
July 29, 2004
Page 3
2. Assessment of Similar Projects. Wagstaff and Associates has recently prepared
the environmental documentation for several similar projects involving historic districts
and structures, multi -plex cinemas, and multi -level parking structures, including:
. the College of Notre Dame Master Plan EIR for the City of Belmont, which
addressed the visual and historic resource impacts of a proposed renovation,
expansion, and intensification of a private college campus, including modifications
to a number of listed on- campus historic buildings such as Ralston Hall, a
designated National Historic Landmark (constructed in 1853);
. the Varsity Theatre Remodel Project EIR for the City of Palo Alto, which addressed
the visual and historical impacts of a proposed conversion of the vacant Varsity
Theatre building on University Avenue in downtown Palo Alto, a highly valued and
locally listed Mission Revival cinema building constructed in 1927, to retail use
(Carey & Co. Architecture were the EIR historic preservation architects); and
. the Immaculate Heart of Mary Parish Master Plan Project MND for the City of
Belmont, which addressed the aesthetic (visual) and historical resources impacts of
proposed additions, expansions, and renovations to a K -12 parochial school
campus, including modifications to St. Michael's Hall, a locally listed historical
landmark.
3. Principal Involvement. By design, Wagstaff and Associates maintains a
professional staff of limited size (a five - person office) which allows for energetic, day-to-
day principal involvement in all of our projects. This commitment has contributed to a
solid history of successful environmental documentation products.
4. Management Skills and Qualifications of Key Staff. Wagstaff and Associates
key staff are well - qualified to manage a project of this type and scope. John Wagstaff,
who would perform as Principal -in- Charge, is a highly experienced CEQA compliance
expert. Mr. Wagstaff has a Bachelor of Architecture degree from California Polytechnic
University, a Masters of Urban and Regional Planning degree from the University of
Oregon, and over 29 years of professional experience with CEQA project team
assembly and management. He has managed the successful completion of numerous
similar EIR and MND programs, including the pertinent projects listed above.
Ray Pendro, Senior Planner who would perform as Assistant Project Manager, holds a
Bachelor of Arts degree from Boston University and a Master of Architecture and Urban
Planning degree from the University of California, Los Angeles, and has 12 years of
professional planning experience, including the last three years with Wagstaff and
Associates. He has recently been Wagstaff and Associates Project Manager for the
Sunnyvale Central Area Improvement Program EIR for the City of Sunnyvale and the
Central Folsom Redevelopment Plan EIR for the City of Folsom Redevelopment
Agency, which both addressed historic structure and historic district impact concerns.
Prior to joining Wagstaff and Associates, Ray was a project manager at Cotton /Beland/
Associates (CBA), Environmental and Urban Planners, of Pasadena, California.
CI wp9.01 Proposa110409104O9.Rr wpd
Ms. Cynthia Eliason, AICP
July 29, 2004
Page 4
The specific pertinent qualifications and experience of assigned personnel are also
addressed in sections 5 (Proposed Team Management and Lead Personnel) and 9
(Resumes of Key Staff) of our attached proposal.
5. Concentrated Production Schedule Abilities. Because this project fits in well
with the scheduling of our current projects, we would be able to provide a concentrated
effort to produce the draft environmental document in minimal time during the months of
August through October. Section 3 of our proposal (Proposed Products and Work
Schedule) describes a concentrated production schedule for each of the three options.
6. Proven Performance Record. Our EIR and MND products are known for their
legal adequacy, thoroughness, clear and concise writing style, and effective graphic
techniques. Our strengths in public presentation are also proven. These qualities have
resulted in a high level of client satisfaction and repeat business for our office.
The attached proposal is valid for 60 days. The proposal includes proposed work
scopes, budgets, and time schedules that are preliminary and open to modification. We
are certainly amenable to modifications in scope and schedule necessary to meet
City /CIC needs. We wish to avoid elimination from further consideration based on
budget or schedule alone.
We have also enclosed two relevant Wagstaff and Associates work examples for your
review: the historic Varsity Theatre Remodel Project EIR for the City of Palo Alto (with
Carey & Co.) and the Sunnyvale Town Center Mall Modifications Project EIR for the City
of Sunnyvale (multi -plex cinema).
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal. We also invite you to visit our
new website at Wagstaffassociates.com. Feel free to contact us if you have any
questions or additional information needs.
Sincerely,
WAGSTAFF AND ASSOCIATES
John Wagstaff
JW:sr \0409
Enclosures: Proposal for Services (3 copies)
Work Examples:
Varsity Theatre Remodel Project EIR
Sunnyvale Town Center Mall Modifications Project EIR
C.•1 Wp9.0Roposa11040910409.1tr. wpd
EnviroTrans Solutions
426 17th Street, Suite 1008 Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 839 -6990 FAX: (510) 465 -6918
EnviroTrans Solutions is a small woman -owned business based in Oakland, California.
EnviroTrans Solutions was established in 2002. Our founding Principals have combined
experience of 40 years in transportation and environmental planning and project
management. Our firm focuses on environmental planning and impact assessment for
transportation projects and public facilities, multi -modal transportation planning and traffic
studies, transportation project management and oversight, transportation demand
management programs, and assisting private clients in addressing transportation /land use
related issues.
EnviroTrans Solutions is working with both public agency and private clients to address
environmental concerns and to develop innovative transportation solutions. Our principals
have civil engineering and transportation planning backgrounds with experience in
environmental planning, urban and land use planning, transit planning, major public
infrastructure projects, mitigation monitoring, and project management. Our current list of
clients includes the Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA) /Alameda County
Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA), San Francisco Planning Department, San
Francisco Municipal Railway, and the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Authority.
Recent and ongoing transportation and environmental projects undertaken by our principals
include: environmental impact report for commuter and light rail; environmental impact report
for transit - oriented neighborhood plan; multi -modal corridor studies; highway and transit
project management oversight, parking and circulation studies; transit planning and
environmental assessment studies including light rail and commuter rail, environmental
monitoring for the Golden Gate Bridge seismic retrofit project, and environmental documents
for a number of transportation projects. ETS Principals have worked with many other public
agencies including Caltrans, BART, Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB), the Golden Gate
Bridge District, San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco Public Works
Department, San Francisco Transportation Authority, City of Alameda, AC Transit, Napa
County Transportation Planning Agency, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit
Administration, and the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority. Past work with public
agencies and private developers has focused on the following locations: San Francisco,
Oakland, Union City, Alameda, Monterey, Napa, Solano, Sonoma, Marin, Menlo Park, El
Cerrito, and Los Angeles.
Recent projects managed by ETS Principals include the: Market and Octavia Neighborhood
Plan EIR in San Francisco, Environmental Assessment for the Napa /Solano
Passenger /Freight Rail Study, Transportation analysis for the San Francisco Cruise Terminal
Mixed -Use project, Fourth Street Bridge Environmental Assessment in San Francisco, San
Bruno Jail Construction Mitigation Monitoring project in San Mateo County, Park Street
Revitalization and Downtown Theater /Parking Garage Transportation Impact Report in
Alameda, Surface Transportation evaluation for the San Francisco Airport Runway
Reconfiguration EIS /EIR in San Mateo County, NEPA Reevaluation for the Central Freeway
Project in San Francisco; Sonoma /Marin County Rail Implementation Plan Preliminary
Environmental Assessment, West of Van Ness Parking Study in San Francisco, the
Waterfront Transportation Projects in San Francisco that provided a multi -modal alternative to
the Embarcadero Freeway damaged in the Loma Prieta Earthquake, and numerous studies
prepared for private developers to assess project - related transportation impacts.
2550 NINTH STREET
S U I T E 2 0 5
BERKELEY CA 94710
5 1 0. 5 4 0. 4 8 8 2
FAX 510.540. 1 1 54
Firm Profile
Environmental Vision provides specialized planning and design consulting services
which address the aesthetics and public perception of environmentally sensitive
projects. The firm has extensive experience in preparing visual studies for a variety of
projects located within sensitive and scenic viewsheds. In addition to expertise in
CEQA and NEPA documentation requirements, Environmental Vision staff is highly
familiar with state and federal agency procedures for visual impact evaluation including
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the California Energy Commission, the
California Public Utility Commission, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S.
Forest Service.
Environmental Vision has completed visual studies for a variety of projects located
throughout the California including land development, urban infill and infrastructure
improvement projects. Currently the firm is preparing visual studies for the Kaiser
Master plan EIR in Oakland, the Bernal Specific Plan development in Pleasanton and
the Heavenly Ski Resort Expansion at Lake Tahoe. Recent projects include visual
resource studies for the Diablo Pointe development in Clayton, the Uptown and Jack
London Square redevelopment projects in Oakland and the Glashaus and Oak Walk
mixed use developments in Emeryville.
Environmental Vision maintains advanced computer simulation capabilities for
producing photo - realistic color visual simulations showing "before" and "after" views of
project proposals. Environmental Vision computer simulation techniques provide a
powerful tool for project planning, design, evaluation and communication. The firm's
visual simulation capability is unique in several respects. Their computer- generated
images reflect a high level of accuracy and realism based on specialized techniques in
site analysis, photo documentation, computer modeling, and computer rendering. Most
importantly Environmental Vision's technical approach embodies a depth of professional
expertise in planning, design, and visual analysis.
2550 NINTH STREET
S U I T E 2 0 5
BERKELEY CA 94710
5 1 0. 5 4 0. 4 8 8 2
FAX 510.540. 1 1 54
Firm Principals
Marsha Gale, managing principal, has over 25 years of professional experience in the
fields of environmental planning and design including visual analysis, environmental
planning, and urban design. Her project and management experience includes a broad
range of Bay Area, regional, national, and international assignments. She is principal -
in- charge for projects such as urban and land development, transportation and
streetscape corridor, energy development, and campus planning improvements. Ms
Gale has pioneered the use of video and computer imaging applications for project
planning, design, analysis, and communication. Her particular expertise in visual
analysis and aesthetic design includes extensive CEQA and NEPA experience for
projects located throughout the Bay Area and northern California. Prior to founding
Environmental Vision in 1993, she served as Director of the Visual Design Group for
Dames & Moore (now URS Corporation) where she managed the landscape planning/
visual analysis professional practice in California. Ms Gale holds undergraduate and
graduate degrees in landscape architecture in addition to a masters degree in city &
regional planning. She has lectured internationally and has taught at the University of
California College of Environmental Design in Berkeley. Ms Gale is a member of the
American Society of Landscape Architects and an Associate of the Urban Land
Institute.
Charles Cornwall, principal, has 20 years of professional experience in the fields of
environmental and landscape planning including consulting on national and international
projects. An expert in advanced computer modeling and simulation, Mr. Cornwall has
developed innovative techniques that employ a variety of hardware and software
platforms for high - resolution visual simulation, video animation, and visual analysis. In
addition to providing computer expertise, he is an accomplished environmental planner.
Prior to founding Environmental Vision he managed the Dames & Moore (now URS)
Visual Design computer capability. A member of the American Planning Association
and Association of Environmental Professionals, Mr. Cornwall holds a bachelor's degree
in conservation of natural resources and a masters degree in landscape architecture.
He has presented to the American Society of Landscape Architects, U.S. Forest
Service, and International Association for Impact Assessment on the subject of
computer simulation and visual assessment techniques. Mr. Cornwall has also
provided professional computer training to landscape architects at state and federal
agencies.
Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project
Alameda, California
Partial Aesthetic Impacts Analysis (Bulk, Massing and Scale)
Proposed Cineplex and Parking Structure
Alameda, California
October 30, 2005
RESPONSE TO ANALYSIS
In August 2005, Woodruff Minor (Minor), Consulting Architectural Historian, prepared
a brief report on the proposed Cineplex and Parking Garage portions of the development
project that also includes the rehabilitation of the historic Alameda Theater. Mr. Minor's
analysis was "limited to the issue of bulk, massing, and scale, which comprise the most
intrusive and aesthetically disturbing element of the project."
Comment – Setting 1
The project site —the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Oak Street —is of
extraordinary importance to Alameda from the point of view of urban design and
historical associations. For it is here, at the juncture of the historic downtown and civic
center, that the city's architectural heritage coalesces into an ensemble of unparalleled
force and vigor. Rising on the west from one corner is Twin Towers Methodist Church...
On the far corner, the neoclassical wings of Historic Alameda High School (1926) recede
into the distance, a stately vision of civic pride. Adjoining the project site on the east is
Alameda Theater...
Together, these three buildings encapsulate the development of commercial and civic
design in America in the early 20th century, from the varied historicist modes of the
church and school to the theater's emergent modernism. They also embody significant
themes in local history, from the role of the church as the city's pioneer religious body to
the expansive confidence of the local government and business community expressed by
the school and theater.
Response
The buildings mentioned by Minor are undoubtedly of historic significance. These and
other buildings were previously evaluated for their historic significance as part of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Section 106 review processes. Oak Street is the edge
of the commercial development, most notably the Park Street Historic Commercial
District. The individual civic buildings and churches are across from, and west of, Oak
Street. There is no current recognition of these civic buildings and churches as a historic
Provided by Development Services
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
11 -01 -05
Carey & Co. Inc.
October 30, 2005
Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project
Response to Analysis - 2
district at any governmental level. The areas adjacent to the civic buildings and churches,
to the north, south and west, are primarily residential in nature, consisting of one to two -
story, detached structures.
Historically and architecturally, the commercial and civic areas are characterized by
substantially different types of buildings in bulk, massing and scale. Except for the
Alameda Theater, which is discussed below, the commercial buildings are generally low
scale, one to two -story structures, built lot line to lot line and to the edge of the sidewalk.
The civic and religious structures are generally more massive, taller, and free standing.
The exception to the downtown's generally low -rise development pattern, is the Alameda
Theater, the bulk and scale of which are much greater than most of the other buildings in
the Park Street Historic Commercial District. Importantly, the theater broke with the
traditional development pattern of the historic district by introducing in 1931 a new,
much bulkier and more massive building. The theater is a "newer" building relative to the
majority of the properties in the historic district and, as such, is viewed as a contributor
because of the passage of time. Time has established its value as a contributor to the
historic district despite the fact that it is an architectural anomaly in the district. In only
one way does this building conform to district characteristics: it follows the lot line
building pattern as it is built to the side lot lines and the sidewalk.
The Alameda Theater established a paradigm for new buildings by emphatically
acknowledging that such developments could be larger in scale, bulkier, and not the same
height as existing buildings in the historic commercial district, but still contribute to the
continued evolution of commercial development in Alameda. The Alameda Theater
broke with tradition in 1931 and the proposed project extends an already established
precedent.
Comment — Setting 2
It is only on the project site, at the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Oak Street
that this commercial -civic ensemble can be seen and experienced in all its evocative
power. Here one may simultaneously gaze up to the towers of the church, take in the
perspective of the school, and peer past the rounded corner of the theater to the name -
bearing marquee. (Figure 1.) The site is unlike any other in the city, ensconced in a
uniquely important historical and architectural setting at the very meeting place of the
downtown and civic center. Any project undertaken there should be held to the highest
standards of sensitive and contextual design, demonstrating a deferential and respectful
awareness of the significance of the site,
The proposed cineplex addition and parking structure demonstrate neither. Their bulk
and massing, accentuated by the lack of setbacks, impose a big -box idiom, more suitable
to a generic mall, on a complex historic setting resonant with pre- existing harmonies of
scale. The size and placement of the development would diminish the monumentality of
Carey & Co. Inc. Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project
October 30, 2005 Response to Analysis - 3
both the Alameda Theater and Twin Towers Methodist Church. The long horizontal
facade of the addition, rising nearly to the height of the theater parapet, would compete
with and undermine the theater's visual prominence and sense of verticality. The looming
mass of the addition and parking structure would also overwhelm the church across the
narrow divide of Oak Street. As designed, both structures would rise above the roof level
of the church and part way up the height of the campanili, vying with the towers'
symbolic meaning as announcers of the civic center. The visual power of the high school,
with its heroically scaled wings, would also be diminished by the competing presence of
the new structures. The cumulative impact of the project on surrounding landmarks
would be to trivialize them, and in the case of the theater and church, make them feel
smaller than they actually are.
Response
The existing site for the proposed cineplex and parking garage consists mainly of surface
parking at this time, but over the years has been developed for different uses, including a
gas station, furniture store, social hall and apartment building. In the late 1950s, the
southern portion was developed with a video store, which was recently demolished and
the site is now vacant. This does not mean that the site will remain vacant or surface
parking. Development will take place that will obscure views of the historic resources in
the area. If and when this happens, the public will still have the opportunity to experience
the historic buildings from public rights of way (i.e., sidewalks and streets).
The interface between civic and commercial is Oak Street. The civic experience also is
limited to buildings that are one lot deep, not a planned or designed complex. There is no
defining element such as a plaza, or a different type of street (width, median, paving,
landscaping). This type of development pattern exists in every town and city in the
country. Over time, as development has taken place in Alameda, as in other cities, the
types of buildings constructed reflect a particular style of architecture and a need to meet
economic and financial development goals. This has resulted in all types of buildings
existing side -by -side, often not in complete harmony in scale, massing, height and
architectural style. Nonetheless, these buildings have been able to co- exist, despite each
having its own character. Although the proposed cineplex and parking garage will extend
the scale of the Alameda Theater another third of a block west, the development will not
appreciably harm the interface of historic commercial and civic resources and is entirely
consistent with historic commercial district.
Comment — Scenic Vistas
The cineplex addition and parking structure would also spoil several critical scenic
vistas, or sightlines, in the project area. Most obvious are the views up and down Oak
Street, from Santa Clara Avenue on the north and vicinity of Alameda Avenue on the
south, which would be truncated by the bulk and massing of the proposed structures. Less
Carey & Co. Inc. Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project
October 30, 2005 Response to Analysis - 4
obvious, perhaps, is the vista west on Central Avenue from Park Street. From an urban
design perspective, Central Avenue is the principal cross -town route through the
downtown and civic center, providing the most visually rich encounter of the areas in
sequential manner. Currently, drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians heading west on Central
Avenue are presented with an unimpeded vista of the theater and church at Park Street.
Here the two landmarks are suddenly seen in juxtaposition, iconic symbols visually
knitting the heart of the downtown to the civic center. (Figure 2.) This vista is as
important as the individual buildings of which it is composed, creating a deeply satisfying
and meaningful aesthetic experience. The bulk, massing, and scale of the cineplex
addition would spoil the vista from Park Street, obscuring most of the church and hence
destroying a richly layered and irreplaceable view of the city's historic center.
Response
Views and sightlines currently take advantage of the temporarily vacant parking lot that
extends down the east side of Oak Street from Park Avenue to Central Avenue. This is
evident in both figures submitted by Minor. However, any building, even a one -story
structure that respected the lot line to lot line pattern of the historic district, constructed at
the northeast corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue would obscure the church's towers
as viewed from the same vantage points in Figures 1 and 2.
Prepared by: Hisashi B. Sugaya, Director of Preservation Planning, Carey & Co. Inc.,
San Francisco, California
Prepared for: City of Alameda, Alameda, California
Alameda City Council
Mayor Beverly Johnson
Vice Mayor Marie Gilmore
Councilmember Tony Daysog
Councilmember Doug deHaan
Council member Frank Matarrese
November 1, 2005
Dear Mayor, Councilmembers:
05 s, N —
PH 7: C7
As we did in writing for the council meeting of August 16h, my husband and I would like
to state again for the record my opposition to the cineplex. Our position is not a matter
of having listened to the "misinformation" of anti- cineplex activists; we believe it plain
that even the new design (as published in the Alameda Journal of 10/28) is out of scale
with our downtown. Clearly the additional building front dwarfs the original
theater — making it "prettier" still does not make it right for Alameda.
Once again we urge you in the strongest possible terms to do your part to preserve the
character of our city and reject this shortsighted plan for further "revitalizing" it. Many
thanks for your kind attention.
Sincerely,
Annette Kiewietdejonge
Edward Kenna
2518 Noble Avenue
Alameda
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
11 -01 -05
050 3
City Council and Community Improvement Commis §i;qn,.,,_
c/o Deputy City Clerk
City Hall
Alameda, California 94501
October 31, 2005
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members and
Honorable Chair and Community Improvement Commission Members,
We are in favor of the downtown theater project and are opposed to the appeal
that is under consideration at tonigh 's council meeting.
S
Thank you for all of your work on beh of the citizens and community of
Alameda.
Sincerely,
76ao,, -(
Dan and Debbie Pollart
127 Capetown Drive
Alameda, California 94502
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
11 -01 -05
VIEW #5
CHURCH TOWE
OAK ST.
OAK STREET
VIEW #3
2 TOWERS
1 1/2 TOWERS
VIEW #2
ONE TOW
VIEW #1
EXISTING
N 0 20
�I SITE PLAN
40 60
Provided by Development Services
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
11 -01 -05
1554 EVERETT STREET
ALAMEDA, CAL FORNIA 94501
October 31, 2005
Mayor, Vice -Mayor and City Councilmembers
Alameda City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Honorable Mayor, Vice - Mayor, and City Councilmembers:
UJ OCT J PH _ r
I
Please accept the attached petition in favor of the Historic Alameda Theater
Rehabilitation Project. It was gathered with the help of Ipetitons.com, a free electronic
petition Web site, starting July 6 and ending August 7. At that time, the petition was
transferred to the site "FriendsofAlamedaTheater.org" for additional signatures.
I believe that these signatures represent a small proportion of those in Alameda who
support the project. In gathering these signatures, I have only sent e-mails to people I
know personally and put the address in letters to the editor of the newspapers. I did not
have a chance to gather signatures at events or by going door to door. So the people who
signed up here are from the group who are electronically savvy enough to get to the Web
site and sign up.
A copy of the page of the site is also attached. Please support the project and do not
approve the appeal of the Planning Board decision.
Sincerely,
Kevis Brownson
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
11 -01 -05
1 of 2
http://rosewhite.net/forml.html
Petition
We, the undersigned, support the Historic Alameda Theater Project including the
cineplex and the parking garage.
Please fill in all fields marked with a *
First Name
I
Last Name
I *
0
Email
I *
El
Address
I
City
I
State
Zip code
Country
1
Gender
IF J
Age
10/31/05 3:41 PM
FIRST NAME
LAST NAME
CITY
i!IP CODE
John
Lisa
Abrate
29 Brehaut Court
Alameda
94502
It's about time we have a movie complex in Alameda. I am glad
there is someone willing to create a petition that shows support
for the movie theater.
Anderson
2445 Santa Clara
Alameda
94501
As a resident of Alameda all my life (45 years), I enjoyed going to
the theatres on the Island. I miss having a theatre in Alameda and
would patronize it a lot. After all of the work that the City of
Alameda has spent on this project, I think its a shame that the
"quite vocal" minority is being listened to at all. <br
/> <br /> Please know that the majority is simply silent as
we assume that it was a done deal a long time ago. Please
continue with the proiect!!
Lisa
Anderson
2445 S4n4 .CI
Jane
Andren
424 Greenbrier Ro
Alameda
Alameda
94501
94501
As a resident of Alameda all my life (45 years), I enjoyed going to
the theatres on the Island. I miss having a theatre in Alameda and
would patronize it a lot. After all of the work that the City of
Alameda has spent on this project, I think its a shame that the "quite
vocal" minority is being listened to at all. <br /> <br
/>Please know that the majority is simply silent as we assume that it
was -done deal Along time ago. Please cotttifue with.tlte_,ptQject!!
Jacqueline
Mary
Marilyn
.Floward
Mary
Andrews
Applegate
Ashcraft
Ashcraft
Avila
2608 Buena Vista
Alameda
1183 Regent St
Alameda
94501
I had lived and worked in Alameda all my life and when I was
growing up we had at least 5 theaters and a drive -in that I can
remember. This is what Alameda needs. We also need the parking
garage. Other cities have them and it's time for Alameda to live in
the future. But then again in the past we had theeterslm
94501
Alameda
94501
Alameda
94501
94501
David
Avila
1514 Fountain Str
Alameda
94501
Sophie Azouaou
Niki Babor
Marilyn Bailey
Mike & Diane Ballerini
Janet Basta
223 Hudson flay
Alameda
94
94502
strongly support the City's previously approved resolution to
proceed with the development of a new Movie Theater Complex at
the comer of Central and Oak Streets in Alameda. Last night after
work, my wife and I spent $22 at the Jack London Theater and
discussed how nice it would have been to be able to have seen a
movie in the city in which we live. When we go to movies in other
cities, we typically have dinner and shop before attending the
movie and frequently have coffee /snacks afterward. None of our
discretionary entertainment dollars are spent with Alameda
businesses. I futhermore believe that busy, congested streets and
sidewalks are signs of a thriving and successful downtowns. I look
forward to fighting traffic and crowds and impatiently trying to
find a parking space so that my wife and I can shop, dine and be
entertained along the revitalized Park Street
shopping /entertainment corridor.
My family supports the Historic Alameda Theatre Project (Cineplex
and parking Garage). <br /> <br / >Thank you for your
consideration!
94501
1825 Fremont Dr
Alameda
94501
94502
tracy
tracy
.Amy
Amy
becker
1400 san jose avealameda
becker
Beckman
94501
built the megaplex and theatre. If the PABA wants it, it's good
enough for me. Those folks are the ones taking a chance every
day by owning businesses on PArk 5T. IF they want it, so do I. I'm
not taking their kind of risk and owning a business there. My hat is
off to the business owners on Park St.
1400 san jose
Beckman
Everett St.
alameda
Alameda
Alameda
94501
Thanks for taking on this most important issue. Looking forward
to the theatre being built and all the additional new and current
businesses that will thrive from this addition along with the new
parking structure. We support Alameda business owner. <br
/> Thanks <br />Tracy
94501
94501
I hope the theater development proceeds as planned; I believe it
would be an asset to Alameda's downtown._ area.
My household supports the development and restoration of the
Alameda Theater and vicinity.
FIRST NAME
LAST NAME
CITY
JP CODE
.Nancy
_Ruby
Karen
Bennett
1829A Encinal..Aye.Alameda
Bermiester
94501
94501
Chuck
Bey
2911 Santa Clara
Alameda
94501
I sat on the Downtown Visioning Task Force and attended most of
the meetings related to the theater. It's sad to see some people
choose not to attend meetings and voice their concerns early on
in the planning stage and wait to the end to sabotage the hard
work and efforts of many who were part of that process. I am
completely in favor of moving forward with the project as is.
Alameda has gone on far too long without a theater! Thanks for
your petition.
Bianchi
Alameda
94502
Mr. & Mrs. L.
Bianchi
3117 La CampaniaAlameda
94502
We need a Movie theater in Alameda and there is not one better
than the Original One!!Kudo's..........
Jalena
Oliver
Michelle
Nance
mike
HAnnah
dominic
Alison
Bill
Sean
Camille
Brittney
Greg
Carmen
Kevis
Sally
Daniel
David
Lu
Maxy
David
Bingham
Blackburn
Blackburn
2101 Mosley Ave
Alameda
94501
I support restoration of the theater, and want to have first run
movies in Alameda. 1 think the multiplex will benefit the city.
Blocking this will just be continuing to send our entertainment tax
revenues to other cities.
94502
94502
I support construction of a new movie theater and parking garage,
AND restoration of Alameda Theater. Restoring the historic
theather needs to be mandatory part of the redevelopment
project
Boese
94502
boese
339 Creedon CjrFI Alameda
94502
Boese
94502
boese
94502
Botts
3325 Constance ( Alameda
945Q1
Botts
3325 COnstance ( Alameda
94501
Bradshaw
Brennan
Bridges
419 Sheffield Rd.
Alameda
94501
.Alameda
94.5.02
94502
Bridges
94502
Bringas
2222 San Antonio
Alameda
94501
Brownson
Brownson
Alameda
94501
94501
Brownson
Alameda
94501
Brownson
1554 Everett St
Alameda
94501
Burton
Busse
Kristine
.Ky.leen
Kris
Campbell
2606 Bayview Drily Alameda
94501
1183 Regent St
1 Kofman Court
Alameda
94501
Alameda
94502
Our family supports the Alameda Theater project. Please approve
this badly needed project.
Carey
3116 Central Ave
Alameda
94501
Carey
Carey
3116 Central Ave
Alameda
9.4550.1
94501
Don't let the vocal minority rule in Alamedatil do not currently
attend very many movies because I do not like getting in my car
on weekends. I would probably attend movies once a month or so if
I could walk, which is possible at most every address in Alameda.
I do not currently attend very many movies because I do not like
getting in my car on weekends. 1 would probably attend movies
once a month or so if I could walk, which is possible at most every
address in Alameda.
Michael
-gory
Mary Ann
Kurt
Bobbie V.
Constance
Castro
cates
1815 Chestnut SO Alameda
1250 Park Ave
94501
It is absurd that we have no movie theatre in Alameda. Please
pass this measure so that we can get started.Thank you,Michael J.
Castro
Alameda
94501
I have lived in Alameda all my life and I have been waiting for many
years to have our wonderful theatre retumed to us. Please do not
let this opportunity pass us by.
Cates
1250 Park Ave
Alameda
94501
Cecconi
94124
Centurion
1201 Park Avenue
Alameda
94501
We have waited so long for this improvement. Thanks to all, City
Council and others, who have tirelessly worked towards making
this project possible
Chapman
1401 Femside Blvr Alameda
94501
I support the theater restoration and multiplex. Alamedans needs
a place to no to the movies!!!
FIRST NAME
LAST NAME
CITY
DP CODE
Jeanne
Chin
Jennifer
Jeanne
.ELLEN
charles
Elliott
Robert
Cheri
Richie
Jan
Andrea
Marc
302 Court St
Chin
Chin
CLETO
cline
Cook
Cooper
Corfey
Cruz
Curtis
Dacumos
Dahmen
Alameda
94501
Alameda
94501
I grew up in Alameda and am glad to see it has retained its "small
town charm" However, I would love to see the area around Park
St. continue to develop and thrive.
302 Court St.
Alameda
94501
300 Anderson Roai Alameda
94502
615 sheffield rd
1717 san jose av
alameda
alameda
94502
94501
95436
we need i4
94501
1218 Ninth Street
Alameda
94501
9Q..Regent Street Alameda'
9.4.591.
94502
300 Westline Drive
Alameda
94501
Daphne
William
Deanna
Kevin
Deline
Jan
Joseph
Dennis
Daniel
Lauren
Consuelo
Dahmen
Dal Porto
Daum
Daum
Davis
DeLano
DiDonato
DiFabio
Dimitruk
Do
Donato
300 Westline Drive
Alameda
94501
94502
The very extreme (and rude) "Stop The Multiplex" group happen to
be very uneducated on the true FACTS of the actual plans for the
multi-plex; its revolting. I totally support the new plans. Alameda
deserves a beautiful, historic theater just like Oakland has, as
well as Piedmont, Lafayette and Orinda. Why not us too?
<br /> <br / >My vote is to STOP and EDUCATE the
extremists and give Alameda a new beautiful movie theater. Its
just what we need around here, think of all the business
restaurants will get in the area, as well as other merchants.
<br /> <br / >Thank you, <br />Daphne
Dahmen t<br />
310 Lincoln Aveun Alameda
94501
94501
1234 Hawthorne Alameda
94501
2624 Eagle Ave
Alameda
94501
94501
The Davis /Easterday family is definitely in favor of a multiplex
cinema theater in Alameda.
I support the theatreplans for Alameda.
2704 Otis Dr
Alameda
94501
3476 Catalina Ave Alameda
94502
1095 Park Ave
Alameda
94501
I support the new movie theater and all other development
projects that positively benefit the residents of Alameda.
94501
Bill
Robert
Shirley
Douglas
Doumitt
Doumitt
566 Kings Road
Alameda
94501
I strongly support the theatre project in the Park Street corridor
especially in light of the parking it will provide and the new
business it will no doubt attract. Growth is inevitable and if its
wisely monitered and tastefully done it will be a great thing for all
Alamedans. Even though the process is difficult and many
different points of view have to be considered the overall
objective will hopefully be met. My hope is that the owners of
buildings along Park Street, both local & absentee, will jump on the
bandwagon and improve there propeties and enjoy the increased
rental opportunities.
3001 Gibbons Dr
Alameda
94501
3001 Gibbons Dr
Alameda
94501
.Tony
Angie
Rebecca
Dean
Katherine
Doumitt
Doumitt
Draemel
Draemel
Dustin
21 Stoninciton Poin Alameda
94502
94502
1 definitly want renovations and parking to take place —Pm not
sure there should be so many theaters, possibly 5 instead of
7.with maybe more retail space in the parking complex
Being an Alamedan, bom and raised,l feel a great need for this
project to go through. For the nay sayers, I believe they are a
small yet vocal group that have no viable argument. Traffic, bad
elements coming from other communities and other concerns they
might have are over estimated compared to the positve impacts
that this development will have on the Park St businesses and
surrounding areas, Please make sure this is a actin!!!
94501
94501
Alameda
94502
FIRST NAME
LAST NAME
CITY
IP CODE
L- akeisha
Justin
Dyer
Edwards
95401
This would be a great oportunity for teenagers to get jobs.Also
having more things to do, instead of having the opportunity of
using drugs orioininq gangs -in- the - community,
94080
JULIA
ETZEL
965 Shorepoint Ct; Alameda
94501
Michael
Gary
Tyler
Ai-a -ne
franklin
Fallon
8 Vista Road
Alameda
94502
I want my movies in town
Flanigan
Flowerday
Foster
342 Tideway DriveAlameda
107 Centre Court
Alameda
Alameda
94501
94501
94502 -6509
fried
94501
Megan
Stephen
Lora
Fry
94502
Sreh..rett------- -- - - -- -- - - - --- -324 - Maitland..drivgAlame-da
Geller
Stephen
Geller
94 -502
94502
94502
Frank
George
Julia
1419 Park St
Giardino
Gina
Vinny
Jon
Giardino
1340 pearl Street
Alameda
Alameda
94501
Alameda Native bom <br / >Property owner, business owner
for 34 years, commercial property owner on Park St.
94501
1240 Pearl STreet
Alameda
94501
Giardino
Gordon
1340 Pearl Street
alameda
..Top
Gordon
989 High St.
989 High St.
-Michael
Cynthia
Walter
Grace
94501
Alameda
94501
Alameda
94501
94501
1 Support the new theater
Eileen
Grady
aameda
94501
Grady
Graybeal
David
Jackie
Patricia
Melanie
Dennis
Deborah
Mary
Pete
Graybeal
Greene
318 Tipperary Lan
Alameda
Alameda
94501
94502
318 Tipperary Ln
Alameda
94
1 ICC! inai auuing a Lneaire to Lne uownwwn r- uameua area is exactly
what we need. There is currently no center of attraction which will
bring people downtown in the hours outside standard business hours.
A theatre would serve as a magnet for business, driving additional
revenue into other businesses in the downtown area. This would be a
boost for everything from retail business to coffee shops to
restaurants. I can simply think about what I did with my family last
Sunday afternoon to see what could be a typical weekend afternoon
in Alameda: We had to go to a store to pick up some items for the
house. After buying those items, we decided to go to the theatre,
which was just down the street. We watched a movie with the kids
and had a great time. After the movie, we went to a small restaurant
down the street for dinner. On the way back to the car, we stopped
at a coffee shop for a cup of coffee and a cookie for the kids.
Unfortunately, we spent all of that money and time in Emeryville
rather than Alameda. If the theatre was here, we would never have
1109 Park Ave
Alameda
94501
Grey
Guevara
Guevara
Gunning
I-.
1422 Gibbons Drip Alameda
94501
Alameda
94502
94502
Halberstadt
1232 Park Avenue
Alameda
94502
Strongly support the restoration of the theater and parking
garage!
94501
94501
the reasons are snnple:dtnbsp;<br 1 >1. Arrest the detenorabon of a
truly spectacular palace theater; it is being demolished through
benign neglect. <br 1 >2. An island population of 75,000+
people warrants a bona fide theater option. <br / >3.
Alamedans have spoken loudly and clearly: they want the Alameda
Theater renovated and reopened. <br 1>4. The theater will be
a tremendous catalyst for downtown business. <br / >5. The
City has presumably done due diligence on the argument that a
cineplex concept is the most viable approach to operating a
downtown movie theater. <br / >6. Nobody has stepped
forward in the past 27 years to prove otherwise. <br / >7. The
businesses in the Park Street district have lobbied for increased
parking capacity for decades; this is the ideal location and will put
the issue to rest. <br 1>8. The Cineplex and parking structure
will help obscure what is perhaps the ugliest piece of real estate
downtown, namely the Longs parking lot. <br / >9. Inactivity is
absolutely no way to run a City.  : <br / >10. If problems develop
FIRST NAME
LAST NAME
CITY
7IP CODE
Brad
Handzel
95003
Get Park Street to be avivable shopping area by approving the
renovation of the theather.
Rock
Harmon
Alameda
94501
Cathy Harmon
Rocky Harmon
Timmy Harmon
Meg an Harmon
.Richard Hausman
Van Hausman
V an Hausman
Alameda
94501
Please include our entire family as in favor of the theatre—we
want one here and want to give our town the business. With three
teenagers who go the movies a lot, it would be nice to have them
here as opposed to figuring out ways to get to Jack London or Bay
Street.
Alameda
94501
Alameda
94501
Alameda
94501
2620 Clay Street
2017 San Antonio
Alameda
Alameda
94501
94501
94501
Susan Hedley
Kathleen Hennigh
Robert Hessler
2790 Pearl Harbor
Alameda
94501
We want a theater! If you can't accomodate it at Park Street, I
know the West End would take the business!
94502
710 Limerick LaneAlameda
Darlene Hessler
710 Limerick LaneAlameda
94502
94592
I strongly support the Alameda Theater and Cineplex project as
being essential to the health and development of the City of
Alameda
I strongly support the Alameda Theater and Cineplex project as
being essential to the health and development of the City of
Alameda.
DaVid
Sheila
Hewitt
3019 Bayo Vista fs Alameda
94591
I am a life long resident of Alameda. The theatre will be a great
way to attract more people to the Park Street busineSS district,
Hewitt
1587 Pacific Ave.
Alameda
94501
Kendra
Mary
Sean
Arthur
Lynn
Mark
Gina
Pat
Debra
Gregory
Ann
Holloway
Hudson
Hugger
Huntley
Hutchins
Inocencio
Jaber
Jacobus
Jensen
Jesser
Johnsen
706 Buena Vista A% Alameda
876 Oak Street
Alameda
94501
94501
I would like to have a theater on the Island. It really irks me to have
to travel off the Island for a night of entertainment. I would rather
spend my money in Alameda. <br /> <br />Although
we cannot please every party with the design, I find it acceptable
and believe we should move forward with the project. Let us not
delay any further while construction costs escalate.
2908 Windsor DriN Alameda
94501
3323 Washington
Alameda
94501
33 Shannon Circle
Alameda
94502
1635 EAgle Ave
Alameda
94501
I attended the Alameda Theater while growing up in Alameda, and I
am very pleased with the new Cineplex design. Please continue
the project!
94501
2927 Baywalk Rd
Alameda
94502
742 Limerick LaneAlameda
94502
855 Portola Ave.
Alameda
94501
We've been waiting so long for a theatre!!
Barbara
Sylvia
Riitika
michael
.James
Nicholas
Kahn
kahn
Kaur
kelley
Kelly
2120 Alameda ANA Alameda
467 Central Ave
Alameda
94501
94501
370 Bryant Ave
Alameda
94501
I'm tired of spending my time, money and gas to trawl off the
island to see movies.We've waited far too long for the Alameda
Theatre to be up and running !
I am not sure that the plan is viable, but there has been ample
time for public comment in the past, and as usual, there are a
group of people who emerge to oppose any change in anything. I
have lived in Alameda for more than 40 years and every project
that proposes to move us forward brings people whose vision is
for a community that probably never existed, but for whom any
change is unacceptable.
12 Shepardson Lan
3221 liberty ave.
3333 Washington
Alameda
94502
Alameda
94501
Alameda
94501
Khadder
2836 Johnson Ave Alameda
94501
Please keep the selfish oppononents of the theater out of our hair
why would you want to go to oakland, when you could just walk out
of school and go to the movies across the street think about it
people pay off some of the debt in this town
Stop complaining & start building.
I would urge the council to consider the opinion of a majority of
Alamedans, not the noisy few who try to make their voice louder
than everyone else's (and the time to harrass the council at every
meeting).
FIRST NAME LAST NAME
Sharon Khacicler
Meresa Kimble
angle klein
CITY
7IP CODE
9 4 501
1606 Santa Clara
Alameda
9 4 501
9 4 501
I would prefer a more sympathetic design to the old theatre.
Armand Kok
671 Centre Court
Alameda
045-2
Armand Kok
Pat Koutoulakis
Enumnild Koploqlajcis
Mary Kovalitsky
Michael Kusiak
Melissa Kki5l.ak
Michael Kusiak
Melissa Kusiak
.Michele Kuttner
Madly Kuttner
Tony Kuttner
Gene La Follette
671 Centre Court
Alameda
045-2
It'd be really great to finally have a theatre in Alameda, so we
don't have to travel far to just to see a movie
It'cl be really great to finally have a theatre in Alameda, so we don't
have to travel far to just to see a movie
94502
94502
1340 Pearl Street
alarneda
94501
Lets get it on!
113 Crolls Garden
Alameda
94501
94 501
113 Crolls Garden C Alameda
94501
113 Cro lls Garden (Alameda
94501
2504 Noble
Alameda
94501
94 501
94501
246 Stanbridge Cou
Deborah Lau
Tom Lau
Margaret Lawson
Alameda
94502
Get the show on the road!
101 Shannon Circlt Alameda
94502
Alameda needs a movie theatre! Having a nice movie complex
with parking is a great idea.
101 Shannon Circil Alameda
94502 Alameda needs a movie theatre!
94501
Rose
Eddie
Marla
Sandra
Tara
Daphne
Edmund
Kevin
Cathy
Lily
Robert
Nancy
Nancy
Gene
Yalin
Tjan
Olive
Leaphart
Lee
Lee
Lehane
Leigh
Leonard
Leonard
Leong
Leong
Leung
Levitt
Lew
Lew
Li
Li
Liang
Lin
1210 Union StreetAlameda
94501
1826 Fremont Drii Alameda
94501
As an Alameda resident since 1981, as an owner of an historic
Victorian house (built in 1887)since 1994, as the parent of a US
Marine, as an active citizen, as a small business owner in
Alameda, as frequent patron of businesses on Park Street and the
South Shore Mall, as a member of the Harbor Bay Club, I have been
anxiously awaiting the day when Alameda would finally have a
movie house. I'm tired of driving to Oakland or San Francisco or
Piedmont. I'd prefer to walk to the movies, have a coffee or dinner
afterwards in Alameda, and see my long time friends and
neighbors doing the same. rd also like to have a parking lot where
I can park my car on those rare occasions when I need to drive my
vehicle to the Park Street area: on rainy nights, when my knee is
bothering me, when my mother-in-law is in town, when r m dressed-
up and can't walk the eight blocks in heels.Let's make Alameda a
community of thriving businesses, a community that brings
residents, again and again, to Park Street for a variety of reasons
and occasions. Personally I walk to the Park Street area at least 3 t
94 502
94502
94501
36 Britt Court
Alameda
94502
36 Britt Court
Alameda
94502
48 Kara Road
Alameda
94502
48 Kara Road
Alameda
94 502
1106 Bismarck La t Alameda
94502
855 Portola Ave.
Alameda
94501
3275 San Jose Aver Alameda
94501
The upside to creating the cineplex far out weigh the downside to
the project
be sure the community knows this is GOOD for business which
means tax dollars for Alameda which means fewer tax increases
across the board. thank you
I am signing this petition to support the Alameda Theater and
restoration and cineplex.
Please realize those opposed to this project are a very vocal
MINORITY of local citizens. The majority that supports this
project has remained largely silent because we approve of the way
you have handled this lengthy and complex process. Thank you
for your sensitivity to all Alamedans and please do not cave in to
a noisy reactionary group willing to bend the truth.
3275 San Jose Ave Alameda
94501
94 502
94502
94502
94502
FIRST NAME LAST NAME
katie Iinderme
Jessica Lindsey
claudia lopez
Nichole Lopez
Audrey Lord-Hausman
Sandy Lothian
.P.OM Lothian
CITY
IP CODE
94501
sounds good to me it will be nice to have a movie theatre
94501
94112
94501
Alameda
94501
94501
94501
Theresa
Straide
jQni
marlanne
.Lupe
Jacque
Sheryl
Frank
Lua
Lua
Mahler
malenk
Mariscal
Martin
Martin-Moe
1560 Everett Stre
Alameda
94501
I wish there would have been a nice local theatre for my children
to see current movies when they were growing up, but maybe my
grandchildren can reap the benefits!
1560 Everett Strel Alameda
94501
1100 Paru St
Alarnoda.
2963 gibbons drive alameda
.......
94501
2624 Clay Street
507 Tideway Dr.
Alameda,
Alameda
Alameda
94501
94501
My family and I support the development of the theater complex in
Alameda.
94502
.Elizabeth (Betsy)
Juanita
Nicola
.1.a.u.rie
Michael
_Lisa
Beth
Matarrese
Mathieson
Matsuoka
Mazumdar
mclachlan fry
McLaren
McLean
McMahon
2850 Johnson Ave Alamneda
94501
1185 Park Avenue' Alameda
1842 Fremont Dr
94501
This project will be great for Alameda - well be able to enjoy a
movie and have a coffee or ice cream (Tuckers, of course) all in
town. We've seen how Park Street is becoming the place where
Alamedans meet in a "small town" atmosphere and this project
will add another quality venue to the downtown.
Thank yolk Kevis!
Alameda
94501
1082 Armitage Str Alameda
94502
50 moss pointe
268 Ratto Road
alameda
94502
Alameda
94502
Alameda needs the revenue and a place for its citizens to enjoy
safe evenings out
1171 Park Ave
Alameda
94591
1139 Verdemar D
Alameda
94502
Everett Peter McNamara
CeiIy Medved
Michelle P. Miller
3120 Gibbons Dri‘ Alameda
74.1ustin cir
Alameda
94501
While I believe the exterior design of the proposed Cinaplex can
be improved greatly i am in favor of the restoration of Alameda
Theater, the Cinaplex and the parking stucture which we need so
badly!E. Peter McNamara
94502
Sacramen 95831
James Miller
2598 Crist Street
Alameda
94501
PAT MILLER
94501
I have lived in the neighborhood of thealameda Theater for over 7
years and have been anxiously awaiting its reopening as a movie
house, <Dr /> <br />Let's get this done NOW!
Molly JAWS
1635 Eagle Ave
Dawn Milne
Alameda
94501
YES - keep the project I am very happy to have an opportunity to
sign this petition
94501
Marna Mitchell
Kathy Moehring
Rosa Monte*
338 Channinq WOAlameda
1808 Nason Stree. Alameda
94.502
94501
I'm the mother of 2 girls, ages 15 and 9, and would dearly love to
have a good-sized local cinema for them to attend.
1823 Moreland Drj
Alameda
94501
Brian Montone
1713 Alameda Avg Alameda
94501
Having worked as a municipal investment banker in California for
over 8 years, redevelopment and sales taxes are critical to the health
of general funds. This project will help our city be able to deliver the
services everyone expects and wants,
william Morrison
Kathryn Mosher
Richard Mosher
Michael Murphy
Brian Murray
Margaret Murray
Jill Nannizzi
Tara Narayanan
Caine Nova
3115 Bayo Vista
Alameda
94501
Biscay by Alameda
117 Bisacy Bay Alameda
46 Salmon Road Alameda
94502
Do not approve petition to appeal planning board decision.
Opponents of Alameda Theatre are perverting political process for
financial earn and do not desreve the time they have wasted so far.
94502
It's time to join the modern world Alameda
94502
94501
94501
Alameda
94502
94501
Alameda
I support the movie palace in Alameda
94501 movies
FIRST NAME
LAST NAME
CITY
ZIP CODE
_Denise
Nowicki
1217 Park AvenueAlaMeda
Charles Olken
edward oneil
.Kosty Oreshkov
chris osterdock
651 Tanyton Isle
1719 clinton ave
94501
Alameda
94501
The Alameda Theater will continue the progress of downtown
Alameda by increasing foot traffic in the area and by adding a
moderh,. attractive facility for Alamedans.
alameda
94501
94502
I support Alameda Theater restoration project.
.0jane Padyvay
.Eugene Pak
Len Palkovic
Beth Pao
3110 thompson ave
40 Basinside Way.
alameda
Alameda
Alameda
94501
94502
we need the theatre!
While a huge cineplex is not my first choice, it must be
understood that no one could make the financial numbers work for
a small theater and still preserve the Historic Theater portion.
This leaves the alternative no theater at all.
94502
94501
94502
Gary Patterson
.Lor Payne
.Kristy Perkins
Don Peterson
154 10th Street A
Buena Vista Ave
San Franc
Alameda
1720 Versailles A
Alameda
94103
94501 ,
94501
94501
Restore this Motion Picture palace for the Alameda commuity to
enjoy. It will strengthen the community.
Hurry up PLEASE!!!!!
john piziali
marc us piziali
merilee piziali
Dan Pollart
Jean Purvis
313 Taylor aye.
313 taylor ave
alameda
313 taylor aye
94501
kevis thanks for speaking out on this issue. we need to hear from
the silent majority.
alameda 9 94501
alameda
94501
127 Capetown Dr
Alameda
94502
94501
Kelly
Ann
Roberta
Dana
Bradley
TERRI
JACQUE
Karen
John
Noelle
Adair
Ransil
Ratto
Ratto
Ratto
Reed
REGAN
9 Ennis Place
Alameda
94502
1541 Eastshore D Alameda
94501
Everyone would enjoy a nice dinner and a show here, instead of
going to Bay Street or Jack London. It would be good for the
commerce and people of Alameda. Also, having children, I would
love to have them ride their bikes to this theatre.Kelly L. Ransil
27 Thurles Place
Alameda
94502
94502
876 Oak Street
Alameda
94501
9 GARDEN RD.
ALAMEDA 94502
REYNOLDS
Riley
Riley
Robbins
Roberts
3208 SAN JOSE A\ ALAMEDA 94501
18071 Knight Dr
Castro Va 94546
Second generation Californian, born and raised in Alameda, in
favor of movie complex, wish the rest of the original Alameda's
would "step up to the plate" and support this.
18071 Knight Dr
Castro Va 94546
2931 Northwood E Alameda
94501
We want a movie theater in downtown Alameda!!!
94501
Stu Rosenthal
939 Park Street
Alameda
94501
John Rossillon
Ke Ruan
Timothy P. Rumberger
Lilianna Rumberger
Rumberger
Antoinette Rustad
1107 Court St
Alameda
94501
94502
thanks for doing this Kevis, please give my regards to
Oave cheers,Adair Roberts
I support the current plans to renovate the theatre and add the
parking garage. We need more reasons for Alamedans to stay on
the island to eat, shop, and find entertainment, andd this will help.
[A Target store at South Shore however, I can do without]
Why any Alameda citizen would rather have an unused eyesoar
other then something fun and useful! is beyond me.
1339 Bay Street
1339 Bay Street
Alameda
94501
Alameda
94501
929 Central ave
Alameda .
Alameda
94501
94501
.Arlene Seidman
94502
gay le saldinger
Tyler Sanderson
Lowell Schneider
Gregory Schopf
94501
multiplex theaters are the only ones economically viable - and
Alameda needs one for its businesses and citizens
Alameda needs a theatre. There has been a good process to make
this decision. Alamedans support this decision- do not let a few
dissuade the City Council.
94501
94501
Thompson Av
Alameda
94 501
FIRST NAME
LAST NAME
CITY
'IP CODE
_Melissa
Scott
Alameda
94501
Christine
Scott
1202 Versailles A
Alameda
94501
.jviary Lee
Kathleen
Michael
Peter
Leah
Laura
Helen
Lily
Shalvoy
Shea
Shea
Shea
Sheats ley
Shen
Simpson
Smith
3293 Briggs Ayent Alameda
94501
Having my pre-teen and teenage kids walk to the movies on a
Friday night? SIGN ME UP! Building up Park Street into a fabulous
area that makes me want to stay local on a Saturday night instead
of hitting Rockridge or San Francisco? Sign me up.Congratulations
on working toward buildinq an inviting., exciting Alameda.
506 Tideway DriveAlarneda
94501
We are in favor of the theatre
506 Tideway DriveiAlameda
506 Tideway DriYeAlamecla
1507 Chestnut Stre Alameda
94501
We need the theater!!!
94501
94501
94502
307 Capetown Ori
Kathleen
Spark
Ron
Arlene
Starkey
Starkey
Alameda
94502
Alameda
1801 Shoreline #30tAlameda
Stauder
137 Brighton Rd Alameda
94501
94501
I think that a cineplex in Alameda would be a fabulous idea, as i am
quite sure that no one enjoys driving at least 15 minutes in any .
direction just to see one movie that they could see easily—and
probably in walking/biking distance from their homes. Thank you
for asking my opinion.
I am very much in support of the theater. It will be a great
opportunity to restore a historic building and revitalize our
downtown
94502
137 Brighton Road
1811 Versailles A
Joseph
Joe
Stephens
Alameda
94502
Alameda
94501
320 Jack London A Alameda
94501
We need a place like this in Alameda
Penny
Kate
Suzanne
Stephens
Stevens
310 Jack London A
Alameda
94501
Stiling
Storar
106 Roxburg Lane
Alameda
94502
Wonderful project which will benifit all who live in Alameda. New
part compliments the old and brings life back to the old building.
2205 San Antonio
Alameda
94501
418 Ironwood RoaC Alameda
94502
Andrew
Storar
418 Ironwood Roac Alameda
94502
Mary
John
Sutter
94501
Sutton
Connie
Kari
Tench
2704 Bayview Driv Alameda
94501
94501
I definitely want a movie theater that I can walk to. Please keep
this project moving forward.
With the beatification of the Park Street parking taking spaces,
we need this garage for replacements the merchants deserve it.
Thompson
94502
Ade Ile
Treakle
Lauren
Sonia
Tung
1710 Moreland Dr
Alameda
94501
94502
I am not sure why the stop the multiplex group is just starting to
complain now. This plan has been on the board for quite awhile. 1
think a compromise of a few Is screens would e OK,
Urzua
_Linda
Kathy
Valler
Vaughn
Melissa
Verduzco
1026 Taylor Ave
Alameda
94501
3.304 Eemaide BM Alameda
618 Willow Si Apt; Alameda
1608 unio st AF Alameda
94501
94501
94501
Carrie
Tomi
Barbara C
Amy
Nita
Paula
John
Alice
Wasson
94502
I am in favor of a cinema in Alameda. I grew up here and have
since moved back in order to raise my kids. I remember going to
the movies at South Shore and it was always a treat. I would like to
take my children to a movie without driving 20 minutes through
Oakland. I hope the restortation of the Alameda movie theater
continues
Watanabe
94
Weill
94579
We are loosing too many neighborhood theatres. This is needed
badly.
Wheat Rumberger
White
1339 Bay Street
Whitton
Alameda
94501
329 Channinq WayAlameda
94502
Williams
94501
94502
I support the Alameda Cinema complex
Wilson-Fried
742 Palmera Ct
Alameda 94501
FIRST NAME
LAST NAME
CITY
SIP CODE
Linda
Anne
barry
Craig
Gordon
Anita
Sue....
Glenn
Xinxino
Winslow
40 Clipper Drive
Alameda
94502
In a town where there is not enough for teens to do in the
evenings, and that ultimatley forces us to send our children to
Oakland, Emeryville and Union City so they can enjoy an evening
with their friends, there should be no arguement about why we
need this theatre. We came to Alamdea to raise our children
because it is a safe bedroom community. Now lets continue to
keep them safe by keeping them off the freeways and out of the
cities that have higher crime rates. This is a much needed addition
to our town.
Wolf -- -.--- .---- - - - - -.- .,3221 Thompson AV Alameda
wolfe
Wolff
Wong
Wong
Yajko
Yajko
Yu
1012 Mound St.
94501
alameda
94501
I've been hoping that my kids would have a local movie theatre to
walk to with their friends, as we had where we used to live in the
Midwest.
This project MUST go through!!It will be a MAJOR boon to the whole
city.
1026 Taylor Avent Alameda
94501
94501
94502
3117 Bayo Vista A Alameda
3117 Sayo Vista A Alameda
94501
94501
94502
November 1, 2005
To the Alameda City Council,
I couldn't stay at the meeting of the city council tonight, but wish my opinion to be added
under the column of Alameda residents who are opposed to a multi- screen movie theater
being built in Alameda.
I believe that almost every resident of this city would like to be able to attend movies in a
restored historic Alameda Theater. It's the NEW movie theater that is controversial (and
in my opinion, completely unwelcome). Simply put, the project is too big -- it has more
screens than are needed to be profitable; it is too large physically to fit into downtown
Alameda; and it will invite WAY too much traffic into streets that are already carrying
too many cars.
It's not that I think an eight- screen theater can't make it in Alameda; just that it shouldn't
be downtown. Put it near one of the bridges, or the tube, and you'd have something that
might work. But the best theater for downtown would be a small, one- to three - screen
affair, presented in a lovingly restored historic building. This would enhance the
small -town ambiance that Alamedans love so much, draw all residents to the downtown
area, but without drowning the downtown area in traffic, noise, litter, and air pollution.
I believe the only way to put this matter to rest is to put it the proposed project on the next
city election ballot. If the majority of Alameda citizens wants the project and is willing to
accept responsibility for the project's long -term financial outcome, I, and probably many
other opponents of the project, would stop my resistance.
Sincerely,
Nancy Kerns
1175 Regent St
Alameda, CA 94501
510 -521 -6135
Submitted at the 11 -1 -05 Council
Meeting
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
November 1, 2005
Office of the Mayor and City Council
Alameda City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
FOR THE RECORD
Re: Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's approval of Use Permits
Agenda Item 5B — (UP05 -0018)
Dear Mayor Johnson and City Council Members:
Please take into consideration the following article published in the Alameda Journal on
Friday, October 26, 2001, by Susan Fuller:
More parking not always the answer
Oak Street, between Central and Lincoln avenues, should be Alarneda's civic center.
That was the advice to Mayor Ralph Appezzato from his counterparts in other cities and urban
design professionals during last week's seminar of the Mayors' Institute on City Design. The area
from Historic Alameda High School to the new main library to be built at Oak Street and Lincoln
Avenue could be a vibrant area that would bring residents together, they said.
Appezzato, like the other seven mayors invited to attend, made a 10- minute slide presentation
about the city and a specific dilemma. Then the group had an hour to brainstorm solutions.
The questions Appezzato asked were how to create a vibrant civic center adjacent to the Park
Street business district and what to do with the Carnegie building. The new library, which will be
built at the Linoaks Motel site at Oak Street and Lincoln Avenue, and the possibility of a parking
structure on the Long's lot were also discussed.
Christine Saum, executive director of the institute, toured Alameda last month with the mayor
and city staff members to help define the issues and prepare the mayor's presentation.
For Appezzato, attending the institute meeting was an opportunity to hear the voice of experience
from mayors and designers who have worked through similar problems and to bring new ideas
into the local mix.
Submitted at the 11 -1 -05 Council
Meeting
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
Mayor Johnson & City Council Members
November 1, 2005
Page 2
Alameda doesn't have the land for a civic plaza, but the city could improvise to get the feeling of
an open gathering place into the existing compact area, the group told Appezzato. Incorporating
people - friendliness into civic center buildings -- the new library, small retail at the vacant former
gas station across the street from City Hall and the Carnegie Building -- would encourage both
formal and casual meetings.
"Probably the most controversial thing was they strongly recommended not building a parking
garage in the Long's lot," Appezzato said. Both mayors and design professionals said that a
garage -- especially one without retail on the ground level -- would destroy the civic center.
The other mayors spoke from experience, saying that they regret having garages in the heart of
the civic center. They advised Appezzato to be sure that more parking is absolutely necessary.
The business community, the other mayors told him, will push for more parking even when it's
not needed.
The group suggested reducing the impact of cars by implementing traffic reduction measures and
encouraging pedestrians and bicyclists. They were strongly opposed to one -way streets in the
downtown area.
The group was enthusiastic about the Carnegie building and the old Children's Library building,
Appezzato said. The Carnegie would make a great museum if the community is large enough to
support it, they said. Because the Carnegie would be a key ingredient in the improvised plaza it
should be open every day.
The mayors of the other cities -- Sacramento; San Leandro; Bozeman, Mont.; Bellingham,
Wash.; Columbus, Ohio; Duluth, Minn; and Kansas City, Mo. -- were charmed by Alameda's
sense of history and small -town atmosphere, Appezzato said.
The other cities brought more complicated issues to the meetings at the Salk Institute in La Jolla,
such as getting rid of blighted downtown areas.
The National Endowment for the Arts pays for the mayors' institute programs.
Thank you for your consideration.
Siinnceerelyy, • a Rr-)
Mo�iica1'ena (�V
1361 Regent Street
Alameda, CA 94501
Good evening everyone - --
Back in January,I was here in this room
when the "Massing Model" of the proposed
complex was presented to the Historical
Advisory Board.
I knew right then, that something was not
right about it. But I'm not a historian or an
architect. My immediate response was,
"This is waaaay big."
At that time, that was the best way I could
describe my total dislike of this cineplex
and garage.
Over the months, the city hireO outs `.
consultants who said this J ro'ect wVt this
p
and complies with that' =-106, 108, SHPO,
CEQA.
Months ago, I said "How can the average
person keep up with all of this ?"
Submitted by Rosemary McNally at
the 11 -1 -05 Council Meeting
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
It is s000 easy to push things through one
board after another =first the HAB, then the
Planning Board.
And the HAB and Planning Board wanted
things to be different! It was clear at those
meetings they had little power or authority.
The plans were pushed forward*
This project was on the Fast Track!
The power is really with you folks who
sometimes call
yourselves the Community Improvement
Commission, (the people who say what to
do with Redevelopment Money)
and sometimes call yourselves the City
Council.
If you had known that the developer wanted
to stay open until 3 A.M., would you have
supported his proposal initially? Why did
he wait until August to propose that?
Alameda does not need a 3 A.M. closing on
even one day a year. Leave that to the
Metreon in San Francisco. I have talked
with many people who moved to Alameda
precisely because it was much quieter and
calmer than San Francisco.
No one at the Downtown Visioning
meetings asked for anything to be open until
3 a.m.!
visettl outside consultants for this
project. As consultants often do,*hey took
the path of least resistance and said that the
plans "comply with this and comply with
that"
Did those outside consultants live in
Alameda? I don't believe so. They won't
live with this project if it is built.
I'd like to quote from a professional
architectural historian with 25 years
experience. He lives and works in Alameda.
Here's what Woody Minor believes about
this complex.
"The site (at Oak and Central) is unlike any
other in the city...the bulk, massing, and
scale of this project have the potential to
substantially degrade the setting...:
I urge you to step back and reassess*ftetg
the massive structure you have before you.
This project will not be good for our civic
environment or our quality of life.
Alameda deserves better,
and Alamedans can do better. Please
uphold this appeal to deny the use permit of
this massive project.
Partial Aesthetic Impacts Analysis (Bulk, Massing, and Scale)
Proposed Cineplex and Parking Structure
Alameda, California
Prepared for Citizens for a Megaplex -Free Alameda (CMFA)
August 2005
Woodruff Minor
Consulting Architectural Historian
1325 St. Charles Street
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 433 -7033
Introduction
The comments contained in this brief report address the proposed cineplex addition on
the west side of the Alameda Theater, at the corner of Central Avenue and Oak Street,
and the adjoining parking structure to the rear of the addition, facing Oak Street.
Comments are limited to the issue of bulk, massing, and scale, which comprise the most
intrusive and aesthetically disturbing element of the project. The report focuses on the
immediate environment of the project, in particular the cluster of architecturally and
historically significant buildings on or near the intersection of Central Avenue and Oak
Street, and also discusses scenic vistas along these streets.
Although the findings are at variance with previous reports submitted to the City, such as
the "Aesthetic Impacts Analysis" prepared by Wagstaff and Associates in December
2004, it is not the purpose of this report to make a point -by -point rebuttal but simply to
proffer a dissenting opinion on certain aesthetic impacts of the proposed project. This
opinion is informed by 25 years of experience as a professional architectural historian
who has researched and written extensively about Alameda history and architecture.
It is my considered opinion that the bulk and massing of the proposed cineplex and
parking structure are out of scale with their setting. If built, they would vitiate an
important architectural ensemble and mar significant scenic vistas along adjacent streets.
The project also does not appear to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation as regards Standard No. 9, which states in part: "New additions, exterior
alterations, or related new construction ... shall be compatible with the massing, size,
scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment." In sum, the project may have a potentially significant environmental
impact on surrounding buildings and vistas.
Setting
The project site —the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Oak Street —is of
extraordinary importance to Alameda from the point of view of urban design and
historical associations. For it is here, at the juncture of the historic downtown and civic
center, that the city's architectural heritage coalesces into an ensemble of unparalleled
force and vigor. Rising on the west from one corner is Twin Towers Methodist Church
(1909), a buff brick and tile- roofed monument of early 20th century eclecticism
combining Renaissance and Mission motifs; its twin campanili proclaim the presence of
the civic center with lofty dignity. On the far corner, the neoclassical wings of Historic
Alameda High School (1926) recede into the distance, a stately vision of civic pride.
Adjoining the project site on the east is Alameda Theater (1932), the city's best -known
commercial landmark. The vertical elan of this Moderne masterpiece simultaneously
echoes the skyward thrust of the church and counterpoints the horizontal sweep of the
school. Its marquee lifts the name of the city high above the street, branding a
distinguished architectural ensemble with an indelible sense of place.
Together, these three buildings encapsulate the development of commercial and civic
design in America in the early 20th century, from the varied historicist modes of the
church and school to the theater's emergent modernism. They also embody significant
themes in local history, from the role of the church as the city's pioneer religious body to
the expansive confidence of the local government and business community expressed by
the school and theater. The architects who designed them — Meyers & Ward (Twin
Towers Methodist Church), Carl Werner (Historic Alameda High School), and Miller &
Pleuger (Alameda Theater) —were prominent and prolific San Francisco firms,
particularly Miller & Pfleuger, widely considered the region's foremost practitioner of
the Moderne style. The school and theater have both been listed on the National Register,
and the church is eligible for listing.
It is only on the project site, at the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Oak Street,
that this commercial -civic ensemble can be seen and experienced in all its evocative
power. Here one may simultaneously gaze up to the towers of the church, take in the
perspective of the school, and peer past the rounded corner of the theater to the name -
bearing marquee. (Figure 1.) The site is unlike any other in the city, ensconced in a
uniquely important historical and architectural setting at the very meeting -place of the
downtown and civic center. Any project undertaken there should be held to the highest
standards of sensitive and contextual design, demonstrating a deferential and respectful
awareness of the significance of the site.
The proposed cineplex addition and parking structure demonstrate neither. Their bulk and
massing, accentuated by the lack of setbacks, impose a big -box idiom, more suitable to a
generic mall, on a complex historic setting resonant with pre - existing harmonies of scale.
The size and placement of the development would diminish the monumentality of both
the Alameda Theater and Twin Towers Methodist Church. The long horizontal facade of
the addition, rising nearly to the height of the theater parapet, would compete with and
undermine the theater's visual prominence and sense of verticality. The looming mass of
the addition and parking structure would also overwhelm the church across the narrow
divide of Oak Street. As designed, both structures would rise above the roof level of the
church and part way up the height of the campanili, vying with the towers' symbolic
meaning as announcers of the civic center. The visual power of the high school, with its
heroically scaled wings, would also be diminished by the competing presence of the new
structures. The cumulative impact of the project on surrounding landmarks would be to
trivialize them, and in the case of the theater and church, make them feel smaller than
they actually are.
Scenic Vistas
The cineplex addition and parking structure would also spoil several critical scenic vistas,
or sightlines, in the project area. Most obvious are the views up and down Oak Street,
from Santa Clara Avenue on the north and vicinity of Alameda Avenue on the south,
which would be truncated by the bulk and massing of the proposed structures. Less
obvious, perhaps, is the vista west on Central Avenue from Park Street. From an urban
design perspective, Central Avenue is the principal cross -town route through the
downtown and civic center, providing the most visually rich encounter of the areas in
sequential manner. Currently, drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians heading west on Central
Avenue are presented with an unimpeded vista of the theater and church at Park Street.
Here the two landmarks are suddenly seen in juxtaposition, iconic symbols visually
knitting the heart of the downtown to the civic center. (Figure 2.) This vista is as
important as the individual buildings of which it is composed, creating a deeply satisfying
and meaningful aesthetic experience. The bulk, massing, and scale of the cineplex
addition would spoil the vista from Park Street, obscuring most of the church and hence
destroying a richly layered and irreplaceable view of the city's historic center.
Conclusion
Having reviewed architectural renderings and site plans for the proposed development, it
is my opinion that the bulk, massing, and scale of the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the setting, both in terms of
surrounding buildings and scenic vistas. In terms of scale, the project appears to be
incompatible with surrounding historic buildings, in particular Alameda Theater and
Twin Towers Methodist Church. As such, the project may have a potentially significant
adverse material impact on its environment.
Signed,
Woodruff Minor
Consulting Architectural Historian
STOP THE MEGA -PLEX
Here are my concerns about having a Mega -Plex Theater rather than a 3 to 5 screen theater.
1) The building design is not within the look of Alameda's business structures.
2) The design calls for removal of the Bike Lane
3) The design calls for fewer parking spaces, we already lost them with the Park Street Re- design
farce.
4) May cause truancy during week day matinees, or any showing before 3:30pm, causing a
shortage of school funds received by the state, which are already low. Requiring another increase
to our already over burdened property taxes.
5) Would require an increase in police hours or require ore officers during late showing causing
another increase in the City's budget and another increase in our property taxes.
6) An increase in use of utilities including power, water, garbage and sewer.
7) Cause increased traffic to the Park Street Area on weekends.
9) The showing of R -rated films within the area of Alameda High School.
10) I feel very strongly against the City spending my tax dollars on funding someone else's
project. We are not a bank nor are we in the money lending business!
11) Why does the City have money to fund a project like this but requires a bond for the schools.
This project should require a bond and vote by the city for funding not a city council vote.
12) I will not ever go to a Mega -Plex theater in Alameda. I will still go out of town, as I have
always done!
Clyde Serda
Alameda, CA
Submitted by Clyde Serda at the
11 -1 -05 Council Meeting
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
'THE SHAME OF ALAMEDA! THE MEGAPLEX AND PARKING
STRUCTURE SCHEME. SPENDING OUR MONEY WITHOUT A VOTE
OF THE PEOPLE!
IRRESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT IN ALAMEDA! $5.7million deficit;
layoffs,eliminating essential employees and the CITY COUNCIL SPENDS
OVER $40 MILLION DOLLARS ON A ECONOMICALLY UNVIABLE
MOVIE THEATER AND AN UGLY USELESS PARKING STRUCTURE.
TELL THEM TO VOTE TONIGHT TO STOP THE PROJECT AND FIND
A BETTER USE FOR THE MONEY!! SEE THE ALTERNATIVE
PROPOSAL BY JOE WOODARD AND DOROTHY FREEMAN.
W W W . ALAME DAF ORUM . ORG.
READ THIS DOCUMENT BY JASMINE AND RON SCHAEFFER
WHICH TELLS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE 'MEGAPLEX' SCANDAL IN
ALAMEDA.
TELL THE THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO VOTED FOR THIS
CRACK - BRAINED SCHEME TO REVERSE THEIR VOTES OR TO
RESIGN IN SHAME FOR SQUANDERING THE CITY'S MONEY FOR
AN UGLY IMPRACTICAL SCHEME.
Arthur Lipow, CHAIRPERSON,
Alameda Public Affairs Forum
2242 San Antonio Ave.,
Alameda, Ca. 94501
(510) 814 -9592
www.alamedaforum.org
COME TO THE NEXT FORUM, NOVEMBER 19, 7PM, 1300 GRAND,
ALAMEDA. "THE POLITICS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE"
Submitted by Arthur Lipow at the
11 -1 -05 Council Meeting
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
The City of Alameda as the "Community Improvement Commission" and
real estate development company, "Alameda Entertainment Associates, Limited
Partners" have engaged in a deal to develop properties bordering, and including
the Historic, Art Deco, Alameda Theatre. They began working together
exclusively on February the 15th, 2002.
The Cities stated goal, was a community improvement project, to eliminate
blight, and reuse an important historic resource. The Alameda Theatre.
This was to -be done to the greater benefit of the social, economic,
environmental, and psychological well -being of the citizens of the city.
The goals sound great, however, to most Alamedans, this means only one
thing. They will 'get to see movies, in the newly restored Historic Alameda
Theatre.
So, why is there a controversy, and how come there is a rising chorus of
citizens, against this deal?
Opposition to this project began when the Megaplex deal was announced. The
scope, financing, and design, fell far short of the community vision, and
benefits promised to Alameda citizens.
What did the citizens actually ask for?
The vision, articulated by so many at the beginning of the development
process, was the desire for a true public civic center.
However, the number one priority, central to any plan, was to fully restore the
Alameda Theatre, for movies and as a civic arts center.
The intended result would bring film entertainment, and special events to the
center of our community. A true public amenity, anchoring a new entertainment
1
district. With the cross purpose of enhancing, and benefiting existing Park
Street businesses.
With this in mind, what did the developers present?
1. A new building, adjacent to the theater, with no real architectural
similarity, containing retail stores, and an 8 to 10 screen Megaplex.
2. No actual restoration of the Historic Alameda Theatre.
3. Refurbishing of some areas, useful to the Megaplex complex. Restoration
is confined to the "Historic Alameda Theatre shell ".
4. An architectural design, publicly described as "butt ugly" by councilman
Frank Matarrese.
5. An inadequate solution to the parking problems that the project will
generate.
The garage capacity, at a cost of $27,500 per space, is not exactly the answer
to our parking dreams. The garage has space for 352.
Does this matter?
Maybe, to local business, as the increase in traffic to the new Magaplex, may
actually cost them customers.
Do the math, 352 new spaces, 1526 to 1750 new movie seats.
Does the area need more parking, sure.
Are there alternatives to such a tall out of place building in Alameda?
Yes, by using, or building several smaller lots, within a few block radius of the
Historic Alameda Theatre.
When the Mayor ran for office she strongly pushed added public transit.
Why isn't an emphasis on better public transportation a viable alternative to the
currently planned parking structure?
L
If the Theatre is supposed to be the center piece of a grand civic development,
you would never know it by these plans. This is certainly not a historic
restoration, or meaningful public use of the facility.
What's really going on here?
The real deal is the Megaplex next door, with its accompanying tall, low
capacity garage.
The Megaplex plan, uses the Historic Alameda Theatre, falsely accused of being
a blighted property, to qualify the whole project, for public redevelopment
dollars. In short, they get to build a large commercial project with our
redevelopment tax dollars, without actually restoring the theatre.
Plain and simple, this is a real estate deal. It has investors, and shares like any
other investment property.'Be it a house, strip mall, or gas station. The complex
can be bought or sold in the same way. One feature of this deal, is it provides a
buy a out clause in five years. At that point, the City can terminate its interest and
influence, and sell it off as just another property.
The catch here is, the taxpayers of Alameda and the State of California, are
providing a financial safety net for the real estate investors.
In the end, the Alameda Theatre, gem of the city, will still not be restored to its
deserved glory, nor will it be the cornerstone of a true civic center.
So, how did we end up with a Megaplex when all we wanted was a cool movie
theater and a real community oriented Civic Center?
3
As always, it's the money. The developers claim their plan is the only sound
business model that will make the project self sustaining.
In the words of the Developer, the primary justification for a Megaplex is
economics of scale. They need more screens than can go in the Alameda
Theatre building, to make a profit, and continue to provide an entertainment
service.
Something smells here! And it is not low tide in the estuary, or in the theatre
basement.
There are plenty of existing successful theatres operating right now in
California.
Included, are both small town movie theatres, and large box Megapiexes.
So the funny smell is a smoke screen.
The key to this development is not a profitable free enterprise, business plan.
The grease that enables this deal, and makes the whole plan possible is
subsidized public financing. Not economics of scale.
So, show me the money.
The city government has said over and over again, the money is not from the
general fund, and will not affect the current budget or city services.
Well, yes, for the moment this is true... but there is a catch.
The catch, or catches in this case:
The money gets paid back, by every property owner, in the Park St.
redevelopment district.
Check the map at City Hall, to see if you qualify.
From the moment bonds are issued, the amount of your money that goes
to the City general fund, from your property tax is frozen.
This stays in affect for 30 years or until the bonds are repaid.
So, the first catch is, as property taxes rise over time, all additional dollars
collected will be diverted from the general fund, (money that pays for things
like, schools, street repair, police, fire protection, social services etc.) to repay
the bonds.
The long term catch is, as costs and need increase, there will be no new money
available to the city, due to these bond repayments.
The historic result is cuts, not funding for city services.
A case in point is the Coliseum redevelopment district in Oakland.
The city services are years behind need and demand, due to a similar bond
measure, used to build the coliseum sports complex in 1966.
Give me the money.
Weld, not me, but the developers.
The cost of this project is: $22,770,000. With interest: $44,820,000.
The developers are putting in approximately $5 million dollars.
They will also pay almost $6 million dollars in rent over the next 20 years, a
rent that is significantly lower than that charged for similar historic theaters in
the Bay Area.
Over this time, the City expects to lose about 17 Million dollars, not including
interest.
In addition the developers get to keep all rent from the retail businesses, in
both buildings to subsidize their rent.
Take a closer look. This is clearly a public subsidy to a private business using
redevelopment dollars.
So, lets call this what it is, a public subsidized project.
This begs the question, why not modify the plan and actually get what the city
and citizens wanted all along? Restoration of the Historic Alameda Theatre, for
movies, and as part of a real civic center.
The price tag would end up considerably smaller, and we'd be watching movies
in much less time, with our tax dollars safe and sound.
November 1, 2005
To Mayor Johnson & Members of the City Council;
My name is Russell Kirk. Months ago I addressed each of you via
correspondence concerning my reservations on the cineplex/garage project
as it is currently proposed. Initially, as you may recall, my reservations
were esthetics. A later letter which included an item from the New York
Times business section, addressing the failing fortunes of larger cineplex
companies across the United States, expressed my additional misgivings
now based on financial considerations.
Even now the developer at this late date continues to submit new
proposals; requesting additional hours of operation, a height easement,
offering a new design for the parking garage and a now withdrawn request
for a video parlor. Lastly, as you are all painfully aware, competent legal
opinion contends that a proper and timely environmental impact report was
not submitted with the original proposal.
My misgivings as to the solvency of this project continued to grow. I
suspect some of yours might too.
Tonight you've heard additional concerns raised by members of the
Alameda community. Fears that a six -level parking structure on the corner
of Oak and Central will pose safety and traffic problems. Problems that
could be avoided by erecting a smaller structure at the proposed sirot..5and
using nearby lots for ancillary parking, sites already designated by city
planners as suitable for this purpose. Additionally, there are real questions
regarding the adequacy of the bidding process that awarded the project to
Mr. Conner and most importantly I think, a group composed of citizens, an
engineer, business people and movie theater professionals have submitted a
theater restoration option that does not entail building a new structure, but
instead uses the existing Historic Theater more efficiently and appears
Submitted by Russell Kirk at the
11 -1 -05 Council Meeting
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
financially viable. Some members of this committee in fact made a similar
proposal years ago.
I am convinced that if you approve of the cineplex/parking project as it is Co -cz 'i
configured, it will haunt each of you through your subsequent political
careers. As big -box operations begin to stall out in cities across the United
States this is no time for Alameda to buy one.
Thank you.
Russell Kirk
To be submitted for the public record
Statement from Kristi Koenen
[address]
November 1, 2005
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
A parking solution that would supply theater parking, serve the merchants on Park Street, be
conducive to civic business and minimize traffic impacts is dispersed parking. The Park
Street Streetscape and Town Center Plan drafted on 6 -28 -02 went into great detail on how we
could accomplish all this by utilizing shared, dispersed parking.
Shared parking utilizes existing spaces. Businesses that are closed on nights and weekends
throughout the length of Park Street could share their lots with the public during closed
business hours. The streetscape study spells out 203 potential spaces. By utilizing these lots
we would encourage foot traffic throughout all of downtown.
With regard to a parking structure, Citizens for Megaplex Free Alameda agree with results of
the aforementioned parking study and support the Elks lodge site as our preferred option, as it
would allow a half -acre park to be built next to the theater, per the General Plan. Parking for
those with special needs could be facilitated at the public lot directly across the street from the
theater.
However, because we recognize that a developer may absolutely want a parking garage next
to the theater, and we want to be responsive to this desire, we are proposing that a garage built
at the theater site be no taller than three stories so as not to out -mass the surrounding
buildings. A three -story parking structure properly designed would hold up to 180 cars. It
would be set back to minimize negative aesthetic impact, thereby helping to maintain our
small town "look and feel." It would include ground floor retail (as recommended by the
general plan), theater - related amenities and /or a rooftop garden, coffee shops, etc.
Such a structure next to the theater, together with identified dispersed parking and the possible
development of the B of A and Elks lots, would easily accommodate the needed parking
spaces and more, while at the same time distributing auto and foot traffic rather than
centralizing it. Also, by having a parking structure no taller than three stories, safety issues
would be mitigated.
In sum, a dispersed parking model is fully responsive to the needs of the Park Street
merchants and their customers and is in line with the plan previously developed on their
behalf.
Mayor Johnson and Council members, please grant the appeal in order to incorporate this
parking alternative.
encl.
Submitted by Kristi Koenen at the
11 -1 -05 Council Meeting
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
PARK STREET STREETSCAPE AND TOWN CENTER PROJECT
Summary Report
Draft: 6 -28-02
Prepared by:
BMS Design Group
In Association With:
The Duffey Company
Table of Contents
Section I Introduction
I -1 The Planning Process
I -2 Purpose of This Plan
I -3 Study Area Location
1-4 Organization of this Report
Section II Existing Planning and Design Context
11-1 Historic Context of Park Street
II-2 Land Use Context
II -3 Regulatory Context
II-4 Urban Design Context
11 -5 Transportation and Circulation Context
Section 111 The Town Center Plan
III-1 Summary of Plan Principles
III -2 Conservation and Development Framework
III-3 Town Center Land Use Framework
III-4 Urban Framework Plan
III-5 Circulation
III-6 Parking Management Plan
111 -7 Street Environment
Section IV: Park Street Streetscape Concept Design
IV -1 Streetscape Design Project Area
1V -2 Overview of Existing Street Conditions
IV -3 . Summary of General Design Principles
IV-4 Common Design Elements and Criteria
IV -5 Historic Core District Design Concepts
IV -6 Transit Hub Design Elements
IV -7 Gateway Corridor District Design Elements
IV -8 Special Locations
Section V: Next Steps
1
DRAFT
City of Alameda California
Sue G. Russell
Management Analyse
Development Services Department
950 West Mall Square, Room 215
Alameda, CA 94501 -7552
510.749.5834
Fax 510.749.5808/) DU 510.522.7538
E -mail srussell@ci.alameda.ca.us
DRAFT
Core District
Parking Characteristics
Supply
On -Street Commercial Parking: 458 Metered + 143 Non - Metered = 601 Total
Off -Street Public Parking: 114 spaces
Demand
On -Street Commercial Parking: 70% Weekday Mid -day Occupancy 78% Friday Evening Occupancy
Off -Street Public Parking: 88% Weekday Mid -day Occupancy 90% Friday Evening Occupancy
Availability (public spaces up to 85% occupancy)
93 Weekday Mid -day 43 Friday Evening
Parking Management Strategy
Short Term Measures
• Convert on -street non - metered time limited spaces to meters to improve turnover for short-term
parking. Recommended locations for meter conversion include: Oak Street (20 spaces), Everett Street
(18 spaces), Santa Clara Avenue (4 spaces), and Webb Avenue (5 spaces) — total of 47 metered spaces
• Provide 10- minute metered parking for business with high turn-over eg. Java Rama (two spaces on
Park Street, two on Alameda Avenue) or at ATM locations
• Convert the west side of Park Avenue to diagonal parking ( +15 spaces)
• Open private lots for public short-term use either through private operator or the acquisition or lease by
the city. Restripe the parking for a more efficient layout at the following potential locations: Park
Avenue lot between Central Avenue and Encinal Avenue (56 spaces with potential for additional 15
spaces with more efficient layout) and Times Way lot between Park Street and Oak (75 spaces)
• Evaluate the layout of the Existing Public Lot A off of Park Avenue for the potential addition of 10
spaces
• Explore new business arrangements between the city and private lot owners to open private parking
lots for public use in the evening (similar to what is already occurring at the Bank of America parking
lot) at the following locations — Alameda Unified School District Lot (60 spaces), lot on Central
between Park St and Park Ave (31 spaces), U.S. Bank (34 spaces), Alameda Family Physicians (28
spaces), State Farm (30 valet/20 self -park spaces), City Hall (30 spaces) (potential 203 spaces)
• Construct a new 300+ space parking garage to serve the expected demand from the proposed
renovation of the Alameda Theatre (projected demand 400 to 500 spaces during peak demand). The
following potential sites are recommended for further evaluation: Long DrugsNideo Maniacs parking
lot, Elks Lodge parking lot, Public Parking Lot C on Central Avenue, Times Star Way lot next to
Linoaks library site, Public Parking Lot A on Park Avenue, Bank of America/State Farm parking lots
and the Tennis Courts off Oak Street at the Alameda High School.
Long Term Measures
• Monitor parking use in the Town Center area to determine when additional parking structures may be
required in the future. The list of potential sites would be those noted above with modifications to
reflect changes in use that have occurred over time.
32
DRAFT
South District
Parking Characteristics
Supply
On- Street Commercial Parking: 45 Metered + 2 Non - Metered = 47 Total
Off - Street Public Parking: 0 spaces
Demand
On- Street Commercial Parking: 68% Weekday Mid -day Occupancy
89% Friday Evening Occupancy
Availability (public spaces up to 85% occupancy)
8 Weekday Mid -day 0 Friday Evening
Parking Management Strategy
Short Term
Explore new business arrangements between the City and private lot owners to open private parking lots for
public use or for the City to acquire or lease the spaces for public use at the following potential locations:
Dimitra's Sandwiches (10 spaces) and Dentist/Kenzi Salon (13 spaces). Party Warehouse (19 spaces),
liquor /fish store (12 spaces), health club (8 spaces) are secondary candidates, particularly for evening use.
Long -Term
Consider a residential permit program to limit the use of residential neighborhoods for long -term parking
(Jackson Park area).
33
OfferinE public amenities with public funds
Mayor Johnson and Council members:
I'm Alice Ray. I ask the council to deny both permits and uphold the appeal, because
there's at least one superior alternative that does not require these variances.
Exercising the right of public domain puts a strong burden on the city to provide public
amenities to justify that action. Because redevelopment funds are being used, there need
to be economic returns as well. We offer a model that meets both standards.
Picture this: a true public center that includes not only multiple choices for movie goers,
but an elegant performing arts space, something requested by citizens and included in the
general plan. Close by a quality child activity center, and a sound -proof baby room right
inside the theater. Then a media production lab, where youth in our community could be
creators, not just consumers of programming
Picture an open space in front of the theater, just the right size for a safe place to sit, talk,
flirt, gossip and people watch. Young people and old people, rich people and poor people,
people of diverse religious and ethnic backgrounds all go to movies. They don't all go to
the same movies. We need a multi-plex for social, as well as economic reasons. But on
our way to different movies, we could pause in shared space, why not the Rosa Parks
Urban Plaza? It would have no other purpose than to invite the diverse members of our
community to take a seat on a shared bench. There we would meet each other. And that
would strengthen our community
Imagine both the child activity center and the media production center being part of
service learning options for the high school. Imagine our students being paid to work at
both places. Imagine them getting school credit for their work, and school attendance
being a requirement for participation.
Imagine yourself sitting in the audience and instead of seeing an endless stream of
commercial previews, seeing this week's sports highlights, stories, public service
announcements and cartoons - all created by Alameda youth. Imagine a portion of every
ticket sold going back to the non -profit production center to sustain the creation of that
programming.
This isn't a pie in the sky vision. I personally have worked with low income youth to
create public service announcements that have won have 5 emmys, to design digital
entertainment that attracted 10,000 teens a day in 32 cities, to create an award winning
film that packed the Kabuki theater, to develop software that has won dozens of national
and international awards, to create double bottom line enterprise that has become a
national model. It CAN happen here. You hold the keys to deciding whether it WILL, or
whether we will settle for something that is so much less. Please opt for the superior
alternative.
Submitted by Alice Ray at the
11 -1 -05 Council Meeting
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
FOR THE RECORD
Item 5 -B
City Council Meeting
November 1, 2005
Land se at the corner of Central and Oak —A clearly superior alternative
The intersection of Central and Oak is described by Alameda's architectural
historian Woody Minor in the following terms: "The cite is unlike any other in the
city, ensconced in a uniquely important historical and architectural setting at the
very juncture of the downtown and Civic Center." Central Avenue is "the principal
crosstown route through the downtown and civic center, providing the most
visually rich encounter of the areas in sequential manner," and "The theater's
marquee lifts the name of the city high above the street, branding a distinguished
architectural ensemble with an indelible sense of place."
What has bothered me about this project from the beginning is the fact that a huge
cineplex erected at this obviously significant site deprives Alameda of the last
remaining opportunity to develop this space into a community gathering place, a
town plaza, a place one can move or sit down in a somewhat open environment,
enjoy the vistas surrounding the site, meet people, and experience a physical
difference from simply walking past buildings. We do not have a lot of open and
inviting public places downtown where one can sit outdoors, without leaving the
commercial district. We do not have a single piece of public art —not a statue, not a
fountain, not a decorative sidewalk or a mural— partly because there is no place for
such art to be placed. I have lived in Alameda for 15 years and I have always
imagined that whenever the underused land at Oak and Central is developed it
would have to include some element of artistic or communal value, independent of
commercial interest because creating and maintaining public spaces is one of the main
ways we define ourselves as a community.
As we, CMFA, have worked hard to offer an alternative superior to the current
project, I have kept my eyes on the aesthetics and public space issue. Now that we
have come up with an alternative allowing a 5- screen theater to be housed in the
Submitted by Ani Dimusheva at the
11 -1 -05 Council Meeting
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
Alameda Theater, we have the perfect opportunity to develop a welcoming space
that is human- friendly, preserves the vistas that enrich our everyday experience and
is also responsive to both the General Plan the visioning process of 2000. One of the
recommendations of the General Plan is for 0.5 acre urban park or green space, to
be used by both residents and office workers downtown. One of the main
improvements, as envisioned by the community, was to provide a civic plaza
downtown.
There are many ways to accomplish this. What I present here is a possibility that
takes into consideration the chance that a theater operator may absolutely want at
least some number of parking spaces located immediately next to the theater. In this
case, we propose that any parking structure be not taller than 3 stories or 40 feet, to
fit within the existing height limits. The purpose of the height limit is to ensure that
no tall buildings are built downtown, in order to preserve a certain look and feel,
which differentiates Alameda from other cities without such limitation, such as
Berkeley, Emeryville or Walnut Creek. The General Plan does not limit height for
parking structures in feet, only stories. However, to adhere to the spirit of the Plan,
we should not build a structure that is so tall that it would stick out like a sore
thumb, or clash with existing downtown architecture. Safety concerns of any
parking structure taller than 3 stories are also an issue. We need to take into
consideration both aesthetics and safety and impose these as conditions for any
parking structure in Alameda.
In addition, whether parking garage or anything else, a building next to the theater
needs to be set back from the street on the side of Central Avenue. It is true that the
commercial zone in which the land is located calls for buildings coming up to the
property line. However, this proposal makes sense for several reasons:
• A box - shaped structure taller than the church's cornices across the street
would have incompatible massing. It would trivialize the church, making its fine
detail look insignificant in comparison. A lower structure would maintain a gradual
rather than abrupt transition between the residential and community commercial
zones, as required by the Municipal code.
• The Alameda Theater has a clearly defined face —the front and the rounded
corners decorated by rosettes, which extends about 50 feet behind the line marking
the front of the building. The side of the building contains a natural break, where the
face separates from the recessed wall behind it. Anything that is built next to the
theater should not encroach on the face of the building, and should therefore be set
back to that line. This conclusion was reached separately by both me and
architectural historian Woody Minor, and it has made sense to everybody I have
talked to about this feature. I am sure even some of you may have thought the
same, or will notice what I'm talking about next time you walk by the Theater.
• The block immediately to the west of Oak Street is zoned residential, and
contains buildings that are set back in some way. The Twin Towers Methodist
Church recedes towards the corner by virtue of its diagonal front and steps. The
Historic Alameda High School is set back significantly, with a green strip in front.
Paul's produce has its parking lot to the property line, but the building itself is set
back. In order to respect the existing openness of the corner, any building on the
North East corner should be set back too, or it would "intrude" on the intersection,
just like the proposed cineplex now does.
• With a setback, the vistas of the Twin Towers Church from the east, and of
the theater from the west, including its rounded corner and rosette, would be
unimpeded. The lower height of the garage would maintain the view of the Oakland
hills as seen from the south.
Most importantly, a setback allows for a modest plaza to be created on the corner of
Central and Oak, as shown in the attached drawing. The plaza can contain a
fountain, benches, planters, and public art. It would be an ideal location to highlight
the rich movie history of Alameda and peak visitors' curiosity towards the theater.
A piece of art in the an Art Deco or other style would create a visual connection
with the Theater.
• The garage we are proposing will also have retail space on all three floors on
the Central Avenue side, and on the first floor on the Oak Street side. The increased
footage of the retail space, compared with the current plan, will provide more lease
and sales tax revenue to the City. It also complies with the General Plan's
recommendation for ground floor retail better than the currently proposed project.
The retail space will serve the needs of the theater as proposed in our business plan
to make it one of the most competitive theaters in the area.
One thing that is not addressed in this proposal is what to do with the back wall of
the garage which will end in an abrupt wall in the middle of the block, even though
this wall will be significantly lower than the 60+ foot back end of the currently
proposed garage. The uncertainty of the Longs lot presents a major design obstacle
for the entire block— still, it is not a reason to build without a creating a plan for
when this would not be the case. If we all agree that parking needs for Theater
patrons and Park Street merchants can be satisfied by a parking structure at the
Elks Lodge or Bank of America, and multiple dispersed parking opportunities, as
outlined by others, then the location presents a perfect opportunity for the half acre
urban park recommended in the General Plan. This should be considered a
preferred possibility, as it would allow the most flexible use of the space. It would
allow careful planning of the entire Oak Street side of the block between Central
Avenue and Santa Clara, which could include the much talked about widening of
Oak Street, and even eliminating sidewalks and turning it into a mixed use vehicle
and bike route, and a pedestrian mall on different occasions. Such redesign of Oak
Street would provide both open space for fairs, music concerts and other events on
certain days, and will retain it as a regular North -South route the rest of the time.
I have presented to you two possibilities, from a regular citizen's perspective, for
making downtown into a place we all could enjoy. I hope that you would give these
possibilities your careful consideration and do so in good faith. We, the citizens who
oppose the project in its current form, and you, our civic leaders, are not that far
apart on what we want for Alameda. Let's come to a solution together.
Sincerely,
Ani Dimusheva
510 -522 -3753
2911 Calhoun Street
Alameda CA 94501
1:1
November 1, 2005 To be submitted for the public record
From: Jenny Curtis
1728 Main Street
Alameda, CA
Good evening. My name is Jenny Curtis. I have lived in Alameda for 35 years. I am
here tonight to ask that you uphold our appeal of the use permit for the theater project.
Our grassroots group has devised a clearly superior alternative to the current plan, in
which building and parking lot height would not even be a concern.
I am presenting an overview of this alternative. Others tonight will address the seven
major points of this superior plan It is very difficult to condense the results of months of
hard work into three - minute sound bites; please show your good faith by giving us the
time to make a coherent presentation.
Our exciting alternative will:
• Maximize use of the historic theater, while preserving the look and feel of the
original design.
• Provide the approved number of parking spaces (350) in a configuration that is less
obtrusive than the proposed 6 -level garage, is safer for children, and fully
responsive to the needs of Park Street merchants and their customers.
• Provide approximately 1000 theater seats, a number that is consistent with the
number of parking spaces that have been approved.
• Is based on a realistic business model that includes multiple screens (5), and
multiple, additional streams of revenue for the developer /manager, but also
reduces construction and ongoing maintenance costs.
• Provide a modest "town plaza" consistent with citizens' vision of a civic
center /community gathering space.
• Offer amenities to support children, youth, families and elders as part of the "retail
mix ".
• Is consistent with the City's General Plan.
This represents but one of several possible solutions.
Tonight, the choice is yours.
You can choose to uphold our appeal and slow down the existing project which seems to
have been on auto -pilot for a long time.
Submitted by Jenny Curtis at the
11 -1 -05 Council Meeting
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
You can choose to seriously consider this reasonable plan so you can then look back
and say that you, as a Council, took a stand for democratically listening to all of the
people of Alameda.
You can choose to open the door to cooperative and creative people working together to
finally settle on a solution that will provide what everyone has been saying they want.
You can choose to do the right thing.
Bring Back The Movies!
NFU 1, 2,00c
Mayor Johnson, Members of the Council;
I probably don't have to introduce myself. You have probably seen me more often
than you would like for many months now working hard to stop the currently proposed
megaplex plan. I would really rather be doing other things with my time as I am sure
would you and the rest of the people in this room.
Let me start by asking that you uphold the appeal tonight to deny the use permit for
increased height and increased hours of operation. Approval of the use permit would
green light a plan that is in conflict with our general plan and financially and
environmentally damaging to our town.
I am not a contentious person by nature and as it has been pointed out by several
members of our citizens group, there is really very little difference in what citizens on
either side of this issue want. So tonight I would like to consider that aloud and ask if
maybe we can come to some agreement on how we might be able to work out this issue
that has so divided our community.
We all want movies and most of us have a soft spot for the Historic Theater. We all
want our town and Park Street to be financially successful.
Both sides of this issue will probably agree that we could use a little more parking in
the downtown area and I am pretty sure that nobody, yourselves included, want a parking
and traffic nightmare in our city center and radiating out to nearby neighborhoods.
Finally, I suspect that the large majority of Alamedans value both our historic
architecture and the genteel way of life that it suggests which is why we live in Alameda.
Submitted by Valerie Ruma at the
11 -1 -05 Council Meeting
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
All that being said, the only difference I see then is in the execution and timeframe for
getting a theater up and running in our City Center.
"We have waited long enough - Bring Back the Movies" is the battle cry of those
wanting to push the current plan through.
"We want something that is fiscally and environmentally responsible and in keeping
with our small town charm" is the mantra of citizens against it. Those of us concerned
that the proposed suburban type cineplex and parking garage will do irreparable harm to
our town have filed a lawsuit which if not settled will make the process even longer and
more expensive than it already is. However, we can not lay down our arms... (the
lawsuit) because we feel as strongly about our position as you do about yours unless...
unless... we were all to sit down together and work out a plan that would assuage both
sides of the aisle. A plan that would be more financially feasible than the existing plan,
and one that would not detract from our architectural heritage and small town charm.
One that would not create environmental hazards beyond belief and one that could be
implemented as quickly if not more quickly than the currently proposed plan. Wow,
what if that could happen. Well I believe that it can happen and I also believe that is
must. Why? because this issue is tearing our town apart. Nobody is going to win if we
don't come to terms and Alameda is too small of an island to be on the outs with half of
the population.
Tonight the citizens group CMFA will present in 3 minute bits a plan that they have
been working on diligently for months. However, we are not committed to that plan
being the only option we are only putting it out there to show that it is possible. We are
open to other plans also being possible as well.
For months now CMFA has been asking for nothing more than an open forum to
discuss the options and alternatives. Pro megaplexers say there are no other alternatives,
we say let us show you that there are. Let's stop this madness and work together in the
spirit of community that Alameda has always been known for.
Uphold the appeal, deny the use permit and lets come up with a better plan together.
Thank you.
Valerie Ruma
1610 Willow Street
Alameda
The five- screen alternative
Alameda City Council November 1, 2005
Good evening, members of City Council, Vice Mayor, and Mayor:
I represent the alternative committee on the issue of maximum utilization of
the existing historical theater.
I ask you to deny both permits and uphold the appeal because there is a
superior alternative that does not require these variances. I'm here to speak
about one part of that alternative, the configuration of a multiplex within the
historical theater.
Putting 1020 people (600 in the main auditorium, 2 x 150 in the balcony, and
2 x 60 on the wings of the main floor) into a theater that was built for 2000
does not require compromising the integrity of the original theater or
destroying the original architecture. To the contrary, it keeps more of the
theater as theater. It maintains the size of the original concession stand –
already designed to feed twice the number of people who will ever be in the
theater at one time. It preserves the fabulous art that decorates walls and
ceilings. It allows for period - matched furnishings that, while not exact
replicas, preserve the original look and feel, and it preserves the existing retail
spaces as additional revenue streams. Or —we can think outside the box by
converting retail spaces into small auditoriums.
We need look no farther than the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, a 4- screen
Cineplex with a capacity for 1550 patrons, for another historic treasure that
has maximized its capacity without compromising original architecture or
interior design. In fact, the city's own documents, as part of its campaign to
bring back the theater, identify the Grand Lake as a model for Alameda,
noting its impressive 2004 average gross revenue of $460k per screen, which
is twice the Bay Area average. Indeed, with a restoration to match the
Grand Lake, preservation of the main auditorium, division of the balcony
into two theaters, and the addition of two smaller theaters underneath the
balcony, the Alameda Theater can achieve the same success while retaining
more of the original architectural design than planned in the current
proposal.
The sloped floor of the main auditorium would be returned to its original state,
the way it has been done at Davis Symphony Hall, the Castro, and the
Paramount theater. This would allow restoration of the orchestra pit, and
would provide more seating space than stadium seating does. This
combination, with a fully retractable main screen, has an added benefit: It
Submitted by Andy Crockett at the
11 -1 -05 Council Meeting
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
The five- screen alternative
Alameda City Council November 1, 2005
allows for periodic use of the main auditorium for live performances. (Our
research suggests the reason for water underneath the floor had nothing to do
with water tables or tidal action, but was simply the result of draining the
water fountain under the orchestra pit, so there is no real impediment to
restoring a sloped floor.)
The balcony that is not being used in the current plan (because of the space
displaced by creating a huge wall and connection to the proposed new
building) could then be fully utilized once more. Installing digital film
technology in those theaters will reduce the cost of creating sound barriers
(it's a technical thing but we're convinced) and could provide a great venue
for locally produced digital media, which is included in the public amenities
part of our superior alternative.
In sum: the first option would be to restore the main auditorium to 600 seats
and then add two ground floor mini - theaters, each with a capacity for 60
patrons.
The second option would restore the main auditorium to its full, original
size, and use the two retail outlets on either side of the lobby entrance as the
additional theaters.
How do we deal with wheelchair accessibility issues? By using common
sense and following the true spirit of the law that requires "reasonable
accommodation." We would make the existing men's bathroom wheel chair
accessible. Yes, that means we would have to give up the original bathroom
fixtures, and replace tile with a similar style, not an exact period match. The
women's bathroom has already been remodeled in this way. We don't think
the movie experience of most Alamedans depends on men having the exact
bathroom fixtures of 70 years ago, especially when women don't have them,
and the price of retaining them is denying access to the disabled. However,
if this point is a stopper we could convert the room outside the women's
bathroom to a unisex or men's, wheelchair accessible bathroom.
As far as access to the second floor. The short answer is think "lift" not
elevator. It doesn't fulfill the desires of everyone who might prefer to ride,
instead of walk the stairs. It does meet the needs of people who have
legitimate mobility limitations. With creative, art deco design of the
The five- screen alternative
Alameda City Council November 1, 2005
exterior, it provides universal access, without requiring —or being the
justification for — construction of a whole new building.
Meanwhile, here is the short answer to the question: "how much will it
cost ?" According to potential developers we talked to, the total renovation
would be less than the $9.5 million now allotted just to be able to use the
main floor. Why the discrepancy? 1) We are willing to go with authentic
period pieces of similar, not exactly same design if needed. 2) We believe
common sense overrules pure preservation on some issues, such as: since
bigger chairs have to be purchased anyway to accommodate people who are
larger than they were half a century ago, we would opt for modern era chairs
that have cup holders built in, to save on maintenance costs. 3) According to
one former planner we spoke to, the bulk of the renovation cost, about $7
million, will go to infrastructure systems (heating, cooling, lighting), which
would have powered both the old theater and the new construction. 4)
Another big chunk of current cost projections involves an elevator and
completely new big, wheelchair accessible bathrooms that would have been
in the new building. We would go with a smaller, less expensive lift and no
new bathroom.
Thank you for your time and attention to this letter.
o,„(2,0_ o_u41
5B. Use Permit Appeal Revenue comparison November 1, 2005
A key part of our appeal is that relaxing the height restriction allows a theater complex that is
fiscally irresponsible. Regarding the multi - million dollar deficit the project incurs: Let's go right to
the source of the lion's share of that deficit, namely the extremely low lease rates that the Council
granted Kyle Conner.
I refer here to the rents to be collected from Mr. Conner in the first seven years, for the three
sections of the project — the Historic Theater, the Cineplex ground lease, and the parking garage.
Our numbers are taken straight from the Development Document.
Total annual lease revenue is $94,000. If Mr. Conner grosses more than $3.25 million, the City will
also get 15 cents of every dollar over that. But not even Mr. Conner projects much more than a $4
million gross. That would boost lease revenue to the $200,000 range.
The city's own consultant, Keyser Marston, maintains that 15% of gross sales is a fair market lease
rate. But on his first $3.25 million in revenue, Mr. Conner pays just 3% of gross sales. Even at $4
million in revenue, his rent is just 5% of gross.
Why are lease revenues so low in the current plan? Very simply, because the City gave the developer
massive breaks in the first seven years. This includes a mere $10,000 annual payment for unlimited
parking in a $9.7 million garage.
By comparison, our Clearly Superior Alternative, which conforms to the existing height restriction, roughly
triples the lease revenue for the City. These estimates are derived from standard industry statistics,
market -rate leases, and at least one bona fide offer the city has received for the project.
How do we do it?
First, we fully utilize the historic theater space, while the current plan leaves two potential balcony
theaters shuttered. More seats, more revenue, more rent.
Second, in our Plan, the City builds and leases out the retail and office space on the site at market
rates, rather than the deep - discount ground lease of the current plan.
Third, because there's no Cineplex in our plan, there's room for our amenities in the project
footprint, including a child activity center, an anchor restaurant, and a pinball cafe. Unlike the
Cineplex, they will pay rent from Dollar One. As we show tonight, they will support the theater's
business, diversify commerce on that block, and add jobs.
To do all this, we DO NOT violate the district height restrictions, because in the absence of the
Cineplex, we build out as well as up, and because our smaller -scale plan fits a smaller garage.
Our plan is the fiscally responsible one for Alameda.
After 26 years, we deserve better, and this is it.
Robert Gavrich
Citizens for a Megaplex -Free Alameda
Submitted by Robert Gavrich at the
11 -1 -05 Council Meeting
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
-L CO W CO C1 CO CO
O O O _O _O O _O
CD O C CD CD O O
O O O O O O O
10afo.Td Jo smoic L js.TT3
Hello my name is Lew Brentano and I want to go to the movies in
Alameda in my wheelchair. And if I had more time I could tell you how
to make the second floor of the old theater accessible without having to
build a whole new building. But I will focus on how our superior
alternative creates a much better financial situation for the city, and
taxpayers of Alameda.
I bring to this meeting over a dozen years as a business analyst and
executive at Gartner Group. In that time I have reviewed over 100
business plans and consulted with many venture capital firms to
identify winning propositions.
It looks to me that somewhere along the line all we have missed a
business basic that: the best financial plan is one that offers the least
risk to all financial parties — the town, we taxpayers and the
operator of the new theater. The superior alternative presented tonight
means substantially less financial and legal risk to everyone.
The superior alternative means no construction of a new multi screen
theater — this is a huge reduction in risk from a cost standpoint —
NO NEW theater construction, no risk of millions in cost
overruns, Bay Bridge come to mind?
NO multi million dollar theater construction loan, no risk of a
default on a loan with the taxpayers to foot the bill
Submitted by Lew Brentano at the
11 -1 -05 Council Meeting
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
NO second building with heating and utility bills when energy
prices are rising at double -digit rates — No new theater, no operating
costs for it.
Reducing business and financial risk also requires reducing legal
exposure. At the last planning meeting, Alice Ray, a nationally
recognized child safety expert cited the almost certain risk of
increased personal injury and exploitation of children, if an
unsupervised six -story parking garage is placed so close to a
school. For whatever reason, the Planning Committee chose to
completely ignore that warning.
From a financial risk perspective, that just doesn't make good sense.
The City is already facing a lawsuit for not doing due diligence in
looking for negative environmental impacts. And now has increased
legal liability, since the land for the garage was taken as part of an
eminent domain action. A much smaller garage near the school
means less risk of personal injury lawsuits.
So deny these permits and uphold the appeal. Lets go with the
superior alternative plan with much lower business and financial
risk for Alameda.
NOU -01 -2005 17:06 TEAMSTERS_LOCAL_70
November 1, 2005
City of Alameda
Alameda, CA
5105691906 P.01/01
Attn: Mayor and City Council
Via Councilmember's Fax: (510) 747 -4805
Re: Support of Theater /Parking Garage Project
Oppose Appeal
I am unable to attend the City Council meeting this evening, but I do want to voice my
opinion on the matter of the Theater /Parking garage.
I am strongly in favor of the theater project and deeply oppose the appeal. I have lived
in Alameda for more than 40 years and have seen many changes. I have never seen
anything quite like the bickering that has taken place over this project. It's time for
Alameda to update itself and this project is in my opinion a great start in that direction.
Please take my opinion into consideration when this matter is discussed this evening.
I would appreciate a phone call letting me know the outcome of this evenings vote on
this issue.
Regina Swayne
3456 Capella Lane
Alameda, CA 94502
(510) 865 -6180
TOTAL P.01