Recall of Alameda Mayor? City Council Ignores Hundreds Opposing Megaplex

For those of you who have to go to bed before 2:30 a.m., here's what
happened at the hearing last night:

The council chambers AND an adjacent overflow room were jammed by
7:30. Additional overflow seating with remote viewing on city cable
was set up in the basement of the Elk's building next door to City
hall. Several speaker names were called at a time to allow speakers
in other rooms time to return to the council chambers.

Councilmember Matarrese refused to recuse himself, as requested by
residents who felt his public advocacy of the project in the media
and to community groups compromised his ability to respond fairly to
issues presented at the hearing.

Mayor Johnson announced at the beginning of the meeting that all
speakers would be heard that night. Speaking time was limited to 3
minutes, an expected economization. The mayor also emphasized the
point that no one would be permitted to speak overtime (at an earlier
meeting Ms. Johnson rudely terminated no-megaplexer Ani Dimusheva's
comments, then allowed pro-megaplexer Rob Ratto to speak past the
limit, evoking outcry from the room).

When citizens applauded after the comments of an early no-cineplex
speaker, Ms. Johnson rebuked them sharply for cutting into the time
of later speakers, a theme she returned to repeatedly between
speakers, using up valuable time herself. Reactions of any kind were
prohibited in the council chambers, but viewers clapped, cheered and
occasionally hissed in the overflow rooms.

For about 5 hours, speaker after speaker supported the appeal, and
criticized the cineplex project. Only a handful of speakers supported
the project. There were also sign-up sheets for those who preferred
to weigh in on the matter without speaking. Page after page filled
with cineplex opponent names, while the sheet for cineplex supporters
remained empty.

All speakers supported restoration of the historic theater. Reasons
for opposing the cineplex were many, but the most common objection
was the mismatch between the project size and character, and the
unique personality of Alameda, highly valued by residents. Many
speakers were concerned about increased traffic and parking issues
generated by the project, and doubted the project's economic
viability. Frustration with lack of council response to residents'
opposition was also a common theme.

It was well after midnight when all speakers had been heard, and
deliberations on the appeal finally began. Council members Daysog and
deHaan asked numerous questions of city staff.

Tony Daysog was concerned with the financing of the proposed project,
which would result in a net loss for the city. He questioned the sub-
standard rent the developer will pay for the historic theater, and
was concerned that project finances were designed starting with the
developer's need and working backwards, rather than starting with the
city's goals and requiring the developer to meet them.

Doug deHaan expressed grave doubts about the future financial
viability of the cineplex industry, and panned the design, calling
repeatedly for a scaled-down version. DeHaan suggested developing the
two potential balcony theaters in the historic theater, and reducing
the cineplex size accordingly, allowing for set-backs from the
sidewalk line, or a one-story project. He considered the project to
be "butt-ugly" and vastly oversized for the lot.

City staff defended the project, but were frequently unable to answer
council questions, hedging, and offering an apparent stock answer -
"we can't give that as simple an answer as you would probably like."
Residents attending the meeting and familiar with the project
documents provided answers city staff could not on several occasions.

The developer said he would rather build a 12-plex. City staff
admitted the parking and traffic study had not taken into account
frequent high attendance events at nearby Koffman Auditorium and the
Elks Club during peak movie times.

The mayor desceneded into a lengthy emotional rant about the
ingratitude of citizens who didn't understand the work involved in
reviewing project documents. One of the appellants and several other
cineplex opponents who were clearly more familiar with the documents
than anyone on the council rose and objected. The mayor insisted this
project was good for Alameda, and was the only way to finance theater
rehabilitation, though in fact theater rehabilitation is being paid
for by the city, not the developer.

Johnson yes-woman, Marie Gilmore, had little to say, as usual.

When council discussion petered out, the Mayor called for a motion.
Councilmember Daysog moved to approve the appeal, and further review
the project before going forward. Councilmember deHaan seconded, but
the two were outvoted by the other three councilmembers. As the
Johnson/Matarrese/Gilmore block had clearly planned from the
beginning, a motion to deny the appeal was then voted on, and passed,
3-2, with minor design revisions, including the exploration of more
vertical elements for the parking garage, a "less modern" look to the
second-story cineplex windows, and the restoration of the original
ticket booth or a facsimile (not necessarily to be used as such) to
the historic theater entryway.

It remains to be seen how the hundreds of residents who attended the
hearing last night and sat patiently for hours awaiting their turn to
speak will feel about the council's decision in opposition to the
overwhelming majority of speakers. Though Mayor Johnson's position on
the project was never in doubt, it was clear she felt uneasy about
the ramifications of such large scale opposition.

As well she might - as the meeting broke up, the word "recall" was in
the air...

----------------------------------------

Alamedans Organize to Stop Megaplex in Their City
http://www.indybay.org/archives/archive_by_id.php?id=3470&category_id=22

Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda
http://www.stopalamedamegaplex.com