Pretty pretty Park Street

As folks have already reported, the most recent appeal of the lower court’s decision to dismiss the Citizen’s for a Megaplex Free Alameda has been affirmed, meaning that the court of appeals pretty much said that the ruling of the lower court judge was solid.  The Alameda Journal reported the news here, highlights:

A state appeals court Thursday flatly rejected a legal bid to thwart the development of the Alameda cineplex project, likely bringing to a close a two-year quest by opponents to stop the controversial redevelopment effort.

The three-judge appeals panel “affirmed in full” a prior Superior Court-level decision made against the Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda. The group had filed a lawsuit in 2005, arguing that the city had violated state law by failing to do a proper environmental impact report for the project.

…

An appeal of the Superior Court’s June 2006 decision against the group was heard in January in the Court of Appeal First Appellate District and the decision was filed Thursday.

Beyond its original lawsuit, the Megaplex group twice filed for injunctions to have construction halted, City Attorney Teresa Highsmith said. Those filings were denied by the court in November and then again in January.

“This opinion is the court’s final word,” Highsmith said. “Hopefully we could put this dispute behind us and let the project be built for the benefit of the community.”

What the article left out was picked up by Stop, Drop, and Roll which takes the analysis one step further, reading into the initial Sabraw decision, which was of course, affirmed in full by the Court of Appeals as mentioned by the Journal, the start of the analysis begins with this:

In June, the courts denied the claim, saying that it had not been filed during the statue of limitations. These lawsuits have to be filed within 30 days. The appeal was over “When” the 30 days began and the appeals court said the CMFA didn’t understand a history of solid caselaw on the subject.

THEN, the court goes on to say:

“Moreover, even if [CMFA] did have standing to challenge the City’s November 1, 2005 action, the challenge fails on substantive grounds, as set forth in more detail below.” (pg. 16)

Short version, had the lawsuit been filed on time, they still would have lost.

But keep reading, it definitely gives a different reason behind the decisions then the old, “we lost because we didn’t file in time and that’s not fair.”  Clearly, thanks to this analysis, we know that it goes beyond just that.  So, the question is whether CMFA will decide to yet again appeal to the California Supreme Court, it would seem unwise to do so.  Without a dissenting opinion from the Court of Appeals to even begin to base a claim on, it is an uphill battle that could be for naught.   But, with nothing else to lose, CMFA might just go for it. 

If you haven’t seen the photos of the work being done on the Historic Theater, check it out at PSBA’s website.  Whether you were for or against the Cineplex and Garage portion, you have to admit that the work being done is pretty exciting. 

But in other Park Street news, it’s nice to see that Longs is putting some cash into a facade overhaul, from the Alameda Journal:

The Longs remodel is just one of a number of buildings that have or will undergo beauty treatments in the downtown Park Street area, said Rob Ratto, director of the Park Street Business Association.

More downtown business owners are putting money into their buildings because they’re looking forward to what has otherwise been a controversial eight-screen movie theater and six-level parking garage being built at Oak Street and Central Avenue, next door to Longs.

…

When it’s completed, the lower two-thirds of the storefront glass will be replaced with a textured stucco wall, according to a recent city report. And there will be some architectural touches, including a “stylized eyebrow canopy” over the west entrance. Tall-growing shrubs will be planted along the north and west sides of the building.

They really needed it too, if you ever wanted to talk about “butt-ugly” buildings, Longs definitely fit the bill.