body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -AUGUST 16, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
( 05-396) - Proclamation recognizing John Knowles for his
contribution to the revitalization of the Park Street Business
District.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to John Knowles.
Mr. Knowles thanked the Council for the proclamation.
(05-397 - ) Proclamation designating August 26th as Women's Equality
Day in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Dorie
Behrstock, Vice President of Isle City of Alameda Business and
Professional Women.
Ms. Behrstock introduced Isle City of Alameda Business and
Professional Women members Margaret Seaman and Joanne Ainsworth
thanked the Council for the proclamation; invited the Council and
public to a reception on August 26, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. at the Harbor
Bay Community Center.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Creating Special
Newsrack Districts [paragraph no. 05-404] was removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,2,"[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number) ]
(*05-398) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community
Improvement Commission, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners meeting and the
Regular City Council meeting held on August 2, 2005. Approved.
(*05-399) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,127,711.09.
(*05-400) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Investment Report for
period ending June 30, 2005. Accepted.
( *05-401) - Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for
the period ending June 30, 2005, for sales transactions in the
First Calendar Quarter of 2005. Accepted.
(*05-402) - Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute
second amendment to Consultant Agreement with Harris & Associates,
extending the term, scope of work and price for services associated
with the Webster Street Renaissance Project. Accepted.
(*05-403) Recommendation to approve an agreement with Ameresco
Keller Canyon, LLC for the purchase of power from Landfill Gas
Generation. Accepted.
(05-404) Resolution No. 13882, ""Creating Special Newsrack
Districts in Both the Park Street and West Alameda Business
Districts as Authorized in the Alameda Municipal Code Section 22-7,
Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines of Article 1 (Streets)
,
Chapter XXII (Streets and Sidewalks) "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the public should be aware of
the Newsrack Ditricts, which go along with the improvements on Park
and Webster Streets and increase attractiveness in the business
districts.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) urged adoption
of the resolution.
Sherri Steig, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) stated WABA
supports adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to recognize the
efforts of former Councilmember Karin Lucas; requested staff to
review posting signs on historic lampposts.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,3,"Mayor Johnson stated a lot of signs are attached to the poles the
signs detract from the attractiveness of the poles and should be
avoided if possible.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *05-405) - Resolution No. 13883, ""Requiring City Council Approval of
Any Amendment to the Employment Contracts of the City Manager or
City Attorney. Adopted.
(*05-406) Resolution No. 13884, ""Amending the Alameda City
Employees (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing Salary Range for
the Position of Senior Combination Building Inspector. Adopted.
(*05-407) Resolution No. 13885, ""Amending the Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by
Establishing Salary Ranges for the positions of Information
Systems Network Analyst and Safety Officer. "" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-408) Public Hearing to consider Appeals of the Planning
Board's approval of a Use Permit and Design Review for the parking
garage and new Cineplex components of the proposed Alameda Theater
Project on Oak Street and Central Avenue. This site is located at
1416 Oak Street and 2305 Central Avenue (Video Maniacs site)
within the C-C-T (Community Commercial Theater Combining) District.
Applicants: City of Alameda (DSD) and Kyle Conner, Alameda
Entertainment Associates, LP . Appellants: Ani Dimusheva and Valerie
Ruma ;
(05-408A) Resolution No. 13886, ""Upholding the Planning Board of
the City of Alameda's Decision to Approve Design Review DR05-0028
and Use Permit UP05-0008 for the Proposed New Civic Center Parking
Garage. Adopted; and
(05-408B) Resolution No. 13887, ""Resolution Upholding the Planning
Board of the City of Alameda's Decision to Approve Design Review
DR05-0041 for the Proposed Cineplex at 2305 Central Avenue.
Adopted.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of project) : Kathy Moehring, Alameda (not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,4,"Rudenko, Alameda (not present) ; Gina Shepard, Alameda; Margarita
Dorland, Alameda (not present) ; Alex Helperin, Alameda (not
present) ; Vicki Varghese, Alameda (not present) ; Sia Bayat,
Alameda Michael Cate, Alameda; and Pat Bail, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,5,"Following Gina Shepard's comments, Mayor Johnson called a recess at
11:37 p.m. and reconvened the Regular City Council Meeting at 11:50
p.m.
***
When the meeting was reconvened, Councilmember Matarrese moved
approval of continuing the meeting past midnight.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Following Frank Lopez, there being no, further speakers, Mayor
Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the cost for the Cineplex and
historic renovation is approximately $13 million dollars; the
report compares the $13 million cost against $5.9 million in
revenues; there is a negative of $7.1 million; inquired whether
interest is included in the $13 million cost.
Tim Kelly, Keyser and Marston Associates, responded in the
negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the amount would be if interest
were included.
Mr. Kelly responded tax increment should be included if interest is
included; stated the bonds are already funded; all sources of
income that pay for the City's obligations, including tax increment
used to fund the debt service on the bonds and garage income, are
not included.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there was an estimate of how
long it would take for property values to raise in order to recoup
the $7.1 million.
Mr. Kelly responded the Community Improvement Commission (CIC)
already has the income to pay for the approximately $15 or $16
million in bonds which have been sold; the $7 million for the
parking garage is not paid for yet; some sources of funds would be
the theater and ground lease rent.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the sources of funds would
equal $5.9 million.
Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative; stated the source of funds
would be $5.9 million in present value against a loan of $7 million
present value.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,6,"Counci lmember Daysog stated the $13 million bonds issued for the
Cineplex and historic theater would need to be paid back.
Mr. Kelly stated that the bonds have already been issued based upon
the CIC's cash flow; the income from the theater project does not
have to repay the bonds the bonds are financed by CIC's existing
cash flow.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the cash flow is tax
increment.
Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative; the cash flow is the
existing tax increment the tax increment does not come out of the
General Fund and is not money that would have gone to the General
Fund; the tax increment is redevelopment money that has to be used
for certain limited purposes; redevelopment law prohibits the money
from being used for Police and Fire services.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether tax increment could be used
for public infrastructure in a redevelopment area, to which Mr.
Kelly responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether General Fund costs that are
used for public improvements in a redevelopment area could be
covered by redevelopment funds.
Mr. Kelly responded that the purpose of the redevelopment financing
is to provide economic development, stimulate growth, and remove
blight redevelopment financing is not intended for public
improvements that would have otherwise occurred; theoretically,
redevelopment funds could be used.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the argument is that redevelopment
money cannot be used for General Fund type activity with regards to
infrastructure.
Mr. Kelly stated redevelopment money is all the tax increment
captured above a certain base; redevelopment law limits the City to
use the funds for remediation of blight.
The Development Services Director stated that redevelopment law is
very clear that new improvements need to be made; funds cannot be
used for operating and maintenance costs; redevelopment law
findings that state there are no other public monies available must
be made to do an improvement, like a street.
Councilmember Daysog stated that there is an argument that
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,7,"redevelopment dollars cannot be used for infrastructure
improvements that are generally covered by the General Fund Capital
Improvement Budget inquired whether redevelopment dollars could be
used under certain circumstances.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated redevelopment dollars cannot be used to pay for street
resurfacing; pass-through agreements with the County preclude the
City from using redevelopment project tax increment on certain
projects, such as Estuary Park.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what projects have been obligated
with the $47 million bond issue.
The Development Services Director responded the projects include
the new Library and matching funding for some grant money for
Webster and Park Streets; there was an existing obligation as part
of the construction of the Marina Village Project $13 million went
to capitalize the payments on the long-term obligation to repay the
infrastructure improvements made at Marina Village years ago.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $200,000 was used for
intersection remediation at Otis and Park Streets.
The Development Services Director responded that money for
intersection remediation came from regular operating tax increment
revenues, not bond money.
Councilmember Daysog stated the report states that project results
in a net cost to the CIC; that he understands Mr. Kelly's comments
regarding estimated CIC costs; the $13 million bond will be paid
from the increase in tax increment in the redevelopment area, not
the project itself; the staff analysis compares the estimated CIC
costs against the estimated CIC revenues, which results in a $7
million negative.
Mr. Kelly stated there is a cost; however, the City will own the
historic theater, the parking garage and the land underneath the
theater; the City is buying assets.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the purpose of edevelopment
is to generate value; inquired whether the City would collect
property taxes if the City owns the assets.
The Development Services Director responded one objective of
redevelopment is to create value; redevelopment also serves to
build the projects which the community needs; the existing tax
increment supports the construction of the parking structure; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,8,"parking structure creates additional business opportunities and new
value; the money is also used for projects that the public has
decided are important; the historic theater renovation is such a
case and is an eligible, legal project i the lion share of the $5. 9
million concerning Councilmember Daysog is the construction,
stabilization and restoration of the historic theater part of the
expenditure that would never be recovered is for restoring the
theater, which was considered of great concern to the community
staff never reviewed a reuse of the building that would recover the
investment the theater did not have a private sector investor all
these years because nobody in the private sector could figure out
what could go into the building to substantiate or support the
investment.
Councilmember Daysog inquired why the report shows a net negative,
to which Mr. Kelly responded redevelopment law requires disclosure.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated part of the reason for the negative net
present value is because the Council directed staff to preserve the
historic theater; Council felt the theater would continue to
deteriorate if the City did not move forward with preservation; the
project cost would not be so high if restoring the theater was not
so valuable and the City wanted to build a new theater and parking
garage, without the historic theater the project is running in the
red because so much money is being spent for the historic theater
infrastructure; inquired whether the historic theater is a
financial albatross.
The Development Services Director responded public entities restore
buildings because of the appreciation of the value of the asset to
the community, on which an economic value cannot be placed; a
building use that could support the project costs would result in
the building being butchered to increase density, such as public
storage; said type of use would not meet the community's
restoration and preservation goals.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the parking structure
design/build allows the design to be modified.
The Development Services Director responded that one of the goals
of using the design/build process was to ensure that the project
was built efficiently with as little public money as possible; the
design/build process allows designers and construction to come
together to yield the most efficient garage the exterior design
review is being resolved to prevent the design/build contract from
growing in response to design issues; pinning down the design up
front provides the additional guarantee that there would be no
questions about what the design/build team put together i the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,9,"objective was to have the most efficient, least expensive project,
with an eye on speed; the exterior design of the project needs to
be known before moving forward, otherwise an intolerable budget
situation could be created; design/build should reduce the number
of changes later and create a more controlled process for bidding
the project and getting the best price and product for the
community.
Councilmember deHaan stated that one of the first tasks was to
review alternate parking areas in 1999 during the visioning
process; inquired what were the alternate areas.
The Development Services Director responded she does not know what
the alternate parking areas were in 1999; subsequent parking
analysis identified alternative sites, including the Elks Club,
Video Maniacs and the Long's site.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not recall Video Maniacs
being one of the sites.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Video Maniacs was included as
an option in the 2000 Downtown Vision Report.
The Development Manager stated that six studies reviewed different
sites since 1972; all studies considered Video Maniacs as one of
the top sites.
Councilmember deHaan stated the 2000 parking analysis indicated
that 498 parking spaces were needed for 1,500 theater seats;
inquired whether the Development Services Director was aware of the
analysis.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the analysis was fairly speculative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the analysis indicated that a certain
number would park in the lot and some patrons would park in other
areas; Park Street as been so successful in recent years that the
200 spaces [in other areas) that were going to be used to support
the theater are being utilized now.
The Development Services Director stated the environmental
assessment included completion of a new traffic and parking
assessment to update the information and confirm that there would
be opportunities for shared parking the commercial district
setting of the project means people will have already parked
somewhere else.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,10,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the factor used for the first
study has increased.
The Development Services Director responded the new trip manual
published after parking work was completed has identical numbers on
reverse days; the factors used for Saturday are now the factors
that apply to Friday peak parking and vice versa; the Saturday
position has been improved significantly.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether said information has been
provided.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated
that the only manual of record published at the time the work was
completed was used for the [first study; using the new trip manual
staff decided whether changes needed to be made; the decision was
that, with the reverse [of Friday and Saturday peaks], an even
worse case situation had been analyzed [in the first study! ].
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 200 spaces would overflow
into other areas because the parking structure would not be able to
handle all parking needs.
The Development Services Director responded said case would only
occur at one or two peaks a week; 1750 seats were analyzed; the
scope of the assessment for the environmental review was a bigger
project because staff did not have the final numbers; the proposed
project is smaller.
The Development Manager stated that the assumptions in the traffic
and parking analysis were conservative, assumed 100% occupancy of
the 1750 seats and did not include cross trips the numbers in the
parking study are adequate for meeting the parking demand.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the numbers are adequate to
support the theater and the new activity on Park Street, to which
the Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the parking would support
peak times with activities at the Masonic Temple, Kaufman
Auditorium, the Elks Lodge, and the high school.
The Development Services Director responded that staff did not
factor in that every facility in town could have an event on the
same night. the analysis is based on existing trip data at certain
times of the day.
Councilmember deHaan stated the theater is not used during peak
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,11,"hours; the theater peak time is later.
The Development Services Director stated the parking studies
included a desire for a much bigger parking structure; a 508 space
parking garage was contemplated when the Long's parking lot was
discussed; a long-term parking plan is still needed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that existing tax increment covers the
bonds that have already been issued; requested staff to address how
the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) loan would be paid back,
the developer's buying and selling options, and how much capital
the developer is investing in the project; stated that there has
been a lot of discussion regarding scaling down the theater or just
doing three screens the number one goal of the Downtown Vision
Plan was to restore the historic theater for first run movies.
The Development Services Director stated all except $3.5 million of
public investment in the project would go to the historic theater
and parking garage the developer will provide his own furniture,
fixtures, and equipment (FF&E) in the historic theater; the
developer will bring $5. 3 million in equity and bank financing; the
developer has met financing commitments outlined in the Disposition
and Development Agreement (DDA) ; the bank financing includes an SBA
(Small Business Administration portion, which has additional
control and rigor because of the examination SBA completes; the
developer would build the Cineplex; the City will own the land
under the Cineplex and own the historic theater and land; the City
will lease the historic theater and the ground under the Cineplex
to the developer ; a $700,000 grant will pay for vertical elements,
such as the elevator, ramps, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
exiting and life safety exiting; the Cineplex entrance will be used
to meet ADA requirements; there are two methods for repaying the
$2.8 million loan in the DDA; $1. 4 million will begin to be repaid
in the seventh year after the developer's FF&E financing would be
retired; the other $1.4 million will be paid in a percentage rent,
which is 17% of the project gross above a certain threshold; DDA
provisions preclude the developer from selling or refinancing
without paying off the loans; the historic theater retail rental
income will be retained by the CIC; the developer has the option to
purchase the the historic theater and the land under the Cineplex
from the CIC after successfully operating for five years; the
developer would have to buy both the historic theater and Cineplex
land; the purchase price would be the amount that the CIC paid.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that there is a lot of concern over the
assumptions about ticket sales; the developer has to sell tickets
to meet his obligations to bankers and the CIC; the concern is that
not enough tickets will be sold and that the project will fail;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,12,"requested staff to address said assumptions.
The Development Services Director stated the assumptions are
extremely conservative; staff assumed the project would gross
approximately $2 million per year in ticket sales and another
$900,000 to $1 million in concessions, for a total of $3 million;
the financial analysis has determined that the project obligations
to the CIC would be met at the achievement of said $3 million; the
percentage rent is based on the business producing $3 million; the
assumption is that 60-65% of the Alameda market will be captured
the Bay Area is an anomaly with respect to theater-going trends;
Bay Area theater attendance is almost twice the national average ;
theaters in the area are doing twice the amount of business that
staff estimated per screen; staff also wanted to ensure that the
project has enough revenue to maintain the facilities; DDA
provisions require that the buildings need be operated in a certain
manner.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the square foot rent would be
for the historic theater.
The Development Services Director responded staff would have to
calculate the amount; the rent has been $2,000 per month for the
past few years.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what is the square footage of the
historic theater, to which the Development Services Director
responded that the entire building is 33,000 square feet, which
includes space that would not be used.
Mayor Johnson requested an overview of the current condition of the
historic theater and the status of the acquisition.
The Development Services Director responded the Council took action
to begin the eminent domain process late last spring; the building
estimate, based on an appraisal, was deposited with the courts; the
owner has picked up the deposit and advised the court that he would
not contest the sale and is only interested in the value; the value
will now be established through the eminent domain processi the
City will take possession of the theater on October 3 or 4; the
City has worked with the owner to gain access to the building and
begin work, such as investigation of the ground water problem in
the basement.
Mayor Johnson noted that the building has been used as a skating
rink, disco, roller rink and gymnastics auditorium.
The Development Services Director stated that the City has been
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,13,"working with the Architectural Resources Group (ARG) to assess the
building; ARG has worked with engineers and other specialists to
determine what needs to be done to bring the building up to code
and to repair, reverse and restore some of the damage that has been
done; a lot of seismic work has to be done, such as reinforcing the
concrete façade marquee area that is only held up by four redwood
posts; fire sprinklers have to be installed; the electrical and
plumbing work has to be redone the water in the basement is a
combination of a leak from a storm drain as well as ground water
intrusion.
The Development Manager stated that the lobby carpet was replaced;
the mezzanine carpet is torn; the lobby mirror, mezzanine mural,
and light fixtures have been removed; the curtain has suffered
water damage; the floor of the auditorium has been built up buffer
walls have been installed along side walls; holes were made in the
auditorium ceiling for lighting; there is significant water damage
along the alley due to a storm drain.
Councilmember deHaan stated the retail revenue would be received
from the historic theater; inquired whether retail revenue would be
received from the Cineplex.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative. stated
that the developer is building the Cineplex with his own financing
and would receive the rents from his own retail space.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the rent revenue was
significant to the developer to make the project work.
The Development Services Director responded that the funding is
part of the picture; the Cineplex retail is only 3,400 square feet.
The Business Development Division Manager stated the revenue from
the retail space counts toward the percentage rent the developer
will pay.
Councilmember deHaan stated one of the seven auditoriums in the new
Cineplex has 78 seats; the historic theater balcony accommodated
150 seats; inquired what is the concern with renovating the
balcony.
The Development Services Director responded that the DDA allows the
developer to use the balcony at a later point at his own expense if
he chooses; the spaces are not soundproof, provide 62-64 seats each
and would be used to show boutique films.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Cineplex building could
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,14,"be downsized if one of the theaters and some retail were removed
stated that he is concerned with protrusions going in all different
directions; inquired whether the footprint could be reduced.
The Development Services Director responded the buildings are
linked; eliminating a theater from the Cineplex top level would
impact the value of what remains and the project's ability to
support the additional cost of going to a second floor; some of the
value supports the construction cost.
Councilmember deHaan stated protrusions usually cost more money
removing the 79-seat theater would allow the building to be brought
back; review of other options would allow reduction of mass; that
he has concerns about design.
Kyle Conner, Project Developer, stated more screens are needed, not
less; eliminating a screen on the second level of the Cineplex
would leave only nine screens; that he would like to have more than
ten screens; that he would have a problem with reducing the number
of screens.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Conner's plan would be to go
forward with the balcony eventually, to which Mr. Conner responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the $72,000 in rent for the
historic theater equals per square foot.
Mr. Conner responded the ground floor is approximately 19,000
square feet, including retail; the cinema would be approximately
15,000 square feet.
Councilmember Daysog stated that movie theater square footage
comparisons are a way to gauge whether the rent is appropriate.
Mr. Conner stated debt service for construction should be
considered as rent because he has a ground lease and does not own
the property; rent would be approximately $1.30 per square foot
when considering all of the components to service the debt and rent
for the facility.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the figure would be if debt
service were not considered, to which Mr. Conner responded $0.40
per square foot.
The Development Services Director stated that the rent is based on
revenues.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,15,"Councilmember deHaan inquired how many seats the historic theater
had on the main floor, to which the Development Manager responded
2,000 seats.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many seats would be accommodated
now, to which the Development Manager responded 484 seats.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether all the space would be
utilized.
Mr. Conner responded old seats were spaced 32 inches apart; new
seats will be spaced 45 inches apart.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 484 seats would utilize
all the space.
Mr. Conner responded in the affirmative; noted old seating areas
underneath the balcony would be used for offices and concessions.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the historic theater lobby
area would be adequate for a concession stand, to which Mr. Conner
responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether rent was compared with other
cities or facilities.
Mr. Kelly responded one integrated business is being run in two
buildings rent was run against total gross and was around 15%; the
calculations were run on gross, rather than per square foot; the
rent is based upon the estimated volume of business.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the industry reviews rents on
a square-foot basis.
Mr. Kelly responded typical rent would be $1.35 to $1.85 per square
foot in a suburban area; Alameda's situation is unique; the rent
was based on estimated gross sales to be fair to both sides.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there was a blended figure
for both the new Cineplex and the historic theater, to which Mr.
Kelly responded that the developer is building the Cineplex
building.
Mayor Johnson stated one of the project goals was to save the
historic theater; theaters built today are not like the historic
theater ; the developer is taking on a lot of space that would not
be taken on for a modern theater; the project would be a lot easier
if preserving the historic theater were not a goal; there are
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,16,"obstacles in determining how to go forward with the project and
save the historic theater at the same time.
Mr. Kelly stated the historic theater costs over $9 million for 484
seats; $9 million is enough money to build a 12-plex.
Mayor Johnson stated eight years ago, the Council gave direction to
staff to develop a project that would save the Alameda Theater and
have it used for first run movies.
Mr. Conner stated the percentage rent structure was designed to
help protect the downside and have everyone share in the upside ;
the City shares significantly [in the upside ] more than any other
deal; the amount is three to four times what an average percentage
rent would be in any commercial theater in a suburban setting.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City's share of the
percentage rent in net present value terms over 20 to 30 years is
$190,000.
Mr. Kelly responded an aggressive assumption that the theater will
get 100% of the Alameda market would mean the City will have some
significant percentage rents; if the theater does very well, the
City will receive 15 to 17%, will share in that [profit] and
receive what is believed to be a fair rent.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether 15 to 17% was based on gross or net,
to which Mr. Kelly responded gross, including concessions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated everyone seems to agree that the historic
theater should be restored and preserved; the money being spent to
restore the theater could build a 12-plex; money is being put into
the historic theater because it almost becomes a public amenity; a
public amenity is not expected to make a return; the new Library is
not expected to make a return.
Councilmember Daysog noted residents voted for the new Library.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the community has clearly expressed that
restoration and preservation of the historic theater is valuable:
the high cost of rehabilitating the theater makes a financially
neutral project difficult; opinions about the rest of the project
differ restoring the theater does not come cheaply.
Mayor Johnson stated there have been on-going attempts to install
parking in the Park Street area since the 1970 s; there was effort
to save the theater in the 1980's; the project will not solve all
parking problems on Park Street; Webster Street potential parking
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,17,"problems need to be reviewed; the City has the opportunity to move
forward with the project; the developer is willing; financing is
available; there have been years of public study; that she has not
come across one person in Alameda who has said do not bother saving
the historic theater; saving the historic theater is not easy; no
one has attempted to run the theater for 25 years; that she is
trying to do what she believes is best for Alameda in the long
term.
Councilmember deHaan questioned whether adding a multiplex cinema
to the historic theater makes the project economically viable
stated that he is concerned about the movie marketplace. a minimum
of 15 screens seems necessary to make money; seven screens
definitely will not make money that he is emphatic about getting
parking on Park Street; the theater should not overtake the benefit
of having a parking structure; the [Cineplex] design is ugly; the
trouble is placing the structure on a small parcel; there is not
enough money for the project.
Mayor Johnson stated the project would be easier to manage
financially if one of the goals was not saving the historic
theater.
Councilmember Matarrese stated one reason for the [financial]
shortfall is because the City is paying for assets that will be
acquired, such as the parking structure and theater evidence
supports the financial feasibility of the project; requested an
explanation of the Planning Board action, including what approval
meant and what changes were made; requested the architect to
explain the basis of the design.
Rob Henry, The Henry Architects, stated that he inherited the
project after Michael Stanton Architectural firm designed the
building, which gave direction as to the massing of the building ;
that he tried to include scale, texture and materials that would be
compatible and advantageous to the downtown atmosphere; the project
was very difficult; the building's constraints cannot be ignored
the building has to have certain proportions in order to be a
successful theater design, which have led to difficult solution
with the building overhangs; that he has tried to cooperate with
the Design Review Board, the Planning Department, and the Planning
Board to address all concerns; the Planning Board placed a couple
of conditions on the design; one condition was to add some
additional texture to the panels on the corner of the building;
many options were studied; the decision was made to enhance the
context of the design, rather than introducing something totally
foreign to the basic design of the building; the established design
for the panels around the corner of the building was carried into
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,18,"more detail to provide a greater sense of continuity for the
overall design.
The Development Services Director stated there was a fairly long
pre-design discussion; first, the interiors and the project that
the developer wanted to build were done by Mr. Henry and given to
Michael Stanton who assisted through the design guideline process
and the public process; then, the Historical Advisory Board and
Planning Board established the design criteria addressing the
issues that the community thought were important; the criteria was
provided to the Architect, which were used as the basis for
beginning the project.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Cineplex and parking
garage should have continuity of design; stated that he would like
the buildings to fit together currently, the two buildings stand
alone.
Mr. Henry responded the Cineplex and parking garage are two
different buildings with different functions; applying one design
to one type of building and expecting that design to apply to
another type building is difficult; the design comes out of the
internal organization, function and requirements of the project;
there is some relationship between the parking garage and Cineplex,
which was done purposely with vertical columns; the garage does
have a horizontal emphasis, which has been incorporated into the
Cineplex design to tie the buildings together; the essence of the
buildings is similar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Henry stated that he is
attempting to relate the horizontal elements of the parking
structure to the Cineplex, in spite of the historic theater having
mostly vertical elements.
Mr. Henry responded in the affirmative; stated architects debate
whether or not a new building built in a historic context should be
built to look like the historic building or be something of its own
character both sides have pros and cons.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the State guidelines
prohibit imitation of a historic building.
The Development Services Director responded that the Secretary of
Standards prohibits mimicking or creating a building that would
give the false impression that it was built in 1920 instead of
2005; the Secretary of Standards encourages incorporating historic
features and elements into the design.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,19,"Counci deHaan inquired whether or not rounding off the
corner would be considered mimicking.
The Development Services Director responded rounding off would not
be mimicking; stated mimicking would be trying to make people
believe the building is art deco.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Cineplex and parking structure
corners could be smoothed; where the Cineplex steps back from the
historic theater there are funny, square windows.
The Development Services Director stated that she met with AAPS
last week; AAPS feels strongly about the need for a much stronger
vertical element; at a number of different public meetings
addressing design, people liked the glass lobby element.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about the long, 20
to 21 inch, protrusions, which do not match the downtown district
and result in an awkward mass; that he would be happy if the
project was one-story; however, more screens are needed to make the
project financially feasible.
Councilmember Daysog thanked everyone for taking the time to voice
opinions; stated that the Council would vote on the appeal of the
Planning Board's decision regarding the project design and other
design related elements tonight that he is troubled by the
business deal aspects of the project and continues to struggle over
what constitutes the proper balance between fulfilling an earnest
desire for a historic movie theater that the community could be
proud of and the wise and prudent use of public dollars; that he is
also troubled by the fact that the cinema project is a negative $7
million and the new information tonight regarding the $0.40 per
square foot [rent] when market is $1.35; that the Council has a
fiduciary responsibility to exercise leadership when the public's
appetite for amenities conflicts with fiscal prudence; that he
understands the desire to restore the historic theater and that
some people want the Cineplex; however, he is struggling with the
rent; $0.40 per square foot is one-third of the market rate.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the $1.35 market rate is
for commercial space or theater space, to which the Development
Services Director responded the rate is for brand new theater
space.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether data on other historic
theaters, such as the Fox Theater in Oakland, was available.
The Development Services Director responded that the Fox Theater is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,20,"non-profit.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the comparison [of rent with brand
new theater ] is not fair.
Councilmember Daysog stated that there is a fair comparison because
people are going to walk into what amounts to a brand new
historically restored theater.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the building being historically
restored makes a difference.
Councilmember Daysog stated the historic restoration of the theater
is on the City's dime.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City would own the building.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City should charge a rent that is
at least as close to fair market as possible.
The Development Services Director stated that the developer would
be happy to lease at $1.35 per square foot if the City wanted to
build the cinemas.
Councilmember deHaan stated the impact of the project on the
downtown district is the real drive; that he cannot place a dollar
figure on how the project will improve the environment and make the
area more viable; catalyst projects are built to make things
happen; Park Street has a new vitality in spite of the City; John
Knowles was honored tonight; without real public funding, Mr.
Knowles set a standard of small, unique stores; 70% of the
merchants in stores ten years are gone because the City did not set
up an environment to retain businesses.
Councilmember Matarrese stated John Knowles project was not done in
spite of the City and with no public dollars because the
Redevelopment Manager's time was paid by the City's redevelopment
agency part of the project's value is that the City is getting
first run movies for $0.40 per square foot and people will spend
money in town, rather than elsewhere.
Councilmember Daysog stated that said value could also be realized
at $1.10 per square foot.
Councilmember Matarrese stated financial questions are outside
whether or not the Council should uphold the Planning Board's
decision, which is about design.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,21,"Mayor Johnson stated the rent is a percentage, not a straight $0.40
per square foot.
Valerie Ruma, Appellant, stated the Council is not reviewing the
environmental aspect, such as traffic; an environmental impact
report is required by the law before the project can go forward.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires either a negative
declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ; a letter from the
Appellant's attorney raised an issue that an EIR would have been
required if a fair argument was raised at the time the negative
declaration was initially adopted; the mitigated negative
declaration was adopted in May; pursuant to CEQA, the mitigated
negative declaration is presumed, by law, to be adequate if not
challenged within thirty days of approval; the mitigated negative
declaration was not challenged.
Ms. Ruma stated that the City Attorney's office provided
contradictory information that there was no specific appeal process
and the appeal tonight could be in written or oral form.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the substance of the design
review could be appealed but that the environmental review is not
being addressed tonight.
Mayor Johnson requested that the Assistant City Attorney discuss
the matter with Ms. Ruma.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the parking structure is a design/build
project; a picture was shown which was very similar to the proposed
design, except that the picture seemed more vertical with narrower
opening; inquired whether narrow openings would be an issue from a
construction standpoint.
The Development Services Director responded that she could not
answer whether the openings could be made smaller there are a
number of structural issues relative to the parking garage because
of other design achievements, such as the least amount of columns
possible inside the interior garage to provide maximum safety and
view; the design is contemplated to carry a lot of load on the
outside walls; that she would obtain an answer and provide the
information to Council.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there could be some type of
movement on the long, bare sidewall of the parking garage to give
it a feel other than just a flat wall.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,22,"The Development Services Director responded the wall would be built
on the property line; that she does not have the answer since the
structural piece has not been completed; a process has been started
to provide artists with an opportunity to prepare an attachable
mural.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the flat wall on the historical
theater has treatment and movement; although the theater cannot be
replicated, movement can be done.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the picture shows a wall with four
ins and outs.
The Development Services Director stated there is some
articulation.
The Business Development Division Manager stated that the picture
presented would not be the final design; the City has a public art
policy; the Public Arts Commission received five proposals from
local artists to create a design based on the adopted policy.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of accepting the appeal.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Daysog's motion
was to reverse the decision of the Planning Board.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
THE MOTION FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers
Daysog and deHaan - 2. Noes: Vice Mayor Gilmore, Councilmember
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 3.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he looked at the Planning
Board's decision and the findings on both the Use Permit and Design
Review; he has difficulty with the subjectivity of what is
harmonious in design experts have discussed vertical and
horizontal elements; there are constraints with mimicking the
historic theater; the project is a good attempt to meet the goals
to use the historic theater for first run movies and provide
parking in an unobtrusive wayi inquired whether the Council could
attach conditions.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the conditions that he would like to
see included in the motion to uphold the Planning Board's decision
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,23,"are a condition to have the façade treatment on the Oak Street
portion of the parking structure provide vertical elements similar
to the ones presented by AAPS and a condition to have the treatment
of the Central Avenue façade of the Cineplex provide a less modern
treatment of the window in between the historic theater and the
corner portion of the Cineplex second-story view spot that is
curved outwards.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated AAPS presented two pictures.
Mayor Johnson requested that the picture be shown.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the picture he was referring to was
not the garage in Staunton, Virginia.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the picture was of the garage with
openings.
The Business Development Division Manager stated the picture is of
a garage in Walnut Creek and displayed the picture.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council direction was to have
the [Cineplex] architecture be less modern than original
renderings.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese
referring to ""less modern"" applies to the overhang that is on the
front of the Cineplex.
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated that
he was referring to the glass lobby that is curved.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese had any
direction in defining less modern.
Councilmember Matarrese responded squared off with some sloping
treatments; however, he is not an architect. the direction should
be general : the architect should come back with something less
modern for that window specifically and the architect should
understand the idea for the parking structure from the picture.
Mayor Johnson requested that the colors be more compatible; further
requested staff to review the possibility of having the ticket
booth out in front to make the historic theater look like it used
to look; stated the booth would not have to be useable.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,24,"Counci lmember Matarrese moved approval [of upholding the Planning
Board decision with the conditions outlined].
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would not
support the motion because he is concerned about the business deal;
charging rent of $0.40 per square foot gets the City $3 million;
charging rent of $0.80 per square foot would greatly increase the
amount and is still below the $1.35 per square foot market figure.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the current colors of the historic
theater are the original colors.
The Development Manager responded the original colors are not
known; however, the original colors were light.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about putting too
much on a small parcel; that he would like to see downscaling to
bring the project into some proportion; since downscaling is not
occurring, he would not support the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson -
3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan - 2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-409) Michael Robinson, San Francisco Bay Resort Club,
submitted a letter to the Council; stated that he has been working
with Fish and Wild Life, the Veterans Administration, and the
Veterans Community Resource Federation (VCRF) to create a plan for
Alameda Point that provides for the needs of said entities;
requested the cooperation of City staff in submitting the resort
plans as part of the upcoming environmental review.
(05-410) Pete Clark stated the development of Alameda Point would
include transit opportunities.
(05-411) Connie J. Rozenkowski, VCRF, stated that there is a
proposed plan to convert the Bachelors' Enlisted Quarters at the
former Navy Base into a cultural center that would provide programs
for veterans, low income families, college students, and foster
care children leaving the foster care system; the programs would be
funded by the resort development.
(05-412) - Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed development.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,25,"(05-413) The following speakers addressed the Theater Parking
Structure Public Hearing : Valerie Ruma, Citizens for Megaplex Free
Alameda; Ani Dimusheve, Alameda; Jan Schaeffer, Alameda; Rosemary
McNally, Alameda; Robb Ratto, PSBA; and Jay Levine, Alameda.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05 -414) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Civil Service Board, Economic Development Commission, Golf
Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code
Hearing and Appeals Board, and Recreation and Park Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft and Robert F. Kelley
to the Economic Development Commission and Anthony M. Santare to
the Golf Commission.
(05-415) Councilmember deHaan stated that he received an
announcement for a Krusi Park Open House regarding an application
by Cingular Wireless to install a new wireless cell site at the
Krusi Park tennis courts; the announcement states that Cingular
does not own the existing site.
Mayor Johnson inquired who was sponsoring the Open House, to which
Councilmember deHann responded the Development Services Department.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he thought that Cingular developed
the first cell towers at Krusi Park.
The Business Development Division Manager stated that she would
investigate the matter.
(05-416) - Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Harbor Bay Ferry
has exceeded the 40% fare box for July; stated that advertisement
needs to continue; alternate fuel buying options may need to be
considered in the future.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 2:40 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,26,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -AUGUST 16, 2005- - -6:10 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-395) Conference with Labor Negotiator - Agency Negotiator
:
Arthur Hartinger of Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson;
Employee: City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the City
Attorney and no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,27,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMEN'T COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - -AUGUST 16, 2005 - -6:45 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-039) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property:
Fleet Industrial Supply Center; Negotiating parties : Catellus
Limited Operating Partnership and Community Improvement Commissioni
Under negotiation: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission gave direction to
Real Property Negotiators and no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,28,"MINUTES
OF
THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - -AUGUST 16, 2005 - -7:35 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 2:40 a.m., August 17,
2005.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chair Johnson announced that the Resolution Authorizing the
Executive Director to Execute a Fourth Amendment to the DDA
[paragraph no. 05-042] was removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
( Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting,
and the Special CIC Meeting of August 2, 2005. Approved.
(*05-041) Recommendation to approve a Contract with Cooper Pugeda
Management, Inc. ./The Allen Group, LLC for Construction Management
Services for rehabilitation of the Historic Alameda Theater Project
and proposed Civic Center Parking Garage for $1,114,436. Accepted.
(05-042) Resolution No. 05-138, ""Authorizing the Executive
Director to Execute a Fourth Amendment to the Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA) by and Between the Community
Improvement Commission and Catellus Limited Operating Partnership
(Developer) Which Would Extend the Expiration Term by One Year From
June 2007 to June 2008 in Order to Allow the Developer to Explore a
Change from Commercial Office/Research and Development Land to a
Mixed-Use Retail/Residential Land Use at the Former U.S. Navy Fleet
Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Property. Adopted.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether adoption of the resolution
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
1
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,29,"would allow Catellus to explore a change in the current DDA.
The Development Services Director responded that the amendment
would allow Catellus to explore re-entitlement of the existing
property.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether there would be a public
process that would allow people to comment, to which the
Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that he wanted people to be aware
that the matter would be publicly noticed and that Catellus would
be given a year to provide more information.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions Commissioner deHaan
- 1.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 2:45 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
2
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf