body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - MARCH 21, 2006 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at
9:05 p.m. ]
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-138) - Presentation by Rear Admiral Kevin Eldridge, U.S. Coast
Guard District 11, recognizing the City of Alameda for becoming a
Coast Guard City.
Rear Admiral Kevin Eldridge gave a brief presentation, read a
statement from the Commandant, and read and presented the
proclamation.
Mayor Johnson presented Alameda flags to Rear Admiral Eldridge.
Barbara Price, Navy League, thanked everyone involved in the two-
year process.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember deHaan noted the Fernside Boulevard pedestrian access
improvements [paragraph no. 06-144] are a part of a phasing
processi Lincoln Middle School improved a portion of the parking
lot; additional improvements would take care of the front area of
the school; the City would be requesting additional grants.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1. ]
[Note: Recommendation to accept the work of Richard Heaps Electric
[paragraph no. 06-143] was reopened and addressed at the end of the
meeting. . ]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,2,"[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( *06-139) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on March 7, 2006. Approved.
(*06-140) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,993,920.94.
( *06-141) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call
for Bids for furnishings in the New Main Library. Accepted.
(*06-142) Recommendation to release Request for Proposal for
network equipment and services for the Alameda Free Library.
Accepted.
(*06-143) Recommendation to accept the work of Richard Heaps
Electric, Inc. for the Pole-Mounted Radar Speed Display Signs
Project, No. P. W. 06-05-05. Accepted.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to review areas for additional sign
locations; stated the speed signs are a preventative measure.
The City Manager stated that the Pubic Works Department is working
with the Police Department on some type of monitoring that would
measure the signs' effectiveness.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether speeds could be monitored
mechanically; inquired how much the signs cost.
Councilmember deHaan responded the costs are noted in the ledger.
Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated he hopes that more signs are
installed; the pedestrian right-of-way enforcement works; more
education is needed.
Mayor Johnson stated the area is safer if signs help to reduce
speed.
(*06-144) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Fernside Boulevard pedestrian access
improvements near Lincoln Middle School (Safe Routes to School)
,
No. P.W. 11-02-15. Accepted.
(*06-145) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 repair of
Portland Cement concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway and minor
street patching, No. P. W. 03-06-06. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,3,"(*06-146) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for installation of rubberized sidewalks,
No. P. W. 02-06-05. Accepted; and
*06-146A) Resolution No. 13935, ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase
Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for Rubberized
Sidewalks. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-147 ) Ordinance No. 2947, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding a New Subsection 30-5.7 (M) (Extensions of Roof Pitch and
Roof Ridges) to Section 30-5.7 (Projections from Buildings and Roof
Planes, Permitted Encroachments and Treatments of Minimum Required
Yards) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Add a Process
for Allowing Additions to Existing Dwellings with Nonconforming
Height. Finally passed.
Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that the ordinance
recognizes the work of the Task Force.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4. [Absent: louncilmember Daysog - 1.
]
(06-148) - Public Hearing to consider Zoning Amendment R 05-0002 to
add a Planned Development overlay to a property located within the
R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District and to consider
Parcel Map, PM 06-0001, to allow the division of an existing 14,602
square foot residential lot into two parcels, each with an existing
detached duplex. The project site is located at 1810 and 1812
Clinton Avenue;
(06-148A) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning
Certain Property Within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning
Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., from R-4 (Neighborhood Residential)
Zoning District to R-4-PD (Neighborhood Residential Planned
Development) Zoning District for that Property Located at 1810 and
1812 Clinton Avenue. Introduced; and
(06-148B) Resolution No. 19336, ""Approving Parcel Map PM 06-0001 to
Allow the Division of a 14,602 Square Foot Parcel into Two Lots at
1810/1812 Clinton Avenue. "" Adopted.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,4,"Alameda City Council
4
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,5,"Councilmember deHaan stated the vacated Economic Development
Commission position would allow a person to serve a three and a
half year term and then two more terms.
Mayor Johnson stated she would not want to appoint someone for a
three and a half year term and then two four-year terms stated
some positions are covered by commission By-laws and some are set
by the Charter.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he hopes the Council would have a
chance to review the Film Commission applications and provide some
recommendations.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would be happy to receive input from
the Council; the City Clerk's office has all of the applications on
file for review.
Councilmember Daysog noted that he has never missed a regular
Tuesday night City Council Meeting.
Mayor Johnson congratulated ouncilmember Daysog on an impressive
attendance record.
Mayor Johnson nominated Arthur A. Autorino to the Economic
Development Commission and Irene Balde to the Housing Commission
stated that the Film Commission nominations would be held over.
(06-150) Councilmember Matarrese requested that the next Library
Project update or an Off Agenda Report address treatment to be used
along the edge of the Library parking lot.
(06-151) Councilmember Matarrese requested a review of potential
ride share locations at the Webster Street outbound tube; requested
the review be accelerated due to Enterprise Landing [Catellus
project] stated ride share could be potential mitigation for
anything [development] west of Webster Street addressing the
matter could include fixing flooding that occurs.
( (06-152) Councilmember deHaan stated there has been increased
criminal activity at the Alameda Town Centre; a police officer was
sponsored two years ago; he would like to revisit the issue to
ensure an orderly build out.
(06-153
-
)
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Alameda Town Centre
Walgreen's would be open 24 hours; requested information on whether
a permit was issued for the 24-hour operation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,6,"(06-154) - Councilmember deHaan stated that the sidewalk on the Park
Street side of the Alameda Towne Centre was only three feet; five
feet would be more appropriate.
(06-155) Councilmember deHaan stated that he attended AC Transit's
hydrogen fuel cell demonstration on March 13; the bus has already
been operating in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson noted that the bus seems to be very quiet.
(06-156) Mayor Johnson inquired whether anyone attended the AP&T
electric partnership groundbreaking.
Councilmember deHaan responded that he attended; stated the
environment would be impacted if the gas was not captured.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:15 p.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
6
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,7,"MINUTE OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -MARCH 21, 2006- -5:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:40 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:
(06-135 ) Conference with Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director. Employee Organization :
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
Al Fortier, Journey Lineworker, Local 1245, stated he was concerned
with the lack of progress made negotiations have been going on
since December 2004; one tentative agreement was reached and was
rejected by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(IBEW) ; two meetings have been held since January 26 for a total of
four hours; strike sanction has been granted by the local union,
the Alameda Central Labor Council and the International Office of
IBEW; a table agreement would be in the best interest of the City
and IBEW; requested that the Council give the City's negotiating
team the direction necessary to provide an acceptable table
agreement.
Gary Fenton, Journey Lineworker, Local 1245, stated he has been in
the electrical trade for thirty years; IBEW is asking for a fair
contract; IBEW's wages and medical benefits did not put the City in
the current financial position.
(06-136) Conference with Property Negotiator; Property : Ballena
Isle Marina; Negotiating parties City of Alameda and Ballena Isle
Marina LLP; Under negotiation: Price and terms.
(06-137) Public Employee Performance Evaluation. Title: City
Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Labor
Negotiators, the Council obtained briefing and gave instructions to
labor negotiators; regarding Conference with Property Negotiator,
the Council obtained briefing and gave instructions to real
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,8,"property negotiator; regarding Public Employee Performance
Evaluation, the Council discussed the City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 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
2
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,9,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 21, 2006- -7:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 8:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : louncilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, and Mayor/Chair Johnson
- 5. [Note: Councilmember/Commissioner
Daysog arrived at 9:05 p.m. ]
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(06-157CC/06-009CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on March 7, 2006.
Approved.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.
Councilmember/Commissione deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried
by
unanimous
voice
vote
-
4.
[Absent:
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog - 1. ]
AGENDA ITEM
(06-158CC/06-010CIC) Recommendation to review Section 106 Findings
and approve revised designs of the 350-space parking garage and
Cineplex at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue within the
C-C T Community Commercial Theater) zoning district;
(06-158A/CC) Resolution No. 13937, ""Approving Amended Final Designs
for Design Review DR05-0041 for the Proposed Cineplex at 2305
Central Avenue and DR05-0028 for the Proposed Parking Garage at
1416 Oak Street. Adopted;
(06-158B/CC) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for the Rehabilitation of the Historic
Alameda Theatre; and
(06-158C/CC)
Recommendation to adopt Conceptual Plans and
Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for Design-Build of the
Civic Center Parking Garage, CIP No. 90-19.
The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation.
The Architect gave a brief presentation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
1
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,10,"The Development Services Director continued her presentation.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the 15%
contingency for the historic theater and the 9 and a half percent
contingency for the parking structure are included in the budget,
to which the Development Services Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.
Proponents (In favor of staff recommendations) : Pauline Kelley,
Alameda Kevis Brownson, Alameda (submitted petition) ; Harvey
Brook, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) ; Barbara Mooney,
Alameda; Lars Hansson, PSBA; Mary Amen, PSBA; Harry Dahlberg,
Economic Development Commission; Ed Clark, West Alameda Business
Association; Debbie George, Alameda; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft,
Alameda; Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce (read list of 11
names) ; Robb Ratto, PSBA ( submitted comments) ; Walt Jacobs, Alameda
Chamber of Commerce; Charles Carlise; Alameda; Norma Payton
Henning, Alameda.
Opponents (Not in favor of staff recommendations) : Joe Maylor,
Alameda (submitted comments) ; Susan Battaglia, Alameda; Deborah
Overfield, Alameda; Valerie Ruma, Alameda (submitted comments) ; Ani
Dimusheva, Alameda; Scott Brady, Alameda; Nancy Hird, Alameda;
Denise Brady, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society Robert
Gavrich, Alameda; Michael Kelly, Alameda; Eric Scheuermann,
Alameda; Irene Dieter, Alameda Vern Marsh, Alameda Anders Lee,
Alameda ( submitted comments) ; David Kirwin, Oakland (submitted
comments) i Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Paula Rainey, Alameda; Jon
Spangler, Alameda; Patricia Gannon, Alameda; Kevin Frederick,
Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the
public portion of the meeting.
***
Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 9:37 p.m. and reconvened the
Special Joint Meeting at 9:43 p.m.
***
The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation in
response to public comments.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested clarification on the
General Plan requirement for a Civic Center specific plan; inquired
whether a scale model could be produced.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,11,"The Development Services Director responded that a number of
printed articles have suggested that the City has not responded to
the General Plan requirement for a Civic Center specific plan;
stated the Planning Board extensively discussed the matter.
The Supervising Planner stated the General Plan had a policy for a
specific Civic Center plan; the General Plan was adopted in 1991 to
in vogue specific plans which have associated financing mechanisms ;
the Civic Center plan was not mandatory.
The Development Services Director stated that the General Plan also
has a number of great ideas such as building affordable housing and
buying Estuary Park; a prioritization process goes along with the
General Plan; stated a massing model was done initially to address
size and scale; a model would cost between $16,000 to $18,000. a
model would take four to six months to prepare; the budget has
escalated 3% since November 2004.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether four to six
months was a reasonable amount of time to prepare a model.
The Development Services Director responded a site and building
model would take about four to six months; stated a survey would be
needed; an expanded area model would take two to three times more.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what was the date of the
marketing study.
The Development Services Director responded all decisions have been
based upon the economic analyses completed within the last year.
ncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated discussions have suggested
that the market has changed.
The Development Services Director stated updates have been made
regarding the competition; the Jack London Cinema is at capacity.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated he understood that the
marketing study and subsequent economic development profile
indicated that Oakland was considering adding more screens  he was
not sure whether the marketing study addressed the issue.
The Development Services Director responded the marketing study did
not set numbers for Jack London or speculate what additional
screens would do to the market; Oakland's expansion was
undetermined.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
3
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,12,"Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated expansion was iffy at
best.
The Development Services Director stated Alameda has a very close,
local market that would continue to draw patrons because of
convenience and appeal. the business district and Alameda Theater
are catalytic and create a draw.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the community looks
forward to having movies in Alameda; the Jack London area is not
the best environment; stated the 20-inch overhand had been a
concern; inquired how the 20-inch overhand was corrected.
The Development Services Director responded five inches were gained
because the owner was able to utilize different speakers with
different dimensions; additional inches were captured throughout
the theater.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that it appeared that
inches were captured in the stair structure.
The
Development
Services
Director
concurred
with
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated most of the computer -
assisted drawings were taken from a certain distance; inquired
whether scale drawings could be provided from an up-close, upward
angle.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore thanked everyone for continuing to
come out to support their position; discussions have been decisive
and helpful; the historic theater closed over twenty years agoi
restoring the theater was intimately tied to going to a theater in
Alameda; changes in the theater industry have been discussed; a USA
Today article noted that theater owners are not worried about which
way the industry would goi preserving the historic theater does not
make sense if there was a possibility that the theater industry
would not be successful in the future; discussions have addressed
single screens not being economically feasible because of
maintenance and operation costs; 80% of ticket revenue goes to the
studios when a film initially comes out the percentage is higher
with certain blockbusters; theater operators do not make a lot of
money from ticket sales in the first couple of weeks that the
movies are out; more screens are needed to rotate movies around;
questioned saving the theater if the historic fabric is not
preserved and the theater industry is not viable; movies have not
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
4
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,13,"been shown at the historic theater for over twenty years; the
marketplace has not created an economical reuse of the historic
theater; the building is beautiful and should be saved; she would
not vote to save the theater at any price; she is concerned with
how costs have escalated.
ouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated a quantum step has been
made in the design; concerns have been expressed regarding the Oak
Street traffic elements; stated two incoming lanes should be
reviewed; roll-up doors are on the Oak Street side adjacent to the
parking structure; he would like to review alternatives; commended
the Historical Advisory Board and Architectural Preservation
Society for working to make the design better; input has resulted
in a majority of the architectural changes but does not mean that
the mass and sizing were proper or acceptable; pricing is a
concern.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what happens if the bids
are too high.
The Development Services Director responded all bids could be
rejected; precautions have been made to pre-qualify bidders.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated value engineering was
performed on the Library project; inquired whether value
engineering could be done on the theater project.
The Development Services Director responded the historic theater
has been value engineered; $1.8 million would be financed by the
developer for the Furniture Fixtures and Equipment a larger
contingency [15%] was carried because historic renovations tend to
have surprises; the contingency could be lowered when construction
estimates are complete; value engineering would involve the most
historically significant features to be restored; 70% of the hard
construction budget is in systems.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what was the current cost for the
historic theater, to which the Development Services Director
responded $12.849 million.
Councilmember/Commissioner
Matarrese
stated
the
staff
recommendation has three elements 1) Review of the Section 106
findings, 2) adoption of a resolution [final design], and 3)
adoption of plans and specifications for bidding out the historic
theater and parking structure; general consensus was that the
current design is much better than before and is a credit to the
architect and individuals who provided comments; the bidding
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
5
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,14,"process would provide the key on whether or not to save the
historic theater at any cost; starting now is critical; he would
like to see the project go out to bid; another evaluation would be
necessary once the bid results are received; he does not believe
the size would affect the character of the City because the people
are the character; Park Street has blossomed by bringing in
Starbuck's Coffee and Peet's Coffee; stated he was ready to move
forward.
The Development Services Director clarified that the previously
mentioned $12.849 million figure for the historic theater]
includes acquisition, relocation and contingencies; the
rehabilitation is estimated at $7.3 million.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that tonight's meeting
addressees design and the bidding process the financial aspects of
the project continue to trouble him; Alameda will collect 30 to 40
cents per-square foot on the historic theater, which is
substantially below the $1.50 per-square foot market rate for new
theater space; he remains convinced that the City should be
collecting a rent significantly north of 40 cents per- square foot
and somewhere south of $1.50 per-square foot to ensure that the
project is financially beneficial to both the City and the
developer; the difference between 40 cents per-square foot and
$1.50 per-square foot may seem trivial but equates to millions of
dollars that Alameda would be loosing over many years;
rehabilitation costs have increased by 30% with strong prospects of
increased costs once rehabilitation commences. the City should be
collecting a rent commensurate with the project risks; the need for
a better deal with the developer is underscored by the fact that
both a consultant and City staff agreed that local residents would
buy movie tickets in droves; the Central Cinema proves the demand
analysis to be correct; both the developer and the City should be
sharing in the anticipated strong demand for movie tickets and
concessions; the historic downtown area should be revived by
refurbishing the old theater within the dictates of financial
prudence and reason.
Mayor/Chair Johnson requested clarification on the rental rate for
the historic theater.
The Development Services Director responded that the historic
theater differs from new theater space; the overhead, maintenance,
and lease requirements are quite extraordinary; the lease
requirements for maintenance are very strict; the Grand Lake
Theater's rent structure is almost identical to Alameda's with the
exception of retail rent; the historic theater retail space would
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
6
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,15,"be maintained by the City under the ground lease and the City would
receive all of the rental income; the Grand Lake Theater had all
improvements and investments made years ago; the City has a healthy
box office/concession profit participation starting at 17% above a
performance measure once the developer reaches a certain return
profit participation is through the life of the project; the
community should not be responsible for the long-term maintenance.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the information is very
helpful, but the fact remains that there is a huge spread between
40 cents per-square foot and the market rate; the City should
collect 60 to 80 cents per-square foot the developer would still
receive a substantial, below market rent; he believes 40 cents per-
square foot is significantly south of where the City should be.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated parking was the most
important issue in the Downtown Vision Plan; the theater was
considered a nicety but not a necessity two redevelopment areas
were merged to develop a funding stream; approximately $26 million
was left from the $47 million after pay offs; the majority of the
money was spent on Park Street; approximately $1.2 million was
spent in the Webster Street area; the majority of revenue came from
Marina Village; alternative sites were considered to gain
additional parking; the parking analysis indicates a shortage of 19
spaces during peak times; the theater uses the vast majority of the
parking capacity parking spaces have been lost with the street
renovation; parking spaces were bought out with the Knowles
project i the proposed parking structure was initially was six
levels; seven levels were needed because of the setback; the
seventh level is not serviced by the staircase or elevators; the
new parking is not 350 spaces because there was existing parking
at the Video Maniacs; 280 additional spaces would cost
approximately $40,000 per parking space; if all parking spaces are
counted, the amount gets down to about $32,000 per space; studies
indicate a range from $15,000 to $17,000 per space; today's costs
are close to $20,000; a larger construction cost is created by
building vertically; the City would pay $3.8 million for the
staircase, escalator, and elevators because seven screens require
two stories a seven or nine screen theater could be built at the
old Video Maniacs site and a parking structure could be built
elsewhere if the building was single story; he is concerned with
the extra $4 million from the bonds; the theater is not a complete
restoration; the lobby would be beautiful; the balcony probably
would not be completed because of constraints; he has concerns that
heavy traffic would be brought to Oak Street; a study was conducted
for 11:00 p.m. to 1:00 a .m. Saturday traffic while the peak hours
start at 8:30 p.m. ; project costs are now estimated to be $28
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
7
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,16,"million; the $7 million HUD loan was not anticipated when the
project began; alternate parking space locations are available
which would enable more screens if necessary; the US Bank site
would provide 350 parking spaces; he has major financial concerns.
The Development Services Director stated the City floated a $46.5
million bond with a net of $40 million; $13 million was to repay
Marina Village for the investment made in infrastructure; $2.2
million was to repay a loan from the West End project;
approximately $4 million of the Streetscape Project was
uncommitted; projects identified for the Bond money included the
Alameda Theater, Bridgeside Shopping Center, and parking structure;
$7.5 million was for the Alameda Theater and $10.3 million was for
the parking structure; the 2002 parking study assumed that the
average space would cost approximately $18,000 per parking stall;
the cost did not include relocation, demolition, or property
acquisition; current per space construction costs are $23,700; the
$32,000 cost per space includes acquisition, relocation, design,
etc. ; Watsonville just finished a 460 parking space garage which
was bid at $20,600 per space eighteen months agoi concrete costs
have accelerated; Santa Rosa recently bid a parking garage at
$30,000 per stall for construction; the elevator requirements of
the new theater serve the historic theater also; an elevator is
required for a public assembly facility the previously proposed
parking structure included parking on the top deck; each level has
increased in height to accommodate equipment and air space needs a
$3 million grant was submitted to the State under Proposition 30
about a month and a half ago for additional historic theater
preservation activity.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated real costs would not be know until
construction bids are received; the City experienced bids coming in
over budget for the New Library; the Webster Street project was
overbid and the bids were rejected; concurred with Vice
Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore regarding not restoring the theater at
any cost; the theater has been rotting for 25 years since a 1981
vote to save the theater; theater preservation and restoration may
not be important to everyone; the majority of the community finds
restoring the theater important attempts to save the theater have
failed in the past. opportunities are coming to an end; the roller
rink significantly damaged the property; she does not want the
theater to have five screens; the theater should not be restored if
the integrity is destroyed; another project would not go forward if
the current project was unsuccessful; the current design was
significantly different than the past; urged moving forward with
the project.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
8
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,17,"Councilmember/Commission Matarrese moved approval of the staff
recommendations and adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried
by the following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 3. Noes :
louncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog and deHaan - 2.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested staff to review the
possibility of having the U.C. Berkeley Architecture School build a
model.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated not holding up the project was
important.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 10:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
9
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf