{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - - AUGUST 2, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:24 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(05-375) Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing to\nconsider an Appeal of the Planning Board approval of Parking Garage\nUse Permit [05-389] and Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the\nPlanning Board approval of Cineplex design [05-390] would be\ncontinued to August 16, 2005.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(05-376) Mayor Johnson welcomed the new City Manager.\n(05-377) Presentation to the Fourth of July Committee recognizing\ntheir efforts for a successful Mayor's Fourth of July Parade.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to the Fourth of\nJuly Committee members.\nBarbara Price, Committee Chair, thanked the Council for recognizing\nthe Committee and construction crews; stated that $20,000 was\nraised; $10,000 would go to school music programs.\nMayor Johnson thanked Bill Frink, Harris and Associates, for the\nextraordinary effort made to get Park and Webster Streets ready for\nthe parade stated that people thought the parade was wonderful.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how many participants were in the\nparade.\nMs. Price responded that there were 3,000 participants, 182\nentries, 17 bands and 13 equestrian units.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked the Committee for their time and\nefforts.\n(\n(05-378) Proclamation declaring Brad Kruck to be Alameda's 2004\nHousing Choice Voucher Program Rental Property Owner of the Year in\nthe three or fewer rental unit category.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nAugust 2, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-02", "page": 2, "text": "Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Brad Kruck.\n(05-379) - Proclamation declaring Irene Hanson to be Alameda's 2004\nHousing Choice Voucher Program Rental Property Owner of the Year in\nthe four or more rental unit category.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Irene Hanson.\n(05-380) Library Project update.\nThe Project Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked the Project Manager for ensuring\nthat the project was on schedule and for managing the contingency\nfund; requested that the Project Manager thank the contractors.\nThe Project Manager stated that a second change order, which is a\ncredit back to the Contract, would be brought to the Council next\nmonth.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he hoped that future reports would\nbe as upbeat as the report presented tonight.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the\nMayor to send a letter to the United States Postal Service [05-383]\nand Adoption of Resolution Empowering the City Attorney to Employ\nSpecial Legal Counsel 105-386] were removed from the Consent\nCalendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. ]\n( 5-381) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community\nImprovement Commission (CIC) meeting held on June 21, 2005; and the\nSpecial, Special Joint City Council and CIC, and Regular City\nCouncil meetings held on July 19, 2005. Approved.\n( *05-382) - Ratified bills in the amount of $4,913,721.97.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nAugust 2, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-02", "page": 3, "text": "(05-383) - Recommendation to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to\nthe United States Postal Service regarding the City's interest to\nrelocate the distribution function of the Alameda Post Office from\nShoreline Drive to another site in Alameda.\nMayor Johnson stated that the City Manager would revise the draft\nletter.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is in favor of relocating\nthe distribution center; that there is no reason for a warehouse\nand parking lot to enjoy one of the best views of the entire East\nBay; stated that the City should retain some sway over what would\nbe placed at the site; there is no need for another carwash or\nretail-type enterprise that would not take advantage of the\nlocation; efforts should be made to retain a retail front within\nthe South Shore Center for mail transactions.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has a concern with the\npossibility that the Post Office would be relocated at Alameda\nPoint.\nMayor Johnson stated that the intent was to have the retail portion\nof the Post Office remain at the South Shore Center and have the\nsorting portion of the facility move to a more appropriate\nlocation.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the relocation of the distribution\ncenter is a great opportunity for the City.\nMayor Johnson stated the relocation is not certain; the matter has\nbeen discussed for years.\nVice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Councilmember Daysog\n- 1.\n( * 05-384) Recommendation to adopt specifications for Vehicle Tow\nContract for abandoned vehicles for the Police Department Accepted.\n(*05-385) Recommendation to amend the Consultant Contract with\nSignet Testing Labs, Inc., modifying the scope of work and\nincreasing the Contract price in the amount of $54,000 for the New\nMain Library Project, No. P.W. 01-03-01. Accepted.\n(05-386) - Adoption of Resolution Empowering the City Attorney to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nAugust 2, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-02", "page": 4, "text": "Employ Special Legal Counsel. Not adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the proposed resolution was a\nvery good start in addressing how the Council would implement its\nauthority per Section 8-5 of the Charter and to be clear on how the\nCouncil chooses to empower the City Attorney to make decisions at a\nlower expenditure level and moving upi the Charter obligations are\nmet with the concepts in the proposed resolution; the resolution\nshould be written in said terms; the elements, e.g. threshold, are\nincluded; the direction is in terms of implementation of a Section\nof the Charter; reporting details do not have relevance to the\nCharter, are more of an expectation and work product rather than an\nimplementation of the Charter, and should be removed from the\nresolution; that he does not recall discussing how the Council\nwould incorporate Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T). the Community\nImprovement Commission (CIC) and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment\nAuthority (ARRA)\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she recalled that there would be a\nseparate discussion on AP&T; that she was not sure whether there\nwould be a separate discussion on the ARRA and CIC.\nCouncilmember Matarrese noted that the discussion would be about\ndelegating authority to the Public Utilities Board (PUB ) ; the\nresolution should be presented in terms of clarifying and providing\nthe procedure for implementing the Charter further stated that the\nproposed resolution should be written as the Council's path on how\nit empowers the City Attorney to engage outside counsel.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the proposed resolution starts\nwith operative clauses; pre-ambulatory clauses are needed to\nprovide context.\nMayor Johnson stated the language should restate the Charter\nprovision and state that pursuant to the Charter, the Council has\nthe authority and is making a delegation of its Charter authority\nunder the particular circumstances in the resolution.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the language should state that\nthe resolution would also apply to the CIC and ARRA.\nMayor Johnson stated that the CIC and ARRA should be separate\nbecause the authority regarding outside counsel for the CIC and\nARRA are under by-laws, not the Charter.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that a separate action would be needed.\nVice Mayor Gilmore clarified that the intent is to have the same\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nAugust 2, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-02", "page": 5, "text": "apply to ARRA and the CIC.\nMayor Johnson stated that she concurred with Councilmember\nMatarresei some language should not be included in the resolution;\nthe purpose of the resolution is to delegate authority under the\nCharter; procedural issues should be in a separate document and\nshould be removed [from the resolution] that she was not clear on\nthe $35,000 threshold; the resolution states that the City Attorney\nhas the authority to spend $35,000 on any chase and does not come\nto the Council until $35,000 is spent, which was not what Council\nintended.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the intent was that the City Attorney\nwould advise the Council of the approximate cost of the case; if\nthe case would reach the $35,000 threshold, it would definitely\nhave to come to the Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the resolution is not to limit\nspending, rather it defines when the Council's Charter authority is\ndelegated small consultations that amount to a couple thousand\ndollars should not come to the Council and authority is delegated;\n$35,000 was an order of magnitude when there would be a significant\nimpact on the City's liability or a significant amount of money\nwould be spent and the Council's authority would not be delegated.\nMayor Johnson stated that she recalled that if the anticipated\nlegal costs would be more than $35,000, than the matter would come\nto Council, however the City Attorney could spend money on the\ninterim until the matter comes to the Council.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she recalled that the $35,000\nthreshold had a couple of caveats; the matter would come to Council\nif there were policy questions or if there were potentially large\nramifications no matter how much or small of an amount would be\nspent if there were a matter that Councilmembers wanted to ask\nquestions about, Councilmembers have the option to have the matter\nbrought to Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated said directions are work product and\nperformance issues, not a question of delegating authority the\nCouncil is trying to identify a point when the Council delegates\nauthority to the City Attorney and when Council retains authority;\nsomething of extreme importance might cost less than $35,000 and\nthe City Council might want to retain its authority on the\nengagement of outside counsel; the question is of delegation, not\nlimits on spending; the intent is to define the delegation.\nMayor Johnson stated that she interpreted that the intent of the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nAugust 2, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-02", "page": 6, "text": "proposed resolution was that the City Attorney could spend $35,000\nand then, once the cost goes beyond $35,000, the matter would come\nto the Council for additional authority.\nThe City Attorney stated that the fourth bullet point in the\nresolution includes limitations on spending; that she does not have\nthe authority to spend $35,000 on a $200,000 case and then come to\nCouncil.\nMayor Johnson stated that the fourth bullet point addresses\nreporting; the first bullet point states that the City Attorney is\nauthorized by the Council to spend up to $35,000 per matter from\nthe appropriated budget without prior Council approval; the\nstatements implies that the Councils is giving the City Attorney\nauthority to spend $35,000 on any matter before coming to Council ;\nthe fourth bullet point is a reporting requirement the focus\nshould be on the issue of when the Council is delegating its\nCharter authority to the City Attorney, not reporting requirements\nthe language might just need clarification; inquired whether she\nwas interpreting the first bullet point correctly.\nThe City Attorney responded that the first bullet point is in\ncontext of the fourth bullet point, which means that she has\nauthorization to spend $35,000 per matter without prior Council\napproval, however, she must come to Council with the litigation\nbudget for anything estimated to exceed $35,000 within 35 days.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney would come to\nCouncil for approval of hiring outside counsel or simply to report\nto the Council.\nThe City Attorney responded that she would bring the issue to the\nCouncil similar to the Closed Session tonight.\nMayor Johnson stated the Closed Session tonight was a report the\npurpose of the resolution is to clarify when the Council would\ndelegate its authority to the City Attorney to hire outside\ncounsel.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the Council would not delegate\nits authority to hire outside counsel if any of the following\napply: 1) if the estimated defense costs were over $35,000; 2) if a\npolicy question were involved; 3) if there were significant\nramifications to the City; and 4) if requested by the Council; the\nCouncil does not delegate its authority to hire outside counsel if\nany of the four apply; the $35,000 threshold allows the City\nAttorney to engage outside counsel to get the ball rolling so that\nthe City would not incur increased liability if there was an\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nAugust 2, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-02", "page": 7, "text": "immediate need and the Council did not meet for two weeks the\nreporting [approval of hiring outside counsel] would occur at the\nnext regular City Council meeting; a special meeting could be\ncalled if the matter was extremely urgent.\nMayor Johnson stated the language in the resolution should be\nclarified to reflect Councilmember Matarrese's comments.\nThe City Attorney stated that she would have to retain outside\ncounsel in order to start litigation.\nMayor Johnson stated the Council understands said issue, which is\nthe reason for the $35,000.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred; stated the $35,000 threshold\nallows the City Attorney to do so [retain outside counsel]. ;\ninquired whether $35,000 was a reasonable amount to get the ball\nrolling on a big case.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is interpreting the exercise of\nthe City Attorney's responsibilities within the $35,000 threshold\nin two ways: 1) the Council is trusting the City Attorney to\nexercise professional responsibility in evaluating the cost ahead\nof time if said evaluation deems that the matter would be less\nthan $35,000, the City Attorney has the authority to move forward;\n2) the Council is trusting the City Attorney to use her\nprofessional background and experience to make the decision to\nbring the matter to the Council when the cost would be more than\n$35,000.\nMayor Johnson stated that there is an accountability issue; Council\nwould have questions if a case were estimated to cost $5,000 and it\nended up costing $80,000; there is a check and a balance; the\nreporting requirements, limitations on hiring outside counsel, and\nthe Public Utilities Board delegation should be addressed separate;\nthe resolution should not read: \"limitations on spending outside\ncounsel budget; limiting spending is not the intention the City\nwill have to spend whatever amount needs to be spent; the\ndelegation or approval of the hiring of outside counsel under\ncertain circumstance is what is being addressed; requested that the\nmatter be brought back to Council; stated the CIC, ARRA and AP&T\nissues also need to be discussed later.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated once the questions that were raised\nare resolved with the next draft, the Council could move forward to\nextrapolate the same approach to ensure the language is correct in\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nAugust 2, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-02", "page": 8, "text": "the ARRA and CIC by-laws then, Council could discuss whether it\nwants to delegate its authority to the PUB.\nCouncilmember deHaan questioned whether items other than an\nestimate over $35,000, policy questions, significant ramifications\nor Council questions should trigger that the matter comes to\nCouncil; inquired if there were significant ramifications the\nmatter would come to Council regardless of whether the cost would\nbe $35,000.\nVie Mayor Gilmore responded in the affirmative; stated that she\ndoes not care how much a matter costs, the matter should come to\nCouncil if there would be significant ramifications.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the four points [over $35,000,\npolicy questions, significant ramifications or Council questions)\nare the conditions under which the Council's authority is retained.\nMayor Johnson concurred; stated the language should be clear that\n[under the four conditions, ] the Council retains its authority to\nempower the City Attorney to hire outside counsel.\nThe City Attorney requested that the revised proposal be brought\nback to the Council in September since she will not be at the\nAugust 16, 2005 City Council Meeting.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n( 05-387) - Ordinance No. 2943, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXX (Development\nRegulations). \" Finally passed.\nKen Carvalho, Alameda, urged the Council to pass the Ordinance.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved final passage of the Ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Councilmember Daysog\n- 1.\n(05-388) Ordinance No. 2944, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Declaring Boutique Theaters to be Uses Permitted by Use Permit\nwithin the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District of Chapter\nXXX (Development Regulations) . \" Finally passed.\n ouncilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nAugust 2, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-02", "page": 9, "text": "Counci lember deHaan noted that reducing the number of districts\nstill needed to be reviewed.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote Ayes : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Vice Mayor Gilmore\n- 1.\n(05-389) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning\nBoard approval of Parking Garage Use Permit (UP05-0008) and Design\n(DR05-0028) - ; and adoption of related resolution. Continued to\nAugust 16, 2005.\n(05-390) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning\nBoard approval of Cineplex Design (DR05-0041) ; and adoption of\nrelated resolution. Continued to August 16, 2005.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(05-391) Richard Scrindy, Alameda, stated that he is selling his\nhouse in Alameda inquired why past permits have not been honored\nand why criminal charges were filed against him; invited the\nCouncil to come to his home thanked Mayor Johnson, Councilmember\nMatarrese and Councilmember deHaan for trying to help.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-392) - Written communication from the League of California\nCities requesting designation of Voting Delegate for the League's\n2005 Annual Conference.\nMayor Johnson suggested that Councilmember Daysog be the City's\ndelegate and Vice Mayor Gilmore be the alternate.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of Councilmember Daysog\nserving as the City's delegate and Vice Mayor Gilmore serving as\nthe alternate.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(05-393) Discussion regarding the placement of proposed federal\nlegislation that would amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to\nlimit casino expansion on the August 16, 2005 City Council agenda\nfor formal action.\nMayor Johnson stated proposed federal legislation regarding gaming\nmight be helpful to communities such as Alameda the matter would\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nAugust 2, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-02", "page": 10, "text": "be continued because there was not sufficient information provided\nyet.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether other legislation was being\nproposed.\nMayor Johnson responded that she thought there was proposed\nlegislation from Senators Feinstein and McCain; stated that all\ninformation would be presented when the matter returns to Council.\n(05-394 - ) Councilmember Matarrese welcomed the new City Manager;\nstated that he was looking forward to working with the new City\nManager to get a lot done.\nCouncilmember Daysog welcomed the new City Manager.\nCouncilmember deHaan welcomed the new City Manager ; noted that\ntonight's adjournment time is not the norm.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular City Council Meeting at 9:17 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nAugust 2, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-02", "page": 11, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - - -AUGUST 2, 2005- - -5:30 P.M.\n( (05-373) - ) A Special Meeting was called to allow the Council to\nattend an electric bus demonstration.\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 2, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-02", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND\nHOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING\nTUESDAY - - - AUGUST 2, 2005\n-\n-\n7:05\nP.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:07 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners/Authority/Board\nMembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese\nand Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent : None\n(05-374CC/05-036CIC)\nConference with Legal Counsel - Existing\nLitigation; Name of case Operation Dignity, Inc. V. City of\nAlameda, Community Improvement Commission, Alameda Reuse and\nDevelopment Authority and Housing Authority\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Council/Commissioners/\nAuthority/Board Members obtained briefing and gave direction to the\nCity Attorney/Legal Counsel.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 7:50 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council,\nCommunity Improvement Commission,\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,\nand Housing Authority Board of Commissioners\nAugust 2, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-02", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -AUGUST 2, 2005- -7:27 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:03 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(05-037) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community\nImprovement Commission (CIC) meeting of June 21, 2005; the Special\nJoint CIC and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority meeting of\nJune 28, 2005; and the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting\nof July 19, 2005. Approved.\nVice Chair Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5. [Note: Commissioner Matarrese abstained from\nvoting on the June 28, 2005 minutes. . ]\nAGENDA ITEM\n(\n05-038) Recommendation to approve the amended Contract with\nArchitectural Resources Group, Inc. by increasing the Contract\namount an additional $307,414 to provide additional pre-planning\nand construction administration services for the rehabilitation of\nthe Alameda Theater.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief report.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that the original November 2003 Contract\nwas for $79,000 and has increased to close to $1 million; inquired\nwhether the Commission was made aware that additional phases would\nbe added.\nThe Development Services Director responded that the November 2003\nContract was for the beginning phase; the Commission should have\nbeen advised that other phases would be added.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether there would be a bid package\nwithin the next month or two, to which the Development Services\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether there would be construction\nadministration throughout the project.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n1\nAugust 2, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-02", "page": 14, "text": "The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated that a construction management contract would be presented\nat the August 16 CIC Meeting.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the construction manager would\nbe a contractor.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated the construction manager would also manage the parking\ngarage project.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired what the (construction management)\nContract would cost, to which the Development Services Director\nresponded approximately $1 million.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether there would be additional\noversight, to which the Development Services Director responded not\nunless a problem arose with the historic property.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether there was a budget for\noversight of architecture and engineering for the parking\nstructure, to which the Development Services Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nMorgan, Citizens for a Megaplex Free Alameda, urged that the\nCommission continue the matter until after a decision has been\nrendered on the project.\nCommissioner Daysog inquired what services Architectural Resources\nGroup, Inc. (ARG) was providing and why another layer of\nconsultants was providing advice.\nThe Development Services Director responded that construction\nprojects involving the rehabilitation of a historic structure\ninvolve changes and modifications architects are needed to draft\nup solutions to gray areas.\nCommissioner Daysog inquired whether said level of services was\nalways contemplated, to which the Development Services Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Daysog stated that he has a sense of sticker shock\nwith the increased amount of the Contract; that he understands that\nthere is a level of complexity in dealing with a historic\nstructure.\nThe Development Services Director stated that the construction\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nAugust 2, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-02", "page": 15, "text": "administration cost is well within industry standards.\nCommissioner Daysog stated that the project should move forward;\nexpert advice is needed because of the project's historic nature.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether ARG would provide services\nfor the theatre and not the parking structure, to which the\nDevelopment Services Director responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated that expert restoration and\npreservation advice is needed when restoring and rehabilitating an\nold building.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the Contract would have any\nimpact on the Cineplex, to which the Development Services Director\nresponded in the negative.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether there were extraordinary\ncircumstances involving the Heating, Ventilation and Air\nConditioning (HVAC) system.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated the original HVAC system exceeded noise levels.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether construction administration\nwould be initiated when bids are in hand to which the Development\nServices Director responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation\nCommissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nmeeting at 8:23 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary,\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n3\nAugust 2, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf"}