{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -AUGUST 16, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:55 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n( 05-396) - Proclamation recognizing John Knowles for his\ncontribution to the revitalization of the Park Street Business\nDistrict.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to John Knowles.\nMr. Knowles thanked the Council for the proclamation.\n(05-397 - ) Proclamation designating August 26th as Women's Equality\nDay in Alameda.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Dorie\nBehrstock, Vice President of Isle City of Alameda Business and\nProfessional Women.\nMs. Behrstock introduced Isle City of Alameda Business and\nProfessional Women members Margaret Seaman and Joanne Ainsworth\nthanked the Council for the proclamation; invited the Council and\npublic to a reception on August 26, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. at the Harbor\nBay Community Center.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Creating Special\nNewsrack Districts [paragraph no. 05-404] was removed from the\nConsent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 2, "text": "[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number) ]\n(*05-398) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nand Housing Authority Board of Commissioners meeting and the\nRegular City Council meeting held on August 2, 2005. Approved.\n(*05-399) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,127,711.09.\n(*05-400) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Investment Report for\nperiod ending June 30, 2005. Accepted.\n( *05-401) - Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for\nthe period ending June 30, 2005, for sales transactions in the\nFirst Calendar Quarter of 2005. Accepted.\n(*05-402) - Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute\nsecond amendment to Consultant Agreement with Harris & Associates,\nextending the term, scope of work and price for services associated\nwith the Webster Street Renaissance Project. Accepted.\n(*05-403) Recommendation to approve an agreement with Ameresco\nKeller Canyon, LLC for the purchase of power from Landfill Gas\nGeneration. Accepted.\n(05-404) Resolution No. 13882, \"Creating Special Newsrack\nDistricts in Both the Park Street and West Alameda Business\nDistricts as Authorized in the Alameda Municipal Code Section 22-7,\nNewspaper and Periodical Vending Machines of Article 1 (Streets)\n,\nChapter XXII (Streets and Sidewalks) \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the public should be aware of\nthe Newsrack Ditricts, which go along with the improvements on Park\nand Webster Streets and increase attractiveness in the business\ndistricts.\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) urged adoption\nof the resolution.\nSherri Steig, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) stated WABA\nsupports adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like to recognize the\nefforts of former Councilmember Karin Lucas; requested staff to\nreview posting signs on historic lampposts.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 3, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated a lot of signs are attached to the poles the\nsigns detract from the attractiveness of the poles and should be\navoided if possible.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n( *05-405) - Resolution No. 13883, \"Requiring City Council Approval of\nAny Amendment to the Employment Contracts of the City Manager or\nCity Attorney. Adopted.\n(*05-406) Resolution No. 13884, \"Amending the Alameda City\nEmployees (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing Salary Range for\nthe Position of Senior Combination Building Inspector. Adopted.\n(*05-407) Resolution No. 13885, \"Amending the Management and\nConfidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by\nEstablishing Salary Ranges for the positions of Information\nSystems Network Analyst and Safety Officer. \" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(05-408) Public Hearing to consider Appeals of the Planning\nBoard's approval of a Use Permit and Design Review for the parking\ngarage and new Cineplex components of the proposed Alameda Theater\nProject on Oak Street and Central Avenue. This site is located at\n1416 Oak Street and 2305 Central Avenue (Video Maniacs site)\nwithin the C-C-T (Community Commercial Theater Combining) District.\nApplicants: City of Alameda (DSD) and Kyle Conner, Alameda\nEntertainment Associates, LP . Appellants: Ani Dimusheva and Valerie\nRuma ;\n(05-408A) Resolution No. 13886, \"Upholding the Planning Board of\nthe City of Alameda's Decision to Approve Design Review DR05-0028\nand Use Permit UP05-0008 for the Proposed New Civic Center Parking\nGarage. Adopted; and\n(05-408B) Resolution No. 13887, \"Resolution Upholding the Planning\nBoard of the City of Alameda's Decision to Approve Design Review\nDR05-0041 for the Proposed Cineplex at 2305 Central Avenue.\nAdopted.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.\nProponents (In favor of project) : Kathy Moehring, Alameda (not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 4, "text": "Rudenko, Alameda (not present) ; Gina Shepard, Alameda; Margarita\nDorland, Alameda (not present) ; Alex Helperin, Alameda (not\npresent) ; Vicki Varghese, Alameda (not present) ; Sia Bayat,\nAlameda Michael Cate, Alameda; and Pat Bail, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 5, "text": "Following Gina Shepard's comments, Mayor Johnson called a recess at\n11:37 p.m. and reconvened the Regular City Council Meeting at 11:50\np.m.\n***\nWhen the meeting was reconvened, Councilmember Matarrese moved\napproval of continuing the meeting past midnight.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nFollowing Frank Lopez, there being no, further speakers, Mayor\nJohnson closed the public portion of the Hearing.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the cost for the Cineplex and\nhistoric renovation is approximately $13 million dollars; the\nreport compares the $13 million cost against $5.9 million in\nrevenues; there is a negative of $7.1 million; inquired whether\ninterest is included in the $13 million cost.\nTim Kelly, Keyser and Marston Associates, responded in the\nnegative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what the amount would be if interest\nwere included.\nMr. Kelly responded tax increment should be included if interest is\nincluded; stated the bonds are already funded; all sources of\nincome that pay for the City's obligations, including tax increment\nused to fund the debt service on the bonds and garage income, are\nnot included.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there was an estimate of how\nlong it would take for property values to raise in order to recoup\nthe $7.1 million.\nMr. Kelly responded the Community Improvement Commission (CIC)\nalready has the income to pay for the approximately $15 or $16\nmillion in bonds which have been sold; the $7 million for the\nparking garage is not paid for yet; some sources of funds would be\nthe theater and ground lease rent.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the sources of funds would\nequal $5.9 million.\nMr. Kelly responded in the affirmative; stated the source of funds\nwould be $5.9 million in present value against a loan of $7 million\npresent value.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 6, "text": "Counci lmember Daysog stated the $13 million bonds issued for the\nCineplex and historic theater would need to be paid back.\nMr. Kelly stated that the bonds have already been issued based upon\nthe CIC's cash flow; the income from the theater project does not\nhave to repay the bonds the bonds are financed by CIC's existing\ncash flow.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the cash flow is tax\nincrement.\nMr. Kelly responded in the affirmative; the cash flow is the\nexisting tax increment the tax increment does not come out of the\nGeneral Fund and is not money that would have gone to the General\nFund; the tax increment is redevelopment money that has to be used\nfor certain limited purposes; redevelopment law prohibits the money\nfrom being used for Police and Fire services.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether tax increment could be used\nfor public infrastructure in a redevelopment area, to which Mr.\nKelly responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether General Fund costs that are\nused for public improvements in a redevelopment area could be\ncovered by redevelopment funds.\nMr. Kelly responded that the purpose of the redevelopment financing\nis to provide economic development, stimulate growth, and remove\nblight redevelopment financing is not intended for public\nimprovements that would have otherwise occurred; theoretically,\nredevelopment funds could be used.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the argument is that redevelopment\nmoney cannot be used for General Fund type activity with regards to\ninfrastructure.\nMr. Kelly stated redevelopment money is all the tax increment\ncaptured above a certain base; redevelopment law limits the City to\nuse the funds for remediation of blight.\nThe Development Services Director stated that redevelopment law is\nvery clear that new improvements need to be made; funds cannot be\nused for operating and maintenance costs; redevelopment law\nfindings that state there are no other public monies available must\nbe made to do an improvement, like a street.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that there is an argument that\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 7, "text": "redevelopment dollars cannot be used for infrastructure\nimprovements that are generally covered by the General Fund Capital\nImprovement Budget inquired whether redevelopment dollars could be\nused under certain circumstances.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated redevelopment dollars cannot be used to pay for street\nresurfacing; pass-through agreements with the County preclude the\nCity from using redevelopment project tax increment on certain\nprojects, such as Estuary Park.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what projects have been obligated\nwith the $47 million bond issue.\nThe Development Services Director responded the projects include\nthe new Library and matching funding for some grant money for\nWebster and Park Streets; there was an existing obligation as part\nof the construction of the Marina Village Project $13 million went\nto capitalize the payments on the long-term obligation to repay the\ninfrastructure improvements made at Marina Village years ago.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether $200,000 was used for\nintersection remediation at Otis and Park Streets.\nThe Development Services Director responded that money for\nintersection remediation came from regular operating tax increment\nrevenues, not bond money.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the report states that project results\nin a net cost to the CIC; that he understands Mr. Kelly's comments\nregarding estimated CIC costs; the $13 million bond will be paid\nfrom the increase in tax increment in the redevelopment area, not\nthe project itself; the staff analysis compares the estimated CIC\ncosts against the estimated CIC revenues, which results in a $7\nmillion negative.\nMr. Kelly stated there is a cost; however, the City will own the\nhistoric theater, the parking garage and the land underneath the\ntheater; the City is buying assets.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the purpose of edevelopment\nis to generate value; inquired whether the City would collect\nproperty taxes if the City owns the assets.\nThe Development Services Director responded one objective of\nredevelopment is to create value; redevelopment also serves to\nbuild the projects which the community needs; the existing tax\nincrement supports the construction of the parking structure; the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 8, "text": "parking structure creates additional business opportunities and new\nvalue; the money is also used for projects that the public has\ndecided are important; the historic theater renovation is such a\ncase and is an eligible, legal project i the lion share of the $5. 9\nmillion concerning Councilmember Daysog is the construction,\nstabilization and restoration of the historic theater part of the\nexpenditure that would never be recovered is for restoring the\ntheater, which was considered of great concern to the community\nstaff never reviewed a reuse of the building that would recover the\ninvestment the theater did not have a private sector investor all\nthese years because nobody in the private sector could figure out\nwhat could go into the building to substantiate or support the\ninvestment.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired why the report shows a net negative,\nto which Mr. Kelly responded redevelopment law requires disclosure.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated part of the reason for the negative net\npresent value is because the Council directed staff to preserve the\nhistoric theater; Council felt the theater would continue to\ndeteriorate if the City did not move forward with preservation; the\nproject cost would not be so high if restoring the theater was not\nso valuable and the City wanted to build a new theater and parking\ngarage, without the historic theater the project is running in the\nred because so much money is being spent for the historic theater\ninfrastructure; inquired whether the historic theater is a\nfinancial albatross.\nThe Development Services Director responded public entities restore\nbuildings because of the appreciation of the value of the asset to\nthe community, on which an economic value cannot be placed; a\nbuilding use that could support the project costs would result in\nthe building being butchered to increase density, such as public\nstorage; said type of use would not meet the community's\nrestoration and preservation goals.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the parking structure\ndesign/build allows the design to be modified.\nThe Development Services Director responded that one of the goals\nof using the design/build process was to ensure that the project\nwas built efficiently with as little public money as possible; the\ndesign/build process allows designers and construction to come\ntogether to yield the most efficient garage the exterior design\nreview is being resolved to prevent the design/build contract from\ngrowing in response to design issues; pinning down the design up\nfront provides the additional guarantee that there would be no\nquestions about what the design/build team put together i the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 9, "text": "objective was to have the most efficient, least expensive project,\nwith an eye on speed; the exterior design of the project needs to\nbe known before moving forward, otherwise an intolerable budget\nsituation could be created; design/build should reduce the number\nof changes later and create a more controlled process for bidding\nthe project and getting the best price and product for the\ncommunity.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that one of the first tasks was to\nreview alternate parking areas in 1999 during the visioning\nprocess; inquired what were the alternate areas.\nThe Development Services Director responded she does not know what\nthe alternate parking areas were in 1999; subsequent parking\nanalysis identified alternative sites, including the Elks Club,\nVideo Maniacs and the Long's site.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he did not recall Video Maniacs\nbeing one of the sites.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that Video Maniacs was included as\nan option in the 2000 Downtown Vision Report.\nThe Development Manager stated that six studies reviewed different\nsites since 1972; all studies considered Video Maniacs as one of\nthe top sites.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the 2000 parking analysis indicated\nthat 498 parking spaces were needed for 1,500 theater seats;\ninquired whether the Development Services Director was aware of the\nanalysis.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated the analysis was fairly speculative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the analysis indicated that a certain\nnumber would park in the lot and some patrons would park in other\nareas; Park Street as been so successful in recent years that the\n200 spaces [in other areas) that were going to be used to support\nthe theater are being utilized now.\nThe Development Services Director stated the environmental\nassessment included completion of a new traffic and parking\nassessment to update the information and confirm that there would\nbe opportunities for shared parking the commercial district\nsetting of the project means people will have already parked\nsomewhere else.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the factor used for the first\nstudy has increased.\nThe Development Services Director responded the new trip manual\npublished after parking work was completed has identical numbers on\nreverse days; the factors used for Saturday are now the factors\nthat apply to Friday peak parking and vice versa; the Saturday\nposition has been improved significantly.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether said information has been\nprovided.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated\nthat the only manual of record published at the time the work was\ncompleted was used for the [first study; using the new trip manual\nstaff decided whether changes needed to be made; the decision was\nthat, with the reverse [of Friday and Saturday peaks], an even\nworse case situation had been analyzed [in the first study! ].\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether 200 spaces would overflow\ninto other areas because the parking structure would not be able to\nhandle all parking needs.\nThe Development Services Director responded said case would only\noccur at one or two peaks a week; 1750 seats were analyzed; the\nscope of the assessment for the environmental review was a bigger\nproject because staff did not have the final numbers; the proposed\nproject is smaller.\nThe Development Manager stated that the assumptions in the traffic\nand parking analysis were conservative, assumed 100% occupancy of\nthe 1750 seats and did not include cross trips the numbers in the\nparking study are adequate for meeting the parking demand.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the numbers are adequate to\nsupport the theater and the new activity on Park Street, to which\nthe Development Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the parking would support\npeak times with activities at the Masonic Temple, Kaufman\nAuditorium, the Elks Lodge, and the high school.\nThe Development Services Director responded that staff did not\nfactor in that every facility in town could have an event on the\nsame night. the analysis is based on existing trip data at certain\ntimes of the day.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the theater is not used during peak\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 11, "text": "hours; the theater peak time is later.\nThe Development Services Director stated the parking studies\nincluded a desire for a much bigger parking structure; a 508 space\nparking garage was contemplated when the Long's parking lot was\ndiscussed; a long-term parking plan is still needed.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that existing tax increment covers the\nbonds that have already been issued; requested staff to address how\nthe Housing and Urban Development (HUD) loan would be paid back,\nthe developer's buying and selling options, and how much capital\nthe developer is investing in the project; stated that there has\nbeen a lot of discussion regarding scaling down the theater or just\ndoing three screens the number one goal of the Downtown Vision\nPlan was to restore the historic theater for first run movies.\nThe Development Services Director stated all except $3.5 million of\npublic investment in the project would go to the historic theater\nand parking garage the developer will provide his own furniture,\nfixtures, and equipment (FF&E) in the historic theater; the\ndeveloper will bring $5. 3 million in equity and bank financing; the\ndeveloper has met financing commitments outlined in the Disposition\nand Development Agreement (DDA) ; the bank financing includes an SBA\n(Small Business Administration portion, which has additional\ncontrol and rigor because of the examination SBA completes; the\ndeveloper would build the Cineplex; the City will own the land\nunder the Cineplex and own the historic theater and land; the City\nwill lease the historic theater and the ground under the Cineplex\nto the developer ; a $700,000 grant will pay for vertical elements,\nsuch as the elevator, ramps, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)\nexiting and life safety exiting; the Cineplex entrance will be used\nto meet ADA requirements; there are two methods for repaying the\n$2.8 million loan in the DDA; $1. 4 million will begin to be repaid\nin the seventh year after the developer's FF&E financing would be\nretired; the other $1.4 million will be paid in a percentage rent,\nwhich is 17% of the project gross above a certain threshold; DDA\nprovisions preclude the developer from selling or refinancing\nwithout paying off the loans; the historic theater retail rental\nincome will be retained by the CIC; the developer has the option to\npurchase the the historic theater and the land under the Cineplex\nfrom the CIC after successfully operating for five years; the\ndeveloper would have to buy both the historic theater and Cineplex\nland; the purchase price would be the amount that the CIC paid.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that there is a lot of concern over the\nassumptions about ticket sales; the developer has to sell tickets\nto meet his obligations to bankers and the CIC; the concern is that\nnot enough tickets will be sold and that the project will fail;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 12, "text": "requested staff to address said assumptions.\nThe Development Services Director stated the assumptions are\nextremely conservative; staff assumed the project would gross\napproximately $2 million per year in ticket sales and another\n$900,000 to $1 million in concessions, for a total of $3 million;\nthe financial analysis has determined that the project obligations\nto the CIC would be met at the achievement of said $3 million; the\npercentage rent is based on the business producing $3 million; the\nassumption is that 60-65% of the Alameda market will be captured\nthe Bay Area is an anomaly with respect to theater-going trends;\nBay Area theater attendance is almost twice the national average ;\ntheaters in the area are doing twice the amount of business that\nstaff estimated per screen; staff also wanted to ensure that the\nproject has enough revenue to maintain the facilities; DDA\nprovisions require that the buildings need be operated in a certain\nmanner.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what the square foot rent would be\nfor the historic theater.\nThe Development Services Director responded staff would have to\ncalculate the amount; the rent has been $2,000 per month for the\npast few years.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what is the square footage of the\nhistoric theater, to which the Development Services Director\nresponded that the entire building is 33,000 square feet, which\nincludes space that would not be used.\nMayor Johnson requested an overview of the current condition of the\nhistoric theater and the status of the acquisition.\nThe Development Services Director responded the Council took action\nto begin the eminent domain process late last spring; the building\nestimate, based on an appraisal, was deposited with the courts; the\nowner has picked up the deposit and advised the court that he would\nnot contest the sale and is only interested in the value; the value\nwill now be established through the eminent domain processi the\nCity will take possession of the theater on October 3 or 4; the\nCity has worked with the owner to gain access to the building and\nbegin work, such as investigation of the ground water problem in\nthe basement.\nMayor Johnson noted that the building has been used as a skating\nrink, disco, roller rink and gymnastics auditorium.\nThe Development Services Director stated that the City has been\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 13, "text": "working with the Architectural Resources Group (ARG) to assess the\nbuilding; ARG has worked with engineers and other specialists to\ndetermine what needs to be done to bring the building up to code\nand to repair, reverse and restore some of the damage that has been\ndone; a lot of seismic work has to be done, such as reinforcing the\nconcrete fa\u00e7ade marquee area that is only held up by four redwood\nposts; fire sprinklers have to be installed; the electrical and\nplumbing work has to be redone the water in the basement is a\ncombination of a leak from a storm drain as well as ground water\nintrusion.\nThe Development Manager stated that the lobby carpet was replaced;\nthe mezzanine carpet is torn; the lobby mirror, mezzanine mural,\nand light fixtures have been removed; the curtain has suffered\nwater damage; the floor of the auditorium has been built up buffer\nwalls have been installed along side walls; holes were made in the\nauditorium ceiling for lighting; there is significant water damage\nalong the alley due to a storm drain.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the retail revenue would be received\nfrom the historic theater; inquired whether retail revenue would be\nreceived from the Cineplex.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the negative. stated\nthat the developer is building the Cineplex with his own financing\nand would receive the rents from his own retail space.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the rent revenue was\nsignificant to the developer to make the project work.\nThe Development Services Director responded that the funding is\npart of the picture; the Cineplex retail is only 3,400 square feet.\nThe Business Development Division Manager stated the revenue from\nthe retail space counts toward the percentage rent the developer\nwill pay.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated one of the seven auditoriums in the new\nCineplex has 78 seats; the historic theater balcony accommodated\n150 seats; inquired what is the concern with renovating the\nbalcony.\nThe Development Services Director responded that the DDA allows the\ndeveloper to use the balcony at a later point at his own expense if\nhe chooses; the spaces are not soundproof, provide 62-64 seats each\nand would be used to show boutique films.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Cineplex building could\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 14, "text": "be downsized if one of the theaters and some retail were removed\nstated that he is concerned with protrusions going in all different\ndirections; inquired whether the footprint could be reduced.\nThe Development Services Director responded the buildings are\nlinked; eliminating a theater from the Cineplex top level would\nimpact the value of what remains and the project's ability to\nsupport the additional cost of going to a second floor; some of the\nvalue supports the construction cost.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated protrusions usually cost more money\nremoving the 79-seat theater would allow the building to be brought\nback; review of other options would allow reduction of mass; that\nhe has concerns about design.\nKyle Conner, Project Developer, stated more screens are needed, not\nless; eliminating a screen on the second level of the Cineplex\nwould leave only nine screens; that he would like to have more than\nten screens; that he would have a problem with reducing the number\nof screens.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Conner's plan would be to go\nforward with the balcony eventually, to which Mr. Conner responded\nin the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what the $72,000 in rent for the\nhistoric theater equals per square foot.\nMr. Conner responded the ground floor is approximately 19,000\nsquare feet, including retail; the cinema would be approximately\n15,000 square feet.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that movie theater square footage\ncomparisons are a way to gauge whether the rent is appropriate.\nMr. Conner stated debt service for construction should be\nconsidered as rent because he has a ground lease and does not own\nthe property; rent would be approximately $1.30 per square foot\nwhen considering all of the components to service the debt and rent\nfor the facility.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what the figure would be if debt\nservice were not considered, to which Mr. Conner responded $0.40\nper square foot.\nThe Development Services Director stated that the rent is based on\nrevenues.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired how many seats the historic theater\nhad on the main floor, to which the Development Manager responded\n2,000 seats.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how many seats would be accommodated\nnow, to which the Development Manager responded 484 seats.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether all the space would be\nutilized.\nMr. Conner responded old seats were spaced 32 inches apart; new\nseats will be spaced 45 inches apart.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the 484 seats would utilize\nall the space.\nMr. Conner responded in the affirmative; noted old seating areas\nunderneath the balcony would be used for offices and concessions.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the historic theater lobby\narea would be adequate for a concession stand, to which Mr. Conner\nresponded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether rent was compared with other\ncities or facilities.\nMr. Kelly responded one integrated business is being run in two\nbuildings rent was run against total gross and was around 15%; the\ncalculations were run on gross, rather than per square foot; the\nrent is based upon the estimated volume of business.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the industry reviews rents on\na square-foot basis.\nMr. Kelly responded typical rent would be $1.35 to $1.85 per square\nfoot in a suburban area; Alameda's situation is unique; the rent\nwas based on estimated gross sales to be fair to both sides.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there was a blended figure\nfor both the new Cineplex and the historic theater, to which Mr.\nKelly responded that the developer is building the Cineplex\nbuilding.\nMayor Johnson stated one of the project goals was to save the\nhistoric theater; theaters built today are not like the historic\ntheater ; the developer is taking on a lot of space that would not\nbe taken on for a modern theater; the project would be a lot easier\nif preserving the historic theater were not a goal; there are\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 16, "text": "obstacles in determining how to go forward with the project and\nsave the historic theater at the same time.\nMr. Kelly stated the historic theater costs over $9 million for 484\nseats; $9 million is enough money to build a 12-plex.\nMayor Johnson stated eight years ago, the Council gave direction to\nstaff to develop a project that would save the Alameda Theater and\nhave it used for first run movies.\nMr. Conner stated the percentage rent structure was designed to\nhelp protect the downside and have everyone share in the upside ;\nthe City shares significantly [in the upside ] more than any other\ndeal; the amount is three to four times what an average percentage\nrent would be in any commercial theater in a suburban setting.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the City's share of the\npercentage rent in net present value terms over 20 to 30 years is\n$190,000.\nMr. Kelly responded an aggressive assumption that the theater will\nget 100% of the Alameda market would mean the City will have some\nsignificant percentage rents; if the theater does very well, the\nCity will receive 15 to 17%, will share in that [profit] and\nreceive what is believed to be a fair rent.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether 15 to 17% was based on gross or net,\nto which Mr. Kelly responded gross, including concessions.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated everyone seems to agree that the historic\ntheater should be restored and preserved; the money being spent to\nrestore the theater could build a 12-plex; money is being put into\nthe historic theater because it almost becomes a public amenity; a\npublic amenity is not expected to make a return; the new Library is\nnot expected to make a return.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted residents voted for the new Library.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the community has clearly expressed that\nrestoration and preservation of the historic theater is valuable:\nthe high cost of rehabilitating the theater makes a financially\nneutral project difficult; opinions about the rest of the project\ndiffer restoring the theater does not come cheaply.\nMayor Johnson stated there have been on-going attempts to install\nparking in the Park Street area since the 1970 s; there was effort\nto save the theater in the 1980's; the project will not solve all\nparking problems on Park Street; Webster Street potential parking\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 17, "text": "problems need to be reviewed; the City has the opportunity to move\nforward with the project; the developer is willing; financing is\navailable; there have been years of public study; that she has not\ncome across one person in Alameda who has said do not bother saving\nthe historic theater; saving the historic theater is not easy; no\none has attempted to run the theater for 25 years; that she is\ntrying to do what she believes is best for Alameda in the long\nterm.\nCouncilmember deHaan questioned whether adding a multiplex cinema\nto the historic theater makes the project economically viable\nstated that he is concerned about the movie marketplace. a minimum\nof 15 screens seems necessary to make money; seven screens\ndefinitely will not make money that he is emphatic about getting\nparking on Park Street; the theater should not overtake the benefit\nof having a parking structure; the [Cineplex] design is ugly; the\ntrouble is placing the structure on a small parcel; there is not\nenough money for the project.\nMayor Johnson stated the project would be easier to manage\nfinancially if one of the goals was not saving the historic\ntheater.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated one reason for the [financial]\nshortfall is because the City is paying for assets that will be\nacquired, such as the parking structure and theater evidence\nsupports the financial feasibility of the project; requested an\nexplanation of the Planning Board action, including what approval\nmeant and what changes were made; requested the architect to\nexplain the basis of the design.\nRob Henry, The Henry Architects, stated that he inherited the\nproject after Michael Stanton Architectural firm designed the\nbuilding, which gave direction as to the massing of the building ;\nthat he tried to include scale, texture and materials that would be\ncompatible and advantageous to the downtown atmosphere; the project\nwas very difficult; the building's constraints cannot be ignored\nthe building has to have certain proportions in order to be a\nsuccessful theater design, which have led to difficult solution\nwith the building overhangs; that he has tried to cooperate with\nthe Design Review Board, the Planning Department, and the Planning\nBoard to address all concerns; the Planning Board placed a couple\nof conditions on the design; one condition was to add some\nadditional texture to the panels on the corner of the building;\nmany options were studied; the decision was made to enhance the\ncontext of the design, rather than introducing something totally\nforeign to the basic design of the building; the established design\nfor the panels around the corner of the building was carried into\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 18, "text": "more detail to provide a greater sense of continuity for the\noverall design.\nThe Development Services Director stated there was a fairly long\npre-design discussion; first, the interiors and the project that\nthe developer wanted to build were done by Mr. Henry and given to\nMichael Stanton who assisted through the design guideline process\nand the public process; then, the Historical Advisory Board and\nPlanning Board established the design criteria addressing the\nissues that the community thought were important; the criteria was\nprovided to the Architect, which were used as the basis for\nbeginning the project.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Cineplex and parking\ngarage should have continuity of design; stated that he would like\nthe buildings to fit together currently, the two buildings stand\nalone.\nMr. Henry responded the Cineplex and parking garage are two\ndifferent buildings with different functions; applying one design\nto one type of building and expecting that design to apply to\nanother type building is difficult; the design comes out of the\ninternal organization, function and requirements of the project;\nthere is some relationship between the parking garage and Cineplex,\nwhich was done purposely with vertical columns; the garage does\nhave a horizontal emphasis, which has been incorporated into the\nCineplex design to tie the buildings together; the essence of the\nbuildings is similar.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Henry stated that he is\nattempting to relate the horizontal elements of the parking\nstructure to the Cineplex, in spite of the historic theater having\nmostly vertical elements.\nMr. Henry responded in the affirmative; stated architects debate\nwhether or not a new building built in a historic context should be\nbuilt to look like the historic building or be something of its own\ncharacter both sides have pros and cons.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the State guidelines\nprohibit imitation of a historic building.\nThe Development Services Director responded that the Secretary of\nStandards prohibits mimicking or creating a building that would\ngive the false impression that it was built in 1920 instead of\n2005; the Secretary of Standards encourages incorporating historic\nfeatures and elements into the design.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 19, "text": "Counci deHaan inquired whether or not rounding off the\ncorner would be considered mimicking.\nThe Development Services Director responded rounding off would not\nbe mimicking; stated mimicking would be trying to make people\nbelieve the building is art deco.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Cineplex and parking structure\ncorners could be smoothed; where the Cineplex steps back from the\nhistoric theater there are funny, square windows.\nThe Development Services Director stated that she met with AAPS\nlast week; AAPS feels strongly about the need for a much stronger\nvertical element; at a number of different public meetings\naddressing design, people liked the glass lobby element.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about the long, 20\nto 21 inch, protrusions, which do not match the downtown district\nand result in an awkward mass; that he would be happy if the\nproject was one-story; however, more screens are needed to make the\nproject financially feasible.\nCouncilmember Daysog thanked everyone for taking the time to voice\nopinions; stated that the Council would vote on the appeal of the\nPlanning Board's decision regarding the project design and other\ndesign related elements tonight that he is troubled by the\nbusiness deal aspects of the project and continues to struggle over\nwhat constitutes the proper balance between fulfilling an earnest\ndesire for a historic movie theater that the community could be\nproud of and the wise and prudent use of public dollars; that he is\nalso troubled by the fact that the cinema project is a negative $7\nmillion and the new information tonight regarding the $0.40 per\nsquare foot [rent] when market is $1.35; that the Council has a\nfiduciary responsibility to exercise leadership when the public's\nappetite for amenities conflicts with fiscal prudence; that he\nunderstands the desire to restore the historic theater and that\nsome people want the Cineplex; however, he is struggling with the\nrent; $0.40 per square foot is one-third of the market rate.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the $1.35 market rate is\nfor commercial space or theater space, to which the Development\nServices Director responded the rate is for brand new theater\nspace.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether data on other historic\ntheaters, such as the Fox Theater in Oakland, was available.\nThe Development Services Director responded that the Fox Theater is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 20, "text": "non-profit.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the comparison [of rent with brand\nnew theater ] is not fair.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that there is a fair comparison because\npeople are going to walk into what amounts to a brand new\nhistorically restored theater.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the building being historically\nrestored makes a difference.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the historic restoration of the theater\nis on the City's dime.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City would own the building.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City should charge a rent that is\nat least as close to fair market as possible.\nThe Development Services Director stated that the developer would\nbe happy to lease at $1.35 per square foot if the City wanted to\nbuild the cinemas.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the impact of the project on the\ndowntown district is the real drive; that he cannot place a dollar\nfigure on how the project will improve the environment and make the\narea more viable; catalyst projects are built to make things\nhappen; Park Street has a new vitality in spite of the City; John\nKnowles was honored tonight; without real public funding, Mr.\nKnowles set a standard of small, unique stores; 70% of the\nmerchants in stores ten years are gone because the City did not set\nup an environment to retain businesses.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated John Knowles project was not done in\nspite of the City and with no public dollars because the\nRedevelopment Manager's time was paid by the City's redevelopment\nagency part of the project's value is that the City is getting\nfirst run movies for $0.40 per square foot and people will spend\nmoney in town, rather than elsewhere.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that said value could also be realized\nat $1.10 per square foot.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated financial questions are outside\nwhether or not the Council should uphold the Planning Board's\ndecision, which is about design.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 21, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated the rent is a percentage, not a straight $0.40\nper square foot.\nValerie Ruma, Appellant, stated the Council is not reviewing the\nenvironmental aspect, such as traffic; an environmental impact\nreport is required by the law before the project can go forward.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires either a negative\ndeclaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ; a letter from the\nAppellant's attorney raised an issue that an EIR would have been\nrequired if a fair argument was raised at the time the negative\ndeclaration was initially adopted; the mitigated negative\ndeclaration was adopted in May; pursuant to CEQA, the mitigated\nnegative declaration is presumed, by law, to be adequate if not\nchallenged within thirty days of approval; the mitigated negative\ndeclaration was not challenged.\nMs. Ruma stated that the City Attorney's office provided\ncontradictory information that there was no specific appeal process\nand the appeal tonight could be in written or oral form.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the substance of the design\nreview could be appealed but that the environmental review is not\nbeing addressed tonight.\nMayor Johnson requested that the Assistant City Attorney discuss\nthe matter with Ms. Ruma.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the parking structure is a design/build\nproject; a picture was shown which was very similar to the proposed\ndesign, except that the picture seemed more vertical with narrower\nopening; inquired whether narrow openings would be an issue from a\nconstruction standpoint.\nThe Development Services Director responded that she could not\nanswer whether the openings could be made smaller there are a\nnumber of structural issues relative to the parking garage because\nof other design achievements, such as the least amount of columns\npossible inside the interior garage to provide maximum safety and\nview; the design is contemplated to carry a lot of load on the\noutside walls; that she would obtain an answer and provide the\ninformation to Council.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there could be some type of\nmovement on the long, bare sidewall of the parking garage to give\nit a feel other than just a flat wall.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 22, "text": "The Development Services Director responded the wall would be built\non the property line; that she does not have the answer since the\nstructural piece has not been completed; a process has been started\nto provide artists with an opportunity to prepare an attachable\nmural.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the flat wall on the historical\ntheater has treatment and movement; although the theater cannot be\nreplicated, movement can be done.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the picture shows a wall with four\nins and outs.\nThe Development Services Director stated there is some\narticulation.\nThe Business Development Division Manager stated that the picture\npresented would not be the final design; the City has a public art\npolicy; the Public Arts Commission received five proposals from\nlocal artists to create a design based on the adopted policy.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of accepting the appeal.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Daysog's motion\nwas to reverse the decision of the Planning Board.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nTHE MOTION FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers\nDaysog and deHaan - 2. Noes: Vice Mayor Gilmore, Councilmember\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 3.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he looked at the Planning\nBoard's decision and the findings on both the Use Permit and Design\nReview; he has difficulty with the subjectivity of what is\nharmonious in design experts have discussed vertical and\nhorizontal elements; there are constraints with mimicking the\nhistoric theater; the project is a good attempt to meet the goals\nto use the historic theater for first run movies and provide\nparking in an unobtrusive wayi inquired whether the Council could\nattach conditions.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the conditions that he would like to\nsee included in the motion to uphold the Planning Board's decision\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 23, "text": "are a condition to have the fa\u00e7ade treatment on the Oak Street\nportion of the parking structure provide vertical elements similar\nto the ones presented by AAPS and a condition to have the treatment\nof the Central Avenue fa\u00e7ade of the Cineplex provide a less modern\ntreatment of the window in between the historic theater and the\ncorner portion of the Cineplex second-story view spot that is\ncurved outwards.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated AAPS presented two pictures.\nMayor Johnson requested that the picture be shown.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the picture he was referring to was\nnot the garage in Staunton, Virginia.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the picture was of the garage with\nopenings.\nThe Business Development Division Manager stated the picture is of\na garage in Walnut Creek and displayed the picture.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Council direction was to have\nthe [Cineplex] architecture be less modern than original\nrenderings.\nMayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese\nreferring to \"less modern\" applies to the overhang that is on the\nfront of the Cineplex.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated that\nhe was referring to the glass lobby that is curved.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese had any\ndirection in defining less modern.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded squared off with some sloping\ntreatments; however, he is not an architect. the direction should\nbe general : the architect should come back with something less\nmodern for that window specifically and the architect should\nunderstand the idea for the parking structure from the picture.\nMayor Johnson requested that the colors be more compatible; further\nrequested staff to review the possibility of having the ticket\nbooth out in front to make the historic theater look like it used\nto look; stated the booth would not have to be useable.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 24, "text": "Counci lmember Matarrese moved approval [of upholding the Planning\nBoard decision with the conditions outlined].\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would not\nsupport the motion because he is concerned about the business deal;\ncharging rent of $0.40 per square foot gets the City $3 million;\ncharging rent of $0.80 per square foot would greatly increase the\namount and is still below the $1.35 per square foot market figure.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the current colors of the historic\ntheater are the original colors.\nThe Development Manager responded the original colors are not\nknown; however, the original colors were light.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about putting too\nmuch on a small parcel; that he would like to see downscaling to\nbring the project into some proportion; since downscaling is not\noccurring, he would not support the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson -\n3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan - 2.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(05-409) Michael Robinson, San Francisco Bay Resort Club,\nsubmitted a letter to the Council; stated that he has been working\nwith Fish and Wild Life, the Veterans Administration, and the\nVeterans Community Resource Federation (VCRF) to create a plan for\nAlameda Point that provides for the needs of said entities;\nrequested the cooperation of City staff in submitting the resort\nplans as part of the upcoming environmental review.\n(05-410) Pete Clark stated the development of Alameda Point would\ninclude transit opportunities.\n(05-411) Connie J. Rozenkowski, VCRF, stated that there is a\nproposed plan to convert the Bachelors' Enlisted Quarters at the\nformer Navy Base into a cultural center that would provide programs\nfor veterans, low income families, college students, and foster\ncare children leaving the foster care system; the programs would be\nfunded by the resort development.\n(05-412) - Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed development.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 25, "text": "(05-413) The following speakers addressed the Theater Parking\nStructure Public Hearing : Valerie Ruma, Citizens for Megaplex Free\nAlameda; Ani Dimusheve, Alameda; Jan Schaeffer, Alameda; Rosemary\nMcNally, Alameda; Robb Ratto, PSBA; and Jay Levine, Alameda.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05 -414) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to\nthe Civil Service Board, Economic Development Commission, Golf\nCommission, Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code\nHearing and Appeals Board, and Recreation and Park Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft and Robert F. Kelley\nto the Economic Development Commission and Anthony M. Santare to\nthe Golf Commission.\n(05-415) Councilmember deHaan stated that he received an\nannouncement for a Krusi Park Open House regarding an application\nby Cingular Wireless to install a new wireless cell site at the\nKrusi Park tennis courts; the announcement states that Cingular\ndoes not own the existing site.\nMayor Johnson inquired who was sponsoring the Open House, to which\nCouncilmember deHann responded the Development Services Department.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he thought that Cingular developed\nthe first cell towers at Krusi Park.\nThe Business Development Division Manager stated that she would\ninvestigate the matter.\n(05-416) - Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Harbor Bay Ferry\nhas exceeded the 40% fare box for July; stated that advertisement\nneeds to continue; alternate fuel buying options may need to be\nconsidered in the future.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 2:40 a.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\n25\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 26, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -AUGUST 16, 2005- - -6:10 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(05-395) Conference with Labor Negotiator - Agency Negotiator\n:\nArthur Hartinger of Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson;\nEmployee: City Attorney.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the City\nAttorney and no action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 6:45 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 27, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMEN'T COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - - -AUGUST 16, 2005 - -6:45 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(05-039) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property:\nFleet Industrial Supply Center; Negotiating parties : Catellus\nLimited Operating Partnership and Community Improvement Commissioni\nUnder negotiation: Price and terms.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Chair Johnson announced that the Commission gave direction to\nReal Property Negotiators and no action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 28, "text": "MINUTES\nOF\nTHE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - - -AUGUST 16, 2005 - -7:35 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 2:40 a.m., August 17,\n2005.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nChair Johnson announced that the Resolution Authorizing the\nExecutive Director to Execute a Fourth Amendment to the DDA\n[paragraph no. 05-042] was removed from the Consent Calendar for\ndiscussion.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCommissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number . ]\n( Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission (CIC) Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment\nAuthority, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting,\nand the Special CIC Meeting of August 2, 2005. Approved.\n(*05-041) Recommendation to approve a Contract with Cooper Pugeda\nManagement, Inc. ./The Allen Group, LLC for Construction Management\nServices for rehabilitation of the Historic Alameda Theater Project\nand proposed Civic Center Parking Garage for $1,114,436. Accepted.\n(05-042) Resolution No. 05-138, \"Authorizing the Executive\nDirector to Execute a Fourth Amendment to the Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement (DDA) by and Between the Community\nImprovement Commission and Catellus Limited Operating Partnership\n(Developer) Which Would Extend the Expiration Term by One Year From\nJune 2007 to June 2008 in Order to Allow the Developer to Explore a\nChange from Commercial Office/Research and Development Land to a\nMixed-Use Retail/Residential Land Use at the Former U.S. Navy Fleet\nIndustrial Supply Center (FISC) Property. Adopted.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether adoption of the resolution\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n1\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 29, "text": "would allow Catellus to explore a change in the current DDA.\nThe Development Services Director responded that the amendment\nwould allow Catellus to explore re-entitlement of the existing\nproperty.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether there would be a public\nprocess that would allow people to comment, to which the\nDevelopment Services Director responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated that he wanted people to be aware\nthat the matter would be publicly noticed and that Catellus would\nbe given a year to provide more information.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCommissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions Commissioner deHaan\n- 1.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 2:45 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}