{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-11-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 1, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:46 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(05-516) Councilmember deHaan stated that he thought the Public\nHearing to accept new, revised preliminary designs for the Cineplex\nand a 352-space parking structure [paragraph no. 05-524] and the\nPublic Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's\napproval of Use Permits [paragraph no. 05-525] should be heard in\nreverse order.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(05-517) - Proclamation honoring the developers of the Marketplace,\nand declaring November 1, 2005 as Donna Layburn, Paul Hossack, and\nGerald Mackey Appreciation Day.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Donna Layburn\nand Gerald Mackey, developers of the Marketplace.\nDonna Layburn thanked the Council for the proclamation and support.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked the developers for persevering.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he appreciates moving forward with\nthe developer's vision.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Marketplace is a great place to\nshop; tenants have created a wonderful synergy; owners are\nfriendly, outgoing, and helpful.\nValerie Ruma, Alameda, stated that she is a fan of the marketplace.\n(05-518) Library project update.\nThe Project Manager gave a brief project update.\nMayor Johnson requested that the Project Manager alert the Council\non available options if the project is still under budget.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nNovember 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-11-01", "page": 2, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether items removed through value\nengineering were prioritized, to which the Project Manager\nresponded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested that items removed through value\nengineering be prioritized by cost and gain.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated direction was given to review\nlongevity versus spending; analysis should be given to saving\n$26,000 today and spending $60,000 for restroom rehabilitation in\nthe future because durable countertops were not installed.\nThe Project Manager stated there was significant discussion on the\ncountertop issues; countertop prices would be provided to the\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested a report on long-term projections\nfor replacement costs.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\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(*05-519) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on October 18, 2005. Approved.\n(*05-520) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,861,380.74.\n( *05-521) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report\nfor the period ending September 30, 2005. Accepted.\n( *05-522) - Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to pay Bay\nShip & Yacht Company $134,598.19 for facility upgrades to the Main\nStreet Ferry Terminal. Accepted.\n(*05-523) Resolution No. 13906, \"Amending Resolution No. 9460 to\nReflect Current Positions and Entities to be Included in the City\nof Alameda's Conflict of Interest Code and Rescinding Resolution\nNo. 13726. \" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nNovember 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-11-01", "page": 3, "text": "(05-524) ) Public Hearing to accept new, revised preliminary designs\nfor the cineplex and a 352-space parking structure at the corner of\nOak Street and Central Avenue, within the C-C T (Community\nCommercial Theater) Zoning District.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief presentation on the\nproject.\nMr. Towey with Komorous-Towey Architects gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there are seven parking levels;\ninquired whether the elevator tower reached up to the seventh\nlevel.\nThe Architect responded in the negative; stated the previous and\ncurrent designs are the same; the seventh level was extended to\nmake up for some lost spaces.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the highest peak would be the\nelevator tower and whether the roof level was now 70 feet.\nThe Architect responded that the top of the elevator tower was the\nhighest point.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the canopies look industrial\n;\ninquired whether other options were considered.\nThe Architect responded that the industrial nature of the canopies\ncould be valid, depending on execution; the historical period being\nevaluated had very flat and thin awnings many were roll out\nawnings; the intention is to keep the metal very flat and thin as\nopposed to having a sloping top; the corrugated metal would not be\nvisible; the canopies could be executed to look finished.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there was another design\nwhich could pull back the 20 inch protrusion.\nThe Architect responded that the previous design studied what would\noccur if the protrusion had to be pulled back; twenty-five seats\nand a few feet off one of the screen's sides would be lost; his\ncharge was to work with the approved floor plans.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of the design) : Pauline Kelley, Alameda; Pete\nHalberstadt, Alameda (read a list of 33 people in favor of the\ndesign) ; Chuck Millar, Alameda; Marilyn Schumacher, Alameda; Sherri\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nNovember 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-11-01", "page": 4, "text": "Stieg, Alameda; Harry Hartman, Alameda; Michael John Torrey,\nAlameda.\nOpponents (Not in favor of the design) : Anthony Mark, Oakland;\nBirgitt Evans, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) i\nJack Boeger, Alameda: Christopher Buckley, AAPS Richard Rutter,\nAAPS; Irene Dieter, Alameda (submitted comments) ; Valerie Ruma,\nAlameda; Victoria Ashley, Alameda; Vern Marsh, Alameda; Robert\nGavrich, Alameda (submitted comments) i Jay Levine, Alameda\n(submitted comments) ; Jon Spangler, Alameda Ron Schaeffer, CMFA\n(submitted comments) i Kevin Fredrick, Alameda; David Miller,\nAlameda; Dave Kerwin, Alameda.\nThere be no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the project design was light years\nahead of the previous design.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated\nCouncil direction was followed to make the fa\u00e7ade less modern,\nmatch the architectural character of the existing theater, and\naccommodate the project; the project should be accepted.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is comfortable with the design;\nthe design addresses some of the AAPS's concerns and project\ncontinuity; he appreciates that time was taken to review the\ndesign.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she is particularly pleased with the\nparking garage the staff and Architect did an excellent job of\nfollowing Council direction; thanked AAPS for input; stated the\nparking garage is an excellent design.\nMayor Johnson stated that she appreciates the staff's and\nArchitect's work; improvements are outstanding; the project should\nmove forward.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he is concerned with the 70-foot - high\nparking structure, which would be even with the marquee; stated\nMariner Square's new boat storage facility is 50-feet tall; Alameda\nPoint Hangers 41 and 39 are 45-feet tall; massing is a concern.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he voted against the matter\nseveral months ago on very narrow grounds, which still stand; he is\nconcerned that the City is not getting the best business deal out\nof the project; the rent on the historic theater amounts to 30\ncents per square foot when the market rate is around $1.50 to $1.80\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nNovember 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-11-01", "page": 5, "text": "per square foot charging 60 cents would amount to millions of\ndollars over time; the Council cannot treat fiscal issues lightly\nthere is pent up demand for a movie theater in Alameda; he is\nconcerned with project development a lot of public dollars are\nbeing put into the project; $9 million is being put into the\nhistoric theater and more is being put into the parking garage and\ncineplex; public investment would be paid back through future tax\nincrements; redevelopment needs to add value and not just recoup\ninvestments; projects need to generate sales tax, more property\ntaxes, and more revenues; investments are being made that are not\njust redevelopment dollars, but dollars that previously went to\nother taxing public entities; the promise of redevelopment is not\njust to revitalize blighted areas but also to pay back entities\nthere would not be associated redevelopment costs if there was a\nbetter business deal; the project is more of a street and sidewalk\npublic works project, where recouping of public funds is not\nexpected; he is glad that the historic theater would be restored;\nhe is concerned with getting the best possible rent for the City a\nbeautiful project should never trump bottom line considerations; he\nwill stick to his guns regarding the fiscal aspects of the project.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Council voted on the business plan in\nMay; Councilmember Daysog voted for the business plan, which\nincluded the square footage rental; the historic Alameda theater\nproject is not intended to be strictly a business deal, but also a\nhistoric renovation project; a new cineplex could be built for less\nmoney; the historic theater is being significantly restored; she\nwould hope that a second and third phase restoration could be done;\nsaving the building first is necessary.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he voted for the Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement (DDA) in May; a DDA is never consummated\nuntil all the land use approvals are put in place per the Municipal\nCode; financial feasibility was referenced when the Downtown Vision\nPlan was adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the revised design of the\ncineplex and the parking structure.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes :  ouncilmembers Gilmore and Matarrese\nand Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes Councilmember Daysog - 1. Abstentions\n:\nCouncilmember deHaan - 1.\n(05-525) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning\nBoard's approval of Use Permits for a) multi-screen theatre, live\ntheatre, and public assembly use in the C-C T district pursuant to\nAMC Subsection 30-4.22; b) fifty eight (58' ) foot building height\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nNovember 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-11-01", "page": 6, "text": "for the Cineplex pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.g.2; and c)\nextended hours of operation until 3:00 a.m. for the theatre\npursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.c. 1 (a) for up to 24 days per\nyear. The site is located at 2305 - -2317 Central Avenue, within the\nC-C T (Community Commercial Theatre Combining) District.\nApplicants : Kyle Conner, Alameda Entertainment Associates, LP.\nAppellants : Ani Dimusheva and Robert Gavrich; and\n(05-525A) Resolution No. 13907, \"Upholding the Planning Board's\nApproval of Use Permit UP05-0018 for A) Multi-Screen - Theater, Live\nTheater, and Public Assembly Use in the C-C T District Pursuant to\nAMC Subsection 30-4.22; B) Fifty Eight Foot (58' ) Building Height\nfor the Cineplex Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A. G-2; and (C)\nExtended Hours of Operation until 3:00 A.M. for 24 Days per Year\nfor the Theater Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.C.1 (A) for\nOccasional Special Events and Screenings, with a condition that an\nanalysis of late-night screening be conducted after 12 events or a\nyear, whichever comes first. \" Adopted.\nThe Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation on the project.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nOpponents (Not in favor of the project) : Jenny Curtis; Citizens for\na Megaplex-Fre Alameda (CMFA) (submitted comments) ; Valerie Ruma,\nCMFA (submitted comments) ; Ani Dimusheva, Appellant Alice Ray,\nCMFA (submitted comments) ; Kristi Koenen, CMFA; Andy Crockett, CMFA\n(submitted comments) ; Vern Marsh, CMFA; Phyllis Greenwood, CMFA;\nLew Brentano, CMFA (submitted comments) ; Joe Meylor, CMFA; Robert\nGavrich, Appellant (submitted comments) ; Paula Rainey, CMFA; Kevin\nFredrick, CMFA; Russell Kirk, CMFA (submitted comments) ; Richard\nMcClure II, Alameda (not present) ; Arthur Lipow, Alameda (submitted\nletter) ; Deborah Overfield; David Kirwin, Alameda; David Miller,\nAlameda Jon Spangler, Alameda; Gary McAffe, Alameda; Mark Dombeck,\nAlameda Ana Rojas, Alameda; Clyde Serda, Alameda (submitted\ncomments) i Glen Vivion; Susan Battaglia, Alameda; Rosemary McNally,\nAlameda (submitted comments) ; William F. Assali, Alameda (not\npresent) ; Irene Dieter, Alameda.\nProponents (In favor of the project) : Rich Warner, Alameda Gail\nWetzork, Alameda; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Alameda; Cathy Leong,\nAlameda Kevin Leong, Alameda. Fritz Mayer, Alameda; Bruce Reeves,\nAlameda (not present) ; Harvey Brook, Alameda; Lars Hanson, Park\nStreet Business Association (PSBA) ; Barbara Marchand, Marchand\nAssociates; Sherri Hansell, Alameda; Mary Amen; Debbie George,\nAlameda; Lowell Schneider, (PSBA) ; Blake Brydon, Alameda; Barry\nFinkelstein, Alameda; Mike Corbitt, Chamber of Commerce Board;\nChuck Carlise; Alameda; Marilyn Schumacher, Alameda (not present) ;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nNovember 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-11-01", "page": 7, "text": "Robert Doumitt, Alameda (not present) ; Robert McKean, Alameda;\nSherri Stieg, WABA; Walt Jacobs, Chamber of Commerce (not present) ;\nKyle Conner, Applicant; Harry Hartman, Alameda (not present) i Nancy\nBrandt, Alameda; Michael Torrey, Alameda; Frank George, Alameda. ;\nMelody Marr, Chamber of Commerce (read list of 14 people in favor\nof the project) ; Duane Watson, Lee Auto Supply.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that people can always agree to\ndisagree but should not be disagreeable; Councilmembers he has\nworked with since 1996 have all had the interest of the community\nin mind; the community must move forward regardless of tonight's\ndecision; he has always focused on the dollars and cents of a\nproject he has reservations with the proposed alternative; other\ncities are doing other things El Cerrito has purchased a historic\ntheater and is contracting with a company to run the theater\nOrinda is working with a non-profit group to preserve its historic\ntheater; he will support the Appeal because of the dollars and\ncents issue; 30 cents per square foot would generate $3 million\nversus 60 cents per square foot generating $6 million over the life\nof a twenty year project; stated he respects the other\nCouncilmembers' opinions.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated seven downtown parking sights were\nreviewed in October 2002; the sites were narrowed down to three:\nthe Elk's Club, Longs, and Bank of America; the report showing that\nVideo Maniacs was one of the sites is in error; inquired when the\nVideo Maniacs site came into play.\nThe Development Services Director responded that Video Maniacs was\nconsidered as a site in a parking analysis prior to October 2002;\nthe opportunity was shifted to Long's there was additional\ndialogue combining the two sites; the shift went back to the Video\nManiacs site when Long's no longer wanted to work with the City.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that Video Maniacs was identified as a\nparking structure before the cineplex review; inquired whether five\nscreens were ever considered.\nThe Development Services Director responded there were a number of\nproposals that had a combination of multiple screens five screens\nin the historic theater were never considered.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he was referring to five screens\nin the cineplex.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nNovember 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-11-01", "page": 8, "text": "The Development Services Director stated screen size and number of\nseats were discussed; internal evaluations included reviewing\nsomething smaller.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether five screens were\nrecommended.\nThe Development Services Director responded that staff concluded\nthat five screens would not be viable as competition continued to\nincrease in the area.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the viability of a five-\nscreen theater was understood.\nThe Development Services Director responded different product and\nconfigurations were reviewed.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether five screens were considered\nand recommended by staff.\nThe Development Services Director responded moving forward on the\nmatter was considered.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that Page 7 of the staff report\naddresses parking garage availability; the bottom line notes that\nthe parking garage and available parking would still have an extra\ncapacity of about 335, the day after the parking structure was\nbuilt; inquired whether there was a change in October 2005.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that Page 28 of the study notes there\nwould be additional parking; he is concerned about using off-street\nparking; inquired whether off-street private parking could be used.\nThe Development Services Director responded that the referenced\nstudy includes the Library; the studies are not comparable; there\nwas some accommodation for off-street parking within the\ncalculation of the use of the Library; off-street parking has not\nbeen calculated for the parking structure, cineplex or historic\ntheater.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired why private parking was included.\nThe Development Services Director responded there are a number of\nprivate parking lots that are not owned by the City, such as the\nBank of America lot that make up part of the mix; the parking lots\nbecome part of the available population when office workers go\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nNovember 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-11-01", "page": 9, "text": "home. parking supply is not just public parking.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there is no entitlement to private\nparking.\n***\nCouncilmember Daysog moved that the Regular Meeting be continued to\npast midnight.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether private parking could be used\nif there was an agreement with the owners.\nThe Development Services Director responded that covenants are not\nsought from owners for parking access.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that a parking structure would not be\nneeded according to information provided in a 2000 study; the study\nnoted that 204 spaces were available on Saturday evenings; inquired\nhow impacts from the Masonic Temple, high school, Kaufman\nAuditorium and Elks Club were calculated.\nThe Development Services Director responded that the analysis did\nnot assume anything other than normal activity seasonable events\noverwork a parking supply and change the normal scenario; the\nanalysis reviews typical peak times and does not focus on the\nunusual.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired why the 70-foot parking structure was\nnot included in the September 29, 2005 staff report.\nThe Development Services Director responded the report was prior to\nthe new project.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the 70-foot parking structure\nwas equivalent to the Alameda Theater sign and the Twin Tower\nspiral.\nThe Development Services Director responded the 70-foot parking\nstructure was the interior of the mechanical system elevator\npenthouse on the parking structure only; stated the Oak Street\nfa\u00e7ade of the parking structure has now dropped to 48 feet; the\nfinal ramp roof of the sixth story goes up to just below 70 feet.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there were always seven\nlevels to which the Development Services Director responded the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nNovember 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-11-01", "page": 10, "text": "sixth story roof parking was always in place.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the setbacks were done well; the cost\nper square foot increases with higher levels; inquired whether the\nsoil conditions have been reviewed.\nThe Development Services Director responded that the site has sandy\nsoil.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated that a professional geotechnical\nconsultant prepared a soil report; the loose sand would need to be\nremoved; compacted, new soil would have to be brought in or the\ngrade below could be used to add some additional spaces to make up\nfor the setback.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether exterior architectural\ntreatment would add to the cost.\nThe Development Services Director responded there are some cost\nsavings with the revised design the goal was to have the parking\ngarage structure cost under or at budget; removing the brick was a\nsavings; providing long, side openings would save on ventilation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a cost estimate for\nthe parking structure.\nThe Development Services Director responded that there was a\nballpark estimate from the Architect; the Architect feels the\nproject was close, if not under budget removing ventilation and\nsprinkling would save money.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the October 2002 cost estimate for 269\nspaces was $5.4 million.\nThe Development Services stated the estimate was the cost per\nparking space without land acquisition, relocation, and all soft\ncosts for design and engineering; hard construction costs per space\nwas approximately $18,000 to $19,000.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the report shows a cost of $16,000 per\nspace a few years ago.\nThe Development Services Director stated that San Jose had a 1999\ncost estimate for $15,000 per space which ended up costing $34,000\nper space by the time the structure was built four years later;\ncosts are difficult to estimate without construction documents.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the cost estimate was $16\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nNovember 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-11-01", "page": 11, "text": "million in 2002-2003.\nThe Development Services Director responded that $10.5 was bonded\nfor the parking structure and $7.5 million was bonded for the\nhistoric theater.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the November 2004 estimate was $24. 7\nmillion and now there was an estimate of $26.8 million.\nThe Development Services Director stated that the construction\ncontingency was gone; adding a 15% construction contingency was\nrequested for the historic theater.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether $28 million would consume all\nthe dollars for the project, to which the Development Services\nDirector responded very close.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the project might have to be value\nengineered.\nThe Development Services Director responded that there is no place\nto value engineer the historic theater.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested a recap of the Planning Board\nconditions regarding 3:00 am late night screenings.\nThe Development Services Director stated that the two primary\nconditions are: 1) the operator must submit an operation plan which\nthe Police Department and the City reviews for appropriateness, and\n2) the Use Permit would be reviewed by the Planning Board (after a\nyear) to decide whether additional conditions are needed.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated that the 3:00 am use is restricted\nto 24 times per year in the bottom four screens.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there would only be first-\nrun movies at the late night screenings.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated the requirement was part of the Development Agreement.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be contract\nPolice overtime when the theater is in operation past midnight, to\nwhich the Development Services Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Police Department would\nbe notified a week before the special event.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nNovember 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-11-01", "page": 12, "text": "The Development Services Director responded the Police Department\nwould be notified a couple of weeks before the special event.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether special showings would be in\nthe bigger or smaller theater.\nThe Development Services Director responded special showings could\nbe a combination of both; the intent is to have all the big\nblockbusters start in the bigger theater.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a caveat to review\nthe Use Permit after a year, to which the Development Services\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how often the Developer ran late\nnight movies.\nThe Developer responded that the new Harry Potter movie was being\nreleased Thursday at midnight; Star Wars and Serenity ran at 12:01\na.m.; approximately six movies have been shown past midnight this\nyear.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether lowering the number of late\nnight movies would be acceptable.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Planning Board had a very thorough\ndiscussion on midnight showings; there should be flexibility.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there was no Planning Board resolution\nregarding cueing.\nThe Development Services Director stated she spoke to the Police\nChief regarding the matter and concluded that nobody believes\ncueing would occur.\nThe City Attorney stated that there is a section in the Resolution\nregarding cueing; there are five conditions on blockbuster releases\nand special venues.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be contract\novertime for cueing, to which the Development Services Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired why a Public Works and Police\nDepartment review was requested.\nThe Development Services Director responded the Public Works review\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nNovember 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-11-01", "page": 13, "text": "was requested because of street and sidewalk issues; the Police\nDepartment review was requested for insight special requests would\nbe discussed among all department heads.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the zoning district allows up\nto 60 feet with the granting of the Use Permit.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated the parking structure is exempt.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether only the cineplex was being\ndiscussed, to which the Development Services Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that comments at the Planning Board\nmeeting and tonight's meeting are no different the Planning Board\ntook diligence in reviewing the Municipal Code for the cineplex\nheight requirements and did a credible job in reviewing extending\nhours past midnight; stated he has no problem as long as the hours\nare monitored.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution upholding\nthe Planning Board's approval with a condition that there be a\nmonthly analysis of late-night screenings and a review after 12\nevents or a year, whichever comes first.\nThe Development Services Director stated that there would be a\nmaster review after 12 events.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board would review the\nmatter, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes - Vice Mayor Gilmore, Councilmember\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1.\nAbstentions: Councilmember deHaan - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-526) Status of the Infrastructure Improvement Project/Plan,\nincluding scope, issues, timelines and questions.\nCounci lmember Daysog requested that the Council forward\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nNovember 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-11-01", "page": 14, "text": "infrastructure plan ideas to the staff prior to the matter being on\nthe agenda in December ; suggested community oversight be\nestablished; requested future discussions on how streets are\nprioritized for crack sealing treatment.\nMayor Johnson stated she would not want to have the infrastructure\nreport delayed in order to review options; the Council should\nreview what other cities do; she was very disappointed when the\nCouncil learned that the infrastructure spending was cut nearly\n50%, which made making the reserve appear to be false; stated the\nreserve is not false; deferred maintenance occurred; stated there\nis crack sealing all over the City; a decision was made not to do\ncrack sealing; the Council needs more information on what is\nprioritized and the affects of the decisions; a long catch-up game\nis required due to the cuts.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested some level of discussion about an\noversight committee that would inform the Council on issues.\nMayor Johnson stated there should be a discussion on available\noptions and goals.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired when the infrastructure report would\nbe brought to the Council, to which the City Manager responded\nDecember.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether park deterioration would be\nincluded in the report.\nThe City Manager responded the report includes sidewalks, streets,\nstreet tree planning, field maintenance, facility maintenance,\nsewers, and storm drains.\n(05-527) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she attended the\nAssociation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Conference in Oakland\nlast week; the main topic of conversation was affordable housing\nthere was a strong recognition that individuals are being priced\nout of the Bay Area market. the 20-3 year old group stated housing\nwas a real problem; unfortunately the language at the conference\nwas harsh on both sides and was not a good coming together to\nexchange ideas.\n(05-528) Councilmember deHaan stated that the Chamber of Commerce\nhad a briefing on the Ninth Avenue project in conjunction with the\nPort of Oakland for 3,500 to 4,000 homes; there is continual build\nout on the other side of the Estuary the City is in litigation\nwhich restricts fulfilling commitments expressing the City's\nconcerns regarding constraints are important.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nNovember 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-11-01", "page": 15, "text": "Counci lmember Daysog stated that he previously requested a summary\nreport on Oakland developments that need to be reviewed; requested\na follow up to his request.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nregular meeting at 12:37 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\n15\nNovember 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-11-01", "page": 16, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 1, 2005 - -6:05 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 6:05 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(05-511) - Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations\n:\nInternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Management and\nConfidential Employees Association.\n(05-512) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing litigation; Name\nof case: Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda V. City of Alameda,\net al.\n(05-513) - Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:\nMarie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee : City Attorney.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding the International\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers and Management and Confidential\nEmployees Association, the Council gave instructions to labor\nnegotiators; regarding Existing litigation, the Council was briefed\nby the City Attorney; regarding the City Attorney, the Council gave\ninstruction to the negotiators.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:35 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\nNovember 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-11-01", "page": 17, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 1, 2005- -7:25 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:45 p.m.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : louncilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog,\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/\nChair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent\nCalendar.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried\nby unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. . ]\n(\n*05-514CC/05-049CIC Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission and Special Community Improvement\nCommission meetings held on October 18, 2005. Approved.\n(\n*05-515CC/05-050CIC) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly\nFinancial Report for the period ending September 30, 2005 and\napprove the supplemental appropriations. Accepted.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 7:46 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 and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf"}