{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-03-21", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - - MARCH 21, 2006 - - 7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.\nCouncilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at\n9:05 p.m. ]\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(06-138) - Presentation by Rear Admiral Kevin Eldridge, U.S. Coast\nGuard District 11, recognizing the City of Alameda for becoming a\nCoast Guard City.\nRear Admiral Kevin Eldridge gave a brief presentation, read a\nstatement from the Commandant, and read and presented the\nproclamation.\nMayor Johnson presented Alameda flags to Rear Admiral Eldridge.\nBarbara Price, Navy League, thanked everyone involved in the two-\nyear process.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember deHaan noted the Fernside Boulevard pedestrian access\nimprovements [paragraph no. 06-144] are a part of a phasing\nprocessi Lincoln Middle School improved a portion of the parking\nlot; additional improvements would take care of the front area of\nthe school; the City would be requesting additional grants.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1. ]\n[Note: Recommendation to accept the work of Richard Heaps Electric\n[paragraph no. 06-143] was reopened and addressed at the end of the\nmeeting. . ]\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMarch 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-03-21", "page": 2, "text": "[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. ]\n( *06-139) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on March 7, 2006. Approved.\n(*06-140) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,993,920.94.\n( *06-141) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call\nfor Bids for furnishings in the New Main Library. Accepted.\n(*06-142) Recommendation to release Request for Proposal for\nnetwork equipment and services for the Alameda Free Library.\nAccepted.\n(*06-143) Recommendation to accept the work of Richard Heaps\nElectric, Inc. for the Pole-Mounted Radar Speed Display Signs\nProject, No. P. W. 06-05-05. Accepted.\nMayor Johnson requested staff to review areas for additional sign\nlocations; stated the speed signs are a preventative measure.\nThe City Manager stated that the Pubic Works Department is working\nwith the Police Department on some type of monitoring that would\nmeasure the signs' effectiveness.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether speeds could be monitored\nmechanically; inquired how much the signs cost.\nCouncilmember deHaan responded the costs are noted in the ledger.\nJon Spangler, Alameda, stated he hopes that more signs are\ninstalled; the pedestrian right-of-way enforcement works; more\neducation is needed.\nMayor Johnson stated the area is safer if signs help to reduce\nspeed.\n(*06-144) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for Fernside Boulevard pedestrian access\nimprovements near Lincoln Middle School (Safe Routes to School)\n,\nNo. P.W. 11-02-15. Accepted.\n(*06-145) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 repair of\nPortland Cement concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway and minor\nstreet patching, No. P. W. 03-06-06. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMarch 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-03-21", "page": 3, "text": "(*06-146) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for installation of rubberized sidewalks,\nNo. P. W. 02-06-05. Accepted; and\n*06-146A) Resolution No. 13935, \"Authorizing Open Market Purchase\nPursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for Rubberized\nSidewalks. Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(06-147 ) Ordinance No. 2947, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Adding a New Subsection 30-5.7 (M) (Extensions of Roof Pitch and\nRoof Ridges) to Section 30-5.7 (Projections from Buildings and Roof\nPlanes, Permitted Encroachments and Treatments of Minimum Required\nYards) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Add a Process\nfor Allowing Additions to Existing Dwellings with Nonconforming\nHeight. Finally passed.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved final passage of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that the ordinance\nrecognizes the work of the Task Force.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 4. [Absent: louncilmember Daysog - 1.\n]\n(06-148) - Public Hearing to consider Zoning Amendment R 05-0002 to\nadd a Planned Development overlay to a property located within the\nR-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District and to consider\nParcel Map, PM 06-0001, to allow the division of an existing 14,602\nsquare foot residential lot into two parcels, each with an existing\ndetached duplex. The project site is located at 1810 and 1812\nClinton Avenue;\n(06-148A) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning\nCertain Property Within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning\nOrdinance No. 1277, N.S., from R-4 (Neighborhood Residential)\nZoning District to R-4-PD (Neighborhood Residential Planned\nDevelopment) Zoning District for that Property Located at 1810 and\n1812 Clinton Avenue. Introduced; and\n(06-148B) Resolution No. 19336, \"Approving Parcel Map PM 06-0001 to\nAllow the Division of a 14,602 Square Foot Parcel into Two Lots at\n1810/1812 Clinton Avenue. \" Adopted.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMarch 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-03-21", "page": 4, "text": "Alameda City Council\n4\nMarch 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-03-21", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated the vacated Economic Development\nCommission position would allow a person to serve a three and a\nhalf year term and then two more terms.\nMayor Johnson stated she would not want to appoint someone for a\nthree and a half year term and then two four-year terms stated\nsome positions are covered by commission By-laws and some are set\nby the Charter.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he hopes the Council would have a\nchance to review the Film Commission applications and provide some\nrecommendations.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would be happy to receive input from\nthe Council; the City Clerk's office has all of the applications on\nfile for review.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted that he has never missed a regular\nTuesday night City Council Meeting.\nMayor Johnson congratulated ouncilmember Daysog on an impressive\nattendance record.\nMayor Johnson nominated Arthur A. Autorino to the Economic\nDevelopment Commission and Irene Balde to the Housing Commission\nstated that the Film Commission nominations would be held over.\n(06-150) Councilmember Matarrese requested that the next Library\nProject update or an Off Agenda Report address treatment to be used\nalong the edge of the Library parking lot.\n(06-151) Councilmember Matarrese requested a review of potential\nride share locations at the Webster Street outbound tube; requested\nthe review be accelerated due to Enterprise Landing [Catellus\nproject] stated ride share could be potential mitigation for\nanything [development] west of Webster Street addressing the\nmatter could include fixing flooding that occurs.\n( (06-152) Councilmember deHaan stated there has been increased\ncriminal activity at the Alameda Town Centre; a police officer was\nsponsored two years ago; he would like to revisit the issue to\nensure an orderly build out.\n(06-153\n-\n)\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the Alameda Town Centre\nWalgreen's would be open 24 hours; requested information on whether\na permit was issued for the 24-hour operation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMarch 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-03-21", "page": 6, "text": "(06-154) - Councilmember deHaan stated that the sidewalk on the Park\nStreet side of the Alameda Towne Centre was only three feet; five\nfeet would be more appropriate.\n(06-155) Councilmember deHaan stated that he attended AC Transit's\nhydrogen fuel cell demonstration on March 13; the bus has already\nbeen operating in Alameda.\nMayor Johnson noted that the bus seems to be very quiet.\n(06-156) Mayor Johnson inquired whether anyone attended the AP&T\nelectric partnership groundbreaking.\nCouncilmember deHaan responded that he attended; stated the\nenvironment would be impacted if the gas was not captured.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 11:15 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMarch 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-03-21", "page": 7, "text": "MINUTE OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -MARCH 21, 2006- -5:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:40 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(06-135 ) Conference with Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director. Employee Organization :\nAlameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of\nElectrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees\nAssociation.\nAl Fortier, Journey Lineworker, Local 1245, stated he was concerned\nwith the lack of progress made negotiations have been going on\nsince December 2004; one tentative agreement was reached and was\nrejected by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers\n(IBEW) ; two meetings have been held since January 26 for a total of\nfour hours; strike sanction has been granted by the local union,\nthe Alameda Central Labor Council and the International Office of\nIBEW; a table agreement would be in the best interest of the City\nand IBEW; requested that the Council give the City's negotiating\nteam the direction necessary to provide an acceptable table\nagreement.\nGary Fenton, Journey Lineworker, Local 1245, stated he has been in\nthe electrical trade for thirty years; IBEW is asking for a fair\ncontract; IBEW's wages and medical benefits did not put the City in\nthe current financial position.\n(06-136) Conference with Property Negotiator; Property : Ballena\nIsle Marina; Negotiating parties City of Alameda and Ballena Isle\nMarina LLP; Under negotiation: Price and terms.\n(06-137) Public Employee Performance Evaluation. Title: City\nAttorney.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Labor\nNegotiators, the Council obtained briefing and gave instructions to\nlabor negotiators; regarding Conference with Property Negotiator,\nthe Council obtained briefing and gave instructions to real\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMarch 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-03-21", "page": 8, "text": "property negotiator; regarding Public Employee Performance\nEvaluation, the Council discussed the City Attorney.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:30 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\n2\nMarch 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-03-21", "page": 9, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY- -MARCH 21, 2006- -7:31 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 8:03 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : louncilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog,\ndeHaan, Gilmore, and Mayor/Chair Johnson\n- 5. [Note: Councilmember/Commissioner\nDaysog arrived at 9:05 p.m. ]\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(06-157CC/06-009CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting held on March 7, 2006.\nApproved.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.\nCouncilmember/Commissione deHaan seconded the motion, which\ncarried\nby\nunanimous\nvoice\nvote\n-\n4.\n[Absent:\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog - 1. ]\nAGENDA ITEM\n(06-158CC/06-010CIC) Recommendation to review Section 106 Findings\nand approve revised designs of the 350-space parking garage and\nCineplex at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue within the\nC-C T Community Commercial Theater) zoning district;\n(06-158A/CC) Resolution No. 13937, \"Approving Amended Final Designs\nfor Design Review DR05-0041 for the Proposed Cineplex at 2305\nCentral Avenue and DR05-0028 for the Proposed Parking Garage at\n1416 Oak Street. Adopted;\n(06-158B/CC) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for the Rehabilitation of the Historic\nAlameda Theatre; and\n(06-158C/CC)\nRecommendation to adopt Conceptual Plans and\nSpecifications and authorize Call for Bids for Design-Build of the\nCivic Center Parking Garage, CIP No. 90-19.\nThe Development Services Director provided a brief presentation.\nThe Architect gave a brief presentation.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n1\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-03-21", "page": 10, "text": "The Development Services Director continued her presentation.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the 15%\ncontingency for the historic theater and the 9 and a half percent\ncontingency for the parking structure are included in the budget,\nto which the Development Services Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.\nProponents (In favor of staff recommendations) : Pauline Kelley,\nAlameda Kevis Brownson, Alameda (submitted petition) ; Harvey\nBrook, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) ; Barbara Mooney,\nAlameda; Lars Hansson, PSBA; Mary Amen, PSBA; Harry Dahlberg,\nEconomic Development Commission; Ed Clark, West Alameda Business\nAssociation; Debbie George, Alameda; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft,\nAlameda; Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce (read list of 11\nnames) ; Robb Ratto, PSBA ( submitted comments) ; Walt Jacobs, Alameda\nChamber of Commerce; Charles Carlise; Alameda; Norma Payton\nHenning, Alameda.\nOpponents (Not in favor of staff recommendations) : Joe Maylor,\nAlameda (submitted comments) ; Susan Battaglia, Alameda; Deborah\nOverfield, Alameda; Valerie Ruma, Alameda (submitted comments) ; Ani\nDimusheva, Alameda; Scott Brady, Alameda; Nancy Hird, Alameda;\nDenise Brady, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society Robert\nGavrich, Alameda; Michael Kelly, Alameda; Eric Scheuermann,\nAlameda; Irene Dieter, Alameda Vern Marsh, Alameda Anders Lee,\nAlameda ( submitted comments) ; David Kirwin, Oakland (submitted\ncomments) i Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Paula Rainey, Alameda; Jon\nSpangler, Alameda; Patricia Gannon, Alameda; Kevin Frederick,\nAlameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the\npublic portion of the meeting.\n***\nMayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 9:37 p.m. and reconvened the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 9:43 p.m.\n***\nThe Development Services Director provided a brief presentation in\nresponse to public comments.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested clarification on the\nGeneral Plan requirement for a Civic Center specific plan; inquired\nwhether a scale model could be produced.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-03-21", "page": 11, "text": "The Development Services Director responded that a number of\nprinted articles have suggested that the City has not responded to\nthe General Plan requirement for a Civic Center specific plan;\nstated the Planning Board extensively discussed the matter.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the General Plan had a policy for a\nspecific Civic Center plan; the General Plan was adopted in 1991 to\nin vogue specific plans which have associated financing mechanisms ;\nthe Civic Center plan was not mandatory.\nThe Development Services Director stated that the General Plan also\nhas a number of great ideas such as building affordable housing and\nbuying Estuary Park; a prioritization process goes along with the\nGeneral Plan; stated a massing model was done initially to address\nsize and scale; a model would cost between $16,000 to $18,000. a\nmodel would take four to six months to prepare; the budget has\nescalated 3% since November 2004.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether four to six\nmonths was a reasonable amount of time to prepare a model.\nThe Development Services Director responded a site and building\nmodel would take about four to six months; stated a survey would be\nneeded; an expanded area model would take two to three times more.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what was the date of the\nmarketing study.\nThe Development Services Director responded all decisions have been\nbased upon the economic analyses completed within the last year.\nncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated discussions have suggested\nthat the market has changed.\nThe Development Services Director stated updates have been made\nregarding the competition; the Jack London Cinema is at capacity.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated he understood that the\nmarketing study and subsequent economic development profile\nindicated that Oakland was considering adding more screens  he was\nnot sure whether the marketing study addressed the issue.\nThe Development Services Director responded the marketing study did\nnot set numbers for Jack London or speculate what additional\nscreens would do to the market; Oakland's expansion was\nundetermined.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n3\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-03-21", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated expansion was iffy at\nbest.\nThe Development Services Director stated Alameda has a very close,\nlocal market that would continue to draw patrons because of\nconvenience and appeal. the business district and Alameda Theater\nare catalytic and create a draw.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the community looks\nforward to having movies in Alameda; the Jack London area is not\nthe best environment; stated the 20-inch overhand had been a\nconcern; inquired how the 20-inch overhand was corrected.\nThe Development Services Director responded five inches were gained\nbecause the owner was able to utilize different speakers with\ndifferent dimensions; additional inches were captured throughout\nthe theater.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that it appeared that\ninches were captured in the stair structure.\nThe\nDevelopment\nServices\nDirector\nconcurred\nwith\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated most of the computer -\nassisted drawings were taken from a certain distance; inquired\nwhether scale drawings could be provided from an up-close, upward\nangle.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore thanked everyone for continuing to\ncome out to support their position; discussions have been decisive\nand helpful; the historic theater closed over twenty years agoi\nrestoring the theater was intimately tied to going to a theater in\nAlameda; changes in the theater industry have been discussed; a USA\nToday article noted that theater owners are not worried about which\nway the industry would goi preserving the historic theater does not\nmake sense if there was a possibility that the theater industry\nwould not be successful in the future; discussions have addressed\nsingle screens not being economically feasible because of\nmaintenance and operation costs; 80% of ticket revenue goes to the\nstudios when a film initially comes out the percentage is higher\nwith certain blockbusters; theater operators do not make a lot of\nmoney from ticket sales in the first couple of weeks that the\nmovies are out; more screens are needed to rotate movies around;\nquestioned saving the theater if the historic fabric is not\npreserved and the theater industry is not viable; movies have not\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n4\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-03-21", "page": 13, "text": "been shown at the historic theater for over twenty years; the\nmarketplace has not created an economical reuse of the historic\ntheater; the building is beautiful and should be saved; she would\nnot vote to save the theater at any price; she is concerned with\nhow costs have escalated.\nouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated a quantum step has been\nmade in the design; concerns have been expressed regarding the Oak\nStreet traffic elements; stated two incoming lanes should be\nreviewed; roll-up doors are on the Oak Street side adjacent to the\nparking structure; he would like to review alternatives; commended\nthe Historical Advisory Board and Architectural Preservation\nSociety for working to make the design better; input has resulted\nin a majority of the architectural changes but does not mean that\nthe mass and sizing were proper or acceptable; pricing is a\nconcern.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what happens if the bids\nare too high.\nThe Development Services Director responded all bids could be\nrejected; precautions have been made to pre-qualify bidders.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated value engineering was\nperformed on the Library project; inquired whether value\nengineering could be done on the theater project.\nThe Development Services Director responded the historic theater\nhas been value engineered; $1.8 million would be financed by the\ndeveloper for the Furniture Fixtures and Equipment a larger\ncontingency [15%] was carried because historic renovations tend to\nhave surprises; the contingency could be lowered when construction\nestimates are complete; value engineering would involve the most\nhistorically significant features to be restored; 70% of the hard\nconstruction budget is in systems.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what was the current cost for the\nhistoric theater, to which the Development Services Director\nresponded $12.849 million.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner\nMatarrese\nstated\nthe\nstaff\nrecommendation has three elements 1) Review of the Section 106\nfindings, 2) adoption of a resolution [final design], and 3)\nadoption of plans and specifications for bidding out the historic\ntheater and parking structure; general consensus was that the\ncurrent design is much better than before and is a credit to the\narchitect and individuals who provided comments; the bidding\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n5\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-03-21", "page": 14, "text": "process would provide the key on whether or not to save the\nhistoric theater at any cost; starting now is critical; he would\nlike to see the project go out to bid; another evaluation would be\nnecessary once the bid results are received; he does not believe\nthe size would affect the character of the City because the people\nare the character; Park Street has blossomed by bringing in\nStarbuck's Coffee and Peet's Coffee; stated he was ready to move\nforward.\nThe Development Services Director clarified that the previously\nmentioned $12.849 million figure for the historic theater]\nincludes acquisition, relocation and contingencies; the\nrehabilitation is estimated at $7.3 million.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that tonight's meeting\naddressees design and the bidding process the financial aspects of\nthe project continue to trouble him; Alameda will collect 30 to 40\ncents per-square foot on the historic theater, which is\nsubstantially below the $1.50 per-square foot market rate for new\ntheater space; he remains convinced that the City should be\ncollecting a rent significantly north of 40 cents per- square foot\nand somewhere south of $1.50 per-square foot to ensure that the\nproject is financially beneficial to both the City and the\ndeveloper; the difference between 40 cents per-square foot and\n$1.50 per-square foot may seem trivial but equates to millions of\ndollars that Alameda would be loosing over many years;\nrehabilitation costs have increased by 30% with strong prospects of\nincreased costs once rehabilitation commences. the City should be\ncollecting a rent commensurate with the project risks; the need for\na better deal with the developer is underscored by the fact that\nboth a consultant and City staff agreed that local residents would\nbuy movie tickets in droves; the Central Cinema proves the demand\nanalysis to be correct; both the developer and the City should be\nsharing in the anticipated strong demand for movie tickets and\nconcessions; the historic downtown area should be revived by\nrefurbishing the old theater within the dictates of financial\nprudence and reason.\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested clarification on the rental rate for\nthe historic theater.\nThe Development Services Director responded that the historic\ntheater differs from new theater space; the overhead, maintenance,\nand lease requirements are quite extraordinary; the lease\nrequirements for maintenance are very strict; the Grand Lake\nTheater's rent structure is almost identical to Alameda's with the\nexception of retail rent; the historic theater retail space would\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n6\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-03-21", "page": 15, "text": "be maintained by the City under the ground lease and the City would\nreceive all of the rental income; the Grand Lake Theater had all\nimprovements and investments made years ago; the City has a healthy\nbox office/concession profit participation starting at 17% above a\nperformance measure once the developer reaches a certain return\nprofit participation is through the life of the project; the\ncommunity should not be responsible for the long-term maintenance.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the information is very\nhelpful, but the fact remains that there is a huge spread between\n40 cents per-square foot and the market rate; the City should\ncollect 60 to 80 cents per-square foot the developer would still\nreceive a substantial, below market rent; he believes 40 cents per-\nsquare foot is significantly south of where the City should be.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated parking was the most\nimportant issue in the Downtown Vision Plan; the theater was\nconsidered a nicety but not a necessity two redevelopment areas\nwere merged to develop a funding stream; approximately $26 million\nwas left from the $47 million after pay offs; the majority of the\nmoney was spent on Park Street; approximately $1.2 million was\nspent in the Webster Street area; the majority of revenue came from\nMarina Village; alternative sites were considered to gain\nadditional parking; the parking analysis indicates a shortage of 19\nspaces during peak times; the theater uses the vast majority of the\nparking capacity parking spaces have been lost with the street\nrenovation; parking spaces were bought out with the Knowles\nproject i the proposed parking structure was initially was six\nlevels; seven levels were needed because of the setback; the\nseventh level is not serviced by the staircase or elevators; the\nnew parking is not 350 spaces because there was existing parking\nat the Video Maniacs; 280 additional spaces would cost\napproximately $40,000 per parking space; if all parking spaces are\ncounted, the amount gets down to about $32,000 per space; studies\nindicate a range from $15,000 to $17,000 per space; today's costs\nare close to $20,000; a larger construction cost is created by\nbuilding vertically; the City would pay $3.8 million for the\nstaircase, escalator, and elevators because seven screens require\ntwo stories a seven or nine screen theater could be built at the\nold Video Maniacs site and a parking structure could be built\nelsewhere if the building was single story; he is concerned with\nthe extra $4 million from the bonds; the theater is not a complete\nrestoration; the lobby would be beautiful; the balcony probably\nwould not be completed because of constraints; he has concerns that\nheavy traffic would be brought to Oak Street; a study was conducted\nfor 11:00 p.m. to 1:00 a .m. Saturday traffic while the peak hours\nstart at 8:30 p.m. ; project costs are now estimated to be $28\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n7\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-03-21", "page": 16, "text": "million; the $7 million HUD loan was not anticipated when the\nproject began; alternate parking space locations are available\nwhich would enable more screens if necessary; the US Bank site\nwould provide 350 parking spaces; he has major financial concerns.\nThe Development Services Director stated the City floated a $46.5\nmillion bond with a net of $40 million; $13 million was to repay\nMarina Village for the investment made in infrastructure; $2.2\nmillion was to repay a loan from the West End project;\napproximately $4 million of the Streetscape Project was\nuncommitted; projects identified for the Bond money included the\nAlameda Theater, Bridgeside Shopping Center, and parking structure;\n$7.5 million was for the Alameda Theater and $10.3 million was for\nthe parking structure; the 2002 parking study assumed that the\naverage space would cost approximately $18,000 per parking stall;\nthe cost did not include relocation, demolition, or property\nacquisition; current per space construction costs are $23,700; the\n$32,000 cost per space includes acquisition, relocation, design,\netc. ; Watsonville just finished a 460 parking space garage which\nwas bid at $20,600 per space eighteen months agoi concrete costs\nhave accelerated; Santa Rosa recently bid a parking garage at\n$30,000 per stall for construction; the elevator requirements of\nthe new theater serve the historic theater also; an elevator is\nrequired for a public assembly facility the previously proposed\nparking structure included parking on the top deck; each level has\nincreased in height to accommodate equipment and air space needs a\n$3 million grant was submitted to the State under Proposition 30\nabout a month and a half ago for additional historic theater\npreservation activity.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated real costs would not be know until\nconstruction bids are received; the City experienced bids coming in\nover budget for the New Library; the Webster Street project was\noverbid and the bids were rejected; concurred with Vice\nMayor/Commissioner Gilmore regarding not restoring the theater at\nany cost; the theater has been rotting for 25 years since a 1981\nvote to save the theater; theater preservation and restoration may\nnot be important to everyone; the majority of the community finds\nrestoring the theater important attempts to save the theater have\nfailed in the past. opportunities are coming to an end; the roller\nrink significantly damaged the property; she does not want the\ntheater to have five screens; the theater should not be restored if\nthe integrity is destroyed; another project would not go forward if\nthe current project was unsuccessful; the current design was\nsignificantly different than the past; urged moving forward with\nthe project.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n8\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-03-21", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember/Commission Matarrese moved approval of the staff\nrecommendations and adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried\nby the following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers/Commissioners\nGilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 3. Noes :\nlouncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog and deHaan - 2.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested staff to review the\npossibility of having the U.C. Berkeley Architecture School build a\nmodel.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated not holding up the project was\nimportant.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 10:57 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\n9\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf"}