{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- - -JULY 26, 2006- - -7:00 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:25 p.m.\nBoy Scout Troop 2 led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent :  ouncilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog,\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor/\nChair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(06-045CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, I Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement\nCommission (CIC) Meetings held on July 5, 2006, and Special CIC\nMeetings held on July 5, 2006 and July 14, 2006. Approved.\nCommissioner deHaan moved approval of the Minutes.\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(06-046CIC) Recommendation to award Design-Build Contract in the\namount of $9,104,000 to C. Overaa & Co. for the Civic Center\nParking Garage, CIP No. 90-19;\n(06-046ACIC) Recommendation to award Construction Contract in the\namount of $8,800,000 to C. Overaa & Co. for Rehabilitation and\nRestoration of the Historic Alameda Theater\n(06-384CC) Resolution No. 14003, \"Authorizing the Execution of U.S.\nDepartment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Contract for Loan\nGuarantee Assistance Under Section 108 of the Housing and Community\nDevelopment Act of 1974, as Amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 5308;\nExecution of Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI)\nGrant Agreement; and Issuance of Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program\nVariable Rate Note.' Adopted; Recommendation to authorize\nexecution of Cooperation Agreement between the City and Community\nImprovement Commission; and\n(06-384ACC)\nResolution No. 14004, \"Authorizing the Summary\nVacation of a Portion of the Central Avenue Public Right-of-Way -\npursuant to Chapter 4 of the Streets and Highways Codes \" Adopted.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n1\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 2, "text": "The Development Services Director and Development Manager gave a\nPower Point presentation and provided two documents.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested clarification on\nwhether the disability access is for the access only or also an\nemergency exit for everyone.\nThe Development Manager responded the ramp serves as the disabled\naccess entry and emergency exit for everyone.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether dollar saving\nfigures were identified for the western enclosure, wheelchair lift,\nand roof repair.\nThe Development Manager responded in the negative; stated savings\ncame out of various divisions for each item; changes in scope were\ntracked but not the total savings for each item.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether said savings\nreduced the base bid.\nThe Development Services Director responded the savings reduced\nOveraa's $9.7 million base bid to $8.8 million.\nThe Development Manager stated savings were also realized by\nseeking out different subcontractors.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated dollar figures were\nprovided for each parking garage line item; inquired whether dollar\nfigures could be placed on the theater items.\nThe Development Manager responded dollar figures were not placed on\nthe theater items because the intent was to keep track of the scope\nin order to get a price that made sense and was within budget.\nThe Development Services Director continued with her presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the marquee line item was for\nfull restoration.\nThe Development Services Director responded the marquee line item\nwould be for all restoration except re-stenciling the pattern that\nwas under the marquee.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the light\nsequencing would be replaced.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 3, "text": "The Development Services Director responded she was not sure\nwhether the sign could be animated within budget.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether another scheme\nreduced the parking garage size to four levels plus the roof.\nThe Development Services Director responded said scheme was not\nevaluated but could be a cost savings to the project; stated the\nproject could be constructed within the existing budget if the\nparking garage size was reduced to four levels.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated he was leaning towards a\nfive-screen theater and a five-level parking garage, which would\nprovide more seats and might not jeopardize retail as much; numbers\ncould be extrapolated to reduce the cost by $2 to $2.5 million.\nThe Development Services Manager continued with her presentation.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the HUD loan had\ncertain parameters.\nThe Development Manager responded job generation is one of the\nmajor criteria.\nThe Development Services Director stated the HUD program no longer\nexists.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether an increase in\nretail square footage would increase jobs.\nThe Development Services Director responded possibly; stated the\nHUD application cannot be re-evaluated and re-ranked at this time.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City risks losing $7\nmillion in HUD funding if the City gets too far away from the\napproved project parameters.\nThe Development Services Director stated the developer has agreed\nto take on all the operating costs for the Historic Theater because\nof the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) conditions and\nprojected revenue generation; funds would need to be taken out of\nthe General Fund if the City took over operation and maintenance.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether deferred\ninterest was one of the benefits of the HUD loan.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n3\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 4, "text": "an interest in selling the property to the City.\nThe Development Services Director responded the Elks considered\nentering into a transaction if the City rebuilt the gymnasium.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Elks would transfer\nproperty to the City, to which the Development Services Director\nresponded she did not know.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated he is concerned that said\ndiscussions did not take place.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n4\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 5, "text": "The Development Services Director continued with her presentation.\nincilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that the $15 million\nScheme 5 parking structure cost is overstated because the parking\nstructure would not be as elaborate.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the $15 million cost included\nacquisition, to which the Development Services Director responded\nin the affirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.\nProponents (In favor of the staff recommendation) : Harry Dahlberg,\nEconomic Development Commission; Lars Hanssen, Park Street Business\nAssociation (PSBA) ; Michael J. Krueger, Alameda; Susan Decker,\nAlameda: Pauline Kelley, Alameda; Duane Watson, Alameda Barbara\nMarchand, Alameda; Harry Hartman, Alameda; Walt Jacobs, Alameda\nChamber of Commerce; Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce (read\nlist of 17 names) ; Norma Henning, Alameda Robb Ratto, PSBA.\nOpponents (Not in favor of the staff recommendation) : Woody Minor,\nAlameda Ani Dimusheva, Alameda; Joe Meylor, Alameda (submitted\nhandout ) ; Pat Bail, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Janet Gibson,\nAlameda. Judith Lynch, Historical Advisory Board; Kristianne\nKoenen, Alameda; Kevin Fredrick, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the\npublic portion of the Hearing.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog thanked staff for providing\nalternatives; stated he prefers Scheme 2 where the attention is\nfocused on reusing the Historic Theater and having a smaller\ngarage; he understands that Scheme 2 posses a risk of losing $7\nmillion in HUD loans; theater jobs would be lost, but retail jobs\nwould increase; the City takes pride in running public enterprises;\nhe thinks the City could do a good job of operating the Historic\nTheater and a smaller parking garage; the operation of the theater\nentails public subsidy under the status quo scenario; rent would be\napproximately 40 cents per square foot for the Historic Theater ;\nthe market rate for a new operating theater is approximately $1.50\nper square foot; the City should get more than 40 cents per square\nfoot; the City is losing out on the differential in rent; he sees\nScheme 2 as a smaller scaled, hometown movie theater; the Historic\nTheater should be restored to the full potential that the citizens\nwant; questioned whether cuts might ruin the historic quality.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n5\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how the square foot price was\ndetermined for the Historic Theater.\nThe Development Services Director responded cost comparisons were\ndone against brand new, first-ru construction at $1.30 per square\nfoot average; the budget starts out with a lease rate of $72,000\nper year for years one through six; the rate jumps to $156,000 per\nyear for years seven through ten; the rate would be based on the\nCPI starting in year eleven, with a 3% floor and 5% ceiling; the\ndeveloper would be required to make a $1.2 million FF&E commitment;\nthe operating costs would be very slim in the first six years,\nespecially when there is a FF&E load to retire; a 17% profit\nparticipation has been included in the event the project stabilizes\nat\na higher rate than estimated; the City would share in percentage\nrent if the project produces better than expected; the City would\nreceive payments just about equal to what the developer and\ninvestors are getting.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the profit participation\ncontinues throughout the lease.\nThe Development Services Director responded the profit\nparticipation is reduced to about 12% at the time the first loan is\nrepaid.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the square footage rate is a\nminimum rental amount, to which the Development Services Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that translating items\ninto square foot terms would not overcome the existing difference\nof 90 cents per square foot; related discussions were held last\nAugust; he would rather get the money up front.\nThe Development Services Director stated the City is leveraging a\nminimum of $5.3 million in private investment as a result of the\nagreement.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated said investment\ncontributed to the division within the community.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated there was a $4.5 million\ndelta between the bids; the project includes the Cineplex, Historic\nTheater and parking garage inquired whether there was a guarantee\nthat the Cineplex financing was in place now.\nThe Development Services Director responded that the developer has\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n6\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 7, "text": "a commitment for construction and permanent financing; the Bank of\nAlameda extended the commitment for six months; the developer has\nraised $2 million of additional equity and is trying to finalize\nthe construction bids; the developer is planning to apply for\npermits in early September.\nCouncilmember/Commission deHaan inquired whether staff received\ndocuments verifying that the financing is in place.\nThe Development Services Director responded the City has a copy of\nthe loan commitment; the appraisal and placement of the equity into\nthe loan are the only contingencies left on the loan commitment\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the Cineplex and the\nparking garage property line has been pushed four to five feet on\nOak Street and dog legs out.\nThe Development Services Director stated the sidewalk dog legs out i\nthe City performed a survey of the property; the property showed\nthat the public sidewalk encroached six feet onto the private\nproperty; originally a bulb out at the corner and removing the\nparking on the City's portion of the parcel was contemplated for a\nvariety of traffic safety and pedestrian concernsi originally, the\nbulb was to be fourteen feet wide and would now be ten feet wide\nthe average downtown sidewalk is eight feet wide.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the sidewalk\nwould be four-fee without the bulb out.\nThe Development Services Director responded the sidewalk would be\nsix feet because the property line would be set back two feet.\nuncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is concerned about\nthe massive walls in the area; inquired why substituting surety\nbonds was pulled off the agenda and whether the matter was relevant\nto tonight's discussion.\nThe Development Services Director responded that the staff\nrecommended that the $200,000 offset come from the division's\noperating fund for salaries.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether tonight's discussion on the\ntheater budget included everything, to which the Development\nServices Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan commended staff for making $4.5\nmillion in value engineering reductions; stated there is slim to no\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n7\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 8, "text": "wiggle room in case a problem arises; inquired whether a 15%\ncontingency is adequate.\nThe Development Services Director responded staff recommends\nreducing the contingency to 5% for the garage and 13% for the\ntheater ; stated $250,000 has been budgeted for soil conditions;\ntesting has been done; she hopes to add back the contingency after\nconstruction has started; she feels adequately protected.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated $5 million was to be set\naside for the catalyst Webster Street project; the money is out of\nthe budget now; inquired how the project would be funded.\nThe Development Services Director responded there are a number of\nideas for funding the project; stated $13.5 million was raised to\nretire the Marina Village infrastructure obligations; the Marina\nVillage project had a repayment of $2.5 million to the General Fund\nload; $2 million was given to the Library Project another $2\nmillion has been used in the operation of the theater project;\nstaff has requested that the $1 million coming back from the\nLibrary project be distributed back to the theater project; other\nopportunities include replacing cash reserves and renegotiating the\nCatellus Project which has uncommitted tax increment and land\nproceeds.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the West End\ngenerated all the bond funding.\nThe Development Services Director responded 48% came from Business\nWaterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) and 52% came from the West\nEnd.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog moved approval of directing\nfurther analysis of Scheme 2.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated various schemes were\nrevisited because other options needed to be reviewed; the schemes\nneed to be revisited in case the City is unable to value engineer\nthe project back in line; possible cost savings are obvious and\nprovide for more leeway in case there is a problem.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion.\nOn the call for the question, THE MOTION FAILED by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog and deHaan -\n2. Noes : Councilmembers/Commissioners Gilmore and Matarrese and\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 3.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n8\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 9, "text": "The Development Services Director stated concerns need to be\nreiterated regarding a smaller project; ground rent and revenue\nwould be reduced.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the project cost could be\nreduced by $3 million to $4 million with a five-screen theater and\na\nfive-level parking garage the equation would be changed\nminimally; stated Councilmember/Commissior Daysog requested that\noptions be reviewed.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City would not need to\ncontribute approximately $2 million if an operator would not\noperate the Historic Theater and provide the maintenance; the\nmaintenance cost would come out of the General Fund and would have\nno cap.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he looks at the\nalternatives as fall backs; he is pleased that the theater has been\nacquired; concurred with Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog\nregarding restoring the Historic Theater as much as possible;\nstated the Historic Theater is a civic treasure; he is nervous\nabout construction in a historic building and the contingency\ndropping from 15% to 13%; he has some comfort in that the value\nengineering process lessens the risk of the 2% contingency\nreduction; he is interested in what other funds might be available\nto provide more comfort; the main cost of the project is the\nHistoric Theater; he is willing to support the staff\nrecommendation.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City does not own the\nElks' parking garage or the U.S. Bank parking site; the City has\nnot discussed acquiring either site with the property owners.\nparcel costs go up once the City expresses interest in purchasing a\nparcel; construction costs are escalating the City would be\nrunning the risk of not having dollars in place to acquire the\nproperty, going through the design review process, and building a\nparking structure on either site.\nMayor/Chai: Johnson stated other funding sources should be reviewed\nin the event that extra costs are incurred; concurred with\nlouncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog and Matarrese regarding\nrestoring the Historic Theater to the greatest extent that the City\ncan afford; stated the City needs to be prepared for possible extra\ncosts before starting the parking structure; she was happy to see\nthat the City of Oakland was going forward with the restoration of\nthe Fox Theater; the restoration does not appear to be a theater\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n9\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 10, "text": "project; the City of Oakland is contributing $57 million to\nrenovate the Fox Theater; she is happy that the Historic Theater is\nbeing renovated as a theater and is owned by the City; her personal\npreference would be to restore the Historic Theater as a single-\nscreen theater Council needs to be responsible for how much public\nmoney is spent; she would support a motion to support the staff\nrecommendation.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated there is an \"Other Costs\"\nline item for the parking garage and theater rehabilitation; the\nline item for the parking garage is over $1.4 million and over $1.8\nmillion for the theater; a cost breakdown was provided for both\nline items; the document is available as a public document.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether phasing is planned for the\ntheater restoration.\nThe Development Services Director responded the construction\nproject would start within the next 30-45 days; stated the Historic\nTheater construction will be the most time consuming; the plan\nwould be to do the garage and then the Historic Theater; the\nCineplex would start two to three months later; the entire project\nshould be completed within a year and a half; a $3 million grant\napplication was submitted to the State for historic preservation\nmoney; high marks were received except in one category; she does\nnot think that one evaluator understood the financial statement\nthe grant would be resubmitted and she is optimistic about\nreceiving the grant.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that the point of his\nfailed motion was to further analyze Scheme 2; costs are involved\nwith a stand alone, three-screer theater. cautioned colleagues from\nusing scare tactics such as General Fund dollars subsidizing the\nproject stated the Golf Complex, ferry system, electric and cable\nsystems are all self-funding enterprises; revenue would be\ngenerated through retail which could help towards running the\ntheater. options need to be vetted.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated she brought up the General\nFund because dollars coming from tax increment redevelopment funds\ncannot be used to pay maintenance costs; she did not intend her\nstatement to be a scare tactic, but only to address how things\nwork.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated there are other revenue\nopportunities such as the retail square footage.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n10\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the City is doing the\nproject to revitalize Park Street; the theater would bring more\nretail activity in the Park Street area and would help generate\nrevenue. ; revenue does not have to come directly from the theater\nproject.\nThe Development Services Director stated she would hope that tax\nincrement would be received.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the catalyst project would\ngenerate a tax funding stream.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner\nMatarrese\nconcurred\nwith\nlouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan regarding the theater project\nrevitalizing Park Street; stated the theater project revitalizes\nthe whole City, puts money into the tax increment pool, and\ncaptures a lot of the money that goes off the island; the theater\nproject is the best, real bonafide option to reopen the building as\na theater, revitalize the historic business district, and keep a\nlot of discretionary dollars in the City.\nCouncilmember/Commissione: Matarrese approval of the staff\nrecommendations [including the Development Services Director's\nrecommendation that $200,000 come from the Development Services\noperating fund salaries] and adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that he\nwould not vote in favor of  ouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese'\nmotion; the project is now in a situation where the massing and the\nscale is disproportionate; Oak Street traffic would be impacted; he\ndoes not mean to infer that he does not support the Historic\nTheater, the Cineplex and parking garage in some form; the project\ngot larger than life on a postage stamp piece of property; the\nwheelchair lift elimination should be reconsidered; said\nelimination would be the death for twelve public uses of the\ntheater per year.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested staff to provide\nwheelchair lift rental costs so that the public can be assured that\na wheelchair lift would be provided for public use of the theater.\nThe Development Manager responded wheelchair lift rental is\nstandard practice; stated the intent is to have a wheelchair lift\navailable for the twelve public days.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n11\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the cost\nto put the wheelchair lift back in as a line item, to which the\nDevelopment Manager responded approximately $80,000.\nMayor/Chair Johnson recommended that the motion include direction\nfor staff to provide the cost and budget source for the rental of a\nwheelchair lift.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese and Vice Mayor/Commissioner\nGilmore agreed to amend the motion to include Mayor/Chair Johnson's\nrecommendation.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers/Commissioners Gilmore, Matarrese\nand Mayor/Chair Johnson - 3. Noes : Councilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog and deHaan -2.\n(06-047CIC) Recommendation to authorize substitution of Surety Bond\nfor 2003 Merged Area Bond Issue Cash Reserve Account consistent\nwith Bond Indenture. Withdrawn.\nChair Johnson announced that the matter was withdrawn from the\nagenda.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 10:05 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\n12\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY - -JULY 26, 2006- - -6:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourn to Closed Session to consider:\n(06-383) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: 2900\nMain Street; Negotiating parties City of Alameda and Alameda\nGateway, Ltd. i Under negotiation: Price and terms.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing from\nReal Property Negotiators and gave direction.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:15 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\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 1, "text": "CITT\n$\nMINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION\nREGULAR MEETING OF JULY 26, 2006\nCO.\nDATE:\nWednesday, July 26, 2006\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nRecreation and Parks Department, 2226 Santa Clara Avenue,\nThird Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nCONVENE:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL: Chair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Commission Members\n(CM) K.C. Rosenberg and Peter Wolfe\nAbsent:\nCecilia Cervantes\nStaff:\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager (Absent)\nDoug Vu, Secretary, Public Art Commission\nAndria DeBose, Staff Member\n3.\nApproval of Minutes\nA.\nMinutes of Meeting on June 28, 2006\nC/VC/CM/Staff (distributed and approved)\n\"Minutes of Public Art Commission Meeting on June 28, 2006 be\napproved.\"\nApproved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, and Wolfe\nAbsent (1) - Cervantes\n4.\nOral Communications\n(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the\nagenda.)\nJune 28, 2006 Minutes were distributed, edited, amended, and approved.\n5.\nWritten Communications\n-NONE\nPAC Meeting Minutes\n1\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nNew Business\n-NONE\n6.\nOld Business\nA. Alameda Towne Center\nChair inquired as to why two different drafts of the proposal were issued. Tad\nwas given a draft for his review that encouraged his edits and comments when\nthe commission did not feel that was his position. Staff explained that Tad\nreceived a different draft per previous discussions and agreement between\nAndrew and Tad. Prior discussions regarding the \"Brown Act\" and discussions\nwith the Commissioner resulted in the special review of only C Huston and Tad\nreview the draft at this time. C Rosenberg requested they be given a copy of the\ndraft upon completion for the PAC to review. Staff agreed to distribute to the\nentire commission upon completed draft. Commission requested written\ncommunication upon next meeting for review. Commission and staff agreed.\nC/VC/CM/Staff\nApproved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, Wolfe\nAbsent (1) - Cervantes\n7.\nSubcommittee Reports\nA. Theater and Garage Project\nSC met with the City/Client and reviewed the current two submitted artist murals\nhowever, the council was not impressed with the current selections. They didn't\nfeel the work was the artist strongest or best selections. They requested Jennifer\nOtt attend the council meeting in the future and supply the committee with\nadditional artist for review and consideration. Jennifer and Staff will review the\nartist concepts and context of murals prior to the review of the SC. SC\nrecommended the artist have a stronger and more narrative \"pitch\". Staff will\ncheck with Jennifer Ott and the artist prior to the sub-proposal. SC discussed that\nthe Garage piece is a temporary canvas. Staff will confirm with Jennifer\nOtt\nregarding permanent nature of piece.\n8.\nCommissioner Communications\nC Huston asked about the status of \"Bridge Side\". Staff stated project was\nrecently assigned to him and current status unknown. Commissioner stated they\npreviously made recommendations upon the \"early\" sketches that the PUC stay in\ncontact with the commission, but no contact has been kept. There was also earlier\ndiscussion regarding the budget and calculation of the sculpture. They were\nwaiting to find out what 1% of the proposed budget cost would be of the project.\nThe previous figure given by the artist was $35,000.00 which didn't add up to the\nPAC Meeting Minutes\n2\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-07-26", "page": 3, "text": "commission.\nThe PAC's \"Bridge Side\" actual budget is estimated over\n$205,000,000.00. There was also to be further discussion regarding the \"Summer\nHouse Apartments\". \"Summer House\" has now been found to be renting without\nthe further discussion of council. Staff to look into results of \"Summer House\"\nproject.\nCommission remembers discussing the status of the \"Stone\" piece, the John Buck\npiece, and the stone plaque located behind the circulation desk at the \"Free\nLibrary\". The Library Proposal Group presented their art to the council and Parks\nand Recreations. There was friction, rudeness, and issues regarding the art\npieces (i.e. fish on woman's head, and piece where shirt was missing off of\nwoman) however, the commission states the pieces were \"grandfathered\" and\nwere not used anyway. However, commission wants to know what happened to\nthe \"calendar\" of projects previous used?\nCommission curious regarding the\nJanet Quote's Plant Building project? Commission states a calendar or\nspreadsheet would be nice for tracking purposes. Commission suggest utilization\nof the new Libraries imagery to assist and aid them in relation to proposed,\napproved, or amended projects. They would also like a web site to list information\nof PAC projects.\n9.\nStaff Communications\nA. Peet's Coffee\nStaff discussed why Pete's Coffee is excused from the PAC code requirement.\nThe Pete Coffee Project entered into a development agreement prior to the\nPAC Ordinance of 2003 and are not required to adhere to the current\nordinance. The Commission suggest that a letter be drafted to welcome and\nencourage Pete's Coffee. Staff volunteered to draft a letter.\nUnknown status of previous projects;\nB. Clif Bar- Staff volunteered to research to see if they are a part of a previous\ndevelopment agreement or if it is a new project and if new to the\ncommunity.\nC. Ballena Bay- Existing landscaping as public art?\nD. Summer House-Inset's?\n10.\nAdjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 pm.\nPAC Meeting Minutes\n3\nJuly 26, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-07-26.pdf"}