{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-10-16", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 16- - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:43\np.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Approving the\nPrioritized List [paragraph no. 07-501] was removed from the\nConsent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\n(*07-496 - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on October 2, 2007 and the Special City Council Meeting held\non October 9, 2007. Approved.\n(*07-497) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,517,098.14\n( (*07-498) Recommendation to accept the work of Pacific Trenchless,\nInc., for the Cyclic Sewer Repair Project, No. P.W. 05-03-11.\nAccepted.\n(*07-499) Recommendation to approve an agreement with the Alameda\nCounty Congestion Management Agency for signal timing on\nConstitution Way to Lincoln Avenue, increase appropriations and\nappropriate grant funds of $100,000 in Transportation Fund for\nClean Air Funding. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nOctober 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-10-16", "page": 2, "text": "(*07-500) Resolution No. 14148, \"Approving the Development Plan and\nTime Schedule for the Sewer System Management Plan as Adopted by\nthe State Water Resources Control Board. \" Adopted.\n(07-501) - ) Resolution No. 14149, \"Approving the Prioritized List of\nProjects for Consideration in the 2008 Countywide Transportation\nPlan. \" Adopted.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the prioritized list includes bike\nand pedestrian projects.\nThe City Engineer responded bike projects are included in the\nCity's Bike Plan; stated a certain amount of money is allocated to\neach of the planning areas and is applied to bike projects; the\nCross Alameda Trail Project is included in the Countywide Bike\nPlan.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Plan has a list of prioritized\nprojects.\nThe City Engineer responded projects are prioritized through the\nCongestion Management Agency (CMA); stated Alameda has\napproximately 12% of the high priority projects and has less than\n3% of the total East Bay Area projects.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Council would be approving the\nCity's list of priorities tonight.\nThe City Engineer responded Council would be approving the projects\nthat would go on the Countywide Transportation Plan, not the Bike\nPlan.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Cross Estuary Project is\nincluded on the [County's list.\nThe City Engineer responded in the negative; stated the Bike Plan\nwill be coming to Council in the next year or so; Council will have\nthe opportunity to look at projects within the City Bike Plan; a\nlist will be forwarded to the County once the City's Bike Plan is\nprioritized.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n( *07-502) Resolution No. 14150, \"Authorizing Open Market Purchase\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nOctober 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-10-16", "page": 3, "text": "from Versatile Information Products of Riverside, California\nPursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for Puma\nSoftware Management System. \" Adopted.\n( *07-503) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Repealing and Amending Various Sections of Article I\n(Parking Lots) and Article II (On Street Parking Meter Zones) of\nChapter XII (Designated Parking) and Adding a Definition Section\n( (Section 12-0) Applicable to All Articles to Provide for the\nRegulation of Public Parking Surface Lots and Parking Structures\nAdministered by the City of Alameda. Introduced.\n(*07-504) Ordinance No. 2973, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Revising Various Sections of Chapter II (Administration) ,\nChapter VIII (Traffic, Motor Vehicles and Alternative\nTransportation Modes) , and Chapter XII (Designated Parking) to\nModify the Transportation Commission's Purpose and Authority. \"\nFinally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(07-505) Public Hearing regarding financing for Shinsei Gardens\nApartments under the requirements of the Tax and Equity Fiscal\nResponsibility Act (TEFRA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;\n(07-505A) Resolution No. 14151, \"Approving, Authorizing and\nDirecting the Execution of a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement\nRelating to the California Municipal Finance Authority. Adopted;\nand\n(07-505B) Resolution No. 14152, \"Approving the Issuance of Tax-\nExempt Bonds by the California Municipal Financing Authority for a\nLimited Partnership to be Established by Resources for Community\nDevelopment or an Affiliate Thereof, with Respect to a Multi-Family\nApartment Project. Adopted.\nThe Development Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would happen in the case of default.\nThe Development Manager responded Resources for Community\nDevelopment (RCD) and tax credit sponsors would be responsible.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would happen to the housing units.\nThe Development Manager responded that the financing documents\nwould give rights to various funding sources; stated typically, the\nCity puts itself in a position to step in and resolve issues.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nOctober 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-10-16", "page": 4, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City would have the opportunity\nto approve a new operator, to which the Development Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Operation Dignity would be entitled\nto operate the project from year 15 to 59.\nThe Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated\nOperation Dignity's role in year one through 15 would be limited\nbecause of tax credit funding that the City would pursue; the\nproject would become Operation Dignity's responsibility in year 15.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City would approve a new\noperator if something happened to Operation Dignity.\nThe Development Manager responded the long-term lease would allow\nthe City to approve a new operator.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what would happen if RCD and/or the\nCalifornia Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) did not have the\nwherewithal to repay the bonds and whether the City's reputation or\ncredit rating would be affected.\nThe Development Manager responded in the negative; stated the\nmotivation would be to ensure that there was a successful operator\nwith available resources.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that the City wants to be involved in\nand make sure that the housing project has resources; however, she\ndoes not want to see the City become financially responsible or\nhave its credit rating or reputation flawed if the project goes\nbelly up in three years.\nThe Development Manager stated numerous financing sources would be\nconcerned that the project would continue to operate successfully;\nopportunities would be available to review the books and not be\nsurprised.\nJohn Stoecker, CMFA Financial Advisor, stated CMFA's name would be\non the bond, not the City's RCD would be responsible for\nrepayment, not the City.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired how CMFA's bonds are guaranteed; further\ninquired who backs the funding sources.\nMr. Stoecker responded the bond is a private activity bond; stated\nthe repayment is solely from RCD ; CMFA does not give the funds ;\nfunds are given from a private investor; City Group is the lender\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nOctober 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-10-16", "page": 5, "text": "for the bonds; there is multi layer financing through tax credit\nand soft money; qualified institutional buyers are lending the\nfunds for the bonds.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the documents clearly state that the\nCity's contribution is $4 million.\nMr. Stoecker responded the documents are not complete; stated\nstandard documentation states that the bonds are payable solely by\nRCD; there is no State, County, or City obligation.\nMayor Johnson inquired who would be managing the construction.\nMr. Stoecker responded RCD; stated RCD is a very well respected\nfirm.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether RCD's projects have been on time and\non or under budget.\nThe Development Manager responded RCD was selected by the City in\n2002 to develop the 52-unit and 10-unit Bayport project; stated\nboth projects were completed on time and on budget.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed project would be\ndesign-build, to which the Development Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated that the City needs to be clear that someone\nelse would have to find the money if there is a shortfall at the\nend.\nThe Development Manager stated that RCD understands the City's\nfunding limits; all financing documents are separate.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City would not fund operation,\nto which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated it is important that the City has the ability\nto make sure that anyone considered to operate the project has\nadequate funding and management skills if there is a change in\nmanagement or operation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City's remedy would be\nto give consent to a new construction entity and operator with\nadequate financing if RCD did not have enough funds to pay the bond\nobligation.\nThe Development Manager responded the decision is not solely the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nOctober 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-10-16", "page": 6, "text": "City's stated the City would have to go to the major financers ;\nall parties would be motivated to find an operator.\nMayor Johnson stated it is important to clearly state that the City\ncannot be looked to for additional money.\nThe Development Manager stated additional language could be added\nto the Owner Participation Agreement that further clarifies the\nCity's obligation to the project.\nMayor Johnson stated the agreement needs to state that the City's\ncontribution is $4 million, period.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that staff should consult with the City\nAttorney and come back with a locked, tight agreement questioned\nwhether timing was a concern.\nThe Development Manager stated that the City's $4 million\ncommitment is made in a very clear resolution and is on the books;\nstaff is looking for authorizatior to use CMFA to release the\nbonds; RCD needs to submit an application to the California Debt\nLimit Allocation Committee by November 5.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the\ncommitment to the project started with the Community Improvement\nCommission (CIC) adopting a resolution committing up to $4 million\nto the project; the City is first in line to have the $4 million\nreduced if RCD is successful in bundling other money RCD will be\ngoing to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board; an application has been\nsubmitted to the County for Home Funds; the schedule is ambitious.\nMayor Johnson inquired when Council would have the opportunity to\nreview Operation Dignity's management requirements.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded some of\nthe management requirements are exhibits to the settlement\nagreement approved last year; stated a lot of protections are\nincluded the Owner Participation Agreement would reiterate the\nCity's maximum $4 million commitment and stipulate that the City's\ncommitment decreases first if other funding sources are identified.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he feels the two resolutions\nare fine; additional City protection could be in the third WHEREAS\nof the resolution approving the Joint Powers Agreement ; a\nqualifying statement could be added to say that allocation of an\namount not to exceed $4 million is the qualifier for the City':\nS\nparticipation in the 39-unit project.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nOctober 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-10-16", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese;\nstated that she does not have a problem with the financing stream;\nall entities need to be aware that the City's commitment is $4\nmillion, the City will not be on the hook for any overruns, and\nthat the City's funds are the first returned if RCD finds\nadditional funds.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the\napproved resolution includes said language i the language can be\nintroduced in the Owner Participation Agreement when said agreement\ncomes back to Council.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he would like to have the City\nAttorney advise on the matter.\nThe City Attorney stated that there would be no possibility that\nthe City would have any residual liability to pay back the bonds ;\nthe bonds are privately issued bonds ; the City would not be the\nborrower or the issuer.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the project's total budget.\nThe Development Manager responded the total construction cost is\napproximately $16 million; $25 million touches the project over the\ncourse of the financing because of the construction and permanent\nfinancing flow.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether $16 million is for construction, to\nwhich the Development Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether $16 million is a comfortable amount,\nto which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nThere being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of\nthe hearing.\nVice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolutions with Councilmember\nMatarrese's proposed language regarding the $4 million cap.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Tam amended the motion with direction\nthat 1) explicit language be added to the agreement that stipulates\nthe City would not be responsible for repayment of the principal\nand prepayment premium as noted in Section 4 and 2) language be\nadded to the resolution regarding the $4 million cap related to the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nOctober 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-10-16", "page": 8, "text": "issuance of the tax exempt bond as part of the Joint Powers\nAgreement.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the added language would boot strap the\ntwo resolutions sufficiently.\nCouncilmember Gilmore amended the motion to include that future\ndocuments prominently indicate that the $4 million be returned\nfirst.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote -5.\n(07-506) Resolution No. 14153, \"Encouraging the Oakland City\nCouncil to Revoke the Union Pacific Railroad Permit for the\nFruitvale/Glascock Spur. Adopted.\nThe Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson thanked staff for working on the issue and keeping\nCouncil informed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he attended a meeting hosted by\nOakland Council President De la Fuente at the Fruitvale Transit\nVillage; fifty or sixty people attended; a lot of questions are\nunanswered; serious problems in getting on and off the Island could\nresult from running trains across the spur; contacting federal\nRepresentative Pete Stark and senators would be worthwhile to have\nthem understand the City's predicament.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the Union Pacific Railroad has been\nin communications with the City of Oakland.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded the City of Oakland tried to\ncontact the Railroad; stated that she does not know whether the\nCity of Oakland has been successful.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she is supportive of the resolution; the\nresolution should be communicated to the Union Pacific Railroad.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmembe: Kernighan's office is\ninvolved.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded in the negative; stated the issue\ndoes not affect Councilmember Kernighan's district; President De La\nFuente's staff advised her that Councilmember's are respectful of\nissues going on in individual districts and thought that\nCouncilmembers would be supportive of Council President De La\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nOctober 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-10-16", "page": 9, "text": "Fuente's efforts.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City could contact\nanother agency regarding environmental review rather than\npiggybacking on Oakland's coattails since railroads are governed by\nfederal law.\nThe City Engineer responded the Surface Transportation Board (STB)\nhandles environmental reviews; the question is whether a change on\na spur line is under STP's jurisdiction anymore.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated coordinating with Oakland is good but\nshe does not like the idea of leaving the City's fate in another\ncity's hands.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council requested that the City\nAttorney's office review the issue initially; requested a report on\nthe matter.\nThe City Attorney stated she would provide a report in Closed\nSession.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is happy the City of Alameda is\nworking with the City of Oakland; the City has not been as active\nas it should have been on some other projects.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(07-507) Dave Needle, Fernside Home Owners Association/CLASS Board\nMember; submitted handout; stated that he is disappointed in\nCouncil's actions regarding the Harbor Bay Isle Association\nsettlement agreement Council was fully aware of the significant\ncommunity interest in the development; Council pushed through a\nquick, barely legally noticeable settlement meeting.\n(07-508) David Howard, Alameda; provided handout ; stated\nKitchenDemocracy.org announced its expansion into Alameda with a\nforum on the question of whether development plans for Alameda\nPoint should be decided exclusively by Alameda residents and\npoliticians; residents and politicians are invited to learn about\nand provide feedback on the controversial issue by going to\nwww.kitchendemocracy.org ; Kitchen Democracy is intended to augment\nthe traditional ways that residents and elected officials interact;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nOctober 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-10-16", "page": 10, "text": "Oakland, Berkeley, and Kensington residents and elected officials\nhave used Kitchen Democracy as one of many ways to openly discuss\ncommunity issues; Alameda Point development is a huge issue; the\ndecision process is especially controversial because of the\npotential impact on the region.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether elected officials are writing\nregarding the matter.\nMr. Howard responded in the affirmative; stated the purpose of the\nforum is to allow elected officials to post an issue and solicit\nfeedback.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether elected officials solicit feedback\nbut do not engage in the conversation; further inquired whether\nanyone has looked into Brown Act issues.\nMr. Howard responded that he would ask Kitchen Democracy about\nBrown Act issues.\nMayor Johnson stated there could be Brown Act violations if more\nthan one Councilmember participates in the discussion.\n(07-509) The following speakers discussed the animal shelter : Kathy\nMarks, Alameda; Mary Sutter, Alameda Jim Gotelli, Alameda; Daniel\nMosso, Alameda; Kate Beck, Alameda; Judy Brock, Berkeley; Donny\nChu, Alameda; Howard Goldberg, Berkeley; Christa Nicholas, Alameda\n(provided handout)\nThe Police Chief provided a brief report on the matter.\nCouncilmembers requested certain information and suggested the\nmatter be placed on a future agenda for discussion.\n(07-510) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed care giving.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(07-511) Consideration of the Mayor's nominations for appointment\nto the Civil Service Board, Golf Commission, and Oakland Chinatown\nAdvisory Committee.\nMayor Johnson nominated Peter Horikoshi for appointment to the\nCivil Service Board and Jeff Wood for appointment to the Golf\nCommission and continued the nomination to the Oakland Chinatown\nAdvisory Committee.\nMayor Johnson stated that Lee Perez has been the representative and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nOctober 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-10-16", "page": 11, "text": "has indicated that he would like to continue; a representative from\nthe Planning Board has missed a couple of meetings.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the person appointed to the Oakland\nChinatown Advisory Committee needs to report back to Council.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the Planning Board selected a\nmember to serve; said member is charged to report back to the\nPlanning Board regarding activities of the committee.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether staff could be tasked to\nprovide a summary, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the development of Alameda Point\ndepends on the understanding of the settlement with Chinatown.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 10:35 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\n11\nOctober 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-10-16", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 16, 2007 - -6:50 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(07-492) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation\n(54953.9 i Name of Case: Mikiten V. City of Alameda, et al.\nFollowing the Closed session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a brief on the\nstatus of this litigation.\n(07-493) Mayor Johnson stated that Council met in Closed Session on\nOctober 9, 2007 with its City Attorney to discuss the status of the\nHarbor Bay Isle Association (HBIA) V. City of Alameda lawsuit and\na potential settlement of the lawsuit; the Council approved a\nsettlement of the lawsuit; a copy of the written settlement\nagreement is on file in the City Clerk's office; the settlement\nagreement resolves this litigation; the settlement provides that\nthe maximum number of residential units that HBIA may have the\npotential to develop is 3,200 per the 1989 Development Agreement\n;\nthe settlement also provides that the proposed Village 6 project\nconstitutes a minor amendment of the 1989 Development Agreement and\nthat, therefore, no impact fees or exactions beyond those in place\nin 1989 will be applicable to the Village 6 project, pursuant to\nthe 1989 Development Agreement; because the 1989 Development\nAgreement preceded the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the\nproposed Village 6 project is not required to develop affordable\nhousing on the site; HBIA will make a voluntary contribution of $1\nmillion to the City's low and moderate income housing fund, and\nmake a $500,000 contribution to a fund for the maintenance of\nHarbor Bay Parkway; this settlement agreement does not approve the\nVillage 6 project and it does not commit the Council to any future\nlegislative action; the proposed Village 6 project must still go\nthrough the normal public review process, including review of an\nEnvironmental Impact Report, consideration of a General Plan\namendment and rezoning from commercial to residential use.\nCouncil approved the settlement of the lawsuit by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor\nJohnson - 3. Noes: Councilmembers deHaan and Tam - 2.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nOctober 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-10-16", "page": 13, "text": "Adjournment\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\n2\nOctober 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-10-16", "page": 14, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY - -OCTOBER 16, 2007- -7:25 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:35 p.m.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners\ndeHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nSPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY\n07-040CIC) Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking\nStructure Project.\nThe Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation and provided a\nhandout on parking information.\nChair Johnson requested that the parking information be posted on\nthe websitel inquired whether money is available in the budget.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded $75,000 is left in the garage\ncontingency because of additional signage and security camera\nallocations; stated staff recommends waiting until the project is\ncloser to completion before additional money is allocated; the\ntheater budget has a balance of approximately $170,000.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether the garage's northern\nelevation would be revisited.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the\nnorthern elevation and theater restoration funding can be discussed\nonce the project is near completion.\nChair Johnson inquired whether the blade sign was added back.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the blade sign and marquee were\nadded back; stated a strip is available for the northern elevation\nlandscaping.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired what is the estimate for the northern\nelevation art.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the estimate depends on the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n1\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-10-16", "page": 15, "text": "extent of the art; stated banner options range from $20,000 to\n$50,000.\nChair Johnson stated that the contingency might be needed for\nsomething else between now and completion; art can be installed at\nany time.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired when the grand opening is anticipated,\nto which the Redevelopment Manager responded March.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried\nby unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\n(*07-494CC/*07-041CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council\nand Community Improvement Commission meeting and the Special Joint\nCity Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission meeting held on October 2, 2007.\nApproved.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(07-495CC/07-042CIC) Public Hearing to consider approval of a first\naddendum to the Alameda Landing Mixed-use Development Project\nSupplemental Environmental Impact Report, first amendment to the\nDevelopment Agreement, and first amendment to the Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project to\nmodify the Public Waterfront Promenade;\n107-495A CC) Adoption of Resolution Certifying the Addendum to the\nAlameda Landing Mixed-Use Development Project Supplemental\nEnvironmental Impact Report;\n(07-495B CC) Adoption of Resolution Approving and Authorizing\nExecution of a First Amendment to a Disposition and Development\nAgreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by\nMerger to Catellus Development Corporation) for the Sale and\nDevelopment of Certain Real Property at the Fleet Industrial Supply\nCenter (FISC) ;\n07-042A CIC) Adoption of Resolution Approving an Addendum to the\nSupplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Landing\nMixed-Use Development Project Authorizing the Executive Director to\nAmend the Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-10-16", "page": 16, "text": "Acquisition Corporation ( Successor by Merger to Catellus\nDevelopment Corporation) for the Sale and Development of Certain\nReal Property at the FISC;\n(07-495C CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a First Amendment\nto Development Agreement DA-06-003 By and Between the City of\nAlameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger\nto Catellus Development Corporation. Continued to November 6, 2007.\nADJOURNMEN'T\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 7:47 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\n3\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf"}