{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, July 7, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 8:20 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 3, 2009.\n2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Vigor Marine, LLC at Alameda\nPoint.\n2-C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Bay Ship & Yacht Co., Inc.\nat Alameda Point.\n2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Puglia Engineering of\nCalifornia, Inc. at Alameda Point.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by Vice\nChair deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of June 4th Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese was unable to attend the June 4th meeting in which the OU-2 feasibility\nstudy was discussed. The July RAB meeting is cancelled, so Member Matarrese will report on\nthe August Meeting.\nMember Gilmore asked a question about the RAB's decision to have a facilitator from the Navy\nto assist in conducting effective meetings. She was curious of the genesis of the idea, since the\nRAB has been in existence for many years, why only now is the Navy providing a facilitator?\nRAB member Michael Torrey stated that this is not the first time that the Navy is providing a\nfacilitator, but that the previous ones had to be cut due to funding issues. George Brooks, the\nNavy's Environmental Coordinator, asked if there could be another facilitator. Member\nMatarrese explained that the RAB Board changed and agreed that it was a positive step for the\nRAB.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nVice Chair deHaan asked for an update on the SunCal milestones. Assistant City\nManager, David Brandt, stated that there is a payment requirement due on July 19th, , and\nqualified signatures, or an alternative plan, was due in mid September for the City Council\nto accept. The Navy requirement is now July 2010.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m., by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JULY 7, 2009- - -7:30 P. .M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:09 p.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\n(09-268) Presentation of Certificates of Service to Toby Berger,\nCommission on Disability Issues; Randall Miller, Historical\nAdvisory Board; Nancy Gormley, Housing Commission; Margaret\nMcNamara, Planning and Building Board; Ruth Belikove and Dr. Alan\nMitchell, Library Board; and John Knox White, Jane Lee and Eric\nSchatmeier, Transportation Commission.\nMayor Johnson presented Certificates of Service to Toby Berger,\nRandall Miller, Nancy Gormley, Margaret McNamara, Ruth Belikove,\nand John Knox White.\nMs. Belikove thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve;\nstated that she enjoyed serving on the Library Board.\nMs. Berger stated making Alameda accessible to everyone is\nwonderful; thanked the Council for support.\nMr. Miller stated that serving on the Historical Advisory Board has\nbeen a positive experience.\nMs. Gormley stated that she has enjoyed serving on the Housing\nCommission.\nMr. Knox White stated that working with staff has been wonderful.\nMs. McNamara thanked the Council for support received and\nopportunity to serve.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 8:20 p.m. to hold a Special\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting and reconvened\nthe Regular Meeting at 8:25 p.m.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJuly 7, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 2, "text": "CONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number . ]\n(*09-269) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Public\nUtilities Board Meeting, and the Regular and Special City Council\nMeetings held on June 16, 2009. Approved.\n(*09-270) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,484,975.04.\n( *09-271) Transmittal of Certificate of Sufficiency of an\nInitiative Petition Entitled \"Fire and Emergency Medical Services\nMinimum Protection. Transmitted.\n(*09-272) Recommendation to Accept the Work of D'Arcy & Harty\nConstruction, Inc. for the Cyclic Sewer Replacement Project, Phase\n5, No. P.W. 10-06-22. Accepted.\n(*09-273) Resolution No. 14358, \"Authorizing the Filing of an\nApplication for Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of\n2009 (ARRA) Funding for Certain Streets Rehabilitation, and Stating\nthe Assurance to Complete the Project (Buena Vista Avenue)\n\"\n.\nAdopted.\n(*09-274) - Resolution No. 14359, \"Approving a Fourth Amendment to\nthe Agreement from the California State Coastal Conservancy to\nImplement Spartina Eradication and Mitigation Measures and\nAuthorize the Interim City Manager to Execute All Required\nDocuments. \" Adopted.\n(*09-275) Resolution No. 14360, \"Requesting and Authorizing the\nCounty of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property\nin the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General\nObligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election Held\nNovember 7, 2000. \" Adopted.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-276 ) State Budget Update\nThe Deputy City Manager provided an update.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether an interest rate has been set on\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJuly 7, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 3, "text": "IOU's, to which the Deputy City Manager responded the interest rate\nhas been set at 3.75%.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the $26.3 billion [State] deficit is\nthe amount at the end of the current fiscal year.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded the $26.3 billion deficit covers\nan eighteen-month period.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the League of California Cities has\nbeen successful in lobbying not to have property taxes taken awayi\ninquired whether anything is fair game now, to which the Deputy\nCity Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of California\nCities Policy Committee Meeting; ten mayors from the largest cities\nin California sent a letter to the Governor stating that they would\nprefer the State to consider borrowing instead of straight\ntakeaways, such as the gas tax.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated taking gas tax money would be a\nproblem; the property tax money would be borrowed because of\nProposition 1A.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the State's bond rating is BBB; two more\nsteps down would be considered junk bonds.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether there has been any talk\nregarding some cities potentially going bankrupt.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded that she has not heard anything;\nstated a lot of cities have passed a Resolution of Hardship.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the matter is extremely concerning,\nparticularly with unemployment hitting record highs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated revenue projections need to be\naddressed; going with prior year plus growth cannot be done\nanymore that he is disturbed that five people in the State are\nrunning the show.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Alameda is heavily dependant on property\ntaxes; 90% of State income tax revenue comes from the top 10%\nincome earnersi the League of California Cities, California State\nAssociation of Counties, and School Board associations are meeting\nat a summit on July 18; the City is invited to participate.\nIn response to Mayor's Johnson's request for an update on the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJuly 7, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 4, "text": "County thinks that a decision could take twelve months; the federal\ngovernment would need to approve the requested change in\noperations stated Mayor Johnson sent a letter stating that traffic\ncongestion and emergency services would be significantly impacted\nand could not be mitigated; the County's attorneys are reviewing\nthe matter.\nMayor Johnson stated the Harbor Bay Isle Bridge does not have a\nbridge tender during the middle of the night; one commercial\nbusiness needs to have the estuary bridged open; the federal\ngovernment could save a lot of money by allowing less than twenty\nfour hour bridge tenders; that she made it very clear that the\nbridges are the County's responsibility and the City cannot help\nwith additional funding.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the County acknowledged\nreceiving $900,000 in dedicated funding for bridge operations.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated\neveryone specified projects to fund when Measure B was\nreauthorized; a decision was made by an Alameda County\nTransportation Authority (ACTA) Policy Advisory Committee and\nprojects were selected; the County is contending that the greater\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 7, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 5, "text": "County agree that funding bridge maintenance is important and that\nthe City did not provide any funding; there is no documentation to\nprove either way -\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the Coast Guard's role in\ncontrolling commerce activity during the late hours.\nThe Public Works Director responded the Coast Guard has a very big\nvoice which is why the County Public Works Director sent a letter;\nthe County is trying to make the point that there are not many\ncalls for bridges to be open in the late evening and early morning\nhours; the aggregate company had seven late hour bridge openings in\nMay.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Coast Guard was brought into the\ndiscussion in 1994; the matter needs to be revisited.\nMayor Johnson stated the Coast Guard does not have a lot of\ndiscretion regarding waterway access ; changes are needed in federal\nlegislation; that she does not have the impression that the County\npursued all issues; the County believes one option is to have\nAlameda pay for part of bridge maintenance and operation; the\nCounty does not have detailed information on maintenance and\noperation costs.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Oakland is being asked to\nparticipate in bridge maintenance and operation costs.\nMayor Johnson stated said issue was pointed out at the meeting.\nThe Public Works Director stated the County feels that the bridges\nonly serve Alameda.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the County recently adopted a budget with\nsignificant cuts; the County is still assuming the gas tax funding\nwill be received from the State.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the current County budget\nincludes operators and bridge tenders, to which the Public Works\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated the County receives a significant amount of\nmoney from the City; Alameda does not receive a lot of direct\nservices from the County; people need to know how much of Alameda's\nproperty taxes go to the County; inquired whether specific\ninformation can be provided.\nThe Public Works Director responded that he will work with the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJuly 7, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 6, "text": "Interim Finance Director; stated the County receives property and\ngas taxes from the City\n(09-277) Sales Tax Appeal Status Report\nThe Deputy City Manager provided an update.\n(09-278) Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Funding-Status of\nValidation Suit\nThe City Attorney provided an update.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-279) - Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14361, \"Amending\nMaster Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise Fees Adopted.\nThe Interim Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the Consumer Price Index (CPI)\n.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded the CPI for the San\nFrancisco Bay area is 0.8%; stated the Engineering News Record's\nConstruction Cost Index is 6.3%; different indexes are used for\ndifferent fees.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Interim Finance\nDirector stated the Recreation and Park Department fees are\nrecommended by the Recreation and Park Commission; Affordable\nHousing Unit fees were not increased because of current economic\nconditions; ambulance fees are based upon the County's fee\nschedule.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether permit fees would be affected, to\nwhich the Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether permit fees will be reviewed as a\nwhole at some point; stated some fees look reasonable if isolated,\nbut problematic when combined with other fees required for a\nproject.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the last permit fees were set\nby a 2005 study; stated fees are reviewed continually; fees will be\nreviewed again during the next fiscal year.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated activity becomes more concerning than\nanything else; staffing will be determined by fee generation once\nthe Planning and Building Department has its own funding.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJuly 7, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 7, "text": "The Assistant City Manager stated the City will need to be more\nnimble than in the past; larger projects tend to subsidize smaller\nprojects; more money is spent on staff effort than what is received\nin fees; fees may need to be raised for smaller items.\nMayor Johnson stated staff is spending an unjustifiable amount of\ntime on small projects; staff cannot go overboard on small\nprojects.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated process changes would be\nreviewed.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated some fees are steep, such as $676 for a\nsauna.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated staff is looking at reducing the\namount of regulatory activity.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated current sport fees are $700; inquired\nwhether the Recreation and Park Department is seeing the same level\nof activity.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded the majority of sport\nusage has been steady over the last five years; stated most fee\nincreases are tied to balls and official costs; each year fees are\nreviewed by the Recreation and Park Commission.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether soccer fees recoup costs.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated $35 per hour covers costs; fees have been artificially low,\nand efforts are being made to incrementally raise fees.\nMayor Johnson inquired what are youth baseball and softball fees.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded the sports field use is\n$5 per player; stated non-profits have the option to work off the\nfee through in-kind services or purchasing supplies.\nMayor Johnson stated the City has to be careful not to charge too\nmuch; there are no longer park leagues; children could be priced\nout of private leagues if prices are too high; recreation and\nsports should not be an elite activity; inquired whether there will\nbe any change in golf rates, to which the Recreation and Park\nDirector responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that both current rates and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJuly 7, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 8, "text": "previous rates be provided side by side along with the amount of\nthe increase; stated permit fees are not set to make money but\nensure that public and private infrastructure remains in tact;\npeople will be encouraged to add things without permits if fees are\ntoo high; permits and inspections ensure that things are done\nproperly.\nMayor Johnson stated the three components required for installing a\nsauna add up to a lot of money; inquired whether total fees have\nbeen compared.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded generally, permits are not out\nof line with neighboring jurisdictions.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether staff costs are included, to which\nthe Assistant City Manager responded fees are flat costs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(09-280) ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Amending Subsection 3-28.10 (Return on Investment in\nEnterprise Funds) of Section 3-28 (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III\n(Finance and Taxation) to Reduce the Golf Fund's Return on\nInvestment from 1% to 0.43363% for Fiscal Years 2006-07 through\n2009-10 and Exempting the Golf Fund's Return on Investment\nEntirely, Effective Fiscal Year 2010-11. Introduced.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, the Assistant City\nManager stated that Alameda Municipal Power's (AMP) Return on\nInvestment (ROI) would remain at 1% stated the Sewer Fund is\nexempt from ROI.\nThe Interim Finance Director clarified that AMP's ROI was collected\nat the reduced 0.43363% rate; stated AMP's ROI would be collected\nat 1% in Fiscal Year 2009-2010; the City would recover the\ndifference between the 0.43363% and 1% for Fiscal Years 2006-2007\nthrough 2008-2009.\nMayor Johnson stated Council made the decision to reduce the ROI\nfor Golf but the change was not reflected in the ordinance;\ninquired how the Golf Course is doing.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded the Golf Course is doing\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJuly 7, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 9, "text": "well; stated rounds have increased substantial savings are\nanticipated; numbers can be presented at the next meeting.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether any formal feedback has been\nreceived from golfers.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded Kemper Sports is\nconducting a survey; stated information should be available within\na month; informal feedback has been positive.\nMayor Johnson stated the Golf Course condition has improved.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated customer service has\nimproved also.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Golf Course is in better shape and\nmanagement has improved.\nMayor Johnson stated maintenance workers are at the Golf Course on\nweekends.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Golf Course is running\na deficit.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded the deficit is not as\nlarge as originally anticipated.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether Mif Albright numbers can\nbe provided.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated numbers have been strong.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the projected deficit, to which the\nRecreation and Park Director responded the deficit should be half\nof what was expected.\nMayor Johnson inquired what was the original projection, to which\nthe Recreation and Park Director responded $700,000.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether or not theft has occurred.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded Kemper Sports has done a\ngood job on inventory control; stated inventory is performed on a\nregular basis.\nMayor Johnson inquired about past break in issues, to which the\nRecreation and Park Director responded window break ins have not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJuly 7, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 10, "text": "occurred.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated passes were abused in the past;\ninquired whether a better tracking system is in place.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded tracking is tighter;\nstated players are being checked.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the Mif Albright figures would\ninclude increased water rates, to which the Recreation and Park\nDirector responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-281) - Councilmember Tam reported on two League of California\nCities sessions that she attended.\n(09-282) Councilmember Matarrese reported on the East Bay Green\nCorridor Partnership meeting that he attended; stated Alameda is\none of seven cities joining the partnership; the major reason for\nthe partnership is to capture money aimed at green businesses\nAlameda will be part of the pool which has the ability to capture\nregional federal dollars as well as private sector grants.\n(09-283 ) Mayor Johnson thanked the 4th of July Parade Committee;\nstated the day was fun for Alameda.\n(09-284) Mayor Johnson stated complaints have been received\nregarding vehicles parked on streets for a prolonged period of\ntime; inquired whether anything can be done to make enforcement\neasier for the Police Department.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded times could be changed to 48\nhour restrictions.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJuly 7, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 11, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether a differentiation can be made\nregarding vehicle size.\nThe City Attorney responded the City has an ordinance prohibiting\nstorage of recreational vehicles and boats on City streets; stated\nthe issue is a matter of noticing the violation and enforcement;\ncurrently, someone needs to move a vehicle an eighth of a mile\nafter being parked at the same location for seventy-two hours; the\ndistance could be changed to a greater amount.\nMayor Johnson stated the ordinance needs to be tightened so the\nCity is not burdened with preventing people from storing vehicles\non the street.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated a lot of resources are being used to play\ngames; fines should be increased for continued violations.\nMayor Johnson stated that people complain about vehicles stored on\nthe streets for months.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 9:41 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\nJuly 7, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JULY 7, 2009- - -6:00 P. M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 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(09-264) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nSignificant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of\nSection 54956.91 Number of cases Two.\n(09-265 ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8)\n;\nProperty : 1855 N. Loop Road and 1 Clubhouse Memorial Drive;\nNegotiating parties City Manager and Harbor Bay Isle Associates;\nUnder negotiation: Price and terms.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation,\nLegal Counsel briefed the City Council on two separate matters of\npotential litigation and the Council provided direction to Legal\nCounsel regarding Real Property, the item was not heard.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:10 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 7, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JULY 7, 2009- - -7:27 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 8:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners\ndeHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(09-266 CC/09-23 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint CIC and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners Meeting and the Special Joint City\nCouncil and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Annual\nCIC Meeting Held on June 16, 2009. Approved.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried\nby unanimous voice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(09-267 CC) Public Hearing to Consider the Community Improvement\nCommission's Report to the City Council, Recommendations of the\nPlanning Board, Recommendations of the Economic Development\nCommission, and All Evidence and Testimony for and Against the\nProposed Ninth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the\nBusiness and Waterfront Improvement Project and the Proposed\nSeventh Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the West\nEnd Community Improvement Project; Introduction of Ordinance\nAmending the Community Improvement Plans for the Business and\nWaterfront Improvement Project and the West End Community\nImprovement Project to Make Technical Clarifying Changes; and\n(09-24 CIC) Public Hearing to Consider Hearing All Evidence and\nTestimony for and Against the Adoption of the Proposed Amendment.\nMayor/Chair Johnson announced that redevelopment law requires the\nhearing to be conducted following certain rules and conducted the\nhearing accordingly.\nMayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nIn\nresponse to Vice Mayor/Commissioner's deHaan request for\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-07", "page": 14, "text": "timeline clarifications, the Development Services Director stated\ndebt timelines and caps remain the same; the West End Community\nImprovement Project (WECIP) timeline ends 2026; the Business and\nWaterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) timeline ends 2032.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of closing the\npublic portion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried\nby unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved introduction of the\nordinance.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 8:09 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-07.pdf"}