{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-21", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JULY 21, 2009- -7:30 P. M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:35 p.m.\nCouncilmember Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4.\nAbsent :\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(09-287 ) Presentation by the Park Street Business Association on\nthe 25 th Annual Art and Wine Faire.\nRob McKean, Art and Wine Faire Chairman, presented glasses; stated\napproximately 100,000 people came to the Faire last year.\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, stated attendance at\nthe Spring Faire increased from 40,000 to 50,000.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember Tam - 1. ] [Items so enacted\nor adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber . ]\n( * 09-288 - ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on July 7, 2009. Approved.\n(*09-289) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,893,890.78.\n(*09-290) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and\nAuthorize a Call for Bids for the Alameda Harbor Bay Channel\nDredging Project, No. P.W. 06-09-14. Accepted.\n(*09-291) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specification and\nAuthorize a Call for Bids for the Repair of Portland Cement\nConcrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street\nPatching, Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Phase 10, No. P.W. 06-09-15.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJuly 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-21", "page": 2, "text": "Accepted.\n(*09-292) Recommendatior to Award a Contract in the Amount of\n$287,420, Including Contingencies, to MDF Pipelines for the Central\nAvenue Sewer Rehabilitation, Pacific Avenue to Third Street, No.\nP.W. 05-09-13. Accepted.\n(*09-293) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of\n$618,815, Including Contingencies, to Harty Pipelines for the\nFernside Boulevard Sewer Rehabilitation, Thompson Avenue to High\nStreet, No. P.W. 03-09-09. Accepted.\n( *09-294) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Marine Express,\nInc. , for the Main Street Ferry Terminal Barge Maintenance Project.\nAccepted.\n(*09-295) Resolution No. 14362, \"Authorizing an Open Market\nPurchase Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for\nthe Annual Fuel Delivery to Various Locations Within the City of\nAlameda for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 and Authorizing the Interim City\nManager to Enter into Such an Agreement. Adopted.\n(*09-296) Resolution No. 14363, \"Authorizing the Interim City\nManager to Enter into a Maintenance Agreement between the City of\nAlameda and the State of California Department of Transportation\nfor the Maintenance of the Bicycle Path at the Foot of the North\nSide of the Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge. Adopted.\n(*09-297) Resolution No. 14364, \"Approving the Development Plan and\nthe Time Schedule for the Sewer System Management Plan as Adopted\nby the State Water Resources Control Board. Adopted.\n(*09-298) - Resolution No. 14365, \"Approving Parcel Map No. 9787\n( 3211-3215 - Fernside Boulevard) \" Adopted.\n(*09-299) Resolution No. 14366, \"Authorizing the Destruction of\nSpecified Unnecessary Records of the Human Resources Department. \"\nAdopted.\n(*09-300) Resolution No. 14367, \"Approving a Revised Memorandum of\nUnderstanding Between the Alameda City Employees Association and\nthe City of Alameda for the Period Commencing July 1, 2009 and\nEnding June 30, 2011. Adopted.\n(*09-301) Ordinance No. 2998, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Amending Subsection 3-28.10 (Return on Investment in Enterprise\nFunds) of Section 3-28 (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III (Finance\nand Taxation) to Reduce the Golf Fund's Return on Investment from\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJuly 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-21", "page": 3, "text": "1% to 0.43363% for Fiscal Years 2006-07 through 2009- - 10 and\nExempting the Golf Fund's Return on Investment Entirely, Effective\nFiscal Year 2010-11. Finally passed.\n(*09-302) Ordinance No. 2999, \"Amending the Community Improvement\nPlans for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and the\nWest End Community Improvement Project to Make Technical Clarifying\nChanges. Finally passed.\n(*09-303) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14368,\n\"Approving Tentative Tract Map No. 8015 (File No. PLN08-0507) at\nthe Alameda Towne Centre. Adopted.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-304) FY 08-09 Year End and FY 09-10 Annual Budget - Remaining\nChallenges.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the State will not get serious about\nfixing budget issues until City, County and Redevelopment Agency\nfunds are depleted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated school boards, councils, and special\ndistricts have had to raise taxes to survive; budgets cannot be\nprepared using previous year plus growth.\nThe Interim City Manager stated every day will be a conscious\nbudget day.\nIn response to Councilmember Matarrese's request, the Interim City\nManager stated at the beginning of the year, PERS advised the City\nthat rates could increase by 2% to 6% now, PERS is saying that\nrates could increase by 6% to 12%; the City will need approximately\n$5.5 to $6 million in Fiscal Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 to pay\nfor past PERS' obligations.\nMayor Johnson stated PERS modified some investment strategies and\nparameters; people need to understand that PERS takes no risk; PERS\ncomes back to cities for more money when investments go bad.\nThe Interim City Manager stated losses discussed earlier in the\nyear were based on the [stock] market crash and did not include the\nreal estate market; PERS has become a quasi-banking entity in\nCalifornia; cities will drop out of PERS in the future.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Development Services\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJuly 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-21", "page": 4, "text": "Director stated redevelopment agency funding is guaranteed in the\nConstitution; cities have band together to sue the State over\ntaking redevelopment funds; a lot of money in the Education Revenue\nAugmentation Fund ( (ERAF) is not going to education but is being\nused to repay the triple flip in some counties; the State maintains\nthat deciding how property taxes are dispersed is the State's\npurview; the Superior Court determined that the taking [of funds)\nwas illegal; the City's first redevelopment project was the\nconversion of a shipyard to the Marina Village development; the\nState is trying to restructure redevelopment, take control of\nproperty taxes, and find a vehicle to redistribute funds back to\nthe State.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how the City can anticipate\nredevelopment of the former Base.\nThe Development Services Director responded the City no longer has\nUrban Development Action grants and economic development grants to\nprovide massive infrastructure; stated all of the old, internal\ninfrastructure needs to be cleaned and demolished to support\ndevelopment; State resources are no longer available; stated that\nshe does not have an answer regarding redevelopment of the former\nBase.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the State Controller provided a chart\nweeks ago that anticipated an increase of 2% to 3% in the middle of\n2010; now, all bets are off.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the $23 billion [State deficit]\nthat allegedly will be cut in half through borrowing does not\nfactor in the future cost of State services; no one has mentioned\nwhat the PERS impact will be to the State; unemployment projections\ndo not reflect the reality of government employee layoffs in late\nMay and June the State is not making decisions to cut services,\nand keeps pushing the responsibility down.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated many municipalities are on the brink [of\nbankruptcy]\nThe Interim City Manager stated nothing has happened the way\neveryone thought it would back in January; the City is looking at a\nlonger, shallower recovery; revenues and expenditures will need to\nbe evaluated every quarter.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would happen if governments start to\ndefault on PERS payments.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the PERS Board provides a report\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-21", "page": 5, "text": "every ninety days stated that she is not sure whether or not the\nCity would receive a notice.\nMayor Johnson stated the City should request a notice; some\nagencies will not be able to afford to make PERS payments.\nThe Interim City Manager stated smaller cities will be revisiting\nwhether being a city is affordable.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated decisions made years ago are coming to\nlight more quickly because of the state of the economy.\nMayor Johnson stated cities have to be careful not to make\ncommitments that cannot be changed.\nThe Interim City Manager stated cash is the issue with the State\nright now; the State does not care whether cities sue on\nconstitutional issues because the State will still have cities'\nmoney in the interim.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-305) Public Hearing to Consider a Planning Board Recommendation\nto Abandon the Proposal to Establish New Zoning Provisions to Limit\nthe Height and Size of Two-Story Residential Buildings for property\nlocated on the 3200 Block of San Jose Avenue, Adams Street, and\nWashington Street.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what are the recommendations for the\nexisting vacant lots.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the recommended design\nreview guidelines would be applicable to new, single family\ndwellings in addition to second story additions to existing homes;\nstated the proposed two-story home would need to comply with zoning\nregulations in the Municipal Code.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether existing guidelines would be\nused for the vacant lots.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated\ncurrently, the guidelines do not include ranch-style homes.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the issue arose because a new, proposed\nstructure had some encroachments that impact the existing ranch-\nstyle homes.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJuly 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-21", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated the issue arose because three years ago there\nwas a proposal to add a second story with six bedrooms and six\nbathrooms to an existing home.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry abut the status of the\nproject, the Planning Services Manager responded an application has\nbeen submitted and staff advised the Applicant that the City is\ngoing through a process to adopt new zoning regulations that would\nlimit the size and height of second-story buildings or design\nguidelines the property owner has been holding off on the project\nin order for the City to go through the process.\nMayor Johnson inquired how long the property owner has held off on\nthe project, to which the Planning Services Manager responded two\nyears.\nMayor Johnson stated the process is not good.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the property owner has chosen\nto hold off on the project to ensure that the City's updated\nprocess is in place.\nMayor Johnson stated the situation reminds her of the Fernside\nBoulevard house; the project took over two years to go through the\nPlanning Department process, which is embarrassing.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Planning Department was directed to\nreview the matter in early 2007; anguish is being caused by\naddressing the matter two years later.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nSpeakers: Charles Wolf, Alameda; Victor Quintel, Alameda: Dave\nMcCarver, Alameda; Ann Quintel, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether staff is proposing to exempt\ncorners.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded corner lots are required to\nfollow R-1 zoning requirements.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether R-1 zoning requirements are\ndifferent from ranch-style overlay regulations.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJuly 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-21", "page": 7, "text": "The Planning Services Manager responded ranch overlay regulations\nwould be in addition to existing R-1 zoning requirements.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether ranch overlay regulations would\napply to corner lots, to which the Planning Services Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nFollowing Ms. Quintel's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether\nthe Planning Board recommendation is to establish design review\nguidelines.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Planning Board thought\nthe design review guidelines could be strengthened with respect to\nranch-style architecture; stated the packet contains a draft of the\nguidelines.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether design review guidelines are\nbinding.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded staff follows design review\nguidelines and provides the guidelines to applicants; stated staff\nuses the guidelines to determine whether or not to approve a design\nreview application; staff determines if a project is consistent\nwith the design guidelines; the guidelines are linked to the zoning\nordinance; staff encourages applicants to redesign projects if\nprojects are not consistent with the guidelines; otherwise, staff\ndenies the application, which can be appealed to the Planning\nBoard.\nMayor Johnson stated that she understands why the community has\nlost confidence in the Planning Department applying design review\nguidelines; the monster house at Pacific Avenue west of Webster\nStreet is four times bigger than any other house in the area; it\nwas too late to do anything by the time the matter came to Council ;\nstaff stated the project was not a demolition, but was a\ndeconstruction and reconstruction since six structural pieces of\nwood were used inside the walls.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what is the height limit in an R-1\nzone, to which the Planning Services Manager responded thirty feet.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated having mid-century and ranch-era\nguidelines would be helpful; the South Shore development has an\nentire neighborhood consisting of ranch-style homes; the overlay\nwould be beneficial for properties located on the 3200 block of San\nJose Avenue, Adams Street, and Washington Street.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she is sympathetic with property\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJuly 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-21", "page": 8, "text": "owners in the area; not having requirements would be more\nattractive to a buyer because more could be done with the property;\nowners would be burdened with an overlay that is not required\nelsewhere; residents want design review guidelines tightened up but\nare not in favor of the overlay.\nMr. McCarver stated that he does not want to burden neighbors with\na strict overlay; the Planning Department was supposed to come\nforward with guidelines, meet with the neighborhood, and find the\nbest way to make the situation work; that he does not feel there\nwas a true consensus and is very disillusioned with the process.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated single-story homes could be sandwiched\nbetween two-story houses unless second-story homes are prohibited.\nMr. McCarver stated the design review guidelines note that second-\nstory additions within a predominately single-story neighborhood\nneed to be sufficiently set back to maintain the characteristics of\nthe neighborhood.\nMayor Johnson stated the guidelines are very clear but were not\nfollowed for the house next door to Mr. McCarver.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry regarding plans for a\nvacant lot, the Planning Services Manager stated the proposal went\nbefore the Planning Board and the Planning Board referred the\nmatter back to the Applicant; currently, staff is working with the\nApplicant to revise the design.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how vacant lots would be developed.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded separate overlay zoning\nregulations could be developed limiting a second-story floor area\nto 800 square feet, limiting the height to 20 feet, and requiring\nthat the second story be constructed at the rear of the existing\nbuilding the proposal could be brought to the Planning Board for\nrecommendations and to the City Council for final review and\napproval; the proposed zoning regulations would apply to interior\nlots as well corner lots.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he attended the first community\nmeeting; the general consensus was that residents understood what\nwas presented and were receptive.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the majority of speakers at\nthe second community meeting and Planning Board meeting were not in\nsupport of an overlay district.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJuly 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-21", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Board's\nrecommendation was to deny creating an overlay district, tighten up\ndesign review guidelines, and hire a consultant to work with staff\non the matter.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded a consultant has prepared\nthe draft guidelines; stated staff would continue to work with the\nconsultant to finalize the guidelines.\nouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the guidelines would go back\nto the Planning Board for another public hearing once finalized, to\nwhich the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated the community needs a commitment that the\nguidelines will be applied in a rational manner; the guidelines\nhave been misinterpreted in other cases; requiring Harbor Bay\nresidents to put in windows without panes is another misapplication\nof design review guidelines; credibility needs to be established.\ndesign review guidelines are not rules.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated staff looks at the guidelines\nas a very important set of tools to educate planners and\napplicants.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated guidelines are not rules, are not\nbinding, and will be interpreted; the proposed overlay sets very\nclear boundaries; the question is whether Council wants to redesign\nprojects or require residents to address the issue; that he is not\nsure whether having Council design projects on appeal is a good use\nof time that he is looking for something to establish boundaries\non how far people can go within the guidelines.\nMayor Johnson stated design review guidelines should be put in\nplace soon so that vacant lots would be subject to the guidelines ;\nstaff needs to determine what needs to be done to ensure that\nguidelines are not misapplied or ignored; staff cannot rely on\nindividuals to appeal; an overlay would not require neighborhoods\nto be vigilant in ensuring guidelines are applied rationally.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what is the difference between\ndesign review requirements and guidelines.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded design review requirements\nmake it necessary for someone to get architectural approval for\ndesign; stated the permit is discretionary; an appeal can be made\nto the Planning Board once a decision is made; design review\nguidelines assist staff in evaluating applications.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJuly 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-21", "page": 10, "text": "The Assistant City Manager stated sometimes guidelines are over\napplied or under applied; design review has quite a bit of\ndiscretion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether corner lots have to comply\nwith the guidelines, to which the Assistant City Manager responded\nin the affirmative\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether anything can be done to\naccelerate finalizing the revised design review guidelines.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded applications can be processed\nusing the draft guidelines.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated requirements addressing the look of\nthe neighborhood are needed in addition to R-1 zoning requirements.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether property owners would have\nto disclose that the neighborhood has an overlay district when\nhouses are sold.\nThe City Attorney responded real estate professionals disclose\nzoning requirements; suggested that Council give direction to\ntighten up the guidelines even if a zoning overlay is created. ;\nstated guidelines are not merely suggestions, but are regulations\nadopted and approved by the Planning Board or City Council; the\nguidelines do not have the same weight as an ordinance or\nresolution but work with City zoning ordinances.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the Planning Board\nrecommendation to institute design guidelines and do whatever is\nneeded to expedite the process.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated strengthening the guidelines is important\nthe guidelines need to be followed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion with amendment to\ninclude that corner lots be subject to the guidelines, that the\nguidelines incorporate ranch-era additions, and that the guidelines\nare not restricted to the proposed overlay zone.\nCouncilmember Gilmore agreed to amend the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Madison\nStreet residents would be excluded, to which Councilmember\nMatarrese responded the guidelines would apply.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated staff does not have\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJuly 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-21", "page": 11, "text": "administrative instructions on how to use the guidelines; an\nadministrative memo could be created to ensure consistent\napplication of the guidelines.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff would come back and advise\nhow the process will be addressed.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 4. [Absent Councilmember Tam - 1. ]\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how the neighborhood would be\nprotected moving forward.\nThe Interim City Manager responded staff would establish internal\nchecks and balances; stated staff would provide said information in\nOctober.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is not sure whether the\nApplicant held back on the pending application or was told to hold\nback.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the Applicant's design proposals\nhave not been up to snuff and have been sent back to the drawing\nboard a couple of times.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how the project would be measured.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the project would be measured\nusing the draft guidelines.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would happen if an applicant used past\ncases for design review interpretations.\nThe City Attorney responded the City just has to prove decisions\nare not arbitrary and capricious.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would happen if staff made the\ndecision, to which the City Attorney responded the same standard\nwould apply.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how challengeable are draft\nguidelines versus approved guidelines.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded draft guidelines are more\ninformational and help supplement the existing approved residential\nguidelines.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how an applicant's attorney would\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJuly 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-21", "page": 12, "text": "the Planning Board.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJuly 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-21", "page": 13, "text": "(09-310) Councilmember Matarrese stated the block of Clement Avenue\nbetween Oak Street and Walnut Avenue has abandoned vehicles with\ntrailers attached; the abandoned property at Oak Street and Clement\nAvenue going west is full of graffiti.\nMayor Johnson inquired how the Police Department monitors abandoned\nvehicles.\nThe Interim City Manager stated an update would be provided under\nCity Manager Communications at a future meeting.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated some vehicles have been tagged but not\ntowed; one tagged recreational vehicle has been around for three\nyears and is just moved.\n(09-311) Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether any direction has been\ngiven regarding not watering certain areas of Leydecker Park.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded water has been\nconcentrated on athletic fields due to the 30% water reduction\nimposed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District ( EBMUD) ; the\nreduction was changed to 15% on July 1; perimeter areas would begin\nbeing watered.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated some areas probably have been left in a\nstate of disrepair.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated hopefully, the areas will\ncome back.\nMayor Johnson stated the long-term issue is to put in bay friendly\nlandscaping.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 9:59 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\n13\nJuly 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-21", "page": 14, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JULY 21, 2009- -6:00 P. .M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Tam was present via teleconference from the\nNational Emergency Training Center, 16825 S. Seton Avenue,\nEmmitsburg, MD]\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(09-285) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations\n:\nAll Bargaining Units.\n(09-286) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8) ;\nProperty 1855 N. Loop Road and 1 Clubhouse Memorial Drive;\nNegotiating parties City Manager and Harbor Bay Isle Associates;\nUnder negotiation Price and terms.\nMayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Regular Council Meeting\nat 7:20 p.m. and reconvened the Closed Session at 10:00 p.m.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received\na briefing from its Labor Negotiators; no action was taken; and\nregarding Property, the matter was not continued to a later date.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 10:15 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 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-21", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JULY 21, 2009- -7:31 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 9:59 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers/Commissioners\ndeHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 4.\nAbsent :\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam - 1.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent\nCalendar.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried\nby unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember/Commissioner\nTam - 1. ] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number. ]\n(*09-312 CC/*09-25 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council\nand CIC Meeting held on July 7, 2009. Approved.\n(*09-26 CIC) Recommendation to Approve First Amendment to the\nDisposition and Development Agreement with Alameda Entertainment\nAssociates, L.P., Relating to the Ground Lease and Historic Theatre\nLease; Subordinatior Agreement Between the Community Improvement\nCommission of the City of Alameda, Alameda Entertainment\nAssociates, L.P., and Bay Area Employment Development Company; and\nAuthorize the Executive Director to Execute and Record a Memorandum\nof First Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement and\nNotice for Request of Default. Accepted.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nNone\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 10:00 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nAgenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-07-21", "page": 16, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JULY 21, 2009- -7:33 P. M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 10:02 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4.\nAbsent :\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Councilmember Tam - 1. ] [Items\nso enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number. ]\n(*09-313) Recommendation to Appropriate $1,304,000 in Federal\nAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Funding, $59,000 in\nRubberized Asphalt Concrete Grant Funds, and $71,000 from Fund\n274.1, and Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,247,039, Including\nContingencies, to Gallagher & Burk, Inc. for the City of Alameda\nVarious Streets Rehabilitation Project (Central Avenue No. P.W. 02-\n09-04). . Accepted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the $1.3 million Federal\nAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding is money that the\nCity did not have before and is federal stimulus money, to which\nthe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember Tam - 1. ]\nAGENDA ITEMS\nNone\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 10:02 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nAgenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 21, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-07-21.pdf"}