{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-08-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -AUGUST 1, 2006- - - -7:30 P.M.\nVice Mayor Gilmore convened the Regular Meeting at 7:35 p.m.\nCouncilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nand Matarrese - 4.\nAbsent :\nMayor Johnson - 1.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(06-386) Library project update.\nThe Project Manager gave a brief update.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the cost for the re-\nstriping and extension of Times Way would come out of Measure O\nfunds; stated he would like to maximize the money going to the\nlibrary branches if library construction costs are less than\nestimated; further inquired whether Public Works money could be\nused for the re-striping and extension.\nThe City Manager responded the matter could be reviewed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the impacts on other Public Work\nprojects would need to be considered if Public Work funds are used;\ninquired whether the $1.5 million released from the State would be\ngoing to library branches.\nThe Project Manager responded the $1.5 million would come back to\nthe City; the money already has been accounted for some\nmiscellaneous expenses are coming from Measure O funds, such as the\n$71,000 moving cost; the move cannot be paid with the State grant.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the library branch work has\nbeen quantified.\nThe Project Manager responded in the negative; stated $2 million\nwould not go very far.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether library branch modifications\nand upgrades have been spelled out , to which the Project Manager\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nAugust 1, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-08-01", "page": 2, "text": "responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the modifications and\nupgrades were dependent on the City's needs.\nThe Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the former\nLibrary Director thought that a second story could be added to the\nBay Farm Island branch library he does not think a second story is\npossible; costs would go up because an elevator would be needed; a\ntwo-thirds square-foot expansion might be possible.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired when a modification and upgrade\nproposal would be brought to Council.\nThe Project Manager stated he would like to talk to an architect\nfirst.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the West End library shelving does not\nallow books to stand upright; inquired whether eligible funds would\nbe available for altering the shelves.\nThe Project Manager responded that he just started looking at the\nbranch libraries.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he would hate to see hand downs going\nto branch libraries; inquired whether all the old shelving would be\nutilized in the new library.\nThe Project Manager responded in the negative; stated all the old\nshelving in the interim library would be disposed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there is a good chance to reutilize the\nold shelving.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that the Library Board be\ndirected to start public discussion regarding the branch libraries\nin order to bring recommendations to Council.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson - 1. ]\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. ]\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nAugust 1, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-08-01", "page": 3, "text": "( *06-387) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on July 18, 2006, and the Special City Council Meetings held\non July 20, 2006 and July 26, 2006. Approved.\n(*06-388) Ratified bills in the amount of $8,054,736.54\n(*06-389) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call\nfor Bids for the Purchase/Lease of two greens mowers, two reel\nmowers, one tractor, five electric utility vehicles, one sweeper,\nand one self powered aerator. Accepted.\n(*06-390) Recommendation to amend Agreement with Masayuki Nagase to\nmodify the dates of deliverables for Library Art Work for the New\nMain Library Project. Accepted.\n(*06-391) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Deleting Section 2-63.10, Third Party Claims, and by Adding\na New Section 2-65, Disposition of Property Consisting of Sections\n2-65.1 through 2-65.5, to Article V, Administrative Policies and\nProcedures Introduced.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(06-392) Public Hearing to consider Introduction of Ordinance\nAmending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article XVIII\nEarthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Wood Frame One and Two\nStory Residential Structures to Chapter XIII (Building and\nHousing) Introduced.\nThe Building Official gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether upgrades would be required\nfor hazardous plumbing, mechanical, electrical, and fire/life\nsafety systems, to which the Building Official responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what was the rationale for a flat\nfee, to which the Building Official responded a flat fee would\nprovide an incentive to homeowners.\nVice Mayor Gilmore opened the public portion of the hearing.\nDavid Kirwin, Alameda, stated multiple units should be included in\nthe proposed program; he fears that seismic retrofitting would\nbecome mandatory; the 88,000 housing units referenced by the\nAssociation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) already have survived\nmore than a 6.9 magnitude earthquake on the Hayward Fault.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nAugust 1, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-08-01", "page": 4, "text": "complex projects] through a fee reduction.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the proposed ordinance is a major step\nthe Planning Board was interested in moving in the same direction;\nVictorians are a concern and are in more jeopardy he looks forward\nto providing an incentive to encourage retrofitting.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1. ]\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nAugust 1, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-08-01", "page": 5, "text": "ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(06-393) Pat Colburn, Alameda; urged banning leaf blowers\n;\noutlined problems created by leaf blowers.\n(06-394) Susan Battaglia, Alameda, stated leaf blowers should be\nbanned; childhood asthma is traced to airborne particles.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(06-395)\nDiscussion of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate\nProtection Agreement. Continued.\n(06-396) Discussion of Big Box Retail Policies and Regulations.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he did not want to review a super\ncenter; the Retail Impact Assessment updates are not relevant\nbecause the City is not considering 210,000 square foot boxes; he\nis open to comments.\nJudith M. Kissinger encouraged Council to take a careful look at\nstudies that show the pros and cons of having big box retail in a\nneighborhood.\nDorothy Reid, Alameda, stated she provided information to Council\nin December Boston study reported that a big box has a $468\nmillion negative net revenue gain; a specialty retail provides a\nnet revenue gain of $326 million; a shopping center has a net loss\nof $314 million; local business would give 70% more in net revenue\ngain than any big box store; local economy is brought down with big\nbox stores.\nAshley Jones, Alameda, stated he asked the Planning Board what\nwould be the use for the 200,000 square-foot space; the Planning\nBoard did not request an answer to the question; only one Planning\nBoard member voted against the proposal; Council needs to ask\nquestions before approval is given.\nGretchen Lipow, Alameda, stated the leakage study recommended small\nretail stores and noted that big boxes were not needed to contain\nleakage. she questions the potential traffic and congestion\nimpacts; Planning Board Member Anne Cook seems to have expertise on\nthe matter and voted against the proposal.\nDavid Kirwin, Alameda, stated the report is a travesty to open\ngovernment; attachments are not available on the web site; he\nquestions the report's relevance to Alameda; studies have addressed\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nAugust 1, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-08-01", "page": 6, "text": "what big box retail does to the Bay Area; City staff needs to be\nunbiased.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he placed the matter on the agenda\nbecause discussion needs to go forward now; proposals will be\nbefore Council and have already been before the Planning Board; the\nCity is trying to capture off-island sales leakage many studies\nhave been conducted; the June 7 Alameda Landing study specified\nthat the leakage was not that big and does not constitute a large\nbox format; the drawings show four 225,000 square foot boxes; he\nwould like to start reviewing the opportunity of an ordinance,\nrecommendation, or proposal control is needed on a level that is\nmanageable for the City; additional entitlements are requested and\nwould be a problem; the studies indicate that big boxes have an\neconomic impact on local business; there are wage and benefit\nconcerns ; he would like to have more dialogue on the matter and\nwould like to have the leakage study go back to the Economic\nDevelopment Commission (EDC) for further discussion to determine\nwhat is really needed; he would like to have the matter continued.\nlouncilmember Matarrese stated the Economic Development Strategic\nPlan Task Force (EDSP) had the same discussion in 1999 ; the\nStrategic Plan states that Alameda does not want to have big box\nretail; discussion was mainly focused on Walmart, the Home Depot\nand COSTCO, which are warehouse stores; the Strategic Plan is being\nupdated; concurred with Councilmember deHaan's suggestion; EDC\nreview is a good idea; stated that re-establishing the goals of the\nStrategic Plan is good after seven years; big boxes should be\ndefined; there are concerns with how employees are treated and the\ndrain on the public health system.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated a shopping center study was conducted in\nthe last two years; the study addressed the need for anchor stores\nat shopping centers; several stores on the list could have been\nanchor tenants but had minimal approval from Alameda residents; the\nEDC needs to review anchor stores being big box stores; a big box\nmight not be needed to make an Alameda shopping center successful :\nthe two components need to be reviewed together.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the same process should be\nestablished for the Strategic Plan; the EDC recommended the\nStrategic Plan with the output of the process brought to Council:\nthe Transportation Commission was an outcome of the processi\ntraffic patterns need to be reviewed. the Strategic Plan needs to\nbe renewed and brought back.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that big box retail discussions need to\nbe part of the conversations involving Alameda's economic vision,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nAugust 1, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-08-01", "page": 7, "text": "particularly at Alameda Landing other land uses that focus on\ngenerating jobs for young adults should be considered; decisions\nneed to be held on whether the City should focus on big box retail\nor quality retail that residents want; he would encourage\nconversation on what the City wants for current and future\nresidents at Alameda Landing; economic opportunities exist other\nthan retail, such as Clif Bar and Rosenblum Winery expansion the\ndata does not show a strong demand for available, household\nconsumer spending at big box retail; available, household consumer\nspending is in quality and specialty retail; there are a variety of\noptions; time needs to be allowed to make the right decisions\nrather than making a wrong decision that the City cannot recover\nfrom.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City needs to decide what\nsacrifices it would be willing to make if discounters need to draw\n50% or more in sales from off-island spending; traffic corridors\nwould be impacted; the Southshore anchor tenant was Trader Joes,\nwhich is a small grocery store; he would welcome similar stores to\nthe City because good service and revenue are generated he\nwelcomes more information on the matter.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated she has heard arguments that big box\nretail stores would bring in other desired retails, such as Ann\nTaylor; she would like the EDC to review the accuracy of said\narguments.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the June 7 study notes that Ann\nTaylor Loft, Chicos and Old Navy are willing to come to Alameda\nLanding without having a stand alone Target; 40% of Walmart and\nTarget customers shop at both stores; discounters have more\ncustomer outreach; more congestion would be generated.\nThe City Manager stated that staff would provide an update on what\nis the EDSP process.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he wanted to make sure that the\nprocess includes the Transportation Commission and the Planning\nBoard.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Alameda Landing process has taken a\nlong time; a decision should be made as soon as possible ;\nrevisiting the EDSP would take twelve months; Catellus and ProLogis\nshould be advised now rather than later if Alameda Landing would\nnot work out for the City.\n(06-397) Councilmember Matarrese stated he saw an Alameda Landing\ntraffic mitigation report that went from the Transportation\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nAugust 1, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-08-01", "page": 8, "text": "Commission to the Planning Board; one of the Transportation\nCommission's responsibilities are to make recommendations to\nCouncil, not the Planning Board; the Planning Board can weigh in on\nwhat the Transportation Commission recommends ; Boards and\nCommissions should feel free to bring items directly to Council;\nBoards and Commissions could be copied on reports brought to\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated\nthe Transportation Commission had quite a few recommendations and\nconcerns which should come to Council on a different track;\nsimilarly, the EDC and Planning Board should come to Council on a\ndifferent track.\nThe City Manager stated the intent is to seek input from Boards and\nCommissions and to bring concerns and recommendations back to\nCouncil.\n(06-398) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that tonight's Council meeting\ncould be viewed online through the streaming video process;\nrequested that the Information Technology Director explain the\nstreaming video process.\nThe Information Technology Director stated streaming video enables\npeople to watch Council meetings live on the internet; tonight's\nmeeting will be uploaded on the City's website at the end of the\nmeeting; agenda items can be viewed individually.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 8:40 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\n8\nAugust 1, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf"}