{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 5, 2007- - -7:30 P. .M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 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(07-247) Proclamation honoring volunteers for planting King Alfred\nDaffodils in the Park Street Business District as part of its\nongoing revitalization.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Lars Hansson\nand other members of the Park Street business community.\nMr. Hansson thanked Council for the proclamation; stated Mary Amen\nhad the idea for planting the daffodils.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n(07-248) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to set a\nPublic Hearing [paragraph no. 07-255] and the recommendation to\nreject bids [paragraph no. 07-256] were removed from the Consent\nCalendar 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( *07-249) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on May 15, 2007. Approved.\n(*07-250) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,134,635.80.\n(*07-251) Recommendation to approve an agreement with Holland &\nKnight, LLP, in the amount of $96,000 for federal legislative\nadvocacy services. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 2, "text": "(*07-252) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of\n$320,000, including contingencies, to McNabb Construction, Inc. ,\nfor Godfrey Park Playfield Renovations, No. P. .W. 03-07-06.\nAccepted.\n(*07-253) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of\n$250,368, including contingencies, to Golden Bay Construction,\nInc. , for the replacement of curb, gutter, and related improvements\nto address Street Ponding Citywide, No. P.W. 02-07-04. Accepted.\n(*07-254) Recommendation to allocate $100,000 in Sewer Funds and\naward Contract in the amount of $1,935,000, including\ncontingencies to Gallagher & Burk, Inc. for the repair and\nresurfacing of certain streets, Phase 27, No. P.W. 04-07-17.\nAccepted.\n( (07-255) Recommendation to set a Public Hearing for delinquent\nIntegrated Waste Management charges for July 17, 2007.\nlouncilmember deHaan stated that he is not sure whether tying\ndelinquent bills to property taxes is the best wayi he has\nrequested that the City Manager look into the cost related to the\nCity overseeing the process.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(07-256) Recommendation to reject bids for the Ford Crown Victoria\nPolice Interceptors, adopt new Specifications, and authorize Call\nfor Bids for two marked Dodge Charger Police vehicles.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he wants to ensure that the Police\nDepartment is completely comfortable with the Dodge Charger and\ncompromises are not being made.\nThe Police Captain stated a lot of time was spent reviewing both\nthe Crown Victoria and Dodge Charger platforms the Crown Victoria\npackage will be phased out; Dodge is re-entering the market; a\nnumber of agencies have purchased the Dodge Charger; the Police\nDepartment is satisfied that the Dodge Charger meets the\nrequirements; the vehicle will be evaluated and tested to see\nwhether the Police Department will continue with the Dodge\nplatform.\nCouncilmember Matarrese commended the Police Department ; stated the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 3, "text": "Dodge Charger is a more uel-efficient vehicle; he appreciates the\nresearch that has been done to ensure that risks are not taken.\nThe Police Captain stated the Dodge Charger has better\nmaneuverability, is more responsive, but does not reach top speeds i\ntop speeds are not needed in Alameda; the braking is better.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that his major concern is that\ncompromises are not made; standards and safety requirements need to\nbe met.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n( *07-257) Resolution No. 14094, \"Amending Resolution No. 9460 to\nReflect Current Positions and Entities to be Included in the City\nof Alameda's Conflict of Interest Code and Rescinding Resolution\nNo. 14000. \" Adopted.\n( *07-258) Resolution No. 14095, \"Authorizing the Execution of an\nAgreement Between the City of Alameda and the Board of Supervisors\nof Alameda County, State of California, and All Necessary Actions\nto Purchase Tax-Defaulted Property (APN 74-955-91) for Park\nPurposes Pursuant to the Provisions of Division 1, Part 6, Chapter\n8 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Adopted.\n( (*07-259) Resolution No. 14096, \"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 on\nNovember 7, 2000. Adopted.\n(*07-260) Introduction of Ordinance Containing a Description of the\nCommunity Improvement Commission's Program to Acquire Real Property\nby Eminent Domain in the Alameda Point, Business and Waterfront,\nand West End Community Improvement Project Areas. Introduced.\n(*07-261) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14097,\n\"Approving Planned Development, PD07-0001, and Parcel Map, PM06-\n0005, to Allow the Division of a 25,000 Square-Foot Parcel into Two\nLots at 650/700 Grand Street. The property is located within an R-1\n(Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. Adopted.\n(*07-262) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14098,\n\"Approving Tentative Map 9387, TM06-0003, for the Purpose of\nEstablishing Up to Eight Commercial Condominiums within One\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 4, "text": "Building Located at 1000 Atlantic Avenue. This property is located\nwithin the M-X Mixed use Planned Development Zoning District.\n\"\nAdopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(07-263) Public Hearing to Establish Proposition 4 Limit\n(Appropriation Limit) for Fiscal Year 2007-2008; - and\n(07-263A) Resolution No. 14099, \"Establishing Appropriations Limit\nfor Fiscal Year 2007-2008. Adopted.\nThe Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked the Finance Director for providing\na clear set of tables; stated the City's revenues were a higher\npercentage of the allowed limit in the early 1990's.\nThe Finance Director stated a law changed the formula in 1991; the\nCity was allowed to use the County population increase, not just\nthe City population increase; the City has elected to continue to\nuse said formula; the City is using the County population increase\nand per capita personal income change for 2007 and 2008; the two\nfactors create the compounding factor for the increase; previously,\nthe City was using the City population.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(07-264) Public Hearing to consider collection of delinquent\nbusiness license fees via the property tax bills.\nThe Finance Director provided an updated list and a brief\npresentation.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that a significant amount of effort has gone\ninto contacting business owners ; total uncollected fees are\napproximately $7,000; inquired whether the business associations\nhave been able to assist in communicating with the business owners.\nThe Finance Director responded a great deal of support has been\nreceived from the business associations in other actions; she is\nsure the business associations would come forward if questions were\nasked; the majority of delinquent license fees are for businesses\nthat are not active in the business associations.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 5, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired on what property is the lien placed.\nThe Finance Director responded the lien is placed on the Assessor': S\nparcel number.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the same names appear every\nyear.\nThe Finance Director responded a few reappear stated the majority\nare new.\nMayor Johnson opening the public portion of the hearing.\nLen Grzanka, Alameda, stated the City paid Municipal Auditing\nServices $13,000 in the month of Mayi outstanding liens are $7,145;\nquestioned what is the cost benefit.\nThe Finance Director stated Municipal Auditing Services performs\ntwo types of audits; one audit reviews documentation to ensure the\ncorrect fee is paid and the other reviews businesses that are not\npaying a business license fee; the fee is 50% of the amount\ncollected; the City received $26,000 in revenue for the $13,000\nfee; $262,000 additional revenue was received in the current fiscal\nyear; $132,000 was paid in fees through May.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that previous discussions addressed not\nrenewing the Contract; inquired whether a decision has been made.\nThe Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated a verbal\nnotice has been given to the Contractor advising that the Contract\nwill not be renewed past June of this year.\nRob Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), stated PSBA\nworks hand and hand with the Finance Department to ensure that all\nmembers have paid business license and Business Improvement Area\n(BIA) fees; liens are only against business owners who own the\nproperty; PSBA takes business owners who rent to Small Claims Court\nif someone refuses to pay the BIA fee; PSBA has collected every\ntime.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Municipal Auditing Services\nhas been used for four years.\nThe Finance Director responded the service started in January 2005 ;\nstated the process has been going smoothly; the City works closely\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 6, "text": "with Municipal Auditing Services and the business associations.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of authorizing collection of\ndelinquent business license fees via the property tax bills.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(07-265) Public Hearing to Resolution No. 14100, \"Confirming the\nBusiness Improvement Area Report for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 and\nLevying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement\nArea of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2007-2008. Adopted.\nThe Development Services Director provided a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponent Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution confirming\nthe BIA Report and authorizing levying the annual assessment fee.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(07-266) Public Hearing on the proposed fare increase for the\nAlameda/Oaklar Ferry Service and recommendation to authorize the\nCity Manager to execute a one-year extension of the Blue & Gold\nFleet Operating Agreement with the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service,\nadopt associated budgets, and approve the proposed fare increases\nfor the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service;\n(07-266A) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a\none-year extension of the Harbor Bay Maritime Ferry Operating\nAgreement with the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry, and adopt the\nassociated budgets;\n(07-266B) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a\nsecond amendment to the amended and restated Ferry Services\nAgreement with the Port of Oakland to extend the term for one\nadditional year at a cost of $79,1591 and\n( 07-266C) Resolution No. 14101, \"Authorizing the City Manager to\nApply for Regional Measure 1 Bridge Toll Funds, Including Five\nPercent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 7, "text": "Reserve Funds for the Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects for\nthe City of Alameda Ferry Services, and to Enter into All\nAgreements Necessary to Secure these Funds for Fiscal Year 2007-\n2008. \" Adopted.\nThe Ferry Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the City's contribution to the\n Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service, to which the Ferry Manager responded\napproximately $600,000.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Port of Oakland is cutting its\ncontribution from $83,000 to $79,000; inquired why the contribution\nis lower.\nThe Ferry Manager responded the Port of Oakland argues that there\nare no non-port revenues; stated money is taken from the [Port s ]\nGeneral Fund; payments are made for security and maintenance of the\nClay Street ferry terminal as well as providing free parking for\nferry riders.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the proportion of riders who board\nthe ferry at Jack London Square versus Alameda.\nThe Ferry Manager responded approximately 420,000 riders take the\nAlameda/Oakland Ferry; stated approximately 53% come in and out of\nJack London Square; the vast majority [of Oakland riders) are\nexcursion riders who pay the maximum walk-on rate.\nMayor Johnson stated that the City should be more resistant to the\nPort of Oakland's 5% cut; she would be surprised if every budget\nline item was cut 5% the Port of Oakland is getting a good deal\nfor $83,000 and should be expected to pay a fair share.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the 5% cut was because of\nairport revenue losses, to which the Ferry Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was an overall loss;\nstated the airport is not the majority of funds generated by the\nPort of Oakland; further inquired what are the plans for increased\nridership on the Alameda/Oakland Ferry.\nThe Ferry Manager responded ridership is already up 3% for the\ncurrent year; stated advertising on AC Transit buses and\nparticipation in four free transit days for Spare the Air day would\ncontinue. the Alameda/Oakland Ferry would be participating with\nCalTrans in the awareness campaign for the three or four day bridge\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 8, "text": "closure for Labor Day; a direct mail campaign would be conducted\nfor the Harbor Bay and Fernside District areas offering a two-for- -\none free commute on the Harbor Bay Ferry or Alameda/Oakland Ferry.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether anything is being done for\nthe new development in Oakland, particularly the waterfront area.\nThe Ferry Manager responded in the affirmative; stated a free ride\ncoupon and brochure were provided last year and would be repeated\nthis year.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired why there is a deferential in fuel costs\nbetween the Harbor Bay Ferry and Alameda/Oakland Ferry; further\ninquired whether bio-diesel is an option.\nThe Ferry Manager responded the two operators get fuel in a\ndifferent manner. stated the Alameda/Oakland Ferry has an\nunderground tank; the Harbor Bay Ferry receives fuel by truck,\nwhich results in a ten to fifteen cent increase; the cost of bio-\ndiesel was approximately 50 cents per gallon higher several years\nagoi now the cost of bio-diesel is within ten cents per gallon;\nengine manufacturers have not agreed that the warranty protection\nextends to operators who use bio-diesel.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether San Francisco received a warranty\nfrom the engine manufacture.\nThe Ferry Manager responded Cummins requested that the Red and\nWhite Fleet change from B20 bio-diesel to B10 bio-diesel; the Red\nand White Fleet is in negotiations with Cummins to do a six-month\ntest to see the effect of the B20 bio-diesel; the quality and\nconsistency of bio-diesel is concerning.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether Cummins has already agreed\nto use warranted B10 bio-diesel in Red and White Fleet engines.\nThe Ferry Manager responded Red and White Fleet is in negotiations\nwith Cummins for a six-month trial.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the engines are under\nwarranty now, to which the Ferry Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that Table 1 shows an 18% increase in fuel\ncosts; inquired whether maintenance reductions would off set the\nincrease.\nThe Ferry Manager responded in the affirmative stated maintenance\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 9, "text": "expenses would be reduced with the new Cummins engines the engines\nwould be under warranty.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Harbor Bay Business Park requested a\nreduction also.\nThe Ferry Manager stated the Harbor Bay Business Park contribution\nis not noted in the Tables because the contribution is not part of\nthe public funding.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Harbor Bay Business Park\nwould be requesting a reduction, to which the Ferry Manager\nresponded that he did not know.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that Oakland benefits from having the\nferry service.\nThe Ferry Manager stated Oakland contributes 53% of the ridership\nthe riders pay the walk-on rate.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Oakland's share has increased\nover the years.\nThe Ferry Manager responded he does not recall whether the level\nhas fallen below 50 - 50.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Port of Oakland seems to be\ndefaulting on the agreement ; every year another five percent\nreduction is requested; inquired what would happen if the reduction\nwere not accepted.\nThe Ferry Manager stated that he will be meeting with the Port of\nOakland Commercial Real Estate Committee tomorrow to discuss the\nproposal he can pursue the issue if Council requests.\nThe Public Works Director stated staff has negotiated hard with the\nPort of Oakland; the City relies heavily on passengers paying full\nfare at Oakland; staff is requesting a 25 cent fare increase for\nriders who buy a ticket book; a 50 cent fare increase is requested\nfor excursion riders.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what type of legal position the City\nwould be in if the reduction was not accepted.\nThe Public Works Director responded the City has a year-to-year\nagreement; requested that Council approve the fare increase; stated\nstaff can negotiate with the Port of Oakland to see whether the\ncontribution could be increased.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 10, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired what percentage of the fare box recovery is\nfrom riders boarding at Jack London Square.\nThe Public Works Director responded estimates show that the City\ncould make a 40% fare box recovery without Oakland; stated the fare\nbox recovery is approximately 53% now.\nMayor Johnson stated Oakland's percentage of fare box recovery\nshould be known.\nThe Public Works Director stated the fare box recovery might exceed\n75% i conservatively, the fare box recovery is 65%.\nMayor Johnson stated the fare box recovery should be factored in if\nthe increase is approved and staff negotiates with the Port of\nOakland.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the fare increase should be\napproved; staff should negotiate with the Port of Oakland; the Port\nof Oakland should contribute as well as help with the effort to\ncapture commute riders from the new population south of Highway 880\nin the Jack London Square area; the Harbor Bay marketing was\nsuccessful; he would like to see the same increase on the Oakland\nside.\nMayor Johnson inquired where the money came from for the Harbor Bay\nmarketing.\nThe Ferry Manager responded the Water Transit Authority (WTA)\nfunded direct mail pieces. stated the City funded the Alameda\ncomponent i the WTA paid for some signs throughout the City.\nMayor Johnson stated the marketing was successful; the City should\nwork with the Port of Oakland to develop a similar marketing\ncampaign.\nThe Ferry Manager stated the key to the campaign was a direct mail\npiece for a free ride offer.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that [paying for a marketing\ncampaign] is the hook if the Port of Oakland refuses to come up\nwith the 5% residents in the hundreds of lofts units south of\nHighway 880 should be ferry riders; negotiations should include the\nPort of Oakland and the City of Oakland; Alameda is responsible to\nthe voters, the Port of Oakland is not; negotiations should be\nbroadened to include the District 3, District 5, and at-large\n[Oakland] Councilmembers.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated it would be worthwhile to see what\nefforts are being made to bring new residents on board, such as\noffering EcoPass; the Joint Council Task Force might be a starting\npoint for dialogue with the Oakland Council; inquired what position\nAlameda would be in if the Port of Oakland did not want to pay.\nThe City Attorney responded the agreement would expire if not\nrenewed or amended.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that Alameda could be out $79,000.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Alameda/Oakland Ferry would be\nrestricted from docking at Jack London Square.\nThe Ferry Manager responded the Port of Oakland could restrict\nAlameda from coming into Oakland or could require a landing fee.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the City cannot let the matter\nlapse; the ferry service takes 400,000 people off the freeway; the\nfare increase should be approved; staff should request that the\nPort of Oakland restore the cut because the airport revenue loss is\na not a legitimate reason; staff should also request the Port of\nOakland to produce a campaign to get ridership from the new Oakland\ndevelopment.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendations\nand adoption of the resolution with direction to have staff\nnegotiate with the Port of Oakland and the City of Oakland to\nrequest a restoration of cuts made and to provide a marketing plan\nfor new Oakland residents south of Highway 880.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the Harbor Bay one-year extension\nwould be included, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in\nthe affirmative.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the $79,159 additional year cost\nwould be pending negotiations with Oakland, to which Councilmember\nMatarrese responded in the negative.\nMayor Johnson stated the amount would be accepted now; staff would\ncontinue to negotiate.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested that the matter be addressed when\nthe Alameda/Oakland City Council subcommittee meets.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 12, "text": "The Public Works Director responded services offered vary from one\njurisdiction to the next; stated Alameda is the only city in\nAlameda County to offer food waste collection for commercial and\nmulti-families; Alameda has curbside collections for motor oil and\nbattery drop off at Blanding Avenue ; said services increase costs;\nthe City of Livermore has very low rates because similar services\nare not provided and landfill is in close proximity.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether other areas are having\nsimilar rate increases.\nThe Public Works Director responded seven cities are in the rate\nincrease process; stated some rates are increased because of the\nConsumer Price Index (CPI) other increases are as high as 14%.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated redemption fees have changed; inquired\nwhether there is a windfall for recycling.\nMr. Simonson responded a windfall is difficult to determine; stated\nthere is a net zero cost to process materials in the franchise\nagreement ACI retains all commodity revenue the amount of profit\nis not known because the processing costs are unknown; many\njurisdictions receive a per ton processing revenue; $15 to $20 per\nton is typical; commodity prices have risen over the last couple of\nyears; ACI is taking a risk that the commodity revenues could fall\nbelow what was originally proposed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated redemption has increased almost 100%.\nMr. Simonson stated redemption has no impact on the franchise\nagreement.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents : Robb Ratto, PSBA.\nNeutral : Len Grzanka, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested clarification on the opportunities\nfor rate increases.\nThe Public Works Director stated a major franchise review occurs\nevery third year; cost of living adjustments are made in rate years\nfour and five; the next true up will be in rate year nine.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the CPI does not cover operational\ncosts.\nThe Public Works Director stated a risk analysis was done; ACI\nagreed to take the risk on the commodities market ACI took the\nrisk that the CPI would not keep up with expenses.\nMayor Johnson stated that Alameda has a good Contract the City of\nHayward's contract does not include food waste; Alameda is one of\nthe first to provide food waste recycling and expand the service to\ncommercial.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that complaints were received at the\nbeginning ; now ACI has the system down and citizens are used to the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 14, "text": "system; other cities will be forced to recycle because recycling\nwill be mandated due to landfill limitations; forward thinking was\nimportant in making a substantial portion of the fleet alternative\nfuel; inquired what other mandates might arise that would affect\nContract renegotiations, such as electronic waste.\nThe Public Works Director responded batteries are now considered\nUniversal Waste; stated a pilot program is being initiated which\nwill allow residents to drop off Universal Waste items such as\nbatteries, cell phones and florescent tubes; an educational program\nwill be provided.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether a sorting facility might\nbe necessary to ensure that florescent light bulbs do not end up in\na landfill; stated cost considerations would need to be addressed\nat the next Contract negotiation, if a sorting facility is needed.\nThe Public Works Director responded the hope is to avoid the\nsituation through education and resident cooperation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda has a drop off location for\ncomputers and other electronic equipment.\nThe Public Works Director responded the City provided a drop off\nlocation last year; stated staff is looking into providing a drop\noff location twice a year.\nMr. Grzanka stated E-Waste is a drop off disposal facility for\nAlameda County.\nMayor Johnson stated information should be put on the City's\nwebsite.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that nothing is free the City needs\nto be forward thinking regarding mandates or new programs which\nwould affect the Contract cost evaluations would need to be made\nin addition to determining how to educate people.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that not all residents are recycling to\nthe highest level; an awareness program should be reinforced; ACI's\noperation is separated and thorough; ACI does a very good job.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(07-268) Public Hearing to consider a Call for Review of the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 15, "text": "Planning Board's action to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration\nfor the Safeway Gas Station Project located at 2234 Otis Drive.\n[PDA05-001, DR05-0010, UP06-003, UP06-0010, UP06-0013].\nThe Planning Services Manager provided a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of Call for Review) : Eugenie Thomson, Alameda\n(provided handout ; David Howard, Action Alameda; Dorothy Reid,\nAlameda: Len Grzanka, Alameda; Debra Banks, Alameda (provided\nhandout)\nOpponents (Not in favor of Call for Review) : Debbie Kartiganer,\nCassity, Shimko, Dawson & Kawakami; Chris Ferko, Safeway\nConsultant.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that the project plans are different\nfrom the proposed plans the largest change is the number of\npumping stations questioned whether tonight's discussion is\npremature because the Planning Board has not seen the site plans ;\nstated staff has stated that Council's position on the\nenvironmental document tonight would not be linked to the Alameda\nTowne Centre environmental document. requested legal clarification\nbefore going forward; stated the matter should be adjourned to the\ncorrect order if tonight is not the right time and place.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated typically the Planning Board\nor Council addresses the adequacy of the environmental document and\nthen makes a decision on the project the same evening; the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the\ndecision needs to be made on the environmental document first; the\nPlanning Board requested that the number of pumps be reduced from\neighteen to twelve and that the project provides driveways and a\nraised sidewalk; the changes are very minor relative to the\nenvironmental affects.\nThe City Attorney stated an action on the mitigated negative\ndeclaration would not tie the legislative body's hands regarding a\nfuture action on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the\nAlameda Towne Centre expansion project; the two projects are\nseparate, on two separate parcels of land, and have two separate\nowners ; each project has been analyzed in accordance with CEQA;\nCEQA requires that the mitigated negative declaration consider\nwhether the environmental analysis is adequate for the project as\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 16, "text": "described and includes accumulative impacts for any future project;\nan action on the mitigated negative declaration does not pre-\nsuppose a same or different action on the EIR.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that an additional work request was\nmade in August for Target; the City oversees the contracts for the\nTarget and Safeway gas station studies Target was scheduled to\ncome back to Council this month; inquired whether there has been a\nchange.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the administrative draft\nhas not been received; stated a huge stack of comments were\nreceived regarding the EIR; staff does not expect to get the\npreliminary draft responses back for two or three weeks; plans are\nto go to the Planning Board in July or early August queuing was a\nconcern; stated fewer trips would be generated by reducing the\nnumber of pumps from eighteen to twelve; staff anticipated that the\ncommunity might want to downsize the number of pumpsi an analysis\nwas performed to see whether downsizing would result in longer\nlines; OmniMeans Traffic Engineers provided the research and field\ntesting which determined that downsizing the project would not\nresult in longer ques.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the project is referred to as a\ndiscount refueling station; inquired whether there is a difference\nbetween refueling stations and gas stations.\nMr. Ferko responded the names change, but roughly the stations are\nthe same.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the project would be\nconsidered a high volume, discount refueling station, to which Mr.\nFerko responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the anticipated pumping\nvolume.\nMr. Ferko responded that the fuel pump estimates is something that\nthe client calculates based upon the market analysis.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the previous gas station was a\nneighborhood gas station; cars were repaired at the station; fuel\ncosts were not the cheapest in town; the station was full-service.\nMr. Ferko stated the proposed gas station would not offer full\nservice; the station would offer some convenient goods for sale.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how the proposed gas station would\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 17, "text": "differ from Costco.\nMr. Ferko responded typically Costco sells gas at a cheaper rate\nthan Safeway and drives a higher volume of cars; stated queuing is\nlonger because of the higher volume.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what would be the queuing for the\nproposed station, to which Mr. Ferko responded there is enough que\nto accommodate two to three cars.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how much daily fuel would be\npurchased.\nTodd Paradise, Safeway Real Estate Manager, Fuel Center Northern\nCalifornia Division, responded the design is set up to carry the\nvolume that Safeway anticipates would be needed.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how many tanker trucks there would be\nper day, to which Mr. Paradise responded one per day.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the volume would be\napproximately 88,000 gallons.\nMr. Paradise responded volume would be between 88,000 to 90,000\ngallons on a weekly basis.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how many gallons Costco receives per\nday.\nMr. Paradise responded he would guess a couple of trucks per day.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that Costco receives 90,000 gallons per\nday and a minimum of four trucks.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how long Safeway has been in the gas\nbusiness, to which the Safeway representative responded seven\nyears.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that gas stations have been a major\nsales leakage for the City; questioned why the gas station and\nAlameda Towne Centre EIR would not be reviewed at the same time;\nstated the Transportation Commission was not requested to review\nthe matter; input was requested from the Transportation Commission\nChair and was peculiar at best there is an overlapping impact; the\nAlameda Towne Centre has been an extremely good project; the last\nportion has some concerning factors; intersections, transportation\ncorridors, and traffic generated are concerns; he will yield to\nlegal counsel to verify that the two contracts are not connected;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 18, "text": "other legal counsels advise that the situation could be concerning\nat a later point; the proposed station is nowhere near what a\nCostco would be; queuing has been requested for three cars; Costco\nhas queuing for four cars; inquired whether the Planning Board had\nadditional design requirements.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Planning Board wanted\nto limit truck delivery hours to early morning; stated no other\ndesign aspects were requested.\nMayor Johnson clarified that other design changes were not made.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the entire issue goes back\nto the Planning Board regardless of what action is taken tonight\nbecause the Planning Board still needs to approve the site plan;\nfurther inquired whether tonight's CEQA decision is binding.\nThe City Attorney responded the CEQA document is final if Council\nupholds the Planning Board's decision; stated any member of the\npublic can appeal if Council remands the document to the Planning\nBoard with specific direction and the Planning Board follows the\ndirection and takes action on both the CEQA document and the\nproject; the CEQA document can be appealed as well as any action\ntaken on the project.\nMayor Johnson stated that Council is addressing the mitigated\nnegative declaration, which has nothing to do with the approval of\nthe project; the project can still be denied; the project is still\nan independent issue.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council would be upholding\nor denying the Planning Board's approval of the mitigated negative\ndeclaration rather than approving the mitigated negative\ndeclaration.\nThe City Attorney responded the options are to either uphold the\nPlanning Board's approval or remand the document back to the\nPlanning Board for further review with specific direction as to\nwhat Council wants the Planning Board to review.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the project would be\nmeasured against the document whether the document goes back to the\nPlanning Board or not, to which the City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she agrees with Councilmember deHaan and\nmany of the speakers regarding having a mitigated negative\ndeclaration that looks at the project as a whole, including the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 19, "text": "interactions between the contemplated expansion, including Target\nat the Alameda Towne Center, and the proposed fueling station; the\nmitigated negative declaration does just that [looks at project as\na whole] ; the impacts of six different intersections are fully\ndisclosed in the mitigated negative declaration there will be\nopportunities to have a full discussion regarding the impacts of\nthe proposed fueling station, Target or other expansion projects at\nAlameda Towne Center if the matter comes to Council or the Planning\nBoard; Council is being requested to review the adequacy of the\nmitigated negative declaration; she concurs with the Planning\nBoard's findings that the mitigated negative declaration is\nadequate because she does not see anything that would need an\nadditional analysisi the Planning Board considered the most\nconservative assumption for the Alameda Towne Center expansion and\nlarger fueling station.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred with Vice Mayor Tam; stated that\nhe appreciates the detail that the Planning Services Manager\noutlined regarding the differences between the 2003 and 2006\nnumbers; it is important to review the potential of a worse case\nfor impact of the entire project on the adjacent parcel.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of upholding the Planning\nBoard's decision to adopt the Initial Study and Negative\nDeclaration for the Safeway gas station project.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes : louncilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor\nJohnson - 4. Noes:  ouncilmember deHaan - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(\n07-269 - ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, wished everyone a Happy\nFather': Day.\n(07-270) Former Councilmember Barbara Thomas, stated\nCouncilmembers work a great number of hours; suggested that\nCouncilmembers give themselves a raise or consider hiring a staff\nperson; stated the City deserves to have officials who are able to\nconcentrate and are well advised.\n(07-271) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed waste and transit systems.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(07-272) - Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to\nthe Recreation and Park Commission.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 20, "text": "being discussed for the USS Iowa.\n(07-276) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he heard rumors that\nthe Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering moving its\nDistrict office from Harbor Bay Business Park; requested an update;\nsuggested that Council consider sending a request to maintain the\nDistrict office and associated laboratories at Harbor Bay Business\nPark, if the rumor is true.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a letter has already been sent.\nThe City Manager responded she would look into the matter.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he thought a portion of the\noperation was next to Foster Freeze.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the USFDA sampling lab and District\nDirector office are at Harbor Bay Business Park.\nMayor Johnson stated a letter should be sent right away; a\nresolution should be brought back to Council.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 21, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 10:48 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\n21\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-05", "page": 22, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 5, 2007- - -6:40 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:55 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(07-246) Conference with Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators\n:\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations\n:\nAll City Bargaining Units.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that Council reached a tentative\nagreement with the Alameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn\nbargaining unit; Council also received a briefing on Alameda Police\nOfficers Association issues, and the Executive Management group.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:35 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\nJune 5, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf"}