2007-06-05 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 5, 2007- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(07 -247) Proclamation honoring volunteers for planting King Alfred
Daffodils in the Park Street Business District as part of its
ongoing revitalization.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Lars Hansson
and other members of the Park Street business community.
Mr. Hansson thanked Council for the proclamation; stated Mary Amen
had the idea for planting the daffodils.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(07 -248) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to set a
Public Hearing [paragraph no. 07 -255] and the recommendation to
reject bids [paragraph no. 07 -2561 were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
( *07 -249) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on May 15, 2007. Approved.
( *07 -250) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,134,635.80.
( *07 -251) Recommendation to approve an agreement with Holland &
Knight, LLP, in the amount of $96,000 for federal legislative
advocacy services. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
June 5, 2007
( *07 -252) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$320,000, including contingencies, to McNabb Construction, Inc.,
for Godfrey Park Playfield Renovations, No. P.W. 03- 07 -06.
Accepted.
( *07 -253) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$250,368, including contingencies, to Golden Bay Construction,
Inc., for the replacement of curb, gutter, and related improvements
to address Street Ponding Citywide, No. P.W. 02- 07 -04. Accepted.
( *07 -254) Recommendation to allocate $100,000 in Sewer Funds and
award Contract in the amount of $1,935,000, including
contingencies, to Gallagher & Burk, Inc. for the repair and
resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 27, No. P.W. 04- 07 -17.
Accepted.
(07 -255) Recommendation to set a Public Hearing for delinquent
Integrated Waste Management charges for July 17, 2007.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is not sure whether tying
delinquent bills to property taxes is the best way; he has
requested that the City Manager look into the cost related to the
City overseeing the process.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07 -256) Recommendation to reject bids for the Ford Crown Victoria
Police Interceptors, adopt new Specifications, and authorize Call
for Bids for two marked Dodge Charger Police vehicles.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he wants to ensure that the Police
Department is completely comfortable with the Dodge Charger and
compromises are not being made.
The Police Captain stated a lot of time was spent reviewing both
the Crown Victoria and Dodge Charger platforms; the Crown Victoria
package will be phased out; Dodge is re- entering the market; a
number of agencies have purchased the Dodge Charger; the Police
Department is satisfied that the Dodge Charger meets the
requirements; the vehicle will be evaluated and tested to see
whether the Police Department will continue with the Dodge
platform.
Councilmember Matarrese commended the Police Department; stated the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
June 5, 2007
Dodge Charger is a more fuel - efficient vehicle; he appreciates the
research that has been done to ensure that risks are not taken.
The Police Captain stated the Dodge Charger has better
maneuverability, is more responsive, but does not reach top speeds;
top speeds are not needed in Alameda; the braking is better.
Councilmember deHaan stated that his major concern is that
compromises are not made; standards and safety requirements need to
be met.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *07 -257) Resolution No. 14094, "Amending Resolution No. 9460 to
Reflect Current Positions and Entities to be Included in the City
of Alameda's Conflict of Interest Code and Rescinding Resolution
No. 14000." Adopted.
( *07 -258) Resolution No. 14095, "Authorizing the Execution of an
Agreement Between the City of Alameda and the Board of Supervisors
of Alameda County, State of California, and All Necessary Actions
to Purchase Tax - Defaulted Property (APN 74- 955 -91) for Park
Purposes Pursuant to the Provisions of Division 1, Part 6, Chapter
8 of the Revenue and Taxation Code." Adopted.
( *07 -259) Resolution No. 14096, "Requesting and Authorizing the
County of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property
in the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General
Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election Held on
November 7, 2000." Adopted.
( *07 -260) Introduction of Ordinance Containing a Description of the
Community Improvement Commission's Program to Acquire Real Property
by Eminent Domain in the Alameda Point, Business and Waterfront,
and West End Community Improvement Project Areas. Introduced.
( *07 -261) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14097,
"Approving Planned Development, PD07 -0001, and Parcel Map, PM06-
0005, to Allow the Division of a 25,000 Square -Foot Parcel into Two
Lots at 650/700 Grand Street. The property is located within an R -1
(Single- Family Residential) Zoning District." Adopted.
( *07 -262) Public Hearing
"Approving Tentative Map
Establishing Up to Eight
to consider Resolution
9387, TM06 -0003, for the
Commercial Condominiums
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
June 5, 2007
No. 14098,
Purpose of
within One
Building Located at 1000 Atlantic Avenue. This property is located
within the M -X Mixed use Planned Development Zoning District."
Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07 -263) Public Hearing to Establish Proposition 4 Limit
(Appropriation Limit) for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008; and
(07 -263A) Resolution No. 14099, "Establishing Appropriations Limit
for Fiscal Year 2007 - 2008." Adopted.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Finance Director for providing
a clear set of tables; stated the City's revenues were a higher
percentage of the allowed limit in the early 1990's.
The Finance Director stated a law changed the formula in 1991; the
City was allowed to use the County population increase, not just
the City population increase; the City has elected to continue to
use said formula; the City is using the County population increase
and per capita personal income change for 2007 and 2008; the two
factors create the compounding factor for the increase; previously,
the City was using the City population.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(07 -264) Public Hearing to consider collection of delinquent
business license fees via the property tax bills.
The Finance Director provided an updated list and a brief
presentation.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that a significant amount of effort has gone
into contacting business owners; total uncollected fees are
approximately $7,000; inquired whether the business associations
have been able to assist in communicating with the business owners.
The Finance Director responded a great deal of support has been
received from the business associations in other actions; she is
sure the business associations would come forward if questions were
asked; the majority of delinquent license fees are for businesses
that are not active in the business associations.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
June 5, 2007
Mayor Johnson inquired on what property is the lien placed.
The Finance Director responded the lien is placed on the Assessor's
parcel number.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the same names appear every
year.
The Finance Director responded a few reappear; stated the majority
are new.
Mayor Johnson opening the public portion of the hearing.
Len Grzanka, Alameda, stated the City paid Municipal Auditing
Services $13,000 in the month of May; outstanding liens are $7,145;
questioned what is the cost benefit.
The Finance Director stated Municipal Auditing Services performs
two types of audits; one audit reviews documentation to ensure the
correct fee is paid and the other reviews businesses that are not
paying a business license fee; the fee is 500 of the amount
collected; the City received $26,000 in revenue for the $13,000
fee; $262,000 additional revenue was received in the current fiscal
year; $132,000 was paid in fees through May.
Councilmember deHaan stated that previous discussions addressed not
renewing the Contract; inquired whether a decision has been made.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated a verbal
notice has been given to the Contractor advising that the Contract
will not be renewed past June of this year.
Rob Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBR), stated PSBR
works hand and hand with the Finance Department to ensure that all
members have paid business license and Business Improvement Area
(BIA) fees; liens are only against business owners who own the
property; PSBR takes business owners who rent to Small Claims Court
if someone refuses to pay the BIA fee; PSBR has collected every
time.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Municipal Auditing Services
has been used for four years.
The Finance Director responded the service started in January 2005;
stated the process has been going smoothly; the City works closely
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
June 5, 2007
with Municipal Auditing Services and the business associations.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of authorizing collection of
delinquent business license fees via the property tax bills.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07 -265) Public Hearing to Resolution No. 14100, "Confirming the
Business Improvement Area Report for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 and
Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement
Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2007 - 2008." Adopted.
The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponent: Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution confirming
the BIA Report and authorizing levying the annual assessment fee.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(07 -266) Public Hearing on the proposed fare increase for the
Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and recommendation to authorize the
City Manager to execute a one -year extension of the Blue & Gold
Fleet Operating Agreement with the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service,
adopt associated budgets, and approve the proposed fare increases
for the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service;
(07 -266A) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a
one -year extension of the Harbor Bay Maritime Ferry Operating
Agreement with the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry, and adopt the
associated budgets;
(07 -266B) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a
second amendment to the amended and restated Ferry Services
Agreement with the Port of Oakland to extend the term for one
additional year at a cost of $79,159; and
(07 -266C) Resolution No. 14101, "Authorizing the City Manager to
Apply for Regional Measure 1 Bridge Toll Funds, Including Five
Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
June 5, 2007
Reserve Funds for the Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects for
the City of Alameda Ferry Services, and to Enter into All
Agreements Necessary to Secure these Funds for Fiscal Year 2007-
2008." Adopted.
The Ferry Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the City's contribution to the
Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service, to which the Ferry Manager responded
approximately $600,000.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Port of Oakland is cutting its
contribution from $83,000 to $79,000; inquired why the contribution
is lower.
The Ferry Manager responded the Port of Oakland argues that there
are no non -port revenues; stated money is taken from the [Port's]
General Fund; payments are made for security and maintenance of the
Clay Street ferry terminal as well as providing free parking for
ferry riders.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the proportion of riders who board
the ferry at Jack London Square versus Alameda.
The Ferry Manager responded approximately 420,000 riders take the
Alameda /Oakland Ferry; stated approximately 53% come in and out of
Jack London Square; the vast majority [of Oakland riders] are
excursion riders who pay the maximum walk -on rate.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City should be more resistant to the
Port of Oakland's 5% cut; she would be surprised if every budget
line item was cut 50; the Port of Oakland is getting a good deal
for $83,000 and should be expected to pay a fair share.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the 5% cut was because of
airport revenue losses, to which the Ferry Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was an overall loss;
stated the airport is not the majority of funds generated by the
Port of Oakland; further inquired what are the plans for increased
ridership on the Alameda /Oakland Ferry.
The Ferry Manager responded ridership is already up 3% for the
current year; stated advertising on AC Transit buses and
participation in four free transit days for Spare the Air day would
continue; the Alameda /Oakland Ferry would be participating with
CalTrans in the awareness campaign for the three or four day bridge
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
June 5, 2007
closure for Labor Day; a direct mail campaign would be conducted
for the Harbor Bay and Fernside District areas offering a two -for-
one free commute on the Harbor Bay Ferry or Alameda /Oakland Ferry.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether anything is being done for
the new development in Oakland, particularly the waterfront area.
The Ferry Manager responded in the affirmative; stated a free ride
coupon and brochure were provided last year and would be repeated
this year.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired why there is a deferential in fuel costs
between the Harbor Bay Ferry and Alameda /Oakland Ferry; further
inquired whether bio- diesel is an option.
The Ferry Manager responded the two operators get fuel in a
different manner; stated the Alameda /Oakland Ferry has an
underground tank; the Harbor Bay Ferry receives fuel by truck,
which results in a ten to fifteen cent increase; the cost of bio -
diesel was approximately 50 cents per gallon higher several years
ago; now the cost of bio- diesel is within ten cents per gallon;
engine manufacturers have not agreed that the warranty protection
extends to operators who use bio- diesel.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether San Francisco received a warranty
from the engine manufacture.
The Ferry Manager responded Cummins requested that the Red and
White Fleet change from B20 bio- diesel to B10 bio- diesel; the Red
and White Fleet is in negotiations with Cummins to do a six -month
test to see the effect of the B20 bio- diesel; the quality and
consistency of bio- diesel is concerning.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Cummins has already agreed
to use warranted B10 bio- diesel in Red and White Fleet engines.
The Ferry Manager responded Red and White Fleet is in negotiations
with Cummins for a six -month trial.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the engines are under
warranty now, to which the Ferry Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that Table 1 shows an 18% increase in fuel
costs; inquired whether maintenance reductions would off set the
increase.
The Ferry Manager responded in the affirmative; stated maintenance
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
June 5, 2007
expenses would be reduced with the new Cummins engines; the engines
would be under warranty.
Councilmember deHaan stated Harbor Bay Business Park requested a
reduction also.
The Ferry Manager stated the Harbor Bay Business Park contribution
is not noted in the Tables because the contribution is not part of
the public funding.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Harbor Bay Business Park
would be requesting a reduction, to which the Ferry Manager
responded that he did not know.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Oakland benefits from having the
ferry service.
The Ferry Manager stated Oakland contributes 530 of the ridership;
the riders pay the walk -on rate.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Oakland's share has increased
over the years.
The Ferry Manager responded he does not recall whether the level
has fallen below 50 - 50.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Port of Oakland seems to be
defaulting on the agreement; every year another five percent
reduction is requested; inquired what would happen if the reduction
were not accepted.
The Ferry Manager stated that he will be meeting with the Port of
Oakland Commercial Real Estate Committee tomorrow to discuss the
proposal; he can pursue the issue if Council requests.
The Public Works Director stated staff has negotiated hard with the
Port of Oakland; the City relies heavily on passengers paying full
fare at Oakland; staff is requesting a 25 cent fare increase for
riders who buy a ticket book; a 50 cent fare increase is requested
for excursion riders.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what type of legal position the City
would be in if the reduction was not accepted.
The Public Works Director responded the City has a year -to -year
agreement; requested that Council approve the fare increase; stated
staff can negotiate with the Port of Oakland to see whether the
contribution could be increased.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
June 5, 2007
Mayor Johnson inquired what percentage of the fare box recovery is
from riders boarding at Jack London Square.
The Public Works Director responded estimates show that the City
could make a 40% fare box recovery without Oakland; stated the fare
box recovery is approximately 53% now.
Mayor Johnson stated Oakland's percentage of fare box recovery
should be known.
The Public Works Director stated the fare box recovery might exceed
750; conservatively, the fare box recovery is 650.
Mayor Johnson stated the fare box recovery should be factored in if
the increase is approved and staff negotiates with the Port of
Oakland.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the fare increase should be
approved; staff should negotiate with the Port of Oakland; the Port
of Oakland should contribute as well as help with the effort to
capture commute riders from the new population south of Highway 880
in the Jack London Square area; the Harbor Bay marketing was
successful; he would like to see the same increase on the Oakland
side.
Mayor Johnson inquired where the money came from for the Harbor Bay
marketing.
The Ferry Manager responded the Water Transit Authority (WTA)
funded direct mail pieces; stated the City funded the Alameda
component; the WTA paid for some signs throughout the City.
Mayor Johnson stated the marketing was successful; the City should
work with the Port of Oakland to develop a similar marketing
campaign.
The Ferry Manager stated the key to the campaign was a direct mail
piece for a free ride offer.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that [paying for a marketing
campaign] is the hook if the Port of Oakland refuses to come up
with the 50; residents in the hundreds of lofts units south of
Highway 880 should be ferry riders; negotiations should include the
Port of Oakland and the City of Oakland; Alameda is responsible to
the voters, the Port of Oakland is not; negotiations should be
broadened to include the District 3, District 5, and at -large
[Oakland] Councilmembers.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
June 5, 2007
Councilmember deHaan stated it would be worthwhile to see what
efforts are being made to bring new residents on board, such as
offering EcoPass; the Joint Council Task Force might be a starting
point for dialogue with the Oakland Council; inquired what position
Alameda would be in if the Port of Oakland did not want to pay.
The City Attorney responded the agreement would expire if not
renewed or amended.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Alameda could be out $79,000.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Alameda /Oakland Ferry would be
restricted from docking at Jack London Square.
The Ferry Manager responded the Port of Oakland could restrict
Alameda from coming into Oakland or could require a landing fee.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the City cannot let the matter
lapse; the ferry service takes 400,000 people off the freeway; the
fare increase should be approved; staff should request that the
Port of Oakland restore the cut because the airport revenue loss is
a not a legitimate reason; staff should also request the Port of
Oakland to produce a campaign to get ridership from the new Oakland
development.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendations
and adoption of the resolution with direction to have staff
negotiate with the Port of Oakland and the City of Oakland to
request a restoration of cuts made and to provide a marketing plan
for new Oakland residents south of Highway 880.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the Harbor Bay one -year extension
would be included, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in
the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the $79,159 additional year cost
would be pending negotiations with Oakland, to which Councilmember
Matarrese responded in the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated the amount would be accepted now; staff would
continue to negotiate.
Councilmember deHaan requested that the matter be addressed when
the Alameda /Oakland City Council subcommittee meets.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 1
June 5, 2007
(07 -267) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14102,
"Establishing Integrated Waste (Solid waste, Recycling and
Organics) Collection Ceiling Rates and Services Fees for Alameda
County Industries, Inc. for Rate Period 6 (July 2007 to June
2008)." Adopted.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Rick Simonson, Hilton Farnkope & Hobson, LLC, Director, Solid Waste
and Recycling Rate Services, gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired why garbage carts are disappearing; stated
the new ceiling rates and fee schedule propose a $15.00 cart
replacement fee.
The Public Works Director responded Alameda County Industries (ACI)
is experiencing an unusually high request for cart exchanges;
stated the franchise agreement requires that the Contractor provide
a once -a -year cart exchange; the franchise agreement states that
any cart damaged by ACI needs to be replaced or repaired by ACI at
ACI's cost.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the phrase "cart replacement
fee" should be clarified; stated carts are guaranteed for ten
years.
The Public Works Director responded "cart replacement fee" is the
term given in the franchise agreement; stated the rates could spell
out cart replacement, non -ACI related.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is happening in other
municipalities.
The Public Works Director responded services offered vary from one
jurisdiction to the next; stated Alameda is the only city in
Alameda County to offer food waste collection for commercial and
multi - families; Alameda has curbside collections for motor oil and
battery drop off at Blanding Avenue; said services increase costs;
the City of Livermore has very low rates because similar services
are not provided and landfill is in close proximity.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other areas are having
similar rate increases.
The Public Works Director responded seven cities are in the rate
increase process; stated some rates are increased because of the
Consumer Price Index (CPI), other increases are as high as 140.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 12
June 5, 2007
Councilmember deHaan stated redemption fees have changed; inquired
whether there is a windfall for recycling.
Mr. Simonson responded a windfall is difficult to determine; stated
there is a net zero cost to process materials in the franchise
agreement; ACI retains all commodity revenue; the amount of profit
is not known because the processing costs are unknown; many
jurisdictions receive a per ton processing revenue; $15 to $20 per
ton is typical; commodity prices have risen over the last couple of
years; ACI is taking a risk that the commodity revenues could fall
below what was originally proposed.
Councilmember deHaan stated redemption has increased almost 1000.
Mr. Simonson stated redemption has no impact on the franchise
agreement.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents: Robb Ratto, PSBR.
Neutral: Len Grzanka, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember deHaan requested clarification on the opportunities
for rate increases.
The Public Works Director stated a major franchise review occurs
every third year; cost of living adjustments are made in rate years
four and five; the next true up will be in rate year nine.
Councilmember deHaan stated the CPI does not cover operational
costs.
The Public Works Director stated a risk analysis was done; ACI
agreed to take the risk on the commodities market; ACI took the
risk that the CPI would not keep up with expenses.
Mayor Johnson stated that Alameda has a good Contract; the City of
Hayward's contract does not include food waste; Alameda is one of
the first to provide food waste recycling and expand the service to
commercial.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that complaints were received at the
beginning; now ACI has the system down and citizens are used to the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 13
June 5, 2007
system; other cities will be forced to recycle because recycling
will be mandated due to landfill limitations; forward thinking was
important in making a substantial portion of the fleet alternative
fuel; inquired what other mandates might arise that would affect
Contract renegotiations, such as electronic waste.
The Public Works Director responded batteries are now considered
Universal Waste; stated a pilot program is being initiated which
will allow residents to drop off Universal Waste items such as
batteries, cell phones and florescent tubes; an educational program
will be provided.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a sorting facility might
be necessary to ensure that florescent light bulbs do not end up in
a landfill; stated cost considerations would need to be addressed
at the next Contract negotiation, if a sorting facility is needed.
The Public Works Director responded the hope is to avoid the
situation through education and resident cooperation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda has a drop off location for
computers and other electronic equipment.
The Public Works Director responded the City provided a drop off
location last year; stated staff is looking into providing a drop
off location twice a year.
Mr. Grzanka stated E -Waste is a drop off disposal facility for
Alameda County.
Mayor Johnson stated information should be put on the City's
website.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that nothing is free; the City needs
to be forward thinking regarding mandates or new programs which
would affect the Contract; cost evaluations would need to be made
in addition to determining how to educate people.
Councilmember deHaan stated that not all residents are recycling to
the highest level; an awareness program should be reinforced; ACI's
operation is separated and thorough; ACI does a very good job.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07 -268) Public Hearing to consider a Call for Review of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 14
June 5, 2007
Planning Board's action to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Safeway Gas Station Project located at 2234 Otis Drive.
[PDA05 -001, DR05 -0010, UP06 -003, UP06 -0010, UP06- 00131.
The Planning Services Manager provided a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of Call for Review): Eugenie Thomson, Alameda
(provided handout); David Howard, Action Alameda; Dorothy Reid,
Alameda; Len Grzanka, Alameda; Debra Banks, Alameda (provided
handout).
Opponents (Not in favor of Call for Review) : Debbie Kartiganer,
Cassity, Shimko, Dawson & Kawakami; Chris Ferko, Safeway
Consultant.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the project plans are different
from the proposed plans; the largest change is the number of
pumping stations; questioned whether tonight's discussion is
premature because the Planning Board has not seen the site plans;
stated staff has stated that Council's position on the
environmental document tonight would not be linked to the Alameda
Towne Centre environmental document; requested legal clarification
before going forward; stated the matter should be adjourned to the
correct order if tonight is not the right time and place.
The Planning Services Manager stated typically the Planning Board
or Council addresses the adequacy of the environmental document and
then makes a decision on the project the same evening; the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the
decision needs to be made on the environmental document first; the
Planning Board requested that the number of pumps be reduced from
eighteen to twelve and that the project provides driveways and a
raised sidewalk; the changes are very minor relative to the
environmental affects.
The City Attorney stated an action on the mitigated negative
declaration would not tie the legislative body's hands regarding a
future action on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
Alameda Towne Centre expansion project; the two projects are
separate, on two separate parcels of land, and have two separate
owners; each project has been analyzed in accordance with CEQA;
CEQA requires that the mitigated negative declaration consider
whether the environmental analysis is adequate for the project as
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 15
June 5, 2007
described and includes accumulative impacts for any future project;
an action on the mitigated negative declaration does not pre-
suppose a same or different action on the EIR.
Councilmember deHaan stated that an additional work request was
made in August for Target; the City oversees the contracts for the
Target and Safeway gas station studies; Target was scheduled to
come back to Council this month; inquired whether there has been a
change.
The Planning Services Manager responded the administrative draft
has not been received; stated a huge stack of comments were
received regarding the EIR; staff does not expect to get the
preliminary draft responses back for two or three weeks; plans are
to go to the Planning Board in July or early August; queuing was a
concern; stated fewer trips would be generated by reducing the
number of pumps from eighteen to twelve; staff anticipated that the
community might want to downsize the number of pumps; an analysis
was performed to see whether downsizing would result in longer
lines; OmniMeans Traffic Engineers provided the research and field
testing which determined that downsizing the project would not
result in longer ques.
Councilmember deHaan stated the project is referred to as a
discount refueling station; inquired whether there is a difference
between refueling stations and gas stations.
Mr. Ferko responded the names change, but roughly the stations are
the same.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the project would be
considered a high volume, discount refueling station, to which Mr.
Ferko responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the anticipated pumping
volume.
Mr. Ferko responded that the fuel pump estimates is something that
the client calculates based upon the market analysis.
Councilmember deHaan stated the previous gas station was a
neighborhood gas station; cars were repaired at the station; fuel
costs were not the cheapest in town; the station was full - service.
Mr. Ferko stated the proposed gas station would not offer full
service; the station would offer some convenient goods for sale.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the proposed gas station would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 16
June 5, 2007
differ from Costco.
Mr. Ferko responded typically Costco sells gas at a cheaper rate
than Safeway and drives a higher volume of cars; stated queuing is
longer because of the higher volume.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be the queuing for the
proposed station, to which Mr. Ferko responded there is enough que
to accommodate two to three cars.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how much daily fuel would be
purchased.
Todd Paradise, Safeway Real Estate Manager, Fuel Center Northern
California Division, responded the design is set up to carry the
volume that Safeway anticipates would be needed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many tanker trucks there would be
per day, to which Mr. Paradise responded one per day.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the volume would be
approximately 88,000 gallons.
Mr. Paradise responded volume would be between 88,000 to 90,000
gallons on a weekly basis.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many gallons Costco receives per
day.
Mr. Paradise responded he would guess a couple of trucks per day.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Costco receives 90,000 gallons per
day and a minimum of four trucks.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how long Safeway has been in the gas
business, to which the Safeway representative responded seven
years.
Councilmember deHaan stated that gas stations have been a major
sales leakage for the City; questioned why the gas station and
Alameda Towne Centre EIR would not be reviewed at the same time;
stated the Transportation Commission was not requested to review
the matter; input was requested from the Transportation Commission
Chair and was peculiar at best; there is an overlapping impact; the
Alameda Towne Centre has been an extremely good project; the last
portion has some concerning factors; intersections, transportation
corridors, and traffic generated are concerns; he will yield to
legal counsel to verify that the two contracts are not connected;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 17
June 5, 2007
other legal counsels advise that the situation could be concerning
at a later point; the proposed station is nowhere near what a
Costco would be; queuing has been requested for three cars; Costco
has queuing for four cars; inquired whether the Planning Board had
additional design requirements.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Planning Board wanted
to limit truck delivery hours to early morning; stated no other
design aspects were requested.
Mayor Johnson clarified that other design changes were not made.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the entire issue goes back
to the Planning Board regardless of what action is taken tonight
because the Planning Board still needs to approve the site plan;
further inquired whether tonight's CEQA decision is binding.
The City Attorney responded the CEQA document is final if Council
upholds the Planning Board's decision; stated any member of the
public can appeal if Council remands the document to the Planning
Board with specific direction and the Planning Board follows the
direction and takes action on both the CEQA document and the
project; the CEQA document can be appealed as well as any action
taken on the project.
Mayor Johnson stated that Council is addressing the mitigated
negative declaration, which has nothing to do with the approval of
the project; the project can still be denied; the project is still
an independent issue.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council would be upholding
or denying the Planning Board's approval of the mitigated negative
declaration rather than approving the mitigated negative
declaration.
The City Attorney responded the options are to either uphold the
Planning Board's approval or remand the document back to the
Planning Board for further review with specific direction as to
what Council wants the Planning Board to review.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the project would be
measured against the document whether the document goes back to the
Planning Board or not, to which the City Attorney responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she agrees with Councilmember deHaan and
many of the speakers regarding having a mitigated negative
declaration that looks at the project as a whole, including the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 18
June 5, 2007
interactions between the contemplated expansion, including Target
at the Alameda Towne Center, and the proposed fueling station; the
mitigated negative declaration does just that [looks at project as
a whole]; the impacts of six different intersections are fully
disclosed in the mitigated negative declaration; there will be
opportunities to have a full discussion regarding the impacts of
the proposed fueling station, Target or other expansion projects at
Alameda Towne Center if the matter comes to Council or the Planning
Board; Council is being requested to review the adequacy of the
mitigated negative declaration; she concurs with the Planning
Board's findings that the mitigated negative declaration is
adequate because she does not see anything that would need an
additional analysis; the Planning Board considered the most
conservative assumption for the Alameda Towne Center expansion and
larger fueling station.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Vice Mayor Tam; stated that
he appreciates the detail that the Planning Services Manager
outlined regarding the differences between the 2003 and 2006
numbers; it is important to review the potential of a worse case
for impact of the entire project on the adjacent parcel.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of upholding the Planning
Board's decision to adopt the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration for the Safeway gas station project.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor
Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember deHaan - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA
(07 -269) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, wished everyone a Happy
Father's Day.
(07 -270) Former Councilmember Barbara Thomas, stated
Councilmembers work a great number of hours; suggested that
Councilmembers give themselves a raise or consider hiring a staff
person; stated the City deserves to have officials who are able to
concentrate and are well advised.
(07 -271) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed waste and transit systems.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07 -272) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to
the Recreation and Park Commission.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 19
June 5, 2007
Mayor Johnson nominated Bill Sonneman.
(07 -273) Councilmember Matarrese stated that the AC Transit
Liaison Committee met on May 31; staff will provide an update on
the High Street Bridge issue; AC Transit has been cooperative; Line
51 and Line 63 bus bunching and frequency were reviewed; data is
being gathered on the affects of moving Line 63 to Shoreline Drive
off of Otis Drive; AC Transit provided an update on the potential
of EcoPasses as a pilot program for City employees.
(07 -274) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he hopes to receive
some recommendations from the Climate Protection Task Force
Committee on environmental steps that can be taken; he would like
the Committee and City to consider a City car share program for
employees; provided information to the City Manager; stated the
City of Oakland and City of Berkeley are participating in a car
share program.
(07 -275) Vice Mayor Tam stated on June 2 she attended a session in
San Francisco to meet with Admiral Mike Mullen, US Navy Chief of
Naval Operations; there were discussions on whether Alameda would
be willing to endorse having the battleship USS Iowa move from
Suisun to Mare Island; the plans are to turn the USS Iowa into a
naval museum similar to the USS Hornet.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter could be reviewed; other ideas are
being discussed for the USS Iowa.
(07 -276) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he heard rumors that
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering moving its
District office from Harbor Bay Business Park; requested an update;
suggested that Council consider sending a request to maintain the
District office and associated laboratories at Harbor Bay Business
Park, if the rumor is true.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a letter has already been sent.
The City Manager responded she would look into the matter.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he thought a portion of the
operation was next to Foster Freeze.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the USFDA sampling lab and District
Director office are at Harbor Bay Business Park.
Mayor Johnson stated a letter should be sent right away; a
resolution should be brought back to Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2 0
June 5, 2007
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 10:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 21
June 5, 2007