body,date,page,text,path
SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard,2012-05-03,1,"RESOLUTION NO. 12-02
RESOLUTION OF THE OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY CITY OF
ALAMEDA ADOPTING MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING, MAY 3, 2012
WHEREAS, the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency City of Alameda organized
itself pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 34179) of Part 1.85 of Division 24 of the
Health and Safety Code (the ""Board""); and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for said Board to adopt minutes of public meetings; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY
CITY OF ALAMEDA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The approval of meeting minutes of the special meeting on May 3, 2012, of
the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency City of Alameda
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES:
7
NOES:
ABSENT:
Chair
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Board",SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard/2012-05-03.pdf
SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard,2012-05-03,2,"City of Alameda
Successor Agency Oversight Board
Special Meeting Minutes
Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.
City Hall, Conference Room 360
1.
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Chair Russo called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Roll call by Secretary Brown,
present were Chair Russo, Vice-Chair Biggs, Members Chan, McMahon, Ortiz, Gerhard, and
Potter. Consultants Staedler and Doezema were present.
2.
APPROVE MINUTES - APRIL 2, 2012 ANNUAL MEETING
Motion/Second (Ortiz, Gerhard) to approve minutes with requested edit. Motion
unanimous.
3.
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO INITIAL RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT
SCHEDULE (ROPS) BASED ON DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE COMMENTS
Discussion regarding the DOF letter and how it impacts the ROPS. The Board has 10
days to respond and requested approval from the Board to draft a letter that explained why
each questioned enforceable obligation was a valid obligation. The draft letter was handed out
and Board reviewed the letter item-by-item. Motion/Second (VC Biggs, Gerhard) to amend the
first ROPS as discussed and resubmit to DOF. Motion unanimous.
4.
APPROVE 2ND ROPS (JULY 1, 2012- DECEMBER 31, 2012)
Board reviewed and discussed the 2nd ROPS. Motion/Second (Gerhard, McMahon) to
submit to DOF the 2nd ROPS with requested edits and notes. Motion unanimous.
5.
APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $125,000 (JULY 1, 2012
- DECEMBER 31, 2012)
Questions for clarification on what the minimum and maximum amounts allowed on the
Administration Budget are and staff explained. Motion/Second (McMahon, Ortiz) to approve
the administrative budget as recommended. Motion unanimous.
6.
AUTHORIZE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH:
KEYSER MARSTON & ASSOCIATES for Financial Consulting Service
(16-Month Agreement in the amount of $29,500) (Admin Budget)
APERTURE CONSULTING for Administrative Support Services
(14-Month Agreement in the amount of $25,000) (Admin Budget)
Both contracts are to the end of fiscal year, and staff provided clarification on amounts
and terms on ROPS. Motion/Second (VC Biggs, Ortiz) to approve the agreement. Motion
unanimous.",SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard/2012-05-03.pdf
SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard,2012-05-03,3,"Successor Agency Oversight Board
Minutes of Special Meeting, May 3, 2012
Page 2
7.
AUTHORIZE SUCCESSOR HOUSING AGENCY (SHA)TO ENTER INTO A 12 MONTH
AGREEMENT FOR $54,895 WITH HOMEBRICKS FOR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION)
Staff provided a brief explanation regarding this contract being part of the EOPS and for
the Successor Housing Agency and not as part of the Administration budget. Motion/Second
(Ortiz, McMahon) to authorize the SHA to enter agreement with HomeBricks. Motion
unanimous.
8.
SET NEXT SPECIAL MEETING
Motion/Second (McMahon, Potter) to set the next special meeting for October 29, 2012.
Motion unanimous.
9.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
10.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Russo called the meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Romany Valesba
Rosemary Valeska
Secretary
Approved per Resolution 12-02, adopted on August 27, 2012",SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard/2012-05-03.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-05-03,1,"Special Transportation Commission Minutes
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Commissioner Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:02 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Kathy Moehring
Thomas G. Bertken
Jesus Vargas
Sandy Wong
Michele Bellows
Christopher Miley
Members Absent:
Rajiv Sharma
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Matthew Naclerio, Public Works Director
2.
Oral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments
Matthew Fitzgerald announced that the Disability Capital Action Day would be held on
Wednesday, May 30 from 10 am- 3 pm in Sacramento. Buses would leave from Hayward to
Fremont to Livermore and onto Sacramento. The day contains free activities and for more
information, the public should call Christina at (510) 881-5743.
3.
New Business
3A.
Gibbons Drive/Northwood Drive/Southwood Drive Improvement Project -
Recommendation to not proceed with the proposed project.
Matthew Naclerio presented the staff report for the Gibbons Drive/Northwood Drive/Southwood
Drive Improvement project.
Commissioner Vargas asked if the funds identified by Caltrans were fixed to the specific
improvements or if there are any options for other improvements.
Matthew Naclerio stated the funding is linked to the specific improvements outlined in the
application. However, there may be alternatives that are in compliance and Caltrans may have
Page 1 of 5",TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-05-03,2,"some flexibility. Ultimately, the changes would have to be approved by Caltrans and any
additional cost will have to be paid for by the City.
Commissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments from the public.
Gary Oda lives down the street from the proposed project and opposes the project because of the
number of parking spaces being taking away and the limitation to emergency vehicles that could
enter the street. He was not at the previous meetings, but heard that maintenance costs involving
the landscaping of trees and grass would have to be paid for by the neighborhood. Finally, he
mentioned when he drives up to High Street and Gibbons Drive, he notices that the road is
narrow. So, any large vehicle must maneuver carefully up to the bridge.
Walt Grady applauded the recommendation to take no action on this item. He wrote a letter to
the board shortly after the meeting, but heard no response from the Commission about his letter.
He referred to an article by the local Alameda Sun newspaper and he questioned whether the
grant was activated because the language was never clear.
Mike Kelly presented 275 petitions of signatures that say not to make changes to the Gibbons
Drive/Northwood Drive/Southwood Drive intersection. He wants the City to continue to
encourage kids to use the Alameda Safe School routes. He mentioned this is the second time he
has been here and he disagreed with the director at Lincoln School that there was little interest in
the project. On July 15, 2011, the City applied for the grant and this is the beginning of
Alameda's bridge to nowhere. He felt there were three secret meetings held between September
2011 and February 2012 to discuss going forward with the project. Ultimately, he believes an
informed public is essential to democracy, but the only thing that this project has produced is
distrust for government and bitterness.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, stated this is a City not in touch with its
citizens. He has lived on Gibbons Drive next to High Street for over 55 years and Gibbons Drive
is a beautiful tree lined street that is welcoming to Alameda visitors. He considered the
intersection beautiful as is and because of its strange design, drivers are more cautious than
normal. About seven years ago, a Gibbons Drive resident approached the Fernside Homeowner
Association about her concerns for the Gibbons Drive circle and the attendees said it was not
needed. Again, she voiced her opinion, and the attendees voiced against it again. Alameda Public
Works should have noticed the proposal to the public first before continuing with the project
because the project seems to be a ""Berkeleynization"" of the neighborhood. Ultimately, he would
like the City to return the grant money and keep the intersection as is.
Jay Seaton has lived within proximity to the Gibbons Drive intersection for over 12 years. He
was a supporter of the original petition that the staff mentioned with some calming of the area.
Although initially it was for a roundabout, he found that there was no community consensus
around the design. He is in now in favor of the recommendation to not proceed with the
proposal.
Ruben Ramirez has resided overlooking the intersection for over 29 years. Initially, when he was
approached about the center of the intersection he found it interesting. When the City came back
Page 2 of 5",TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-05-03,3,"with the design, he found that it was overkill; he did not see the safety hazards there. He hopes
the Commission supports the recommendation of the staff. However, he is dumbfounded to see
that this project had legs and he does not understand it.
Gordon McConnell, Fairview Avenue resident, stated he attended two out of the three public
meetings. Public Works were not responsive to the residents' views, and the overall public
consensus of the second meeting was to do nothing. He called into question the integrity of the
City Manager and the grant application. He stated there was an initial meeting with residents to
develop minor traffic calming measures but not to the extent that the Public Works Department
proposed.
Paula Kaneshiro explained that she did collect signatures to end the project and one of the things
that she appreciated was the fact that residents wanted some type of traffic calming on their
street. She also questioned why Public Works continued with the project when the public stated
they did not want the project to continue. Finally, she said it started as a traffic calming effort
and she does not understand why the City went out for a Safe Routes to School grant.
James Tham stated this project is doing the wrong thing. The intersection is already safe and he
has traveled through the intersection by bike, foot and car for the last 40 years. He felt the City
should have been frugal with their money and not waste with staff work hours. Thus, he believes
the project is wasteful and other projects should require much more attention than this one. He
encouraged the Commission to look at the Public Works Department and review their business
plan.
Jim Anglom has lived near the project for more than 30 years and he does not want to see the
project proceed. The project would bring reduce property values and parking spaces.
Furthermore, he believes additional improvements to the intersection would create complications
and a liability to the City.
Commissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments or questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Bertken stated he believes the public provided plenty of information for the
Commission to proceed with a decision. However, there was one question about a public
statement regarding secret meetings between City staff and a select number of individuals.
Matthew Naclerio replied that staff is prohibited by the Sunshine Ordinance to conduct meetings
involving a decision to proceed with a project without public notice. However, initial meetings
were conducted with residents who brought forth the petition, which is standard procedure.
Staff Khan replied City staff does this for other projects when they receive a petition and they
talk to the petitioners and then they go to the community about everything staff is proposing.
Commissioner Miley applauded the public for coming out to speak about the project and it is
important to receive public opinion. He questioned how the City prioritized its projects and he
knows that staff is working on the list currently. He asked if this type of project falls within the
priority list and if not, then why not.
Page 3 of 5",TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-05-03,4,"Matthew Naclerio stated this project would fit in a general Safe Routes to School or traffic
calming projects under the general category. The difficulty is the department does not have
specific projects so it is hard to rank a general category. Thus, staff relies on residents to bring
concerns to City staff. Per traffic calming and procedure policies, they are asked to go out and
try to build public consensus.
Commissioner Miley replied so with traffic calming policies and procedures the Commission
views it as the final stages rather than up front.
Matthew Naclerio stated for traffic calming, yes but there are still opportunities for an applicant
or petitioners to appeal the decision.
Commissioner Miley said in terms of the number of petitions for traffic calming, what is the
general number received by Public Works.
Matthew Naclerio stated that there are several that staff is currently working on right now. They
are working on Fernside Drive between High Street and Tilden Way, Otis Drive and Franklin
School. Again, the public came to the department and staff worked with the smaller group before
bringing the issue to the larger community to build consensus.
Commissioner Miley asked how long does the consensus building and proposal processes
normally take from the submission of the petition, until the Commission receives the final
proposal.
Matthew Naclerio replied that it took a little longer than normal for the Gibbons Drive project
and that was based on the complications of the project where staff had to familiarize themselves
with roundabouts. Other projects are typically standard such as adding crosswalks, speed
advisory signs and partial street closures. So, it depends on the actual project.
Staff Khan replied if they have to hold public meetings, which they normally do, it takes a couple
of months for each community meeting. Overall, a typical traffic calming project takes 6 to 8
months to complete if there are no other priorities on traffic calming are present.
Commissioner Vargas said that he received Walt Grady's letters and he thanked the public for
sending in comments regarding the project. Government transparency is important and given
public comment tonight, he hopes the Commission will make a quick decision.
Commissioner Moehring commented about the public outreach on this and she does understand
when staff is presented with a lot of signatures regarding an issue they have to do a feasibility
study and this is public government at work. She appreciated that staff spent a lot of time on this
and it may not have been to the public's liking, but they did come to the ultimate decision to not
move forward on the project.
Commissioner Miley made a motion for the Commission to accept staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Page 4 of 5",TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-05-03,5,"4.
Announcements / Public Comments
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, explained that on
Saturday, May 5, everyone is welcome and anyone who wants to take a class can register at
www.ebbc.org./safety. He would like to offer feedback about what he knows about the Gibbons
Drive intersection while being on the Transportation Commission. He felt that Safe Routes to
School and traffic calming issues need to be in the transportation priority list and need to be
discussed often and citywide. When he was on the Commission, they talked about traffic
calming on a neighborhood in Bayview and knew a citywide policy was needed. Part of the
problem that he sees is meetings were held in the neighborhood and the rest of the City was cut
off. So, the place to have meetings is at the Transportation Commission meetings. At that time,
the Commission had been decimated, but Commissioner Moehring continued with public
comments despite the fact. Now with a fully functioning Commission, he would like them to
discuss traffic calming issues more often. Furthermore, he continued to be disturbed about the
ambiguity of Gibbons Drive intersection whether by bike, foot and driving.
Commissioner Miley asked with the East Bay Bicycle Coalition is it going to be just people who
cannot ride bikes, or will there be safety training class for people who commute by bicycle and
do not know how to ride in traffic.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, explained they
will also offer a 1-hour commuter workshop session on how to commute by bicycle, and conduct
the second half of their on the road session about how to handle bikes.
Commissioner Vargas stated that the East Bay Bicycle Coalition will have an activity on
Thursday, May 10 at the Old Oakland Area, it is called a Bike Happy Hour Party.
5.
Adjournment
7:55 pm
Page 5 of 5",TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf