{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2005-11-16", "page": 1, "text": "ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION\nMINUTES OF MEETING\nWednesday, November 16, 2005\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER\nSecretary Betsy Gammell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room\n#360, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.\n1-A.\nRoll Call\nRoll call was taken and members present were: Secretary Betsy Gammell,\nCommissioner Ray Gaul, Commissioner Jane Sullwold and Commissioner\nBob Wood. Absent: Chair Sandr\u00e9 Swanson, Vice Chair Tony Santare and\nCommissioner Bill Schmitz. Also present were General Manager Dana\nBanke and Head Golf Professional Matt Plumlee.\n1-B\nApproval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of October 19, 2005\nThe following correction was made:\nItem 5-B , , line 8-2006 should be 2004.\nThe Commission approved the minutes unanimously with the\naforementioned correction.\n1-C\nAdoption of Agenda\nThe following correction was made:\nThe incorrect date of October 19, 2005 was on the Agenda.\nThe Commission approved the agenda unanimously with the\naforementioned correction.\n2.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n3.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n3-A\nReport on Split Tees Trial Period.\nThe General Manager reported that the split tee trial dates were held on\nSaturday, November 5 and November 12, 2005. On November 5 the\nGeneral Manager and Head Golf Professional and Marshals were on hand\nto monitor the tees for the trial period. It was apparent that additional Pro\nShop staff and Marshals are needed have the program run smoothly. The\ngoal of 32 groups for each wave of split times was not reached with only\nPage 1 of 4", "path": "GolfCommission/2005-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2005-11-16", "page": 2, "text": "23 groups in the first wave and 21 in the second wave. There were holes\nin the tee times, which made it difficult to keep the pace of play going\nalthough many groups finished in less than four hours. Most groups were\nhappy with the pace of play but a few felt rushed. Also noted there were\nno rounds after 3:00 pm. To monitor the groups and the pace of play more\ncoordination is necessary and six Marshals are needed on the course. In\nsummary there was no increase in the number of rounds, which in turn\nmeans no increase in revenue. The program is also very labor intensive\nfor the Pro Shop and the Marshals. The General Manager stated that it is\nprobably better to try the split tees in the spring. The suggestion was\nmade to have the split tees on the Earl Fry Course due to the demand for\nthe peak times on that course. The General Manager spoke with\ncustomers about the program and it was suggested to alternate between the\ntwo courses. The important marketing point is the four-hour round of\ngolf. Customers not interested in playing that fast can play on the other\ncourse with straight tee times.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A\nGolf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Head Golf Professional\nMatt Plumlee.\nThe Head Golf Professional reported that the new flags have been placed\non the practice greens in the clubhouse area and the new practice green is\nopen at the Driving Range. The Head Golf Professional also mentioned\nthat two new employees have been hired in the Pro Shop. They are Julio\nLeon and Timothy Harris, both of whom have prior golf course\nexperience.\n4-B\nGeneral Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and\noperational activities for the month at the Golf Complex.\nThe General Manager reported that the maintenance crew is currently\nimproving the drainage on the #5, #6, #8, #10 and #14 of the Earl Fry\nCourse. Also the green on #8 of the Mif Albright Course is being redone\nas well as the green on #4 and the new tees on #1 and #4. The work\nshould be completed by spring. The aeration completed by Planet Air\nrecently was successful although a few spots have to be lightly aerated due\nto some thatch growth. The Superintendent will be covering the broken\nwindows at the fire tower this week to help prevent water damage.\nEconomic Research Associates (ERA) will be conducting a complex fee\ncomparison report for the clubhouse project. The report will be looking at\nthe fees of local golf facilities to determine how the fees at the Chuck\nCorica Golf Complex can be changed. Treadwell and Rollo came and\ndrilled the bores for the soil analysis for the clubhouse project and the\nPage 2 of 4", "path": "GolfCommission/2005-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2005-11-16", "page": 3, "text": "report should be completed soon. The negotiations and contract are\nongoing with Tom Geanekos of Jim's Coffee Shop and the item will be on\nthe December 6, 2006 regular City Council meeting for approval. Mr.\nGeanekos has some exciting ideas for decorating the restaurant facility.\nThe City receives 8.5% of the gross revenue monthly and that amount will\nbe increased to 10% when the new clubhouse is built. The General\nManager also mentioned that he is working on a contract for new\nmaintenance equipment and it should be completed in early 2006.\n4-D\nBeautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.\nNothing to report.\n5.\nCOMMISSIONERS REPORTS\n5-A\nMarketing and Promotions, Secretary Gammell.\nNothing to report.\n5-B\nGolf Complex Financial Report, Commissioner Gaul\nThe revenue for golf on all three courses for October 2005 versus October\n2004 was up less than 1% and rounds of golf were up 4%. The fiscal year\nto date revenue for golf was down 7% and rounds were down 7%. The\nMif Albright Course revenue was down 14% from last year and down\n28% for the fiscal year. All other concessions excluding golf were up 4%\nfor the month and down 7% for the fiscal year. Total revenue for the Golf\nComplex was up 2% for the month of October 2005 versus October 2004\nand down 7% for the fiscal year 2005/2006. The expenditures for the\nmonth were higher than last year in part due to the increase in water bills\ndue to the lack of rain and the three payroll periods.\n5-C\nMen's and Senior Club Liaison, Vice Chair Santare.\nNothing to report.\n5-D\nNew Clubhouse Project, Commissioner Schmitz.\nNothing to report.\n5-E\nMaintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range,\nCommissioner Sullwold.\nCommissioner Sullwold reported that last Thursday on the Ladies play\ndate a member of the Women's Golf Club was in the parking lot putting\nher golf clubs in her car and left her purse unattended for a moment and it\nPage 3 of 4", "path": "GolfCommission/2005-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2005-11-16", "page": 4, "text": "was stolen. Also mentioned was the need to repair the garbage can behind\nthe #7 hole on the Jack Clark Course. The suggestion was made to put\npampas grass in the area between #15 and #16 of the Jack Clark Course.\nThe grass would be aesthetically pleasing and would act as a good border.\n5-F\nCity Council and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.\nNothing to report.\n5-G\nFront Entrance Beautification Project, Commissioner Wood.\nCommissioner Wood stated that he would meet the Superintendent at the\nFire Tower this week.\n5-H\nGolf Complex Restaurant Report, Legends & Heroes.\nNothing to report.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (Public Comment)\nNothing to report.\n7.\nOLD BUSINESS\nNothing to report.\n8.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nIncluded in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance\nDepartment showing the surcharge payment for October 2005 of $14,116.\nThe year-to-date total to the General Fund is $63,658 for the fiscal year\n2005/2006.\n9.\nANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m.\nThe agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the\nBrown Act.\nPage 4 of 4", "path": "GolfCommission/2005-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-11-16", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nNOVEMBER 16, 2005\nChair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:40 P.M.\n1.\nROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:\nMembers Present:\nJohn Knox White\nRobb Ratto (left at 8:20 PM)\nMichael Krueger\nJeff Knoth\nRobert McFarland\nEric Schatmeier\nAbsent:\nPattianne Parker\nStaff Present:\nBarbara Hawkins, City Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nChair Knox White made the correction on the October minutes that Commissioner McFarland\nwas not absent but late.\nCommissioner Schatmeier requested a minor edit on page 8. He noted that it should say \"40%\nfarebox recovery ratio,\" not \"40% month recovery ratio\".\nCommissioner Ratto moved for approval of the October meeting minutes. Commissioner\nSchatmeier seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote - 5 (Commissioner\nKrueger abstained).\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nCommissioner Krueger provided an update on the activities of the Pedestrian Plan\nSubcommittee. The Pedestrian Plan public workshop was held on November 9th, with about 15\nmembers of the public in attendance. The discussion was based on questions presented by the\nsubcommittee to help guide the development of policies for the Pedestrian Plan. Topics included\npositive and negative characteristics what people of walking environments in Alameda, as well\nas tradeoffs that may be required to balance the needs of pedestrians and other modes of traffic.\nCommissioner Krueger stated that the next step will be compiling the input into a form that can\nbe used to develop the draft policies for the Plan. He noted that the subcommittee will solicit", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-11-16", "page": 2, "text": "input from representatives of other boards and commissions at the Pedestrian Plan Task Force\nmeeting in early December.\nChair Knox White asked for the handout on the proposed Commission meeting dates for 2006 to\nbe modified to indicate that the November and December meeting dates not be listed as\n\"alternate\" dates, and that the meetings be held on the third Wednesday of the month for both\nNovember and December to avoid conflicts with holidays. Since there were no objections from\nthe Commissioners, Chair Knox White asked that the dates for both meetings be finalized.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that he has some questions about the process on providing red curb\nat bus stops. He presented Staff Hawkins with a list of locations that do not currently have\nsufficient red curb and requested an update on this process.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Non-Agenized Items\nNone\n6.\nOLD BUSINESS\n6A. Revised Scope for Shuttle Analysis\nStaff Bergman stated that at the October meeting discussed a proposed work scope for\na\nconsultant to review potential technologies for use in a future shuttle service. The Commission\nrecommended that a specific project be identified before the technologies be analyzed. Staff has\nrevised the draft work scope to address the concerns and is bringing it back to the Commission\nfor comment.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that the work scope mentions coordination with the ferry and\nBART schedules, but AC Transit should be included as well. He also asked that an analysis of\nthe fare structure be included in the scope.\nStaff Bergman responded that AC Transit would be included in the study, but this was\ninadvertently left out of the draft.\nCommissioner McFarland wanted to know what level of work is being conducted in terms of\nestimating ridership.\nStaff Bergman said a technical analysis would not be possible given the size of the project. The\nconsultant would identify key employers and other stakeholders to help develop some ridership\nestimates.\nCommissioner Krueger asked if this is an investigative study to access the feasibility of a shuttle\nor if a decision has already been made to begin a shuttle program.\nStaff Bergman stated that nothing specific has been planned up to this point.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-11-16", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner Krueger asked if the study would look at modifying existing bus routes if they\ncould serve the same purpose as a shuttle.\nStaff Bergman indicated that the work scope focused on a shuttle service, but that Alameda staff\nand AC Transit staff have discussed this project and would continue to communicate regarding\noverlaps in service and ways in which the services might be coordinated.\nCommissioner Ratto asked if the shuttle program would focus on service to existing areas.\nStaff Bergman answered that the shuttle would be designed to connect BART and downtown\nOakland to Alameda.\nChair Knox White said the scope should define the project as addressing the west end. He also\nexpressed his concern that there is still not an identified goal, and stated that the consultant\nwould need to begin with a goal to determine the effectiveness of the proposed program. In\naddition, he asked that the scope be modified to include an assessment of the effectiveness of a\nlimited number of stops, serving primarily longer trips, versus providing more stops and\npotentially serving more localized transit use.\nCommissioner Krueger moved that the Commission support the work scope prepared by staff,\nwith the following modifications: 1) primary and secondary objectives need to be clarified, 2)\nthe project is limited to the west end, 3) the service could include modification of existing\nroutes that may travel outside of Alameda, 4) there should be consideration of bus frequency in\naddition to routes and hours of operation, and 5) analyze the benefits for local versus more\nlimited stops.\nCommissioner Schatmeier seconded motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote - 6.\n7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n7A.\nBus Shelter Survey\nStaff Bergman noted that the draft survey was brought to the Commission on Disability Issues\nand that they submitted comments. They expressed concern about the canopy shelters because it\nhas posts but no walls, which can make it difficult for a visually impaired person to navigate the\nsidewalk.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked how the survey would be conducted.\nStaff Bergman said would get input from riders, people who live adjacent to the bus stops, and\nthe group Alamedans for Responsible Transit Shelters (ARTS), which funded some of the\nshelters. He stated that the survey would also be posted on the city web site to receive comment\nfrom the larger community. For riders the surveys would have to be distributed and collected at\nthe shelters.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-11-16", "page": 4, "text": "Chair Knox White asked that staff contact AC Transit and have them email Alameda riders with\na\nlink to the survey.\nCommissioner Schatmeier mentioned that people who not normally use the bus stop would have\nto make a special trip in order to get their opinion of it. Important to survey people\nStaff Bergman mentioned that under number 2 we could add in none of the above or other as\nan\noption for none of the above so that we can tell which people are filling them out.\nCommissioner Krueger suggested that rather than listing all of the shelters that they be grouped\nby the shelter design, so respondents could comment on a type of shelter. The questions about\nthe shelters could be asked about each shelter type, instead of each specific location,a nd\nrespondents could indicate how often they use each shelter type.\nCommissioner McFarland asked how the survey would evaluate protection from the weather\nwhen they were just installed in April of this year. He also asked how staff would know if the\nshelters are adequate for people with disabilities.\nStaff Bergman said that the plan is to distribute the survey in December, so respondents should\nhave some experience using the shelters in the rain. He also noted that based on feedback from\nthe Disabilities Commission, staff was planning to include a question about whether people have\na disability, and what type, to see if that perspective is reflected in the survey responses.\nCommissioner Ratto asked if the survey could be delayed until the first week in January. He\nnoted that six new shelters on Park Street are about to be installed, and this would allow people\nthe opportunity to comment on them.\nStaff Hawkins said that Public Works had made a commitment to the Planning Board to issue the\nsurvey in October, but had been delaying it to get input on how effective the different shelters are\nin the rainy season. She indicated that waiting until January should not be a problem.\nPublic Comment\nMr. Spangler supported delaying the survey until January. He suggested that the questions about\nthe color and style be separated from the usage of the shelter. He also recommended that the\nsurvey enable people to better describe likes and dislikes, and to evaluate other amenities at the\nstops, such as trash cans.\nClose Public Comment\nChair Knox White recommended that questions be divided into ridership questions and\ncommunity questions, as this would help to separate the issues of how well the shelters meet the\nneeds of transit riders and the impacts that different shelter designs have on the neighborhood.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that the survey should help with the decision about how many\nmore shelters would be purchased and how to pay for them.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-11-16", "page": 5, "text": "Chair Knox White stated that ARTS is interested in doing additional fundraising to purchase\nmore shelters.\nStaff Hawkins said that six shelters from ARTS cost approximately $22,000 and maintenance has\nbeen budgeted for $40,000 for the year. This includes replacing broken glass panes and\nremoving graffiti. A monitoring report looking at such issues will be presented to the Planning\nBoard.\nChair Knox White asked that the monitoring report be presented to the Transportation\nCommission, since this would address the effectiveness of the shelters.\nStaff Hawkins said that the Council has asked that the report be sent only to the Planning Board.\n7B.\nTransportation Master Plan (TMP) Consultant Work Activity\nStaff Bergman said that on November 2nd the Circulation Task Force had their most recent\nmeeting. Suggested to bring a consultant in to review the draft materials and bring back to the\ntask force for review. Get input from the Commission on what should be in the work scope for\nthe consultant work.\nPublic Comment\nIrene Dieter stated Oak Street has been identified as a primary bicycle route and the proposed\ngarage location is in direct conflict with this. She stated that in the 2002 Part Street Streetscape\nand Town Center Project, in which Mr. Krueger and Mr. Ratto participated, Oak Street was not a\nrecommended traffic corridor, but instead proposed that Oak Street between Lincoln and Central\nbe redesigned as a pedestrian plaza with no curbs and limited traffic. She also state that a\nparking garage was never recommended at the corner of Oak and Central. She urged the\nTransportation Commission to write a letter to the Development Services Department stating that\nthis garage location is in conflict with the goals of the transportation plan.\nMr. Spangler distributed his recommended revisions to the previous draft of the Circulation Plan.\nHe stated that the Pedestrian Plan Workshop was very informative. Mr. Spangler suggested that\na key idea underlying the Circulation Plan should be that every other mode should enhance and\nimprove pedestrian transportation and safety, including disability access and connectivity. He\nalso expressed his support for Ms. Dieter's comments regarding the recommended uses for Oak\nStreet, and noted that several participants at the Pedestrian Plan workshop advocated for\npedestrian plazas.\nClose Public Comment\nCommission Krueger asked if the Circulation Subcommittee considered how the parking garage\nwould impact on the street classifications.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-11-16", "page": 6, "text": "Chair Knox White responded that one purpose of the classification is to help define street design.\nHe stated that the Circulation Subcommittee chose not to identify Oak as a collector or arterial,\nwhich could encourage the expansion of lanes, and noted that the Circulation Plan includes no\nvolume limits for streets. He said that the classification of 8th Street poses a similar issue, and the\nsubcommittee chose to classify it as a collector to indicate that the street should not be\nredesigned to encourage additional through traffic. He suggested that it may be appropriate to\nuse different terminology if that is causing confusion. He also noted that while it is not reflected\non the map, that the subcommittee recommends classifying Oak as a priority pedestrian street.\nCommissioner Knoth asked for clarification on the pedestrian map.\nChair Knox White stated that the pedestrian zones were not identified as a way to indicate\npedestrian routes, but as a way to identify priority areas where funding should be targeted. He\nemphasized that the map is only an initial draft, and that the Pedestrian Subcommittee should\nhopefully use this as a starting point.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that he hoped the role of the consultant is to evaluate the\nSubcommittee's proposals from a technical standpoint and to look at the consequences of those\ndecisions, and not to question the intent of the Subcommittee.\nCommissioner Knoth asked what staff's concerns are about the Subcommittee's\nrecommendations, and what staff would like to see the consultant do.\nStaff Bergman said that staff's concerns were mostly related to some of the issues already\ndiscussed, such as the classifications of Park Street and Webster Street as minor arterials, and 8th\nStreet, and that the definitions do not fit the standard definition of collector and local. He noted\nthat the consultant work scope has not yet been drafted, and that staff is looking for input from\nthe Commission.\nStaff Hawkins stated that part of the problem was how the process was set up, that Subcommittee\nand the task force would meet but other department would not have a chance to comment until\nafter it went through all the boards and commissions.\nChair Knox White disagreed, stating said that in the first part of the Circulation Plan, the draft\nmaterial was routed to staff for comment prior to being presented to the other boards and\ncommissions. What are the goals of the consultant.\nStaff Hawkins said that the goals are to look at the work. Lots of it was based on the personal\nexperience and living in the city, whereas the consultant can draw upon on work they have done\nin other areas. They can look at the concerns raised by the Subcommittee and staff and draw on\ntheir experience resolving similar issues elsewhere.\n7C.\nCapital Improvement Program (CIP) Call For Projects\nStaff Hawkins referred to four handouts that had been distributed: 1) the calendar on how to\nproceed with the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), 2) a list of the carry over projects, 3) a list", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-11-16", "page": 7, "text": "of the unfunded projects, and 4) a sample CIP project priority ranking sheet. She noted that the\nupcoming CIP will include only the one-time capital projects and the annual projects will be\nremoved. Staff Hawkins requested input on the unfunded projects and other improvements that\nthe Commission would support including in the CIP. She noted that projects would be evaluated\nin December to determine if proposed projects rank high enough to move forward in the process.\nChair Knox White asked if there is a description of the projects.\nStaff Hawkins said that if there are any questions about specific projects to contact her.\nCommissioner Krueger asked what was included in the Bus Stop Accessibility Improvement\nPhase II.\nStaff Hawkins stated that December 16 is the deadline for input on the projects, and that there\nwill be three public meetings through the CIP process, one on Bay Farm Island, one on the East\nEnd, and one on the West End.\nCommissioner Krueger moved to continue this item on the December 14th meeting.\nCommissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote - 5.\n8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Hawkins stated that staff has been working on resolving the issue of the disputed bus stop\nnear Lum School. She said that Public Works staff spoke with the Alameda Police Department\nabout potentially working with the crossing guards at Lum School to not have the children cross\nthe street while a bus is stopped. However, staff has received a number of letters from residents\nand the crossing guards at Lum School asking that the bus stop not be re-established. She said\nthat this will be brought to the Technical Transportation Team (TTT), and that the Commission\nwould be notified as to the date of that meeting.\nCommissioner Krueger asked if there were any alternative locations for that bus stop.\nStaff Hawkins said that staff did look at other sites, but there are a number of driveways in that\narea, so it is hard to find an area that has the length needed for the bus stop. As a result, there\nwould be a potential loss of on-street parking if an alternative site is chosen.\nChair Knox White had talked with the mayor and requested to have a joint Transportation\nCommission/City Council meeting for sometime before the end of January. He said that the\npurpose would be to receive some feedback from the Council on their work to date and guidance\non future directions for the Commission.\nStaff Bergman mentioned that Tuesday, December 13, the Cross Alameda Trail Steering\nCommittee will be holding a public workshop from 6-8:30 p.m. at the College of Alameda in the\nlibrary.\nMeeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf"}