{"body": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard", "date": "2012-05-03", "page": 1, "text": "RESOLUTION NO. 12-02\nRESOLUTION OF THE OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY CITY OF\nALAMEDA ADOPTING MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING, MAY 3, 2012\nWHEREAS, the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency City of Alameda organized\nitself pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 34179) of Part 1.85 of Division 24 of the\nHealth and Safety Code (the \"Board\"); and\nWHEREAS, it is necessary for said Board to adopt minutes of public meetings; and\nNOW, THEREFORE, THE OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY\nCITY OF ALAMEDA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:\nSection 1. The approval of meeting minutes of the special meeting on May 3, 2012, of\nthe Oversight Board for the Successor Agency City of Alameda\nPASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August, 2012, by the following vote:\nAYES:\n7\nNOES:\nABSENT:\nChair\nATTEST:\nSecretary of the Board", "path": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard/2012-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard", "date": "2012-05-03", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nSuccessor Agency Oversight Board\nSpecial Meeting Minutes\nThursday, May 3, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.\nCity Hall, Conference Room 360\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL\nChair Russo called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Roll call by Secretary Brown,\npresent were Chair Russo, Vice-Chair Biggs, Members Chan, McMahon, Ortiz, Gerhard, and\nPotter. Consultants Staedler and Doezema were present.\n2.\nAPPROVE MINUTES - APRIL 2, 2012 ANNUAL MEETING\nMotion/Second (Ortiz, Gerhard) to approve minutes with requested edit. Motion\nunanimous.\n3.\nCONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO INITIAL RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT\nSCHEDULE (ROPS) BASED ON DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE COMMENTS\nDiscussion regarding the DOF letter and how it impacts the ROPS. The Board has 10\ndays to respond and requested approval from the Board to draft a letter that explained why\neach questioned enforceable obligation was a valid obligation. The draft letter was handed out\nand Board reviewed the letter item-by-item. Motion/Second (VC Biggs, Gerhard) to amend the\nfirst ROPS as discussed and resubmit to DOF. Motion unanimous.\n4.\nAPPROVE 2ND ROPS (JULY 1, 2012- DECEMBER 31, 2012)\nBoard reviewed and discussed the 2nd ROPS. Motion/Second (Gerhard, McMahon) to\nsubmit to DOF the 2nd ROPS with requested edits and notes. Motion unanimous.\n5.\nAPPROVE ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $125,000 (JULY 1, 2012\n- DECEMBER 31, 2012)\nQuestions for clarification on what the minimum and maximum amounts allowed on the\nAdministration Budget are and staff explained. Motion/Second (McMahon, Ortiz) to approve\nthe administrative budget as recommended. Motion unanimous.\n6.\nAUTHORIZE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH:\nKEYSER MARSTON & ASSOCIATES for Financial Consulting Service\n(16-Month Agreement in the amount of $29,500) (Admin Budget)\nAPERTURE CONSULTING for Administrative Support Services\n(14-Month Agreement in the amount of $25,000) (Admin Budget)\nBoth contracts are to the end of fiscal year, and staff provided clarification on amounts\nand terms on ROPS. Motion/Second (VC Biggs, Ortiz) to approve the agreement. Motion\nunanimous.", "path": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard/2012-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard", "date": "2012-05-03", "page": 3, "text": "Successor Agency Oversight Board\nMinutes of Special Meeting, May 3, 2012\nPage 2\n7.\nAUTHORIZE SUCCESSOR HOUSING AGENCY (SHA)TO ENTER INTO A 12 MONTH\nAGREEMENT FOR $54,895 WITH HOMEBRICKS FOR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING\nPROGRAM MANAGEMENT (ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION)\nStaff provided a brief explanation regarding this contract being part of the EOPS and for\nthe Successor Housing Agency and not as part of the Administration budget. Motion/Second\n(Ortiz, McMahon) to authorize the SHA to enter agreement with HomeBricks. Motion\nunanimous.\n8.\nSET NEXT SPECIAL MEETING\nMotion/Second (McMahon, Potter) to set the next special meeting for October 29, 2012.\nMotion unanimous.\n9.\nPUBLIC COMMENT\nNone\n10.\nADJOURNMENT\nChair Russo called the meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRomany Valesba\nRosemary Valeska\nSecretary\nApproved per Resolution 12-02, adopted on August 27, 2012", "path": "SuccessorAgencyOversightBoard/2012-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-05-03", "page": 1, "text": "Special Transportation Commission Minutes\nThursday, May 3, 2012\nCommissioner Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:02 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nKathy Moehring\nThomas G. Bertken\nJesus Vargas\nSandy Wong\nMichele Bellows\nChristopher Miley\nMembers Absent:\nRajiv Sharma\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nMatthew Naclerio, Public Works Director\n2.\nOral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments\nMatthew Fitzgerald announced that the Disability Capital Action Day would be held on\nWednesday, May 30 from 10 am- 3 pm in Sacramento. Buses would leave from Hayward to\nFremont to Livermore and onto Sacramento. The day contains free activities and for more\ninformation, the public should call Christina at (510) 881-5743.\n3.\nNew Business\n3A.\nGibbons Drive/Northwood Drive/Southwood Drive Improvement Project -\nRecommendation to not proceed with the proposed project.\nMatthew Naclerio presented the staff report for the Gibbons Drive/Northwood Drive/Southwood\nDrive Improvement project.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if the funds identified by Caltrans were fixed to the specific\nimprovements or if there are any options for other improvements.\nMatthew Naclerio stated the funding is linked to the specific improvements outlined in the\napplication. However, there may be alternatives that are in compliance and Caltrans may have\nPage 1 of 5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-05-03", "page": 2, "text": "some flexibility. Ultimately, the changes would have to be approved by Caltrans and any\nadditional cost will have to be paid for by the City.\nCommissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments from the public.\nGary Oda lives down the street from the proposed project and opposes the project because of the\nnumber of parking spaces being taking away and the limitation to emergency vehicles that could\nenter the street. He was not at the previous meetings, but heard that maintenance costs involving\nthe landscaping of trees and grass would have to be paid for by the neighborhood. Finally, he\nmentioned when he drives up to High Street and Gibbons Drive, he notices that the road is\nnarrow. So, any large vehicle must maneuver carefully up to the bridge.\nWalt Grady applauded the recommendation to take no action on this item. He wrote a letter to\nthe board shortly after the meeting, but heard no response from the Commission about his letter.\nHe referred to an article by the local Alameda Sun newspaper and he questioned whether the\ngrant was activated because the language was never clear.\nMike Kelly presented 275 petitions of signatures that say not to make changes to the Gibbons\nDrive/Northwood Drive/Southwood Drive intersection. He wants the City to continue to\nencourage kids to use the Alameda Safe School routes. He mentioned this is the second time he\nhas been here and he disagreed with the director at Lincoln School that there was little interest in\nthe project. On July 15, 2011, the City applied for the grant and this is the beginning of\nAlameda's bridge to nowhere. He felt there were three secret meetings held between September\n2011 and February 2012 to discuss going forward with the project. Ultimately, he believes an\ninformed public is essential to democracy, but the only thing that this project has produced is\ndistrust for government and bitterness.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, stated this is a City not in touch with its\ncitizens. He has lived on Gibbons Drive next to High Street for over 55 years and Gibbons Drive\nis a beautiful tree lined street that is welcoming to Alameda visitors. He considered the\nintersection beautiful as is and because of its strange design, drivers are more cautious than\nnormal. About seven years ago, a Gibbons Drive resident approached the Fernside Homeowner\nAssociation about her concerns for the Gibbons Drive circle and the attendees said it was not\nneeded. Again, she voiced her opinion, and the attendees voiced against it again. Alameda Public\nWorks should have noticed the proposal to the public first before continuing with the project\nbecause the project seems to be a \"Berkeleynization\" of the neighborhood. Ultimately, he would\nlike the City to return the grant money and keep the intersection as is.\nJay Seaton has lived within proximity to the Gibbons Drive intersection for over 12 years. He\nwas a supporter of the original petition that the staff mentioned with some calming of the area.\nAlthough initially it was for a roundabout, he found that there was no community consensus\naround the design. He is in now in favor of the recommendation to not proceed with the\nproposal.\nRuben Ramirez has resided overlooking the intersection for over 29 years. Initially, when he was\napproached about the center of the intersection he found it interesting. When the City came back\nPage 2 of 5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-05-03", "page": 3, "text": "with the design, he found that it was overkill; he did not see the safety hazards there. He hopes\nthe Commission supports the recommendation of the staff. However, he is dumbfounded to see\nthat this project had legs and he does not understand it.\nGordon McConnell, Fairview Avenue resident, stated he attended two out of the three public\nmeetings. Public Works were not responsive to the residents' views, and the overall public\nconsensus of the second meeting was to do nothing. He called into question the integrity of the\nCity Manager and the grant application. He stated there was an initial meeting with residents to\ndevelop minor traffic calming measures but not to the extent that the Public Works Department\nproposed.\nPaula Kaneshiro explained that she did collect signatures to end the project and one of the things\nthat she appreciated was the fact that residents wanted some type of traffic calming on their\nstreet. She also questioned why Public Works continued with the project when the public stated\nthey did not want the project to continue. Finally, she said it started as a traffic calming effort\nand she does not understand why the City went out for a Safe Routes to School grant.\nJames Tham stated this project is doing the wrong thing. The intersection is already safe and he\nhas traveled through the intersection by bike, foot and car for the last 40 years. He felt the City\nshould have been frugal with their money and not waste with staff work hours. Thus, he believes\nthe project is wasteful and other projects should require much more attention than this one. He\nencouraged the Commission to look at the Public Works Department and review their business\nplan.\nJim Anglom has lived near the project for more than 30 years and he does not want to see the\nproject proceed. The project would bring reduce property values and parking spaces.\nFurthermore, he believes additional improvements to the intersection would create complications\nand a liability to the City.\nCommissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments or questions from the Commission.\nCommissioner Bertken stated he believes the public provided plenty of information for the\nCommission to proceed with a decision. However, there was one question about a public\nstatement regarding secret meetings between City staff and a select number of individuals.\nMatthew Naclerio replied that staff is prohibited by the Sunshine Ordinance to conduct meetings\ninvolving a decision to proceed with a project without public notice. However, initial meetings\nwere conducted with residents who brought forth the petition, which is standard procedure.\nStaff Khan replied City staff does this for other projects when they receive a petition and they\ntalk to the petitioners and then they go to the community about everything staff is proposing.\nCommissioner Miley applauded the public for coming out to speak about the project and it is\nimportant to receive public opinion. He questioned how the City prioritized its projects and he\nknows that staff is working on the list currently. He asked if this type of project falls within the\npriority list and if not, then why not.\nPage 3 of 5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-05-03", "page": 4, "text": "Matthew Naclerio stated this project would fit in a general Safe Routes to School or traffic\ncalming projects under the general category. The difficulty is the department does not have\nspecific projects so it is hard to rank a general category. Thus, staff relies on residents to bring\nconcerns to City staff. Per traffic calming and procedure policies, they are asked to go out and\ntry to build public consensus.\nCommissioner Miley replied so with traffic calming policies and procedures the Commission\nviews it as the final stages rather than up front.\nMatthew Naclerio stated for traffic calming, yes but there are still opportunities for an applicant\nor petitioners to appeal the decision.\nCommissioner Miley said in terms of the number of petitions for traffic calming, what is the\ngeneral number received by Public Works.\nMatthew Naclerio stated that there are several that staff is currently working on right now. They\nare working on Fernside Drive between High Street and Tilden Way, Otis Drive and Franklin\nSchool. Again, the public came to the department and staff worked with the smaller group before\nbringing the issue to the larger community to build consensus.\nCommissioner Miley asked how long does the consensus building and proposal processes\nnormally take from the submission of the petition, until the Commission receives the final\nproposal.\nMatthew Naclerio replied that it took a little longer than normal for the Gibbons Drive project\nand that was based on the complications of the project where staff had to familiarize themselves\nwith roundabouts. Other projects are typically standard such as adding crosswalks, speed\nadvisory signs and partial street closures. So, it depends on the actual project.\nStaff Khan replied if they have to hold public meetings, which they normally do, it takes a couple\nof months for each community meeting. Overall, a typical traffic calming project takes 6 to 8\nmonths to complete if there are no other priorities on traffic calming are present.\nCommissioner Vargas said that he received Walt Grady's letters and he thanked the public for\nsending in comments regarding the project. Government transparency is important and given\npublic comment tonight, he hopes the Commission will make a quick decision.\nCommissioner Moehring commented about the public outreach on this and she does understand\nwhen staff is presented with a lot of signatures regarding an issue they have to do a feasibility\nstudy and this is public government at work. She appreciated that staff spent a lot of time on this\nand it may not have been to the public's liking, but they did come to the ultimate decision to not\nmove forward on the project.\nCommissioner Miley made a motion for the Commission to accept staff's recommendation.\nCommissioner Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\nPage 4 of 5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-05-03", "page": 5, "text": "4.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, explained that on\nSaturday, May 5, everyone is welcome and anyone who wants to take a class can register at\nwww.ebbc.org./safety. He would like to offer feedback about what he knows about the Gibbons\nDrive intersection while being on the Transportation Commission. He felt that Safe Routes to\nSchool and traffic calming issues need to be in the transportation priority list and need to be\ndiscussed often and citywide. When he was on the Commission, they talked about traffic\ncalming on a neighborhood in Bayview and knew a citywide policy was needed. Part of the\nproblem that he sees is meetings were held in the neighborhood and the rest of the City was cut\noff. So, the place to have meetings is at the Transportation Commission meetings. At that time,\nthe Commission had been decimated, but Commissioner Moehring continued with public\ncomments despite the fact. Now with a fully functioning Commission, he would like them to\ndiscuss traffic calming issues more often. Furthermore, he continued to be disturbed about the\nambiguity of Gibbons Drive intersection whether by bike, foot and driving.\nCommissioner Miley asked with the East Bay Bicycle Coalition is it going to be just people who\ncannot ride bikes, or will there be safety training class for people who commute by bicycle and\ndo not know how to ride in traffic.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, explained they\nwill also offer a 1-hour commuter workshop session on how to commute by bicycle, and conduct\nthe second half of their on the road session about how to handle bikes.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that the East Bay Bicycle Coalition will have an activity on\nThursday, May 10 at the Old Oakland Area, it is called a Bike Happy Hour Party.\n5.\nAdjournment\n7:55 pm\nPage 5 of 5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf"}