{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2012-06-27", "page": 1, "text": "CITY COUNCIL/AUSD SCHOOL BOARD\nSPECIAL MEETING OF AUSD SUBCOMMITTEE\nJune 27, 2012\nAlameda City Hall, Room 360\n2263 Santa Clara Avenue\nAlameda, CA 94501\nUNADOPTED MINUTES\nSPECIAL SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING: The special sub-committee meeting of the AUSD City/School joint sub-\ncommittee was held on the date and place mentioned above.\nCALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by President Sherratt and Mayor Gilmore at 9:10 AM.\nPRESENT for AUSD BOARD: Members Mooney and Sherratt\nABSENT: None\nPRESENT for CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Gilmore\nABSENT: Councilman Bonta\nCALL TO ORDER / GENERAL INTRODUCTION: Mayor, Board Members and their respective staff introduced\nthemselves.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes from the March 19, 2012 meeting were considered.\nMOTION: Member Mooney\nSECOND: Mayor Gilmore\nThat the minutes from the March 19, 2012 meeting be approved as submitted.\nMOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY\nORAL COMMUNICATION: none.\nCITY/SCHOOL DISTRICT ISSUES:\nAlameda Point Plan as Approved\nCity Staff provided a brief presentation regarding the Point Development Plan. The Subcommittee discussed the zoning in\nplace, project-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR), conveyance in 3 large segments, and the overall infrastructure\nplan. The Subcommittee further discussed a potential transportation grant, the 12-acre District parcel area, the hospital\nlocation, and the possibility of the hospital pulling sewer lines all the way across the Base.\nStaff clarified the timing on rezoning and the EIR, noting it must first go to the Counsel with the specific scope and would\nhopefully result in a contract in September. The 1st version draft EIR could be about 6 months and would be a public\nprocess which could result in an additional 9 months to 18 months. The goal is to have the zoning and EIR done in the last\nhalf of 2014. Staff will be working with the Planning Board, Commissions, and the School Board on soliciting public\ninput. Talks would begin this fall and include a discussion of where a school might be needed as far as actual placement.\nThe Subcommittee further discussed the 282 units formerly occupied by the Coast Guard and the surplussing process;\nscreening the property for the public; 8 acres estuary park; homeless accommodation under HUD jurisdiction; Navy\ndisposition in 2013; recommendation for a multi-family overlay zone; infrastructure needs and impact.\nStaff clarified that the Tidelands presents serious issues that need to be addressed separately. These issues will be worked\nout in pieces between the City and the District. Board Members asked for as much information in advance as possible to\nallow maximum flexibility. District staff mentioned the former Island High School site, noting the City expressed interest.", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2012-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2012-06-27", "page": 2, "text": "Pros/cons have to be laid out regarding flexibility and generation rates currently show at 4800. There would be a need for\nelementary, middle, and high school seats availability but it may be an investment property if the District determines we\ndon't need a school. If it is determined to be surplus property, the District is required to offer it first to certain entities and\nany purchase would be obligated to pay fair market value. Although specific needs have not been identified at this time,\nthe District would like to be flexible.\nCity Staff clarified that currently the Base plan shows 1400 housing units at the Point with an additional 700 outside. The\nDistrict requested that City staff work with District staff to discuss and agree upon generation rates because developers\noften have different numbers.\nSwimming Pools\nThe Subcommittee discussed the continuance of the pools through this fiscal year, but noted in 2013/14 and beyond things\nmay change.\nCity staff noted the City Manager had met with members of the swimming pool community this week and some expressed\nan interest in taking over the management of the pools.\nThe Subcommittee further discussed the importance of District input and the newspaper noting that the City intends to end\nthe pools agreement with the District next June. Mayor Gilmore noted the City has not definitely agreed or decided what\nto do, but the potential to not renew the agreement exists. Board Members noted it would be most helpful to start figuring\nout a solution in January rather than waiting until May for a final decision.\nRedevelopment Pass Through Agreement\nStaff will work through potential solutions. Tax increment funds are allocated as an enforceable obligation. The County\nauditor and controller is in \"hold\" mode at this point but City Staff will keep District staff abreast of any developments.\nDistrict staff reminded everyone that the Board would need to take public action to allow the District to negotiate this\nitem.\nAdjournment\nPresident Sherratt and Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:01 AM.", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2012-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-06-27", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, June 27 2012\nCommissioner Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nKathy Moehring\nThomas G. Bertken\nMichele Bellows\nChristopher Miley\nMembers Absent:\nJesus Vargas\nSandy Wong\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\nStaff Khan asked the Commission to move item 4E up, because there was a consultant that would\nspeak on behalf of the project.\nStaff Payne stated that Sergeant Ron Simmons would have to be contacted so that he could join\nthe meeting earlier than scheduled.\nCommissioner Moehring replied staff should contact Sergeant Ron Simmons and as soon as he\njoins the meeting, the commission would move the item forward.\n2.\nMinutes\nApproval of Minutes - May 23, 2012\nCommissioner Miley made a motion to approve the May 23, 2012 minutes. The motion was\napproved 3-0; 1 abstention.\n3.\nOral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments\nNone.\nPage 1 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-06-27", "page": 2, "text": "4.\nNew Business\n4A.\nTransportation Commission Bylaws - Order of Business Revisions\nStaff Payne presented the staff report.\nCommissioner Miley replied the presentation was helpful and the suggestions would allow the\nmeetings to precede a little smoother. He asked if one speaker could speak at both public\ncomment periods.\nStaff Payne replied yes and that each person has a three-minute time limit at each of the public\ncomment periods.\nStaff Khan explained that the intention was to allow the public to comment and that is why it is\nagendized twice.\nCommissioner Moehring also explained that public comment was originally scheduled at the end\nof the meeting. So, the public had to sit through the entire meeting, which at times could be\nlengthy. So, as a courtesy to the public, the agenda included two comment periods.\nCommissioner Bertken asked if the Commission would have the written copies of all the\ninformation in the consent calendar. He was concerned that a percentage of the public would not\nbe able to obtain the reports online. So, he asked staff if there is a way for the public to have\ncopies of the reports.\nStaff Payne said that the standard procedure is to have all hard copies available at the City\nClerk's office and available at the City libraries.\nCommissioner Bertken asked if it would be onerous to have a few copies at the meetings.\nStaff Payne said that per the Sunshine Ordinance staff is required to supply one copy at the\nmeeting. So, they do have materials present.\nCommissioner Bertken replied that people coming to the meeting and viewing the consent\ncalendar might want to see the reports that coincide to the subject of the consent calendar.\nTherefore, there should be two or three copies at the meetings. He also explained to staff that, at\nsome point, staff should announce that the documents are available on the web.\nStaff Payne said the city's website link is available on the second page of the Transportation\nCommission's meeting agenda.\nCommissioner Berktken made a motion that the Commission should adopt the new bylaws.\nCommissioner Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.\nPage 2 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-06-27", "page": 3, "text": "4B.\nQuarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans\nStaff Payne presented the staff report.\nStaff Khan presented the Access Plan for Alameda Point, the Miller Sweeney Bridge\nReplacement project, and current and upcoming traffic calming projects.\nCommissioner Bellows wanted clarification on the Island Drive/Robert Davey Jr. Drive traffic-\ncalming project could use a pedestrian scramble where everyone would stop and let everyone off\nmight help during the morning hours.\nStaff Khan replied that the scramble phases are viable; however, they impact the overall traffic\nsignal operation. Additionally, the traffic volumes at Island Drive, Robert Davey Jr. and Packet\nLanding would greatly impact pedestrian activity. Also, when a scramble is installed, they would\nhave to change the signal heads and that is quite expensive.\nCommissioner Moehring announced that item 4E. would be presented next.\n4E.\nWebster Street Intelligent Transportation Systems/Smart Corridors Project and\nCommunity Meeting Update\nStaff Khan presented the staff report.\nCommissioner Miley asked Staff Khan if he could describe in more detail Phase II of the project\nand if it would include cameras in the tubes.\nStaff Khan responded that Phase II would continue the communication connection through the\nWebster and Posey Tubes. The City contacted Caltrans in regards to the cameras in the Webster\nand Posey Tubes. Caltrans explained that the cameras were for Homeland Security and could not\nbe used for other purposes. Staff is trying to see if there is enough space to hang the camera in\nthe Posey and Webster Tubes. Alameda staff also is working with Oakland staff to look at a\nSmart Corridor on Harrison Street. Staff is also interested in looking into the connection\nbetween 6th Street and Jackson Street on ramp.\nJoy Bhattacharya, PE, PTOE, TJKM Transportation Consultants, worked on the signal\ncoordination portion and presented a visual simulation of the intersection.\nStaff Khan responded that they have increased the crossing times for pedestrians. The current\nsystem uses a 4 feet per second walking speed for pedestrians, which is faster for older\npedestrians. The new standard is 3.5 feet per second.\nCommissioner Moehring stated that the simulation was useful and she opened the floor to public\ncomment.\nPage 3 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-06-27", "page": 4, "text": "the department should only install the system at Webster Street. He felt that instead of spending\nmoney on electric signs that display traffic information, the City should build a public website or\niPhone application so the public can see the intersections and traffic conditions. He wanted to\nthank Joy Bhattacharya for producing the simulation because the simulation is a 2012 solution,\nwhich community members need.\nCommissioner Moehring stated that Webster Street has been looking for something like this for a\nlong time. She thought about the community feedback that she received and one of their\nconcerns was that the traffic coordination would reduce people visiting the nearby shops. She\nwholeheartedly disagreed with that concern and she believes that it will improve the streetscape\nand increase shopping activity. She stated that as soon as Constitution Way was built, 80 percent\nof the traffic was diverted from Webster Street to Constitution Way. Additionally, she hopes that\nthe coordination system will bring some of the traffic back at a nice pace. Furthermore, she felt\nthe signal coordination prevents speeding.\nSergeant Simmons, Alameda Police, agreed and said that the coordinated traffic light system\nwould prevent drivers from speeding to beat the light changes. If drivers had an understanding of\nthe flow of lights during the commute hours, they would stop and visit the stores and then\ncontinue through the corridor.\nCommissioner Moehring mentioned that the Fire Department station is right off of Webster\nStreet on Pacific Avenue. The traffic signal would make life easier for the department, and\nwould allow trucks to more easily travel through the intersection.\nRick Zombeck, Division Chief for Alameda Fire Department, supported the solution and felt the\nsystem is good for the community. His station responds up and down the Webster Street corridor\noften and Station # 2 is the second busiest station in the City.\nCommissioner Moehring stated that it is a very busy pedestrian corner. She questioned whether\nthe electric signs going up could be used for other purposes such as when the City conducts the\nfestival on Webster Street and there are street closures.\nStaff Khan replied he would work with the West Alameda Business Association; however, the\nCity cannot use the signs for advertisements. The signs could be used when the City supports a\nfair or festival. He would take up the suggestion to the City Manager for approval.\nCommissioner Miley stated that he is happy to see the corridor modernized. He believes that the\nsystem would provide the City with a lot of flexibility in terms of managing the flow of traffic.\nHe asked staff to explain the project's relationship to the Broadway/Jackson project. As a\ncommuter through that area, he felt the electric signs would be helpful, especially when the tube\ngets backed up. He wanted to know how the City planned to work with Oakland to further\nrelieve the congestion.\nPage 4 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-06-27", "page": 5, "text": "Staff Khan stated that the Commission's action would be to either accept or reject staff's\nrecommendation to move the project towards the construction phase and then to vote to prioritize\nthe following two items: Central Avenue and Webster Street crosswalk and Pacific Avenue and\nWebster Street traffic signal.\nCommissioner Miley made a motion to accept staff's recommendation to allow the project to\nmove to the construction phase and to prioritize the Central Avenue and Webster Street\ncrosswalk and the Pacific Avenue and Webster Street traffic signal. Commissioner Bellows\nseconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.\n4C.\nProposed Shoreline Drive/Westline Drive Bike Lane Project Community Meeting\nUpdate\nStaff Payne presented the staff report.\nCommissioner Bertken asked Staff Payne if the Commission saw the grant application to\nCaltrans.\nStaff Payne replied that she could provide it to him if he was interested.\nCommissioner Bertken replied that since it was the basis of where they received the money, it\nwould be interesting to see it.\nStaff Payne replied that one of the seven variations is the Caltrans grant application placeholder\nand the Commission will see the variation tomorrow night along with the other six project\nconcept ideas.\nCommissioner Moehring asked whether staff had a breakdown of attendees' residences and what\nwere the pros and cons. She wanted to see a break down of people who live right along\nShoreline Drive.\nStaff Payne replied that staff did not ask attendees where they lived, but she knew how staff\nreached out to attendees. They conducted an outreach encompassing a 300-foot radius around\nWestline and Shoreline Drives. Thus, an estimated 15,000 people were informed and that\nincluded the condominium and apartment units. Also, Bike Alameda reached out to bicyclists,\nand the Public Works Department issued a press release and placed barricades in the\nneighborhood.\nCommissioner Moehring said that staff did a great job reaching out to residents and she was\ncurious about the statistics of the attendees because in addition to all users of the road giving\ninput the residents also should participate.\nPage 5 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-06-27", "page": 6, "text": "Staff Payne replied that they heard more from the neighborhood and bicyclists more than from\nresidents throughout the entire City of Alameda. She also mentioned that the document displays\nbroad range of opinions.\nCommissioner Miley asked if staff conducted outreach through the Alameda Unified School\nDistrict.\nStaff Payne replied that she tried to get the meeting included in the Lum School newsletter, but\nthey did not publish it. Ultimately, she emailed the information to the Lum and Wood school\nadministration and the PTAs, but she does not know how they distributed the news.\n4D.\nBicycle Facility Design Guidelines\nStaff Khan presented the staff report.\nCommissioner Moehring stated that she and Commissioner Bellows noticed on page 25 that staff\nmight want to edit the pictures.\nStaff Khan replied staff would correct the issue.\nCommissioner Moehring replied staff did a terrific job incorporating the comments and working\nwith the community including Bike Alameda and all concerned parties.\nCommissioner Miley believed that staff conducted an extensive outreach effort, which is\nwonderful.\nCommissioner Bertken asked about the issue regarding right turn lanes. He referred to the\ndiagram on page 23 and it showed the cyclists moving straight through and there is a crossover\non the right turn traffic, which looks very abrupt.\nStaff Khan replied that on page 23, Figure 10, it was a standard treatment for all bicycle lanes\nwhen they get to the intersection.\nCommissioner Bertken stated that he was not arguing that point, but there were no dimensions on\nthe diagram and it appeared that there was just one lane of traffic coming in. Thus, the diagram\nwas a bit ambiguous.\nStaff Khan replied the diagram is a bit misleading and when staff looked at standards around 200\nfeet in advance. They dropped the bike lane and included the dashed line to guide the motorists\nand bicyclists.\nCommissioner Miley made a motion to accept the draft guidelines as presented and request that\nthey be presented to the Planning Board. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The\nmotion was approved 4-0.\nPage 6 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-06-27", "page": 7, "text": "4F. I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation and Circulation Improvements\nfor Alameda Point, Oakland, Chinatown, Downtown Oakland and Jack London Square\nStaff Khan presented the staff report.\nCommissioner Miley asked about the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) portion and whether staff\nconsidered any other stop locations. He also questioned whether conceptual stop plans were\nbeing developed and would staff look at specifics in the next coming months.\nStaff Khan stated that is exactly right. Their rule of thumb is a bus stop located within every one-\nhalf mile. This is just a planning document for now and nothing will continue until staff works\nwith the community and local transit operators.\nCommissioner Moehring opened the floor to public comment.\nJim Strehlow stated that there are many laudable designs of the project, but the project fails the\ngoal of the deficiency plan. The plan would improve the traffic at Harrison Street and 6th Street.\nHe referred to slide 6 or page 11 in the original documents. He viewed Webster Street and 6th\nStreet as a new choke point with more vehicles entering per hour. The shorter off ramp was a\nconvenience not a necessity for Alameda residents at the expense of the Chinatown\nneighborhood and hits the intersection of Webster Street and 6th Street. He then referred to slide\n9 and explained, as designed, 6th Street is a walkway to nowhere given there are no businesses\nand traffic will increase. He suggested the following modifications: 1) close Webster Street from\ngoing into Alameda and route traffic around Chinatown, 2) change the bus routes to go down 6th\nStreet instead of 7th Street, 3) staff should consider a long-term, ten year plan for the tube that\nwould shift vehicles away from the off ramp at Broadway and 5th Street and turn the area as a\ncyclist and pedestrian way, and 4) when referring to slide 4 on the Alameda side, staff should\nremove the dedicated right-hand bus lane because vehicles could no longer make right-hand\nturns. He suggested keeping the right-hand turn lane because there will be traffic that would want\nto make a right turn onto Webster Street, so the City should allow that lane to be shared.\nCommissioner Miley stated that since it is a conceptual design for future BRT stops, he would\nlike staff to consider a stop at 14th Street and Harrison Street looking at the employment centers\nin downtown Oakland. When mentioning the Octavia Boulevard corridor of San Francisco, it\nwould be good for staff to include pictures of that segment. Regarding I-880, he felt the area is a\ndark passage, and it is not a friendly location. Thus, he suggested that the city of Oakland\nconsider some type of art and light installation or CBS might be interested in installing billboards\nwith backlighting. Furthermore, he asked what are the city of Oakland's efforts for the project\nand especially what are they doing to create consensus around the project.\nStaff Khan replied that the project is a joint effort so both cities are working together. At this\nmoment, Alameda is looking towards starting a community outreach effort in the Chinatown\nneighborhood. Given that the City is the sponsor, but most of the land is located in Oakland,\nstaff has looked at developing the scope of work to work cooperatively with Oakland.\nPage 7 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-06-27", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Miley replied that he understood that idea, but his concern was that Alameda\nwould look like the only ones pushing for this project. He felt that many of the City's\ndevelopment projects coming down the pipeline are going to create more traffic coming in and\nout of the City. The City of Oakland also has development plans close to the Chinatown\nneighborhood and Alameda.\nStaff Khan replied that Alameda officials want the City to work in coordination with the city of\nOakland.\nCommissioner Miley replied he agreed with Mr. Strehlow and staff should look into the\nsuggestions that he brought up. He felt the outreach plan sounds like a similar process to\nShoreline Drive and there should be a process for presenting concepts and receiving community\ninput.\nStaff Khan replied that both cities have to remind themselves that the region has recognized the\narea as an important project. Whenever staff presents to the community, they have to take a step\nback to let them know that revitalization would occur as more funding comes in and if they do\nnot reach consensus then the funding would go to other parts of the County.\nCommissioner Bellows stated that she worked on the project some time ago, and she drives the\nMarket Street and Octavia Blvd. intersection frequently. She suggested that staff should include\ntraffic counts when speaking about the Market Street and Octavia Blvd. intersection. She also\nquestioned staff's backup plan if they do not receive Measure B funds and if staff be able to\nexecute an environmental review.\nStaff Khan replied that the project is a Tier 1 project regardless if Measure B passes. He\nexplained that not having the Measure B authorized in November may slow the project\nimplementation, but the project is prioritized in the Countywide Transportation Plan and would\nget the regional support to move forward. Regarding the environmental document, he does not\nwant to jump to that because there was a lot of community concern about the Alameda County\nTransportation Commission jumping too fast to the environmental document.\nCommissioner Bertken asked about the arrangement of the roadway between Harrison Street and\nBroadway. He stated that two blocks of traffic from the freeway to Broadway weave against the\ntraffic and within the two ramps on the opposite side of the street attempting to get over to\nBroadway.\nStaff Khan replied that staff has looked into it. He explained that there would be a two-phased\nsignal for Webster Street going towards Alameda and as the ramp touches down. There would\nbe a left-turn lane going towards Alameda. He further explained that the lane heading towards\nOakland is located on the right side and there would not be a huge weave there, but there is some\nfriction.\nCommissioner Moehring explained that she was happy to see that all parties are highly motivated\nto do something. She mentioned that the letter received by the Commission from the Chinatown\nneighborhood a several months ago did not include solutions.\nPage 8 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-06-27", "page": 9, "text": "Commissioner Bellows replied the letter was written some time ago and staff has made some\nprogress with the objections of the letter.\nStaff Khan replied the concerns from the Chinatown community were directed towards the\nproject study report (PSR), and the current concepts came after the PSR. He further explained\nthat the staff for the city of Oakland was aware of the concerns.\n5.\nStaff Communications\nThe League of American Bicyclists awarded the City of Alameda with a bronze award.\nThere is a new ferry service between South San Francisco and Alameda/Oakland.\nThe service began Monday, June 4th and it is a 40-50 minute ride. The ferry system runs\nMonday through Friday with three morning departures and two evening departures and fits 149\npassengers and over 30 bicycles. Additionally, there are some shuttles at the South San\nFrancisco end.\nComplete Street Policy requirement for the City.\nStaff will bring information about the Complete Street Policy to the Commission in September.\nThe policy requirement is coming from the following two different sources: 1) the Metropolitan\nTransportation Commission (MTC) recently approved the One Bay Area Grant and the funding is\ncoming from federal sources. Every jurisdiction should have a complete street policy adopted by\nearly 2013, and 2) the Alameda County Transportation Commission has a Complete Street\nrequirement in their funding agreement that the City signed and must adhere to it by June 30,\n2013 to receive Measure B funds. One advantage for the City is that they recently updated their\nTransportation Element in the General Plan.\nFuture Meeting Agenda Items:\nRegular scheduled meeting Wednesday, July 25th\nElection of the Transportation Commission Chair and Vice Chair\nFranklin School mid-block crossing proposal\nTraffic Plan during construction of I-880 between 29th Avenue and 23rd Avenue\nDraft Alameda Point Transit Access Plan\nProposed Neptune Park Path Conceptual Layout\nAn update on the Draft Prioritized Transportation Project List\nRegular scheduled meeting Wednesday, September 26th\nQuarterly Report\nAn update on the Shoreline Drive proposed bike lane project\nAn update on the accessible pedestrian signals grant\nPage 9 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-06-27", "page": 10, "text": "Complete Street Policy\nCommissioner Moehring mentioned that the City Carshare parking space at Webster Street and\nSanta Clara Avenue was a success and staff is looking to create an additional carshare space.\nStaff Payne replied that staff is coordinating the efforts now.\nCommissioner Miley asked would the consent calendar take affect at the July meeting.\nStaff Payne replied yes.\nCommissioner Moehring stated that staff and her fellow commissioners have been wonderful to\nwork with and have done an excellent job.\n6.\nAnnouncements/ Public Comments\nNone.\n7.\nAdjournment\nCommissioner Miley made a motion to adjourn in honor of Chair Moehring and for her\ndistinguished service for the City of Alameda.\n9:40 pm\nPage 10 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf"}