{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JUNE 27, 2016\n1. CONVENE\nPresident Knox White called the meeting to order at 7:03pm.\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Henneberry led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President Knox White, Board Members Burton, Henneberry, K\u00f6ster, Sullivan,\nZuppan. Board Member Mitchell arrived during the staff presentation for item 7-A\n(approx. 7:30pm).\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nPresident Knox White moved one Board Communications item to the beginning of the\nmeeting.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n**Board Communications***\nPresident Knox White read a proclamation honoring Board Member Henneberry's service\nto the Planning Board.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n*None*\n7. REGULAR\nAGENDA\nITEMS\n7-A 2016-3055\nDiscuss the Existing Conditions and Goals/Objectives of the Citywide\nTransit and Transportation Demand Management Plan and a Potential\nExpanded Transportation Management Association\nStaff Member Ott gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound\nat:\n ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2764543&GUID=FF248D2A-\n7E04-4877-89DC-83ECC7CD81BC&FullText=1\nThe consultants from CDM Smith gave a presentation on current conditions in the city.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 1 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJune 27, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 2, "text": "Board Member Burton asked about an \"obsolete ordinance\" in the staff report. He asked\nthat the O Club parking be added to the available inventory in the report on current\nconditions. He asked that the South SF Ferry numbers be included as well.\nStaff Member Ott explained the narrow, employer based focus of the ordinance in\nquestion.\nBoard Member Burton asked if there was a reason the BART ridership numbers seemed\nto have declined.\nStaff Member Ott said that perhaps people that tried the ferry during the BART strike did\nnot switch back.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked how the goal of no net new drive alone trips is possible\ngiven the 2200 new housing units that would be coming on line. She asked if Alameda\ncan control bus frequency and reliability. She asked how parking concerns of the business\ncommunity would be addressed in the parking management plan. She asked if the costs\nof managing these plans would be transparent.\nStaff Member Ott said that the goal is to shift more people to high occupancy vehicles,\nincrease ferry ridership and add jobs to Alameda to reduce drive alone trips off the island.\nShe said they wanted to be aggressive in setting their goals. She explained the ways they\ncan influence AC Transit to meet the goals of the City with bus service. She said that the\nCity would continue to meet with the business associations to account for their concerns\nwith respect to parking and not create too much of a disincentive for certain businesses to\nlocate in Alameda because of the parking issues. She said any capital or operating costs\nwould be laid out for policymakers to weigh in on.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster explained some of the costs associated with different transbay\ntransit options which might contribute to the BART drop off and how people decide which\nmode to take.\nBoard Member Henneberry asked how long the City has been at capacity at the tubes.\nThe consultant said they do not have that data. He said the backup has worsened in large\npart due to the inability of 880 to handle its increased volumes.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked what the criteria is for the claim that the island is \"well\nserved by transit.\" She said the frequency of transit service is down since she moved to\nthe island. She asked what the incentives were that they referred to when talking about\ndrive alone trips.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 2 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJune 27, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 3, "text": "The consultant said there is not any standard data but that Alameda has more transit\nservice than most cities of its size. He said things like free parking at their destination or\nlower costs are incentives for drive alone trips.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked about the bike and pedestrian safety plan. He said\nincorporating a safety plan for bikes and pedestrians would be an important part of any\nstrategy.\nThe consultant said that safety is a very important feature of providing successful\ntransportation alternatives. He said that for this project they would focus on making good\nconnections to the transit options.\nPresident Knox White asked how we were defining \"optimum supply of parking.\" He asked\nhow replacing a drive alone trip with an Uber or Lyft is meeting our goals.\nThe consultant said it was about \"right-sizing\" the parking amounts for the developments.\nHe said the ridesharing services can help people for middle of the day trips when transit\nservice might not be as robust.\nPresident Knox White opened the public hearing.\nTyler Savage asked about current versus expected levels of awareness for transit options\nand how that would affect ridership. He said he did not see another bus line to BART\nhaving a significant impact. He asked if we are requiring developers to help fund transit\nand whether the trip reduction goals are based on current or projected numbers.\nPresident Knox White closed the public hearing.\nStaff Member Thomas explained the requirements on developers to fund transit. He said\nthe 10-30% goals are for new developments' projected trips generated.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she would like to see ways to get employees into Alameda\nworkplaces as a focus of the plan, not just how to get residents off the island. She said\nthe data does not account for people that change modes fluidly. She said developing the\nbaseline and the target is important. She said she does not think we are well served by\ntransit. She said we need to get more service from transit agencies because we have\ndemonstrated our willingness to use it. She said putting the free shuttle as a tradeoff with\nAC Transit service is the wrong framing and that it could be complimentary. She said we\nneed to account for residential parking for how people really use it and not just rely on the\ntheoretical. She said there are no transportation options to the South Bay.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 3 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJune 27, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 4, "text": "Board Member Henneberry agreed that there were no good options for people heading\nsouth. He said hopefully we will be able to improve our jobs-housing imbalance as the\nbase gets built out.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he wants to make sure we integrate a bike and pedestrian\nsafety plan now and not pass it off for later. He said an intra-island shuttle could be a good\nthing for other transit agencies and not just in competition.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said a ferry to ferry bus service could be an effective tool for getting\npeople to transit nodes. He said realtors and rental properties should provide a guide to\ntransit alternatives to new residents. He said he liked the idea of giving transit priority and\nthe signal it sends to people stuck in their cars.\nBoard Member Sullivan said having a baseline to measure success against is important.\nShe said a shuttle to the ferries is critical.\nBoard Member Burton said that commute hour backup is issue 1 through 100. He said we\nshould focus on those issues like a laser. He echoed the desire to set the baseline and\nbenchmarks that success would be judged against. He said many of the objectives laid\nout are vague and distract from the primary goals. He said the goal of increasing multi-\nmodal mobility within Alameda ignores biking, which should be the number one way to get\npeople out of their cars within Alameda by completing our bike infrastructure. He said we\nshould be blunt about the parking objective and it should be to provide the least amount\nof necessary to make a project work.\nPresident Knox White said he also thought biking and walking are overlooked in the plan.\nHe said he is concerned that the multi-modal aspects of the TDM plan is becoming\nsubservient to the transit plan aspect of the process. He said it would be good to add the\ncrossing volumes to the report. He said we have a lot more young families with two working\nparents now compared to houses with senior citizens that are not commuting. He said\nnormalizing the metrics is important. He said he wants to make sure we evaluate whether\nan intra-island shuttle would help us meet our actual goals. He said the City is making it\nmore difficult for pedestrians in our business districts, in conflict with our General Plan. He\nsaid the City's projects need to be consistent with these policies and not just holding\ndevelopers to these standards. He said we need to prioritize safety not just emphasize it.\nHe said we are one of the few cities that could potentially implement a peak hour road\ncharge.\nBoard Member Zuppan said a free Alameda shuttle would serve BART and the ferries and\nchange behavior patterns.\nNo action was taken.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 4 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJune 27, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 5, "text": "7-B 2016-3056\nHold a Public Hearing to Consider: Block 7 Design Review, Block 6 Design\nReview, Block 10 Design Review and Use Permit, and Site A Phase 1\nTentative Map.\nBoard Member Burton recused himself from item 7-B.\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2764544&GUID=2B3D5109-\n088-49EF-8BD6-909A26DF166D&FullText=1\nJessica Music, KTGY, gave a presentation on the design of Block 6 at Alameda Point.\nPeter Hesse, architect for Block 7, gave a presentation on the design of Block 7.\nDennis O'Kelly, BCV architects, and April Phillips, landscape architect, gave a\npresentation on the design of Block 10.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked about only having two trees in the middle of a large\nhardscape of Block 10.\nMs. Phillips explained what their vision is for the open space and why a lot of trees might\nnot work with their flexible goals for the space.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if the silos on the building at Block 10 would be functional or\ndecorative.\nMr. O'Kelly said that depending on what tenant they end up with will dictate what uses\nthey go with for the silos.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked about visit ability of all the units which have steps up to the\nentrance.\nStaff Member Thomas said it is an issue they are grappling with all over the city and trying\nto address in the Universal Design ordinance.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked how package delivery would work and whether the decision\nwas made that the community building at the corner of Block 6 was deemed not necessary.\nMs. Music said parcels would likely be placed on the porch like they would for a single\nfamily home. She said the community building was going to be confusing if it was for\nprivate use and increase HOA fees to maintain it, and that it why it was removed.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 5 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJune 27, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 6, "text": "would use. He said they would not have grey water systems but would have purple pipe\ninstalled with the project.\nPresident Knox White asked why some of the smaller streets have trees on only one side.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the street plan has been separated from the buildings and\nwould be coming back for its own review and approval.\nPresident Knox White opened the public hearing.\nKaren Bey thanked the developer and team for a great project. She said she encourages\napproval of the designs for Blocks 6,7, & 10.\nPresident Knox White closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she was concerned with the California pepper trees and how\nthey would be handled. She said the wooden panels on Block 7 did not look integrated\nand would not age well.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he likes the changes to Block 6. He said Block 7 has a good\ndesign and is okay with the wood paneling. He said he has some concerns with how the\nutility boxes are ultimately handled. He said he liked the flexibility of the spaces in Block\n10. He said he wanted to make sure there was drinking fountain access. He said he is\nready to see all three move forward.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster thanked the teams for all the work they have put into these\nbuildings. He said he liked the design of Block 6. He said as you turn the corner there\ncould be some more differentiation between units on Block 6. He said he liked how Block\nApproved Minutes\nPage 6 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJune 27, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 7, "text": "7 related to the rest of Alameda Point. He said he liked the adaptability of Block 10. He\nliked the idea of collecting rainwater in the silos for use on the site.\nBoard Member Henneberry said the developer did a good job. He said he liked the\nprevious design w/ the relief of the pegasus wing at the corner of Block 6. He liked the\nsawtooth design of Block 7.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she wants to make sure there are walk in showers in the\nuniversally designed units. She said she was concerned that the Monterey Pines and Blue\nAgave would not work well next to each other. She echoed Board Member K\u00f6ster's\ncomment about breaking up the long, uniform walls, suggesting differentiated colors. She\nsaid she liked the wood paneling. She said we need to have a place for packages to be\ndelivered instead of leaving them on the front steps in such a high traffic, transit oriented\ndevelopment. She said she would like more than the minimum to be visitable to people\nwith mobility issues. She said she is excited about Block 10 and hopes it takes off. She\nsaid she liked the idea of more color in Block 10, but maybe not that shade of yellow. She\nsaid she is concerned about the logs in the center of the site but is willing to give it a try.\nShe said the utility boxes were the main concern of the tentative map.\nPresident Knox White said he will not be supporting Blocks 6 & 7. He said they are not\nconsistent with the commitments made to reduce traffic with this development. He said\nthat he would hope that these specific materials are used and not allowed to use\napproximations of these materials. He said he would like to see language limiting the roles\nof the HOAs. He said he is wondering why there is a 20 foot wide one way road past Block\n10. He said it will result in many cars going right through what was planned as a pedestrian\nplaza. He said we should require that the new building maintain see through visibility from\nAtlantic to the interior of Block 10.\nStaff Member Thomas listed potential conditions for approval of Block 6: bring back the\ntentative map providing information for phasing of improvements along Main St., street\ntrees along the two side streets, the bike lane on C St., and the right hand turn lane exiting\nAlameda Point; modify the conditions to include a reference to the displayed color and\nmaterial board (or higher quality); making sure the landscape plans address the needs of\npets; adding the standard window condition for the 2 inch recess; securing roof decks from\nallowing materials that could fly off; a condition of approval for staff to see the location and\nscreening of utility boxes before building permits are issued; clarifying the showers V. tubs\nin the universal design units; addressing package delivery; and, limiting the HOA's scope\nto maintaining public facilities.\nBoard Member Mitchell made a motion to approve Block 6 with the conditions laid out by\nStaff Member Thomas, except the condition regarding the HOA. Board Member K\u00f6ster\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 5-1 (Knox White).\nApproved Minutes\nPage 7 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJune 27, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 8, "text": "location of drinking fountains; utility location and screening; a condition about seeing\nthrough the new building fronting Atlantic.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster made a motion to approve Block 10 with the conditions listed by\nStaff Member Thomas. Board Member Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed\n5-1 (Knox White).\nBoard Member Mitchell made a motion to continue the tentative map to July 11th, 2016.\nBoard Member Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\nThe resolutions can be found at: https://alamedaca.gov/sites/default/files/document\nles/department-files/Planning/2016 planning board resos june-\njuly 2016 reduced 2.pdf\n8. MINUTES\n**None**\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2016-3057\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nNo items were called for review.\n9-B 2016-3058\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\n*None*\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nApproved Minutes\nPage 8 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJune 27, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 9, "text": "Board Member Zuppan made a motion to continue the meeting to 11:05pm. Board\nMember Henneberry seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\nBoard Member Zuppan spoke about the Governor's May budget revision which included\nrequirements to allow a lower affordable housing requirements than Alameda has and\nprevents ministerial reviews like design review. She asked for an update from staff and to\nmake sure that we oppose it.\nStaff Member Thomas said that there were some delays on that legislation and that they\nwere planning to bring it to Council to possibly take a position. He said the implementation\nwould be very tricky and aspects of the proposal are unclear at this time.\nBoard Member Henneberry thanked the board, staff & public for their assistance and\nsupport while on the board. He highlighted what he felt were the highlights of his term\nincluding significant progress on rebuilding the NAS, Del Monte phase one, beginning to\nlook at the Bachelor Officers Quarters (AUSD) and the Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (City\nof Alameda) as workforce housing and the unique architecture in the triangle area of\nAlameda landing.\nHe voiced significant displeasure, though, with political discourse that has evidenced itself\nin the city since the 2014 election. Specifically, he objected to a narrative around town and\nin city hall that says city staff is not valued and constantly suspect of devious and nefarious\nmotives even when items as simple as bike lanes and as straight forward as traffic were\nconcerned. He specifically objected to board member Dania Alvarez not being reappointed\nto the board because the Mayor couldn't tell the difference between a dedicated citizen\nvolunteer and a political adversary. He stated he was not surprised by the Mayor not\nreappointing him but urged members of the city council to object to positions taken by the\nmayor that they considered wrong and were deleterious to the city. Henneberry wrapped\nup his comments by saying he was hopeful for reappointment in 2018 or earlier if the\npolitical winds change.\n11-A 2016-3059\nReport from the Boatworks - Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee\n*None*\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident Knox White adjourned the meeting at 11:06pm.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 9 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJune 27, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 1, "text": "CITY COUNCIL/AUSD SCHOOL BOARD SUBCOMMITTEE\nSPECIAL MEETING\nJune 27,2016\n2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 391\nAlameda, CA 94501\nUNADOPTED MINUTES\nSPECIAL SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING: The special meeting of the Alameda\nCity/School joint sub-committee was held on the date and place mentioned above.\n1. CALL TO ORDER / GENERAL INTRODUCTION: The meeting was called to order by\nMayor Trish Spencer at 4:30 p.m. City Council Members, Board Members and their respective\nstaff introduced themselves. The Following people were in attendance:\nTrish Spencer - Mayor, City of Alameda\nMarilyn Ezzy Ashcraft - Councilmember, City of Alameda\nJill Keimach - City Manager, City of Alameda\nCarolyn Hogg - IT Director, City of Alameda\nJennifer Ott - Base Reuse Director, City of Alameda\nRebecca Irwin - Assistant General Manager, Alameda Municipal Power\nBarry Leska - Assistant General Manager, Alameda Municipal Power\nDebbie Potter - Community Development Director, City of Alameda\nIrma Glidden - Assistant City Clerk, City of Alameda\nSean McPhetridge - Superintendent, Alameda USD\nShariq Khan -CBO, Alameda USD\nGray Harris - Board Member, Alameda USD Board of Education\nSolana Henneberry - Board Member, Alameda USD Board of Education\n2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: minutes from the February 10, 2016 City/School\nSubcommittee Meeting:\nA. The City Council and Board members approved the minutes from the February 10, 2016\nCity/School Subcommittee Meeting.\n3. ORAL COMMUNICATION NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n4. CITY/SCHOOL DISTRICT ISSUES:\nA. East Bay Broadband Internet Connection\nThe IT Director gave a brief presentation and provided a handout. The Subcommittee discussed the\navailable internet accessibility, including the Boys and Girls Club, Alameda Point Collaborative, the Main\nLibrary, and a computer lab at Ruby Bridges School. The Superintendent stated the District is happy to\nsupport and partner with the City on an initiative, originally agreed upon, that was not going to cost\nanything. The IT Director stated the item was for informational purposes a way for the District to identify\nstudents who might benefit from a computer center. The Superintendent stated Ruby Bridges was a focus\nbecause the school is at the center of the digital divide with 72% students receiving free or reduced meals.", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 2, "text": "B. AUSD and City Coordination with Developers to Address Potential Impacts\nShariq Khan gave a brief presentation. The AUSD will be sending a formal request the District be\nincluded in the CEQA process, so that Environmental Impact Reports are received by the District in a\nformal notice. Gray Harris inquired whether there has been discussion on where students would be attending\nschool, to which Mayor Spencer responded in the negative. Shariq Khan stated AUSD has been receiving\ninformation from the Development Review Team (DRT) meetings on a regular basis. The AUSD also has\na demographer to generate student generation rates to determine which schools they will attend. Mayor\nSpencer stated the information is usually provided after the City approves the project; the AUSD should\nprovide input sooner; expressed concern that the schools are full and lotteries may be needed. In response\nto Gray Harris' inquiry, Shariq Khan stated there are schools that have room, including Paden which can\naccommodate 300 more students, Ruby Bridges can take 70 more, and Maya Lin can take 300 more. Mayor\nSpencer inquired about Middle and High School vacancies, to which Shariq Khan responded Encinal High\nSchool, including Junior Jets (middle school), can accommodate approximately 300 more students. The\nSuperintendent stated student enrollment can increase with the development of Alameda High School,\nwhich will create more spaces at Encinal High School. There will be an opportunity to right-size schools\nthat are under-enrolled. Shariq Khan stated formalizing the relationship with the Navy and CEQA will\nallow the District to get the CEQA documents ahead of time to evaluate any impacts and notify the City in\na timely manner.\nThe Subcommittee discussed concerns regarding school-placement issues other Cities are facing. The\nSuperintendent stated the law does not provide any way for the District to guarantee any particular school\nplacement.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated department staff coordinated the EIR for Alameda Point very closely with\nthe prior Superintendent.\nShariq Khan stated Alameda's student generation rate is not as stable compared to other cities. In response\nto Mayor Spencer's inquiry about affordable housing, Mr. Khan stated he does not have the information at\nhand but will follow up.\nThe Community Development Director stated once information is compiled from the demographer and\nother pertinent issues such as the economy, etc., the Subcommittee could meet again to discuss further with\na more complete picture.\nC. Community Solar\nRebecca Irwin gave an update on Net Energy Metering and energy efficiency projects being done in the\nschools, including Energy Plus, a program for commercial customers. AUSD was an early participant of\nEnergy Plus. LED lighting retrofits for exterior areas, gyms, and multipurpose rooms will provide AUSD\nan estimated cost savings of $65,000 per year; and an estimated AMP rebate of $87,833.\nBarry Leska gave a brief presentation and provided a handout on Alameda Municipal Power's (AMP) Net\nEnergy Metering (NEM) program and Community Solar program. He stated the NEM program is coming\nto an end; AMP had a State mandated commitment to install 3.6 megawatts. AMP will make a proposal to\nthe Public Utilities Board on the Successor Program at the July meeting.\nThe Community Solar program is 90% defined. AMP is working with Community Development for the\nsite, and an RFPs for system supply and program management will go out in the fall. The program is\nmodeled for future AUSD partnership.\n5. NEW BUSINESS", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 3, "text": "Mayor Spencer discussed the Orlando tragedy incident, Superintendent stated October is LGBTQ History\nMonth and proposed having an LGBTQ proclamation by the City Council that month.\nThe Subcommittee agreed to schedule the next meeting once more information from City staff is obtained.\nAdjournment\nMayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 5:55 p.m.\nMinutes submitted by Irma Glidden, Assistant City Clerk, City of Alameda\nTHIS MEETING WAS NOT VIDEO RECORDED. AUDIO IS AVAILABLE.", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 4, "text": "Regional Consortia and Civic Leaders\nJoin Forces to Close the Digital Divide\nDel\nRural Regional Consortia\nNorte\nSiskiyou\nModoc\nRedwood Coast Connect\n-\nNortheastern California Connect Consortium\nShasta\nLassen\n.\nUpstate California Connect Consortium\nTrinity\nHum-\nboldt\nConnected Capital Area Broadband Consortium\nTehama\nPlumas\n-\nGold Country Broadband Consortium\nMendo-\nGlenn\nButte\nEast Bay Broadband Consortium\nSierra\ncino\nNevada\nColusa\nCentral Sierra Connect\nYuba\nLake\nSutter\nPlacer\nCentral Coast Broadband Consortium\nYolo\nEl\nDorado\nNapa\nSacra\nAlpine\nSonoma\nS\u00f3lano\nmento\nmador\nSan Joaquin Valley Regional Broadband Consortium\nCala-\nMarin\nTuo-\n.\nEastern Sierra Connect Regional Broadband Consortia\nContra\nSan\nveras\nSan\nlumme\nCosta\nJoaqu\u00edn\nMono\nLos Angeles County Regional Broadband Consortia\nFrancisco\nSan llameda Stanislaus Mariposa\nInland Empire Region Broadband Consortium\nMateo\nSanta\nMerced\nSanta Clara\nMadera\nSan Diego Imperial Regional\nCruz\nBroadband Consortium\nSan\nBenito\nFresno\nInyo\nTulare\nMonterey\nKings\nSan\nLuis\nKern\nObispo\nSanta\nSan Bernardino\nGrant Impact\nBarbara\nVentura Los\nAngeles\nRiverside\nOrange\nCETF\nSan Diego\nImperial\nCALIFORNIA EMERGING TECHNOLOGY FUND\n6.27.2016\ncity/Ansd\nLLA Handhord Subcommittee Mth", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 5, "text": "EBB(\"\nEAST BAY BROADBAND CONSORTIUM\nSTRATEGIC PLAN\nCONTEXT\nThe East Bay Broadband Consortium (EBBC) is a regional initiative covering Alameda, Contra\nCosta, and Solano counties. EBBC has 41 formal organizational and institutional members and\nhas been endorsed by 25 leadership organizations. EBBC has received a three year grant from\nthe California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The first year of the grant was devoted to the\nproduction of this Strategic Plan and Years 2 and 3 will be used to implement the Strategic Plan.\nThe Steering Committee for EBBC is composed of the Contra Costa Economic Partnership, the\nEast Bay Economic Development Alliance (East Bay EDA), the Solano Economic Development\nCorporation (Solano EDC), and the East Bay Community Foundation. The Contra Costa\nEconomic Partnership is serving as fiscal agent for EBBC and Sustainable Systems and Applied\nDevelopment Economics are serving as consultants to EBBC.\nThe regional planning process that has led to the formation of EBBC identified seven key\naspects of an East Bay Strategic Framework with a specific vision statement associated with\neach aspect. The seven key aspects and their vision statements are as follows:\n1. Broadband Infrastructure: a) The East Bay is progressing toward becoming an\ninternational leader in both wireline and wireless secure broadband infrastructure with\nan effective plan for accomplishing and maintaining that leadership. b) Broadband\ninfrastructure investments are being leveraged and connected. c) The East Bay is also\nbecoming a \"Smart Region\" with smart buildings, smart workplaces, a smart grid, and\nsmart transportation leading to a more sustainable economy and way of life.\n2. Digital Inclusion: a) The digital divide is being eliminated in the East Bay, with digital\nliteracy leading to digital mastery and digital advocacy. b) Increasingly, the region's\nresidents and workforce are bettering their lives by connecting to affordable Broadband\nand by becoming more effective at using it in their homes, schools, workplaces, public\naccess locations, and/or through smart mobile devices and in their access to education,\njobs, health care, social services, public safety/emergency services, and civic\nengagement.\n3. Economic Development: a) Businesses throughout the East Bay are attaining business\nadvantage through better Broadband connectivity. b) The East Bay region is home to a\ngrowing and thriving Broadband-oriented business cluster. c) Broadband-related\n1", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 6, "text": "technology transfer from the Universities and National Labs in the East Bay is leading to\nbusiness development. d) The East Bay region is becoming a national leader for\nBroadband enabled home-based businesses, virtual companies, and flexible production\nnetworks\n4. E-Education: a) K-12 schools are becoming increasingly effective with Broadband-\nenabled curriculum and parent involvement and schools are connecting electronically\nwith the households of students. b) Educational institutions are improving at using\ntechnology to gather data to inform themselves in relation to policies and strategies,\nand to connect with school families. c) Universities/community colleges/workforce\nagencies are offering widely available Broadband access to a growing range of\ncurriculum/distant learning and providing Broadband-related entrepreneurship,\nmanagement, and workforce education.\n5. Telehealth: a) The California Telehealth Network is becoming fully built out so that\nproviders/patients have access to records and services. b) Established health care\nproviders have improving Broadband technology systems for delivery of services. c) A\ngrowing number of clients have the access/understanding to receive digitally- enabled\nhealth care including facilitating communication between practitioners and patients and\nhome access. d) Educational institutions/workforce training providers are offering\neducation and training that is producing a well-trained health information technology\nworkforce.\n6. Social Services: a) Social Services throughout the region are becoming fully Broadband-\nenabled. b) Social Services providers in the region are connected to digital literacy\nprograms, enabling their clientele to become digitally literate and to acquire Broadband\naccess. c) Social Service providers are beginning to use Broadband to work together in\nteams with government and educational institutions to address coordinated\nneighborhood improvement in challenged neighborhoods\n7. E-Government: a) Jurisdictions throughout the East Bay utilize Broadband to help\nfacilitate more widespread, user-friendly citizen participation and engagement. b)\nResidents can access public services and resources electronically. c) Most public\nlibraries/recreation centers provide free Broadband. d) Public safety agencies and local\nand regional emergency services are becoming optimally Broadband-enabled.\nTo produce a Strategic Plan guided by this vision, EBBC has used a Broadband Technology\nCommittee meeting, three East Bay Broadband Roundtables, and a Funders' Forum in 2012, all\nleading up to the 1st East Bay Broadband Summit in 2013.\nThe Broadband Technology Committee, made up of IT Directors and CTOs from throughout the\nEast Bay, considered the current state of East Bay Broadband infrastructure and the\ninfrastructure needed.\n2", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 7, "text": "The East Bay Broadband Roundtables addressed different aspects of the Broadband Strategic\nFramework:\nRoundtable One: Broadband Infrastructure and Economic Development.\nRoundtable Two: Digital Inclusion, Telehealth, and Social Services.\nRoundtable Three: E-Education and E-Government, including citizen participation,\nemergency services, and public safety.\nEach of these Roundtables provided input on those aspects of an overall Strategic Plan that the\nRoundtable addressed. By the completion of the third Roundtable, EBBC had developed a first\napproximation draft Strategic Plan for the East Bay\nThe Funders' Forum obtained the response of funders to the draft Strategic Plan in preparation\nfor presentation of the Strategic Plan at the First East Bay Broadband Summit.\nAt the same time, EBBC commissioned Tellus Venture Associates to produce a set of maps\nassessing Broadband coverage in the East Bay for residences and businesses and providing a\ngrading system for evaluating residential service in the different counties and cities\nAlong with keynotes from Sunne Wright McPeak, President and CEO of the California Emerging\nTechnology Fund and Kish Rajan, Director of the California Governor's Office of Business and\nEconomic Development, the East Bay Broadband Summit received presentations on the\nBroadband maps and grading system and on the Strategic Plan. The Summit discussed and\nresponded enthusiastically to the maps and the Strategic Plan.\nThe Strategic Plan is structured as two primary initiatives:\n1. The East Bay Broadband Infrastructure Initiative (addressing Broadband Infrastructure,\nEconomic Development, and E-Government).\n2. The East Bay Connects Digital Inclusion Initiative (addressing Digital Inclusion, Telehealth,\nSocial Services, and E-Education).\nINSIGHTS\nThe East Bay Broadband Strategic Plan and its two initiatives are guided by a set of insights that\nemerged from the Roundtables and the Mapping Project:\n1. East Bay Broadband Infrastructure is slightly above average for California, but\nsubstantially behind world leaders. According to the evaluation done by Tellus Venture\nAssociates, the region gets a \"C\" rating overall. There are some interesting new models\nemerging-such as the Lit San Leandro fiber ring providing up to 100 mbps Broadband\nto business users-and some significant gaps. In general, there is an important\nopportunity to move the region into more of a leadership position in relation to\nBroadband infrastructure.\n3", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 8, "text": "2. Broadband is definitely a key to regional economic development. It affects companies'\ndecisions to locate and remain in the region, significantly impacts companies' ability to\ngrow, enables the emergence of Broadband related industry clusters, and is required for\nrobust research, development, and technology transfer.\n3. The Public Policy Institute of California publishes a study on the demographic\nbreakdown of the digital divide in California. According to this study, the percentages of\npeople on the wrong side of the digital divide include:\nAsian - 27%\nBlack - 24%\nLatino - 42%\nWhite - 16%\nLow-income - 40%\nDisabled - 44%\nOver 55 - 37%\nNaturalized - 36%\nNoncitizen - 49%\nThe geographic breakdown for the percentage of people on the wrong side of the digital\ndivide in the East Bay is as follows:\nAlameda - 23.5%\nContra Costa - 17.4%\nSolano - 24.5%\nEast Bay - over 20%\nCA - over 25%\n4. Digital Medicine is the future of health care and the East Bay is a leader in Telehealth,\nwith Kaiser Permanente, Sutter Health, and John Muir all taking leadership. However,\nDigital Medicine and Telehealth all require a digitally literate clientele.\n5. Social Services are also increasingly relying on Broadband, online applications, and\nrecords, but this reliance also requires a digitally literate clientele.\n6. Broadband is transforming education with flip class rooms where students view\nteacher's presentations on line, new curriculum, self-directed learning, parent portals,\nand other approaches, but these innovations require Broadband devices in students'\nhomes, digital literacy, parent engagement, and multi-institutional support.\n7. Broadband is essential for community participation, public safety, and emergency\nservices and progress is being made, but this requires a digitally literate community and\nthe addressing of inter-agency operability, record access, and other issues.\n4", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 9, "text": "OVERARCHING VISION\nBased on these insights, this Strategic Plan is guided by an overarching vision:\nPublic agencies, businesses, community organizations, educational institutions,\nphilanthropic organizations, and residents understand the importance of Broadband\nand the benefits of addressing it regionally.\nThese entities and individuals have become an organized and effective constituency for\nsupporting regional Broadband deployment, access, and adoption.\nImplementation of the East Bay Broadband Strategic Plan is supported by a variety of\nphilanthropic, corporate, and public funding sources.\nThe region is making good progress becoming a \"Smart Region\" - smart buildings, smart\nworkplaces, a smart grid, and smart transportation leading to a sustainable\neconomy/way of life.\nEBBC has decided that the most effective way to utilize its limited resources to accomplish this\nvision, is to organize its Strategic Plan into two related regional initiatives-the East Bay\nBroadband Infrastructure Initiative and the East Bay Connects Digital Inclusion Initiative.\nEAST BAY BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE\nThe East Bay Broadband Infrastructure Initiative (Infrastructure Initiative) is the primary vehicle\nfor addressing the Broadband Infrastructure, Economic Development, and E-Government\naspects of the East Bay Broadband Strategic Framework.\nInfrastructure Metrics\nThe EBBC Infrastructure Initiative is modeled in part on the Joint Venture Silicon Valley Wireless\nCommunications Initiative, which is seeking to accomplish 4G wireless coverage for all cities in\nthe South Bay.\nHowever, EBBC has included three other metrics to guide its actions and assess its progress in\nmoving toward optimal Broadband infrastructure in the East Bay. The four metrics are:\n1. All parts of the East Bay have wireline and/or wireless coverage of at least 6 mbps\ndownload and 1.5 mbps upload.\n2. All cities and metro areas have 4G wireless coverage.\n3. All major cities have Broadband access of at least 15 mbps.\n5", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 10, "text": "4. Major job centers and the National Labs have Broadband access at 100 mbps.\nInfrastructure Initiative Action Steps\nThe Infrastructure Initiative will proceed according to a set of seven action steps.\nAction Step One: EBBC will release a Request for Proposals (RFP) and hire a campaign\nconsultant to assist in organizing the Infrastructure Initiative and then work with the consultant\nto develop a public awareness campaign to communicate the importance of Broadband and the\nregion's resources, gaps, and opportunities\nAction Step Two: EBBC will work with the consultant to formulate a presentation on the\nimportance of Broadband infrastructure; the East Bay Broadband situation, based on the maps\nand grading system EBBC commissioned; the promise of a becoming smart region; model\ncommitments, policies, ordinances, and other actions that public jurisdictions can take; and\nactions that businesses and community leaders can take to support optimal East Bay\nBroadband Infrastructure.\nAction Step Three: The consultant will work with EBBC to use the presentation widely\nthroughout the East Bay, addressing County Boards of Supervisors, City Councils, business\norganizations, community groups, and neighborhood organizations.\nAction Step Four: The consultant and EBBC will facilitate community dialogue about the\nimportance of Broadband and assist everyone interested to become an organized constituency\nthat understands what is needed and that coordinates action to accomplish that.\nAction Step Five: The consultant will work with EBBC to establish an on-going Broadband\neducation process-involving public agencies, businesses, and community organizations-th:\nincludes a website, a blog, a social media presence, and forums and presentations addressing\nissues such as:\nBroadband and business development.\nThe frontiers of Broadband research and development.\nThe Broadband-related business cluster.\nBroadband and public safety/emergency services, including regional coordination and\nco-location opportunities.\nCivic engagement.\nAction Step Six: The consultant will present a report on the Infrastructure Initiative to the\nsecond annual East Bay Broadband Summit in January 2014 and obtain feedback and\nrecommendations for how to expand the Initiative and whether any mid-course corrections are\nnecessary.\n6", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 11, "text": "Action Step Seven: Based on the feedback from the Summit, the consultant and EBBC will\ndetermine how to proceed with the Infrastructure Initiative in 2014.\nIt should be noted that implementation of the Infrastructure Initiative Action Steps is\nproceeding well. The REP for a consultant was issued. The consultant, Full Court Press\nCommunications, has been hired. The communications campaign has been designed. The\npresentation is being completed. And, the first public uses of the presentation have been\nscheduled.\nEAST BAY CONNECTS DIGITAL INCLUSION INITIATIVE\nThe East Bay Connects Digital Inclusion Initiative (East Bay Connects) is the vehicle for\naddressing the Digital Inclusion, Telehealth, Social Services, and E-Education aspects of the East\nBay Broadband Strategic Framework.\nEast Bay Connects Action Steps\nEast Bay Connects will proceed by accomplishing seven action steps:\nAction Step One: Identify and test the range of affordable Broadband subscriptions available\nfrom different providers.\nAction Step Two: Partner with Oakland Technology Exchange West (OTX-West) and ReliaTech\nto establish the East Bay Connects Digital Inclusion Solution. In the Digital Inclusion Solution,\ncombine:\nPurchase of an affordable Broadband subscription.\nPurchase of a very low cost home computer (as low as $50 with a new Broadband\nsubscription).\nReceipt of three hours of free digital literacy training.\nCommitment for a year of free tech support.\nAction Step Three: Establish an East Bay Connects Contact Center, in association with the\nStride Center, that people can use by phone (and on-line) to access information about\nBroadband and affordable Broadband subscription options, to receive assistance in signing up\nfor an affordable Broadband subscription, and to sign-up for the other aspects of the Digital\nInclusion Solution.\nAction Step Four: Use the Contact Center to:\nConnect people to the Digital Inclusion Solution.\nEncourage and document Broadband adoption.\nProvide information about on-line resources for education, employment, Telehealth,\nand Social Services.\n7", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 12, "text": "Action Step Five: Produce an East Bay Connects Video showing vignettes of people, from\npopulations with high percentages on the wrong side of the digital divide, who are using\nBroadband in ways that benefit their lives. The purpose of the Video is to promote the\nimportance of Broadband, the uses of Broadband, and East Bay Connects and the East Bay\nConnects Contact Center and phone number as a way to sign-up for affordable Broadband and\nthe other elements in the Digital Inclusion Solution.\nAction Step Six: Show the video and make presentations widely through social service and\nother public agencies, health care organizations, community groups, faith-based organizations,\non local television and internet networks, and on the East Bay Connects website.\nAction Step Seven: Present, discuss, and evaluate the results of East Bay Connects at the\nSecond Annual East Bay Broadband Summit in January 1014 and make any mid-course\ncorrections as needed.\nImplementation of the Action Steps for East Bay Connects is also proceeding well. The Digital\nInclusion Solution is in place. The Contact Center has been established and is being tested now.\nThe phone number is 866-460-7439. The East Bay Connects Video has been completed and is\navailable on the East Bay Connects website which is up at www.eastbayconnects.com,\nEast Bay Connects Metrics\nThe primary metric for evaluating the success of East Bay Connects is the production of\ndocumented Broadband adoptions.\nEast Bay Connects is pursuing 1,100 documented adoptions in year 2 and 1,900 documented\nadoptions in year 3.\nAs secondary metrics, East Bay Connects will document the number of showings of the video,\nthe number of presentations in association with the video, and audiences for these\npresentations as well as the number of people who participate in the Digital Inclusion Solution.\nSCHOOL2HOME\nIn a separate related project, not funded by the grant from the CPUC, EBBC is partnering with\nthe California Emerging Technology Fund (CETF) to support School2Home pilots at Frick Middle\nSchool and West Oakland Middle School in Oakland and exploring the possibility of a\nSchool2Home pilot in Richmond. School2Home provides:\nFree Broadband devices to all students.\nTraining for teachers in on-line educational systems and techniques.\nOrientation for parents.\nOrganization of human services teams in relation to the neighborhoods surrounding the\nschools to help create optimal school/neighborhood learning environments.\n8", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 13, "text": "EBBC is helping organize the Human Services Teams in relation to Frick and West Oakland\nMiddle Schools and, right now, pursuing funding for a pilot in Richmond. Since I've been\na\nfounding member for the consortium, / can get this program here in Alameda if you are\ninterested\nRELATIONS WITH CPUC AB1758 (attached as an Appendix is critical to our proposed\npartnership)\nEBBC's relations with the CPUC are structured through a mutually agreed upon Work Plan and\nBudget, which are organized according to five goals, as follows:\nGoal 1, Deployment, which focuses on the East Bay Broadband Infrastructure Initiative.\nGoals 2 and 3, Access and Adoption, which focus on the East Bay Connects Digital\nInclusion Initiative.\nGoal 4, Mobilization, which addresses the East Bay Broadband Summits.\nGoal 5, Project Management and Coordination, which includes EBBC administration,\nsupport for the two initiatives and the summits, and reporting to the CPUC.\nSince it received its funding commitment, the launch and implementation of EBBC has\nproceeded according to plan, producing the Strategic Plan in Year 1 and moving into\nimplementation of the Strategic Plan in Year 2. The EBBC Steering Committee is working well\ntogether and accomplishing significant results, including:\nContracting with Full Court Press to structure a communications campaign for the East\nBay Broadband Infrastructure Initiative and to develop a presentation to be given widely\nin the East Bay.\nCoordinating with OTX-West and ReliaTech to create the Digital Inclusion Solution.\nCollaborating with the Stride Center to establish an East Bay Connects Contact Center.\nProducing an East Bay Connects Video and Website.\nEBBC looks forward to continued substantial progress in implementing its Strategic Plan\nthrough its two Initiatives.\n9", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 14, "text": "Appendix\nAB1758 link:\n ttp://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?billi id=201520160AB1758\n10", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 15, "text": "4/6/2016\nOTX West Home\nT\nOakland Technology\n(/)\nus.html)\nExchange West\nAbout (/about.html)\nServices (/services.html)\nDonate (/donate.html)\n11k\nVolunteer (/volunteer.html)\nLinks (/links.html)\nAffordable Internet\n:\nFree Computer\nDIGITALEQUITY\nFree Training\nFree Tech Support\nBringing Digital Equity To The East Bay\nBeing digitally connected is integral for members of our community to be successful in school,\naccess governmental and health services, and contribute to our modern economy. However,\nfamilies served\nnearly 40% of Oakland students and their families do not have access to a computer and high-\nlast year\nspeed Internet at home.\nricisco\n0.0\nOTX West partners with educators and community advocates to provide digital access solutions\nfor all East Bay residents.\nReusing The Past Building The Future\nSchools and organizations can\nWe divert computers from the e-waste\nWe provide free and low-cost computers to low-\npurchase our refurbished\nstream. We accept donated computers and\nincome students and families. (/for-\ncomputers (lfor-schools-\nswap faulty components, install fresh software\nindividuals.html) We offer training courses and\norganizations.html) for 1/3 of the\nand prepare the units for a new home.\nwarranties on computers to keep our users connected.\nprice of buying new. With our\nquality machines, we include full\ninstallation and warranty support.\nSince 1995 We Have:\nProvided 15,000+ computers to public school families free of charge.", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 16, "text": "4/6/2016\nOTX West Home\nProvided 20,000+ computers to public school classrooms, non-profits, and park and\nTweets by @OTXWest\nrecreation centers.\nDiverted over 700 tons of electronic waste from landfills for productive use or responsible\nrecycling.\n(T)\nOTX West\n@OTXWest\n#dayofactionOAK launched by @billclinton &\n@MoneyLynch. Volunteers are helping us clear\nunwanted tech from schools\nCLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE\nUNIVERSIVY\n03 Apr\nSupport a family with a free computer!\nT\nOTX West\n@OTXWest\nVolunteers with Clinton Global Initiative day of action\ntps://osf.secure.nonprofitsoapbox.com/otxwest-free-internet)\nare helping us clean out unwanted ift.tt/1X9sOSA\nEmbed\nView on Twitte\n4\nOakland Technology Exchange West\n1680 14th Street, Oakland, CA 94607\ninfo@otxwest.org\n(510) 893-4822", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 17, "text": "6/27/2016\nSchool2Home Initiative I California Emerging Technology Fund\nContact Us\nSearch\nCETE\nCommunicate\n+\nConnect\nCompete\nCALIFORNIA EMERGING TECHNOLOGY FUND\nEnglish\n+x Chinese\n#20 Korean\nEspa\u00f1ol Spanish\nSchool2Home Initiative\nSchool2Home is an innovative cost-effective program that is tackling two of\nCalifornia's most critical and related challenges: closing both the Achievement Gap\nand the Digital Divide by integrating computing and\nbroadband technologies into teaching and learning in\nlow-performing middle schools and providing a\nunique focus on parent engagement. School2Home\nprovides the essential framework anchored in best practices, formulated around 10\nCore Components, to improve student achievement at lowperforming middle schools\nand provide the requisite platform to help students master competencies under the\nCommon Core Standards. Once School2Home has been fully implemented in all grades, rooting the culture of\nusing technology to engage parents and drive education improvement, schools show significant gains in academic\nperformance that outpace comparable schools and statewide averages. Milestone accomplishments include:\nSchool2Home currently is being implemented in 19 schools in 10 districts, reaching 298 teachers and more\nthan 6,400 students and their parents in high-poverty communities: Los Angeles Unified Schools District\n(LAUSD); Riverside Unified School District (RUSD); Oakland Unified School District (OUSD); West Contra\nCosta Unified School District (WCCUSD); Winters Joint Unified School District (WJUSD); Inglewood Unified\nSchool District (IUSD); Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD); Bayshore and Jefferson Elementary\nSchool Districts in collaboration with the San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE); and San Bernardino\nCity Unified School District (SBCUSD). The partnership with SBCUSD is a different model of collaboration,\nalthough is evolving to embrace the School2Home approach. School2Home currently involves 300 teachers\nand more than 6,500 students and their families\nResponses from 2,228 students to the 2015 annual School2Home Student Survey showed the following\nimprovements since 2011-2012: 85% increased computer and Internet access at home to support learning,\nup from 73%; 84% use the technology for writing assignments, up from 60%; 90% access the Internet for\nresearch related to schoolwork, up from 68%.\nCETF is providing input to state and federal education policy based on the success of School2Home.\nSuperintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson has endorsed School2Home, encouraging funders to\ninvest in the program.\nPlease read the School2Home: Empowering Students - Transforming Lives.\n(/files/School2Home Briefing Packet TORLAKSON 151206.pdf)\nOverview\nInvestment Reports\nPerformance\nEvaluation\nStatus of Grants\nInvestment Portfolio\nInternet For All Now!\n(IFAN)\nGet Connected!\nInitiative\nDigital Literacy\nInitiative,\n-", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 18, "text": "Energy Efficiency Projects\nAUSD is participating in AMP's Energy Plus\ndirect-install program.\n12 schools were chosen based on Prop 39 &\nMeasure I bond projects.\nLED lighting retrofits for exterior areas, gyms,\nand multipurpose rooms\nEstimated AMP rebate: $87,833\nEstimated AUSD energy cost savings: $65,000/yr\nALAMEDA\nMUNICIPAL POWER\n6.27.2016 A Department of the City of Alameda City/ANSD\n4-C Handout", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 19, "text": "Net Energy Metering Program Status\nNEM KW through 6/21\nInterconnected = 2,904 KW, Remaining = 696 KW\n(Residential = 1,177 KW Commercial = 1,727 KW)\n1000\n3600\n903\n900\n3100\n800\n2600\n700\n600\n2100\n500\n1600\n429\n400\n1100\n300\n234\n211\n214\n600\n200\n143\n141\n156\n99\n114\n100\n57\n71\n47\n58\n100\n27\n0\n0\n0\n0\n-400\n2008\n2009\n2010\n2011\n2012\n2013\n2014\n2015\n2016\nResidential\nCommercial\nTotal\nALAMEDA\nMUNICIPAL POWER\nA Department of the City of Alameda", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 20, "text": "Other Solar Programs\nNEM Successor Program\n- Under development.\n- Present proposal to PUB @ July meeting.\nCommunity Solar\n- Program 90% defined\n- Working with Community Development for site\n-\nRFP for system supply in late August\n- RFP for program management in late October\n- Model for future AUSD partnership(s)\nALAMEDA\nMUNICIPAL POWER\nA Department of the City of Alameda", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}