{"rowid": 18646, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft addressed the comment about the list being all\nmaintenance projects instead of new projects. She stated that maintenance and upkeep\nare necessary to prevent deterioration, and it is cheaper to maintain, than to build new.\nShe stated she never realized how much Public Works does throughout the City. And\nthat reason why more projects aren't being done is because of the City's financial\ncondition. She echoed the comments regarding the content and format of the reports\nPresident Zuppan reiterated that describing the process more thoroughly, and including\nwhy each project is compliant with the General Plan would help Board make the\nrequested determinations. She also stated that providing information about how the\nrankings were determined would be useful. She cited the Climate Change presentation\nthat discussed how water coming into the sewer system will affect the City, and asked if\nany of the priority projects listed address the concerns mentioned in that presentation, in\nterms of the analysis or the actual work to change those structures\nMs. Hawkins replied that the Storm Drain Master Plan project which includes looking at\nthe 55 inch sea level rise addressed issues in the Climate Change Presentation. She\nsaid a model was created, the affects of an 18 inch rise was studied, and now the\nconsultant will study the affects of a 55 inch rise. She said once the entire structure\nhas been mapped, the consultants will be able to determine where the water is coming\nin, and staff will be able to determine if gates or berms need to be added. She said now\nthat the model is in place the infrastructure can be studied\nPresident Zuppan clarified that the core information studies can be now be done to\ndetermine that the right, long term solution is applied.\nMs. Hawkins stated that the initial approach would include looking at solutions such as\nupsizing pipes rather than installing a berm.\nPresident Zuppan asked to what extent this type of work coordinated with AMP, if it is\noutside of the CIP process, and if projects are discussed prior to implementation.\nMs. Hawkins replied that AMP works with a different board for decisions, which is\noutside of the CIP process. She stated that AMP and Public Works share upcoming\nprojects at utility meetings, where they discuss impact reduction.\nPresident Zuppan asked what the pink paint on the sidewalk means.\nMs. Hawkins replied that pink paint is for City sidewalk projects usually necessary\nbecause of city trees. The particular project in question is work that will be done on the\nCity sidewalks as a result of uplift from street trees in the median. The white paint is\nproperty owner repair responsibility due to other deterioration in the sidewalk, possibly\nfrom private property.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 13 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18645, "text": "comments listed below are to provide guidance and direction for future reports. He said\nhe hopes in the future the reports are presented earlier, so there is an opportunity to ask\nquestions. He stated the project ratings does not make sensed, and doesn't appear to\nhave any internal consistency to it, and there doesn't appear to be much discussion on\nhow the items interact. He said he would like to see the project scores. He requested\nclarification between the \"Maintenance\" (Storm Drain Maintenance, New Street\nSweeping Signs) list and the \"Project\" (Ballena Bay Bridge Major Maintenance, Crack\nand Slurry Seal Maintenance on Roads) list, and how one is distinguishes from the\nother. He stated that after reviewing the project list it appears to only be maintenance\nprojects, not new projects. He requested more clarity and consistency with the\nreporting, and include the plans from the general policy that are applicable to the listed\nprojects. He stated that staff should have all the required information provided to make\nthe requested determinations. He requested that projects that don't make the list be\nlisted separately, but in addition to project list, for follow up purposes.\nPresident Zuppan clarified that the ratings were used to develop the first cuts of all the\nprojects for CIP, those projects were then discussed my project manager, and the\nprojects that made the top cut would be prioritized based on funding sources, city\nbudget, and other elements. So the scoring was first cut scores.\nMs. Hawkins added that the City Manager then reviewed the proposed projects and\ndetermined final project priority.\nPresident Zuppan stated that explaining more of the process used to determine project\npriority would help the Board in their understanding of the item while reviewing.\nVice President Burton concurred with board member Knox White's comments, stating\nthis is about a process of communication. He said it is important to design the reports\nfor the people who are going to be making the decisions, and provide all the information\nneeded in order to analyze the reports and make valid decisions. He stated it would be\nnice to see if projects are compliant with the Local Action Plan for Climate Protection\n(LAPCP). He asked if the projects are listed in order of ranking or priority\nMr. Thomas stated that there are policies in the General Plan that are closely related to\nthe LAPCP such as environmental protection and air quality improvements, and there is\ntalk about adopting the LAPCP as an amendment to the General Plan.\nMs. Hawkins stated that the projects are not listed in the order of their ranking.\nVice President Burton concurred that providing a list of projects that did not make a list\nwould be helpful.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 12 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18644, "text": "President Zuppan stated that she is excited for the project, likes the design and building\nstyle and is interested to see how the flat-iron concept will work with the style She\nshared that she is more comfortable making some of the decisions, because the\ndevelopers are local, active community members.\nNo action required\nMr. Thomas stated that staff will continue to work with applicants on the remaining\nissues.\n9-B Consideration of Proposed Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Capital Improvement Plan's\nconsistency with the City of Alameda General Plan. The Planning Board will make a\ndetermination as to whether the proposed Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Capital Improvement\nPlan is consistent with the City of Alameda's General Plan.\nBarbara Hawkins, City Engineer, gave a brief presentation.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster requested clarification on the term \"sinking fund\".\nMs. Hawkins replied that a \"sinking fund\" is an account that accumulates money for a\nnumber of years. She stated that the project would not be done right away, but money\nwould be put aside for it.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked for clarification on how the projects are ranked and if all\nthe projects have been ranked.\nMs. Hawkins stated that each category has points associated with the projects\noutcome.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster referenced the \"Trash Debris and Vegetation Removal of the\nAlameda Beltline Property\" project and asked if the City has considered using\nvolunteers to help with projects similar to these thereby saving money.\nMs Hawkins replied that the City does host \"Coastal Clean up Days\" and a number of\nsimilar volunteer days. She stated there is higher risk associated with the Beltline\nproject which includes power garden tools.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 11 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18643, "text": "Mr. Thomas replied that the staff has only considered the front and side of the building\nfor set-back requirements.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked if there has been any consideration to build a third\nstructure on the site.\nMr. Carvalho replied that a third structure is not a viable because the minimum number\nof required parking spaces is determined by the building's square footage.\nJosh Eisenhut, Armstrong Development, stated that the project is an opportunity to\nimprove CVS' business and also correct some issues.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that since the site plan significantly deviates from\nother stores, and building is occurring in a historic downtown, then the project should fit\ninto the location.\nMr. Eisenhut replied that in order for the project to be viable, the business has to be\nprofitable.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked what the square footage of the current CVS store is\nand whether it is comparable in size to the proposed location\nMr. Eisenhut replied that the current store is just over 16,000 square feet, and the\nproposed site is 15,000 with the flat-iron design or 14,500 with the square design.\nCarol Gottstein, during public comment stated that the name \"Alameda Station\" seems\nboring, and she is concerned that it will be as resented as the name \"Alameda Towne\nCenter.\" She suggested renaming the development to \"Tilden Station\" or \"North of\nLincoln Station,\" something that would be more geographically identifiable.\nMr. Keating replied that the name \"Alameda Station\" commemorates the historic\nAlameda train Station, which was located at that site.\nBoard member Knox White stated that it is an exciting project but he wants the Board to\nbe mindful of the plans that are being approved so he is not willing to fast-track the\napproval process.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster stated he also met with Foley Street Investments. He said an\nentrance on the corner of Park and Tilden makes sense in terms of Park Street events.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated the development needs to be pedestrian friendly\nand accessible by automobile.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 10 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18642, "text": "Mr. Carvalho replied that some medical insurance providers do not cover both\nWalgreens and CVS.\nMr. Keating stated that CVS is motivated to move to this site because a more efficient\noperation can be developed.\nPresident Zuppan asked if the flat iron design on the corner has been discussed with\nPublic Works, citing a similar issue with a nearby building.\nMr. Carvalho stated that the corner radius issues have been discussed with Public\nWorks who have determined that a 25 foot radius is preferred for pedestrian safety and\ntraffic flow.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the drivers parked in the handicapped spaces for\nPAD A (CVS) will be backing out into the line of traffic created by entering from Park\nStreet.\nMr. Carvalho stated that the drivers will back out of the handicap spaces into that traffic.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she has concerns with cars backing out of\nspaces directly into the traffic entering off of Park Street because Park Street is so busy.\nMr. Carvalho replied that disabled parking spaces cannot be made in the public right-of-\nway. Handicapped parking is also close to the door to prevent and additional area of\ntraffic having to be crossed.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the handicapped parking spaces can be\nmoved closer to the door nearest the parking lot if the drive-through pharmacy window\nis removed.\nPresident Zuppan asked if a Reciprocal Easement Agreement (REA) has a term, like a\nlease.\nMr. Carvalho replied that usually REAs are in perpetuity; however some terminate after\na certain number of years. He stated that that they are attempting to negotiate an REA\nwith a term of 15-20 years\nBoard member Knox White reported that he met with the applicants. He stated that he\nis struggling with the request to approve inactive windows along Park Street.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked staff what street the actual front of the building faces.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 9 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18641, "text": "President Zuppan stated that with Form-Based Code, if something were to happen,\nwhatever was in that building could come out and something else could go in. She\nasked if a tenant wanted to replace the window box with a real window, if the boxes are\nconstructed in such a way to allow that.\nMr. Carvalho replied that the window boxes are real windows and the boxes can be\ntaken out and used as either a \"real window\" or as doors.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the Park Street door will always be a door that is\naccessible or if that door will serve solely as an emergency exit.\nMr. Carvalho replied that Foley Street Investment prefers that as a condition of approval\nfor the use permit, that the two doors remain unlocked and accessible during business\nhours.\nPresident Zuppan clarified that the windows along Park Street can be converted into\ndoors later on if necessary.\nMr. Carvalho replied in the affirmative.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the use and design need to fit the street and\nsince this is a downtown street, pedestrians should be able to see the activity going on\ninside the business and not business advertisement.\nBoard member Knox White asked if the windows that face the Pacific Street \"cut-\nthrough\" are real or if they are box windows.\nMr. Carvalho answered that those are box windows.\nBoard member Knox White asked if the only natural light available in the building is\ncoming through the two doors.\nMr. Carvalho replied that natural light is provided by the doors as well as the top of the\narched windows.\nJamie Keating, Foley Street Investment, encouraged the Board to look at the project is\nan entire block, starting at the Marketplace and extending down to the new CVS\nbuilding.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the drive-through pharmacy window is not a\nforegone conclusion and the parking circulation would be improved by removing the\ndrive-through. She stated that CASA limits drive through businesses because of\nexhaust and fumes generated from idling motors.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18640, "text": "Mr. Falduti addressed the concerns raised by the Board in regards to the actual\naesthetics of the signs stating they would have graphics redesign based on the boards\ncomments.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to approve the sign program as amended.\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nBoard member Burton, during discussion, stated he will vote \"no\" to express his\ndispleasure with some of the graphics.\nPresident Zuppan asked staff if the changes made to the signs will come back for\nreview.\nMr. Thomas answered that the Board can approve the signs as is, or approve the\nmotion on the floor.\nPresident Zuppan clarified that if the signs are changed in response to Board\ncomments, then the signs will come back for review.\nBoard member Knox White stated he will vote for the motion.\nMotion carried five - one; no abstentions. (Ayes: Zuppan, Henneberry, Ezzy Ashcraft,\nKnox White, K\u00f6ste; : Noes: Burton)\n9-D Review and Comment on Proposal for 1600 Park Street-Applicant: Foley Street\nInvestments LLC. The Planning Board will review and comment on a proposal to build\ntwo new retail buildings at 1600 Park Street.\nBoard member Burton recused himself\nPlanning Services Manager Andrew Thomas gave a brief presentation.\nKen Carvalho, Foley Street Investment, gave a brief presentation.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft reported that she met with partners from Foley Street\nInvestments and stated that not every tree in the Master Tree Plan needs to be used.\nMr. Carvalho stated that the intent is to group trees together.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18639, "text": "Board member Henneberry stated the name change is a step in the right direction. He\nexplained that the \"log-like\" posts are called piles and they hold up docks, so they never\ngo out of style.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated she disagrees with board member K\u00f6ster and Ms.\nGottstein and opposes the A-frame signs. She explained that while on a site visit she\nobserved that the A-frame signs impeded the area where shoppers are walking and\npresent a tripping hazard.\nPresident Zuppan stated that she likes that the signs tie into the shoreline and the\nbeach, and she likes the trellising, which is classic in appearance and seen throughout\nthe facility.\nTodd Falduti, Center Manager Jamestown Properties, stated that all non-approved\nsignage such as literature racks, bug-wing signs, and a-frames were creating visual\nclutter and were removed from use when Jamestown Properties gained control.\nBoard member Knox White stated he wants to make sure that the lights are lit from a\ndirection to prohibit reflection.\nMr. Falduti replied that they will work with Aero Signs to help address technical issues\nsuch as light reflection.\nBoard member Knox White clarified that the A-frame signs are for special events only.\nMr. Falduti replied in the affirmative stating that Jamestown owns the signs, and that\nretailers must request use of the signs for a specified amount of time (i.e. a 3-day sale).\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if there is a limit to how many A-frame signs will be\nplaced around the center at any given time.\nMr. Falduti replied that the center has not yet specified a limit to the amount of A-frame\nsigns. He estimates that no more than 20 signs will be provided and that should\naccommodate the sales, special events, directions, etc. He stated he would like to have\nthe flexibility to provide the signage as needed.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified if there will be specifications on how far away\nfrom the buildings the A-frame signs can be.\nMr. Falduti, stated that new pylon signs have been placed at all the entrances, which\ndirects people into the center.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she can now support the A-frame signs.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18638, "text": "Vice President Burton suggested that the language state a 5 foot setback with provision\nthat the interface at Webster Street can be occupied by a piece of building that is\ndesigned to be proportional to the building and does not obstruct the windows on the\nadjacent building. He stated that the building should not touch the front porch of the\nhouse and both buildings need breathing room in order to fit well on their lots. He\nreiterated that he wants to leave staff and the architect a lot of flexibility to properly work\nthrough the set back.\nBoard member Knox White affirmed that the intent in the motion is to allow staff and the\narchitect the flexibility to build within the 5 foot setback, while protecting the lighting and\nwindows on the adjacent property.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster stated he accepts the clarifications to second the motion.\nMotion carried 6 - 0; no, abstentions.\nMr. Thomas stated, the zoning text amendment and the appeal will move forward to City\nCouncil. Staff will work with the application for the design review process and will bring\nthe design review application for board approval.\nPresident Zuppan thanked Mr. Hoy for his flexibility and thanked Laura Ajello for her\nhard work.\n9-C 2130 South Shore Center PLN12-0021 - Applicant: Jamestown Properties\n-\nAmendment to the Sign Program for South Shore Center. The Planning Board will hold\na public hearing to consider an amendment to the existing sign program at 2130 South\nShore Center (formerly known as Alameda Towne Center)\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave a brief presentation.\nVice President Burton commented that the dock or \"shore-like\" design of the signs does\nnot have any relation to the actual design of the buildings.\nBoard member Knox White stated that he would like to see that the floodlights don't\nreflect back into the residential buildings across the street.\nCarol Gottstein, during public comment stated, that A-frame signs are helpful for people\nwho have a hard time walking or are disabled. She requested that the A-frame signs be\nused or an alternative sign at pedestrian level be.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster stated he is impartial to Exhibit A the post-sign. He concurred\nwith Vice President Burton stating the Exhibit B signs seem dated and inappropriate.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18637, "text": "Board member Knox White stated that Plan B1 is the preferred option to provide\nclearance for the windows and suggested that setbacks be required specifically where\nthe adjacent buildings windows are, and not the entire length of the property.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked if the residential building next door, which is historic, can\nbe torn down, and inquired if it's owner has spoken with staff regarding the project.\nMr. Thomas stated that the building is historic and there is a demolition process for\nhistoric properties.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Board's direction to staff, when bringing this\nback for review, should include the landscaping plans.\nMr. Thomas stated that commercial buildings on the main corridor are reviewed and\napproved by the Planning Board and that the landscaping will be included in the plans\nwhen staff presents the design review to the Board. He clarified that the only reason\nstaff suggested that the board not review the design again is because the board has\nreviewed the plans twice.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to approve the staff recommendation with the\nflexibility that Plan B1's design be allowed to explore the \"bulb outs,\" or other design\noptions around the wing-walls to protect the windows and lighting of the house next\ndoor, that landscape plans be included in the design review plans, and that the design\nbe brought back to the Board for approval.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster seconded the motion.\nVice President Burton stated that the Board needs to be very careful with how specific\nstaff direction is in regards to the \"bulb-outs\" and that the architect needs flexibility. He\nstated that staff and the architect have a good sense of what the Board wants and\ndoesn't think that the Board needs to be very explicit in their direction to staff and the\narchitect.\nBoard member Knox White replied that it is important that the Board be explicit in their\ndirection, because Plan B1 has a 5 foot setback. He stated that If the Board asks staff\nto look at building within the 5 foot setback; it is confusing to make a recommendation\nfor a setback without saying its okay to \"play around\" in the setback a little bit as long as\nthe spirit of the purpose for the 5 foot setback is achieved.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18636, "text": "Mr. Thomas answered that guidelines are not required to approve a project, but findings\nwith supporting evidence are required.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked what the actual side yard setback for the house on\nWebster Street is.\nMr Thomas responded that the side yard setback is approximately three feet and\ndefinitely fewer than five feet and the setback for the front yard is less than 20 feet.\nDave Franklin, property owner on Buena Vista, during public comment stated that he\nwould prefer to see plan A1.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated she was pleased to see the project come back and\nthanked the architect for presenting four plans for review. She stated she concurs with\nstaff and prefers Plan B1 (Option 2).\nBoard member Knox White stated he will support either Plan A1 or Plan B1. He stated\nthat before choosing a plan, the Board really needs to think about what they would like\nto see on Webster Street.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster stated he agrees with the wording of the text amendment and\nprefers Plan B1 with at least a 5 foot setback. He stated he would like to see another\noption showing the extension to the street while keeping the 30 foot elevation.\nVice President Burton thanked the architect and applicant for agreeing to the\ncontinuation and staff for working through the process. He stated he agrees with the\ntext amendment, stating it gives adequate flexibility.\nPresident Zuppan concurred with the comments by the Board. She expressed concern\nregarding pedestrian safety for customers walking from the pump to the convenience\nstore and having to walk in front of the Webster Street entrance.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the circulation of vehicles and if\nthey are able to enter and exit from Webster Street.\nMr. Hoy responded that they have not finalized the circulation pattern with Public Works\nfor entering and exiting the station.\nMr. Thomas stated currently the gas station can be entered from Webster Street.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated, pedestrians will have to be cognizant of vehicles.\nPresident Zuppan clarified that her concern is that the pedestrian safety between the\npump and the convenience store is addressed.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18635, "text": "6.A. Future Agendas\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, provided an overview of upcoming\nprojects.\n7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nAnyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by\nsubmitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the five-minute time limit.\nNONE\n8. CONSENT CALENDAR\nConsent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or\nadopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is\nreceived from the Planning Board or a member of the public by submitting a speaker\nslip for that item.\nNONE\n9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n9-A 1716 Webster Street. Design Review and Zoning Text Amendment- PLN10-0153 -\nDelong Liu. Alteration of a gas station/convenience store use in the C-C, Community\nCommercial Zone. Proposed project includes a proposed zoning text amendment to\nallow reduced setback requirements for gas station convenience stores and Design\nReview for the construction of a new 2,575 sq ft convenience store with reduced off-\nstreet parking.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked when the appeal will go to City Council.\nMr. Thomas answered in July, and he will advise the Board of the precise date.\nBoard member Knox White asked if the Zoning Amendments are adopted by City\nCouncil will the City will retain the ability to require an applicant to abide by certain\nrequests, i.e. maintain a certain setback or a specific building height, even if the original\ndrawing is in compliance with the zoning amendments.\nMr. Thomas replied that the City does retain a certain amount of control, via the design\nreview process.\nBoard member Knox White asked if the City has sufficient design guidelines on Webster\nStreet to insist that an applicant adhere to certain requirements by the Board and staff.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18634, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nWEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 2012\n1. CONVENE\n7:03 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE: Board Member Henneberry\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Zuppan, Vice-President Burton, Board members\nEzzy Ashcraft, Henneberry, Knox White; K\u00f6ster (arrived at 7:10\np.m.)\n4. MINUTES:\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of April 9, 2012\nBoard member Henneberry motioned to approve minutes as amended\nBoard member Burton seconded motion\nMotion carried 4-0, 1 abstention, Board member Knox White\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of April 23, 2012\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to approve minutes as amended\nBoard member Henneberry seconded motion\nMotion carried 5-0, 1 abstention, Board member Knox White\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of May 14, 2012 (Pending)\n5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager stated that the applicant for item 9D has\nrequested to be moved up on the agenda.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked where the agenda item would be moved to.\nPresident Zuppan answered that the placement of the item depends on the board\nmember who makes the motion.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to re-order the agenda items to the following: 9A,\n9C, 9D, and 9B.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded motion.\nMotion carries 5-0, no abstentions.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18633, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 24, 2017\na. None\n9. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:47 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nClaudia Young\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on June 5, 2017.\nPage 7 of 7", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18632, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 24, 2017\nRRAC decisions to be binding for tenant-initiated non-exempt unit cases\nAdd language to Section 6.58-75 (D) that states a rent increase request is considered\nclosed and withdrawn from the RRAC process when the Program Administrator\nreceives an agreement between a tenant and landlord concerning the amount of the rent\nincrease.\n7.b. PUBLIC COMMENT\nErick Strimling: Speaker stated that he has never seen the mediation process work at a\nCommittee meeting. He noted that many tenants and landlords are exhausted by the\nprocess. He explained that mediation is a well-defined term and should be facilitated\nby a professional prior to the Committee meeting. He stated many tenants feel\npressure to sign rent increase agreements. He noted that tenants are often hesitant to\nsubmit requests for rent increase reviews before RRAC because they do not want to\nrisk the relationship with their landlord. He suggested that staff always explain\noptions to each tenant and landlord in separate meetings prior to any mediation. He\nstated that tenants should not be penalized for selecting a month-to-month option.\nAdditionally, he emphasized that data is needed and the terms of agreements for all\ncases submitted to the Program Administrator should be public information.\nToni Grimm: Speaker stated that she appreciates the time and thoughtfulness of the\nCommittee. She expressed disappointment that the Hearing Officer's criteria was\nnot added to the Committee's criteria. She stated that the same criteria should be\napplied to each case.\nEd Paul: Speaker thanked the Committee for their work. He stated that the Committee\nprocess appears to be working. He noted that the process seems to be addressing\nthe situation when an excessive rent increase is reported.\nMotion and second for the following recommendations (Schrader and Griffiths). Approved by\nunanimous consent.\nMediation be offered and encouraged prior to the RRAC meeting\nRRAC decisions to be binding for tenant-initiated cases with non-exempt units\nAdd language to Section 5.58-75 (D) that if the Program Administrator receives an\nagreement between a tenant and landlord regarding a rent increase, then the case is\nconsidered closed and withdrawn from the RRAC process.\nStaff clarified that these recommendations will be sent to the City Attorney and will be\npresented to City Council.\nMotion and second for Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana to present the Committee's recommendations\nat the City Council meeting. (Griffiths and Schrader). Approved by unanimous consent.\n8. MATTERS INITIATED\nPage 6 of 7", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18631, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 24, 2017\nMember Schrader stated that this is not related to the Committee's role. Staff clarified that\nany Committee member can email their recommendations as a private citizen to the City\nAttorney's Office.\nNo recommendation from the Committee.\n6. The Rent Review process and the Hearing Officer can be used to delay a rent increase as long\nas possible. Should we recommend changes?\nStaff clarified that no case has been appealed and reviewed by the Hearing Officer.\nNo recommendation from the Committee.\n7. Should language be added to clarify when a case is withdrawn from the RRAC process?\nMember Schrader recommended that the Ordinance clarify there is no RRAC review of\nrent increase submissions when an agreement between tenant and landlord is reached prior\nto the RRAC meeting.\nMember Griffiths and Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana agreed it should be clear that the Committee\ndoes not make decisions on rent increases when the tenant and landlord have already\nreached an agreement.\nThe Committee recommended to add language to section 6.58-75 (D) that states a rent\nincrease request is considered closed and withdrawn from the RRAC process when the\nProgram Administrator receives an agreement between a tenant and landlord concerning\nthe amount of the rent increase.\n8. Should language be added to require all data on rent increase submissions to be shared\npublicly?\nMember Friedman stated that the phrase \"terms of agreement\" in section 6.58-75 (D)\nindicates that the exact terms of an agreement must be reported to the Program\nAdministrator. Member Schrader added that data collection is an important part of the\nOrdinance.\nStaff clarified that currently any private agreement between tenant and landlord must\nstate the terms of agreement by indicating a percentage range: 0-5%; 5.1-10%; or above\n10%. Staff reports of all rent increase submissions are available on\nwww.alamedarentprogram.org\nNo recommendation from the Committee.\nStaff summarized the Committee's recommendations:\nProfessional mediation be offered and encouraged prior to the RRAC meeting\nPage 5 of 7", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18630, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 24, 2017\nthey have power to challenge increases of 5% or less because the Committee's decision is\nnon-binding. He recommended that the Committee have binding authority for all non-\nexempt unit cases.\nMember Schrader agreed and clarified that state law prevents municipalities from making\nbinding decisions for certain units. He agreed it would be positive for the Committee to\nhave binding authority on all non-exempt units, rather than being seen as a procedural\nprocess for increases of 5% or less.\nMember Friedman agreed with the previous statements. He added that currently he believes\na landlord can work around a Committee recommendation of less than 5%. He explained\nthat if a landlord disagrees with a Committee recommendation of less than 5%, the landlord\ncould rescind the current notice and serve a new notice equal to 5%, which would not\nreceive a binding decision by the Committee.\nStaff stated that removing the rent increase percentage threshold for binding decisions may\nincrease the Committee's caseload and additional staffing may be necessary.\nMember Schrader stated he would prefer to review those cases, even if it meant an\nincreased caseload. Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana agreed.\nThe Committee recommended that the Committee have binding authority for any non-\nexempt unit initiated by a tenant.\n4. In some situations, two rent increases are offered simultaneously. This requires review if at\nleast one offer is above 5%. Should lease options be limited?\nMember Schrader stated that the RRAC should not limit lease options. Chair Sullivan-\nSari\u00f1ana noted that offering a large month-to-month rent increase option is a way to\npressure tenants into accepting a 5% rent increase.\nStaff clarified that multiple lease options are generally only seen at one property and month\nto month options are directed towards corporate leases. Staff explained that tenants\nreceiving more than one rent increase offer are contacted by the Program Administrator.\nHowever, staff has found that most of these tenants do not contact staff back and usually\naccept one of the rent increase offers or chose to vacate the unit.\nNo recommendation from the Committee.\nMotion and second to take a five minute break (Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana and Schrader). Unanimously\napproved.\n5. Should the Ordinance allow short-term rentals without the offer of a one year lease option?\nPage 4 of 7", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18629, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 24, 2017\nspent on mediation and focus more time on questions and determining the Committee's\ndecision. He reiterated that Committee members are not professional mediators.\nStaff explained the Program Administrator's role in processing rent increase submission\nthrough the scheduling of the rent increase review before the RRAC.\nThe Committee recommended that mediation and the RRAC process be defined in the\nOrdinance. Additionally, the Committee recommended that optional mediation prior to the\nRRAC meeting be encouraged.\n2. Should rent increase criterion from Section 6-58.125 be included in the Committee's criteria\nwhen deciding a rent increase?\nMember Friedman listed the criteria in Section 6-58.85 (B) under consideration by the\nCommittee in determining rent increases. He stated that \"just and reasonable rate of return\"\nshould be more clearly defined and that market rate should not be included in the\nCommittee's consideration. He suggested adding \"maintenance of Net Operating Income\nfor the Base Year as adjusted by inflation over time provides a Landlord with a just and\nreasonable rate of return on property\" to the Committee's criteria.\nMember Schrader noted that the flexibility of the Committee's criteria is important;\nespecially in cases when a landlord had not raised rent for many years. Member Griffiths\nagreed that more flexibility is better. Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana stated that the Committee\nand the Hearing Officer play different roles. Hence, different criteria should be considered.\nNo recommendation from the Committee.\n3. Should 5% remain the threshold for a Landlord Request for Rent Review? Should increases of\n5% or less receive a binding decision from the Committee?\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana stated that 5% is an arbitrary threshold and has a significant impact\non the negotiation. He expressed concern that this threshold limits discussion because many\nlandlords expect at least a 5% increase.\nStaff clarified that tenants can contest rent increases of 5% or less by contacting the\nProgram Administrator.\nMember Griffiths noted that many cities relate rent control to inflation. Member Schrader\nstated that the Bay Area's housing cost inflation is 4.8%. Member Schrader also noted that\nthe 5% threshold affects what data is collected more than it affects whether or not a case\ncomes before the Committee.\nMember Griffiths noted 5% is a good threshold because it captures large rent increases,\nrather than every increase. However, he expressed concern that the Committee has not seen\na tenant-initiated case for several months. He raised concern that the tenant may not believe\nPage 3 of 7", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18628, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 24, 2017\n2017, is the same as the NOI in 2015, then the Landlord is receiving a fair return on\ninvestment and no rent increase is necessary in order to receive a fair return on investment.\nQ: Please explain the discussion of Debt Service?\nA: Debt Service is referred to in 'Costs of Operation' and is excluded from a Landlord's\nCosts of Operation. Costs of Operation is part of the Net Operating Income formula, i.e.,\ngross revenues less the Cost of Operation.\nQ: Please provide more clarify that Notices and Materials to be Provided to Current and\nProspective Tenants, (section 6-58.20) is a one-time requirement for existing tenants.\nA: There is nothing in Section 6-58.20 to indicate or suggest that providing these materials to\na\ncurrent tenant must occur other than with the Landlord's first receipt of rent following\nMarch 31, 2016. Since presumably Landlords have now received rent from the tenants who\nwere in the units at the end of March 2016, I am proposing to revise subsection B of Section\n6-58-20 so that subsection A is applicable only for prospective tenants.\"\nCommittee members discussed the Ordinance following Member Friedman's suggested outline:\n1. Should mediation remain part of the Rent Review Advisory Committee meeting?\nMember Friedman stated that he does not consider the RRAC process to be mediation.\nParticularly, the Committee members are not professional mediators and the meetings are not\nprivate. He raised concern that the process may place pressure on a tenant to sign an\nunfavorable agreement. Friedman suggested that an advocate be present at meetings to inform\ntenants there is no obligation to sign agreements. He suggested that an option for mediation\nbe offered prior to the Committee meeting.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana acknowledged that the Committee's dual role as mediator and\ndecision-maker is challenging. He noted that the Program Administrator is already offering\nprivate mediation and this service is helpful. He also expressed the difficulty that often parties\nattend the Committee meetings prepared to argue before a third-party decision maker and this\ndynamic can make compromise difficult. Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana also addressed that there is an\nuneven balance of power in a tenant and landlord relationship. He suggested that requiring\nmediation prior to the Committee meeting may provide the tenant more support in the\nsituation.\nMember Griffiths stated he believes the Committee's mediation role is useful. He expressed\nconcern that a mandatory mediation may place an unwarranted burden on one of the parties.\nHe recommended that private mediation prior to the Committee meeting remain optional.\nMember Schrader stated that the Ordinance does not explicitly include the term \"mediation.'\nSchrader considers mediation during the RRAC meeting useful because the parties are often\nmotivated to reach an agreement. He suggested that optional, professional mediation be\noffered prior to the Committee meeting. Additionally, the Committee should reduce the time\nPage 2 of 7", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18627, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 24, 2017\nMinutes of the Special Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, January 24, 2017\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:24 p.m.\nPresent were: Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; and Members Griffiths, Friedman, and Schrader.\nAbsent: Vice-Chair Landess\nVacancy: None\nRRAC Staff: Claudia Young\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. Motion and second to add public comment as item 7-B (Schrader and Griffiths). Approved\nby unanimous consent.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na.\nStaff clarified that the Committee will not review cases at this meeting. Rather, this special\nmeeting is held for Committee members to discuss Ordinance no. 3148 as it relates to the\nRent Review Advisory Committee.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS\na. No public comment.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. None.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\na. Committee members to discuss Rent Stabilization Ordinance no. 3148 as it relates to the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nVice-Chair Landess had submitted questions prior to the meeting. The City Attorney responded\nto these inquiries and staff shared the input.\nQ: Why is Base Rent Year defined as 2015?\nA: Base Rent Year becomes relevant and important when calculating Net Operating Income\nbecause a Landlord's Net Operating Income in any particular year is compared to the\nLandlord's Net Operating Income in the Base Rent Year-2015--which was the year before\nrent control went into effect. That is, there is a presumption that if a Landlord's NOI say, in\nPage 1 of 7", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18626, "text": "10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n11-A 2016-3673\nSubcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal\nDesign Ordinance\nBoard Member Burton gave an update on their recent meeting and that progress was\nbeing made on the draft ordinance.\n11-B 2016-3681\nSubcommittee for Alameda Marina\n*None*\nBoard Member Knox White said he met with the owners of Big O.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if the color on the projector could be improved as the board's\nholiday present.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident K\u00f6ster adjourned the meeting at 10:50pm.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 11 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18625, "text": "construction of an accessory structure that will have a three car garage and\nunconditioned space designated as an artist studio. The proposed\naccessory structure is approximately 880 square feet which is less than\n40% of the required rear yard allowed for accessory structures per\nAlameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30-4.1(d). A certified arborist\nhas surveyed the existing Coast Live Oak trees and has provided a list of\nprotective measures to be administered during construction to protect the\nhealth of the trees. The property is located within the R-1 (One-Family\nResidence) Zoning District. Staff is requesting a continuance to the\nPlanning Board Meeting of January 9, 2017.\n***Continued*\n8. MINUTES\n8-A 2016-3670\nDraft Meeting Minutes - September 12, 2016\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Zuppan\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Abstain: Knox White)\n8-B 2016-3671\nDraft Meeting Minutes - September 26, 2016\nBoard Member Mitchell made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Curtis\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n8-C 2016-3672\nDraft Meeting Minutes - October 10, 2016\nBoard Member Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member Mitchell\nseconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n8-D 2016-3678\nDraft Meeting Minutes - June 27, 2016 - Revised\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the minutes. Board Member\nZuppan seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Abstain: Curtis)\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2016-3573\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas summarized recent design review approvals.\n9-B 2016-3574\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas previewed future agenda items for 2017.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 10 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18624, "text": "like to see how they fit the strategies and what impacts they will have before judging what\nis included in the plan. She said we focus a lot on the stick, making driving miserable. She\nsaid somebody driving 70mph on Otis is a policing issue not a transportation issue. She\nsaid making it impossible for them to get around is not the solution to our speeding\nproblems and we should hire more police if that is what it takes. She said she would like\nto focus more on how to make transit easier, then people will be willing to pay for the\nconvenience. She said there is already a lot on the project list and discouraged adding\nearly steps for long term projects in the earlier phases of the list. She said she disagrees\nabout the safety and livability of Shoreline Drive.\nBoard Member Mitchell said that construction traffic in Oakland has been impacting traffic\nin Alameda. He said we need a robust plan that has a sense of focus. He said we should\nrevisit the SF bound data for accuracy. He said causing more traffic to make things safe\nfrom speeding is counterintuitive. He said we are on a flat island with moderate weather\nand should look at biking even more as a mode of transportation.\nBoard Member Burton said the document needs to have a clear voice with concrete\nactions to take. He said getting Oakland commuters out of their cars and into transit is the\nobvious way to make a big difference. He said the other top item is to make drastic\nimprovement in the transit and bike infrastructure to get people to schools on the West\nEnd. He asked if there was a way to tie the TDM plan to the Economic Development Plan.\nHe said the low/medium/high measurement was not adequate. He said each project\nshould have an estimate of how many cars it would take off the road. He suggested using\nvehicle miles traveled to gauge success. He said everything in the plan should be tied\nback to greenhouse gas reduction.\nBoard Member Sullivan said her issues have been covered and looks forward to the next\ndraft.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said the connections and timings of our transit is what will ease the\ntension overall.\nBoard Member Knox White said that reducing lanes on Otis was not to create congestion,\nbut rather to make sure that you could only do the speed limit. He said that not incenting\nsomething is not the same thing as using a stick. He said reducing parking on new\nconstruction is reducing the incentive to drive, but not a stick like congestion pricing would\nbe.\n7-C 2016-3677\nDesign Review-PLN16-0232 1208 Saint Charles Street- The Planning\nBoard will hold a Public Hearing to consider Design Review for a project\nconsisting of the demolition of a two car garage built prior to 1942 and the\nApproved Minutes\nPage 9 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18623, "text": "on the list have been in Alameda's plans for years and we are not finding much to add to\nit. He said he would like to see what the experts think we should be doing instead of just\nresponding to what people are saying they want. He said he would like to see using TNCs\nfor paratransit rides come back on the list. He said BART to Alameda deserves its own\nspecial category and does not belong in 8+ years. He said he is floored that the only short\nterm bike projects are two projects that should be done by now. He said he is not\nconvinced that Otis is the highest priority, but getting people across the Fruitvale Bridge\nshould be a top priority. He said some of the items on the list are not fleshed out enough.\nHe said there are some projects that are clearly not meeting the definition of TDM, like\nimproved freeway access. He said nobody ever complained about High St. but it is the\nsame width as the new Shoreline. He said liveability is not just how comfortable are you\nwhen you are driving. He said we might want to eliminate the goal of getting people to San\nFrancisco and focus on getting people to BART.\nBoard Member Curtis said the solutions provided were good solutions. He confirmed that\nthe initial rankings are somewhat subjective and that they would develop benchmarks and\nthen revisit the rankings.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she was disappointed with the lack of detail and lack of\ninclusion of items that received the most public input. She said the city told the business\ncommunity that they would study the free shuttle idea. She said it is not properly described\nand not about getting people transbay. She said we need to stop focusing on getting\npeople off the island and need to focus on getting them used to using transit. She said an\nin island shuttle would cast a wider net and be more effective at getting people to use\ntransit than just making new homeowners buy a bus pass.\nStaff Member Ott said that item 18 is free bus service. She said that they can clarify the\nidea of providing free bus service with ten minute headways is a good one but paying for\nit will be very difficult. She said you would need a parcel tax or congestion pricing to pay\nfor it and that is why it is categorized as it is. She said staff does not think they can\naccomplish it within eight years. She said they can create more nuance in their timeframes,\nbut they have to be realistic in projections.\nBoard Member Zuppan said they have many one off shuttles that can support a free\nshuttle.\nStaff Member Ott said they are working closely with AC Transit and the private shuttles to\nmake sure they are not undermining their public transit funding.\nBoard Member Zuppan said that it is not meant to undermine, but supplement AC Transit\nservice. She asked that the electric component of that service be included in the\ndescription. She said this still seems like a list of all the things we already have. She would\nApproved Minutes\nPage 8 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18622, "text": "Board Member Sullivan said that it will be important to have good data and a means to\nmonitor travel habits.\nThe consultant said they have all the information available to them.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked who is subsidizing the South San Francisco ferry service.\nThe consultant said it is funded through MTC bridge toll money.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if they study travel times when evaluating these options.\nThe consultant said that they do and that it is a very important factor. He said that is one\nof the reasons for including things like express bus service and queue jump lanes. He said\nhaving more than one transfer is another major factor in people's decision to drive or not.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nBrian McGuire said Bike Walk Alameda's regular and board members have participated\nin this process. He said they are concerned about losing the Estuary Crossing Shuttle. He\nsaid acknowledging greenhouse gas goals and subsequent funding sources is important,\nnot just people throughput. He said the long term projects have near term actions that\nshould be included in the list of projects. He said we should not wait for Alameda Point to\nbe built out to restripe Main St. with better complete street access to the ferry terminal. He\nsaid improving freeway access in Oakland does not further the goals of the plan. He said\nreevaluating parking requirements for new developments would be a cheap and easy way\nto help alleviate congestion impacts.\nKaren Bey said that it is important to include a water transit program for the northern\nwaterfront. She said each developer should be required to build water transit infrastructure\nwith their projects and put a water transit tax on the ballot. She said we need to use our\nwaterways to help us get around the island.\nHelen Sause, Alameda Home Team, says they are concerned that all the development\ndesigns seem to end at the water. She said they held a cross estuary panel to talk about\nthe issues and opportunities for developments along the estuary.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Knox White said he thinks we made a mistake combining the Transit Plan\nand TDM Plan. He said we should have a transit section and a TDM section as it moves\nforward. He said he would like to have seen evaluations of the impacts of each project\nbefore giving the thumbs up, rather than the other way around. He said almost everything\nApproved Minutes\nPage 7 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18621, "text": "Board Member Burton asked if there are specific actions identified for the transportation\nawareness campaigns.\nThe consultant said they are looking at using the TMA to help with that item.\nBoard Member Burton asked what complete streets planning there is for Otis Dr.\nStaff Member Payne said they have been receiving lots of complaints from residents about\nhigh speeds on Otis and a need for traffic calming. She said they are considering a 4 to 3\nroad diet.\nBoard Member Curtis asked where on Otis Dr. we are seeing 70mph speeds.\nStaff Member Payne said that they are seeing it between Westline and Grand.\nBoard Member Curtis said he lives off of Otis and that between 6:30am and 7pm there is\nno way any car can get above 25 mph.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked if the consultants are working with Bike Walk Alameda and\nreceived their correspondence. He suggested committing to working with them.\nThe consultants said they received the letter just before the meeting.\nBoard Member Sullivan said there are no transportation options for the ferry and no\nparking plans. She asked how they are going to increase ridership if that is the case.\nThe consultant said that project #5 is a crosstown express bus service that would serve\nthe ferry terminal. He said they are looking for funding to make it happen as soon as\npossible. He said WETA is working on access plans for both terminals and they want to\nsupport that.\nStaff Member Ott said they just added 100 parking spaces for Main St. and that the\nSeaplane Lagoon terminal will have 400 parking spaces. She said Harbor Bay is more\ncomplicated. She explained the multi faceted approach they are taking in trying to address\nthe parking situation at Bay Farm.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked how many Alamedans are using Uber to get to BART.\nThe consultant said they do not know, but that it is increasing and the companies are\ncreating new products to address price conscious commuters.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 6 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18620, "text": "Board Member Zuppan said there is a tradeoff between narrowing the streets and quality\nof life. She asked how the other side of the safety coin is assessed and balanced against\nVision Zero goals.\nThe consultant said the NACTO guidelines are useful. He said each project has to be\nevaluated on a case by case basis.\nBoard Member Zuppan said there is a cost to expecting constant vigilance. She confirmed\nthat congestion pricing meant charging people for going through the tubes and over the\nbridges.\nBoard Member Knox White asked if someone who drives to BART would be included in\nthe 78% who took transit to SF in the survey.\nThe consultant said, depending on how they responded, they would likely be included in\nthe transit number.\nBoard Member Knox White said that would be a reason why focusing on transit for SF\ncommuters could still alleviate congestion at the crossings.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked how many people from Alameda are traveling to BART.\nThe consultant said it was around 2,000.\nBoard Member Mitchell said the lowest hanging fruit would be people driving to BART.\nThe consultant said BART ridership from Alameda actually decreased from 2008 to 2014.\nHe said Alamedans are switching to the Ferry and Transbay bus.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked if we are looking at a park and BART shuttle approach.\nThe consultant said that Lyft and Uber are filling some of that need. He said there is\nalready some informal park and ride going on with people parking near bus stops.\nBoard Member Burton asked what the current level of service is for using the ferry to get\nyour bike from Alameda to Oakland.\nThe consultant said it is the South SF ferry that provides the service a few times in the\nmorning and a few times in the evening. He said this might increase when the new Ferry\nTerminal opens.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 5 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18619, "text": "7-B 2016-3675\nProvide Comments on the Draft Strategies for the Citywide Transit and\nTransportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan\nStaff Member Thomas introduced the item.\nStaff Member Ott and the consultants gave the staff presentation.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked how many people they need to get out of their cars to make\na difference.\nThe consultant said they are establishing the baseline and would be looking at what the\npotential impacts of implementing these strategies would be.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked why we are focusing on the SF bound trips when it has the\nfewest number of drive alone trips. She asked how many trips we need to remove from\nthe current conditions, before any new projects are completed, to solve our traffic\nproblems.\nThe consultant said that there are many outside factors that influence congestion, even if\nthey eliminate many trips, which makes targeting a specific number difficult.\nStaff Member Ott said that the regional bottleneck (880) could still result in congestion in\nAlameda even if this plan is successful. She said capturing SF bound commuters with our\nnew growth would help us mitigate our congestion because of the high transit usage for\nthose commuters.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked what the process was for assessing the effectiveness and\nease of implementation of different projects.\nThe consultants said they relied on their experience with these types of projects and are\nincorporating input from staff and the community. He said that even with all that, there is\nstill some subjectivity in the evaluations.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she was confused about how autonomous vehicles rated as\nmore effective than a free shuttle would.\nThe consultant explained that they studied free bus service, but not the shuttle as\ndescribed. He said there is a lot of uncertainty around driverless vehicles and their\npotential for impacting congestion.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 4 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18618, "text": "Karen Bey said she was excited about the plan. She said we need to improve the\npermitting process for small businesses. She said we need to not forget about Park St.\nand Webster St. She suggested bringing back a committee to help increase tourism.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Zuppan said there is a lot of good work in this plan. She said she would\nlike to see greater clarity of the vision for the plan. She said the strategies were good but\nthe connection to the vision were weak.\nBoard Member Mitchell said the plan is very broad and needs some focus.\nBoard Member Knox White said the document is not ready to go to the City Council. He\nsaid it feels like a statement of where we are today rather than where we want to be in ten\nyears. He said he is concerned with the reliance on subsidizing businesses to come here.\nHe said we should focus on resilience. He said we can attract one business with a hundred\nemployees or help one hundred businesses grow by one employee. He said we have\nfailed to serve and capitalize on our large Asian American population and being near\nChinatown and instead just do things like add another Safeway.\nBoard Member Curtis asked where are we considering the quality of life issues in these\nplans. He said we are trying to put fifteen pounds of stuff in a five pound bag.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she would like to see more specificity of our goals.\nBoard Member Burton said the plan needs a clear voice if it is not going to just sit on a\nshelf. He said we should focus like a laser on attracting jobs that fit our residents and\nkeeping their money on the island. He suggested using tourism to drive the brand of\nAlameda in order to attract businesses instead of just visitors. He said we need to focus\non north Park St. in the plan.\nPresident K\u00f6ster reopened the public hearing.\nHelen Sause said it is important for the city to direct the developments in the city in the\nbest way possible for the residents.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said people know about parts of what Alameda has to offer and not the\nwhole package. He said we need to focus on our transit corridors and small businesses.\nHe said the Moscone Center is closing soon and we could capitalize off of the large spaces\navailable at Alameda Point.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 3 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18617, "text": "Review Strategies Matrix and Provide Direction for Drafting the Economic\nDevelopment Strategic Plan (EDSP)\nStaff Member Fonstein gave a presentation on the EDSP.\nBoard Member Burton asked how the matrix would drive the plan.\nThe consultant explained how the implementation actions would be developed after\ngetting board and council direction.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if the amount of building, cars, and traffic being added was\ntaken into account. He said the additional units and office space and businesses and\ntourism we are proposing is changing the complexion of what Alameda is all about and\nthe congestion will drive people away.\nThe consultant said they did analyze the commute flows and found most residents leaving\nthe island in the morning and less incoming traffic. She said adding destinations in\nAlameda would help reverse that pattern. She said they will be trying to integrate the\neconomic development plan to the TDM plan.\nBoard Member Zuppan said that the concerns expressed at the workshop centered\naround maintaining a strong industrial maritime industry. She said the attendees strongly\nsupported making hotel meeting rooms available to the public.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if we track self-employed people in Alameda.\nThe consultant said their data does not track self-employed residents.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if AirBnB data is collected for Alameda.\nStaff Member Fonstein said they are evaluating how to begin reviewing that information.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nKaren Boutilier said the city should make the permitting process easier for businesses.\nShe said we need to fix our transportation issues if we want jobs, visitors, and economic\nactivity. She said \"strategic planning is what you do when you don't know what to do.\"\nDan Reidy, Harbor Bay Business Association, said the report contained some good ideas\nfor the business park. He said the city could better encourage new hotel development in\nthe Harbor Bay Business Park by communicating better with outside agencies.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 2 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18616, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2016\n1. CONVENE\nPresident K\u00f6ster convened the meeting at 7:01pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Burton led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: President K\u00f6ster; Board Members Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Mitchell, Sullivan.\nBoard Member Zuppan arrived at 7:06pm.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nAt Staff Member Thomas' request, President K\u00f6ster moved a portion of Staff\nCommunications to the beginning of the meeting.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nMike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, gave an update on the evolving plans for the\nEncinal Terminals site plan.\n***Staff Communications***\nStaff Member Thomas summarized the work that the board and staff completed in 2016.\nStaff Member Tai gave a presentation on Planning Services work for 2016.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n6-A 2016-3676\nUse Permit Review for Smog Check Service at European Auto Repair -\nPLN12-0230 - 1928 High Street - Applicant: Irman Turanovic. Six- month\nreview of a Use Permit for smog check service at 1928 High Street and\nconsideration of business hours on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.\nThis project is categorically exempt from further environmental review\npursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities.\nBoard Member Knox White made a motion to approve the consent calendar. Board\nMember Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n7. REGULAR\nAGENDA\nITEMS\n7-A 2016-3674\nApproved Minutes\nPage 1 of 11\nPlanning Board Meeting\nDecember 12, 2016", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18615, "text": "Minutes of the Public Art Commission\nTuesday, February 23, 2021\nChairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 7:37pm.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLois Butler\nEconomic Development Manager\nSecretary\nPublic Art Commission\n4", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18614, "text": "Minutes of the Public Art Commission\nTuesday, February 23, 2021\npreparation for April 19 PAC meeting. Gehrke answered clarifying questions. Staff\nmember Gehrke offered to research what year the Santa Rosa and Emeryville\nMaster Plans were written.\nPublic member Tina Blaine expressed frustration that there have only been 2 RFPs\nfor the Public Art Fund since 2016, commented that there has been a degree of\nturn-over in the PAC, and expressed support for adjusting the public art\ncontribution rates to encourage contributions to the in-lieu Fund.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nSecretary Butler updated the commission on small grants, and advised that all\npreviously-approved public art small grant pieces that were delayed due to COVID-\n19 will receive an extension to the next fiscal year.\nStaff member Gehrke provided the following updates:\nThe public art upcoming project report will be brought to the PAC 3 times per\nyear moving forward.\nConstruction of the foundations for the Rock Spinner and Mosaic Columns\nlocated at Jean Sweeney Park is due to start next week.\nOver 700 responses to the Dan Fontes Mural survey have been received which\nwill be shared with the PAC at the next meeting.\nThe working session to provide feedback for the existing PAC website will take\nplace at the April meeting.\n7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nVice Chairperson expressed her regrets for the delayed arrival to the meeting.\nCommissioner Farrell expressed appreciation for the Staff to provide reports to the\ncommission, and thanked the members of the public for their participation.\n9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nPublic member Tina Blaine requested that the cap on small art grants be raised to\n$5,000.00 to allow for larger projects.\nPublic member Tara Pilbrow asked when the next RFP for small art grants will be.\nSecretary Butler confirmed that funding for small grants has been included the\n2021-2022 FY budget request, dependent on PAC decision to solicit projects next\nfiscal year.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\n3", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18613, "text": "Minutes of the Public Art Commission\nTuesday, February 23, 2021\nA motion to approve the attached resolution and conditions approving the \"Tidal\nArch Public Art Proposal\" by Commissioner Van Cleef, and was seconded by\nChairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Commissioners Van Cleef,\nSneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0.\nLois Butler noted for the record that Vice Chairperson Rush joined the meeting.\n5-C 2021-672 Review and Approve Recommended Changes to the Public Art\nOrdinance and Recommend Adoption by City Council\nStaff member Gehrke presented the staff report on the recommended changes to\nthe Public Art Ordinance to be recommended for adoption by the City Council. A\nsummary of the recommended changes are as follows:\nRequire developers to declare their intention to install on-site artwork or\ncontribute to the Fund prior to receiving planning approvals, and clarify that,\nafter on-site artwork is reviewed and approved by the PAC, any change in\nlocation will require PAC approval.\nClarify that the maintenance agreement shall be reflected in the conditions of\napproval and recorded against the property prior to the issuance of the first\ncertificate of occupancy.\nRemove the requirement that cultural arts grants can only go to non-profit\norganizations.\nSpecify that City Council approval is needed only for Fund expenditures that\nexceed the purchase authority of the City Manager.\nAllow the use of public art funds for conservation and maintenance of public\nart.\nAllow the use of public art funds for deaccession of public art.\nGehrke answered clarifying questions and invited commissioner discussion.\nCommissioner Farrell requested clarification that the intention is to remove the\n$2000.00 cap from the ordinance and include the cap in future public art\nguidelines. Staff clarified that this is the intention.\nTara Pilbrow suggested that people seeking small public art grants be allowed to\nseek grants via fiscal sponsorship by non-profits.\nCommissioners reviewed and discussed recommended changes.\nA motion to approve the recommended changes to the Public Art Ordinance was\nmade by Chairperson Gillitt and seconded by Commissioner Van Cleef. Ayes:\nChairperson Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef,\nSneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 5-0.\n5-D 2021-673 Review Master Plan Documents and Synergy Report in\nPreparation for April 19 Public Art Commission Meeting\nStaff member Gehrke provided an opportunity for initial public and commissioner\ncomments to the proposed Master Plan Documents and Synergy Report in\n2", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18612, "text": "MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING\nTuesday, February 23, 2021\n1. CALL TO ORDER\nChairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:03pm.\n2. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Commissioners Mark Farrell, Kirstin Van Cleef,\nand Tierney Sneeringer. Vice Chairperson Liz Rush arrived late at 6:38pm.\nLois Butler (PAC Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the\nCommission.\n3. MINUTES\n3-A 2021-674 Review and Approve Draft Minutes December 21, 2020\nA motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Farrell and\nseconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Commissioners Van\nCleef, Sneeringer, and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion carried 4-0.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENTS\nNone.\n5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A 2021-675 Presentation by Alameda Fire Department on Public Art for Fire\nStation 3/Emergency Operations Center\nFire Chief Rick Zombeck of the Alameda Fire Department provided an update on\nthe public art for Fire Station 3/Emergency Operations Center. The Fire Chief has\nsought the remaining $150,000.00 funding needed to complete the public art\nproject in the 2021-2022 Fiscal Year budget request, and will update the PAC once\nthe budget has been approved and finalized. Commissioners asked clarifying\nquestions.\n5-B 2021-671 Recommendation to Approve the Attached Resolution and\nConditions Approving the \"Tidal Arch Public Art Proposal\"\nStaff member Gehrke presented the staff report on the recommendation to\napprove the attached resolution and conditions approving the \"Tidal Ach\" public\nart proposal. Artist Adrian Segal made a statement about her inspiration and\nintention for the art piece. Staff member Gehrke and Artist Siegel answered\nclarifying questions from commissioners.\nPublic member Morgan Bellinger requested that any anti-skateboarding measures\nbe rounded edges as opposed to raised metal brackets.\nCommissioners discussed the proposed art.", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18611, "text": "(14-214) The City Manager announced a ceremony was held to honor the re-opening of\nthe Mif Golf Course today; urged everyone play the new course; announced a service\nwould be held on Memorial Day at 11:00 a.m.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(14-215) Mayor Gilmore announced that she attended the shopping center convention;\nan announcement about potential retailers would be made sometime soon.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:11 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 20, 2014", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18610, "text": "property tax generated from the site, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda\nPoint responded in the affirmative; stated the special tax revenue budget outlined in the\nplan requires each employer or resident association to submit a compliance strategy to\ndemonstrate how the subsidized services would be used.\nExpressed concern over applying the plan to the Del Monte project; suggested the\nentire City be engaged; stated the Plan does not have teeth: Debra Arbuckle, Alameda.\nStated driving through the Tube is difficult now; discussed antiques fair traffic: Anne\nMcDonald, Alameda.\n***\n(14-213) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing past 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Noes: Councilmembers\nEzzy Ashcraft and Tam - 2.\n***\nCouncilmember Tam stated the speaker concerns are well-founded; Alameda has the\nsecond highest bus ridership next to Berkeley; the City has a good culture with a lot of\npromise in the TDM; over time, people will be able to see how the TDM works with the\nchanging public transit opportunities.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there are specific ways to deal with fulfilling goals and\nobligations; when it comes to generating and capturing the value of Alameda Point, a\nportion of the future value might be reserved for capital intensive improvement projects;\nthat he hopes to see a change in culture.\nMayor Gilmore stated when goals are not met, there should be something in place to\nenforce people to change behavior until another plan can be created to meet the goals.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point concurred with the Mayor; stated the\nparking management strategy is designed to discourage driving by increasing price and\nreducing supply; the strategy is not intended to be punitive, but in event things are\nfailing, the City Council maintains control; ultimately Council controls land disposition\nand development rights and can make different decision on how to develop the\nproperty.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 20, 2014", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18609, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the system of data collection itself be\nhacked or compromised, to which the Police Chief responded he did not know and\nwould check with NCRIC.\nCouncilmember Chen suggests a weekly checklist to make sure equipment is working\nproperly, and has not been tampered with.\nMayor Gilmore stated the equipment must have a regular maintenance schedule.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether a checklist could be added to the regular\nmaintenance schedule, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he leaves it to the City Manager and Police Chief on\nhow to convey information to the Council.\nMayor Gilmore moved approval of directing the City Manager to give direction to the\nPolice Chief to modify the ALPR policy to include: 1) audits every six months, 2) regular\nequipment maintenance, 3) report of exception to six-month retention, and 4) removal of\nstationery cameras from the policy.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(14-212) Recommendation to Approve the Transportation Demand Management Plan\nfor Alameda Point.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how management would make necessary changes if\na certain approach does not work.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the Transportation\nManagement Association (TMA) is comprised of City staff, consultants, and a technical\ncommittee; stated the City Council is still in charge; once a TMA is formed, the bylaws\nwould mandate program goals and objectives; Council ultimately controls the pace of\ndevelopment; the intent of the TMA is to make sure the project is successful.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the TDM is a great forward step for Alameda Point\nwhich changes the behavior, culture and lifestyle of residents and employers; suggested\nfuture residents and employers be educated with a 20-minute discussion.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he supports the plan; inquired whether it is too early to\ndetermine if the TDM currently in place at Alameda Landing is working, to which the\nChief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the transit subsidies are in addition to the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 20, 2014", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18608, "text": "Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation and giving direction\nto the Police Chief.\nThe City Manager stated the action to give direction needs to be voted on by the entire\nCouncil.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council should make two separate motions: 1) approval of the\nstaff recommendation, and 2) giving direction to the Police Chief.\nCouncilmember Tam amended the motion for approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated voting on this matter is following through with his\ncommitment to arm APD to deal with crime; seconded the motion.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she concurs with her colleagues; she appreciates privacy\nconcerns; safeguards are in place; smart phones have GPS tracking; license plates are\nalready out in the public; commended APD for being proactive in holding community\nforums.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he concurs with the Mayor; the ALPR is a tool to\nincrease the effectiveness of the APD; requested a daily checklist to ensure the\nequipment is not being tampered with; requested a copy of the audits; hopefully,\nmonthly audits will reassure community of privacy.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Police Chief would agree to more\nfrequent audits initially.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Gilmore requested a description of an audit.\nThe Police Chief responded that he does not have knowledge of a ALPR data audit, but\ncan describe a similar audit APD conducts; stated a typical audit involves reviewing\ninformation on the access to the data: who accessed the data, when, where, and why; if\nthere are any blanks, there will be an investigation; further stated not everyone in APD\nwill have access to the information, not even himself; he has not determined which staff\nwill have access.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the audit process is automated and would not\ntake staff time.\nThe Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the process is automated, but the\ncomputer will not know if the person accessing the information is violating the policy,\nhuman verification is needed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 20, 2014", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18607, "text": "Councilmember Tam inquired how many officers is APD down, to which the Police Chief\nresponded six.\n***\nCouncilmember Chen left the dais at 9:35 p.m. and returned at 9:37 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the percent of data retained in the six-month\nperiod could be tracked, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Police Chief stated personal or\nidentifying information is not collected when a license plate is scanned.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the APD would address erroneous license plate\nreads.\nThe Police Chief responded Officers would follow required steps, including visual and\ndispatch confirmation; stated counter-measures are already being developed against\nthe ALPR technology; staff would be relied upon to take the extra verification steps.\nCouncilmember Daysog concurred with the Police Chief, stated the ALPR technology is\nnot on autopilot, human involvement is required.\n***\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 9:45 p.m. and returned at 9:47 p.m.\n***\nStated the readers should delete information immediately; expressed concern over the\ncost: Donna Eyestone, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over other agencies having access to the information: Carol\nGottstein, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are adequate safeguards in place; the ALPR\ndevices will be used on public streets where there is no expectation of privacy; that she\nsupports the item with the modifications for a six-month retention, two audits per year,\nand removal of fixed location cameras.\nCouncilmember Tam stated policies in other jurisdictions were not vetted by Councils or\nthe public; commended the Police Chief and staff on being transparent; moved\napproval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether proposed modifications could be included\nas direction to the Police Chief and included in the motion.\nThe Police Chief responded that he would modify the policy.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 20, 2014", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18606, "text": "(NCRIC) would customize record deletion to meet Alameda's retention policy.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Alameda Police Department (APD) would\nshare data with other regional surveillance programs such as Homeland Security, to\nwhich the Police Chief responded in the negative; stated if APD enters an MOU with\nNCRIC, other participating agencies would have mutual access.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Homeland Security has an MOU with\nNCRIC, to which the Police Chief responded he does not know.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether APD intends to enter an MOU with NCRIC,\nto which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Police Chief stated the MOU with\nNCRIC does not have to be approved by Council.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Police Chief stated participating\nagencies would have equal rights and access to the system and can request data from\na specific time.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether NCRIC would retain a copy of the data\nbeyond the six-month retention, to which the Police Chief responded in the negative;\nstated NCRIC will comply with APD's retention schedule.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether audits could be done every six months, to\nwhich the Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated NCRIC audits once a year; if\nAlameda does an audit at six months, audits would be every six months.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 20, 2014", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18605, "text": "License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Systems and to Negotiate and Execute Related\nDocuments, Agreements and Modifications in an Amount Not to Exceed $80,000.\nThe Police Chief gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired who provided the draft policy.\nThe Police Chief responded the draft policy was compiled by the Police Department;\nstated the second version of the policy is more customized for Alameda.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the difference between the three- and four-\ncamera equipment is the ability to capture more license plates, to which the Police Chief\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired where funds would go if not used for the ALPR.\nThe Police Chief responded the funds would go back to the fund balance.\nThe City Manager stated under the two-year budget, half of the funds would go back to\nthe fund balance, the other half can be used to purchase equipment or one-time capital\nexpense with City Manager approval.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Police Chief stated retention is\ntypically one year; the California Highway Patrol retention is three months.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what is the guiding framework to determine reasons to\nkeep data beyond the six-month retention period.\nThe Police Chief responded there are two key reasons: 1) a pending lawsuit, and 2) a\ncriminal investigation for an ongoing major crime; stated the draft policy recommends\ndeleting the data from the server and storing it on a separate device for reference on\nactive criminal cases.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she received a lot of emails from citizens\nconcerned that ALPR could be used for racial and religious profiling.\nThe Police Chief stated the Police Department would not use the ALPR for profiling; the\nALPR just captures license plates and cannot distinguish race, gender, ethnicity, or\nreligion; the draft policy specifies uses that are prohibited, including invasions of privacy,\nharassment, intimidation, or personal use.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Police Chief stated the vehicles\nwith the ALPRs will be marked.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like public discussion regarding\ncameras mounted on stationery locations to come back to Council.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 20, 2014", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18604, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the Public Works performance\nmeasure \"percent of departments that qualify as green businesses\".\nThe Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded the Alameda County\nEnvironmental Services Department evaluates private businesses and government\nagencies on recycling, composting, water and energy usage; stated the business\nmeeting a higher standard are Green Certified; the measure applies to each City\ndepartment.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the Recreation and Parks Department does not\nmeasure the number of programs offered, number of program participants, and percent\nof change in participants similar to the Library.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the focus was more on revenue and\nexpenditures; stated the Department considered including number of participants, but\nparticipants can vary and is not always the best measurement; that she could add the\nnumber of programs and activities offered as a measure.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Attorney title should include Risk\nManagement, to which the City Attorney responded Risk Management falls under City\nAttorney.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Police and Fire Departments measure of\ncost of personnel per capita include salaries and benefits, to which both the Police and\nFire Chiefs responded in the affirmative.\nDiscussed the public computers at the library and the website; stated all meetings\nshould be listed on one calendar: Carol Gottstein, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Chen moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he is pleased with the benchmarks and the measures\nare a great benefit for residents.\nThe Assistant City Manager acknowledged Nancy Hetrick of Management Partners;\nstated Ms. Hetrick will start the staff training phase after Council approval of the\nPerformance Measures.\nThe City Manager stated the performance measure process will begin Jan 1, 2015 and\nwill not be used as an evaluative tool for three years.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(14-211) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Purchase\nAgreement with Vigilant Solutions for Four, Vehicle Mounted, 3-Camera Automated\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 20, 2014", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18603, "text": "- 5.\nThanked the Council for approving the MOU: Bill Garvine, EUPA.\n(14-209) Resolution No. 14925, \"Approving a Compensation Plan Between Alameda\nMunicipal Power Unrepresented Management Employees (UME) and the City of\nAlameda for the Period Commencing February 23, 2014, and Ending December 26,\n2015.' Adopted.\nThe Administrative Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nStated AMP's strategic plan emphasized the need to attract and retain employees;\nthanked Council and staff for support; urged approval: Doug Draeger, UME.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\n(14-210) Recommendation to Approve City-wide Bench Marks and Performance\nMeasures.\nThe City Manager and Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nThe Assistant City Manager clarified the two exhibits; stated Exhbit 1 is the\nPerformance Measures presented to the Council in December which includes\ncomments from the Council and the community; Exhibit 2 is the Performance Measures\nproposed for Council approval tonight.\nMayor Gilmore inquired how the number of website visits and the number of website\ncomplaints are related.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the number of website visits provides analytic\ndata regarding whether information on the website is being presented in a useful way;\nstated the complaints are broad and are tracked differently.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the Public Works performance\nmeasure \"percent of public service requests responded to in one business day\".\nThe Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded the measure\nencompasses many different requests including reports of potholes, garbage on the\nstreet, repairs needed; stated the focus is providing a substantive response and\nacknowledgement to the requestor; the measure tracks acknowledging the requests,\nnot when they are remedied.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 20, 2014", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18602, "text": "and Lighting District 84-2, Proposed Zone 8.\" Adopted; and\n(14-207 A) Resolution No. 14923,\u00b0 Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring\nIntention to Order Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing Notice of Public\nHearing on July 15, 2014, Island City Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District\n84-2, Zone 8.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmembers Chen and Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.\nThe Public Works Administrative Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the stagnant rate of assessment is similar\nfor both Webster Street and Park Street, to which the Public Works Administrative\nServices Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how many opportunities has Webster Street had to\nincrease the assessment.\nThe Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded there was one\nopportunity in 2007 which did not pass.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether changes have been made since 2007 that would\nmake the assessment more likely to pass.\nThe Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated\nmore information is available to the property owners and there is more outreach.\nProvided background information; outlined service impacts due to lack of funds and\noutreach efforts to property owners: Sandip Jariwala, Webster Street Business\nAssociation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.\n[Absent: Councilmembers Chen and Daysog - 2.]\n(14-208) Resolution No. 14924, \"Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)\nbetween the Electrical Utility Professionals of Alameda (EUPA) and the City of Alameda\nfor the Period Commencing February 23, 2014 and Ending December 26, 2015.'\nAdopted.\nThe Administrative Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 20, 2014", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18601, "text": "Fire Fighters (IAFF) Supplemental Retirement Plan and Trust Agreement for IAFF\nEmployees Hired After June 7, 2011 as Provided in the Memorandum of Understanding\nbetween the City and IAFF.' Adopted.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft wanted the item to be summarized for the public.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(14-205) Resolution No. 14921, \"Appointing Cheryl Saxton as a Member of the Golf\nCommission.' Adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(14-206) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Third Lease\nAmendment with Artemis Racing, USA for Twenty-Four Months with Two Additional\nOptions for Eighteen Months and Six Months in Building 12 Located at 1050 West\nTower Avenue, a Portion of Taxiway H and Access to the Seaplane Lagoon at Alameda\nPoint. Introduced.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she hopes the America's Cup will return to the San Francisco\nBay.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the location of the next America's Cup be\nannounced, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded that she\ndoes not know.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(14-207) Resolution No. 14922, \"Initiating Proceedings for a Proposed Increase in\nAssessments, the Consolidation of Zones 2 and 3 into a Single Zone 8 (Webster\nStreet), and the Filing of an Assessment Engineer's Report for Island City Landscaping\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 20, 2014", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18600, "text": "[paragraph no. 14-204 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*14-198) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings the Special Joint City Council\nand Alameda Public Financing Authority Meeting; and the Regular City Council Meeting\nHeld on April 15, 2014. Approved.\n(*14-199) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,652,786.50.\n(*14-200) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for Cyclic Sewer Replacement Project, Phase 11, No. P.W. 06-13-16. Approved.\nMayor Gilmore and Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft recused themselves.\nCouncilmember Chen moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n-\n3. Abstentions: Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 2.\n(*14-201) Recommendation to Adopt of Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call\nfor Bids for Raised Median and Curb Bulb-Out Improvements on Grand Street at Wood\nSchool, No. P.W. 03-14-16. Approved.\n(*14-202) Recommendation to Approve Implementation Phase of Federal Transit\nAdministration Grant Funds for Improving Transit Access to and from Alameda Point.\nApproved.\n(*14-203) Resolution No. 14919, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Request to\nthe Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of $125,917 in Fiscal\nYear 2014/2015 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project\nFunding and to Execute All Necessary Documents.\" Adopted.\n(*14-204) SUMMARY: Adopt a Resolution Establishing the International Association of\nFire Fighters (IAFF) Supplemental Retirement and Health Plan (Plan) and Trust\nAgreement for IAFF Employees Hired After June 7, 2011 as Provided in the\nMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and IAFF, including the \"Pick\nUp\" by the City of Employee Contributions, Appoint Positions of Trustee and Plan\nAdministrator, and Delegate Authority to the Plan Administrator to Execute Plan\nDocuments.\nResolution No. 14920, \"Establishing the City of Alameda International Association of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 20, 2014", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18599, "text": "Councilmember Daysog left the dais at 7:52 p.m. and returned at 7:54 p.m.\nCouncilmember Chen left the dais at 8:06 p.m. and returned at 8:08 p.m.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how long the project would take.\nMr. Garcia responded the traffic portion of the project will take approximately four years,\nand the actual project will take five years.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired when the 29th Street portion of the project would be\ncompleted, to which Mr. Garcia responded approximately two and a half years.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what the status is of the proposed High Occupancy\nVehicles (HOV) lanes.\nMr. Ignacio responded the Hegenberger Avenue and Davis Street projects will be\ncompleted this year; the Davis Street to Marina Avenue project will be completed by the\nsummer of 2015.\nMr. Garcia added neither of the HOV projects will be impacted by the 29th Avenue\nproject.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether staff has notified Park Street businesses.\nThe Public Works Director responded the Park Street Business Association (PSBA)\nattended a meeting on April 8th; stated staff will monitor and receive input from PSBA\nregarding impacts.\nMayor Gilmore suggested leafleting businesses on Park Street.\nThe Public Works Director stated staff would do so.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(14-196) Robert Kirwin, Alameda Boy Scouts Troup 73, submitted information; outlined\nthe Eagle Scout project he would like to do to sand the wood at the bike bridge\nentrance.\n(14-197) Kevin Yee, Alameda, discussed the City's ordinance that addresses playing\nsports in public streets; suggested amending the municipal code.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the Plans and Specifications and Call for Bids for Cyclic\nSewer Replacement Project [paragraph no. 14-200 and the Resolution establishing the\nInternational Association of Fire Fighters Supplemental Retirement and Health Plan\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 20, 2014", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18598, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - MAY 20, 2014- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:16 p.m. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(14-192) Proclamation Declaring May 19 to May 23, 2014 as Saint Joseph Notre Dame\nHigh School Pilots Basketball Week.\nMayor Gilmore read the proclamation and presented it to Simon Chiu, Chris Pondok\nand Don Lippi from Saint Joseph Notre Dame High School.\n(14-193) Proclamation Declaring May 22, 2014 as Harvey Milk Day.\nMayor Gilmore read the proclamation and presented it to Dr. Henry Villareal and Gene\nKahane, Co-Chairs of the Harvey Milk Day Celebration.\nMr. Kahane presented the Councilmembers with posters from a School District contest\nhonoring Harvey Milk.\n(14-194) Proclamation Declaring May, 2014 as Older Americans Month; and Mastick\nSenior Center Annual Report.\nMayor Gilmore read the proclamation and presented it to Ron Limoges, Mastick Senior\nCenter Advisory Board President.\nThe Senior Services Manager and Mr. Limoges gave a Power Point presentation.\n(14-195) Presentation by Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) on the\nInterstate-880/23rd/29th Avenue Project.\nStefan Garcia, ACTC; Garrett Gritz, Design Consultant; and Val Ignacio, Scott McCrank\nand Walter Wallace, CalTrans, gave a Power Point presentation.\n***\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 20, 2014", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18597, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - MAY 20, 2014- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 5:31 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:04 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(14-189) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9), Case Name:\nEast Bay Regional Park District V. City of Alameda, Superior Court of the State of\nCalifornia, Alameda County; Case No. RG12655685.\n(14-190) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation\npursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City\nInitiating Legal Action).\n(14-191) Conference with Legal Counsel; Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95);\nClaimant: Earl Johnson; Agency claimed against: City of Alameda\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Existing Litigation, Anticipated Litigation, and Worker's\nCompensation, direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 20, 2014", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18596, "text": "Please contact the Recreation and Parks Executive Assistant at 747-7529 or\nTDD/TTY number 522-7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request\nagenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable\naccommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of\nthe meeting.\nMaterials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Commission after\ndistribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the\nAlameda Recreation and Park Department, 2226 Santa Clara Avenue, during\nnormal business hours.\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\n5\nMinutes - Thursday, August 13, 2009", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18595, "text": "D.\nOther Reports and Announcements\nNone.\n8.\nSTATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS\nNone.\n9.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL\nCommissioner Brown stated that she was disappointed that there was not more\nparticipation in the Friends of the Parks Longfellow Park Potluck Fundraiser.\n10.\nITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA\nCommissioner Brown asked that the Recreation & Park Commission receive a copy of\nthe Recreation & Park Department budget which was recently approved and also asked\nthat the Director provide a review.\nCommissioner Sonneman asked for the status of the Measure WW monies from East\nBay Regional Park District.\n11.\nSET NEXT MEETING DATE:\nThursday, September 10, 2009\nFriends of the Parks, Inc. Meeting will be held on Thursday, September 10, 2009, at\n6:30 p.m.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT\nSPECIAL NEEDS SERVICES\nSign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the\nRecreation and Parks Executive Assistant at 747-7529 or TDD/TTY number 522-\n7538 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to request an interpreter.\nEquipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance,\nplease contact the Recreation and Parks Executive Assistant.\nAccessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using\nwheelchairs, is available.\nMinutes of the meeting available in enlarged print.\nAudio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request.\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\n4\nMinutes - Thursday, August 13, 2009", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18594, "text": "Commissioner Kahuanui stated that originally the plans were sent back multiple times\ndue to specifications because a Commissioner was concerned about the aesthetics. At\nthat time the Commission went so far as to require that the contractor match the paint.\nCommissioner Cooper asked for clarification on the placement of the equipment\nbuilding. PM Manager stated that the tower is off of the field on the third base side\nwhere there is a light standard. The pole will go in right where the light standard is\ncurrently located.\nPM McDonald stated that these plans will still need to go to the Planning Commission.\nVice Chair Restagno asked if the pole extending up to 90 feet would affect the\naesthetics at all. PM McDonald stated no. You do not notice where other poles have\nbeen installed so we do not anticipate that it would affect the aesthetics.\nCommissioner Kahuanui stated that the Commission should also keep in mind that\nthere are already poles in the area to hold up the big nets that are higher then 90 feet.\nThe new light will help out in left field. PM McDonald stated that if this project goes\nthrough there will be a funding source for Washington Park which is dedicated to that\npark. This will also help us work out a financial plan to replace the lights.\nM/S/C\nSONNEMAN/KAHUANUI\n(approved)\n\"Approve the concept of installing a cell tower in Washington Park.\"\nApproved (5):\nBrown, Cooper, Kahuanui, Restagno, Sonneman\nAbsent (2):\nMariani, Ogden\n6.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nNone.\n7.\nREPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND\nPARK DIRECTOR\nA.\nPark Division\nCommissioner Cooper asked if some of the groups have not been using the Godfrey\nPark field. PM McDonald stated that there has been a problem with foul balls so\nfencing was raised to a higher height. The location of home plate has been assessed\nalong with the baselines. The problems/concerns are being addressed.\nB.\nRecreation Division\nNo report at this time.\nC.\nMastick Senior Center\nThe Mastick Open House will be held on Sunday, September 20, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00\np.m. Feel free to drop in.\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\n3\nMinutes - Thursday, August 13, 2009", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18593, "text": "agenda.)\nNone.\n4.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n5.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nRequest from American Tower for Installation of Wireless\nTelecommunication Facility at Washington Park - (Discussion/Action Item)\nTom Johnson, Trillium Consulting representative, provided the Recreation & Park\nCommission with an update on their request to install a cell tower at Washington Park.\nThe pole height will be increased to be able to accommodate multiple carriers. Lighting\nwill remain at the same height as it is now which means that there will not be any light\npattern disturbance.\nPM McDonald stated that this location was part of a large group of cell towers that were\nsupposed to be installed in the City, but the installation at Washington Park was never\ndone. In 2007, American Tower paid up on their past due lease and submitted plans\nafter working with the City and Mr. Lil Arnerich regarding the placement of equipment,\ndesign, etc. At that time the plans were approved but again the project did not go\nforward.\nTonight we are revisiting the project plans to see if we want to go further with\nnegotiating rent, etc.\nVice Chair Restagno asked how the current plan differs from the last plan that was\napproved by an earlier Recreation & Park Commission. PM McDonald stated that the\nonly difference he sees is that there is a generator in the current plan and there was not\none in the old plan. Also, it is now being proposed as a multi-carrier site where as\nbefore it was a single carrier with some room for expansion.\nCommissioner Sonneman asked if the height of the pole was 90 feet on the original\nplans. PM McDonald stated that is was 90 feet on the original plan. In 2005, Mr.\nArnerich insisted that the picnic area be installed which is still included in the plan.\nVice Chair Restagno asked how tall the current poles were in the area. PM McDonald\nstated that the outfield light poles are approximately 80 to 90 feet. Currently, there is a\n35 to 45 foot pole where they want to put a 90 foot pole.\nCommissioner Brown asked if the multiple carriers would have different antennae's\nexposed outside of the poles. Mr. Johnson stated that they would be contained within\nthe tower. What you will see is a pole that is slim all the way up with no variations.\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\n2\nMinutes - Thursday, August 13, 2009", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18592, "text": "NOTICE OF MEETING\nALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION\nMINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING\nDATE:\nThursday, August 13, 2009\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nRoom 360, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak\nStreet,\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nVice Chair Joe Restagno , Commissioners Lola Brown, Mike\nCooper, Jo Kahuanui, and Bill Sonneman\nStaff:\nJohn McDonald, Park Manager (PM)\nJackie Krause, Senior Services Manager (SSM)\nAbsent:\nChair Terri Ogden and Commissioner Gina Mariani\nDale Lillard, ARPD Director\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\n-\nApproval of April 9, 2009 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting\nMinutes.\nM/S/C\nBROWN/RESTAGNO\n\"That Minutes Recreation & Park Commission Meeting of April 9, 2009 be\napproved.'\nApproved:\nBrown, Cooper, Restagno, Sonneman\nAbstention:\nKahuanui\nAbsent:\nOgden, Mariani\n-\nApproval of May 14, 2009 Recreation & Park Commission Meeting\nMinutes.\nTabled until September 2009 Meeting.\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA\n(Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18591, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -MAY 7, 2013- -6:00 P.M.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:17 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(13-191) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:\nDavid Kapler V. City of Alameda, et al.; Superior Court of California, Alameda County,\nCase No. HG11570933; Number of Cases: One (1)\n(13-192) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation\npursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City\nInitiating Legal Action)\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Existing Litigation, direction was given to staff; and\nAnticipated Litigation, direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 7, 2013", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18590, "text": "(13-234) Michael John Torrey announced an upcoming ham radio event and passed on\nMother's Day regards.\n(13-235) Captain Scott Rhoads discussed activities at Nelson Marine.\n(13-236) Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda, provided a handout and\nexpressed concern about Comcast not providing accurate contact information.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-237) Councilmember Tam announced that she attended the Economic Development\nAlliance briefing along with Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Chen.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:17 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMay 7, 2013", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18589, "text": "space that is complimentary of a passive area, something like Greenwich Village where\neveryone gathers by the arches; within striking distance of many residents in town, which\nallows them to walk there and enjoy the environment.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she read the 17 pages of comments and was struck by the\ningenuity and creativity of residents and gratified by the willingness to step up to make the\nopen space happen; congratulated the community; stated the Recreation Director did a\ngreat job of distilling everyone's ideas down to 5 or 6 things.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(13-232) Recommendation to Approve the City of Alameda Bicycle Facility Design\nStandards that Supplements the Bicycle Master Plan Update; and\n(13-232 A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nSection 30.7.15a (Bicycle, Motorcycle and Pedestrian Facilities) of Article I (Zoning\nDistricts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Comply with the\nCity's Bicycle Facility Design Standards. Introduced.\nThe Transportation Coordinator gave a brief presentation.\nStated the document, which still needs work, is ahead of the curve; provided examples:\nJon Spangler, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation, including introduction\nof the ordinance; noted de-linking car and bike parking spaces is moving in the right\ndirection.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the last whereas statement in the\nordinance.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-233) The City Manager announced business licenses can now be renewed on line;\nannounced the Consent Calendar tonight included grants totaling $3,176,300.00;\nannounced that the Council moved the July 16th City Council meeting to July 23rd.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nMay 7, 2013", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18588, "text": "Wildlife Habitat (submitted information); Marisa Wood, Alameda Community Farm and\nWildlife Preserve; Valerie Landau, Alameda (submitted petition); Shaina Lerner, Alameda;\nRhiannon Theurer, Alameda; Jeremy Watts, Alameda; and Lucy Gigli, Alameda.\nDiscussed the benefits of urban agriculture and expressed support for mixed use, including\nagriculture: Evan Krokowski, Oakland.\nSuggested assessing the adjacent Marina Village business park: former Councilmember\nLil Arnerich, Alameda.\nUrged habitat be protected for the current wildlife: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft commended the Recreation Director for an awesome job and for\nmaking it look so effortless; stated that she is also grateful to all the public participants; the\nopen space runs between residential properties and the City needs to be respectful of the\nproperty owners; the natural habitat is lovely and any use should preserve said qualities\nand be appropriate for the setting, rather than converting the land into something else; the\nCity needs to be good stewards of the environment; an urban setting in almost 22 acres is\nunusual and is due to the hard work of Jean Sweeney and a lot of other people; open\nspace does not come back once it is paved over.\n*\n*\n(13-231) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the Bicycle Facility\nDesign Standards [paragraph no. 13-232 and the Business Improvement Area Report for\nthe Park Street Area [paragraph no. 13-227 after 10:30 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Tam concurred with Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; stated despite the\nacreage, the property would not be suitable for an aquatic center and fields, which need\nparking; said uses are more suitable in locations such as Alameda Point; the uses that are\ncoming forward: biking trails, open space, picnic areas, community gardens, playgrounds,\nand walking paths make perfect sense; the land is essentially the Central Park of Alameda;\nthe City should be finding a way to secure funding to create such a sanctuary of open\nspace.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the name Jean Sweeney Open Space says it all; Ms.\nSweeney envisioned open space and her conceptual plan is very much in line with what\nthe community wants; he fully supports the recommendation; with the current\nadministration leadership, Alameda will find funding.\nCouncilmember Daysog thanked everyone for the hard work with a special thank you to\nMr. Sweeney and the late Mrs. Sweeney; stated that he likes much of what is discussed in\nthe report; he is interested in a well-manicured areas with a series of plants that looks nice;\nmakes folks want to walk around, and feels safe; he imagines a community gathering\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMay 7, 2013", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18587, "text": "The Recreation Director concurred with Councilmember Tam; stated a better cost analysis\ncould be provided in the future; however, fees recovered from user groups do not come\nclose to cost recovery; for example, about $175,000 a year is spent just on lining and\ndragging the fields, which does not include mowing, aeration, fertilization, and all other\nmaintenance; the City is not fully recovering the cost of lining and dragging the fields\ncurrently.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a letter from a resident who lives near the Bay Eagle\ncommunity gardens indicated a message was received from the Housing Authority\nadvocating moving the Bay Eagle Garden to the Sweeney open space to allow building\nlow income housing on the land they now cultivate; inquired if this is included in the\nproposal or just a wild rumor.\nThe Interim Community Development Director responded that she is unaware of the\nHousing Authority sending out anything, however the community garden sits on property\nthe Housing Authority owns; Parrot Village is a residentially zoned piece of property; the\ncommunity garden is very close to the Beltline property.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the food bank building is located north-south; inquired if the\nbuilding could be changed to east-west so people can see it.\nThe Recreation Director responded it is a good thought to consider and she would keep\nnote of it.\nCouncilmember Chen concurred with Councilmember Tam; stated maintenance costs\nshould be considered, especially due to the park's size.\nThe Recreation Director concurred with Councilmember Chen; stated maintenance will be\nsignificant; there are potential partnerships options and the endowment; staff is not losing\nsite of the ongoing maintenance costs and needs to start developing strategies; staff\nhopes to have a better understanding of the uses and the type of cost recovery which can\nbe done.\nMayor Gilmore thanked the Recreation Director for trying to get community consensus on\nthe use.\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 9:38 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:48 p.m.\nUrged support of the recommendation to endorse passive use: Jim Sweeney, Alameda;\nDorothy Freeman, Alameda; Red Wetherill, Alameda; former Councilmember Doug\ndeHaan, Alameda; and Kurt Peterson, Alameda.\nUrged 5 acres be set aside for farmland: Mali McGee, Alameda Community Farm and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMay 7, 2013", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18586, "text": "substantially omitted by management.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Abstention:\nCouncilmember Chen - 1.\n(13-229) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14807, \"Confirming the Webster Street\nBusiness Improvement Area for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 and Levying an Annual\nAssessment on the Webster Street Business Improvement Area.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Daysog announced that he would recuse himself and left the dais.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes there is a typo in the staff report which\nsays the Consumer Price Index increase will raise the projected annual Webster Street\nBIA collection total to approximately $47,000 on page 1, then, on page 12, it says the\nestimated BIA revenue for 2013 to 2014 is $37,000.\nMs. Young responded that Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft is correct; the BIA assessment for\n2013-2014 is $47,000.\nCouncilmember Chen moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(13-230) Recommendation to Endorse a Preferred Conceptual Plan for a Passive\nRecreational Use Program at the Future Alameda Beltline/Jean Sweeney Open Space\nPark.\nThe Recreation Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired if there are some specifics on the endowment fund concept.\nThe Recreation Director responded in the negative; stated right now there are just ideas;\nother models have not been actively pursued because the focus has been on developing\nconcepts and seeking initial funding; ongoing maintenance needs to be taken into account.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's further inquiry, the Recreation Director stated that\nshe can provide better estimates once the basic uses are known; tonight's meeting is to\ndetermine about passive uses versus more active uses; maintenance costs would be\nsignificantly higher if there are soccer fields, rather than trails, playgrounds and community\ngardens.\nCouncilmember Tam noted a cost recovery component pays off capital costs by passing\non charges to the teams using fields; stated the same cost recovery cannot be done with\ntrails or more passive uses.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMay 7, 2013", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18585, "text": "Mr. Ratto responded that he understood the language is a fairly standard accounting form;\nthe compilation report was requested by Community Development on behalf of the\nController; that he assumed the Controller reviewed the report and is satisfied.\nMayor Gilmore stated she shares Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's unease about the particular\nstatement; stated she is bothered by \"management has elected\" which is not the standard\nboiler plate language.\nMr. Ratto stated PSBA did not present an audit to the City this year; the audit requirement\nwas waived; the letter is called the accountants compilation report which has been given to\nthe City since his tenure.\nThe City Attorney stated PSBA was not required to complete an audit, which is why there\nis a compilation report; it is not a gap report and attempts to disclose that the auditor did\nnot go through more rigorous gap accounting.\nThe City Manager stated for the amount of money involved, performing a full-blown audit is\nnot sensible.\n(13-228) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00\np.m.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated she was just concerned about one question, she could\nprobably overlook it, but the discrepancies with the two different figures should be\nexplained in the report.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the item.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Tam requested that the Council be specific about what\nnext report should include.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the two different line items on page 22\nand 26 of Exhibit 4 addressed; the math worked out; requested Mr. Hansson provide an\nexplanation of the figures and the paragraph read.\nCouncilmember Chen suggested that the 2011 compilation report be reviewed to see if it is\na standard boiler plate statement.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she wants to hear from Mr. Hansson about what has been\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMay 7, 2013", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18584, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the report is from Lars Hansson, the accountant;\nnoted that the two items she is referring to seems to be indicating the same thing, yet there\nis a discrepancy.\nMr. Ratto concurred and apologized that he could not answer the accounting question;\nstated he would have to ask Mr. Hansson.\nMayor Gilmore suggested the item be continued to the next meeting.\nMr. Ratto concurred with Mayor Gilmore.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he has a small suggestion for the Interim Community\nDevelopment Director; Alameda does not have an Asian grocery; inquired if the Interim\nCommunity Development Director could talk to Catellus about including an Asian grocery,\nas folks have to travel outside of Alameda to shop at an Asian grocery store.\nMayor Gilmore announced that the matter would be continued to May 21, 2013.\nFollowing the Bicycle Facility Design Standards [paragraph no. 13-\n,\nMayor\nGilmore\ncalled the matter again and opened the Public Hearing.\nMr. Ratto apologized for mis-speaking in regards to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's question;\nstated that the Marketing Manager is paid $36,000, the extra $8,000 was paid to a\nmaintenance person on staff from July through part of October, 2011; three different fiscal\nyears are included and the question relates to Fiscal Year 2011-12.\nMayor Gilmore inquired if Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's question has been addressed, to\nwhich Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the negative; stated her questions both\npertain to the same fiscal year.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated she appreciated Mr. Ratto's explanation; however, the\ndocument is not as clear as it could be.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the Council needed to open the public hearing, then\nthe public hearing would be closed and the item would be continued.\nThe City Attorney responded the decision is up to the Council; the Council has opened the\npublic hearing; if Council has sufficient information, the public hearing can be closed and\naction can be taken; if there are additional questions, the public hearing can be continued\nto a later date.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is having trouble understanding another\nparagraph in Exhibit 4: \"management has elected to omit substantially all of the\ndisclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of\nAmerica\"; inquired if Mr. Ratto could help her understand that paragraph.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMay 7, 2013", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18583, "text": "Patricia Young, WABA, stated Catellus cannot speak for the businesses that will be\nlocated within Alameda Landing; the businesses have a say under a voting process;\nWABA is in regular communications with Catellus regarding different issues with the\ndevelopment, but she cannot definitively say Target will become part of the BIA.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether Target would join if Alameda Landing decides to\njoin the BIA.\nMs. Young responded in the affirmative; stated all businesses in the BIA have an equal\nvote.\nThe Interim Community Development Director clarified that the Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement commits Catellus, on behalf of Alameda Landing, to work with\nWABA to join the BIA and the Webster Street landscape and lighting district; Catellus is\naccelerating the development of the balance of the commercial project and hopes all\ncommercial space will be built in a year; the City would like to have the funding\nmechanisms in place concurrent with build-out.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the current PSBA budget does not include an\nallotment for economic revitalization.\nMr. Ratto responded that the City leased a lot at Oak Street and Alameda Avenue during\ntheater construction; the expense was placed under economic revitalization; Public Works\nleases the lot and PSBA makes the payments.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the staff support line item in the amount of\n$44,679.74.\nMr. Ratto responded amount covers the PSBA Marketing Manager.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if $44,000 is the salary of the Marketing Manager, to\nwhich Mr. Ratto responded it is salary and benefits.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a separate line item for staff benefits, to which\nMr. Ratto responded then it is just salary.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the line item was not called Marketing Manager\nsalary as it is called in the current budget, to which Mr. Ratto responded the line item has\nalways been staff support.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 26 of Exhibit 4, an item called staff support is\napproximately $36,000, and then there is another line item for staff benefits.\nMr. Ratto inquired whether Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft is referring to the accountant report;\nstated he thought she was referring to the budget that was presented.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMay 7, 2013", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18582, "text": "Councilmember Chen acknowledged how hard it was to conduct the five year needs\nassessment survey; stated hundreds of hours were probably spent trying to outreach to\nthe City's low income population; commends City staff and the Social Services Human\nRelations Board (SSHRB) for doing the survey in Chinese and Spanish, which was a more\ncomprehensive outreach.\nMayor Gilmore stated the needs assessment is a fountain of information; credited Cindy\nWasco, SSHRB Chair, and Jim Franz, City staff to the SSHRB; the needs assessment\ndocument will continue to provide information and benefits for the City.\nCouncilmember Tam concurred with Mayor Gilmore and Councilmember Chen;\nacknowledged the alignment of the needs assessment survey with what the City is\nproposing in the action plan; even though the budget continues to be cut every year, what\nthe community values the most is still considered.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(13-227) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Confirming Business\nImprovement Area Report for Fiscal Year 2013-14 and Levying an Annual Assessment on\nthe Park Street Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2013-\n14. Continued to May 21, 2013.\nThe Development Manager gave a brief presentation, including addressing Webster Street\nBusiness Improvement Area (BIA) [paragraph no. 13-227].\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if South Shore is part of the Park Street Business\nAssociation (PSBA) BIA, to which the Development Manager responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired which business is the largest contributor on Park Street, to\nwhich the Development Manager responded the largest contributor in both districts tends\nto be the banks.\nRobb Ratto, PSBA, responded the largest contributors to the current BIA are the gas\nstations; which pay in excess of $1,000.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the banks pay $900.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the Webster Street Business Association (WABA) is\ncollecting $47,000; inquired whether Target would join WABA.\nThe Development Manager responded WABA and other Alameda Landing businesses are\nin discussions and have an MOU regarding collaborative efforts; stated WABA intends to\ninclude Alameda Landing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMay 7, 2013", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18581, "text": "Auctions by the Bay, Inc. for Ten Years with an Additional Option of Ten Years in Building\n20 Located at 2701 Monarch Street at Alameda Point.\" Finally passed.\n(*13-223) Ordinance No. 3070, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with\nAlameda Municipal Power Extending Their Current Lease for up to Two Years in Building\n162 Located at 400 West Atlantic Avenue at Alameda Point.\" Finally passed; and\n(*13-223 A) Ordinance No. 3071, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with\nAlameda Municipal Power Extending Current Lease for up to Two Years in 1890 Viking\nStreet at Alameda Point.\" Finally passed.\n(*13-224) Ordinance No. 3072, \"Amending Various Sections of the Alameda Municipal\nCode Contained in Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) Related to the North Park\nStreet Planning Area.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(13-225) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with Bay\nShip and Yacht Co., Inc. for One Year in Building 292 located at 1450 Ferry Point at\nAlameda Point. Introduce.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore requested an explanation of MARAD.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded MARAD is the Maritime\nAdministration which is a division of the Department of Transportation; stated the large\ngray reserve fleet ships at Alameda Point are deployed in times of emergency; the fleet\nincludes a hospital which responds all over the world and in times of war; MARAD is one of\nthe largest tenants at Alameda Point occupying both pier space and warehouse space; the\nMaritime Administration is trying to replicate the \"Alameda\" model around the country.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(13-226) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Community\nDevelopment Block Grant/HOME Partnership Investment Program Action Plan and\nAuthorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements,\nand Modifications.\nThe Program Manager gave a brief presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMay 7, 2013", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18580, "text": "the agreements; the City went from a 20% to 28% fund balance to address these potential\ntypes of uncertainties; uncertainty has narrowed since the last discussion in April; 16\nfirefighters applied, 14 are eligible and three are of retirement age; the exposure is\ndocumented and clearly encompassed in the budget process; that she supports moving\nforward.\nMayor Gilmore stated the action is part of an MOU that was negotiated and agreed to in\n2010 under the prior administration; the City would face serious legal liability if Council\ndoes not honor the contract and greater financial exposure if Council does not pass the\nOrdinance; it is important that the City of Alameda live up to its agreements and not be\nknown for not honoring bargained-for contracts; moving forward is important.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Mayor Gilmore, stated unwinding an MOU\nmeans everything is back on the table, including concessions; if the hard dollars and cents\nare scrutinized, then the same should be done for the financial implications of breaching a\ncontract.\nMayor Gilmore stated going back to negotiate that one little piece cannot be done\nunilaterally and would require the unions to agree to reopen negotiations, if negotiations\nare reopened, everything would be on the table, including the 15% contribution received\nfrom public safety.\nCouncilmember Chen moved final passage of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\n(*13-219) Ordinance No. 3066, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with\nMargaret Su Doing Business As Wonky and Wonky Kitchen LLC Extending Current Lease\nfor up to Fifteen Months and 28 Days in Building 119 Located at 151 West Seaplane\nLagoon at Alameda Point.\" Finally passed.\n(*13-220) Ordinance No. 3067, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with Auctions by the\nBay, Inc. for Three Years in Building 18 Located at 2700 Saratoga Street at Alameda\nPoint.\" Finally passed.\n(*13-221) Ordinance No. 3068, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with Auctions by the\nBay, Inc. for Five Years in Building 525 Located at 2751 Todd Street at Alameda Point.\nFinally passed.\n(*13-222) Ordinance No. 3069, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 7, 2013", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18579, "text": "(*13-217) Resolution No. 14806, \"Amending Resolution No. 14747 to Move the July 16,\n2013 Regular City Council Meeting to July 23, 2013.\" Adopted.\n(13-218) Ordinance No. 3065, \"Amending the Contract Between the Board of\nAdministration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council\nof the City of Alameda to Provide the Option for Local Fire Members to Purchase Service\nCredit for Permanent Career Civilian Federal Firefighter or Permanent Career State\nFirefighter Service.\" Finally passed.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nExpressed concern about costs not being known; urged an actuarial be completed: Jane\nSullwold, Alameda.\nDiscussed costs and provided background information: Domenick Weaver, Alameda\nFirefighters.\nEncouraged financial calculations be done prior to Council action: Former Councilmember\nDoug deHaan, Alameda.\nExpressed concern with buybacks and not setting caps: Janet Gibson, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft thanked the speakers and stated the matter is one of\nfundamental fairness; the playing field is not level because firefighters who worked six or\nseven years at the Naval Air Station lost retirement contributions in the transition; not\nproceeding would not solve the City's budget problem.\nCouncilmember Chen concurred with Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; inquired what would\nhappen if Council does not pass the ordinance and does not abide by the Memorandum of\nUnderstanding (MOU).\nThe City Attorney responded the pension was bargained-for in the MOU with the unions;\nstated the Council not going forward with the ordinance would be a violation and a breach\nof the MOU by the City.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if such violation would subject the City to potential liability\nor lawsuit, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that making firefighters retirement whole is not a moral\nimperative; it is not the City Council's job to make the situation whole and fair; that he finds\nsupporting the proposition hard; the firefighters working for the City are getting a pretty\ngood retirement package.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the cost of implementation is being factored into the budget;\nthe Council agreed to the provision in a prior contract; it is important that Council honors\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMay 7, 2013", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18578, "text": "Bay Area Grant Application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for $636,000 to\nResurface Otis Drive between Park Street and Broadway and Pacific Avenue between\nMain Street and Fourth Street, to Commit $194,000 in Measure B as a Local Match, and to\nExecute All Necessary Documents.\" Adopted.\n(*13-211) Resolution No. 14800, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Urban\nGreening Project Grant Application to the California Natural Resources Agency for\n$701,000 to Design and Construct the Cross Alameda Trail along Ralph Appezzato\nMemorial Parkway between Main Street and Poggi Street, to Commit $125,000 in Citywide\nDeveloper Fees as a Local Match, and to Execute All Necessary Documents.\" Adopted.\n(*13-212) Resolution No. 14801, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Vehicle\nRegistration Fee Pedestrian and Bicyclist Access and Safety Program and Measure B\nBicycle/Pedestrian Countywide Discretionary Fund Grant Application to the Alameda\nCounty Transportation Commission for $793,000 to Design and Construct the Cross\nAlameda Trail along Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway between Webster Street and\nPoggi Street, to Commit $200,000 in Citywide Developer Fees as a Local Match, and to\nExecute All Necessary Documents.' Adopted.\n(*13-213) Resolution No. 14802, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Vehicle\nRegistration Fee Transit for Congestion Relief Program Grant Application to the Alameda\nCounty Transportation Commission for $489,000 to Continue Operation of the Estuary\nCrossing Shuttle and to Expand the Hours of Operation, to Commit $90,000 in\nTransportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management Funds as a\nLocal Match and for a Contingency, and to Execute all Necessary Documents.\" Adopted.\n(*13-214) Resolution No. 14803, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Community-\nBased Transportation Planning Grant Application to Caltrans for $232,200 to Conduct a\nCentral Avenue Area Complete Streets Plan, to Commit $25,800 in Measure B Funds as a\nLocal Match, and to Execute All Necessary Documents.\" Adopted.\n(*13-215) Resolution No. 14804, \"Authorizing the City Manager or His Designee to Enter\ninto an Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco to Accept and Allocate 2012\nUrban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) Grant Funds in the Total Amount of $79,290 and the\nAppropriation of $79,290 from the General Fund to Purchase Equipment Necessary for\nGrant Reimbursement.\" Adopted.\n(*13-216) Resolution No. 14805, \"Accepting $161,368 from the US Department of\nHomeland Security's Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program for the Purchase of\nEquipment for Emergency Medical Services Training and the Wellness Fitness Program,\nAppropriating $40,341 from the General Fund to Meet the Matching Funds Requirement\nand Appropriate the Grant Funds and Matching Funds Totaling $201,709 for Said\nPurpose.\" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMay 7, 2013", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18577, "text": "The Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded additional services are not\nprovided to areas outside the seven zones, such as seasonal banners.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if the seven zones paying the assessment receive a\npremium package.\nThe Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe seven zones receive additional, enhanced services.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if residential owners contribute to the assessment along\nwith the business property owners.\nThe Public Works Administrative Services Manager each of the seven zones is different;\nfor example, zone seven is all property owners and relates to tree maintenance; almost all\nproperty owners in the business district are assessed, as owners would vote on any\nproposed increases.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if any WABA and PSBA business owners objected to the\nincrease in the assessment.\nThe Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded reception has been positive\nso far; stated those increasing revenues will reinstate services that have disappeared\nbecause assessments stayed flat.\nCouncilmembers Daysog recused himself because his home is near zones two and three.\nCouncilmember Chen recused himself because his wife has a business near a zone.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Abstentions:\nCouncilmembers Daysog and Chen - 2.\n(*13-207) Resolution No. 14796, \"Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring the\nCity's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice\nof Public Hearing on June 18, 2013 - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina\nCove).' Adopted.\n(*13-208) Resolution No. 14797, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Request to the\nMetropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of $146,100 in Transportation\nDevelopment Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding and to Execute All\nNecessary Documents.' Adopted.\n(*13-209) Resolution No. 14798, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application\nfor Measure B Paratransit Funding in the Amount of $179,000 for Fiscal Year 2013-2014,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMay 7, 2013", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18576, "text": "(13-199) Vicky Hines, Alameda, noted many Nelson Marine tenants are on the East Coast\nand have not been contacted; PM Realty would not provide rent receipts and has not\ncashed cashiers checks, which will no longer be good.\n(13-200) Jim Franz, Alameda Collaborative for Children Youth and Families and Social\nService Human Relations Boards, made an announcement regarding the Annual Harvey\nMilk Day Celebration.\n(13-201) Kenneth Peterson, Alameda, discussed the budget.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the Resolution for Island City Landscaping and Lighting\nDistrict 84-2 [paragraph no. 13-206 and the Ordinance Amending the Contract Between\nthe Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System\n[paragraph no. 13-218 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*13-202) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on April 2, 2013. Approved.\n(*13-203) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,254,022.35.\n(*13-204) Recommendation to Authorize Call for Bids for Legal Advertising for the Fiscal\nYear Ending June 30, 2014. Accepted.\n(*13-205) Recommendation to Approve a First Amendment to the Landscape Maintenance\nManagement Agreement with Marina Village Commercial Association in the Amount of\n$544,436 for the Maintenance of the Landscape and Lighting District, Zone 6, Marina\nVillage. Not heard.\n(13-206) Resolution No. 14795, \"Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring the\nCity's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice\nof Public Hearing on June 18, 2013 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2.'\nAdopted.\nThe Public Works Administrative Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if sidewalk cleaning would be provided outside the seven\nzones.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMay 7, 2013", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18575, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY -MAY 7, 2013- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:23 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(13-193) Mayor Gilmore announced that the First Amendment to the Landscape\nMaintenance Management Agreement with Marina Village Commercial Association\n[paragraph no. 13-203 was withdrawn from the agenda.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(13-194) Proclamation Declaring May 9, 2013 as Alameda Bike to Work Day.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Tim, Nancy, Kayla, Ella and Katie\nRumrill, Maya Lin School Bike and Walk to School Program.\nJeff Cambra, Bike to Work Day, presented artwork to Public Works.\n(13-195) Proclamation Declaring May 10 through May 19, 2013 as Affordable Housing\nWeek.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Helen Sause, Diane Lichtenstein\nand Laura Thomas.\nMs. Sause provided a handout and made brief comments.\nMs. Thomas made brief comments.\n(13-196) Proclamation Declaring May 13 through 17, 2013 as National Police Week.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to the Police Chief and staff.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(13-197) Mike Connelly, San Lorenzo; David Perry, Campbell; John Townsend, Campbell;\nPete Bowes, Orinda; discussed Nelson Marine closing; urged more time be provided\nbefore evicting people with boats at the facility.\n(13-198) Suzanne Gamble urged the Council to consider rent stabilization.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMay 7, 2013", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18574, "text": "This meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 15 of 15", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18573, "text": "109,280 square feet in floor area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a\n9.22 acre site.\nBoard Member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.\nNoes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain - 1 (Cook). The motion passed.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nVice President Kohlstrand would like the resolution thanking Gina Mariani for her service\non the Planning Board to be presented at the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Thomas\nagreed, and noted that would take place.\n11-A. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board\nMembers Cook/Kohlstrand)\nPresident Cook noted that there had been no further meetings.\n11-B. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember McNamara)\nMr. Thomas noted there was nothing to report.\n11-C. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation Subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand)\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that there had been no further meetings since her last\nreport.\nPresident Cook requested that if there had been no further meetings under Board\nCommunications, that they be removed from that meeting's agenda. Mr. Thomas\nconcurred with that suggestion.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n10:35 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nPage 14 of 15", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18572, "text": "President Cook noted that there were many positive aspects to the project, and\nappreciated the applicant's willingness to work with the City and the neighborhood over\nthe course of the project. She was uncomfortable with the first set of findings on pages 1\nand 2, that the project would be compatible with the adjacent surroundings, providing\nharmonious transitions between different designated land uses. She felt that the site was\nmore clustered and walled off the water, with an insufficient relationship back to the\ncommunity. She believed this project was similar to Alameda Landing in that it was a\nwaterfront site approved for a lot of commercial office use, but it did not incorporate\nsignificant public access and recreation. She noted that both projects had a sea of parking,\nbut that Alameda Landing incorporated public access and recreation opportunities in a\nway that provides a reason for the public to be there at night and on the weekends, to\nkeep it safe and active. While she liked the project, she felt it was somewhat disconnected\nfrom the waterfront environment and cut the community off from the shores. She also felt\nthat there was not a harmonious transition from the parking on the north through the site\nto the south. Finally, she felt that there should be a safer and more efficient road for bikes\nand cars through the Ferry Terminal rather than the undersized private access road now\nthere.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft would like to see Condition 13 modified to read, \"The\nfinal landscape plan for the area between the eastern edge of the private ferry access road\nand the sidewalk along the lagoon shall comply with Bay-friendly landscaping\nguidelines, as set forth by StopWaste.org.\" She noted that because the property was on\nthe waterfront, anything put on the landscaping would be safe to run off into the water.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a\nFinal Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned Development Amendment for\nreduced parking for the construction of ten new office buildings totaling approximately\n109,280 square feet in floor area with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a\n9.22 acre site. The following modifications will be added:\n1. Page 5, Item 13: A reference to Bay Friendly landscaping will be\nincorporated;\n2. Page 7, Item 29: A modification to the Harbor Bay TSM program will be\nincorporated;\n3. Prior to issuance of permits, staff will work with the applicant to look at ways\nto minimize the width of the bioswale for the purpose of providing more\nwidth for the curb-to-curb for bicycles and pedestrians; underground\nmechanical solutions should be avoided. Lane width will not be added for\nvehicles;\n4. The transformers will be screened; and\n5. Showers will be encouraged as part of the TSM program.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.\nNoes: 1 (Cook); Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to approve\nthe Tentative Map for the construction of ten new office buildings totaling approximately\nPage 13 of 15", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18571, "text": "landscape and lighting district administered by the City, and noted that the irrigation\nwould be upgraded this year, and that the dead plant material would be replaced with new\nplantings.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that Condition 29 suggested participation in the TSM\nprogram, and recommended that it be strengthened to require participation in the TSM\nprogram.\nMr. Ernst noted that the Harbor Bay Business Park already included participation in the\nTSM as part of the development agreement and the PD.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that the question was whether the City plan was deed-\nrestricted, as were the CC&Rs. If it was a condition of the CC&Rs, it would be deed-\nrestricted.\nBoard member Cunningham inquired whether the applicant had considered natural\nventilation for these buildings, and noted that it would be a good place to have a\nshowcase in Alameda of a naturally ventilated office park.\nMr. Ernst replied that the mechanical systems will all have economizers to switch to use\nnatural ventilation. He noted that the window systems will be designed to be operable. He\nnoted that if the windows were opened, the doors must be closed, because the airplanes\nspread noise throughout the space. He noted that had not been designed into the space\nyet.\nBoard member Cunningham inquired whether showers would be provided for bicyclists,\nand encouraged the applicant to do SO. Mr. Ernst replied that their green specifications\nincluded that feature as well; he added that several of their buyers had done so in their\nown plans. He added that they had a confirmed Silver rating, and may be able to achieve\na Gold LEED rating.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would like to see a copy of the applicant's\ngreen specifications.\nA discussion of the road width and right of way ensued.\nVice President Kohlstrand believed the ferry terminal road would be the biggest problem.\nMr. Thomas noted that if the road were to be built to City standards, it would be\nsignificantly wider.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that if it were a City road, Public Works would not be likely\nto want to take on the road's maintenance because of the cost.\nPresident Cook noted that page 13, paragraph 1, should be changed to read,\nPage 12 of 15", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18570, "text": "Board Member McNamara noted that Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft had addressed many\nof her concerns, including the width of the access road. She believed the applicant had\nworked closely with the homeowners and addressed their concerns. She believed the area\nwould need restaurants, that the project was well-thought out and well-designed, and she\nsupported this project.\nVice President Kohlstrand echoed the previous statements, and believed this was\na\nwonderful project for the site. She was pleased to see the amount of effort put forth in\nworking with the staff and the residents. She also liked the sensitivity shown towards the\nwaterfront, as well as incorporating the LEED elements into the project. She liked the design\nas well. She did not like the amount of surface parking, but understood that it had to be\nthere. She believed the roadway was strangely designed, and noted that people use the ferry\nparking lot like a through road. However, she did not know whether there were any options\nto correct it at this point. She suggested that a bike lane be added, and cited Portland and\nEmeryville as examples of using wide bioswale treatments in more urban settings, where\nmuch less space was used to provide drainage. She would like to see more space made\navailable for bicyclists and pedestrians, and encouraged the applicant to make the parking\nlot as safe as possible as the amount of traffic increased.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether the BART shuttle stopped\nin the business park, Mr. Ernst replied that the business park had its own TSM, including a\nBART shuttle, which was added when AC Transit took away the express shuttle. He noted\nthat the business park sponsored the shuttle. They agreed to increase the size of the bus this\npast year, and will go to two buses in July 2008. She liked the fact that the applicant had\nprovided some flexibility in the site for the restaurant use.\nBoard member Cunningham complimented the applicant on a job well done, and noted that\nhe would like to push the bar higher if possible. In response to his inquiry regarding the\nLEED rating, Mr. Ernst replied that they currently had LEED certification, and had\nidentified 28 points, which would place them at the LEED Silver rating.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member Cunningham regarding the site lighting, Mr.\nErnst replied that the lighting would be designed to a LEED standard for residential light\npollution, which was a stricter standard than commercial. He noted that they intended to\nmaintain a safe level of lighting on the site, but not light up the residents' back yards. He\nadded that they would use low-voltage landscape lighting.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding the transformers, Mr.\nErnst replied that they had some space constraints. He added that they met with AP&T and\nlocated the transformers; the transformers must be a certain distance away from the\nbuildings. The location of the transformers took precedence, and the trash enclosures were\nplaced on the opposite side of the building.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding placing a landscaping\nagreement in the development agreement, Mr. Ernst replied that everything east of the\nroad was maintained by the business park. He added that it was maintained by the\nPage 11 of 15", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18569, "text": "He believed the project was stunning, and appreciated the community coming forward;\nhe believed the City should heed their suggestions. He believed the conditions were\nreasonable. He believed this was a beautiful commercial project, which was what the land\nuse was intended for.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft commended Mr. Vu for a well-written, well-organized and\nconcise staff report. She noted that she was mindful of the need for revenue coming into\nthe City to replace the revenue lost by the departure of the car dealerships. She supported\nclean, green businesses and appreciated the sustainable design exhibited by the applicant.\nShe believed this would be an environmentally friendly project. She noted that the 25-\nfoot-wide access road also had shared bike lane space, and believed that was a minimal\nlane. She inquired whether it would be widened. Mr. Thomas replied that the proposal\nwas to maintain the basic 25-foot width curb to curb.\nMr. Ernst noted that the width varied, and that there was no curb on the west edge. He\nnoted that there were pinch points that were less than 25 feet. He noted that as the new\nroad is constructed, the minimum width would be 25 feet; he noted that there would be\nseveral areas where it would be wider than 25 feet. He noted that it was part of the\nparking area, and that it was not intended to be a through street. He noted that they\nwished to narrow the road somewhat to slow the transit buses down.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she understood the traffic calming provided by a\nnarrower street, but was concerned about safety and would like to see alternate forms of\ntransportation encouraged. She liked the presence of the bicycle parking.\nMr. Ernst noted that he was not a traffic engineer, but that the parking at the ferry\nterminal, which was denser than this use, did not have any operational problems. He\nadded that the buses traveled through the parking lot without problems.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft hoped the parking would be screened from the homes on\nMcDonnell across the lagoon, and from the Bay Trail, and noted that the landscaping\nplan seemed to indicate that. In response to her inquiry regarding the current vacancy\nrate, Mr. Ernst replied that the business park's vacancy rate was 14%, down from the low\n20s several years ago. He noted that it was lower than Marina Village, as well as the City\nvacancy rate. He noted that this project evolved from the demand for a commercial site\nwith lower density and the ability for the business owners to own their space as well.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft strongly suggested that a restaurant be located near the\nproject. She believed it would make sense to have a Peet's coffee shop in the area as well.\nShe noted that the nearby trail was well-used during the weekends, and added that the\nnew hotel's clients would also appreciate those amenities.\nMr. Ernst noted that there were two other restaurant opportunities along the waterfront in\naddition to this project, including the hotel. He hoped that critical mass could be reached\nso the restaurant would be viable.\nPage 10 of 15", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18568, "text": "Mr. Thomas presented the staff report on Mr. Vu's behalf. Staff recommended that the\nPlanning Board approve the Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned\nDevelopment Amendment for reduced parking, and that the Planning Board recommend\napproval of the Tentative Map to City Council, as shown in the staff report.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Joe Ernst, SRM Associates, applicant, displayed a PowerPoint presentation, and\ndescribed the background, scope and layout of this proposed project. He displayed the\ncolors and materials board, and described the canopies on the five buildings. He noted\nthat the ability to create unit ownership was a unique element, and that a condo map\nwould be put on each building. He noted that the buildings would be broken into flats,\nand the addition of stairs within the units would be very inefficient. He noted that there\nwould be no middle unit, and that each unit would have three open sides.\nMr. Brian Tremper, President, Freport Homeowners Association, 232 McDonnel Road,\nnoted that he was speaking as a resident, although this project had been discussed by the\nhomeowners association. He noted that many of their comments had been addressed with\nSRM already, particularly screening the parking lot, with the exception of the view\ncorridors. He inquired how the landscaping would be maintained once the transfer has\ntaken place. He believed the lagoon was poorly maintained, and noted that no large trucks\nwould be allowed. He was concerned about the restaurant, and felt that would be a\ndifficult location for a restaurant, and compared it to Zazu's, next to KTVU in Oakland.\nHe was concerned about late-night noise if a restaurant were to operate there, and\nrequested that limits be placed. He expressed concern about the noise from the bus stop,\nwhich was scheduled to be at the intersection of the access road and Harbor Bay\nParkway.\nMr. Eddie Chin expressed concern about the design for the back access road, which\nwould flow into the Harbor Bay parking lot.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\n\"In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether this use was required to be located\nat this site, or whether it could be used for other uses such as residential in a business\npark, Mr. Thomas replied that the site was office use but there were limits on the allowed\nintensity of use; this intensity was well within the upper limit.\"\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook whether this use was required to be located\nat this site or whether it could be used for other uses such as residential, Mr. Thomas\nreplied that the site was office use but there were limits on the allowed intensity of use,\nthis intensity was well within the upper limit. With respect to airport noise, he noted that\nthe newer generations of aircraft were becoming quieter, but that noise was a big issue at\nevery airport.\nBoard Member Lynch disagreed with the comments regarding the swapping the parcels,\nand believed the amount of signatures of individuals coming forth would be significant.\nPage 9 of 15", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18567, "text": "street lots, perhaps along the side streets or on Webster Street that will accommodate a\nbroad range of uses. She did not believe the in lieu fees should be limited to transit\nfunding at this point.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft understood Vice President Kohlstrand's concerns, and\nsuggested that an eventual parking permit system be instituted. She noted that the\nenforcement of the parking restrictions were an important part of the process.\nBoard Member Lynch believed it was very important to examine and clarify the\nenforcement policy for the City. He hoped that Parking Enforcement had not been aware\nof this issue, and that they become aware of it going forward.\nPresident Cook moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a Major\nDesign Review approval to construct an approximately 8,274-square foot, two-story,\nmixed use building to be located on the southwesterly corner of Webster Street and\nPacific Avenue. The ground floor area would be divided into retail space. The second\nfloor would be composed of two dwelling units and a separate office/storage area. The\napplicants are also requesting approval to permit the payment of parking in-lieu fees.\nConditions will be added regarding:\n1.\nThe transformers;\n2.\nClear glazing;\n3.\nThe red no-parking zone;\n4.\nThe hazardous materials;\n5.\nThe design details to wrap around the corner, and there will be\ncoordination between the two fa\u00e7ades; and\n6.\nThe awnings will be installed prior to building occupancy; and\n7.\nTrash enclosures.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff would confirm that the two parking spaces would be\navailable. If not, they would be added to the parking in lieu fee.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nNoes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff would work with WABA with respect to the parking issues.\n9-B.\nPLN07-0061 - SRM Associates - 2800 Harbor Bay Parkway. Applicant\nrequests a Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned Development\nAmendment for reduced parking, and Tentative Map approval for the construction\nof ten new office buildings totaling approximately 109,280 square feet in floor\narea with a total of 384 parking spaces to be constructed on a 9.22 acre site. The\nsite is located within the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, and Planned\nDevelopment Zoning District. (DV)\nPage 8 of 15", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18566, "text": "Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with Mr. Piziali's assessment that the parking in\nlieu fees of almost $90,000 were excessive. She suggested that an adjustment could be\nmade retroactively. She noted that the language in the resolution on page 2 read, \"The\nCity is able to utilize the parking in lieu fees for parking and transit projects within the\nWebster Street commercial corridor. She noted that page 4 of the staff report stated\nthat funds would be used to lease spaces at a satellite lot, or to support transit services and\nfacilities in the area. She would like to change the language to state on the resolution,\n\"The City shall utilize the parking in lieu fees She would like to see the in lieu fees\nonly fund transit projects, transit services and facilities in the area. She noted that shuttles\nto BART were needed to get people out of their cars during commute hours.\nBoard Member Lynch wished to address parking in lieu fees, and based on his own\nprofessional experience, $6,000 was very inexpensive for a parking space. He realized\nthe developer was not expected to pay the full cost of the parking spaces, but to use\npublic dollars assist in that project. He would not support any reduction of the parking in\nlieu fees because of the greater public good.\nPresident Cook noted that she was not prepared to condition the dollars on transit in this\narea, because it was well-served by transit and less well-served by parking spaces. In\ngeneral, she would like more information when such a suggestion is made for parking.\nShe noted that there were a lot of buses running along this route already.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook whether there were any plans to extend the\ntreescape up to the project to maintain consistency in the landscaping, Mr. Brighton\nreplied that there were fresh trees along Webster Street in front of the site. He noted that\nthere may be one space for a tree; staff would check with Public Works to confirm that\nitem.\nPresident Cook noted that the 100-foot height limit was in effect for this area, and she\nsuggested that be examined before a future applicant considered a building of 100 feet in\nthat location. She inquired whether it was a remainder from the 1970s, and suggested that\nit be brought down before it became an issue. She noted that she was in favor of this\nproject, which addressed a number of issues that Board had discussed. She noted that it\nreflected the discussion held at the forum regarding the importance of placing residential\nuse above retail or office in the business districts. She believed it supported the\nbusinesses, and kept the streets safer because of the 24-hour presence of people in the\nvicinity. She understood the neighbors' concerns about parking, and noted that it was the\ndownside of enjoying a mix of uses in Alameda. She believed the City should work to\nfind a place for the parking, and to enforce parking violations described by the neighbors.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that she supported transit, but would not support the\nproposal by Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding transit because she believed the\nareas transitioning from low to moderate density needed time to do SO. She noted that\nshelters and street furniture had been enhanced in recent years, and believed the City\nshould look at ways to consolidate the off-street parking. She did not believe the density\nwas present to propose a structure right away. She believed there should be some off-\nPage 7 of 15", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18565, "text": "Vice President Kohlstrand echoed Board member Cunningham's comments, and believed\nthis project would be a good fit for Webster Street. She was excited to see mixed use\nprojects like this, and that it was able to replicate some of the historic features of\nAlameda's commercial streets that had residential units above ground floor retail. She\nsupported reducing the parking requirements in the business districts, because she did not\nthink by developing a surface parking lot for each use would provide the most effective\nuse of the commercial streets in town.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand regarding parking requirements,\nMr. Thomas described the uses for the in-lieu fees, including leasing additional public\nparking spaces, expanding existing lots or adding new satellite lots in the area, in addition\nto transit improvements. He added that the possibility of a permit parking system was one\nalternative that was still unresolved; he noted that the neighbors' input would be gathered\nas well.\nBoard Member McNamara shared the opinions of the other Board members in terms of\nsupporting this project, and appreciated WABA's input in terms of the detailed\ninformation, criteria and conditions they had provided to staff. She also appreciated the\nchange to the awnings, acknowledging that they were a very important part of this\nelement. She also agreed that the certificate of occupancy not be awarded until the\nawnings were put up. She believed this was a good use of the street and the space, and\nbelieved the City needed to be very aggressive in providing some off-street public\nparking lots. She added that there were no such lots on the same side of Lincoln. She\nempathized with the neighbors experiencing the parking problems, and encouraged them\nto call a towing company when people parked in their driveways.\nPresident Cook suggested looking into residence parking stickers to protect the residents\nof the neighborhood. Mr. Thomas noted that would be possible.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she supported the concept, and believed this\nproject would be a significant improvement over the existing vacant lot. She sympathized\nwith the neighbors who lived just outside the 300-foot radius, and requested that they be\nincluded in any further noticing on this project. She suggested that WABA sponsor\nfurther neighborhood meetings. She would condition the approval on having sufficient\nproof that the hazardous material issue had been resolved. She noted that Condition 5\nread, and location of the transformers to service these loads must be approved by the\nBureau of Electricity before building permit issuance.\"\nPresident Cook agreed that the Planning Board needed to have input on the location of\nthe transformers, and suggested that a condition be added that they be hidden from public\nview. Mr. Thomas replied that similar conditions had been modified for Alameda\nLanding, stating that the transformers should be screened and not located on the public\nright of way. He noted that they may be located behind the building, adjacent to the auto\nuse, and not on Webster or Pacific.\nPage 6 of 15", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18564, "text": "President Cook requested that staff address the hazmat, parking, waste and noticing\nissues.\nMr. Brighton noted that this project had a 300-foot notification radius, which extended to\n626 Pacific Avenue. He noted that there were two outdoor waste storage areas between\nthe building and Mr. Koka's property, which would be able to accommodate small waste\nbins that would be typical for such a use.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff would craft a condition regarding the red zone, and that the\nanalysis in the staff report had been discussed extensively with the Public Works\nDepartment. He added that the Design Review Team (DRT) had addressed that issue,\nincluding the fire department. He noted that it could be conditioned to reconfirm that the\ntwo additional spaces would be available on the street, and if not, the project could be\nconditioned to provide the two spaces on-site, which he believed would be virtually\nimpossible. Alternatively, the in-lieu fees would be increased. He recommended that an\nadditional condition be included with respect to hazmats, that it be confirmed to the effect\nthat no building permit should be issued that would impede or prevent either the ongoing\nmonitoring, or if there was a tank that must be removed, that it be taken care of before the\nbuilding is built.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was not just the presence of a tank, but any\nleakage or plumes must be properly addressed.\nBoard Member Lynch believed that the Planning Board must remain mindful of the\nrequirements originating from regulatory agencies. He added that certain requirements\nwill have to be met for the property to be insurable.\nBoard Member Cunningham believed this was an excellent project which would be a\ngood fit on Webster Street. He believed that the requirement for parking may be adjusted\nupon receipt of the permit, and did not know how that would align with the parking\nordinances and the timeline.\nBoard member Cunningham assumed that with respect to the amendment to the use\npermit for SK Auto, they had been consulted and that they were in agreement.\nMr. Thomas noted that Mr. Koka owned that property as well.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member Cunningham, Mr. Thomas replied that a\ncondition of approval should be added stating that prior to the issuance of building\npermits, that the Webster Street treatment would turn the corner to where it would meet\nwith the Otaez Building. Board Member Cunningham noted that could be worked out by\nthe design applicant, but wanted to ensure that the materiality was consistent. He wanted\nto ensure that the glazing would be clear, and without tint.\nPage 5 of 15", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18563, "text": "Design Committee's concerns. She believed this project was needed on Webster Street in\norder to establish a viable commercial district.\nMr. Thomas Keenan, 617 Pacific, spoke in opposition to this project, and displayed\nseveral photos of the site. He believed that there were several unresolved hazardous\nmaterials occurrences on the site that had not been remediated or placed on the public\nrecord. He noted that with respect to Item 2, the fire station along Webster Street on the\nsouth side had a red curb adjacent to that location, and if cars were to park in that area,\nthere would not be sufficient space for the fire trucks to exit. He noted that several\nmonths before, Alameda Party and Play, located across the street, had been approved\nwith no additional required parking because it was an existing building. He believed that\nwhen that building is occupied, the parking problems would increase on the street. He\nnoted that the closest unmetered parking space was 260 feet west on Pacific Avenue on\nthe opposite side of the street. He added that there would be no space for the additional\ntrash receptacles or Dumpsters that would be required.\nMs. Beverly Miranda, 630 Pacific, spoke in opposition to this project. She noted that she\nsupported progress, and would like to see this project work out; however, she was\nconcerned about workers from the nearby businesses parking in front of her and her\nneighbors' houses. She noted that several times, people had parked in her driveway\nbecause there was no parking available. She would like to see this part of Alameda\nimproved with the proposed design, but not without sufficient parking.\nMr. Derek Pavlik, WABA Design Committee, 2875 Glascock Street, spoke in support of\nthis project. He noted that Mr. Koka had invited their input throughout the process in the\nfour years since he had been on the committee; he noted that he was the most willing\ndesign collaborator he had worked with.\nMs. Tricia Collins-Levi, 634 Eagle Avenue, spoke in support of this project. She believed\nthis kind of project would move Webster Street in the right direction; she understood the\nparking issues, and hoped the issue of the fees would be worked out. She noted that the\napplicant had worked very hard on this project, and believed it would have a positive\neffect on the neighborhood.\nMs. Jackie Keenan, 617 Pacific, believed that the site still needed to be remediated from\nits use as a gas station. She noted that there was existing parking on Webster, and that\nthere was no place for additional parking. She noted that additional parking on Pacific\ncould not conflict with the red curb next to the fire station. She noted that it was a\nconstant problem trying to discourage people from parking in their driveways. She noted\nthat on several occasions, she had not received notices from the City with respect to this\nproject.\nMr. Sam Koka, applicant, 802 Pacific Avenue, described the proposed project and noted\nthat he had worked closely with the Webster Street Design Committee.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPage 4 of 15", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18562, "text": "office/storage area. The applicants are also requesting approval to permit the\npayment of parking in-lieu fees. The site is located within a C-C, Community\nCommercial Zoning District. (DB)\nMr. Brighton summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.\nWABA had requested that an additional condition of approval be added to require the\ninstallation of awnings at the street frontage buildings prior to occupancy of the building.\nStaff concurred with that request.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member McNamara whether the conditions requested\nby WABA replaced the conditions previously stipulated, Mr. Brighton replied that was\nessentially the case. He added that the previous conditions applied to an earlier plan set\nsubmittal.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be helpful to receive the materials\nsooner in advance of the meeting, and suggested sending PDF files by email. She would\nlike additional time to review the materials.\nPresident Cook advised that nine speaker slips had been received.\nBoard Member Cunningham moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nBoard Member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Noes:\n0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. John Piziali, former Planning Board President, spoke in support of this project as a\nWest End resident and WABA member. He believed this would be a special project,\nwhich he believed to be the first mixed use project on the street. He expressed concern\nabout the parking requirements and the in lieu fees, which he believed were excessive; he\nbelieved those requirements often stifled new projects. He would like to see the\nrequirements scaled to the project, which was a strain on smaller projects.\nMs. Doreen Soto, City of Alameda Development Services Department, Alameda County\nImprovement Commission, City Hall West, spoke in support of this project. She noted\nthat they had worked with this applicant for about two years, and noted that it had been a\ndifficult project with respect to the parking. They hoped that they would be able to bring\nnew parking regulations forward soon. She believed this was a very good infill project\nthat maximized the site with a mix of retail and housing uses. She believed this project\nwould create new jobs, and encouraged the Planning Board to approve this project.\nMs. Kathy Moehring, Executive Director, WABA, spoke in support of this project. She\nnoted that she had worked on this project with the Webster Street Design Committee. She\nnoted that the applicant had been gracious and easy to work with in addressing the\nPage 3 of 15", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18561, "text": "plan and believed there would be unintended consequences from that additional work. He\ndid not want to micromanage the department.\nBoard Member Lynch believed it would be helpful to put this project within a critical\npath with various milestones, in order to know when the work product must be brought to\nthe department within the term of the contract. He requested that staff share the schedules\nwith the Planning Board.\nBoard Member Cunningham requested that the March 10 meeting include some time to\nexamine lessons learned from the forum which he believed should be addressed, other\nthan the Housing Element. He would like to discuss use issues in particular.\nBoard Member McNamara inquired about the status of the additional Planning Board\nmember. Mr. Thomas replied that the position had been advertised, and that Mayor\nJohnson was considering her options.\nb.\nZoning Administrator Report\nMr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. Bill Smith discussed the development opportunities in Alameda.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A. V07-0006 (Variances) and DR07-0056 (Major Design Review) - 3327\nFernside Blvd. the applicant requests Variance and Design Review approval to\nenlarge an existing single-family home located within an R-2, Two-family\nResidential Zoning District. Continued from January 28, 2008. Recommended\nfor continuance.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to continue this item.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nNoes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nDR07-0080 - 1629 Webster Street. The applicant requests a Major Design\nReview approval to construct an approximately 8,274-square foot, two-story,\nmixed use building to be located on the southwesterly corner of Webster Street\nand Pacific Avenue. The ground floor area would be divided into retail space. The\nsecond floor would be composed of two dwelling units and a separate\nPage 2 of 15", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18560, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, February 25, 2008\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nVice President Kohlstrand.\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board\nMembers Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch, and\nMcNamara.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney\nFarimah Faiz; Planner III Dennis Brighton.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007.\nThese minutes will be considered on March 10, 2008.\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of February 11, 2008 (not available).\nThese minutes will be considered on March 10, 2008.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nFuture Agendas\nMr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.\nPresident Cook noted that she left the Measure A meeting considering how it would fit\ninto the Housing Element, and would like to see a presentation on how the Housing\nElement would be updated, and how it fit into the State Density Bonus Ordinance and the\nSecondary Unit Ordinance amendments.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had heard numerous comments on the\neducational nature of the Measure A forum, and that they wished to have more\npresentations in the future. She believed that a weeknight evening would be good for\nmost people.\nBoard Member Lynch wished further clarification on the input requested from the\nPlanning Board members. He was concerned about the budget and time impacts of\nadditional work requested of staff; he noted that the budget was set for the current work\nPage 1 of 15", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18559, "text": "8. Adjournment\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.\n10\nTC Minutes\n9/22/21", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18558, "text": "Staff Member Payne pointed out where the update for the Oakland/Alameda Access Project was\nlocated, page 23, and then discussed that project and timeline. She also clarified that the before\nand after data for Otis was based on quantitative analysis.\nChair Soules added that she would follow up with Staff Member Payne about Orion St.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6C\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to know what success for Line 78 would be. He felt that it was a\ndifficult time to be starting a bus line during a pandemic, and he expressed concerned that people\nwere hesitating to get on a bus right now.\nStaff Member Payne answered that she had not seen any of the parameters on what was needed\nfor that bus line to be successful. She added that there is a good faith effort to keep it beyond the\nfirst year.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to further discuss the Slow Streets map from the presentation. He\ndiscussed what he had observed about slow streets near where he lived, Woodstock, and felt that\nat the end of slow streets they did not create safe pedestrian behavior. He wanted to know if staff\nhad looked at what happens when slow streets end and what people do.\nStaff Member Wheeler said that was something that could be incorporated into their work. She\nadded that a common response they had received on the survey was that people wanted a network\nof slow streets created. She discussed how that could address the issue of slow street endpoints.\n7. Announcements / Public Comments\nCommissioner Kohlstrand wanted to know if there was a date set up to initiate the sub-committee\ndiscussions on the technical report for the Mobility Element.\nStaff Payne stated that was being delayed until next year until after the AC Transit Recovery Plan\nand the Active Transportation Plan approval. She explained what other input was needed since it\nall would build on each other.\nStaff Member Payne pointed out that it was National Roundabout Week.\nChair Soules pointed out that it was Walk and Roll to school on 10/6 and reminded everyone that\nthe Special Commission Meeting was 10/27.\nTC Minutes\n9\n9/22/21", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18557, "text": "outreach. Public outreach would start late this year or early next year and she then laid out the\nphases and what that entailed. This was a major effort and they would be applying for grant funding\nto complete and construct. She also explained what information they look for and gather during\nthe evaluation.\nChair Soules asked with the investment in bike infrastructure, were they collecting data on bike\ncounts. Had they been doing surveys, travel diaries, or counts in mode shift?\nStaff Member Wheeler answered that they had done a statistically significant survey asking about\nmode choice. She did acknowledge that a travel diary would be the best survey and they could do\nthose in the future. She also pointed out the bike counter on the Cross Alameda Trail but due to\nthe pandemic, those numbers aren't a true reflection. She discussed other surveys and numbers\nthey had been looking at for future comparisons.\nStaff Member Payne added that working on better data collection with new technologies was\nsomething they would be working on as part of the Smart City Master Plan effort.\nChair Soules discussed how data collected intersected with their equity issues. She wanted to see\nif there was actual uptake in what they were offering as the transportation options to a larger\npopulation.\nStaff Member Wheeler discussed how the statistically significant surveys would consider the\npopulation diversity. She also added that after projects were done they collected data as well.\nPublic Comments for #6C\nJill Staten discussed how important before and after data was, you needed to have good baseline\ndata. She did not believe that survey data was good data, what really mattered was the\nobservational data. She encouraged more observational data and fewer survey data.\nJim Strehlow wanted more clarification on where the work on Orion Street would take place. He\nalso had concerns about safety on the new bike lane on Clement. He also wanted an update on\nwhen the Oakland/Alameda Access Project would begin. He also agreed with the previous speaker\nabout having fewer survey data, he considered them hearsay and could be easily manipulated. He\nalso pointed out that there was no chat window available for the meeting.\nTC Minutes\n8\n9/22/21", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18556, "text": "Commissioner Weitze stated that he would vote against this resolution strictly on the idea that he\ndid not believe that an on/off again pedestrian recall was safer. He saw Vision Zero as important\nand believed this resolution was the opposite of that.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to approve/endorse the staff's recommendation with the\namendment that the wording change to \"community mixed-use/Commercial\" to be consistent with\nthe staff report. Chair Soules seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the\nmotion passed 3-1 with Commissioner Weitze voting against and Commissioner Rentschler being\nabsent.\n6C. Status Report on Transportation - September 2021 (Discussion Item)\nStaff Member Payne gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137023&GUID=F0B7864D-20DE-\n402B-AC24-FFFFC8AF4048.\nRochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator, Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, and\nStaff Member Vance also gave updates on projects.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6C\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked about the repaving and repainting along Buena Vista and if it\nwould include restriping near Maya Lin School. Would they be establishing crosswalks near that\nlocation? She also wanted to know the timeframe for that project.\nStaff Member Vance said the project that just wrapped up was not a resurfacing project so they\ndid not add crosswalks at that time. The next phase would include a designer who would evaluate\naccessible curb ramps, pavement markings, and that is when they would look at that intersection.\nThis will take place sometime next year, in the fall and the winter.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked staff to respond to the public comment who was concerned for\nthat intersection and give them an update on the timing of that project.\nCommissioner Weitze asked for a completion date for the evaluation (bike lane, road diet) of the\nLincoln/Pacific corridor.\nStaff Member Payne discussed how the project had been expanded and that a more comprehensive\nlook had been planned for the corridor. It would now include a larger area and it needed more\nTC Minutes\n7\n9/22/21", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18555, "text": "Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B\nCommissioner Rentschler wanted to know if this was something that should be revisited. He did\nnot want to create friction between modes and have people angry needlessly. He also wanted to\nknow if this didn't work, what was the plan.\nDirector Smith explained how recall was already implemented on Park and Webster currently and\nthat this policy would allow for the implementation of the time of day component, which is the\nfunctional change of this policy. They would only revisit it if they were directed to do so.\nCommissioner Weitze first endorsed Bike Walk Alameda's statement and letter about signal\nimprovements for bikes on Appezzato Parkway; he thought that was way overdue. He explained\nhis concerns with the \"sometimes this and sometimes that\" signals, especially in locations where\nthey are teaching walking signals to children. He thought it should be, you push a button, and then\nit's safe to walk. He worried that having recall different at different times could be confusing and\npossibly dangerous. He was against the time of day recall.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand agreed with Commissioner Weitze's observations and was also\nstruggling with the time of day concept. She thought that having recall all the time along Park and\nWebster would be good. She also wanted to know why the intersection of Park and Otis was left\noff the pedestrian map, she pointed out what a busy pedestrian intersection that was. Other than\nthat she was supportive of the staff recommendation.\nDirector Smith explained what decisions and criteria had gone into the pedestrian map.\n*Commissioner Rentschler had to leave the meeting. He had originally made a motion to approve\nthis resolution but since he had to leave Commissioner Kohlstrand made the motion instead.\nChair Soules appreciated the red-line and she liked the time of day technology. She discussed how\nif the lights were not timed right, you would see drivers trying to \"beat the light\". She also believed\nthis would allow balance for the different modes better. She also pointed out that the data would\nallow them to make adjustments to make this work better. She also agreed with and endorsed\nCommissioner Kohlstrand's clarification.\nVice Chair Yuen endorsed this policy and felt that she better understood it after the revisions. She\nagreed that the policy was nuanced, adaptive, and could balance everyone's needs. She discussed\nwhy some people were hesitant to support push buttons.\nTC Minutes\n6\n9/22/21", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18554, "text": "Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6B\nCommissioner Rentschler wanted staff to be able to maximize use of available tools for optimizing\nsignal timing. He also made note that despite the City's goal for mode shift, most people currently\ndrive. He understood there was pressure on Public Works to reach the mode shift goals but he was\nopposed to creating needless wait time for drivers as a means to get there. He believed that actuated\npedestrian signal use was most efficient. He discussed other ways they could improve the system\nas it was now.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand generally agreed with the revisions that had been made. She then asked\nfor a clarification on the wording in the redline resolution.\nDirector Smith clarified that the staff report and the presentation were correct, and that the intent\nis to use land use designation for community/commercial She apologized for the mistake and\nnoted that the resolution would be updated for Council's consideration.\nPublic Comments for #6B\nAlexis Kreig strongly opposed prioritizing cars' convenience over allowing pedestrians to be able\nto cross when the light is green. She thought that since it was car emissions that were causing the\nclimate crisis it was unconscionable to be prioritizing driver convenience over pedestrian safety\nand access.\nJim Strehlow highly commended the rewording of this resolution and thought it was very\nworkable. He also endorsed Commissioner Rentschler's words as well and appreciated the work\ndone by Russ Thompson.\nDenyse Trepanier, Board President for Bike Walk Alameda, wanted to have a larger conversation\nabout how they would want their intersections to behave since there were so many competing\nvoices. She thought that they had already established in the Vision Zero plan that they would not\nprioritize driver convenience so she was surprised to see that as a priority in this policy. She was\nnot opposed to this policy but believed it did not get to the conversation they should be having.\nTC Minutes\n5\n9/22/21", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18553, "text": "Crossing that the rest of the project would not fizzle. What planning and forethought had been\ngiven to funding and future support.\nMr. Evans wasn't sure if there was a great answer other than planning for the years ahead and\nraising expectations, which they were doing. He discussed the other agencies that were involved\nand believed this was a Golden Age in rail improvement. Each improvement would inspire people\nand groups to want the next one.\nCommissioner Randy Rentschler wanted to know if there was any other city that had the same\npotential as Alameda to get another potential station.\nMr. Evans stated the reasons why Alameda was a good choice.\nPublic Comments for #6A\nJim Strehlow discussed how he liked the studies that showed the differences between East and\nWest Bay. He then discussed his history of living and working in the Bay Area and how\ntransportation and commuting around was difficult and that sometimes a personal vehicle was the\nbest option.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A\nCommissioner Kohlstrand discussed some of the limitations for high-speed rail in the area, the\nmain one being no dedicated funding source. For this project, she believed everyone in Northern\nCalifornia needed to come together to identify how to get these things done. Also, they would need\nto work with the federal government for potential funding.\n6B. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Signalized\nIntersection Equity Policy (Action Item)\nErin Smith, Public Works Director, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report\nand attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137022&GUID=61E66B31-15AE-\n49F5-A8F2-793575E7CCDE&FullText=1.\nDirector Smith introduced Russ Thompson, Interim City Engineer, Robert Vance, Public Works\nSenior Engineer, and Ryan Dole, a Transportation Engineer with Kimley Horn who were available\nfor questions and input.\nTC Minutes\n4\n9/22/21", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18552, "text": "Commissioner Weitze wanted to know how this project would be different from the High-Speed\nRail project that California had been developing, which in his opinion had been a disaster. He\nwanted to know what lessons they had learned from that project. He also wanted to know how\nmuch faster this would be if they just focused on one thing and then worried about the connections.\nMr. Evans said they had learned a lot from that situation. He explained how and why this project\nwas different. He saw their analysis as using existing highly functional systems and making\nimprovements to these existing systems. He then explained what their findings had discovered, to\nserve the megaregion this project would likely start in the inner Bay Area but it would still serve\nthe larger area.\nVice Chair Yuen wanted to know more about potential impacts to the City of Alameda, such as\npotential service stops. She also wanted to know what information they should be gathering about\npotential stops and the best way to share that information.\nMr. Evans said they would rely on the involvement of city staff and this commission to know\nwhere they thought service stops should be. Then they could match that up with their findings.\nStaff Member Payne discussed the work and research staff had done to best locate and decide on\npotential service stops. She discussed other ways they could gather information and was open to\nother suggestions.\nMs. Franklin discussed the community engagement that BART had done to better understand\nservice needs and aspirations. She would alert staff about their next survey and would share those\nfindings.\nChair Soules brought up the RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) and the changing\npopulation that would be happening and wanted to make sure those demographic changes were\ncaptured.\nMr. Evans discussed how the Transbay Crossing was the centerpiece of this project and how this\nproject would enable so much more. It was not just a way to get to and from San Francisco and he\nfurther discussed how this would serve different needs.\nChair Soules appreciated the big bold vision and was happy to see the outer communities\nconsidered. She wanted to know what assurances they had that once they had the Transbay\nTC Minutes\n3\n9/22/21", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18551, "text": "Wood, 9th, and Buena Vista. She added that it was hard to cross there and that cars drove by\nwithout stopping and at high speeds.\nJill Staten discussed the slow street on Versailles and thought that this street was not well chosen\nfor the program. She explained the many issues with the traffic that she had noted and that drivers\nwould become frustrated.\n5. Consent Calendar\n5A. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, July 28, 2021\n(Action Item)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137020&GUID=EE3E1FEB-85D0-\n3AF-985C-5744F51CD6B4&FullText=1.\nGail Payne, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, corrected that Commissioner Hans had been\npresent at the meeting.\nCommissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the minutes with the correction and\nChair Soules seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 4-\n0, Vice-Chair Yuen abstained since she had been absent at the meeting.\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Discuss Link21: New Regional Rail/Transbay Rail Crossing Project Update\n(Discussion Item)\nStaff Member Payne introduced Nicole Franklin with BART and Alex Evans of HNTB who gave\nthe presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137021&GUID=8186601E-EB9D-\n4ED2-8402-B67366E4B6C5&FullText=1\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A\nCommissioner Kohlstrand wanted more information on the vehicle types that would be used. She\nwanted to know how the technology would link together and what would need to be electrified.\nMr. Evans explained about the new generation electric vehicles they were working on and how\nCaltrans would adopt that technology. He explained what was being electrified and what systems\ncould use both diesel and electricity.\nTC Minutes\n2\n9/22/21", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18550, "text": "Minutes\nTransportation Commission Meeting\nWednesday, September 22, 2021\nTime:\n6:30 p.m.\nLocation:\nDue to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners were\nable to attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom.\nCity Hall was NOT open to the public during the meeting.\nLegistar Link:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811336&GUID=3E8F230B-9CBC-47B0-\n8633-082B444CD1D6&Options=info/&Search=.\n1. Roll Call\nPresent: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Yuen and Commissioners Kohlstrand*, Weitze*, Rentschler.\nAbsent: Commissioner Michael Hans and Alysha Nachtigall.\n*Kohlstrand and Weitze arrived after the initial roll call.\n2. Agenda Changes\nChair Samantha Soules said they would delay item 5 until they had a quorum.\n3.\nStaff Communications are as shown in the web link here:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137019&GUID=B567D985-136F-\n4FC9-B85D-073F5DCFEFDC&FullText=1.\n4. Announcements / Public Comments\nChair Soules thanked Vice Chair Tina Yuen for stepping into the role of Vice Chair. She then\nexpressed her deepest condolences to the family of the man who was killed recently in a traffic\nfatality on Fernside. She discussed the important work that staff was doing with the Vision Zero\nPlan.\nHannah Green expressed her safety concerns about crossing the street on Buena Vista with her\nchildren near Chapin Street. She asked that crosswalks be painted at the intersection of Chapin,\nTC Minutes\n1\n9/22/21", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18549, "text": "SSHRB, Minutes - Regular Meeting, March 23, 2006\nPage 4\nM/S (Hollinger-Jackson/Hanna) to send a report to the Council supporting the staff recommendations\nwas approved 4/0.\n3.B.\nRECOMMENDATION TO CO-SPONSOR THE ALAMEDA SERVICES\nCOLLABORATIVE APRIL MEETING Staff explained this luncheon event organized by the Red\nCross and typically co-sponsored by the SSHRB. The April meeting will be on the topic of mental\nillness and in conjunction with the Youth Collaborative's monthly meeting. M/S to co-sponsor the\nApril ASC Meeting (DH/RB) was approved 4/0.\n3.C. WORK GROUP PROGRESS REPORTS\nAlamedans Together Against Hate: Hanna reported that the Work Group met last week and is meeting\nagain next week to continue working on its mission and work program. Hollinger-Jackson said the No\nRoom for Hate stickers handed out at the Lunar New Year Festival got a great response and it would\nbe good to get pins or flags that would be more lasting. Staff will look into costs. Hanna reported he is\nworking with Jim Franz and the Fourth of July Parade Committee on the trolley.\nAssessment and Awareness Work Group: Bonta reported they are still working on the Needs\nAssessment and that after the next meeting they will be ready to circulate a draft for Board review.\nFamily Services Work Group: Reporting for Wasko, staff stated the Work Group met last week and\nprimarily discussed the Festival of Families coming up on May 13. There are good early sign-ups from\nCBOs; Jody Moore of the Commission for Disability Issues spoke at the last meeting about her idea\nfor a socialization group for special needs children and their families.\nSister City Work Group: Reporting for Chen, staff stated they are still waiting for a date from the\nMayor to schedule the trip to Wuxi.\n4.\nBOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nBonta announced he will attend a hearing on quality preschool and childcare to be held next week.\nStafff reminded that work group accomplishments and work programs are due April 17 to prepare a\nreport for the joint session with Council.\nDennis announced he is resigning from the Board due to time constraints and feeling that there are\nmany people who will be able to carry out the Board's mission. He plans to stay on until the end of\nMay, 2006.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS None.\n6.\nADJOURNMENT President Bonta adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCarol Beaver, Secretary\nCB:sb\nG:SSHRB\\Packets/2006\\March2006\\Minutes.doc\nPackets 2006", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18548, "text": "SSHRB, Minutes - Regular Meeting, March 23, 2006\nPage 3\ntechniques. Two years ago Berkeley and Oakland programs merged. Between the two agencies, 30,000\nhave been trained. This proposal will build capacity in City of Alameda through volunteer training.\nNot a legal organization, they don't provide legal advice, but create a positive environment to get\npeople talking and working together. He urged support of the staff recommendations.\nIn response to Dome's question, Escobar stated there is outreach and recruitment to targeted\ncommunities; it is a stepping stone for people who want to be mediators professionally. They' ve had a\nbig influx of people who want to be mediators so have to be selective. They work with City agencies,\npolice department, council members, planning and other managers and some court referrals. They try\nto get people into mediation before they get to court.\nIn response to Bonta's questions, Escobar stated the top 3 issues are family concerns (e.g. retooling\ncustody, elder care, parent/teen disputes); landlord/tenant concerns (but they refer to legal resources if\neviction involved) and small business and workplace disputes. They have a sliding scale fee, but no\none is turned away. Landlord/Tenant fees are $40 for each side (if they can) and business/commercial\nis $80 session. The process starts with listening, counseling, coaching for a specific situation of one\ncaller. If both parties are willing, set up convenient time to meet with team of mediators who find out\nissues, facilitate discussion and empower them to resolve their own conflicts.\nIn response to Hollinger-Jackson's questions, Escobar noted there is a huge need for translators, mostly\nSpanish speaking and that they are recruiting low-income/under-employed Alamedans to train and\npractice on the job, transfer skills into their own lives.\nIn response to Hanna's question, Escobar stated their offices are at Preservation Park in Oakland and\nthey are looking for places in Alameda where they can conduct mediations.\nIn response to Dome's question, Wright stated that the performance goals in the chart are from the first\ntwo quarters of FY 2005-06. Programs that have met more than 100% of goals already are ones that\nsign all their members up at the beginning of the grant period.\nHanna commented that the process looks like a lot of work and the distribution appears to be fair.\nHollinger-Jackson stated it is very clear, consistent with our recommendations re: needs. Bonta asked\nabout \"approved for funding\" in non-public service categories and Wright explained that Technical\nAssistance helps the agencies that provide services to the community and it has been broadened to\nserve a number of agencies. She noted that the East Bay Mediation program is seen as a one-time/one-\nyear investment to build a cadre of volunteers in the community. Money may not be available next\nyear. She noted that even though one-time funding, will they be able to do it because people they train\nwill stay in their volunteer base.\nBonta noted that the first 3 SSHRB priorities are clearly being met but the fourth is somewhat usual\nand is there anything that speaks to this priority. Wright noted that the chart in packet shows focus\nareas covered by each proposal.\nBonta stated that the report to the Council should recognize the fact that we were able to accommodate\nthe requests that were made. Hollinger-Jackson stated there should be a comment re: support for the\none-time funding for EBCMS and that there should something said about the focus areas. Bonta will\nreview and sign the letter but can't be at the meeting on the 18th Hollinger-Jackson will attend on\nbehalf of the Board.", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18547, "text": "SSHRB, Minutes - Regular Meeting, March 23, 2006\nPage 2\nprovided in past and that additional money would have funded additional FVLC staff to work in APD\nand that other resources will be sought for this position.\nBonta noted that the Food Bank requested more money and that they had received a allocation to\npurchase a modular unit earlier this year.\nBonta noted that 3 organizations were not recommended for funding and that their scores are lower. In\nresponse to his question, Wright stated that the main reason is lack of funding and that existing\ncontracts covering services are already in place and would have to be de-funded. ACAP has other\nresources to operate their program; the Goodwill program has a high price tag, they too have other\nresources and the City already funds other homeless services.\nWright further stated that although not recommended for funding, BAIRS gets an \"honorable\nmention.\" The concept is good, but there are confluence of issues affecting the city, such as federal\nrequirements re: handling of translation and services to limited English speaking populations. BAIRS\nreceived a lower score on capacity to deliver the services. They think BAIRS is good candidate for\ntechnical assistance to see if we can get the Director certified to provide the services.\nJim Franz, Red Cross Bay Area, thanked the Board for supporting reprogrammed funds earlier in the\nyear and noted that so far only $2,500 has been disbursed because of mild weather, but recently there\nhas been a spike in calls. He hopes the Board will approve the recommendations of staff that support\nsafety net services, not just the ARC but the Food Bank as well. He noted a plan to increase ASC\nmeetings from 3 to 5 per year to bring agencies and providers together, knowing there will be tighter\ntimes in the future, and collecting referral sheets from each agency and working with the libraries to\nget that information out in the west end.\nCheri Allison, Family Violence Law Center Executive Director asked the Board to approve the\nrecommendations of staff. FVLC has provided services in Alameda for at least 6 years, including\ndomestic violence (DV) counseling, accompanying women and children to court and helping with\nrestraining orders. They have been trying to get a DV advocate stationed in APD. The number of\npeople they're able to help goes up astronomically. When they can they send a staff attorney to court\non DV day (Friday) to assist the court in counseling people who don't have representation. Recently\nthey entered into an operational agreement with Building Futures with Women and Children to\nconduct DV restraining order clinics at APC. They have an Active Board of Directors and are working\non a five-year strategic plan, including sustainability strategies. A recent fundraiser netted $51,000.\nIn response to Hollinger-Jackson's questions, Allison responded that they connect with women\nneeding FVLC services through trainings, referral cards given to victims by the police and other\nreferring agencies, and through another program in Oakland, not funded by Alameda, that assists APD\nin placing vicitims after hours.\nIn response to Bonta's question, Allison stated that they attend the Alameda court and that they have 6\nstaff attorneys, 2 of whom are Spanish speaking and also volunteer attorneys who mostly work on\nlong-term and/or complicated cases. They go though a DV training course and are screened by\nAlameda County Women's Bar Association.\nShar Escobar, East Bay Community Mediation, stated they train people to become community\npeacemakers by giving them basic communication skills, and problem solving and dispute resolution", "pages_fts": 13448, "rank": null}