rowid,text,pages_fts,rank
18746,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 3, 2012--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam, and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Johnson arrived at 6:02 p.m. and Vice
Mayor Bonta arrived at 6:07 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(12-349) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Pursuant to
subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9) Number of Cases: One. Not heard.
(12-350) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:
SCC Alameda Point, LLC, et al V. City of Alameda, et al.; U.S. District Court Case No
CV-10-5178; this is to discuss strategy regarding a lawsuit brought by our former
developer, SunCal, based on the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that regarding Existing Litigation, the Council gave direction to staff.
Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 7:10 p.m. to hold the regular meeting and reconvened
the closed session at 10:24 p.m.
(12-351) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency Negotiators:
Councilmembers deHaan and Johnson; Unrepresented Employee: City Clerk;
Anticipated Issues: All (Wages, Hours, Benefits, and Working Conditions)
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that regarding Labor, the Council gave direction to the negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2012",13803,
18745,"help with budget challenges.
The City Manager commended staff for the team effort to obtain the grants.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
July 3, 2012",13803,
18744,"CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(12-372) The City Manager complimented the Council for tonight.
Mayor Gilmore stated the certified Housing Element should be framed.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(12-373) Councilmember deHaan discussed the Staffing For Adequate Fire and
Emergency Response (SAFER) grant, fire boats, and salt water pumps; inquired if the
SAFER grant would give us two more years.
The Assistant City Manager responded the current grant would expire on September
10th; the grant is for two and half years from September 10th
Councilmember deHaan thanked the Assistant City Manager for the information.
Councilmember deHaan inquired about the fire boat grant from Homeland Security.
The Assistant City Manager responded the City received a security grant from
Homeland Security.
The City Manager stated the estimate is the City would be required to pay 25% match.
Councilmember deHaan inquired if the boat cost $1/2 million, to which the City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired about securing a homeland security grant for salt
water pumps.
The City Manager responded salt water pumps have been addressed; $1/2 million per
pump; the City needs 24 pumps which would cost $12 million; a report on the matter
would come to the Council before the year is over.
Vice Major Bonta inquired whether the fireboat has fire pumping capabilities, to which
the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Major Bonta stated the grants are great examples of leveraging outside funding to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
July 3, 2012",13803,
18743,"The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why the term is only five years.
The City Manager responded the City does not want to tie the building down for more
than five years.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is surprised the renewal is only five years, since
the company is very successful and has been at Alameda Point for a very long period of
time.
The City Manager stated the tenant is very happy with the lease.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired the length of the prior lease and number of renewals, to
which the Economic Development Division Manager responded the tenant has been at
Alameda Point since 1998 and has had multiple renewals.
Councilmember deHaan stated their initial lease was around 8 to 10 years.
Councilmember Johnson moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(12-371) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease with
American Bus Repair LLC, Doing Business As Coach Specialties, for Two Years in a
Portion of Building 24 at Alameda Point, 2301 Monarch Street. Introduced.
The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Johnson moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Johnson inquired why the renewal is only for two years, to which the
Economic Development Division Manager responded the tenant is occupying one of
three bays in Building 24; stated another Building 24 tenant, Rockwall Winery, would
like to expand.
Councilmember Johnson inquired if staff is looking for another facility for American Bus,
to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff should be able to
work out something to help everybody expand and create more jobs.
Councilmember Johnson moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
-
5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
July 3, 2012",13803,
18742,"Councilmember Tam inquired whether there was opposition at the Planning Board
meetings.
The Planning Services Manager responded there has been very little opposition
throughout the process.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the configuration is different, but regardless
the City still needs to zone to allow the required number of housing units.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the previous
Housing Element for approximately 2,000 housing units was never fully certified by the
State because only one type of housing, single family residential, was included; a full
range of housing types, including the multifamily rental, is included in the proposed
Housing Element; the number of units is 2,400 because the City was not successful in
getting the last round certified; the Housing Element has to be certified before the
statutory deadline because if not, the City will be penalized.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the City's obligation to do an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR).
The Planning Services Manager responded an environmental assessment was done;
the 2008 Transportation Element data was used, which reviewed transportation impacts
from building 5,000 housing units Citywide over a 20 year period; the 2003
environmental document for the last Housing Element was also used; every project
would still require environmental and design review, and discretionary approval from
Planning Board.
Councilmember deHaan inquired about the Chinatown agreement.
The Planning Services Manager replied there is no relationship; stated the agreement
only relates to Alameda Point.
Mayor Gilmore stated the City has not had a certified Housing Element during her time
on the Planning Board and Council; the issue involves economic and social justice;
providing housing for range of different families with different housing types is important.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Bonta, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Abstention:
Councilmember deHaan - 1.
(12-370) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease with
Delphi Productions, Inc. for Five Years in Building 39 at Alameda Point, 950 West
Tower Avenue. Introduced.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
July 3, 2012",13803,
18741,"Planning Services Manager responded in the negative, stated the Collins project has
been approved, but not built due to the economy.
Councilmember deHaan stated the amount is being increased to 48 units, which is a
quantum step above 29 units.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's request, the Housing Development and
Programs Manager briefly discussed affordable housing.
Councilmember Tam inquired about affordable housing funding.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated Assembly Bill (AB) 1484 was
signed into law on Friday to clean up to AB26; provisions provide a bit of affordable
housing relief; a document transfer tax passed the Senate, but is not out of the
Assembly; hopefully the bill will create a permanent funding source for affordable
housing and replace redevelopment funds.
Councilmember Johnson requested a review of the extensive opportunity for public
input.
The City Manager noted tonight is the fourth public hearing since December.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
July 3, 2012",13803,
18740,"issue is housing type and density; the same sites can be used for the next round if the
sites are still available.
The City Manager reiterated the sites identified today, unless built out, remain available
again for the next round.
Mayor Gilmore stated the City has gone through the Housing Element process many
times; identified sites might not be built; given the economy, all of the sites are probably
still going to be available in the next cycle.
The City Manager stated projects have to go through the standard regulatory process to
examine impacts, mitigation, CEQA analysis on some level. This all still has to happen
on any given project, so the approval tonight is for the Housing Element General Plan, it
does not dispose of any specific project on any specific site, nor does it preclude the
City from identifying these sites again in 2015, which will have a lower number
apparently than in this particular housing element based on the earlier numbers.
*
Following Corinne Lambden's comments, Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:26 p.m.
and returned at 9:32 p.m.
Vice Mayor Bonta moved adoption of the resolution and introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired the last time the City had a certified Housing Element, to
which the Planning Services Manager responded the 1990 Housing Element.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether Measure A still exists in the City no matter what the
Council does tonight.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative, stated the Housing Element is consistent
with State law requirements and does not eliminate Measure A.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated the City should be compliant with the State laws in order to
eligible for transportation funding; the Housing Element is the right thing to do from a
social and economic justice perspective, housing options should be provided for the
entire population, including affordable housing.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion.
Councilmember Tam stated the Housing Element is about Alameda planning for a
sustainable future that preserves open space and provides a mix of housing to support
the needs of working families; control over planning, including Measure A, is being
preserved within the City instead of being taken over by the courts like other cities;
noted the City has to start again in two years.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 3, 2012",13803,
18739,"Councilmember deHaan inquired how many stories tall are Summer Homes, to which
the Planning Services Manager responded four stories.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's further inquiry regarding Summer Homes, the
Planning Services Manager stated the density is low because the site is huge; a four
story building on Santa Clara has lower density.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Alameda Point is excluded from the Housing
Element.
The Planning Services Manager responded Alameda Point is not addressed because
State law penalizes cities that do not make land available during the period.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many homes could be built, to which the Planning
Services Manager responded 2,400 units total.
The City Manager stated the City is not committed to building or developing the units;
the City is committed to making the sites available; the seven year Housing Element is
five years late.
Councilmember Johnson stated getting a certified Housing Element is important;
inquired how certain is staff that State law trumps the Charter.
The City Attorney stated the matter is of State-wide, not municipal concern; therefor
State law trumps the City.
The City Manager stated the State can condition money on General Plan and Housing
Element compliance; the State legislature is placing strings on its money.
Councilmember Johnson stated she has no doubt that the State would do so.
Urged the Housing Element be approved: Darin Lounds, Executive Director of the
Housing Consortium of the East Bay and Board President of East Bay Housing
Organizations; Diane Lichenstein, HOMES; Patricia Burke; Marylin Ezzy Ashcraft, Laura
Thomas, President, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates; Austin Tam; Lynette Lee,
Renewed Hope and Buena Vista Methodist Church; Deni Adaniya; Amie Fishman,
Executive Director, East Bay Housing Association; David de la Torre, Gene Oh, Chair,
Buena Vista Community Institute, and owner of Alameda Bicycle; William Smith, Vice
President, Renewed Hope; Alan Pryor.
Urged the Housing Element not be approved: Angela Fawcett, Park Webster
Homeowner Association; Ken Petersen; Darcy Morrison.
In response to the City Manager's request, the Planning Services Manager stated the
City has to show sites for its regional fair share requirement of 2,400 units; the amount
of land and number of units shown in prior Housing Elements is not increasing; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
July 3, 2012",13803,
18738,"Housing parcel is east of Main Street across from the Base; stated there are 282
boarded-up units previously occupied by the Coast Guard.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether or not the Agreement would provide any
financial stream for basic City services, to which the Housing Development Program
Manager responded the accommodation is intended to be a 90-unit project that would
provide permanent affordable housing to formerly homeless people.
Urged approval of the staff recommendation: Doug Biggs, Executive Director of
Alameda Point Collaborative.
Vice Mayor Bonta moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
(12-369) Resolution No. 14718, ""Approving Amendments to the Housing Element of the
General Plan."" Adopted; and
(12-369 A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30
Development Regulations to Ensure Consistency between the Alameda Municipal
Code, the Alameda General Plan, and State of California Government Code Pertaining
to the Regulation of Housing Development. Introduced.
The Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Gilmore stated the pictures are very helpful.
Councilmember deHaan stated the big elephant in the room is Measure A, and inquired
the Housing Element coincides with the Charter.
The Planning Services Manager responded the situation is similar to the density bonus
ordinance; stated federal law generally trumps State law and State law generally trumps
local law if there is conflict; the State says cities have to provide housing and cannot
have a local ordinance prohibiting housing. State law does not say there is a problem
with Measure A zoning; every city in California has something like Measure A; State law
is saying Measure A cannot apply to the entire City; multifamily residential zoning has to
be permitted in areas; just enough has been provided to meet the regional obligation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the State is dictating Measure A would be
trumped by the Housing Element.
The Planning Services Manager responded just as with State density bonus, the City
has to adopt an ordinance providing a certain amount of affordable housing, which
waives Measure A.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
July 3, 2012",13803,
18737,"Urged consideration of previous ideas for use of the Beltline property: Jim Sweeney,
Alameda; Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; and Aaron Thies, Alameda.
The City Manager stated decisions regarding open space have been made; the Beltline,
would be brought to the Recreation and Park Commission for a discussion; California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review would be needed; accepting the report does
not endorse details.
Vice Mayor Bonta moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated acceptance should include following
the spirit of Jean Sweeney's ballot measure regarding open space.
The City Manager stated Jean Sweeney elaborated on different designs, including BMX
trails and pools; Mrs. Sweeney clearly wanted a lot of open space, which is probably the
direction the City will follow; a healthy vigorous debate should be informed and inspired
by what Jean Sweeney did; everyone is thankful for all she did.
Mayor Gilmore stated the motion was to accept the staff recommendation.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(12-368) Recommendation to Approve an Amended and Restated Legally Binding
Agreement (LBA) Between the City of Alameda, Housing Authority of the City of
Alameda, Alameda Point Collaborative and Building Futures with Women and Children
for a Homeless Accommodation at the North Housing Parcel.
The Housing Development Program Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the City's environmental liability issues have
changed, to which the Housing Development Program Manager responded in the
negative; stated the City retained the provision that requires environmental insurance be
secured at a reasonable cost prior to taking title; if the City is unable to do so, there is
no obligation or requirement to accept title.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the City taking title is necessary, to which the
Housing Development Program Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the
homeless accommodation title goes from the Navy to the local Reuse Authority and
then on to the homeless service providers; transfer is simultaneous, the City would own
the property for an instant.
Councilmember deHaan inquired where the North Housing Parcel is located.
The Housing Development Program Manager responded the location of the North
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
July 3, 2012",13803,
18736,"inquired whether the need for quality softball facilities was addressed.
Ms. Gates stated the recommendation is one 90 foot diamond filed and three 60 foot
diamond fields are needed; one 60 foot diamond filed could be dedicated to softball.
Councilmember Johnson requested staff to ensure there is at least one quality facility
for the girls.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 3, 2012",13803,
18735,"incorporated.
Ms. Gates responded standards are set for the number of fields; Stated the plan shows
how many fields can be accomplished at different sites; the Recreation and Parks
Department wants to continue to work with the School District to meet needs, yet not be
dependent on each other; standards are the most important thing.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why certain fields are not available in the equation.
Ms. Gates responded the guidelines show the ratios used to determine hours of play
needed; the ratios are adapted for types of fields; and public and private facilities and
hours of play can be pro-rated.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether regional needs were considered.
Ms. Gates responded in the affirmative, stated staff talked to the East Bay Regional
Park District about Alameda Point meeting the need for trails and open space; the
location has challenges because of lease agreements and tideland trust; however, there
are multiple ways to close gaps.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the use of the swimming pool at the Base is
too expensive to consider.
Ms. Gates responded in the affirmative; stated School pools were also too expensive.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the Base pool was worthwhile keeping for
other recreational uses.
Ms. Gates responded there are opportunities for public private partnerships with
revenue generation.
The Recreation and Park Director stated staff is working with an organization called
Ramprats; the group is getting an inspection to determine the feasibility of using the
pool for a skate and BMX facility.
Ms. Gates noted there are challenges in putting active recreation in tideland trust land;
however, existing structures can be reused.
Councilmember Johnson inquired staff is recommending moving the Teen Center out of
the Veterans building, which is not an ideal space.
Ms. Gates responded in the affirmative, stated renovation does not make sense due to
cost.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired if analysis was done regarding the possibility of hosting
tournaments.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
July 3, 2012",13803,
18734,"(*12-358) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,115,712.05.
(*12-359) Recommendation to Approve an Additional Advance and Modification
Agreement for the Alameda Islander Motel Project Adding $120,000, for a Total HOME
Loan Amount of $1.42 Million and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the
Agreement and Related Documents. Accepted.
(*12-360) Recommendation to Approve the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners'
Recommendation that the Islander Motel be Renamed ""The Park Alameda Apartments.""
Accepted.
(*12-361) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $246,500, Including
Contingencies, to Engineered Soil Repairs, Inc. for Walnut Street Seawall Repair, No.
P.W. 01-12-02. Accepted.
(*12-362) Resolution No. 14714, ""To Approve an Agreement with the Alameda County
Flood Control Water Conservation District Providing for Implementation of the Alameda
Countywide Clean Water Program and Authorize the City Manager to Execute all
Required Documents."" Adopted.
(*12-363) Resolution No. 14715, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Renew an Agreement
with Carducci Landscape Architects to Provide the Design and Project Management
Services for the Renovation of Krusi Park, in an Amount Not to Exceed $320, 188.'
Adopted.
(*12-364) Resolution No. 14716, ""Declaring the Canvass of Returns and Results of the
Consolidated Special Municipal Election Held on Tuesday, June 5, 2012."" Adopted.
(*12-365) Ordinance No. 3050, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending
Article Il (Boards And Commissions) of Chapter Il (Administration) and by Amending
Section 2-12.2(A) to Revise the Membership of the Recreation and Park Commission.""
Finally passed.
(*12-366) Ordinance No. 3051, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding
Section 2-67 Relating to Prevailing Wages."" Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(12-367) Resolution No. 14717, ""Accepting Parks Master Plan and Technical Studies for
Urban Greening Plan."" Adopted.
Linda Gates, Gates & Associates, gave a Power Point presentation about Parks Master
Plan
Councilmember deHaan inquired how School District assets and playing fields are
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 3, 2012",13803,
18733,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 3, 2012--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:16 p.m. Councilmember deHaan led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam, and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(12-352) Presentation of Certificates of Service to Harry Dahlberg, Economic
Development Commission; Peter Holmes, Public Utilities Board; and Kathy Moehring,
Transportation Commission.
Mayor Gilmore presented certificates to Mr. Holmes and Ms. Moehring.
(12-353) Proclamation Recognizing the City's Antique Fire Apparatus Volunteers.
The presentation was postponed, recipients were not in attendance
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(12-354) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, made an announcement regarding an
upcoming blood drive. with American Red Cross on the 21st of July.
(12-355) Ken Peterson, Alameda, discussed budget shortfalls.
(12-356) Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda, did not speak.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*12-357) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings Held on May 29, 2012; the
Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on June 6, 2012, and the Special City
Council Meeting Held on June 12, 2012. Approved.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
July 3, 2012",13803,
18732,"Staff Member Sablan was aware of the property, and noted that the property has a pending
Code Enforcement case. He discussed its history and what could be the next steps. They
would need to involve the City Attorney's Office and the Building Official.
Board Member Witt discussed a similar property near Webster.
There was a discussion that these large empty homes could accommodate many units
that could help with housing needs.
Vice-Chair Jones noted that the City of Alameda has started a process to rename parks.
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Member Sablan gave a status update on the CLG (Certified Local Government)
Report.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 7:38 pm.
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2022
Page 4 of 4",13803,
18731,"Henry Dong, Planner III, also discussed the records the City had on file, including a DPR-
523 form that documented the historical character of the primary house. The accessory
structure was not described as one of the character-defining features of the property.
Chair Saxby opened public comment.
There were no public speakers.
Chair Saxby closed public comment and opened board discussion.
Chair Saxby believed that accessory structures can add some integrity to a site but in this
case, it appeared to be altered too many times from its original design. He was leaning
toward approval.
Board Member Sanchez agreed especially since it was not mentioned in the original
property survey documentation. Also, he noted that the structure was not a street-facing
structure or had any visual impact on the character of the home or the neighborhood. He
was also leaning toward approval.
Vice-Chair Jones noted that the building is one of the more visually appealing accessory
structures that had come before the board and that it had a lot of charm. She discussed
the criteria they looked at when discussing the demolition of accessory structures.
However, she was also leaning toward allowing the demolition due to the issues
mentioned.
Board Member Alvin Lau wanted to know more about the plans for the space after the
demolition.
Ms. Herrera said there were no plans for a new additional structure. They would be adding
some landscaping and a fence.
Sarah Rodebaugh, Interior Designer of Henry & Mae, representing the applicant,
discussed how the owners had tried to save the structure.
Chair Saxby made a motion to approve the demolition of the accessory structure
and Vice-Chair Jones seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands
and the motion passed 5-0.
8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Saxby discussed an ""eyesore"", an incredible historic property at 1617 Central Ave.
It was abandoned and some work had started on it but had stopped. He wanted to know
what the City could do to help this historic property.
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2022
Page 3 of 4",13803,
18730,"None
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2022-1713
PLN21-0497 - 2986 Northwood Drive - Certificate of Approval - Applicant: Lauren
Herrera. Public hearing to consider a Certificate of Approval application to allow the
demolition of an accessory structure built prior to 1942 located in the rear yard of a
property that is on the City's Historical Building Study List with an ""S"" designation. This
project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(I)(4) - Demolition and Removal of Individual Small
Structures.
David Sablan, Planner II, introduced this item and gave a brief presentation. The staff
report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5397043&GUID=4A9848CD-
B5D2-4631-BFA4-48259EA86847&FullText=
Chair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.
Chair Saxby wanted clarification on the noted flooding at the accessory structure.
Lauren Herrera, the applicant, discussed the problems she had been experiencing at the
location.
Board Member Sanchez asked what options a future homeowner would have if they
wanted to build an accessory structure.
Staff Member Sablan discussed the options for a future homeowner, a new accessory
structure would be possible.
Vice-Chair Lynn Jones wanted to know how the structure had been modified over the
years and whether the windows were original.
Ms. Herrera clarified that the windows, doors, and siding were not original. It had been
modified over the years and the interior had been gutted due to mold.
Board Member Sanchez asked about the history of the structure and wanted to know if
the structure originally had a gambrel roof.
Staff Member Sablan answered the City only had a 1979 photo.
Ms. Herrera discussed the permit history of the building.
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2022
Page 2 of 4",13803,
18729,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2022
1. CONVENE
Chair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Historical
Advisory Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.
Absent: None.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2022-1714
Historical Advisory Board Draft Meeting Minutes, November 4, 2021
Board Member Norman Sanchez clarified Chair Saxby's comment should have been
""undergrounding"".
Board Member Jen Wit made a motion to approve the minutes with this correction
and Board Member Sanchez seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of
hands and the motion passed 5-0.
3-B 2022-1715
Historical Advisory Board Draft Meeting Minutes - December 2, 2021
Chair Saxby felt that the Public Comment made by Betsy Mathieson for the 7-C Agenda
item was oversimplified and had not accurately captured her thoughts. He wanted her
comment clarified and expanded on.
Board Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the minutes with this
correction and Board Member Wit seconded the motions. A vote was taken by a
raise of hands and the motion passed 5-0.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
None
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
None
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Historical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2022
Page 1 of 4",13803,
18728,"None.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",13803,
18727,"The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained the main reason why staff did not
propose any additional waivers or fees. The project team does not yet have enough information on
potential impacts, or what LBNL is proposing, especially in terms of how much money is brought to
the table for infrastructure. There is also no developer on board yet that could advise on the
financial side of the deal. The project team is concerned about giving away too much too soon
because there are still transportation infrastructure burdened out at Alameda Point.
Member Johnson discussed not proposing anything specific, but suggested indicating a catalog of
other incentives the ARRA is open and willing to discuss with LBNL. Member deHaan commented
that owning an electric company is extremely powerful. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services informed the Board that the Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager has
discussed the proposal with the Public Utilities Board. There are mitigateable risks and concerns
about load and usage; AMP has to be careful not to offer discounts on rates that might spike usage.
Staff can be more responsive and can start addressing and negotiating terms if/when the ARRA is
short listed.
Member Johnson commented that there is a risk if a long-term contract for power is given, and the
user goes away, making a comparison to when the Navy closed the base. Fortunately for the City of
Alameda, because of the long-term power contract it had with the Navy, the City had excess power,
which was sold, back to the grid during the power crisis. Member Johnson stated that the LBNL
scenario should not be viewed as risk, but as an opportunity.
Chair Gilmore requested a full report from the AMP General Manager on the electric issue. The
Acting City Manager stated that a report would be presented at the next ARRA meeting on March 2.
Member Johnson motioned to direct staff to prepare and put forth an RFQ for a Developer
for the LBNL project. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-015) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of January 6, 2011 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member deHaan reported that the RAB discussed Building 5 and 5A (Site OU-2C), a 1.5M square
feet complex, to make a determination to bring the site to remediation level. The site was the
center and hub of industrial operation, there was lots of activity causing a major impact to the
environment, including radiation concerns. The Navy has four proposals: 1) take no action, 2)
cement the pipes, 3) tear the building down, and 4) dig and haul. Member deHaan commented that
he is impressed with the dedication of the RAB members and the community, they have depth of
knowledge which they lend as community support and have come up with good recommendations.
The RAB also discussed the conveyance status and the redevelopment planning status. Member
deHaan stated that the Deputy City Manager - Development Services presented the Going
Forward process to the RAB and it was well received. Member deHaan stated that he will not be
able to attend the February 3 RAB meeting due to a scheduling conflict.
Member Johnson also reminded staff and the public not to forget the commitment of the Navy
during the remediation process. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff
would ask the Board for policy direction on the OU-2C site in coming months.
Speaker: Gretchen Lipow
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)",13803,
18726,"Chair Gilmore inquired where the developer's economic incentive would come from. The Deputy
City Manager - Development Services discussed initial ideas, including fee development and
private development to land adjacent, and that it was structured in the RFQ to ask each of
developers to put forth recommendations.
Member Johnson commented that the zero cost idea is worth it to have LBNL at Alameda Point.
Member Johnson stated that the project should have a defined, tight design and review process.
The Planning Services Manager discussed various ways to structure a design and review process
that would give the community assurance of high quality design buildings that would fit within the
design expectations of the city and minimize the time and energy LBNL would have to spend in a
normal design and review process.
Member Tam discussed LBNL's expectation that the ARRA will engage an entity with appropriate
development experience. Member Tam inquired whether LBNL could be part of the developer
evaluation process so that there is an even playing field with everyone else. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services explained that LBNL clearly stated that a developer team was
not required in the initial process but that the project team would check to see if LBNL would like to
weigh in on the evaluation so that the ARRA doesn't end up with a partner that could be of a
disadvantage.
Speakers: Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Seth Hamalian, Phil Owen, Karen Bey, Nancy Hird.
Vice Chair Bonta asked for clarification on the $14M in benefits to the city, inquired about the time
period and the assumptions. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the
$14M is based on an economic impact study done for the second campus, and contemplates 800
jobs in the first phase. The economic development manager stated that the study is based on
facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville, and how much revenue and impacts there were on those
host communities. Since that study was done, the LBNL's conception of the second base initial
phase has grown much larger, as it would be consolidating not just those two facilities, but also the
Oakland & Berkeley facilities. Vice Chair Bonta clarified that the ARRA would be proposing a no-
cost long-term lease and an option to buy at no cost. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services confirmed that when the City receives the land from the Navy, it would then be transferred
to LBNL. The Acting General Counsel explained that the ARRA has a Lease in Furtherance of
Conveyance (LIFOC) so will be providing a sublease, and when title to the property is received, it
will be title going to LBNL.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired whether there is a site that staff determined to be second best, and what
were the drawbacks as compared to the preferred site. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services explained that there are some outstanding leaseholds the project team felt would create
some uncertainty, so the preferred site had the least number of issues. The Planning Services
Manager stated that both sites are great and the ARRA is open to discussing variations of the sites.
Vice Chair Bonta suggested the ARRA be more bold to attract LBNL by offering to provide a menu
of other options and be aggressive in financial incentives and no-cost incentives, AMP discount,
reduced planning fees, and tax rebates. Member Johnson agrees and supports making that part of
the initial proposal so that it is more attractive and highly competitive.
Member Tam inquired if LBNL's existing facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville were able to
generate the $14M tertiary economic benefit from those communities. The Economic Development
manager explained that the analysis by CBRE looked at direct and indirect spending and the
tertiary, multiplier effect of payrolls, of employee spending; including spending in restaurants,
shopping, and sales tax.
The Board discussed the existing amenities on Alameda Point, Webster Street, and Marina Village.",13803,
18725,"Chair Gilmore reminded staff that she has asked for a real estate leasing primer from staff, and
would like this primer before a property manager RFP, because it will inform the RFP. The Deputy
City Manager - Development Services replied that the leasing primer has been put in a draft scope
for an economics firm to help staff put together a presentation. The primer will be done as soon as
there is an economist on board.
The project management team is working with the Federal Government, Veteran's Administration,
on their project as a potential institutional user; as well as with the Alameda Point Collaborative
(APC) and Building Futures for Women and Children, consolidating their facilities to meet their
longer term needs, but on a smaller piece of land. The Public Works department will be
implementing a federal transportation administration grant for transportation improvement and
routes at Alameda Point.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services prepared a budget of the project, which will be
discussed further on 2/15 at the mid year adjustment.
The Planning Services Manager discussed the adopted general plan for Alameda Point.
Member Tam discussed the importance of engaging the school district, East Bay Regional Park
District (EBRPD), Peralta Community College District, as they were not included in the outreach.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that staff will be meeting with the
EBRPD tomorrow, and will include these agencies in the outreach.
Vice Chair Bonta supports moving forward with the Going Forward process, as the plan provides
specificity and focus, with flexibility - an important balance. Member Johnson and Chair Gilmore
also support moving forward. Chair Gilmore emphasized the importance of flexibility. She stated
that the process and plan couldn't be so rigid that opportunities are missed.
Speakers: Doug Biggs, Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Helen Sause, Carol Gottstein, Nancy Hird,
Gretchen Lipow, Karen Bey.
Member deHaan moved to approve endorsing the Alameda Point ""Going Forward"" Process.
Member Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(11-014) Provide Direction on Key Aspects of Response to Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory's Request for Qualifications for a Second Campus at Alameda Point and Approve
Issuance of Request for Qualifications for Developers.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave an overview on the Lawrence Berkeley
National Lab (LBNL) RFQ for a second campus. The interdepartmental team lead by the Deputy
City Manager - Development Services, includes the Public Works Director (Matt Naclerio), Planning
Services Manager (Andrew Thomas), Alameda Municipal Power General Manager (Girish
Balachandran), and Economic Development Manager (Eric Fonstein). The team has prepared the
first draft of the response, identified key aspects and would like policy direction on four key points to
finalize a competitive response: 1) Site Location, 2) Planning Guidelines 3) Financial Incentives 4)
Developer RFQ.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services discussed the Next Steps and timeline for the
decision-making process and selection of development team.",13803,
18724,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:31 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-011) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 2011.
(*11-012) Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 49 Setting the Order of Business of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-013) Endorse ""Going Forward"" Process and Schedule for Alameda Point Redevelopment.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services/project manager, summarized the Going
Forward process. The interdepartmental team includes the Planning Services Manager and Public
Works Director. The Going Forward process is a two-tier process: Tier 1 is developing a vision and
project description for Alameda Point through July 2011 to use as a basis to start the City's
environmental review process (CEQA); and the Navy for their NEPA process in terms of
conveyance. Tier 2 is the Entitlement process from July 2011- - July 2013, which has four major
entitlements: Specific Plan, Master Infrastructure Plan, a Conveyance Agreement, and State Lands
Exchange Agreement. A community-planning workbook was developed and provided online. The
workbook was used to facilitate several community workshops that were held. Staff will prepare a
summary report that will be presented at the March 2 ARRA meeting. A tenant forum is scheduled
next week. The next six months of the Going Forward process will focus on several efforts. The
first and biggest is the Master Planning effort, which will include the project management team and
a team of consultants: land use planning, economics, civil engineering, transportation,
environmental, sustainable infrastructure. There is also a plan to work with ARRA staff and PM
Realty on a long-term leasing strategy to leverage additional funding and create momentum for
longer term leases on buildings that will be remaining, as well as work with the Navy and State
Lands on joint proposed conveyance objectives and principles regarding land conveyance. There
will be a pro forma, and discussion of land value and structuring how the land is transferred from
the Navy.
Member Johnson inquired whether there is an ARRA agreement with PM Realty and the status of
an RFP for a property manager. The Acting City Attorney responded that there is a property
management agreement with PM Realty from 2004. Regarding the status of the RFP for a property
manager, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that an RFP has not been done
yet, but staff will make it a priority as time permits.",13803,
18723,"CITY
OF
of
Minutes of the
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD
January 28, 2010
The special meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 4:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mike Hartigan, President
Gail Wetzork, Board Member
Suzanne Whyte, Board Member
Absent:
Karen Butter, Vice President
Kristy Perkins, Board Member
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Arta Benzie-Youssef, Branch Supervisor
CONSIDERATION/APPROVAL OF PUBLIC ART DESIGNS FOR BAY FARM AND WEST
END BRANCH LIBRARIES
The Alameda Free Library Public Art Team had interviewed artists to design art pieces for both
the West End and Bay Farm Island branch libraries. The team had selected Debey Zito and Terry
Schmitt for the West End and Kana Tanaka for Bay Farm Island. The artists were invited to make
a presentation to the Library Board in order to gain the Board's approval to move forward. The
West End artists were up first, and the Board gave their approval to go ahead after viewing the
presentation and a bit of discussion. The Bay Farm artist gave her presentation and was also
given the go ahead for her artwork.
PUBLIC COMMENT - Agenda Item Only
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business to bring before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
game christin
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",13803,
18722,"Revised-March 9, 2006
12.
ADJOURNMENT
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 12, 2006",13803,
18721,"Revised-March 9, 2006
Bingo will receive a free dauber! Again, ARPD teen volunteers assisted with serving and
clean-up.
Bingo on Christmas and New Year's Eve - Saturday Fundraising Bingo will be offered on
Saturday, December 24, and Saturday, December 31, with the first game starting at 11:00
a.m. (note time change).
Oakland Community Orchestra performs Holiday Concert - On Monday, December 12,
2005, at 1:30 p.m., the 35-member Oakland Community Orchestra will perform a free
concert including works of Schubert, Haydn, Dvorak, and Scott Joplin in the Mastick Social
Hall. The concert will include a violin solo by Gil Gleason, conductor!
Mastick's Annual Holiday Sing-Along - Roger Bauer, Immanuel Lutheran Church, and
Jim Franz, Alameda Red Cross, return to provide the spirited instrumental background for
our Annual Holiday Sing-Along. Join us for good cheer on Thursday, December 15, at
11:00 a.m. in the media room. Enjoy a visit from Santa, refreshments, and spirits of the
season.
Family Caregiving Home Reference Program - On Thursday, January 5, 10:00 a.m., the
Alameda Red Cross will feature the second of four presentations of the Family Caregiving
Home Reference Program designed to help people who care for others by teaching them to
build skills, reduce stress, understand legal, financial, and medical issues and balance their
responsibilities.
D.
Other Reports and Announcments
Status Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner
Johnson)
No report at this time.
8.
STATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS
AD Lillard stated that the current Washington Park portable building will be demolished
within the next month. It is anticipated that construction of the new modular building will
begin in the next two months.
9.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
None.
10.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA
Consideration of Possible Names for the Park in Bayport Development
Annual Review and Adjustment of Fees for Recreation and Parks
11.
SET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING
Thursday, February 9, 2006
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 12, 2006",13803,
18720,"Revised-March 9, 2006
The Elk's Hoop Shoot is now taking place at all parks. Finals will take place on Saturday,
January 7, at the new Alameda Gymnasium from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Awards will be given in
three age divisions for both boys and girls. The winners will then go on to compete in the
District finals.
The Junior Warrior Basketball Clinic will begin January 21 at the Alameda Point
Gymnasium for K- 3rd Graders. The Clinic will emphasize basic skills, teamwork, and
sportsmanship.
Water Polo Club - This new program is offering quality instruction and tournament play for
the City's water polo enthusiast. The Program will run from December through January on
Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays for ages 12 and up. The cost is $100 which includes
25 sessions and membership into USA Water Polo.
C.
Mastick Senior Center
October 2005 Statistics (Statistics are two months behind):
Volunteers: 125
Volunteer Hours:
2,420
New Members (July 1, to present):
07
Total Membership to Date (July 1, 2004 to present): 2,041
(Note: Membership renewal is tied to the new Fiscal Year)
Average Number of Lunches Served Daily:
49
Monthly Sign-ins:
13,194
Mastick Holiday Closures!
Mastick Senior Center will be closed for the following holidays:
- Christmas Holiday, Sunday, December 25, and Monday, December 26, 2005.
- New Year's Holiday, Sunday, January 1 and Monday, January 2, 2006.
Meal Service Availability:
Meals on Wheels is available to provide meal service on the days Mastick is closed.
Reserve a meal in advance by calling 865-6131.
Mastick's Thanksgiving Dinner - Was held on Sunday, November 20, at 1:00 p.m.
in the Mastick dining rooms, Pete McDonough Catering served Thanksgiving Dinner
to approximately 130 Mastick members! The Mastick Advisory Board subsidized the
balance of the event expense. ARPD teen volunteers assisted with serving and
clean-up.
Breakfast before Bingo - On Saturday, November 26, between 9:00 and 11:00 a.m.
breakfast was served in the Mastick dining rooms to 110 seniors. Participants enjoyed
scrambled eggs, hot cakes, sausage, juice, and coffee. Breakfast patrons going on to play
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 12, 2006",13803,
18719,"Revised-March 9, 2006
for teens to drop in. To take advantage of the holiday, the center has been implementing
activities that are focused around the holidays such as Thanksgiving soup and dessert.
The Alameda Youth Committee (AYC) has been working on electing officers and
continues to recruiting more members. Officers and Members for the 2005-2006 school
year are as follows:
Officers
President:
Fanny Ye
Vice President:
Ricky Quach
Secretary:
Elaine Yu
Treasurer:
Isaac WoldeMariam
Inventory Manager:
Camilo King
Publicity Manager:
Kamaka Balcupo
School Representatives
Chipman Middle School:
Onyx Goosby
Encinal High School:
Aireana Hagan
St. Joseph Notre Dame High School:
Cameron Vea
Alameda Science Technology Institute (ASTI): Nancy Yu
Recruitment for school representatives is ongoing.
In Mid-November, AYC assisted Mastick Senior Center with their Thanksgiving Dinner on
Sunday, November 20. They helped prep and serve hot meals to the seniors. In addition,
the Committee returned again to assist Mastick on their post Thanksgiving Breakfast on
Saturday, November 26. There were many positive comments made by the seniors, adult
volunteers, and Mariel Thomas (Senior Program Coordinator) about their good service.
Also, during the Mayor's Holiday Tree Lighting, AYC assisted Recreation and Parks on
providing refreshments (selling hot beverages) on a cool Saturday afternoon and evening
of the event. Besides fundraising they also assisted in crowd control, and clean up. The
event raised approximately $300 which will be used to assist AYC in future teen events &
activity planning.
Operation Green Sweep is ongoing. Teen volunteers continue to assist the department by
removing trash and debris weekly at the City's 10 parks and playground sites. They also
went to three of the Alameda middle schools to assist in their playground and trash pick
around the school grounds. By doing so, they learn, promote, and encourage their peers to
recycle, and care for their neighborhood parks by keeping them clean. Each of the
volunteers can earn up to 15-25 community hours. These hours help them fulfill the
school's requirements on their Community Service Hours.
Parks and Playgrounds, our free drop-in recreation program. Parents have been
especially happy to have the option of attending this program. Our ten selected sites
throughout Alameda are: Franklin, Krusi, Leydecker, Lincoln, Littlejohn, Longfellow,
McKinley, Miller, Tillman, and Woodstock.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 12, 2006",13803,
18718,"crowds throughout the event.
Underground Teen Center - Attendance remains high and more kids are participating in
our after-school programs. Staff has been busy planning new, creative, and active games
and activities. Attendance at the teen center for the month was 480 teens. Due to school
holiday, the center was open on Wednesday, November 23rd, from 12:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 12, 2006",13803,
18717,"Revised-March 9, 2006
A discussion was held concerning the concept of developing a master plan
specifically for the Veteran's Building. Chair Ingram suggested approaching a
number of local architects about the possibility of providing some volunteer
services. The possibility of identifying potential funding sources for such a master
plan was discussed. Chair Ingram also raised the issue of utilizing the funds in the
City's Open Space Fund. AD Lillard reminded the Commission that any allocation of
the Open Space Funds would require Council action.
Commissioner Ogden volunteered to discuss the possibility with a number of
architects that she is familiar with.
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Discussion of FY 2006-08 Capital Improvement Projects - (Discussion Item
Only)
AD Lillard reviewed the City's process for developing Capital Improvement Projects.
The following projects were identified during the CIP process for FY 2004-06 but were not
selected for funding:
Renovation of the Alameda Point Gym and Pool
Alameda Point Sports Complex
Veteran's Building Kitchen Upgrade and Interior Painting
Park Master Plan
Mastick Senior Center Exterior Painting
Repairs at the Skate Park
Alameda Point Soccer Fields
Park Lighting Replacement
Each of the above projects will be resubmitted during the FY 2006-08 cycle.
Also, the following new projects will be considered:
Renovation of the Harrison and Leydecker Recreation Centers
Refinish Hardwood Floors in Veteran's Building
Godfrey Park Field Renovation
Lincoln Park Field Renovation
Tillman Park Athletic Field
After a brief discussion the Commission rated the projects in order of priority:
1. Park Master Plan
2. Renovation of Leydecker and Harrison Centers
3. Lincoln and Tillman Field Renovations
4. Upgrade to Veteran's Building Kitchen
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 12, 2006",13803,
18716,"Revised-March 9, 2006
Commissioner's should start thinking of names for the new park. This will be agendized for
the February Commission Meeting.
B.
Status Report on Veteran's Building - (Discussion Item Only)
Veteran's in attendance:
Jim Sweeney, Commander American Legion Post #647
Susan Hodges, Chapter 400 Vietnam Veterans of America
Joe Williams, American Legion Post #647
Bronson Perry, Disabled American Veterans #8
Jim Lynch, Disabled American Veterans #8
Jean Sweeney Committee member and Secretary
AD Lillard Provided information to the Commission as far as who is using the Veteran's
Building. The Recreation and Park Department uses the building for the following
programs:
Wee Play
Special Interest Classes
Drama
Special Events
Teen Center
Space is also provided for the following:
Alameda Arts Council
Library's Adult Literacy Programs
Local Veteran's Groups
AD Lillard provided the Commission with a tour of the Veterans' Building.
Jean Sweeney stated that she saw a news article regarding various organizations receiving
grants and if the City could get us (Veteran's Building) on the list. AD Lillard stated that he
will check with the Community Development Department.
Ms. Sweeney feels that the building is under utilized as far as making money to maintain
the building and the Veteran's feel that renovating the kitchen will help raise funds. The
group is also looking into see if the building was ever declared a historical landmark, if so
they would be eligible to receive funds.
Chair Ingram asked if there were funds set aside for the renovation of the kitchen. AD
Lillard stated that there was $10,000 allocated for the design.
Commissioner Oliver asked what the cost would be to renovate the kitchen. AD Lillard
stated that Public Works estimates the work at $200,000.
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 12, 2006",13803,
18715,"Revised-March 9, 2006
MINUTES OF
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
ALAMEDA
RECREATION & PARKS
MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 2006
2226 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 747-7529
DATE:
Thursday, January 12, 2006
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
Veteran's Building, 2203 Central Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Kahuanui, Commissioners Terri Ogden and
Georg Oliver
Absent:
Commissioners Christine Johnson and Bruce Reeves
Staff:
Dale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 2005 and January 2006 Minutes to be provided at February 2006 Meeting.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA
(Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the
Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.)
Vice Chair Kahuanui introduced Michael Cooper who has been nominated and appointed
by the Mayor as a Recreation and Park Commissioner. AD Lillard stated that Mr. Cooper
will be sworn in on January 17, 2006.
4.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
5.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Update on Bayport Park and Community Building - (Discussion Item Only)
AD Lillard provided a report to the Commission on the Bayport Park Project. Council will
adopt the plans and specs for the Bayport Park and Community Building Project on
Tuesday, January 17, 2006. Once adopted, bid packages will be sent to contractors.
Contractors will have 30 days to submit their bids. Once a contractor is selected the bid will
go back to Council for approval. Hopefully we can break ground by mid-March.
1
Recreation & Park Commission Mtg.
Minutes
Thursday, January 12, 2006",13803,
18714,"191210 Alameda De-Pave Park Support
As described above, the project would have a significant impact on climate change.
Every year that goes by without increasing our wetlands contributes to climate change and
poses more risks to wildlife and people while raising the price tag of doing what is needed. We
urge the Commission to recommend to the Council that the planning and development of De-
Pave Park be given the highest priority.
GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY
Leora Feeney
Linda Carloni
Leora Feeney
Linda Carloni
Co-Chair, Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve
President, Board of Directors
GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G, Berkeley, CA 94702
phone 510.843.2222 web www.goldengateaudubon.org
email ggas@goldengateaudubon.org",13803,
18713,"6-B
COLOEN and
100
Exhibit 3
ears
To:
Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Recreation and Park Commission
RE:
Recreation and Parks Commission Meeting, December 12, 2019, Item 6B
Date: December 10, 2019
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We are writing to request that the Commission assign the highest priority to the planning and
development of the proposed Shoreline Ecological Park on the west side of Seaplane Lagoon at
Alameda Point, commonly known as De-Pave Park.
We believe that it's time, in fact past time, to move forward on De-Pave Park. The park concept
was included in the 2014 Alameda Point Town and Waterfront Precise Plan and is highlighted as
""A Case Study in Adaptive Land Use and Shoreline Management"" in Alameda's 2019 Climate
Action Plan (pages 124 and 125). But De-Pave Park can't give us any of its critical projected
benefits while it is still only on paper.
Seaplane Lagoon and its surrounding area around provides rare and precious habitat for
wildlife, including a nesting pair of Ospreys, as well as nesting herons and other resident and
migrating shore and water birds. As the city increases the commercial and transportation uses
at Alameda Point, it is critical to consider the needs of the wildlife that are being compromised
by that development. The additional wildlife area planned in De-Pave Park will be particularly
valuable because it will enhance and support the Veteran's Administration's adjacent wildlife
area. Many birds such as the Great Blue Herons, Least Terns, Caspian Terns and more that nest
on the VA properties rely on the protected waters of the Seaplane Lagoon to forage. It is
especially important during storms creating high winds and rough waters on the open SF Bay.
In addition, tidal marsh reduces a major cause of climate change, carbon dioxide, and mitigates
the effects of sea level rise by buffering waves and absorbing storm surges. Marshes operate as
""carbon sinks"" because of the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed through photosynthesis by
the prolific wetland vegetation. These sinks are especially important in highly urbanized areas,
like the San Francisco Bay Area.
De-Pave Park ranks high on the suggested prioritization factors:
While the project is not yet funded, there are excellent opportunities for funding habitat
restoration projects, most significantly Measure AA. (East Bay Regional Parks has previously
been awarded Measure AA funds for restoration of and access to Encinal Dunes.)
The Bayshore access, wildlife habitat and climate change benefits from De-Pave Park would
benefit the entire community of Alameda.
GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G, Berkeley, CA 94702
phone 510.843.2222 web www.goldengateaudubon.org
email ggas@goldengateaudubon.org",13803,
18712,"6-B -
Exhibit 3
December 11, 2019
Honorable Chair and Members of the Recreation and Parks Commission
Dear Chair and Members: of the Recreation and Parks Commission.
On December 12 your Commission will make an important decision regarding the future of DePave Park
I
strongly encourage you to prioritize moving forward and asking the City to start the process. De-Pave
Park calls for removing concrete along the western shore of Seaplane Lagoon for a natural shoreline and
wetlands development. This concept was included in the 2014 Alameda Point Town and Waterfront
Precise Plan and is highlighted in Alameda's 2019 Climate Action Plan. However, the plan won't move
forward unless the City sends out a Request for Proposal to find out the costs and details of creating this
shoreline park.
In addition to providing a wonderful waterfront park for all to enjoy, this newly created marsh will
create habitat for the wildlife who make their home there and depend on it for their very survival It also
fits into the city's climate action plan because wetlands and marshes can help mitigate rising ocean
levels by helping to absorb and contain rising water.
Please do the right thing and ask the city to give this issue the highest priority.
Thank you.
Patricia M. Gannon
1019 Tobago Lane
Alameda, CA 94502
Pg3187@gmail.com",13803,
18711,"Address the needs of low-income and other underserved coastal populations that will be highly
impacted by climate change.
Promote on-the-ground demonstration projects that implement innovative approaches or
enhance understanding of effective coastal management strategies and will potentially lead to
broader change to policies, regulations, or to duplicating the effort elsewhere.
Promote collaboration among various stakeholders and multiple sectors. Establish and expand
non-traditional alliances to accelerate effective problem-solving between and among public and
private resource managers, scientists, and decision-makers.
Reduce GHG emissions or enhance the ability of natural systems to sequester greenhouse
gases.
Incorporate outreach or educational component.
One of the innovative approaches envisioned at DePave Park is floating wetlands in the Seaplane
Lagoon.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDFW awards funding for wetland restoration and greenhouse gas reduction every year. On
December 10, 2019, for example, it awarded $11.35 million to seven projects.
The Wetlands Restoration for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (Program) restores or
enhances wetlands and watershed ecosystems to provide essential services to California's people,
wildlife, and fish. Wetlands have high carbon sequestration rates that can sequester carbon for
decades. There is tremendous opportunity to restore or enhance large areas of mountain meadow,
coastal tidal, inland seasonal, and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta wetlands that do not currently
provide the full potential of carbon storage or other benefits due to historical land use.
The Program is part of California Climate Investments, a statewide program that puts billions of
Cap-and-Trade dollars to work reducing GHG emissions, strengthening the economy, and
improving public health and the environment.
In conclusion, funds for the implementation of DePave Park are out there for the asking. All we
need is the commitment to bring DePave Park into being. It will be of benefit to the
environment, to the character and attractiveness of Alameda Point, and to the community as a
whole, as we demonstrate with action our dedication to the goals embodied in the Climate Action
and Resiliency Plan, of which DePave Park is a part.
Thank you,
Richard Bangert
Photo site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/63740093@N03/
Blog: https://alamedapointenviro.com/",13803,
18710,"San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority
The SF Bay Restoration Authority disburses funding through an annual grant awards program
funded by the taxpayers of the nine-county Bay Area who approved Measure AA. In August of
2019, another $67 million was awarded to five projects. The deadline for grant applications for
Round 3 is tomorrow, December 13, 2019. Thus, another year has passed without Alameda
submitting an application for funding to conduct the planning process for DePave Park, even
though this project fits squarely within the goals of the restoration authority.
Measure AA grants seek to fund projects that:
Improve Bay water quality;
Restore, monitor and maintain habitat for fish, birds and wildlife;
Use natural habitats to protect communities from floods;
Increase shoreline access and encourage public participation in protecting the Bay's
health.'
California State Coastal Conservancy
In 2019, the Coastal Conservancy granted $14 million to the San Francisco Bay Area
Conservancy Program - Climate Adaptation. In addition, the Coastal Conservancy granted $20
million to the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority for its grant programs, which already
receives funding under the voter-approved Measure AA.
Based on the priorities for state Proposition 68 SF Bay Climate Funds listed below, DePave Park
will be an excellent candidate for both funding of the planning process and funding of the
construction. Emphasis has been added.
Project Priorities - Prop 68 SF Bay Climate Funds
The priorities for the Prop 68 SF Bay Climate Funds will be to support projects to advance the
goals of the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program:
1) improving public access;
2) conserving and enhancing habitat and open space resources of regional importance;
3) implementing policies of the Coastal Act, San Francisco Bay Plan, and other adopted
plans; and
4) providing recreational and educational opportunities in open space and natural areas
accessible to urban populations.
Projects also need to achieve one or more of the purposes of the Climate Ready Program:
Improve a community's ability to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change,
including sea level rise, extreme heat, wildfire, drought and flooding.
Use nature-based climate adaptation that provide co-benefits for people, wildlife, and the
economy.",13803,
18709,"6 -B -
Exhibit 3
a.s
Great Blue Heron gathering nesting
material on west side of Seaplane Lagoon
where ecological park is proposed.
Blusger:
To: Alameda Recreation and Parks Commission
Item 6-B, Review and Recommend Park and Recreation Facilities Project Priorities
Commission meeting date: December 12, 2019
Members of the Commission:
I urge you to place DePave Park at the top of your priority list. DePave Park is unlike other
parks projects in that its primary goal is adapting a portion of the Alameda Point shoreline for
rising sea level. While there will be a recreational component in the form of public access on
trails, its standout feature will be restoration of a tidal ecosystem. It is ideally suited for
conversion to a wetland ecology, since it is directly adjacent to an existing wetland on federal
property and will create a synergistic upscaling of this wetland zone on the Bay. Furthermore,
the vision for DePave Park includes floating wetlands in the Seaplane Lagoon. Floating
wetlands will make this project a leading edge adaptation project on San Francisco Bay.
While all of the projects on the list are worthy of support, the DePave Park project, as a shoreline
restoration project, will not be competing against other City projects on the list for funding. And
funding is always the big hurdle for parks projects. For DePave Park, there are many potential
sources of funding to conduct the planning and permitting process, as well as the construction
phase. Below is a list of potential sources of funding for DePave Park.
Base Reuse Fund - City of Alameda
Funds accumulated in the Base Reuse Fund from the sale and lease of property at Alameda Point
can be utilized for project planning purposes at Alameda Point.",13803,
18708,"wetlands confer an immense benefit for wildlife by providing habitat for aquatic, amphibian, terrestrial, and
avian species alike. Coastal wetlands are also notoriously efficient mechanisms for carbon sequestration and
storm water filtration, thereby mitigating anthropic environmental impacts on a local and global scale.
In addition to the environmental benefits DePave Park can provide, constructing a shoreline wetland can
establish critical ecosystem-based adaptations that would augment Alameda's resilience to global climate
change. As one of the largest low-lying regions in the Bay Area, Alameda must prepare for the impending
effects of sea level rise. Wetlands function as natural sponges that trap and slowly release surface water,
rain, groundwater, and flood waters and distribute these waters more slowly over the floodplain, thereby
lowering flood heights and dissipating storm surges. DePave Park can serve as a buffer between Alameda
and the Bay to mitigate gradual and storm surge inundation to populated areas. The additional benefit of
replacing the impermeable land cover currently at Alameda Point with a porous ecosystem will create
immediately observable improvements.
The proposed park is an investment towards Alameda's future resilience in the face of climate change and
rising sea levels as well as its ecological role in the Bay. More importantly, the park will restore a sense of
place and community that has been lost from this corner of the island. Therefore, Baykeeper strongly
recommends that the Alameda Department of Recreation and Parks prioritize DePave Park for development.
Thank you for your consideration. You may feel free to reach me at 510-735-9700 x114 or
cole@baykeer.org if you have any questions.
Warmly,
CBB
Cole Burchiel
Field Investigator and Science Associate
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 800
Pollution hotline: 1 800 KEEP BAY
Oakland, CA 94612
WATERKEEFER'ALLIANCE
FOUNDING MEMEBER
www.baykeeper.org
(510) 735-9700",13803,
18707,"6-B
Exhibit 3
From:
Patricia Lamborn
To:
Amy Wooldridge
Subject:
Dec. 12, 2019 Item 6 B Park Priorities
Date:
Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:11:45 AM
CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is
safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions.
Dear Ms. Wooldridge and Recreation and Parks Commissioners,
As some of you know I am passionate about defending Shoreline Parks and maintaining open space and
natural habitats for wildlife, public access on the Bay, and resiliancy in the face of sea level rise. I write in
support of focusing on our Shoreline Parks: DePave and Enterprise-- as we face the challenge of climate
adaptation.
I appreciate the incredible job our Recreation and Parks Department does in maintaining our historic
parks, and building parks such as Jean Sweeney. The programs run by ARPD are terrific, I am so
grateful for the work you all do. The Priority List you present tonite reflects the difficult choices you
will
have to make in serving the complex needs of our island city.
I am writing to ask that you recommend moving forward with the steps to make DePave Park and
Enterprise Park a reality. On March 26, the City Council of Alameda voted 5-0 to pass a historic
resolution declaring a climate emergency. Our City also spent thousands of dollars and time on
consultants to develop the Climate Action and Resiliancy Plan. (CARP)
Now it's time for action.
One definite recommended action from the CARP has been taken ---- the passage of the stormwater
drain parcel tax- a smart step to fund the infrastructure needed to deal with flooding and sea level rise
due to climate change. DePave Park is an accepted smart action, already a part of the City's plan. It
should be next in line to achieve climate change adaptation-- restore wetlands where it is possible.
I appreciate that the Recreation and Parks Department and Commission are facing a long list of priorities
for parks to develop and are seeking a reality check --- there is not enough time nor money to do them all.
It may seem controversial to put DePave Park in front of playgrounds and recreation areas, but we are
running out of time- and resolutions aren't enough. Alameda residents will support a smart plan which I
believe can be developed if we put the time and thought into preparing a Request For Proposals for
DePave Park. I also support a Community Advisory Committee to review the recent survey on Enterprise
Park.
Years from now, residents will be grateful we spent money on natural resiliancy and saved them the cost
of building sea walls and levees.
I am confident that if you step up and make Shoreline Parks a priority, the people of Alameda will support
you.
Sincerely,
Patricia Lamborn
3226 Encinal Ave. Alameda
patricia.lamborn@aol.com",13803,
18706,"6-B
Exhibit -
From:
johnsen cyndy
To:
Amy Wooldridge
Subject:
Comment on Item 6-B for Park Commission Meeting Tonight
Date:
Thursday, December 12, 2019 9:58:06 AM
CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is
safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***
RE: 6-B - Review and Recommend Park and Recreation Facilities Project Priorities
Dear Commissioners,
In your discussion tonight around prioritizing parks, I hope that priority is given to
parks that can do the most for Alameda's various goals - not only to provide access,
recreation, and learning opportunities for people to connect with nature, but also, if
possible, to help our unique island environment by addressing key environmental
goals. Chief among those goals is confronting the critical threat of sea level rise
through design. From what I understand, DePave Park seeks to do that. Therefore,
I
hope you support the next steps for that project, and apply that kind of thinking to all
parks being considered. If there's a matrix of factors, design for future sea level rise
and habitat protection seem like good points to include.
Thanks for your consideration,
-Cyndy Johnsen
P.S. Please post this under the ""Correspondence"" exhibit for public consumption.",13803,
18705,"palm trees that are 20 - 25 feet (approximately half the size of existing trees) or 4 - 5 smaller palm
trees that are 10 - 15 feet tall. ARPD recommends planting the three taller trees in the circle
around the bandstand due to the historical nature of that area. The palm tree that fell down,
behind the Isabelle Clark memorial bench could be replaced with another palm tree in the coming
years, however ARPD staff recommends a different species that provides shade for the bench
such as an oak tree. Palm trees are being discouraged for planting in Alameda because the
fronds are not compostable and do not contribute much to carbon sequestration since they do not
have a broad leaf canopy. These replacement palm trees will be a slightly different species than
the existing palm trees but will look similar. The current species is not recommended anymore
because when they get diseased, it creates a light dust that easily spreads to the other palms.
I agree that palm trees do little for carbon sequestration, insect and bird populations, and do not
provide adequate shade. They are also not native. They may have some limited historical value.
Staff is seeking input and direction from the Commission on this tree and asphalt replacement
plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
ARPD is allocating at least $90,000 in FY 2019/20 from the Park Maintenance Replacement
Capital Improvement Fund, which totals $175,000.
RECOMMENDATION
Review, discuss and approve a plan to replace trees and pathway asphalt at Jackson Park.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director
Exhibits:
1.
Jackson Park Tree and Asphalt Replacement Plan
2.
Tree Photo Examples",13803,
18704,"WCA opinion constitutes conflict of interest as the same company removes trees. Any opinion
and recommendations from WCA should be discarded. An independent certified arborist who is
not familiar with WCA's recommendations and not associated with the company should provide
an opinion on the health and condition of trees. This report should be attached to the staff report.
The planting locations between street and pathway were a poor choice because it
does not provide enough space for the roots to grow due to the adjacent concrete. See
Exhibit 2 which shows that these large trees are within inches of the concrete gutter.
This is the case with just about every street tree in Alameda. The situation is not unusual or
unique, and the spacing may even be better than many street strips.
The sycamores are also not an appropriate species for Alameda because there is
too much salt from our shallow water table. The same problem is seen on Bay Farm
Island.
This discussion should be part the update on the Master Street Tree Plan in July 2020. The
Park commissioners should not be asked to accept this as a fact prior to the MSTP update
and a thorough analysis. Currently, sycamores are included in the plan and continue to be
planted throughout the island.
The pruning practice in decades past was done poorly with large branches cut and
that practice can create decay in limbs and the trunk during regrowth. This type of pruning
of large branches is no longer done unless there is a dead/decaying branch or it is
significantly weighing down the tree and the entire tree will benefit from that weight
reduction.
Amy Wooldridge clarified in an email she is referring to the practice of ""pollarding.'
The pollarding was done many years ago, possibly decades, as evidenced by the size of the
branches above the pollarding cuts. The question is not whether the practice can create decay
but whether the trees currently have decay and how decay can be addressed with minimal
intervention.
Redwood and oak trees are recommended by the arborist to be planted in Jackson Park and they
thrive in environments closer to the ocean. ARPD will be considering and consulting on other
species as well. ARPD also has a magnolia in stock that it plans to plant in one of the circles near
Encinal Avenue that previously had trees. The final location will be dependent upon the approved
location for the landscape play area. Two potential locations for the play area are indicated on
Exhibit 1.
The arborist recommends planting 50 or more trees over the next several years with a minimum
of 20 feet between each tree. There is enough space available in open areas as well as declining
tree replacement for the next 3-5 years.
Since the WCA report identified all sycamores as ""declining"", does that mean all of them will be
removed and replaced in the next 3-5 years?
This fiscal year, ARPD will be planting the magnolia tree and additional trees throughout the
park. We have also has allocated $10,000 to purchase palm trees. This can fund either three",13803,
18703,"6-A
Exhibit 2
12-12-2019
Comment on staff report from Ani Dimusheva, anidimusheva@gmail.com, 510-387-
4084
Please include in public record and on the city's website. Comments in red font below.
Approve Tree and Asphalt Replacement Plan for Jackson Park
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Recreation and Park Commission
From: Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director
Re: Approve Tree and Asphalt Replacement Plan for Jackson Park
BACKGROUND
On September, 12, 2019, the Recreation and Parks Commission discussed a play area at
Jackson Park and also directed staff to bring back a maintenance plan for Jackson Park that
addressed the asphalt pathways and trees.
This report provides information and location of the existing trees, a plan and options for replacing
trees and the proposed areas of asphalt pathway to be replaced in 2020 (Exhibit 1).
There is no specific plan and options for replacing trees in the staff report. For example, if you
remove all sycamores around the perimeter of the park, what species will replace them? The
discussion is general and premature considering the upcoming MSTP update. See below.
DISCUSSION
Pathway Asphalt Replacement
The Alameda Recreation and Parks Department (ARPD) is allocating $80,000 toward asphalt
replacement this fiscal year for Jackson Park. The areas noted in red on Exhibit 1 highlight which
pathway locations will be replaced with this funding allocation. The asphalt replacement will occur
in 2020 and specific locations may vary slightly based on field conditions. The areas being
replaced are the most degraded areas and pose the highest safety risk. It includes a large portion
of the asphalt pathways on the southern portion of the park and approximately half of the
pathways in the northern half between San Jose Avenue and Encinal Avenue. ARPD will allocate
additional funding in the next two fiscal years to complete the asphalt replacement at Jackson
Park.
Trees
The sycamore trees along the streets where there are no sidewalks are under Public Works'
responsibility. Any trees either within the park or located on the park side of sidewalk/pathway
are ARPD's responsibility. The ARPD Parks Foreperson met with an arborist from West Coast
Arborists, the City's tree management company, who stated that all of the sycamores at Jackson
Park are declining due to the following factors:",13803,
18702,"Attached is the agenda for the Recreation and Parks Commission meeting tonight, Dec. 12th,
at 7:00pm at City Hall, 3rd Floor. The first item is an update on Jackson Park and its
existing trees and their overall condition, plans to plant more trees as well as showing where
ARPD will replace more than half of the asphalt pathways in the park. If you open the
agenda, then click on the blue links this will send you to the staff report (#2019-7546) and
the exhibits.
My apologies for the late email on this item. The agenda was posted per noticing
requirements last Thursday. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. If
you are interested in this item and cannot attend the meeting, you can email me your
comments and I'll provide them to the Commissioners and will include it as part of the
discussion.
Thank you,
Amy
Amy Wooldridge
Recreation and Parks Director, City of Alameda
(510) 747-7570
awooldridge@alamedaca.gov
www.alamedaca.gov/recreation
Find us on Facebook at PlayARPD",13803,
18701,"6-A
Exhibit 2
From:
Amy LaThanh
To:
Amy Wooldridge
Cc:
Robert LaThanh; Misha David Chellam; J.J. Navarro
Subject:
Re: Jackson Park tree and asphalt maintenance plan on Rec and Parks Commission meeting tonight
Date:
Thursday, December 12, 2019 11:33:23 AM
CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is
safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions.
***
Hi Amy,
Thanks for sending the agenda and plans over. I have a few comments that I'd like to make
sure are included in the discussion tonight since I won't be able to attend in person.
Regarding the asphalt:
I am excited that this is happening! Yay!
I would like to mention though that all of the asphalt around the 1100 block of the park
is really bad - so much so that it's not really safe for kids to ride their bikes. I would
advocate for the entrity of it to be replaced if possible.
I would also advocate for not removing the asphalt near the Dumb Friends bench --
many folks use those ramps to get to the other side of the street. If it's a safety concern,
perhaps simply adding crosswalks there to slow traffic might be good (and cheaper)?
Regarding the landscape playground location:
The two options suggested are good. I would also suggest looking at the far end of the
park by the Dumb Friends bench. Reason being is that there are a bunch of apartment
buildings right there, many with children residents (and therefore it will be less likely
that people will be offended by the location)
In order of placement, my preference would be:
1. In front of the KFC near Encinal; dead area anyways, closer to business district
overflow, can't be worse than a KFC
2. In front of the Dumb Friends bench; many apartments with children
3. Middle of the park in front of 1232/1236; fine but doesn't need to be center piece
of the park
Thanks so much for all of the city's work on this! I'm excited we'll soon have more to offer at
Jackson Park!
Cheers,
Amy
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 9:34 AM Amy Wooldridge <AWooldridge@alamedaca.gov> wrote:
Hello Jackson Park neighbors,",13803,
18700,"6-A
Exhibit Z
From:
Gary Cates
To:
Amy Wooldridge
Cc:
bmathieson@aol.com
Subject:
Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting, Dec 12, 2019
Date:
Tuesday, December 10, 2019 6:09:49 PM
*** CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is
safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***
Dear Ms. Wooldridge,
We will not be able to attend the next commission meeting where the Jackson Park improvement plan is on
the agenda. However, we would like to express our preference for items contained in Exbit 1 of the Staff
Report.
1. That the landscape play area, if approved, be located in the southern most spot indicated in the report.
For your reference this would be directly across from 1236 Park Ave.
We believe the northern spot is too close to Encinal Ave and would expose children to health hazards
associated with automobile noise, traffic and pollution.
2. That a redwood or palm tree be considered for one of those circles that previously had trees as two
mature magnolia trees already exist near Encinal Ave.
Would you please share these thoughts with members of the commission?
Thank you for your consideration.
Gary can Mary Ann Cates
1250 Park Ave",13803,
18699,"Installation of the Woodstock Park playground rebuild began last month and is anticipated to
be completed by mid-January, pending weather.
Recreation Services
Alameda Youth Committee (youth leadership group) donated 10 turkeys to the Alameda
Food Bank and did a fundraiser at the Mayor's Tree Lighting Festival for the American Red
Cross - Fire Disaster Relief.
Voting is now open for the 2020 Starlight in the Park movies. You can vote on Facebook,
Instagram or at the Recreation office and centers.
ARPD is gearing up for summer hiring, which will begin in January 2020.
July 4th Parade - Staff is presenting options for event coordination to City Council on January
7, 2020.",13803,
18698,"EXHIBIT 1
12/12/19 ARPD Director's Report - Presented by Recreation and Park Director Amy
Wooldridge
Mastick Senior Center
November letter appeal has raised $13,350; our members are very generous!
We received a gift of $12,532.63 from an estate. These types of memorial donations are
held in a Legacy Fund and generally used for one-time expenditures.
Over $700 was raised in a four hour lobby jewelry sale yesterday
Membership is now over 2,800 which is higher than normal and more than appropriate for
mid-year.
Parks Maintenance
Projects being funded by new capital Park Maintenance Fund:
The projects are as followed:
FY 2019-20
Jackson Park asphalt
Shoreline Park asphalt
Drinking fountains at, Skate Park, Washington, Lincoln, Franklin, Tillman, Leydecker, Godfrey
Washington Park chain-link
Removal of old chain-link at Rock Wall [completed]
Lincoln and Godfrey concrete pathway replacement
Bike racks at Sweeney, and picnic areas
Renovate horse shoe pits at Washington [completed]
Replace basketball standards at McKinley and Lincoln
FY 2020-21 (to be finalized)
Shoreline Park asphalt
Leydecker and Tillman concrete pathway replacement
Replace the 6 remaining wood park signs with concrete Park signs
Replace aluminum parks signs
Irrigation controllers at Leydecker
Replace barbeques at Washington and Tillman
Ongoing maintenance projects completed recently include:
A 48"" box magnolia tree at Longfellow Park was installed and staff is currently completing
installation of a deep water irrigation system to lessen stress on the tree during droughts.
Installed a new drinking fountain at Washington Park
Installed donated picnic table and new drinking fountain at the Cityview Skate Park
Tagged an unhealthy tree at Jackson Park and will be removing soon",13803,
18697,"Speaker Pat Lanborn, Alameda resident, Sierra Club member: Requests De-Pave first and Enterprise
second as we need to focus on the climate action resiliency plan and is willing to put in the time and
effort to support the cause.
Speaker Mary Spicer, Stand up paddler, outrigger and dragon boater: Organizes on-water clean ups.
Partners with BayKeeper. Received sponsorships for clean ups. Supports De-Pave Park. Wildlife in
this area is so unique and precious because of the rock wall. Seal population is growing. Important
to bring more nature back to this area. Concern about getting too many people on the water in front
of Enterprise Park that will impact the feeding of animals.
MOTION
Vice Chair Robbins motion to complete Fernside & Eastshore pathway project and Towata Park
kayak launch in conjunction with that; followed by De-Pave Park and then Enterprise Park with the
Regional Sports Complex as last priority. Director to follow up to provide staffing and funding needs
for all of these.
M/S Vice Chair Robbins / Commissioner Limoges.
Motion carried by a 5 - 0 voice vote: All in favor.
ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA:
Field Fee Analysis
Annual Paratransit program
Review and Comment on General Plan - Open Space, Recreation & Parks Element
Staffing and resources for project management
SET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, January 9, 2020.
ADJOURNMENT
M/S Commissioner Limoges / Commissioner Barnes
Motion carried by the following voice vote: All in favor with a 5 - 0.
Chair Alexander adjourned the meeting at 9:40 PM.
4",13803,
18696,"Motion by Vice-chair Robbins to purchase and plant 3 palm trees around the bandstand and plant the
fourth when funding is available.
M/S Vice Chair Robbins / Commissioner Barnes
Motion carried by the following 3 to 1 voice vote: Ayes: Vice Chair Robbins, Chair Alexander and
Commissioner Barnes. Commissioner Navarro - abstain. Noes: Commissioner Limoges.
Motion by Commissioner Barnes to approve asphalt replacement plan as presented by staff.
M/S / Commissioner Barnes / Vice Chair Robbins
Motion carried by a 5 - 0 voice vote: All in favor.
6-B Review and Recommend Park and Recreation Facilities Project Priorities.
ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the presentation which included an outline of the ""Life of a Park
Project"", current and pending projects and park projects constructed by developers and maintained
by ARPD. See Exhibit 3 for written correspondence from the public.
Speakers
Speaker Linda Carloni, Golden Gate Audubon: Support De-Pave Park. Important for carbon
sequestration. Climate change is an urgent priority and time to build this park which sequesters
carbon instead of releasing more.
Speaker Majorie Powell, Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve: Support De-Pave Park. Vitally
important, supports birds. Many depend on Seaplane Lagoon and area out there. City needs to
focus on climate change and rising sea level. People are interested to volunteer and move the
project forward.
Speaker Richard Bangert: Support prioritizing De-Pave Park. In favor of all of the parks but there's a
difference with De-Pave Park because it involves a complete re-engineering of the shoreline. Not a
traditional park. Main goal is rising sea level adaptation. Directly adjacent is an existing wetland on
federal property. Would greatly enhance the whole wetland ecosystem there. Also supports
Northwest Territories but difference is East Bay Regional Park District already has $6.4 million to start
planning and implementing. Do master plan for De-Pave Park and then start looking for grants.
Funding for De-Pave Park is not in competition with other parks like Sweeney Park. Would seek
funding from Coastal Commission and SF Bay Restoration Authority.
Speaker Irene Dieter: Obvious that this body needs to request more funding from City Council for
parks and recreation. Director needs an assistant working with her to accomplish these tasks. Keep
in mind that Council passed an emergency climate action resolution.
Speaker Pat Potter, Community Action for Sustainable Alameda: Believes in the importance of De-
Pave Park and focusing on climate realities. Vision of Enterprise Park is less of a recreational park
and more of a learning and research park. Importance of bay restoration. Kids from Encinal High
School could learn the science of climate change. Have greenhouse to grow tree seedlings. Shift
what this park could be with an emphasis on research and education.
3",13803,
18695,"Chair Alexander: Went to Tree Lighting Festival and said it was a great event. Took a Mastick Senior
Center trip to San Francisco to see the holiday lights which was a well-organized trip. Also walked
through Jackson Park and went to the Encinal Boat Launch. Went to 37th Annual Krusi Park
Generation Bowl who's participants have played there every year since they were kids. Interested in
helping work on outreach at schools.
NEW BUSINESS
6-A Approve Tree and Asphalt Replacement Plan for Jackson Park
ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the presentation which included the tree and asphalt plan and
recommendation from the West Coast arborists about choices of appropriate trees and their
maintenance. See Exhibit 2 for written correspondence from the public.
Speakers
Speaker Jim Lott, 1193 Park Avenue: Jackson Park is about trees and way they were thought
out and planned. Symmetrical design and intentionally planted. Think about overall design in
planting plan. Do it slowly with intention. Read letter from Lisa Kloffkorn
Speaker Betsy Mathieson, 1185 Park Avenue: Great to see plans progressing. Put magnolia
tree so it is symmetrical with an existing single magnolia. Keep meandering pathways.
Speaker Irene Dieter: Trees evoke emotion. Would like to take a high look at trees around the
City. Trees across City are being over pruned and it's only a matter of time until they are
hurting and die. Canopies are being removed and they are being pruned like ""brooms."" Glad
parks will be included in upcoming Master Tree Plan.
Speaker Mary Manning, 1167 Park Avenue: Advocate for a not very shady tree behind the
bench. It's one of the areas to enjoy the sun and get warm. Overhanging branches can create
a mess on the bench. Kids jump off back of bench and may try to jump into a tree if it were
planted nearby. Middle asphalt pathways are where picnic benches are and where people
have birthday parties and people in wheelchairs use it and kids on bikes use it because it's
safer.
Speaker Christopher Buckley: A City planner with some arboreal knowledge and was involved
in past Master Street Tree Plan. Needs to be more discussion of tree plan and species. This
is a very historical park and symmetry and history of species should be preserved. It's a very
distinctive feature and contributes to attractive nature of the park. Use existing species,
including London Planes (sycamores). Many parks have had soil compaction problems and
the Batchelder report has mitigation measures to assist existing trees. Consider cabling and
bracing landmark trees like magnolias to prevent branches from breaking off.
Speaker Karen Larsen: The middle path in north side of the park is heavily used by kids on
bikes, grandparents, toddlers and gives access to picnic benches.
MOTIONS
2",13803,
18694,"apd
ALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
Thursday, December 12, 2019
TIME:
7:03 p.m. Called to Order
PLACE:
City Hall Council Chambers
A video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
The following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Alexander, Vice Chair Robbins, Commissioner Limoges, Commissioner Barnes and
Commissioner Navarro
Staff: Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy Wooldridge
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Alexander moved to accept the minutes of November 14, 2019 Regular Meeting as presented.
M/S Commissioner Limoges / Vice Chair Robbins. All in favor with 5 ayes.
WRITTEN AND ORAL COMUNICATIONS
Written Communication
Oral Communication
Speaker Richard Bangert: Submitted a comment letter and asked it be posted online as
public comment on the website. It was not posted online as is the custom with City
Council and Planning Board. Public needs to know all of the input. Director Amy
Wooldridge will follow up with the procedure in accordance to the Sunshine Ordinance.
REPORTS FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR
ARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the report. See Exhibit 1.
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Vice Chair Robbins: Would like to participate in the Fourth of July steering committee. Loves the
concrete ARPD signs. Talked to Wood Middle P.E. teacher who would like to support ARPD and will
post signs at all schools. Interested in being a liaison for AUSD. Happy about the picnic table at
Cityview Skate Park.
Commissioner Barnes: There was a meeting of the Climate Action team where the documents for a
two year plan, including looking at the city tree plan were reviewed. The next steps are on the City of
Alameda's website.
Commissioner Navarro: Received ARPD winter activity guide. A lot of parents at the schools aren't
aware of all of the ARPD camps. Would like to find other ways to do outreach with the schools to
promote the camps. Checked out Encinal Boat Launch and was impressed with the facility. Spent
time at Jackson Park in anticipation of discussion.
1",13803,
18693,"advise the Council if the task would be burdensome.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that the Council would
rather have the City Attorney perform legal work than
administrative work; stated the City Attorney is obviously more
valued as a lawyer.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
8
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",13803,
18692,"understanding of the Council's direction.
The City Attorney stated that the direction from the Council was to
provide a proposal that addresses issues regarding the Charter,
Council oversight in order to provide a threshold to limitation of
the City Attorney's current budgeting authority, and to address
other issues discussed, i.e., an RFQ panel of attorneys.
Chair Johnson stated the Council does not intend to limit the
dollar amount; the Council could spend $800,000 on one case; the
focus is on hiring outside counsel.
The Acting City Manager stated that sometimes it is not known how
much money will be necessary for hiring outside attorneys in cases
where the City gets sued; usually there is a proposal from a
consultant advising what the cost will be when other departments
hire consultants; the Council would like to be advised who the
outside counsel would be.
Chair Johnson stated it is not necessary to have a dollar amount in
contracts; the Council needs to be advised who the attorney is that
would handle the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that it is not in the interest of the
public for the Council to be involved in every single hiring
decision; there should be a threshold.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council does not want to be
involved in every single hiring decision.
Chair Johnson stated there would be a greater awareness and
sensitivity to hiring outside counsel; there have been instances
where the Council has questioned why outside counsel was hired; the
issue is not a dollar limit; stated the Council could discuss the
type of issues that should involve the Council; the City Attorney
could address the matter in her proposal.
Councilmember deHaan requested a summary of litigation and the
estimates for finalization; requested that the Council receive
advanced notice when the amount of a consultant's contract is
anticipated to increase.
Councilmember deHaan stated that all managers should be able to
provide the Council with an on-going ledger.
Chair Johnson stated that the task of providing the ledger to the
Council should not be burdensome; requested that the City Attorney
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
7
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",13803,
18691,"The City Attorney stated the information would be provided to the
Council before the City Council Meeting; stated that she would
bring the proposal to the July 5 Closed Session Meeting with the
advanced copy of all information requested; she hears the Council
direction in terms of a desire for policy direction to provide the
additional thresholds and Council involvement and oversight for all
governing bodies matters would be discussed and direction taken
from the Council.
Chair Johnson stated that she does not expect that any outside
counsel would need to be hired within the next week, inquired what
was decided on the interim.
The City Attorney responded that she would like the Council to keep
a reasonable, fair and equitable approach; all department heads are
authorized to spend monies when the budget is adopted $75,000 or
less is the current amount without Council authorization.
Chair Johnson stated that no one else in the City has authorization
to spend over $800,000.
The City Attorney reiterated her request for a reasonable approach.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council is always fair and
reasonable; stated that she made it clear at the budget meeting
that the Council is not changing the amount of the City Attorney'
budget but is exercising Council responsibility.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated that the direction for
other City departments might change also; the City is in
extraordinary times in reviewing the budget, controlling staffing,
and developing needed services.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that the Council does not
want to make it significantly more difficult for the City Attorney
to be able to do her job.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that delivery of successful
services to the residents is ultimately the end responsibility; the
question of reasonableness is not incidental; rapid responses are
necessary for the legal team; the City is shooting itself in the
foot if rules do not allow for rapid responses.
The City Attorney stated that she is fully confident that the
proposal submitted on July 5 will be adequate for all purposes.
Chair Johnson requested that the City Attorney summarize her
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
6
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",13803,
18690,"Attorney to bring the hiring of outside counsel to Council but the
matter was not part of the motion; that he is not sure how many
other Councilmembers gave the direction to the City Attorney; staff
follows direction given by the Council ; it is not necessary to have
a motion and vote; the City Attorney would provide a proposal to
determine the extent of Council overview; that he questions whether
the City Attorney should hire outside counsel or come to the
Council voluntarily to request consent of hiring outside counsel.
Chair Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney could come to
Council when the hiring of outside counsel was necessary in the
interim, to which the City Attorney responded that she would not
hire outside counsel until July 5; noted that there are existing
counsel, bills and litigation.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council is not addressing attorneys
that are already working for the City.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog inquired whether the City Attorney
intended to hire new outside counsel in the next ten days, to which
the City Attorney responded in the negative.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the Council requested
a
summary of existing litigation and hopes to have the information
provided at the next meeting ARRA has a substantial amount of
litigation; noted there are fixed and variable portions of the
budget Council would like to keep control of outside counsel
spending the oversight philosophy is important.
Chair Johnson stated that all the Council agreed that there was a
need to provide some authority for emergency spending.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that that it is important
to establish a policy that is consistent across all governing
bodies.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated that the Council requested
to be involved in interim decisions and hopes to be receiving said
information.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council requested a list of
attorneys, including scope of service; the information should be
presented before the next Council meeting; inquired whether the
City Attorney's proposal would be in the agenda packet or presented
in advance; stated she would prefer that the proposal was not
distributed to the Council on the night of the meeting.
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
5
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",13803,
18689,"outside counsel and needs to be more in line with the intention of
the Charter; changes can be made as time goes on and when the
Council feels more comfortable a lot of money is being spent on
outside attorneys and the Council has an obligation to be more
aware of outside attorney costs.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that defining the
parameters of discretion and how the discretion relates to Section
8-5 of the Charter is the issue; the Council is in the process of
defining discretionary parameters of ""may empower"" the City
Attorney or any other City office meets Council expectations
through the establishment of the budget i threshold parameters need
to be established; the Council is moving in the direction that will
work for both sides but will not be established tonight.
Chair Johnson stated that clear direction was given to the City
Attorney to bring the matter of hiring of outside counsel back to
the Council at the last Closed Session Meeting.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that his interpretation of
the Charter is that because there was no specific ordinance or
resolution defining ""may empower"" the past practice is still in
effect.
Chair Johnson stated that is not what she heard at the last
meeting.
The City Attorney stated that she is working on a proposal to be
presented to the City Council on July 5; that she hears what the
Council is saying and understands that there is a desire for
additional oversight the proposal will provide additional Council
involvement and discretion, and provide significantly less
discretion on the City Attorney's part.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council is not asking for less
discretion on the City Attorney's part; stated that Council should
do what the Charter says; the interpretation of the Charter could
be that the Council gives consent to the City Attorney to spend
money on outside attorneys by putting a line item in the budget or
the interpretation of the Charter can be that the Council is not
going to give consent by a line item; the latter was made clear at
the June 7 Joint City Council, CIC, ARRA Meeting the Council is
allocating $470,000 but the City Attorney does not have the
discretion to spend it without the Council's consent.
The Acting City Manager stated that the [June 7] action of the
Council was to adopt the budget ; Chair Johnson requested the City
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
4
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",13803,
18688,"the Mayor's request and would return with an oversight proposal.
Chair Johnson stated that the direction to operate consistently
with what the Charter provides has already been given to the City
Attorney.
The City Attorney concurred with Chair Johnson; stated that the
attorney retained by the Council in 1989 provided an analysis of
the direction regarding retention of outside counsel.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council also gave direction regarding
the Charter stating that the Council consent is required to hire
outside attorneys.
The City Attorney stated that the consent has been given through
the budget in the past 16 years; the policy can be changed and
would be discussed on July 5th.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that the budget enables the
City Manager and department heads to hire individuals; the Council
does not need to be involved in the actual hiring but might want to
be involved in instances above or below certain thresholds; stated
that the Council is moving in the right direction.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the initial clarification
would be with the Charter; noted there is dispute between the City
Attorney and the Council; the Council feels that they have the
authority to consent to the hiring of outside legal counsel.
Chair Johnson stated that there is no need to hire an attorney to
provide an opinion on the language of the Charter; the language of
the Charter is very plain and clear.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the Council could move
forward if the language of the Charter has been determined.
Chair Johnson stated that there is a $470,000 litigation
contingency in Risk Management and an additional $350,000 for
Alameda Power & Telecom; noted that the City Attorney is stating
that the Council has consented to the hiring of outside counsel by
approving the line items in the budget over the past 16 years; the
Council has given a blanket authorization to the City Attorney to
hire outside counsel and that is not the level of oversight that
the Charter intends ; the Charter was drafted to provide needed
checks and balances; the City Attorney's office has five attorneys
and also spends a significant amount of money on outside counsel ;
stated that the Council should have more of a role in the hiring of
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
3
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",13803,
18687,"City Attorney's office for a future meeting noted the hiring of
outside counsel was not part of the budget adoption.
Chair Johnson stated the matter could be brought back at the July 5
City Council Meeting if the Council action is not clear.
The City Attorney stated the matter is on the July 5 Council agenda
per Council's request for discussion in closed session; noted that
she was requested to provide a proposal at the last performance
evaluation.
Chair Johnson stated different interpretations of the Council's
actions at the June 7 Council Meeting are not necessary; the
Council can place the matter on the July 5 Council Meeting in open
session; that she does not believe the matter is a closed session
item.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that she distinctly
remembers that there was a certain amount of concern in discussing
authorized amounts in open session because of litigation
strategies.
Chair Johnson stated that the concept needs to be adopted in open
session.
The City Attorney stated that she is proceeding to provide a
proposal at the July 5 Closed Session Meeting in order to not
reveal litigation strategies and to respond to the Council's
request for additional oversight and threshold identification; any
budget amendments should subsequently be placed on an open session
agenda; at the last performance evaluation, the Council requested
that the matter initially be addressed in closed session.
Chair Johnson stated there is also direction that action has to be
consistent with the Charter.
The City Attorney concurred with Chair Johnson.
Chair Johnson stated that the Charter provides that the Council
consent to the hiring of outside counsel.
The City Attorney distributed an opinion by Robert Logan which
addressed budget appropriations and authorizations; stated that it
is appropriate for the Council to follow the pattern and practice
that has been in place for over 16 years and which was adopted at
no less than five public meetings where a budget appropriation for
the City Attorney was authorized; stated that she did understand
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
2
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",13803,
18686,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY - - -JUNE 28, 2005- - -6:45 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:22 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioner/Board Member Daysog, deHaan,
Gilmore, and Chair Johnson - 4.
Absent :
Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese - 1.
Note: Chair Johnson announced that Commissioner/Board Member
Matarrese would not be teleconferencing from El Salvador because
the phone connection was not working.
AGENDA ITEM
(05-034CIC) Discussion/review of the City Charter and related
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) policy, procedures, and management
practices.
Chair Johnson stated that the City Attorney was requested to
provide thoughts on emergency spending for outside counsel: noted
that the hiring of outside counsel is approved by the Council and
that some slight revisions need to be made to the CIC and ARRA By-
laws, etc. in order to provide consistency between the City
Council, CIC and ARRA.
Commissioner/Boare Member Daysog inquired whether the issue of
hiring outside counsel was related to determining what the
threshold would be.
Chair Johnson responded that the City Attorney was to provide
information on how much would be required to cover the interim
period before the matter was brought back to the Council.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that she understood that
the matter would be addressed at a meeting in July.
Chair Johnson stated that a memo was received stating that an
outside attorney had been hired; the City Attorney indicated that
the issue regarding hiring of outside counsel applied to the
Council, not the CIC or ARRA.
The City Attorney distributed the minutes of the June 7, 2005
Council Meeting stated the Council requested a proposal from the
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
1
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",13803,
18685,"Page 3 of 3
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
May 13, 2009
D.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
Please enable the time on the computer internet terminals, not to show how much time is
remaining in a session, but the actual time clock. In order to show the clock, other items would
also be revealed, but we are currently investigating another way to do this, time permitting.
Please fix the computer system; 12 minutes without movement is very painful, and you can't get
anything done. We have reached reliable speeds with our internet service provider, and
apologize for the unhappy experience. In the future, please ask for assistance with your problem,
and staff may be able to troubleshoot it.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Vice President Hartigan asked about the consumer product regulations regarding lead in children's
books. Chisaki explained that books printed before 1985 are being removed and boxed while awaiting a
final decision on what will be done. In relation to a comment by President Belikove on a library that
was lending prom dresses, Hartigan remarked that he had read about a bike lending library as well.
Hartigan then asked Director Chisaki to talk a little about the current budget situation. Chisaki noted
that over the past three years, the Library has cut about 21% from its budget, so will not be asked to cut
more in the next fiscal year. Current staff will be retained, but there will be no part-time pay increases
granted. President Belikove inquired whether the Foundation or Friends might be willing to provide a
monthly stipend to help relieve the staffing burden. Chisaki indicated these organization's monies are
not meant for that type of support, as that is something the City is supposed to provide. What the City
does not provide are funds for public IT needs, and the Foundation is behind that.
Vice President Hartigan mentioned that he was happy to see that the LEED certification is approaching
its end of days. Chisaki said that a letter from Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) has gone out giving
the Library renewable energy credits, and all questions posed by the U.S. Green Building Council have
been responded to. It is hoped we will get silver certification, but if not we will appeal the decision.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
There were no comments.
ADJOURNMENT
President Belikove asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Vice President Hartigan so
moved; Member Wetzork seconded the motion which carried by a 3-0 vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Janichina
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Alameda Free Library Board",13803,
18684,"Page 2 of 3
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
May 13, 2009
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Neighborhood Library Improvement Project (G. Wetzork)
Christopher Noll and Alyson Yarus of Noll & Tam were in attendance at the Board meeting to
give input and answer any questions the Board might have. Director Chisaki said the NLIP team
had met the previous Wednesday to go over scope of work. Cost estimates had come in much
lower than expected, so it looks like everything on the list will be done. Member Wetzork
praised Noll & Tam for their work in keeping costs under the budgeted amount.
Director Chisaki went over the proposed improvements for each branch, and asked the Board if
they had a preference on which branch would go first. Chisaki had met with Member Butter the
previous week; she had been pleased with the direction the NLIP team was taking, and was in
favor of having the Bay Farm Island branch renovated first. After more discussion, Member
Wetzork made a motion to accept the recommendations from the NLIP team for the final scope
of work, and to accept the recommendation that the Bay Farm Island branch be the first
renovation done. Member Hartigan seconded the motion which carried by a 3-0 vote.
Marc Lambert asked where the $100,000 the Friends had pledged towards the renovation effort
would be used. Director Chisaki said that it may go towards art for the branches. President
Belikove said the Art Exhibit Committee would like to be in on selection of the branch art.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Art Exhibit Committee (R. Belikove)
President Belikove said the Art Exhibit Committee is hugely successful, with shows scheduled
through March 2010. Comic book artist Eric Larsen has his work up now, and will be doing a
demonstration in conjunction with his reception on May 20th. The Committee is building their
publicity list and trying to contact more organizations that may be interested. Vice President
Hartigan mentioned how great the Wood Museum of History was this year, as the kids had really
done a fantastic job. The next exhibit will be by Multi-Cultural Center artists.
B.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (A. Mitchell)
Director Chisaki said the Foundation's executive board met last month, and the full Board will
have their next meeting on May 18th; it is expected they will vote on naming the Children's
Programming Room after Jane Felker. The Foundation will be hosting the June Chamber Mixer
on Wednesday, June 10. The Board will receive invitations to this event.
C.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Lambert)
Marc Lambert said they were nearing a critical situation with the Café. Many of the volunteers
who had regular shifts have moved on to other things and it has been hard to fill their slots.
Lambert encouraged everyone to be on the lookout for people who might want to get involved.",13803,
18683,"Chy
OF
N°
&
TERKA
GRATER
Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
May 13, 2009
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Ruth Belikove, President
Mike Hartigan, Vice President
Gail Wetzork, Board Member
Absent:
Karen Butter, Board Member
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Marsha Merrick, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so accepted or approved on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Month of May 2009.
Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of March 11, 2009. Approved.
C.
*Library Services Reports for the Months of February and March 2009. Accepted.
D.
*Financial Report Reflecting FY09 Expenditures by Fund for March and April 2009. Accepted.
E.
*Bills for Ratification for the Months of March and April 2009. Approved.
There were no questions or comments from the Board, so President Belikove asked for a motion to
accept the Consent Calendar as presented. Vice President Hartigan so moved; Member Wetzork
seconded the motion which carried by a 3-0 vote.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
There were no comments.",13803,
18682,"Mr. Tai explained to the Board that the reason for replacing one Oak tree with two Oak trees is
that most likely only one will survive.
Ms. Altschuler added that the requirement of two Oak trees was a decision of this Board many
years ago. Not every tree will survive. This just ensures that each tree that is removed will be
replaced.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval, for the removal of one Coast Live
Oak Tree as stated in the draft Resolution. 3-0-2.
Ayes:
3;
Noes:
0;
Absent:
2;
Motion carries.
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval, for the partial demolition of an
existing 622 sq. ft. residence at 320 Pacific as stated in the draft Resolution. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries.
REPORTS:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Boardmember Lynch attended the Special Planning Board workshop on March 3rd regarding
Alameda Point and she is concerned that the Flight Tower is not included in the Historic District
and would like staff to agendize this for a future meeting.
STAFF COMMUNICATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
M/S (Lynch/Miller) to adjourn the meeting at 7:53 pm.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Justice
Judith Altschuler, Secretary
Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNINGHHAB\AGENMIN\Agemin.05/2-3-05 MIN.doc
Minutes of March 10, 2005
Special Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3",13803,
18681,"Mr. Tai stated that the applicants are proposing to raise the existing structure in order to integrate
a new single-family dwelling into the existing structure. The construction will involve removal
of the existing front façade of the building as well as the front portion of the roof. This matter is
brought before this Board because it involves partial demolition of a structure built prior to 1942.
Staff feels that there is no evidence that the structure exhibits any architectural or historical merit
and that the proposed project will be more consistent with the adjacent homes than the existing
building. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Board approve the Certificate of Approval as
stated in the draft Resolution.
Vice Chair Anderson opened the floor for public comment.
Ivan Chiu, Architect, stated that the tree should be removed because one trunk is leaning over the
fence toward the adjacent property while another is leaning toward the existing structure. At the
recommendation of the arborist, the applicant wishes to remove the existing Oak in order to
eliminate the possibility of the tree causing damage to the neighboring property. Mr. Wong also
informed the Board that the proposed design intends to keep the Craftsman style appearance and
to preserve salvageable portions of the existing building by incorporating the structure into the
rear of the new building.
Vice Chair Anderson closed public comment and opened Board discussion.
Boardmember Lynch stated that she visited the property and feels that the tree does look sick.
She also feels that the existing structure should not be considered a historic resource. She also
feels that this structure should not be referred to as a ""craftsman"" style because there are no
""craftsman"" style elements on the existing or proposed structure.
Vice Chair Anderson asked if the old house is structurally sound enough to support the proposed
new house.
Mr. Chiu stated that the detail of the design has not yet been looked into. He does not anticipate
any problems.
Mr. Tai stated that lifting and moving the house is considered necessary to comply with setback
standards. If the house were completely demolished then several variances would be required.
Mr. Miller asked if the neighbors were ok with this project.
Mr. Tai stated that there were no comments as of yet.
Vice-Chair Anderson stated that one of the conditions of the Resolution states that the applicant
must replace the removed tree with two new trees. She is concerned that the lot cannot support
two 15 gallon Oak trees. Would it be possible for the Board to require the applicant plant one
Oak tree and another type of tree?
Minutes of March 10, 2005
Special Historical Advisory Board Meeting
2",13803,
18680,"MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING OF THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2005
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
Vice Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Secretary Altschuler called
the roll.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vice-Chair Anderson, Boardmembers Miller & Lynch.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Chair McPherson, Boardmember Tilos.
STAFF PRESENT:
Secretary Altschuler, Allen Tai, Planner III,
Recording Secretary Debbie Gremminger.
MINUTES:
M/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 3, 2005 with
corrections. 3-0-2.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:
None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)
None.
ACTION ITEMS: (Discussion/Action
1.
CA05-0003 320 Pacific Avenue - The applicants request a Certificate of Approval to
removal a Coast Live Oak tree. The tree has a 24"" diameter and large low-angled trunks that
extend across the property line. The application also includes a request to partially demolish an
existing 622 square-foot, pre-1942 building as part of a new proposal to construct a single-family
residence on the property. The site is located at 320 Pacific Avenue, within an R-4,
Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Allen Tai, Planner III, was present and briefly reviewed the staff report as presented. He
informed the Board that the property owner is requesting a Certificate of Approval for two items.
The first is to allow the removal of a Coast Live Oak tree that is located along the western edge
of the property. The second request involves the partial demolition of the existing single-family
dwelling.
Minutes of March 10, 2005
Special Historical Advisory Board Meeting
1",13803,
18679,"Member Nielsen spoke to George Phillips comments regarding how the community's involvement
through cash and in-kind donations and volunteering made a significant impact on the success of the
Club, and her concern was that other agencies might not have these resources. She also mentioned the
support to the Boys and Girls Club from Abbott, including their volunteer support.
She added that she was also moved by Liz Varela's comments on how funding cuts are pushing their
agency to a breaking point, where they might need to eliminate some services.
She hoped we could continue a conversation that included support for our safety-net services that went
beyond the funds available through the CDBG grants.
Member Biggs suggested we might consider holding forums on specific areas of need identified in our
survey such as Neglected and Abused Children, and Housing Discrimination.
Staff commented that we are already using this model with the reconvening of the Domestic Violence
Task Force.
Vice-President Villareal asked that, the Board/ ATAH agree to co-sponsor a Not In Our Town Film
(NIOT) series and Harvey Milk Day Event. The series would consist of a NIOT screenings of films at
the College of Alameda on Racism / March 19th, and Immigrants and Hate Crimes against them / 4/16,
and at Wood Middle School on May 21st /LGBT issues. The May screening would be part of a Harvey
Milk Day celebration.
The Board has presented NIOT films in the past. Co-Sponsors for these screenings and activities would
include the AMCCC, COA, CARE, and for the 5/12 event, AUSD.
M/S Wasko / Nielsen for The Board and ATAH to Co-sponsor (with AMCC, AUSD, COA, CARE) a
Not In Our Town Film series and related events to be held on March 19 (Racism), 4/16 (Immigration)
and 5/21 (LGBTQ / Harvey Milk Day) Unanimous
4.
BOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Staff announced that the Sunshine Ordinance will go into effect on February 1st, 2012, and reviewed
changes that impact our Board.
Staff reported that Season For Nonviolence activities will begin Monday with daily readings in
Elementary and Middle Schools, 23 Bullying Prevention assemblies in 13 Elementary and Middle
Schools, and a Speech Contest.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
6. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn M/S Dailey / Villareal Unanimous
Meeting adjourned at 9:05
Respectfully Submitted: Jim Franz - Secretary
G:\Comdev\SSHRB\PACKETS(2012)January 2012\MINUTES January 2012.doc",13803,
18678,"M/S Biggs / Dailey that the Board support the staff recommendations on implementing a $2.50 charge
for the Medical Return Trip Improvement Program (MRTIP) Paratransit taxi service, and that the Board
also receives periodic reports as to the usage of the Taxi and scholarship programs.
3-B.
JOINT DISCUSSION AND WORK SESSION WITH THE BOARD AND IT'S
WORKGROUPS TO REVIEW 2011 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND SET GOALS FOR 2012.
President Wasko explained that while this agenda item allows us to take actions to accomplish our
goals, it is primarily a discussion time and an opportunity to reflect and brain-storm,.
Member Nielsen concurred, citing her appreciation of a meeting where we discussed the status of our
Sister City Workgroup, and our December 2011 meeting where we explored options on how we could
best be a voice regarding the allocation of CDBG funds, and also had a chance to connect with service
providers.
President Wasko initiated a discussion regarding the status of our Community Needs Survey and how
the Board wishes to frame their presentation to the Council on February 21st
Extensive community outreach, including articles in the Journal, SUN, and Sing Tao, helped us achieve
the 1,700+ responses, 200 more than the 1,500 / 5% of Alameda HH, we felt necessary for the survey
to be statistically significant. The new alamedasurvey.com domain also made it easier to promote the
survey.
Responses to the Spanish and Chinese language sites have been slow, but we continue to outreach to
these populations. We have also received nearly 200 hard copies of the survey which were completed
at the libraries, Food Bank, Mastick, faith communities and other community partners
While email was our primary method of communication with partners, we have found that person to
person follow-up was critical, since many partners receive scores of emails each day.
It was agreed that we will be able to draw some ""basic"" information from the survey to present to the
Council at the meeting on February 21st.
However, the Board has always felt that outside, professional help should be available to help evaluate
the data and help us reach meaningful conclusions. It was agreed that, the data could be interpreted in a
number of ways. Options discussed to accomplish this included: help from Doug's contacts at St.
Mary's, speaking with Deputy City Manager Alex Nguyen regarding contacts he used for the city's
website survey, contacting Supervisor Chan for help, asking CDBG staff if there might be in-house
assistance or funds with which to hire someone like David Pontecorvo, or asking the council if funding
was available. When we completed our 2005-2006 survey and met with them, they asked
""Why didn't you come to us for help analyzing the data?""
President Wasko noted how attentive the Mayor and Council have been during our previous
presentations and that we are touching their hearts.
She added that Service Providers should be encouraged to bring their clients to speak. Those who
attended our December Public Needs Hearing have already been extended an invitation to attend and
bring clients to that meeting. Having a variety of service providers who represent the breadth and
complexity of our safety net of services would also help the Mayor and Council understand why we feel
this is such a critical issue. The Board reviewed the Needs Letter we will present at the meeting, agreed
that it was a powerful statement, and made some minor formatting changes. Members Nielsen and
Biggs, and President Wasko have met as the Assessment and Awareness Workgroup working to
develop the survey format. They will meet again to finalize the presentation to the Council. Member
Biggs has agreed to lead the discussion.",13803,
18677,"Social Service Human Relations Board
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, January 26, 2012
1. CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL President Wasko called the meeting to order
At 7:05 p.m. Present were: Vice-President Villareal, members Biggs, Dailey, and Nielsen.
Absent was: Member Holder
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the December 1, 2011 Regular Meeting were approved as amended.
Motion / Second: Dailey / Biggs Unanimous
3.
AGENDA ITEMS
3-A.
CITY OF ALAMEDA PARATRANSIT TAXI SERVICE MODIFICATION --
PRESENTATION BY GAILPAYNE, TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR -
CITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Gail Payne explained that her department manages the City of Alameda Paratransit Program in
partnership with Mastick Senior Center. The program has four components: a Scholarship Program,
a Paratransit Shuttle Program, a Free Trips to Mastick Senior Center Program, and a Taxi Program.
Tonight's presentation is on proposed changes to the Medical Return Trip Improvement Program
(MRTIP), which currently provides free trips to eligible residents (East Bay Paratransit certified
riders) when returning home from medical appointments within Alameda County.
Public Works Department staff is recommending charging eligible residents $2.50 per MRTIP travel
voucher. Staff conducted a review of Paratransit taxi services offered by other cities in north
Alameda County, and determined that these jurisdictions - except for Berkeley - charge a nominal
fee for their services. For example, Oakland charges $3 for taxi travel vouchers valued at $10;
Albany reimburses 70 percent of the metered fare; Emeryville reimburses 90 percent of the metered
fare. This recommendation will reduce the overall costs to the program, is consistent with
neighboring jurisdictions, and allows the City to apply the cost savings to the Alameda Paratransit
Shuttle service. This recommendation is consistent with the service level guidelines that the
Alameda CTC PAPCO have approved and with Alameda CTC's Draft Implementing Guidelines for
Measure B funded City-based programs.
Ms. Payne explained the average cost of a taxi trip is $24, and that, while the program has sufficient
funds available for the program in FY 12-13, it needs to identify additional funds beginning with
FY 13-14. A recent survey indicated 96% of the participants in the taxi program were satisfied with the
services provide, and 75% were willing to pay $2. The scholarship program, for those unable to pay, is
currently at $1,000.
Discussion: A brief discussion followed, which included comments from member Biggs that sufficient
scholarship funds should be made available to assure that low-income riders can be accommodated. He
also asked that, if the Board is to support the staff recommendation, we receive periodic reports as to
the usage of the taxi and scholarship programs.",13803,
18676,"11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
11-A 2017-4461
Subcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal
Design Ordinance
Did Not Meet. Staff Member Thomas said they could officially disband that subcommittee.
11-B 2017-4462
Subcommittee for Alameda Marina
*None*
Board Member Knox White shared that the accessory dwelling unit and shared living
ordinances were passed by City Council.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Alan Teague asked what time the tour was and if the public was invited.
Staff Member Thomas said it was at 530pm and open to the public.
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Köster adjourned the meeting at 9:28pm.
Approved Minutes
Page 8 of 8
June 26, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",13803,
18675,"Board Member Burton said they need to set the rules and the applicant can decide whether
to do slab on grade or homes with crawl spaces.
Board Member Burton revised and restated his motion to: revise the development
plan to change the setbacks on lots 1-8 to 12' minimums to face of porch and 17'
minimums to face of buildings, the fence along Tilden and all homes come back for
design review, that staff will provide information on the sizes of existing buildings'
square footage within one block of the site, that when the applicant comes back for
design review that a maintenance plan be presented for the private drive and the
fence along Tilden.
Board Member Zuppan asked if there was a plan for when the entirety of the Tilden fence
would be constructed, given that the homes might be designed and built in phases.
Staff Member Thomas said the intent was to have the fence built with the first home.
Board Member Curtis asked the developer if the foundation plans have been designed for
the first two units.
Mr. Mapes said they have not, but that he knows what it will take. He said he is being
penalized for designing a nicer home (raised floor). He said he will do a slab if that is what
the board wants. He said it would be cheaper that way.
Board Member Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
8. MINUTES
*None*
9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2017-4463
Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions
Staff Member Thomas said they approved four use permits and eight design reviews.
9-B 2017-4465
Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development
Department Projects
Staff Member Thomas said the July 10th meeting is being moved to July 17th. He said
there is a Shipways site tour tomorrow at 5:40pm. He listed future agenda items.
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
Approved Minutes
Page 7 of 8
June 26, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",13803,
18674,"Board Member Burton asked what ability they have within the development plan to limit
unit size.
Staff Member Thomas said they can limit size via the development plan. He said staff
is
more concerned with the look of the design than exactly how many square feet.
Board Member Burton suggested that they could ask for the designs to be much more
sculpted when they come back. He amended his motion to ask that the designs come to
the board for review, rather than being approved at the staff level. Board Member Curtis
seconded the motion.
Board Member Mitchell asked if it was possible to have all the designs be presented and
approved simultaneously, while allowing the builder to proceed with only 1-2 units at a
time if desired.
Staff Member Thomas said they outlined the lots, home orientation, parking locations, and
circulation in the development plan. He said they liked the idea of potentially getting some
variety by doing the designs a couple at a time.
Board Member Curtis said he was not looking for detailed construction drawings, but
rather renderings of streetscapes to put the project into scale for the neighborhood.
Board Member Zuppan said she was concerned about how the private drive and perimeter
fence would be maintained.
Staff Member Thomas said he would need to review the original conditions of approval on
the final map from seven years ago.
Staff Member Sablan asked if the motion intended for the universal design elements to be
installed as originally approved and not just demonstrate how they could be included if the
homeowner desired.
Board Member Burton responded in the affirmative.
Board Member Knox White asked that when the plan for the fence came back it include
details of how it would be maintained. He asked that staff bring back information on the
size of buildings in the neighborhood when the board considers the design of the units.
Board Member Curtis said he was reluctant to vote for something that would require the
drawings to be redone because of the cost.
Approved Minutes
Page 6 of 8
June 26, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",13803,
18673,"Board Member Knox White said they should check with Public Works about maintenance
and concerns about pedestrians' proximity to traffic if there is growth along the wall. He
said the homes are out of scale for the neighborhood and we should consider setting some
guidelines for the sizes of the homes.
Board Member Curtis agreed with the other board members.
Board Member Zuppan agreed with the previous comments about design, scale, and the
fence on Tilden. She said the homes are near busy streets and the design needs to take
potential accidents into consideration.
Board Member Mitchell said he would like to see the second stories and home sizes better
match the neighborhood. He suggested reducing the number of duplexes in the project.
He said he would like to see the fence issue come back.
President Köster said he would like to see more variation in the architecture beyond just
color and material. He said he would be fine with the ramps being in the garages. He said
he would like the universal design requirements to remain.
Steve Sorenson said the builder is a good builder and wants to build good homes.
Mr. Mapes said the crawl space would be more like 30"" above grade, not 12"". He said
there are many duplexes along Fernside Boulevard.
Board Member Mitchell said using garages for accessibility is a bad idea because garages
are often cluttered and obstructed.
Board Member Burton made a motion to approve the resolution amending the
development plan, keep the visitability and accessible unit standards but allow the front
yard setbacks on lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 be amended to be 12' minimum to front porch and 17'
minimum to face of building, and have the fence along Tilden come back for design review.
Board Member Curtis seconded the motion.
Board Member Zuppan asked for clarification as to whether the design reviews for lots 1
and 2 were part of the motion.
Staff Member Thomas said the resolution just defines the setbacks, and staff would be
responsible for design review.
Board Member Knox White said that they should give direction on unit size now for staff
to consider during design reviews.
Approved Minutes
Page 5 of 8
June 26, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",13803,
18672,"Board Member Zuppan said her recollection from the previous discussion was that the
Tilden fence was supposed to be of above average design and not a simple wooden fence.
Staff Member Sablan said that it is what the applicant is proposing, but the design is up
for discussion.
Board Member Knox White asked if they can change items in the development plan
beyond the items requested by the applicant.
Staff Member Thomas said they can make any changes they wish to the application.
President Köster asked if the lots had to be 5,000 square feet.
Staff Member Thomas said the lots have been approved by City Council already.
President Köster opened the public hearing.
Alan Teague said they should revise the agreement to match the recommended Universal
Design ordinance. He suggested the visitability could be accomplished by going through
the garage.
Evan Schwimmer asked that lots 5, 6, and 8 be changed to be single family homes. He
said the duplexes on Versailles would change the character of the neighborhood.
President Köster closed the public hearing.
Board Member Burton said he is okay with the setback changes for lots one and two. He
said he would go with the board on the setback for the other lots on Versailles. He said
the visitability and accessibility requirements are not negotiable. He said he could not
support the designs of the first two homes. He said the design lacked character. He said
they are enormous 3400 square foot homes, and that they needed more sculpting.
Board Member Sullivan said she does not see much character in the design. She said the
fence along Tilden is the entrance to Alameda and needs to have more permanence than
a simple wood fence.
Board Member Knox agreed with the two previous board members. He asked who would
be responsible for the City's side of the fence.
Staff Member Thomas said they were talking about having vines covering the fence along
Tilden to prevent graffiti from being a problem.
Approved Minutes
Page 4 of 8
June 26, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",13803,
18671,"Staff Member Thomas said this ordinance would not add additional process to projects.
He said the conversation about waivers would happen at the regular design review hearing
for their project and not cause more hearings to occur.
Board Member Knox White said he is prepared to support the ordinance. He said the BIA
letter was disrespectful to Alameda. He said he looks forward to celebrating when City
Council adopts the ordinance.
Board Member Mitchell said he will support the ordinance and is comfortable with the
waiver process. He said building these changes in during construction are cost effective
and practical. He said developers want predictability, even if it adds some costs.
President Köster said he supports the ordinance.
Board Member Knox White thanked the Commission on Disability Issues (CDI)
subcommittee members for their efforts promoting visitability, and for beginning this
discussion in the first place.
Board Member Burton thanked Ms. Lord-Hausman and Erick Mikiten for their work on the
ordinance.
Board Member Zuppan made a motion to approve the resolution with the clarifying
edits provided during discussion. Board Member Mitchell seconded the motion. The
motion passed 7-0.
7-B 2017-4466
PLN17-0186 - 2001 Versailles Ave - Applicant: Clifford Mapes. A public
hearing to consider a proposed development plan amendment and design
review for the first two homes on an 11-lot subdivision on a 1.29-acre
property located at 2001 Versailles Avenue at the corner of Fernside
Boulevard and Versailles Avenue. The project is categorically exempt from
further review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects.
Staff Member Sablan gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found
at:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3082688&GUID=B8EB6B20-
7BC-4A18-9910-EAD223D8EOOC&FullText=1
Board Member Mitchell thanked staff for saying ""VER-sigh.' He asked for an update on
the retaining wall along Tilden.
Staff Member Sablan said the applicant is proposing a basic wooden fence at this point.
Approved Minutes
Page 3 of 8
June 26, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",13803,
18670,"Staff Member Thomas said that projects like Del Monte and Encinal Terminals have no
problem meeting the 30% requirements. He said townhome only projects like 2100
Clement would have trouble meeting the 30% requirements.
Board Member Curtis said that most projects in Alameda have very high site improvement
costs and asked if it was feasible to saddle these units with higher construction costs that
would drive prices higher.
Staff Member Thomas said they have to balance the desire not to drive prices up with the
need to build housing that does not exclude entire segments of the population.
Board Member Sullivan said she was very concerned about the increased costs that the
requirements would add to new units. She said they do not have enough information to
initiate these rules.
President Köster opened the public hearing.
Alan Teague said we should require the minimum amount of items needed to make a unit
visitable and not add more, in order to avoid adding unnecessary costs. He said any
entrance, not just the front door, can be used to meet the requirements.
Alan Pryor said the requirements for visitability seem like a good idea to help people
access their homes as they age.
President Köster closed the public hearing.
Board Member Burton said he is eager to move the ordinance forward. He said allowing
adaptable stairs to meet the requirements would be a mistake. He said the $80,000
number in the BIA letter is a scare tactic. He said we have a reasonable waiver process
available if there are issues.
Board Member Sullivan asked if the ordinance was likely to just eliminate the construction
of townhomes in Alameda.
Staff Member Thomas said that there are pending applications that include townhomes
would not be changed due to the current ordinance because they have a mix of housing
types in their projects. He said they can come back and change the ordinance if they find
each project asking for the same waivers.
Board Member Curtis asked why we would move forward with an ordinance that we think
will have problems in the future. He said the ordinance encourages vertical development
and punishes single family development.
Approved Minutes
Page 2 of 8
June 26, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",13803,
18669,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2017
1. CONVENE
Board Member Mitchell convened the meeting at 7:01pm
2. FLAG SALUTE
Board Member Curtis led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Present: Board Members Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Mitchell, Sullivan, Zuppan.
President Köster arrived at 7:03pm.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Alan Teague said he was researching the Planning Board's work and said he wished
that all of the documents referenced (i.e.- - CA building code) in the agendas were
available to the public.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
*None*
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2017- 4464
Public Hearing on Final Revisions to draft Universal Design Ordinance
Staff Member Thomas gave the staff report. The report and attachments can be found
at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3082686&GUID=7B56959C-
DA03-43D4-BOB5-0E0D8329B17F&FullText=1
Board Member Mitchell asked for language in the waivers section to be clarified in the
ordinance.
Board Member Zuppan suggested they could simply remove a portion of the wording to
make it easier to understand.
Board Member Mitchell asked how the proposed ordinance would have impacted costs
for previously approved units.
Approved Minutes
Page 1 of 8
June 26, 2017
Planning Board Meeting",13803,
18668,"The City Manager stated the City Attorney should not be in the position of taking a
position if there are items which cannot be agreed upon; the City Attorney should bring
back a proposed policy and include what the trades want which differs; then, the
Council can decide what to do.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether Council should direct the City Attorney to
consult with various stake holder parties, such as trades representatives, contractor
representatives, or others who would be a party to a PLA, as well as Mr. Viaming.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would also like the Alameda Point Collaborative
included.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(13-420) The City Manager reminded everyone to attend the Joint City Council and
Planning Board meeting tomorrow night.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(13-421) Councilmember Tam announced that all Councilmembers attended all or a
portion of the League of California Cities conference last week; discussed the sessions
she attended.
The City Manager noted the City's bond rating increased.
Councilmember Tam continued her review of the sessions.
Councilmembers Chen and Daysog discussed the sessions they attended.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
September 24, 2013",13803,
18667,"a long time and has discussed, for example, the problem of historic buildings; the
building's value is pretty much nil; imposing a PLA on a tenant might be a problem if a
new roof is needed; there is agreement that all new construction should be subject to a
PLA; backbone infrastructure should be subject to a PLA; a decision needs to be made
about a threshold; Berkeley's is $1 million; the trades would like $250,000; backbone
infrastructure and new construction projects are going to reach either threshold; urged
that the matter be addressed in the next two or three months since staff would be
bringing Exclusive Negotiation Agreements (ENAs) to Council pretty soon; stated staff
wants to be able to address whether or not the project requires a PLA during
negotiations.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he suspects the historic district or buildings with
negative value would not generate a rent or sale price which would recoup the
investment; however, the possibility of a PLA should not be discounted altogether;
requested staff to provide an analysis that includes parameters under which a PLA
might or might not work.
The City Manager stated staff provided a report a year ago which indicated historic
buildings are never going to be worth the amount repairs will cost; a private sector deal
will not allow the buildings to be redone; when the buildings are leased, the City gives a
dollar for dollar rent credit for any tenant repairs; stated that he would provide the report
to Councilmember Daysog.
Councilmember Chen stated that he supports moving forward with the two prong
approach: one PLA specifically for Alameda Point and a second Citywide PLA; the
wheel should not be reinvented; the City can pick and choose from existing models to
determine what works for Alameda; Berkeley could be the starting point.
Mayor Gilmore clarified that she would prefer to move forward on the Alameda Point
PLA and park the City projects for a little while; stated the Alameda Point PLA should
focus on backbone infrastructure and new construction and the historic district should
be carved out; the sticking point is what, if anything, to require of existing tenants.
The City Attorney inquired whether Council would like her come back with a policy or try
to start to negotiate something with the unions.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she wants answers to questions posed in the
staff report to allow the Council to craft a policy; stated a sample agreement and
categories could be provided when the matter returns.
Mayor Gilmore stated the actual policy should be provided which addresses backbone
infrastructure and new construction when the matter is brought back.
Councilmember Tam stated the City Attorney should work in consultation with the
building trades council in developing the language.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 24, 2013",13803,
18666,"Reasonableness; stated that he looks forward to seeing said details.
Mayor Gilmore stated Council needs to provide direction to staff; suggested separating
Alameda Point from the rest of the Island; stated one agreement should cover regular
maintenance and projects which come up in the City's regular course of business and
Alameda Point would be treated as its own animal; recommendations should be
provided on how to address existing tenants using their own capital to upgrade and
expand businesses; the historic district is challenging in and of itself and may need to
have special consideration; social justice aspects should be reviewed; people live at
Alameda Point and there should be some mechanism to allow them to participate in the
great and wonderful projects that are going to happen around them; the City should be
mindful of ways to get Alameda Point residents to participate in the upside of whatever
happens.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Mayor; stated the four items in the staff
report [project category, project parameters, cost added to the project and impacts on
public policy goals] need to be fleshed out; project parameters could be narrowed down;
Berkeley has a $1 million minimum; leaseholders doing their own improvements and the
historic core could be treated differently; regarding cost added to the project, perhaps
some research could be provided regarding projects in the area; public policy goals
include: historic preservation, marine preservation, competitiveness to attract new
commercial users and to retain and expand existing companies, local hiring, and social
justice issues, including apprenticeship opportunities; that she would like to hear some
specifics about apprenticeship opportunities, especially with an eye to Alameda Point
Collaborative residents.
Councilmember Tam stated the City is actively engaging in discussions about the
Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP), the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and the
phasing and disposition strategy for Alameda Point; Alameda Point has some unique
issues beyond a garden variety PLA or PSA; starting with Alameda Point might make
sense; then, regular maintenance projects could be addressed down the line.
Mayor Gilmore stated the staff report project category 1b, ""City Project,"" represents
more predictable, maintenance projects done on a schedule; said projects would be
parked for a while and the City would start with Alameda Point based on the comments
tonight; requested further information be provided to Council regarding having a
construction dollar amount which would trigger a PLA, which seems really important to
building trades; more information is needed about whether having a dollar amount be a
triggering event is reasonable and what the amount should be; that she is not
particularly concerned about project complexity because she assumes anything at
Alameda Point is going to be fairly complex, involve multiple trades and take over six
months; Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft raised questions about the timeframe because
projects could be entitled in early 2014.
The City Manager stated the EIR comment period ends October 21st; staff is probably
going to start bringing proposals early November; staff has been talking to the trades for
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 24, 2013",13803,
18665,"Councilmember Tam stated inquired how the City of Berkeley deals with private entities;
and how Berkeley's citywide policy for public works projects translates in terms of
requirements.
Mr. Viaming responded the City of Berkeley set a threshold; stated projects with an
estimated value over $1 million qualify and require a PLA to be included in bid
documents.
Councilmember Daysog stated City leases in building requiring significant rehabilitation
could be one potential project category; an example would be Bladium making $2
million in improvements; questioned putting a threshold in place and subjecting an entity
to a PLA; inquired whether Mr. Viaming has encountered a situation where there is not
simply a threshold with regard to the value of the project, but something about the entity
that is going to have to implement the PLA.
Mr. Viaming responded that he has dealt with the issue; however, it was not an existing
tenant doing an improvement; stated the 835 Westfield Project in San Francisco
renovated commercial shopping space; a provision in the Agreement required the
tenant improvement work for a specific period of time to be covered under the
Agreement and after period of time, the Agreement did not apply; having an existing
tenant do improvements on a property is difficult; new construction is different; that he
would be cautious about imposing a PLA on existing tenants, which might create some
challenges; there could be a discussion between the tenant and the building trades.
Provided input on the standards to include in an agreement: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point
Collaborative.
Stated entering into an agreement is a partnership: Andreas Cluver, Building Trades
Council of Alameda County.
Stated Alameda has a skilled labor force which looks forward to building Alameda Point:
Jason Bates, IBEW and Alameda resident.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft provided an example of Target taking interest in residents
who attended a Housing Authority seminar put on by a retail executive recruiter and
trainer, which was a creative example of how the City can help residents acquire jobs in
Alameda with new businesses; everyone would love to see a jobs/housing balance in
Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated Alameda Point cannot just be a real estate project; there
is some larger meaning in converting a military base into something more peaceful and
positive, contributing to the wellbeing of residents; the possibility of a PLA is exciting;
one component is learning from the Mandela Center, Oakland Army base, Alameda
Point Collaborative or the building trades; the construction trades can help figure out
ways to make economic security tailored specifically to helping homeless families or
others in the system, which fulfills a 1995 promise made under the Standards of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 24, 2013",13803,
18664,"associated costs; stated the argument costs are increased is not necessarily true.
Councilmember Tam stated Mr. Viaming is recommending more of a hybrid approach; a
PSA makes sense for something as complex, multifaceted, and long term as Alameda
Point; regular Public Works projects would fall under the category of a shorter term PLA;
inquired what happens when the two types of projects dovetail; stated utilities and
infrastructure will be needed at Alameda Point; inquired how the two types work with
Disposition and Development Agreements (DDAs); stated the City is going to be
conveying parts of Alameda Point.
Mr. Viaming responded his answer is going to seem a lot like a dodge; stated the issue
would probably best be considered by having a discussion with the City Attorney; the
mechanism and scope depend on a lot of different factors; a number of different
elements go into in the matrix; that he would suggest deferring until real input is
provided regarding the direction in which Council wants to go; next, staff would establish
the best model to achieve objectives, which would be used to create the policy
agreement; then, negotiations could begin; providing an opinion now would be
premature because he does not know all the elements well enough, and gets the City
too far down the road too fast.
Councilmember Tam stated the things in a PSA, such as no strike, no lock out,
jurisdictional dispute resolution process, referral procedures, and having mentorship
program, are all things the City wants and values.
Mr. Viaming stated one option is to come up with a PSA and another option is to put
together a policy which indicates the City is not going to negotiate the Agreement,
instead negotiation will be left to the developer; the City policy would include the
required elements and direct developers to negotiate with the building trades; there are
different ways to accomplish the goal; the City could have a template Agreement and an
accompanying policy.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether it would be possible to treat Alameda Point as its own
animal, because it is being rebuilt from the ground up; stated perhaps some sort of PLA
that applies to Alameda Point could be done and some other kind of Agreement could
be prepared for the rest of the City's built environment projects, such as replacing sewer
mains, regular maintenance, or road work; inquired whether having one type of
Agreement that covers both is better or whether the City could carve out Alameda Point
and treat it differently.
Mr. Viaming responded the decision is the Council's prerogative; stated the Council
could decide to take care of one element first as a separate area; an Agreement could
require that Public Works projects over a certain amount of money would have a PSA
with specific elements that must be negotiated by the contractor; the most cost efficient
way might be to have different approaches; the City probably will need multiple
approaches.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 24, 2013",13803,
18663,"Mr. Viaming responded the City would not want to have a hard deadline and have to
race to be covered by a project agreement; stated bid specifications have to be done
right and bidders need to be notified that an agreement exists which has required terms
and conditions; lead time is needed; encouraged starting as early as possible because
what will happen in negotiations is not known; further stated more time is needed if hard
elements are being negotiated; not getting an Agreement done in time and running into
a problem is an unacceptable risk; the City may run out of time and not reach an
Agreement or end up making a concession.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether negotiations should start six months or a
year prior to construction in the example of a new bond funded facility.
Mr. Viaming responded other agencies often start in advance of a bond measure vote
and have the agreements in place; stated six months, or slightly longer, should be
provided for negotiations; six months is more than enough time for most agreements,
unless there is something particularly difficult.
Councilmember Chen inquired whether there is an overlapping common denominator in
most PLAs, such as hiring local, minority or women contractors.
Mr. Viaming responded in the affirmative; stated typical provisions include: scope,
strike/lock out, referrals, dispute resolution, and safety; said items are typically covered
at a macro level; then, local matters include start times, daily machinations and
paydays; the agreement standardizes certain things; social progress provisions are
generally included in more urban Project Agreements and are becoming more typical in
the interior Bay Area, but not rural areas.
Councilmember Chen stated the City of Berkeley addressed a citywide PLA a year and
a half ago; inquired what is the general trend and whether any other cities are
considering citywide PLAs.
Mr. Viaming responded that he does not know.
Councilmember Chen stated an argument against PLAs is the inability for non-union
workers and contractors to compete; inquired how to respond to said argument.
Mr. Viaming responded the argument comes up all the time; inability to bid on a ""union""
project is fundamentally not true; stated PLAs for public entities are open to union and
non-union; the California Supreme Court in a San Francisco Airport case determined a
contractor can decide whether or not to bid on a project; whether union or non-union
specific work conditions are required of any bidder; projects are open and available to
all contractors; provided an example of a bond funded community college project with a
large number of non-union contractors performing work under a Project Agreement; the
other argument is cost claiming non-union contractors have to add money to bids
because they will have to pay more; reviewed how benefits are structured and
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 24, 2013",13803,
18662,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--SEPTEMBER - 24, 2013- 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(13-418) Rose Sandoval, SEIU 1021, discussed BART employees working conditions
and urged people to contact the City's BART Board representative.
AGENDA ITEM
(13-419) Provide Comments on Possible Project Labor Agreement (PLA) Policy.
Urged adoption of a PLA: Assemblymember Rob Bonta.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Michael Viaming, Viaming and Associates, gave a Power Point presentation and
addressed Council questions.
Mayor Gilmore stated Alameda Point is in the forefront; the project will take 20 to 30
years; multiple projects will be built over a long period of time; inquired whether Mr.
Viaming would argue for a Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA) instead of a Project
Labor Agreement (PLA); further inquired whether perhaps 5 or 10 years would be a
reasonable check in point; noted attracting initial projects might be difficult.
Mr. Viaming responded a PSA makes more sense and is a more cost effective solution
than a PLA, which would take considerable time to negotiate; stated a PSA makes more
sense because of the long term and multiple constructions types that will be done; his
recommendation would be a PSA or a policy which would require developers to
negotiate with the building trades; the same thing can be accomplished in different
ways; estimating when the check in evaluation should be depends on the amount of
construction; there would be nothing to evaluate if a 5 year timeline were selected and
nothing happens; the time should be shorter, such as three years, if there is lot of
construction up front; the City should gauge the construction economy and developer
interest to select a good timeline.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when a PSA should be negotiated; whether a PLA or
PSA ever delays the start of a project; and how far in advance discussion should begin.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
September 24, 2013",13803,
18661,"Association.
3. Review Draft Transit/Transportation Demand Management Plan.
4. Approve the I-880/Broadway/Jackson Transportation Project.
5. Approve the TDA Bike/Pedestrian Grant Submittal.
7.
Announcements/Public Comments
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, said he sits on the
BART Bicycle Advisory Task Force and he invited the Commission and public to attend the next
meeting scheduled for Monday, April 3 from 6-8 pm at the East Bay Paratransit office. He
explained that the meeting would cover Project 529, a bike registration and theft deterrent
program, created by J Allard, former Microsoft Xbox program manager with the assistance of
Constable Rob Brunst from the Vancouver British Columbia police department. Under Project
529, bicyclists can register their bicycles with their cell phone, local bike shop or police
department and the program includes superior database and social media components. He would
like to see a regional program spearheaded.
Commissioner Vargas announced an event called Mobility 21, which is scheduled for April 3 in
Sacramento. He said Mobility 21 is a Southern California nonprofit that allows Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs) to get together and strategize about ways to obtain funding for
Southern California. He explained that's something that has been explored in Central and
Northern California.
8.
Adjournment
9:40 p.m.
Page 14 of 14",13803,
18660,"Commissioner Bertken asked Chadi Chazbek if they are going to rebuild the Jackson on ramp so
there are two lanes onto the freeway.
Chadi Chazbek replied no.
Commissioner Bertken asked Chadi Chazbek then what is the difference.
Chadi Chazbek replied the difference is that right now you have two lanes that come up, but the
right lane puts motorists on Broadway and since there is a small volume of cars that go through
the weave section they're going to remove that from the on ramp altogether.
Commissioner Bertken stated that it's important to understand that a good portion of the project
has to do with Oakland's side of the tunnel rather than Alameda's side.
Commissioner Miley replied that Commissioner Bertken's comments were correct, but it's a
matter of working with our neighbor.
Jennifer Ott reminded the Commission that there would be an approximate 3-minute travel
savings to get to the freeway and that would be a significant amount of time saved even when the
speeds are reduced within the tube. However, she agreed with Commissioner Miley that there are
benefits for Oakland such as congestion improvements and pedestrian safety enhancements,
especially in Chinatown. Consequently, Oakland and Alameda would see major improvements.
Commissioner Bellows thanked everyone for spending the evening with them and giving a
thorough presentation.
Commissioner Soules said the improvements proposed in Oakland would not mean Alamedans
wouldn't benefit. She explained that Alameda residents commute through the tube and travel
onto Interstate 880 and that would impact Alameda. In addition, she mentioned that having to
drive through Oakland Chinatown during peak hours can be intense because you have to watch
out for pedestrians and bicyclists, so the improvement would also benefit Alamedans.
6.
Staff Communications
6.A. BART 2017 Fact Sheet (Information)
6.B. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Approve Transportation Projects in Alameda's 2017-2019 Capital Improvement Program and
Provide Input on 2019-2027 Transportation Projects.
Staff Payne said there is a special meeting on April 26 to approve the Transportation Projects in
Alameda's 2017-2018 Capital Improvement Program.
2. Accept the Annual Report on the Alameda Landing and Marina Shores Transportation
Demand Management Program and Progress on the Citywide Transportation Management
Page 13 of 14",13803,
18659,"Jennifer Ott stated that the City is working with Parsons to assist with evaluating alternatives if
funds are available. She said they are also looking at how those remaining funds could be
reprogrammed to fund multimodal improvement for Alameda, Oakland and potentially
Chinatown. However, she explained that ACTC was just beginning their public process and
Alameda staff would keep their eye on potential unused funds.
Commissioner Miley replied the way Trinity Nguyen spoke about the CIP process he felt the
Transportation Commission would make the decision on what projects were funded. So, he
wanted to know if this was an Alameda, Oakland or joint project.
Jennifer Ott replied Trinity Nguyen was speaking about any unused funds. However, the project
that was presented this evening was under ACTC, the project sponsor, and any unused funds for
multimodal improvements would have to go through a reprogramming process where Alameda
would have to meet ACTC's criteria.
Trinity Nguyen replied the CIP process is all the funds within their measure and there are bike
and pedestrian components as well as livable streets funding pots as well. She noted that the
more broad the funding pot the more competitive it is. Yet, she said she would work with
Jennifer Ott to see what project they would like to see move forward.
Commissioner Miley seconded Trinity Nguyen's comment about staff doing a good job and he
pointed out that the public said the tube was not adequate for bicycling or walking. Nonetheless,
he was excited to see the presentation that evening and he wanted to see the project move
forward with the public's questions and comments addressed.
Commissioner Bellows replied there would be additional ACTC scoping sessions in May and
during different points along the line.
Commissioner Bertken said the biggest benefit for Alameda would be to tackle the problem at
the Jackson Street ramp going to the freeway during the a.m. peak period because currently the
project does not address this issue. He explained that the project team left the conflict between
the Jackson Street ramp and the Interstate 980 exit and there's not enough traffic on the
Broadway ramp to cause a problem in the a.m. peak.
Chadi Chazbek asked Commissioner Bertken if he was talking about the northbound Broadway
off ramp.
Commissioner Bertken said he was talking about the Broadway off ramp going to Broadway
right alongside the Jackson Street ramp.
Chadi Chazbek replied he's heard this before and the weave is a problem. However, the real
bottleneck is the two-lane ramp drop to one lane coming before the weave section and that's the
capacity constraint within the corridor. He explained that the weave is the main constraining
element and the project team conducted travel runs through the area with results showing
motorists slowing down as they come up the ramp while the two lanes merge into one lane. Yet,
he emphasized that the project would improve the issue.
Page 12 of 14",13803,
18658,"multimodal, pedestrian and bicycle issues. He said 55 people would like to see a down payment
made to build a pedestrian and bicycle bridge from Alameda to Oakland, 20 people said it would
be great to open the west side walkway and 17 people would like the funds to be used to
purchase boats for water taxi service from Alameda to Jack London Square. He said most people
want to do something else with the multimodal funds and felt the City needs to send that
statement to ACTC.
Lucy Gigli, Bike Walk Alameda President, stated that this project has been around for a long
time with multiple iterations. She said it was Measure B and then Measure BB funds and $75
million was allocated for Alameda to use on this project. She explained that Brian McGuire
mentioned if the project funds were partially used, there would be $10-15 million left that could
be used for the City. Thus, she encouraged the Commission to use the remaining funds for true
multimodal projects that address issues that are across the Estuary.
Denyse Trepanier said the project is multimodal in name only and she felt walking her bicycle
through the tube was a horrible experience. She explained that although connections to the tube
might be improved, the switchbacks introduced would only make the situation worse. She
referenced the Bay Bridge project, which was supposed to be multimodal. However, the path
remains randomly open on weekend days to bicyclists. She also pointed out that the off ramp
going through and cutting across the bicycle and pedestrian path within the tube would reduce all
access across the west end of Alameda. Based on what she heard, this may be a great solution for
vehicular traffic because they need to solve the congestion problem, but she felt the multimodal
funds earmarked for this project should specifically improve multimodal connections.
Commissioner Morgado exclaimed that he was hearing a lot about the money and he wanted
more information about the funding allocation.
Trinity Nguyen replied ACTC is working on the Comprehensive Investment Plan (CIP), which is
done every two years for a 5-year programming period. She pointed out that there are Measure
BB funds specifically related to multimodal access from Oakland to Alameda and vice versa and
there are several components to that funding source. She went on to say that as cities submit
projects and request funding, the programming team would evaluate the requests to make sure it
meets the criteria such as: feasibility, the city's local match contribution and the current stage of
the project. Afterwards, recommendations would be made for the ACTC to review for action and
the next review period is scheduled for July 1, 2017 with a programming period of 5 years with a
2-year allocation window. She said they're going to provide recommendations for the ACTC to
review in April and they will work with the cities that submit projects.
Commissioner Miley asked if the project is in the CIP.
Trinity Nguyen replied the project includes two funding components. She explained that the
project was included in Measure B, so there were funds dedicated for the general
Broadway/Jackson project. The second component, Measure BB, was included as a component
to address multimodal access between Alameda and Oakland. The funds could be used for a
variety of benefits, but has to fit into a certain description. Ultimately, she said the total on the
Measure BB side is $75 million and the Measure B is $8 million.
Page 11 of 14",13803,
18657,"Chadi Chazbek replied the slowdown in the tube would be longer under one alternative versus
the other. He explained that the distance would be the same, but it would take longer to travel
through the tube under one of the alternatives.
Commissioner Bellows replied both alternatives would have 25 miles per hour (mph) limit in the
tube.
Chadi Chazbek said that was correct and even when traveling 25 mph in the tube motorists'
travel time would be significantly less under alternative A1: Jackson Horseshoe.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.
Jim Strehlow felt the project would take a while to get going given the existing situation with
bicyclists and motorists leaving the Posey Tube. He said first, given the current conditions,
vehicles coming out of the Posey Tube and into Oakland have trouble getting over to the most
right-hand turn lane even when traveling 5 mph. He further explained that vehicles have
difficulty crossing a solid white line to get into the two right-hand turn lanes onto 6th Street
because the paint starts way too soon out of the tubes. He wondered if the project team could
paint dotted lines there because technically it is illegal for motorists to cross a solid white line.
He expressed the issue now so the project team won't make the same mistake with the new
design. Second, he noted that he's a cyclist and when traveling out of the Posey tube he would
love to be able to go onto the roadway straight onto Harrison Street instead of being on the
sidewalk and having to get up to the intersection and push the pedestrian crossing button. He
sensed that it would be better for him to negotiate the traffic with the vehicles side by side then
to wait and get to a point to push the pedestrian button and then cross the intersection. Third, he
said he was happy with the project, including the way it's been put together and announced.
Fourth, he said he would be interested in knowing more about the actual elevation/slope that
bicyclists would have to negotiate with the switchbacks. He would also like the switchback
concept to be presented clearly within the designs and for the project team to explain how
bicyclists would negotiate the short distance elevation and loop-to-loop just to get through,
because he's concerned that he would not be able to do it as his age. Fifth, he believed the 25
mph limit through the Posey Tube was strange and the police could not enforce the speed when
motorists want to go 50 mph. Finally, he's interested to see if there will be any anti-occupy
protests and if the project team could slope some of the off ramp at a certain point somewhere
between 9 or 10 degrees to make it harder for protestors to go up the ramps and into the freeway.
Brian McGuire said as a Bike Walk Alameda Board member, he would normally get excited to
see a $10-15 million project move forward on a bicycle and pedestrian path that would open up
the west side of Alameda to Oakland. He stated that recently, Bike Walk Alameda completed its
10-year anniversary of bike and pedestrian counts through the tube and over the Park Street
Bridge. Consequently, they found three reasons why people do not use the tube: 1. when
bicyclists pass one another that requires one of the bicyclist to lift their bike up and over the rail;
2. There is considerable noise in the tube; and 3. There is pollution and air quality issues within
the tube. He believed that opening the west side path seems to be a type of mitigation for the
impacts of the switchbacks. Therefore, he did not understand how this could be considered a
multimodal improvement over the current situation. He explained that he took a poll on Alameda
Peeps, a Facebook group, to see how people would spend $10 million dollars to address
Page 10 of 14",13803,
18656,"during the highest peak hours; and 5. staff address the two left turn lanes merging into one within
the intersection at Constitution Way.
Commissioner Soules seconded the motion.
Commissioner Vargas amended the motion for staff to consider including within the scope that
moves forward, whether that is preliminary engineering or final design, visual simulation to
assist with the refinement.
Commissioner Soules asked for clarification to the amendment.
Commissioner Vargas said the visual simulation should be considered within the scope of the
next phase.
Commissioner Soules seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
5.B. Review I-880/Broadway/Jackson Transportation Project (Information)
Commissioner Vargas stated that the Alameda County Transportation (ACTC) manages the
project and will be presenting the report and update. He explained that since his firm is
compensated by ACTC on some of the project's work, he has a financial conflict of interest and
must excuse himself.
Jennifer Ott, Director of Base Reuse and Transportation Planning, introduced Trinity Nguyen,
ACTC Director of Project Delivery.
Trinity Nguyen introduced the project team, Susan Chang, ACTC Project Manager, Chadi
Chazbek HNTB, Alice community outreach and Flora, project support.
Chadi Chazbek presented the report.
Commissioner Bellows said she understood the concept of two-way bicycle traffic in the Posey
Tube, but she asked Chadi Chazbek if any thought has been given to placing incoming bicycle
traffic in the Webster Tube. Therefore, there would be one-way bicycle traffic in the Posey Tube
and one-way bicycle traffic in the Webster Tube.
Chadi Chazbek replied the project team has not looked at this, but could.
Commissioner Bellows referred to slide 18 ""Preliminary Traffic Analysis Results, AM Peak
Hour"" and asked Chadi Chazbek about the travel time for the Thru Tube. She asked if the Thru
Tube would be a fixed distance. Therefore, she wondered why the results were 840 seconds
versus 180 seconds.
Page 9 of 14",13803,
18655,"every day he would see someone almost hit. He explained that it's easy for cars making a left
turn to see the eastbound motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. However, he felt it would be
difficult for motorists to see the westbound bike lanes. Ultimately, motorists would be crossing
two bike lanes and a sidewalk when they turn into the driveway and that's going to be difficult.
Commissioner Miley said Commissioner Hans made an excellent point. He wondered whether
there was a way to prohibit this left hand turn, especially since it could be a potential safety
issue.
Staff Wheeler said they have been looking at those turns into the driveway. She stated that one
reason the bicycle facility is elevated across the driveway was to make sure the cars slowed
down before getting to the facility. Signage was included to show motorists that the area
contained a two-way bicycle facility. Further, she said staff considered closing off the turn both
in and out of the driveway, but the property owner was against the idea.
Commissioner Vargas stated that he thought about having no left turns at certain times of the day
and that should be analyzed and implemented in this design. Additionally, he asked Staff
Wheeler if staff looked at implementing bicycle-only signals similar to the ones implemented in
Davis, California and a few other cities.
Staff Wheeler replied staff looked at this idea, but they did not study it in detail. The project team
understood that it would be expensive and there would be much larger vehicle impacts at both
intersections from adding phases for bicycle and pedestrian crossings. She noted that the AC
Transit Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project would travel down Ralph Appezzato Memorial
Parkway and possibly make a left turn onto Webster Street. This project would allow staff to
consider adding a bicycle signal on Webster Street in the future when they add a BRT project.
Commissioner Miley wondered if staff had studied the cost for Commissioner Bellows' idea to
remove the center median to add back the third eastbound travel lane at the intersection on
Atlantic Avenue at Constitution Way.
Staff Wheeler said staff looked at this during the project's earlier phase and before the detailed
design was produced. She explained that the cost would be approximately $400,000 to remove
the medians on both sides of the street and to change the traffic signals.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff to include some of the provisions such as analyzing the
movement of two left turn lanes coming into one lane, and including a warning for bicyclists that
would show an approaching auto conflict.
Commissioner Bellows stated the Commission received nine letters of support and three letters
that seemed to support the project, but included design comments.
Commissioner Miley moved to approve staff's design Option 1, but included the following
additions: 1. an education and enforcement piece should be included in the project; 2. staff
attempt to limit construction impacts to motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and businesses in the
area; 3. staff install appropriate signage to warn bicyclists about motorist conflicts; 4. staff
evaluate including a ""no left turn"" sign at westbound Atlantic Avenue turning into the driveway
Page 8 of 14",13803,
18654,"analysis for future years shows there could be more traffic impacts, so that is something that
could be considered in the future.
Commissioner Bellows said that regarding installing the midblock crossing later, if the
Commission chose Option 1 that wouldn't really work because the overall project design would
change.
Staff Wheeler replied the Option 2, with midblock crossing, includes a small bulb-out, which
could be installed now, and the crossing could be installed later, if desired. She also noted that
the area that would need to be changed to install the midblock crossing - between the driveway
and where the protected bikeway straightens out - is not large, so it is not out of the question that
it could be modified in the future.
Commissioner Bertken stated that there must be a way to have the bicycles gather and wait for a
green signal, similar to when pedestrians gather and wait for the signal to change and then they
cross the intersection. He felt installing signage there does not really solve the problem because
many motorists won't see bicycles coming through.
Staff Wheeler said the turning vehicle warning signs would alert motorists that bicyclists may be
approaching and they should proceed slowly.
Commissioner Soules asked Staff Wheeler about the enforcement plan, which she read as part of
the public comment portion within the staff packet. She particularly wanted to know whether
staff would be working with the Alameda Police Department to make sure vehicles comply with
the California Vehicle Code. She also said the mid-block crossing could encourage greater use
and that could affect traffic. She asked Staff Wheeler if the project team discussed how to
implement enforcement and education.
Staff Wheeler replied they have not developed a plan yet and they would conduct public outreach
to all of the groups using the area before, during and after construction.
Commissioner Soules replied it would be good to have additional information sent out to the
community. She also said it would be good to understand the project's phasing and staff should
include this information in the Commission's future agendas as well as update the community
about the construction impacts. She asked Staff Wheeler if staff determined the project's
maintenance costs.
Staff Wheeler stated that they have not worked on the calculations, but they have been thinking
about maintenance costs as the design was being developed. Overall, there would be costs for
landscaping and maintenance of the facility.
Commissioner Hans asked staff about that driveway on the southside of Atlantic Avenue. He
asked Staff Wheeler if motorists would be able to make the left turn into this driveway.
Staff Wheeler replied yes.
Commissioner Hans said a similar turn exists in front of Lincoln Middle School where almost
Page 7 of 14",13803,
18653,"volumes, and roadway width. She stated that the City's key guidance criteria were: pedestrian
volumes, collision history and the distance to the signalized intersections. The crossing is not too
far from the nearby signalized intersections and it would be safer for pedestrians to cross at one
of them. She noted that if the City installed a rectangular rapid flashing beacon, the vehicles
would be required to yield to pedestrians, but they may not stop. She indicated that the pedestrian
guidance thresholds for a marked crossing are 20 total pedestrians, or 15 senior pedestrians, in
the peak hour. Staff counted 12 seniors and 17 total pedestrians crossing when conducting
pedestrian counts this year, during the highest peak hour - 11:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. Thus, she
explained the pedestrian counts were just under the guidance thresholds. Finally, she stated that
there was one pedestrian-involved collision in 10 years, even though pedestrians regularly cross
there.
Commissioner Bertken asked Staff Wheeler if pedestrians do not press the pedestrian push-
button, then does the crosswalk not exist?
Staff Wheeler replied no, since it would still be a marked crosswalk.
Commissioner Bertken replied that if the rapid flashing beacon lights are not blinking, then
Atlantic is just a throughway and it does not delay motorists. So, it's only when the pedestrian
presses the button to cross that motorists are delayed.
Staff Wheeler replied that the traffic impacts of the options with and without the midblock
crossing are about the same, since cars only need to yield to pedestrians and are not required to
stay stopped, as at a red traffic light.
Commissioner Miley stated that the priority tonight was to see the gap closed. Regarding the
mid-block, he said he could take it or leave it and he questioned whether the mid-block crossing
would be used more. He felt Commissioners Bertken and Vargas echoed his concerns about the
turning actions at Constitution Way. He also noted that the staff report said during the peak p.m.
hours there were 173 vehicular turns and during the peak a.m. hours there were 110 turns from
Atlantic Avenue onto Constitution Way. He believed when looking at the drawings and
conceptualizing the queuing concern, a simulation would be useful. He asked Staff Wheeler if
staff looked at signalizing traffic so left and right turns could proceed simultaneously. He also
wondered if there was a way to signalize the controls, like a scramble, to allow pedestrians and
bicyclists to cross the intersection without any cars proceeding.
Staff Wheeler replied that the City explored the simultaneous right and left turn idea but that
because there is a combined through and right turn lane eastbound on Atlantic Avenue, the right
turns cannot proceed in a turn-only phase, because they might be stopped behind a through car.
Commissioner Bellows wondered if, rather than giving a lane to the left turns, could they use
some of the median and make that a left turn lane and scoot everything over, thereby maintaining
all three existing lanes. That would provide a free right turn lane.
Staff Wheeler said they also looked at that option, but rejected it because it increases the cost
since they would have to remove the center median on both sides of the street, to make room and
to allow for the alignment of lanes across the intersection. However, she explained that the traffic
Page 6 of 14",13803,
18652,"intersection and conduct a visual simulation for the various phases that are involved to see where
conflicts reside. He also stated that he did not see signage planned for the driveway area.
Commissioner Bertken replied there is a warning sign just before the driveway that says you
cannot move ahead unless the lane is clear. He then said there is a sign that says if you are a car
making a turn you have to yield to pedestrians and he felt that was overkill.
Staff Wheeler replied that currently a stop sign is not present for cars exiting the driveway, but
there will be and she said there would be a warning sign, showing that bicyclists are traveling
two-ways, for cars entering and exiting the driveway. The information can be found call outs #6
and #7 of the staff report, Exhibit 5.
Commissioner Vargas stated that when looking at the traffic operations reports, the Level of
Service (LOS) heading westbound would stay the same and he asked Staff Wheeler if anything
could be done to improve it, since the City would be spending approximately $1 million on this
area. In addition, he said that since the project's costs are high, he would like to find out why
they have increased. He understood that the design received significant changes while remaining
cutting edge, but he wondered if it would make sense to spend the funds on testing the design
with paint, rather than concrete work.
Staff Wheeler said in regards to Commissioner Vargas' questions, firstly, truck traffic was
analyzed and that Public Works had been a great advocate for considering the truck routes. Staff
also conducted counts of the number of trucks on this block. She stated that trucks would be able
to make all of the turns from one truck route to another. Secondly, she said when looking at the
traffic analysis, staff could look into that if there is more time and resources. Commissioner
Vargas clarified that it would be a visual simulation at Constitution Way and Atlantic Avenue,
and would be useful for the right-hand turns at the southwest corner. Commissioner Vargas
echoed the same concern that Commissioner Bertken expressed at this intersection. Lastly,
regarding the costs, Staff Wheeler stated that the project brought to the Commission over a year
ago used the existing travel lanes and did not move the curb. She explained that the previous
estimate did not include soft costs (i.e. construction support and management), nor did it include
a 25 percent contingency, both of which are included in the current project cost. The concrete
work alone, including building the facility on the south side of the street, but not including the
demo work or staging work, is approximately $260,000. She said that is one of the largest items,
at a quarter of the project's total cost. She further explained that the largest cost is the signal
work, estimated at $270,000, because they have to install the protected left turn phases at
Constitution, and physically move some of the traffic signal poles. She noted that both of these
sub-costs are without the contingency added in.
Commissioner Vargas asked why the mid-block crossing was deleted.
Staff Wheeler replied the City did study this and was hoping to come up with a design that
directly addresses the current illegal mid-block crossings. The City looked at different locations
for the mid-block crossing and how it would impact traffic and safety. She said there are no strict
warrants, so the project team looked at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for guidance criteria. They
reviewed the factors such as the vehicle speed limits, collision history, visibility, pedestrian
Page 5 of 14",13803,
18651,"from doing SO. He requested that staff provide the number of cars heading eastbound in both
lanes.
Susie Hufstader, Bike East Bay staff member and Alameda resident, thanked Alameda staff for
providing a beautiful design given all the complications and constraints surrounding the area.
She said when she moved to Alameda, she was impressed with the protected bike lanes on
Shoreline Drive and Fernside Avenue. She mentioned that Alameda has always been a front-
runner for these types of facilities and the City providing protected intersections would take it to
the next level. She pointed out that this design would allow all types of bicyclists to use the
protected bike lane. She noted that the city of Oakland's bike projects, especially on Fruitvale
Avenue, would allow the entire Cross Alameda Trail to continue into Oakland and towards the
Fruitvale BART Station.
Denyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda representative and Alameda resident, said she would be
a big consumer of the bike facility because she resides near the project. She voiced her full
support towards staff's presentation and she felt this project is very forward thinking. She
explained that this project would allow bicyclists to connect from Jean Sweeney Park to the
Cross Alameda Trail from the west end. She also said having bicyclists ride in the door zone is
dangerous and a stripe of paint does not suffice. She pointed out that the plan is very forward
thinking because it offers protected facilities at the intersections where cyclists need the most
protection. She thanked Alameda staff, the engineering firm and everyone who worked on the
design for being creative because there were a lot of challenges to overcome. Additionally, she
said the project was critical if Alameda is going to provide safe passage for bicyclists along the
northern end of the island. Therefore, she asked the Commission to approve the design to close
the Cross Alameda Trail gap.
Brian McGuire, Alameda resident, thanked staff and said it may seem like a small effort, but this
was important when connecting Seaplane Lagoon to Fruitvale BART and beyond. He stated that
connecting these segments was not only important, but it rebalanced the equity of the bicycle
infrastructure within Alameda and that is important for residents in the west end. He explained
that the biggest users of this path would be students going to and from Jean Sweeney Park to the
Ralph Appezzato segment. He exclaimed that the bike path would also alleviate congestion in
and around the tube by moving users from cars to bicycles. He felt the project area was
complicated, but staff got it right. Also, staff provided a safe bicycle facility without sacrificing
too much from vehicles. So, he urged the Commission to approve the plan.
Commissioner Vargas complimented staff for bringing AC Transit, and Alameda Police and Fire
Departments into the conversation when they were not initially engaged. He felt this is not just a
multimodal corridor, but also a combination of funnels that are concentrated at a couple of
points. He said a lot of attention should be placed on the design, so that staff do not favor one
mode of transportation. He pointed out that the flow of freight trucks was mentioned briefly and
he wanted to hear more about it. He indicated that he attended a conference in the Central Valley
and he explained that the last mile of getting freight to the destination was a constant concern. He
told Staff Wheeler that it was good to see the traffic lane widths were not substandard. He also
echoed Commissioner Bertken's concerns about bicyclists' safety. He noted that the southeast
corner of Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way contained many opposing movements. So, he
wondered if there's a way for staff to go beyond the standard traffic operations analysis for an
Page 4 of 14",13803,
18650,"Staff Wheeler replied the surfaces of the sidewalk and the protected bike lane would be different
(concrete and asphalt, respectively), but they would be at the same grade without a vertical
separation. She also noted that there would be striping along the protected bike lane, so
pedestrians and bicyclists could visually see the difference.
Commissioner Vargas asked Staff Wheeler about the vast difference between the mid-block
crossing cost that was estimated a year ago and the cost estimated now.
Staff Wheeler explained that, last year, the project without the mid-block crossing was estimated
at $200,000 to $400,000. She said the project's current cost, based on a more detailed design, is
approximately $1 million and the mid-block crossing would cost approximately $150,000.
Commissioner Bertken asked Staff Wheeler about the left turn movement on Constitution Way
heading south, to eastbound Atlantic Avenue. He said there is a two-lane left turn pocket and the
design concept appears to show an elimination of one of the two lanes on Atlantic Avenue. The
result of widening the curb at Atlantic Avenue, which took out a traffic lane, would create a two-
lane turn pocket that merges into one lane.
Staff Wheeler replied staff would look into this further.
Commissioner Bertken said he travels that way often and if he has to merge in the middle of the
intersection that will be difficult. He also asked Staff Wheeler if a sign would be installed at the
corner to alert cars to give way to bicyclists traveling behind them. However, he explained the
underlying issue would be that motorists do not see bicyclists because they are moving behind
them. So, he wondered if staff could address that by alerting bicyclists that cars are turning at
this southwest corner of Constitution and Atlantic.
Staff Wheeler said she could include these ideas in the design concept.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.
Jim Strehlow stated that the Commission spoke about the Cross Alameda Trail design two years
ago. He said he argued against that design because it did not include the bus stop. He said the
Commission approved that design and he was not quite sure how that was going to work out. He
pointed out that he was relatively happy with the current design with one exception. He felt
bicyclists would not need separated bicycle lanes. He stated that many bicyclists ride on the
sidewalks without protected bicycle lanes, sharing the space with pedestrians along Webster by
the College of Alameda. He stated that he did not understand why bicycle lanes were needed on
this one block of Atlantic Avenue, especially when he only sees one bicyclist and maybe five or
six pedestrians every half hour.
He said the design on this one segment does not warrant taking away a traffic lane from Atlantic
Avenue, especially a right-hand turn lane. He said as the cars move from two lanes into one
lane, the staff report indicated that motorists would incur 1 to 7.5 seconds of delay at the
intersection. However, he believed that was wrong and there will be over 2 minutes of delay
because cars that want to make a right-hand turn onto Constitution Way would be prevented
Page 3 of 14",13803,
18649,"Public Works repaint the street and remove the double yellow lines that motorists illegally cross.
He also asked the Commission if this issue was an action item or will it be left the way it is.
Commissioner Bellows replied the Commission could place this issue on the next agenda and she
asked staff to address it.
Staff Payne said AC Transit will be rescheduling and shortening the route on Sunday, March 26.
She explained that the schedule and route change would remove the operators waiting at that
stop. She further said the buses were stopping because the operators were running hot and that
caused them to wait at the time point, where Stanton Street is the designated time point.
Jim Strehlow said the officer stated that this behavior was creating a traffic hazard. Thus, Public
Works should remove the double yellow line, enforce traffic, or relocate the bus stop.
Commissioner Bellows replied she would speak to staff about it.
Commissioner Miley stated that the Commission received a letter from Nina Klem and he wanted
to make sure that Public Works staff received the letter as well. He asked staff to forward the
letter to the appropriate parties at Public Works to see if spot treatments could be made to
increase the safety of the bridge for students who ride their bicycles to and from Lincoln and Bay
Farm Middle Schools.
3.A. Earth Day Festival: Saturday, April 22 - 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
3.B. Transportation Commission Special Meeting: Wednesday, April 26 at 7 p.m.
3.C. Correspondence to Transportation Commission (Information)
3.D. Warm Springs Invitation (Information)
4.A. Approve Meeting Minutes - March 22, 2017 - Special Meeting Minutes (Action)
Commissioner Vargas followed up with Jim Strehlow's comments about the March 22, 2017
Commission meeting minutes. He said the meeting minutes need to be reviewed for accuracy
and grammar. He said he would leave his notes with Staff Payne to review. Therefore, he asked
that the Commission hold off on approving the minutes.
5.
New Business
5.A. Approve Design Concept for Cross Alameda Trail Gap Closure on Atlantic Avenue
between Webster Street and Constitution Way (Action)
Staff Wheeler, Transportation Planner for the Alameda Planning Division, presented the report.
Commissioner Miley asked Rochelle Wheeler about the delineation between the cycle track and
the sidewalk.
Page 2 of 14",13803,
18648,"Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes
Wednesday March 22, 2017
Commissioner Michele Bellows called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Michele Bellows (Chair)
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Jesus Vargas
Gregory Morgado
Thomas G. Bertken
Samantha Soules
Michael Hans
Staff Present:
Jennifer Ott, Base Reuse and Transportation Planning Director
Shahram Aghamir, City Engineer
Sergeant Ryan Derespini, Alameda Police Department
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Rochelle Wheeler, Transportation Planner
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, said the minutes from last month's Transportation Commission
meeting said that he spoke about the Posey Tube and the roadway and there was graffiti on the
panels. He pointed out that graffiti existed on some of the panels, not all of the panels. Most
importantly, last month he discussed AC Transit Line 19 where he presented a diagram and
explained while driving that he was stopped behind the bus near the Stanton Street bus stop. He
stated that during the meeting, Sergeant Derespini, stated that his comments were valid and
Public Works staff promised that the issue would be resolved. The next morning, the bus
operator stopped in front of him and this time he was riding his bicycle. He spoke to the operator
and was told to contact the police if he felt it was an infraction. That morning, he called the
Alameda Police Department and was told unless they are there to cite the behavior it is under the
jurisdiction of the Sheriff's Department. He called the Sheriff's Department twice that day and
the following Monday without any response since. He felt the contact number for the Sherriff's
Department was like a straw dog set up to exist, but not to service citizens' needs. He asked the
Transportation Commission if anything could be done to either relocate the bus stop or have
Page 1 of 14",13803,
18647,"Vice President Burton motioned to continue the meeting for an additional 15 minutes.
Board member Köster seconded the motion
Motioned carried 5-0; no abstentions
Matt Naclerio, Public Works Director, stated that sidewalk repair work will usually take
place within 30 days of being marked with pink paint. After the temporary repair the
location is placed on a permanent list, and that list currently has a 4- 5 year period.
They will attempt to double the number of permanent repairs this year. The white paint
is property owner responsibility. Owners receive a notice and have 60 days to repair
the sidewalk.
Board member Knox White motioned to make the determination of consistency with the
General Plan
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion
Motion carried 5-0; no abstentions
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or
make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral
to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body
at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the Chair, direct staff to
place a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.
None
12. ADJOURNMENT
10:59 p.m.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 14 of 14
May 30, 2012",13803,
18646,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft addressed the comment about the list being all
maintenance projects instead of new projects. She stated that maintenance and upkeep
are necessary to prevent deterioration, and it is cheaper to maintain, than to build new.
She stated she never realized how much Public Works does throughout the City. And
that reason why more projects aren't being done is because of the City's financial
condition. She echoed the comments regarding the content and format of the reports
President Zuppan reiterated that describing the process more thoroughly, and including
why each project is compliant with the General Plan would help Board make the
requested determinations. She also stated that providing information about how the
rankings were determined would be useful. She cited the Climate Change presentation
that discussed how water coming into the sewer system will affect the City, and asked if
any of the priority projects listed address the concerns mentioned in that presentation, in
terms of the analysis or the actual work to change those structures
Ms. Hawkins replied that the Storm Drain Master Plan project which includes looking at
the 55 inch sea level rise addressed issues in the Climate Change Presentation. She
said a model was created, the affects of an 18 inch rise was studied, and now the
consultant will study the affects of a 55 inch rise. She said once the entire structure
has been mapped, the consultants will be able to determine where the water is coming
in, and staff will be able to determine if gates or berms need to be added. She said now
that the model is in place the infrastructure can be studied
President Zuppan clarified that the core information studies can be now be done to
determine that the right, long term solution is applied.
Ms. Hawkins stated that the initial approach would include looking at solutions such as
upsizing pipes rather than installing a berm.
President Zuppan asked to what extent this type of work coordinated with AMP, if it is
outside of the CIP process, and if projects are discussed prior to implementation.
Ms. Hawkins replied that AMP works with a different board for decisions, which is
outside of the CIP process. She stated that AMP and Public Works share upcoming
projects at utility meetings, where they discuss impact reduction.
President Zuppan asked what the pink paint on the sidewalk means.
Ms. Hawkins replied that pink paint is for City sidewalk projects usually necessary
because of city trees. The particular project in question is work that will be done on the
City sidewalks as a result of uplift from street trees in the median. The white paint is
property owner repair responsibility due to other deterioration in the sidewalk, possibly
from private property.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 14
May 30, 2012",13803,