{"rowid": 18746, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 3, 2012--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam, and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Johnson arrived at 6:02 p.m. and Vice\nMayor Bonta arrived at 6:07 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(12-349) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Pursuant to\nsubdivision (c) of Section 54956.9) Number of Cases: One. Not heard.\n(12-350) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:\nSCC Alameda Point, LLC, et al V. City of Alameda, et al.; U.S. District Court Case No\nCV-10-5178; this is to discuss strategy regarding a lawsuit brought by our former\ndeveloper, SunCal, based on the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Existing Litigation, the Council gave direction to staff.\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 7:10 p.m. to hold the regular meeting and reconvened\nthe closed session at 10:24 p.m.\n(12-351) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency Negotiators:\nCouncilmembers deHaan and Johnson; Unrepresented Employee: City Clerk;\nAnticipated Issues: All (Wages, Hours, Benefits, and Working Conditions)\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Labor, the Council gave direction to the negotiators.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:44 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 3, 2012", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18745, "text": "help with budget challenges.\nThe City Manager commended staff for the team effort to obtain the grants.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:22 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJuly 3, 2012", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18744, "text": "CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-372) The City Manager complimented the Council for tonight.\nMayor Gilmore stated the certified Housing Element should be framed.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-373) Councilmember deHaan discussed the Staffing For Adequate Fire and\nEmergency Response (SAFER) grant, fire boats, and salt water pumps; inquired if the\nSAFER grant would give us two more years.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the current grant would expire on September\n10th; the grant is for two and half years from September 10th\nCouncilmember deHaan thanked the Assistant City Manager for the information.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired about the fire boat grant from Homeland Security.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the City received a security grant from\nHomeland Security.\nThe City Manager stated the estimate is the City would be required to pay 25% match.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired if the boat cost $1/2 million, to which the City Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired about securing a homeland security grant for salt\nwater pumps.\nThe City Manager responded salt water pumps have been addressed; $1/2 million per\npump; the City needs 24 pumps which would cost $12 million; a report on the matter\nwould come to the Council before the year is over.\nVice Major Bonta inquired whether the fireboat has fire pumping capabilities, to which\nthe City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Major Bonta stated the grants are great examples of leveraging outside funding to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJuly 3, 2012", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18743, "text": "The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired why the term is only five years.\nThe City Manager responded the City does not want to tie the building down for more\nthan five years.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is surprised the renewal is only five years, since\nthe company is very successful and has been at Alameda Point for a very long period of\ntime.\nThe City Manager stated the tenant is very happy with the lease.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired the length of the prior lease and number of renewals, to\nwhich the Economic Development Division Manager responded the tenant has been at\nAlameda Point since 1998 and has had multiple renewals.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated their initial lease was around 8 to 10 years.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(12-371) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease with\nAmerican Bus Repair LLC, Doing Business As Coach Specialties, for Two Years in a\nPortion of Building 24 at Alameda Point, 2301 Monarch Street. Introduced.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired why the renewal is only for two years, to which the\nEconomic Development Division Manager responded the tenant is occupying one of\nthree bays in Building 24; stated another Building 24 tenant, Rockwall Winery, would\nlike to expand.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired if staff is looking for another facility for American Bus,\nto which the City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff should be able to\nwork out something to help everybody expand and create more jobs.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n-\n5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJuly 3, 2012", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18742, "text": "Councilmember Tam inquired whether there was opposition at the Planning Board\nmeetings.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded there has been very little opposition\nthroughout the process.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the configuration is different, but regardless\nthe City still needs to zone to allow the required number of housing units.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the previous\nHousing Element for approximately 2,000 housing units was never fully certified by the\nState because only one type of housing, single family residential, was included; a full\nrange of housing types, including the multifamily rental, is included in the proposed\nHousing Element; the number of units is 2,400 because the City was not successful in\ngetting the last round certified; the Housing Element has to be certified before the\nstatutory deadline because if not, the City will be penalized.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the City's obligation to do an Environmental\nImpact Report (EIR).\nThe Planning Services Manager responded an environmental assessment was done;\nthe 2008 Transportation Element data was used, which reviewed transportation impacts\nfrom building 5,000 housing units Citywide over a 20 year period; the 2003\nenvironmental document for the last Housing Element was also used; every project\nwould still require environmental and design review, and discretionary approval from\nPlanning Board.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired about the Chinatown agreement.\nThe Planning Services Manager replied there is no relationship; stated the agreement\nonly relates to Alameda Point.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City has not had a certified Housing Element during her time\non the Planning Board and Council; the issue involves economic and social justice;\nproviding housing for range of different families with different housing types is important.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Abstention:\nCouncilmember deHaan - 1.\n(12-370) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease with\nDelphi Productions, Inc. for Five Years in Building 39 at Alameda Point, 950 West\nTower Avenue. Introduced.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJuly 3, 2012", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18741, "text": "Planning Services Manager responded in the negative, stated the Collins project has\nbeen approved, but not built due to the economy.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the amount is being increased to 48 units, which is a\nquantum step above 29 units.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's request, the Housing Development and\nPrograms Manager briefly discussed affordable housing.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired about affordable housing funding.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager stated Assembly Bill (AB) 1484 was\nsigned into law on Friday to clean up to AB26; provisions provide a bit of affordable\nhousing relief; a document transfer tax passed the Senate, but is not out of the\nAssembly; hopefully the bill will create a permanent funding source for affordable\nhousing and replace redevelopment funds.\nCouncilmember Johnson requested a review of the extensive opportunity for public\ninput.\nThe City Manager noted tonight is the fourth public hearing since December.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJuly 3, 2012", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18740, "text": "issue is housing type and density; the same sites can be used for the next round if the\nsites are still available.\nThe City Manager reiterated the sites identified today, unless built out, remain available\nagain for the next round.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City has gone through the Housing Element process many\ntimes; identified sites might not be built; given the economy, all of the sites are probably\nstill going to be available in the next cycle.\nThe City Manager stated projects have to go through the standard regulatory process to\nexamine impacts, mitigation, CEQA analysis on some level. This all still has to happen\non any given project, so the approval tonight is for the Housing Element General Plan, it\ndoes not dispose of any specific project on any specific site, nor does it preclude the\nCity from identifying these sites again in 2015, which will have a lower number\napparently than in this particular housing element based on the earlier numbers.\n*\nFollowing Corinne Lambden's comments, Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:26 p.m.\nand returned at 9:32 p.m.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved adoption of the resolution and introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired the last time the City had a certified Housing Element, to\nwhich the Planning Services Manager responded the 1990 Housing Element.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether Measure A still exists in the City no matter what the\nCouncil does tonight.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative, stated the Housing Element is consistent\nwith State law requirements and does not eliminate Measure A.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated the City should be compliant with the State laws in order to\neligible for transportation funding; the Housing Element is the right thing to do from a\nsocial and economic justice perspective, housing options should be provided for the\nentire population, including affordable housing.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Housing Element is about Alameda planning for a\nsustainable future that preserves open space and provides a mix of housing to support\nthe needs of working families; control over planning, including Measure A, is being\npreserved within the City instead of being taken over by the courts like other cities;\nnoted the City has to start again in two years.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJuly 3, 2012", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18739, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired how many stories tall are Summer Homes, to which\nthe Planning Services Manager responded four stories.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's further inquiry regarding Summer Homes, the\nPlanning Services Manager stated the density is low because the site is huge; a four\nstory building on Santa Clara has lower density.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Alameda Point is excluded from the Housing\nElement.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded Alameda Point is not addressed because\nState law penalizes cities that do not make land available during the period.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how many homes could be built, to which the Planning\nServices Manager responded 2,400 units total.\nThe City Manager stated the City is not committed to building or developing the units;\nthe City is committed to making the sites available; the seven year Housing Element is\nfive years late.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated getting a certified Housing Element is important;\ninquired how certain is staff that State law trumps the Charter.\nThe City Attorney stated the matter is of State-wide, not municipal concern; therefor\nState law trumps the City.\nThe City Manager stated the State can condition money on General Plan and Housing\nElement compliance; the State legislature is placing strings on its money.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated she has no doubt that the State would do so.\nUrged the Housing Element be approved: Darin Lounds, Executive Director of the\nHousing Consortium of the East Bay and Board President of East Bay Housing\nOrganizations; Diane Lichenstein, HOMES; Patricia Burke; Marylin Ezzy Ashcraft, Laura\nThomas, President, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates; Austin Tam; Lynette Lee,\nRenewed Hope and Buena Vista Methodist Church; Deni Adaniya; Amie Fishman,\nExecutive Director, East Bay Housing Association; David de la Torre, Gene Oh, Chair,\nBuena Vista Community Institute, and owner of Alameda Bicycle; William Smith, Vice\nPresident, Renewed Hope; Alan Pryor.\nUrged the Housing Element not be approved: Angela Fawcett, Park Webster\nHomeowner Association; Ken Petersen; Darcy Morrison.\nIn response to the City Manager's request, the Planning Services Manager stated the\nCity has to show sites for its regional fair share requirement of 2,400 units; the amount\nof land and number of units shown in prior Housing Elements is not increasing; the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJuly 3, 2012", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18738, "text": "Housing parcel is east of Main Street across from the Base; stated there are 282\nboarded-up units previously occupied by the Coast Guard.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether or not the Agreement would provide any\nfinancial stream for basic City services, to which the Housing Development Program\nManager responded the accommodation is intended to be a 90-unit project that would\nprovide permanent affordable housing to formerly homeless people.\nUrged approval of the staff recommendation: Doug Biggs, Executive Director of\nAlameda Point Collaborative.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\n(12-369) Resolution No. 14718, \"Approving Amendments to the Housing Element of the\nGeneral Plan.\" Adopted; and\n(12-369 A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30\nDevelopment Regulations to Ensure Consistency between the Alameda Municipal\nCode, the Alameda General Plan, and State of California Government Code Pertaining\nto the Regulation of Housing Development. Introduced.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Gilmore stated the pictures are very helpful.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the big elephant in the room is Measure A, and inquired\nthe Housing Element coincides with the Charter.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the situation is similar to the density bonus\nordinance; stated federal law generally trumps State law and State law generally trumps\nlocal law if there is conflict; the State says cities have to provide housing and cannot\nhave a local ordinance prohibiting housing. State law does not say there is a problem\nwith Measure A zoning; every city in California has something like Measure A; State law\nis saying Measure A cannot apply to the entire City; multifamily residential zoning has to\nbe permitted in areas; just enough has been provided to meet the regional obligation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the State is dictating Measure A would be\ntrumped by the Housing Element.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded just as with State density bonus, the City\nhas to adopt an ordinance providing a certain amount of affordable housing, which\nwaives Measure A.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJuly 3, 2012", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18737, "text": "Urged consideration of previous ideas for use of the Beltline property: Jim Sweeney,\nAlameda; Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; and Aaron Thies, Alameda.\nThe City Manager stated decisions regarding open space have been made; the Beltline,\nwould be brought to the Recreation and Park Commission for a discussion; California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) review would be needed; accepting the report does\nnot endorse details.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated acceptance should include following\nthe spirit of Jean Sweeney's ballot measure regarding open space.\nThe City Manager stated Jean Sweeney elaborated on different designs, including BMX\ntrails and pools; Mrs. Sweeney clearly wanted a lot of open space, which is probably the\ndirection the City will follow; a healthy vigorous debate should be informed and inspired\nby what Jean Sweeney did; everyone is thankful for all she did.\nMayor Gilmore stated the motion was to accept the staff recommendation.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(12-368) Recommendation to Approve an Amended and Restated Legally Binding\nAgreement (LBA) Between the City of Alameda, Housing Authority of the City of\nAlameda, Alameda Point Collaborative and Building Futures with Women and Children\nfor a Homeless Accommodation at the North Housing Parcel.\nThe Housing Development Program Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the City's environmental liability issues have\nchanged, to which the Housing Development Program Manager responded in the\nnegative; stated the City retained the provision that requires environmental insurance be\nsecured at a reasonable cost prior to taking title; if the City is unable to do so, there is\nno obligation or requirement to accept title.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the City taking title is necessary, to which the\nHousing Development Program Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the\nhomeless accommodation title goes from the Navy to the local Reuse Authority and\nthen on to the homeless service providers; transfer is simultaneous, the City would own\nthe property for an instant.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired where the North Housing Parcel is located.\nThe Housing Development Program Manager responded the location of the North\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJuly 3, 2012", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18736, "text": "inquired whether the need for quality softball facilities was addressed.\nMs. Gates stated the recommendation is one 90 foot diamond filed and three 60 foot\ndiamond fields are needed; one 60 foot diamond filed could be dedicated to softball.\nCouncilmember Johnson requested staff to ensure there is at least one quality facility\nfor the girls.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 3, 2012", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18735, "text": "incorporated.\nMs. Gates responded standards are set for the number of fields; Stated the plan shows\nhow many fields can be accomplished at different sites; the Recreation and Parks\nDepartment wants to continue to work with the School District to meet needs, yet not be\ndependent on each other; standards are the most important thing.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired why certain fields are not available in the equation.\nMs. Gates responded the guidelines show the ratios used to determine hours of play\nneeded; the ratios are adapted for types of fields; and public and private facilities and\nhours of play can be pro-rated.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether regional needs were considered.\nMs. Gates responded in the affirmative, stated staff talked to the East Bay Regional\nPark District about Alameda Point meeting the need for trails and open space; the\nlocation has challenges because of lease agreements and tideland trust; however, there\nare multiple ways to close gaps.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the use of the swimming pool at the Base is\ntoo expensive to consider.\nMs. Gates responded in the affirmative; stated School pools were also too expensive.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the Base pool was worthwhile keeping for\nother recreational uses.\nMs. Gates responded there are opportunities for public private partnerships with\nrevenue generation.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated staff is working with an organization called\nRamprats; the group is getting an inspection to determine the feasibility of using the\npool for a skate and BMX facility.\nMs. Gates noted there are challenges in putting active recreation in tideland trust land;\nhowever, existing structures can be reused.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired staff is recommending moving the Teen Center out of\nthe Veterans building, which is not an ideal space.\nMs. Gates responded in the affirmative, stated renovation does not make sense due to\ncost.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired if analysis was done regarding the possibility of hosting\ntournaments.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJuly 3, 2012", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18734, "text": "(*12-358) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,115,712.05.\n(*12-359) Recommendation to Approve an Additional Advance and Modification\nAgreement for the Alameda Islander Motel Project Adding $120,000, for a Total HOME\nLoan Amount of $1.42 Million and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the\nAgreement and Related Documents. Accepted.\n(*12-360) Recommendation to Approve the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners'\nRecommendation that the Islander Motel be Renamed \"The Park Alameda Apartments.\"\nAccepted.\n(*12-361) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $246,500, Including\nContingencies, to Engineered Soil Repairs, Inc. for Walnut Street Seawall Repair, No.\nP.W. 01-12-02. Accepted.\n(*12-362) Resolution No. 14714, \"To Approve an Agreement with the Alameda County\nFlood Control Water Conservation District Providing for Implementation of the Alameda\nCountywide Clean Water Program and Authorize the City Manager to Execute all\nRequired Documents.\" Adopted.\n(*12-363) Resolution No. 14715, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Renew an Agreement\nwith Carducci Landscape Architects to Provide the Design and Project Management\nServices for the Renovation of Krusi Park, in an Amount Not to Exceed $320, 188.'\nAdopted.\n(*12-364) Resolution No. 14716, \"Declaring the Canvass of Returns and Results of the\nConsolidated Special Municipal Election Held on Tuesday, June 5, 2012.\" Adopted.\n(*12-365) Ordinance No. 3050, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nArticle Il (Boards And Commissions) of Chapter Il (Administration) and by Amending\nSection 2-12.2(A) to Revise the Membership of the Recreation and Park Commission.\"\nFinally passed.\n(*12-366) Ordinance No. 3051, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding\nSection 2-67 Relating to Prevailing Wages.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(12-367) Resolution No. 14717, \"Accepting Parks Master Plan and Technical Studies for\nUrban Greening Plan.\" Adopted.\nLinda Gates, Gates & Associates, gave a Power Point presentation about Parks Master\nPlan\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how School District assets and playing fields are\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJuly 3, 2012", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18733, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 3, 2012--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:16 p.m. Councilmember deHaan led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam, and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(12-352) Presentation of Certificates of Service to Harry Dahlberg, Economic\nDevelopment Commission; Peter Holmes, Public Utilities Board; and Kathy Moehring,\nTransportation Commission.\nMayor Gilmore presented certificates to Mr. Holmes and Ms. Moehring.\n(12-353) Proclamation Recognizing the City's Antique Fire Apparatus Volunteers.\nThe presentation was postponed, recipients were not in attendance\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-354) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, made an announcement regarding an\nupcoming blood drive. with American Red Cross on the 21st of July.\n(12-355) Ken Peterson, Alameda, discussed budget shortfalls.\n(12-356) Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda, did not speak.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*12-357) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings Held on May 29, 2012; the\nSpecial and Regular City Council Meetings Held on June 6, 2012, and the Special City\nCouncil Meeting Held on June 12, 2012. Approved.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJuly 3, 2012", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18732, "text": "Staff Member Sablan was aware of the property, and noted that the property has a pending\nCode Enforcement case. He discussed its history and what could be the next steps. They\nwould need to involve the City Attorney's Office and the Building Official.\nBoard Member Witt discussed a similar property near Webster.\nThere was a discussion that these large empty homes could accommodate many units\nthat could help with housing needs.\nVice-Chair Jones noted that the City of Alameda has started a process to rename parks.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Member Sablan gave a status update on the CLG (Certified Local Government)\nReport.\n10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n11. ADJOURNMENT\nChair Saxby adjourned the meeting at 7:38 pm.\nHistorical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes\nFebruary 3, 2022\nPage 4 of 4", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18731, "text": "Henry Dong, Planner III, also discussed the records the City had on file, including a DPR-\n523 form that documented the historical character of the primary house. The accessory\nstructure was not described as one of the character-defining features of the property.\nChair Saxby opened public comment.\nThere were no public speakers.\nChair Saxby closed public comment and opened board discussion.\nChair Saxby believed that accessory structures can add some integrity to a site but in this\ncase, it appeared to be altered too many times from its original design. He was leaning\ntoward approval.\nBoard Member Sanchez agreed especially since it was not mentioned in the original\nproperty survey documentation. Also, he noted that the structure was not a street-facing\nstructure or had any visual impact on the character of the home or the neighborhood. He\nwas also leaning toward approval.\nVice-Chair Jones noted that the building is one of the more visually appealing accessory\nstructures that had come before the board and that it had a lot of charm. She discussed\nthe criteria they looked at when discussing the demolition of accessory structures.\nHowever, she was also leaning toward allowing the demolition due to the issues\nmentioned.\nBoard Member Alvin Lau wanted to know more about the plans for the space after the\ndemolition.\nMs. Herrera said there were no plans for a new additional structure. They would be adding\nsome landscaping and a fence.\nSarah Rodebaugh, Interior Designer of Henry & Mae, representing the applicant,\ndiscussed how the owners had tried to save the structure.\nChair Saxby made a motion to approve the demolition of the accessory structure\nand Vice-Chair Jones seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands\nand the motion passed 5-0.\n8. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Saxby discussed an \"eyesore\", an incredible historic property at 1617 Central Ave.\nIt was abandoned and some work had started on it but had stopped. He wanted to know\nwhat the City could do to help this historic property.\nHistorical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes\nFebruary 3, 2022\nPage 3 of 4", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18730, "text": "None\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2022-1713\nPLN21-0497 - 2986 Northwood Drive - Certificate of Approval - Applicant: Lauren\nHerrera. Public hearing to consider a Certificate of Approval application to allow the\ndemolition of an accessory structure built prior to 1942 located in the rear yard of a\nproperty that is on the City's Historical Building Study List with an \"S\" designation. This\nproject is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to\nCEQA Guidelines Section 15301(I)(4) - Demolition and Removal of Individual Small\nStructures.\nDavid Sablan, Planner II, introduced this item and gave a brief presentation. The staff\nreport and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5397043&GUID=4A9848CD-\nB5D2-4631-BFA4-48259EA86847&FullText=\nChair Saxby opened the board clarifying questions.\nChair Saxby wanted clarification on the noted flooding at the accessory structure.\nLauren Herrera, the applicant, discussed the problems she had been experiencing at the\nlocation.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked what options a future homeowner would have if they\nwanted to build an accessory structure.\nStaff Member Sablan discussed the options for a future homeowner, a new accessory\nstructure would be possible.\nVice-Chair Lynn Jones wanted to know how the structure had been modified over the\nyears and whether the windows were original.\nMs. Herrera clarified that the windows, doors, and siding were not original. It had been\nmodified over the years and the interior had been gutted due to mold.\nBoard Member Sanchez asked about the history of the structure and wanted to know if\nthe structure originally had a gambrel roof.\nStaff Member Sablan answered the City only had a 1979 photo.\nMs. Herrera discussed the permit history of the building.\nHistorical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes\nFebruary 3, 2022\nPage 2 of 4", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18729, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD\nTHURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2022\n1. CONVENE\nChair Thomas Saxby called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.\nPursuant to Assembly Bill 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953, Historical\nAdvisory Board members can attend the meeting via teleconference.\n2. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Saxby, Board Members Jones, Lau, Sanchez, Wit.\nAbsent: None.\n3. MINUTES\n3-A 2022-1714\nHistorical Advisory Board Draft Meeting Minutes, November 4, 2021\nBoard Member Norman Sanchez clarified Chair Saxby's comment should have been\n\"undergrounding\".\nBoard Member Jen Wit made a motion to approve the minutes with this correction\nand Board Member Sanchez seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of\nhands and the motion passed 5-0.\n3-B 2022-1715\nHistorical Advisory Board Draft Meeting Minutes - December 2, 2021\nChair Saxby felt that the Public Comment made by Betsy Mathieson for the 7-C Agenda\nitem was oversimplified and had not accurately captured her thoughts. He wanted her\ncomment clarified and expanded on.\nBoard Member Sanchez made a motion to approve the minutes with this\ncorrection and Board Member Wit seconded the motions. A vote was taken by a\nraise of hands and the motion passed 5-0.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nNone\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATION\nNone\n6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nHistorical Advisory Board Meeting Minutes\nFebruary 3, 2022\nPage 1 of 4", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18728, "text": "None.\n6.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n7.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n8.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18727, "text": "The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained the main reason why staff did not\npropose any additional waivers or fees. The project team does not yet have enough information on\npotential impacts, or what LBNL is proposing, especially in terms of how much money is brought to\nthe table for infrastructure. There is also no developer on board yet that could advise on the\nfinancial side of the deal. The project team is concerned about giving away too much too soon\nbecause there are still transportation infrastructure burdened out at Alameda Point.\nMember Johnson discussed not proposing anything specific, but suggested indicating a catalog of\nother incentives the ARRA is open and willing to discuss with LBNL. Member deHaan commented\nthat owning an electric company is extremely powerful. The Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices informed the Board that the Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager has\ndiscussed the proposal with the Public Utilities Board. There are mitigateable risks and concerns\nabout load and usage; AMP has to be careful not to offer discounts on rates that might spike usage.\nStaff can be more responsive and can start addressing and negotiating terms if/when the ARRA is\nshort listed.\nMember Johnson commented that there is a risk if a long-term contract for power is given, and the\nuser goes away, making a comparison to when the Navy closed the base. Fortunately for the City of\nAlameda, because of the long-term power contract it had with the Navy, the City had excess power,\nwhich was sold, back to the grid during the power crisis. Member Johnson stated that the LBNL\nscenario should not be viewed as risk, but as an opportunity.\nChair Gilmore requested a full report from the AMP General Manager on the electric issue. The\nActing City Manager stated that a report would be presented at the next ARRA meeting on March 2.\nMember Johnson motioned to direct staff to prepare and put forth an RFQ for a Developer\nfor the LBNL project. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-015) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of January 6, 2011 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember deHaan reported that the RAB discussed Building 5 and 5A (Site OU-2C), a 1.5M square\nfeet complex, to make a determination to bring the site to remediation level. The site was the\ncenter and hub of industrial operation, there was lots of activity causing a major impact to the\nenvironment, including radiation concerns. The Navy has four proposals: 1) take no action, 2)\ncement the pipes, 3) tear the building down, and 4) dig and haul. Member deHaan commented that\nhe is impressed with the dedication of the RAB members and the community, they have depth of\nknowledge which they lend as community support and have come up with good recommendations.\nThe RAB also discussed the conveyance status and the redevelopment planning status. Member\ndeHaan stated that the Deputy City Manager - Development Services presented the Going\nForward process to the RAB and it was well received. Member deHaan stated that he will not be\nable to attend the February 3 RAB meeting due to a scheduling conflict.\nMember Johnson also reminded staff and the public not to forget the commitment of the Navy\nduring the remediation process. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff\nwould ask the Board for policy direction on the OU-2C site in coming months.\nSpeaker: Gretchen Lipow\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18726, "text": "Chair Gilmore inquired where the developer's economic incentive would come from. The Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services discussed initial ideas, including fee development and\nprivate development to land adjacent, and that it was structured in the RFQ to ask each of\ndevelopers to put forth recommendations.\nMember Johnson commented that the zero cost idea is worth it to have LBNL at Alameda Point.\nMember Johnson stated that the project should have a defined, tight design and review process.\nThe Planning Services Manager discussed various ways to structure a design and review process\nthat would give the community assurance of high quality design buildings that would fit within the\ndesign expectations of the city and minimize the time and energy LBNL would have to spend in a\nnormal design and review process.\nMember Tam discussed LBNL's expectation that the ARRA will engage an entity with appropriate\ndevelopment experience. Member Tam inquired whether LBNL could be part of the developer\nevaluation process so that there is an even playing field with everyone else. The Deputy City\nManager - Development Services explained that LBNL clearly stated that a developer team was\nnot required in the initial process but that the project team would check to see if LBNL would like to\nweigh in on the evaluation so that the ARRA doesn't end up with a partner that could be of a\ndisadvantage.\nSpeakers: Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Seth Hamalian, Phil Owen, Karen Bey, Nancy Hird.\nVice Chair Bonta asked for clarification on the $14M in benefits to the city, inquired about the time\nperiod and the assumptions. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the\n$14M is based on an economic impact study done for the second campus, and contemplates 800\njobs in the first phase. The economic development manager stated that the study is based on\nfacilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville, and how much revenue and impacts there were on those\nhost communities. Since that study was done, the LBNL's conception of the second base initial\nphase has grown much larger, as it would be consolidating not just those two facilities, but also the\nOakland & Berkeley facilities. Vice Chair Bonta clarified that the ARRA would be proposing a no-\ncost long-term lease and an option to buy at no cost. The Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices confirmed that when the City receives the land from the Navy, it would then be transferred\nto LBNL. The Acting General Counsel explained that the ARRA has a Lease in Furtherance of\nConveyance (LIFOC) so will be providing a sublease, and when title to the property is received, it\nwill be title going to LBNL.\nVice Chair Bonta inquired whether there is a site that staff determined to be second best, and what\nwere the drawbacks as compared to the preferred site. The Deputy City Manager - Development\nServices explained that there are some outstanding leaseholds the project team felt would create\nsome uncertainty, so the preferred site had the least number of issues. The Planning Services\nManager stated that both sites are great and the ARRA is open to discussing variations of the sites.\nVice Chair Bonta suggested the ARRA be more bold to attract LBNL by offering to provide a menu\nof other options and be aggressive in financial incentives and no-cost incentives, AMP discount,\nreduced planning fees, and tax rebates. Member Johnson agrees and supports making that part of\nthe initial proposal so that it is more attractive and highly competitive.\nMember Tam inquired if LBNL's existing facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville were able to\ngenerate the $14M tertiary economic benefit from those communities. The Economic Development\nmanager explained that the analysis by CBRE looked at direct and indirect spending and the\ntertiary, multiplier effect of payrolls, of employee spending; including spending in restaurants,\nshopping, and sales tax.\nThe Board discussed the existing amenities on Alameda Point, Webster Street, and Marina Village.", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18725, "text": "Chair Gilmore reminded staff that she has asked for a real estate leasing primer from staff, and\nwould like this primer before a property manager RFP, because it will inform the RFP. The Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services replied that the leasing primer has been put in a draft scope\nfor an economics firm to help staff put together a presentation. The primer will be done as soon as\nthere is an economist on board.\nThe project management team is working with the Federal Government, Veteran's Administration,\non their project as a potential institutional user; as well as with the Alameda Point Collaborative\n(APC) and Building Futures for Women and Children, consolidating their facilities to meet their\nlonger term needs, but on a smaller piece of land. The Public Works department will be\nimplementing a federal transportation administration grant for transportation improvement and\nroutes at Alameda Point.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services prepared a budget of the project, which will be\ndiscussed further on 2/15 at the mid year adjustment.\nThe Planning Services Manager discussed the adopted general plan for Alameda Point.\nMember Tam discussed the importance of engaging the school district, East Bay Regional Park\nDistrict (EBRPD), Peralta Community College District, as they were not included in the outreach.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that staff will be meeting with the\nEBRPD tomorrow, and will include these agencies in the outreach.\nVice Chair Bonta supports moving forward with the Going Forward process, as the plan provides\nspecificity and focus, with flexibility - an important balance. Member Johnson and Chair Gilmore\nalso support moving forward. Chair Gilmore emphasized the importance of flexibility. She stated\nthat the process and plan couldn't be so rigid that opportunities are missed.\nSpeakers: Doug Biggs, Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Helen Sause, Carol Gottstein, Nancy Hird,\nGretchen Lipow, Karen Bey.\nMember deHaan moved to approve endorsing the Alameda Point \"Going Forward\" Process.\nMember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(11-014) Provide Direction on Key Aspects of Response to Lawrence Berkeley National\nLaboratory's Request for Qualifications for a Second Campus at Alameda Point and Approve\nIssuance of Request for Qualifications for Developers.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave an overview on the Lawrence Berkeley\nNational Lab (LBNL) RFQ for a second campus. The interdepartmental team lead by the Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services, includes the Public Works Director (Matt Naclerio), Planning\nServices Manager (Andrew Thomas), Alameda Municipal Power General Manager (Girish\nBalachandran), and Economic Development Manager (Eric Fonstein). The team has prepared the\nfirst draft of the response, identified key aspects and would like policy direction on four key points to\nfinalize a competitive response: 1) Site Location, 2) Planning Guidelines 3) Financial Incentives 4)\nDeveloper RFQ.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services discussed the Next Steps and timeline for the\ndecision-making process and selection of development team.", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18724, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, February 2, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:31 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-011) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 2011.\n(*11-012) Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 49 Setting the Order of Business of the\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings.\nMember Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-013) Endorse \"Going Forward\" Process and Schedule for Alameda Point Redevelopment.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services/project manager, summarized the Going\nForward process. The interdepartmental team includes the Planning Services Manager and Public\nWorks Director. The Going Forward process is a two-tier process: Tier 1 is developing a vision and\nproject description for Alameda Point through July 2011 to use as a basis to start the City's\nenvironmental review process (CEQA); and the Navy for their NEPA process in terms of\nconveyance. Tier 2 is the Entitlement process from July 2011- - July 2013, which has four major\nentitlements: Specific Plan, Master Infrastructure Plan, a Conveyance Agreement, and State Lands\nExchange Agreement. A community-planning workbook was developed and provided online. The\nworkbook was used to facilitate several community workshops that were held. Staff will prepare a\nsummary report that will be presented at the March 2 ARRA meeting. A tenant forum is scheduled\nnext week. The next six months of the Going Forward process will focus on several efforts. The\nfirst and biggest is the Master Planning effort, which will include the project management team and\na team of consultants: land use planning, economics, civil engineering, transportation,\nenvironmental, sustainable infrastructure. There is also a plan to work with ARRA staff and PM\nRealty on a long-term leasing strategy to leverage additional funding and create momentum for\nlonger term leases on buildings that will be remaining, as well as work with the Navy and State\nLands on joint proposed conveyance objectives and principles regarding land conveyance. There\nwill be a pro forma, and discussion of land value and structuring how the land is transferred from\nthe Navy.\nMember Johnson inquired whether there is an ARRA agreement with PM Realty and the status of\nan RFP for a property manager. The Acting City Attorney responded that there is a property\nmanagement agreement with PM Realty from 2004. Regarding the status of the RFP for a property\nmanager, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that an RFP has not been done\nyet, but staff will make it a priority as time permits.", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18723, "text": "CITY\nOF\nof\nMinutes of the\nSPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD\nJanuary 28, 2010\nThe special meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 4:05 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nMike Hartigan, President\nGail Wetzork, Board Member\nSuzanne Whyte, Board Member\nAbsent:\nKaren Butter, Vice President\nKristy Perkins, Board Member\nStaff:\nJane Chisaki, Library Director\nArta Benzie-Youssef, Branch Supervisor\nCONSIDERATION/APPROVAL OF PUBLIC ART DESIGNS FOR BAY FARM AND WEST\nEND BRANCH LIBRARIES\nThe Alameda Free Library Public Art Team had interviewed artists to design art pieces for both\nthe West End and Bay Farm Island branch libraries. The team had selected Debey Zito and Terry\nSchmitt for the West End and Kana Tanaka for Bay Farm Island. The artists were invited to make\na presentation to the Library Board in order to gain the Board's approval to move forward. The\nWest End artists were up first, and the Board gave their approval to go ahead after viewing the\npresentation and a bit of discussion. The Bay Farm artist gave her presentation and was also\ngiven the go ahead for her artwork.\nPUBLIC COMMENT - Agenda Item Only\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no other business to bring before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:08 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\ngame christin\nJane Chisaki, Library Director and\nSecretary to the Alameda Free Library Board", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18722, "text": "Revised-March 9, 2006\n12.\nADJOURNMENT\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 12, 2006", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18721, "text": "Revised-March 9, 2006\nBingo will receive a free dauber! Again, ARPD teen volunteers assisted with serving and\nclean-up.\nBingo on Christmas and New Year's Eve - Saturday Fundraising Bingo will be offered on\nSaturday, December 24, and Saturday, December 31, with the first game starting at 11:00\na.m. (note time change).\nOakland Community Orchestra performs Holiday Concert - On Monday, December 12,\n2005, at 1:30 p.m., the 35-member Oakland Community Orchestra will perform a free\nconcert including works of Schubert, Haydn, Dvorak, and Scott Joplin in the Mastick Social\nHall. The concert will include a violin solo by Gil Gleason, conductor!\nMastick's Annual Holiday Sing-Along - Roger Bauer, Immanuel Lutheran Church, and\nJim Franz, Alameda Red Cross, return to provide the spirited instrumental background for\nour Annual Holiday Sing-Along. Join us for good cheer on Thursday, December 15, at\n11:00 a.m. in the media room. Enjoy a visit from Santa, refreshments, and spirits of the\nseason.\nFamily Caregiving Home Reference Program - On Thursday, January 5, 10:00 a.m., the\nAlameda Red Cross will feature the second of four presentations of the Family Caregiving\nHome Reference Program designed to help people who care for others by teaching them to\nbuild skills, reduce stress, understand legal, financial, and medical issues and balance their\nresponsibilities.\nD.\nOther Reports and Announcments\nStatus Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner\nJohnson)\nNo report at this time.\n8.\nSTATUS REPORT ON ONGOING PROJECTS\nAD Lillard stated that the current Washington Park portable building will be demolished\nwithin the next month. It is anticipated that construction of the new modular building will\nbegin in the next two months.\n9.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL\nNone.\n10.\nITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA\nConsideration of Possible Names for the Park in Bayport Development\nAnnual Review and Adjustment of Fees for Recreation and Parks\n11.\nSET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING\nThursday, February 9, 2006\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 12, 2006", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18720, "text": "Revised-March 9, 2006\nThe Elk's Hoop Shoot is now taking place at all parks. Finals will take place on Saturday,\nJanuary 7, at the new Alameda Gymnasium from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Awards will be given in\nthree age divisions for both boys and girls. The winners will then go on to compete in the\nDistrict finals.\nThe Junior Warrior Basketball Clinic will begin January 21 at the Alameda Point\nGymnasium for K- 3rd Graders. The Clinic will emphasize basic skills, teamwork, and\nsportsmanship.\nWater Polo Club - This new program is offering quality instruction and tournament play for\nthe City's water polo enthusiast. The Program will run from December through January on\nTuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays for ages 12 and up. The cost is $100 which includes\n25 sessions and membership into USA Water Polo.\nC.\nMastick Senior Center\nOctober 2005 Statistics (Statistics are two months behind):\nVolunteers: 125\nVolunteer Hours:\n2,420\nNew Members (July 1, to present):\n07\nTotal Membership to Date (July 1, 2004 to present): 2,041\n(Note: Membership renewal is tied to the new Fiscal Year)\nAverage Number of Lunches Served Daily:\n49\nMonthly Sign-ins:\n13,194\nMastick Holiday Closures!\nMastick Senior Center will be closed for the following holidays:\n- Christmas Holiday, Sunday, December 25, and Monday, December 26, 2005.\n- New Year's Holiday, Sunday, January 1 and Monday, January 2, 2006.\nMeal Service Availability:\nMeals on Wheels is available to provide meal service on the days Mastick is closed.\nReserve a meal in advance by calling 865-6131.\nMastick's Thanksgiving Dinner - Was held on Sunday, November 20, at 1:00 p.m.\nin the Mastick dining rooms, Pete McDonough Catering served Thanksgiving Dinner\nto approximately 130 Mastick members! The Mastick Advisory Board subsidized the\nbalance of the event expense. ARPD teen volunteers assisted with serving and\nclean-up.\nBreakfast before Bingo - On Saturday, November 26, between 9:00 and 11:00 a.m.\nbreakfast was served in the Mastick dining rooms to 110 seniors. Participants enjoyed\nscrambled eggs, hot cakes, sausage, juice, and coffee. Breakfast patrons going on to play\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 12, 2006", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18719, "text": "Revised-March 9, 2006\nfor teens to drop in. To take advantage of the holiday, the center has been implementing\nactivities that are focused around the holidays such as Thanksgiving soup and dessert.\nThe Alameda Youth Committee (AYC) has been working on electing officers and\ncontinues to recruiting more members. Officers and Members for the 2005-2006 school\nyear are as follows:\nOfficers\nPresident:\nFanny Ye\nVice President:\nRicky Quach\nSecretary:\nElaine Yu\nTreasurer:\nIsaac WoldeMariam\nInventory Manager:\nCamilo King\nPublicity Manager:\nKamaka Balcupo\nSchool Representatives\nChipman Middle School:\nOnyx Goosby\nEncinal High School:\nAireana Hagan\nSt. Joseph Notre Dame High School:\nCameron Vea\nAlameda Science Technology Institute (ASTI): Nancy Yu\nRecruitment for school representatives is ongoing.\nIn Mid-November, AYC assisted Mastick Senior Center with their Thanksgiving Dinner on\nSunday, November 20. They helped prep and serve hot meals to the seniors. In addition,\nthe Committee returned again to assist Mastick on their post Thanksgiving Breakfast on\nSaturday, November 26. There were many positive comments made by the seniors, adult\nvolunteers, and Mariel Thomas (Senior Program Coordinator) about their good service.\nAlso, during the Mayor's Holiday Tree Lighting, AYC assisted Recreation and Parks on\nproviding refreshments (selling hot beverages) on a cool Saturday afternoon and evening\nof the event. Besides fundraising they also assisted in crowd control, and clean up. The\nevent raised approximately $300 which will be used to assist AYC in future teen events &\nactivity planning.\nOperation Green Sweep is ongoing. Teen volunteers continue to assist the department by\nremoving trash and debris weekly at the City's 10 parks and playground sites. They also\nwent to three of the Alameda middle schools to assist in their playground and trash pick\naround the school grounds. By doing so, they learn, promote, and encourage their peers to\nrecycle, and care for their neighborhood parks by keeping them clean. Each of the\nvolunteers can earn up to 15-25 community hours. These hours help them fulfill the\nschool's requirements on their Community Service Hours.\nParks and Playgrounds, our free drop-in recreation program. Parents have been\nespecially happy to have the option of attending this program. Our ten selected sites\nthroughout Alameda are: Franklin, Krusi, Leydecker, Lincoln, Littlejohn, Longfellow,\nMcKinley, Miller, Tillman, and Woodstock.\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 12, 2006", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18718, "text": "crowds throughout the event.\nUnderground Teen Center - Attendance remains high and more kids are participating in\nour after-school programs. Staff has been busy planning new, creative, and active games\nand activities. Attendance at the teen center for the month was 480 teens. Due to school\nholiday, the center was open on Wednesday, November 23rd, from 12:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 12, 2006", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18717, "text": "Revised-March 9, 2006\nA discussion was held concerning the concept of developing a master plan\nspecifically for the Veteran's Building. Chair Ingram suggested approaching a\nnumber of local architects about the possibility of providing some volunteer\nservices. The possibility of identifying potential funding sources for such a master\nplan was discussed. Chair Ingram also raised the issue of utilizing the funds in the\nCity's Open Space Fund. AD Lillard reminded the Commission that any allocation of\nthe Open Space Funds would require Council action.\nCommissioner Ogden volunteered to discuss the possibility with a number of\narchitects that she is familiar with.\n6.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nDiscussion of FY 2006-08 Capital Improvement Projects - (Discussion Item\nOnly)\nAD Lillard reviewed the City's process for developing Capital Improvement Projects.\nThe following projects were identified during the CIP process for FY 2004-06 but were not\nselected for funding:\nRenovation of the Alameda Point Gym and Pool\nAlameda Point Sports Complex\nVeteran's Building Kitchen Upgrade and Interior Painting\nPark Master Plan\nMastick Senior Center Exterior Painting\nRepairs at the Skate Park\nAlameda Point Soccer Fields\nPark Lighting Replacement\nEach of the above projects will be resubmitted during the FY 2006-08 cycle.\nAlso, the following new projects will be considered:\nRenovation of the Harrison and Leydecker Recreation Centers\nRefinish Hardwood Floors in Veteran's Building\nGodfrey Park Field Renovation\nLincoln Park Field Renovation\nTillman Park Athletic Field\nAfter a brief discussion the Commission rated the projects in order of priority:\n1. Park Master Plan\n2. Renovation of Leydecker and Harrison Centers\n3. Lincoln and Tillman Field Renovations\n4. Upgrade to Veteran's Building Kitchen\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 12, 2006", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18716, "text": "Revised-March 9, 2006\nCommissioner's should start thinking of names for the new park. This will be agendized for\nthe February Commission Meeting.\nB.\nStatus Report on Veteran's Building - (Discussion Item Only)\nVeteran's in attendance:\nJim Sweeney, Commander American Legion Post #647\nSusan Hodges, Chapter 400 Vietnam Veterans of America\nJoe Williams, American Legion Post #647\nBronson Perry, Disabled American Veterans #8\nJim Lynch, Disabled American Veterans #8\nJean Sweeney Committee member and Secretary\nAD Lillard Provided information to the Commission as far as who is using the Veteran's\nBuilding. The Recreation and Park Department uses the building for the following\nprograms:\nWee Play\nSpecial Interest Classes\nDrama\nSpecial Events\nTeen Center\nSpace is also provided for the following:\nAlameda Arts Council\nLibrary's Adult Literacy Programs\nLocal Veteran's Groups\nAD Lillard provided the Commission with a tour of the Veterans' Building.\nJean Sweeney stated that she saw a news article regarding various organizations receiving\ngrants and if the City could get us (Veteran's Building) on the list. AD Lillard stated that he\nwill check with the Community Development Department.\nMs. Sweeney feels that the building is under utilized as far as making money to maintain\nthe building and the Veteran's feel that renovating the kitchen will help raise funds. The\ngroup is also looking into see if the building was ever declared a historical landmark, if so\nthey would be eligible to receive funds.\nChair Ingram asked if there were funds set aside for the renovation of the kitchen. AD\nLillard stated that there was $10,000 allocated for the design.\nCommissioner Oliver asked what the cost would be to renovate the kitchen. AD Lillard\nstated that Public Works estimates the work at $200,000.\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 12, 2006", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18715, "text": "Revised-March 9, 2006\nMINUTES OF\nRECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION\nALAMEDA\nRECREATION & PARKS\nMEETING OF JANUARY 12, 2006\n2226 Santa Clara Avenue\nAlameda, CA 94501\n(510) 747-7529\nDATE:\nThursday, January 12, 2006\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nVeteran's Building, 2203 Central Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Jay Ingram, Vice Chair Kahuanui, Commissioners Terri Ogden and\nGeorg Oliver\nAbsent:\nCommissioners Christine Johnson and Bruce Reeves\nStaff:\nDale Lillard, Acting Director (AD)\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nDecember 2005 and January 2006 Minutes to be provided at February 2006 Meeting.\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA\n(Any person may address the Commission in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda.)\nVice Chair Kahuanui introduced Michael Cooper who has been nominated and appointed\nby the Mayor as a Recreation and Park Commissioner. AD Lillard stated that Mr. Cooper\nwill be sworn in on January 17, 2006.\n4.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n5.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nUpdate on Bayport Park and Community Building - (Discussion Item Only)\nAD Lillard provided a report to the Commission on the Bayport Park Project. Council will\nadopt the plans and specs for the Bayport Park and Community Building Project on\nTuesday, January 17, 2006. Once adopted, bid packages will be sent to contractors.\nContractors will have 30 days to submit their bids. Once a contractor is selected the bid will\ngo back to Council for approval. Hopefully we can break ground by mid-March.\n1\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, January 12, 2006", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18714, "text": "191210 Alameda De-Pave Park Support\nAs described above, the project would have a significant impact on climate change.\nEvery year that goes by without increasing our wetlands contributes to climate change and\nposes more risks to wildlife and people while raising the price tag of doing what is needed. We\nurge the Commission to recommend to the Council that the planning and development of De-\nPave Park be given the highest priority.\nGOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY\nLeora Feeney\nLinda Carloni\nLeora Feeney\nLinda Carloni\nCo-Chair, Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve\nPresident, Board of Directors\nGOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY\n2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G, Berkeley, CA 94702\nphone 510.843.2222 web www.goldengateaudubon.org\nemail ggas@goldengateaudubon.org", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18713, "text": "6-B\nCOLOEN and\n100\nExhibit 3\nears\nTo:\nHonorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Recreation and Park Commission\nRE:\nRecreation and Parks Commission Meeting, December 12, 2019, Item 6B\nDate: December 10, 2019\nLadies and Gentlemen:\nWe are writing to request that the Commission assign the highest priority to the planning and\ndevelopment of the proposed Shoreline Ecological Park on the west side of Seaplane Lagoon at\nAlameda Point, commonly known as De-Pave Park.\nWe believe that it's time, in fact past time, to move forward on De-Pave Park. The park concept\nwas included in the 2014 Alameda Point Town and Waterfront Precise Plan and is highlighted as\n\"A Case Study in Adaptive Land Use and Shoreline Management\" in Alameda's 2019 Climate\nAction Plan (pages 124 and 125). But De-Pave Park can't give us any of its critical projected\nbenefits while it is still only on paper.\nSeaplane Lagoon and its surrounding area around provides rare and precious habitat for\nwildlife, including a nesting pair of Ospreys, as well as nesting herons and other resident and\nmigrating shore and water birds. As the city increases the commercial and transportation uses\nat Alameda Point, it is critical to consider the needs of the wildlife that are being compromised\nby that development. The additional wildlife area planned in De-Pave Park will be particularly\nvaluable because it will enhance and support the Veteran's Administration's adjacent wildlife\narea. Many birds such as the Great Blue Herons, Least Terns, Caspian Terns and more that nest\non the VA properties rely on the protected waters of the Seaplane Lagoon to forage. It is\nespecially important during storms creating high winds and rough waters on the open SF Bay.\nIn addition, tidal marsh reduces a major cause of climate change, carbon dioxide, and mitigates\nthe effects of sea level rise by buffering waves and absorbing storm surges. Marshes operate as\n\"carbon sinks\" because of the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed through photosynthesis by\nthe prolific wetland vegetation. These sinks are especially important in highly urbanized areas,\nlike the San Francisco Bay Area.\nDe-Pave Park ranks high on the suggested prioritization factors:\nWhile the project is not yet funded, there are excellent opportunities for funding habitat\nrestoration projects, most significantly Measure AA. (East Bay Regional Parks has previously\nbeen awarded Measure AA funds for restoration of and access to Encinal Dunes.)\nThe Bayshore access, wildlife habitat and climate change benefits from De-Pave Park would\nbenefit the entire community of Alameda.\nGOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY\n2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G, Berkeley, CA 94702\nphone 510.843.2222 web www.goldengateaudubon.org\nemail ggas@goldengateaudubon.org", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18712, "text": "6-B -\nExhibit 3\nDecember 11, 2019\nHonorable Chair and Members of the Recreation and Parks Commission\nDear Chair and Members: of the Recreation and Parks Commission.\nOn December 12 your Commission will make an important decision regarding the future of DePave Park\nI\nstrongly encourage you to prioritize moving forward and asking the City to start the process. De-Pave\nPark calls for removing concrete along the western shore of Seaplane Lagoon for a natural shoreline and\nwetlands development. This concept was included in the 2014 Alameda Point Town and Waterfront\nPrecise Plan and is highlighted in Alameda's 2019 Climate Action Plan. However, the plan won't move\nforward unless the City sends out a Request for Proposal to find out the costs and details of creating this\nshoreline park.\nIn addition to providing a wonderful waterfront park for all to enjoy, this newly created marsh will\ncreate habitat for the wildlife who make their home there and depend on it for their very survival It also\nfits into the city's climate action plan because wetlands and marshes can help mitigate rising ocean\nlevels by helping to absorb and contain rising water.\nPlease do the right thing and ask the city to give this issue the highest priority.\nThank you.\nPatricia M. Gannon\n1019 Tobago Lane\nAlameda, CA 94502\nPg3187@gmail.com", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18711, "text": "Address the needs of low-income and other underserved coastal populations that will be highly\nimpacted by climate change.\nPromote on-the-ground demonstration projects that implement innovative approaches or\nenhance understanding of effective coastal management strategies and will potentially lead to\nbroader change to policies, regulations, or to duplicating the effort elsewhere.\nPromote collaboration among various stakeholders and multiple sectors. Establish and expand\nnon-traditional alliances to accelerate effective problem-solving between and among public and\nprivate resource managers, scientists, and decision-makers.\nReduce GHG emissions or enhance the ability of natural systems to sequester greenhouse\ngases.\nIncorporate outreach or educational component.\nOne of the innovative approaches envisioned at DePave Park is floating wetlands in the Seaplane\nLagoon.\nCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife\nCDFW awards funding for wetland restoration and greenhouse gas reduction every year. On\nDecember 10, 2019, for example, it awarded $11.35 million to seven projects.\nThe Wetlands Restoration for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (Program) restores or\nenhances wetlands and watershed ecosystems to provide essential services to California's people,\nwildlife, and fish. Wetlands have high carbon sequestration rates that can sequester carbon for\ndecades. There is tremendous opportunity to restore or enhance large areas of mountain meadow,\ncoastal tidal, inland seasonal, and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta wetlands that do not currently\nprovide the full potential of carbon storage or other benefits due to historical land use.\nThe Program is part of California Climate Investments, a statewide program that puts billions of\nCap-and-Trade dollars to work reducing GHG emissions, strengthening the economy, and\nimproving public health and the environment.\nIn conclusion, funds for the implementation of DePave Park are out there for the asking. All we\nneed is the commitment to bring DePave Park into being. It will be of benefit to the\nenvironment, to the character and attractiveness of Alameda Point, and to the community as a\nwhole, as we demonstrate with action our dedication to the goals embodied in the Climate Action\nand Resiliency Plan, of which DePave Park is a part.\nThank you,\nRichard Bangert\nPhoto site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/63740093@N03/\nBlog: https://alamedapointenviro.com/", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18710, "text": "San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority\nThe SF Bay Restoration Authority disburses funding through an annual grant awards program\nfunded by the taxpayers of the nine-county Bay Area who approved Measure AA. In August of\n2019, another $67 million was awarded to five projects. The deadline for grant applications for\nRound 3 is tomorrow, December 13, 2019. Thus, another year has passed without Alameda\nsubmitting an application for funding to conduct the planning process for DePave Park, even\nthough this project fits squarely within the goals of the restoration authority.\nMeasure AA grants seek to fund projects that:\nImprove Bay water quality;\nRestore, monitor and maintain habitat for fish, birds and wildlife;\nUse natural habitats to protect communities from floods;\nIncrease shoreline access and encourage public participation in protecting the Bay's\nhealth.'\nCalifornia State Coastal Conservancy\nIn 2019, the Coastal Conservancy granted $14 million to the San Francisco Bay Area\nConservancy Program - Climate Adaptation. In addition, the Coastal Conservancy granted $20\nmillion to the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority for its grant programs, which already\nreceives funding under the voter-approved Measure AA.\nBased on the priorities for state Proposition 68 SF Bay Climate Funds listed below, DePave Park\nwill be an excellent candidate for both funding of the planning process and funding of the\nconstruction. Emphasis has been added.\nProject Priorities - Prop 68 SF Bay Climate Funds\nThe priorities for the Prop 68 SF Bay Climate Funds will be to support projects to advance the\ngoals of the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program:\n1) improving public access;\n2) conserving and enhancing habitat and open space resources of regional importance;\n3) implementing policies of the Coastal Act, San Francisco Bay Plan, and other adopted\nplans; and\n4) providing recreational and educational opportunities in open space and natural areas\naccessible to urban populations.\nProjects also need to achieve one or more of the purposes of the Climate Ready Program:\nImprove a community's ability to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change,\nincluding sea level rise, extreme heat, wildfire, drought and flooding.\nUse nature-based climate adaptation that provide co-benefits for people, wildlife, and the\neconomy.", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18709, "text": "6 -B -\nExhibit 3\na.s\nGreat Blue Heron gathering nesting\nmaterial on west side of Seaplane Lagoon\nwhere ecological park is proposed.\nBlusger:\nTo: Alameda Recreation and Parks Commission\nItem 6-B, Review and Recommend Park and Recreation Facilities Project Priorities\nCommission meeting date: December 12, 2019\nMembers of the Commission:\nI urge you to place DePave Park at the top of your priority list. DePave Park is unlike other\nparks projects in that its primary goal is adapting a portion of the Alameda Point shoreline for\nrising sea level. While there will be a recreational component in the form of public access on\ntrails, its standout feature will be restoration of a tidal ecosystem. It is ideally suited for\nconversion to a wetland ecology, since it is directly adjacent to an existing wetland on federal\nproperty and will create a synergistic upscaling of this wetland zone on the Bay. Furthermore,\nthe vision for DePave Park includes floating wetlands in the Seaplane Lagoon. Floating\nwetlands will make this project a leading edge adaptation project on San Francisco Bay.\nWhile all of the projects on the list are worthy of support, the DePave Park project, as a shoreline\nrestoration project, will not be competing against other City projects on the list for funding. And\nfunding is always the big hurdle for parks projects. For DePave Park, there are many potential\nsources of funding to conduct the planning and permitting process, as well as the construction\nphase. Below is a list of potential sources of funding for DePave Park.\nBase Reuse Fund - City of Alameda\nFunds accumulated in the Base Reuse Fund from the sale and lease of property at Alameda Point\ncan be utilized for project planning purposes at Alameda Point.", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18708, "text": "wetlands confer an immense benefit for wildlife by providing habitat for aquatic, amphibian, terrestrial, and\navian species alike. Coastal wetlands are also notoriously efficient mechanisms for carbon sequestration and\nstorm water filtration, thereby mitigating anthropic environmental impacts on a local and global scale.\nIn addition to the environmental benefits DePave Park can provide, constructing a shoreline wetland can\nestablish critical ecosystem-based adaptations that would augment Alameda's resilience to global climate\nchange. As one of the largest low-lying regions in the Bay Area, Alameda must prepare for the impending\neffects of sea level rise. Wetlands function as natural sponges that trap and slowly release surface water,\nrain, groundwater, and flood waters and distribute these waters more slowly over the floodplain, thereby\nlowering flood heights and dissipating storm surges. DePave Park can serve as a buffer between Alameda\nand the Bay to mitigate gradual and storm surge inundation to populated areas. The additional benefit of\nreplacing the impermeable land cover currently at Alameda Point with a porous ecosystem will create\nimmediately observable improvements.\nThe proposed park is an investment towards Alameda's future resilience in the face of climate change and\nrising sea levels as well as its ecological role in the Bay. More importantly, the park will restore a sense of\nplace and community that has been lost from this corner of the island. Therefore, Baykeeper strongly\nrecommends that the Alameda Department of Recreation and Parks prioritize DePave Park for development.\nThank you for your consideration. You may feel free to reach me at 510-735-9700 x114 or\ncole@baykeer.org if you have any questions.\nWarmly,\nCBB\nCole Burchiel\nField Investigator and Science Associate\n1736 Franklin Street, Suite 800\nPollution hotline: 1 800 KEEP BAY\nOakland, CA 94612\nWATERKEEFER'ALLIANCE\nFOUNDING MEMEBER\nwww.baykeeper.org\n(510) 735-9700", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18707, "text": "6-B\nExhibit 3\nFrom:\nPatricia Lamborn\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nDec. 12, 2019 Item 6 B Park Priorities\nDate:\nWednesday, December 11, 2019 8:11:45 AM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions.\nDear Ms. Wooldridge and Recreation and Parks Commissioners,\nAs some of you know I am passionate about defending Shoreline Parks and maintaining open space and\nnatural habitats for wildlife, public access on the Bay, and resiliancy in the face of sea level rise. I write in\nsupport of focusing on our Shoreline Parks: DePave and Enterprise-- as we face the challenge of climate\nadaptation.\nI appreciate the incredible job our Recreation and Parks Department does in maintaining our historic\nparks, and building parks such as Jean Sweeney. The programs run by ARPD are terrific, I am so\ngrateful for the work you all do. The Priority List you present tonite reflects the difficult choices you\nwill\nhave to make in serving the complex needs of our island city.\nI am writing to ask that you recommend moving forward with the steps to make DePave Park and\nEnterprise Park a reality. On March 26, the City Council of Alameda voted 5-0 to pass a historic\nresolution declaring a climate emergency. Our City also spent thousands of dollars and time on\nconsultants to develop the Climate Action and Resiliancy Plan. (CARP)\nNow it's time for action.\nOne definite recommended action from the CARP has been taken ---- the passage of the stormwater\ndrain parcel tax- a smart step to fund the infrastructure needed to deal with flooding and sea level rise\ndue to climate change. DePave Park is an accepted smart action, already a part of the City's plan. It\nshould be next in line to achieve climate change adaptation-- restore wetlands where it is possible.\nI appreciate that the Recreation and Parks Department and Commission are facing a long list of priorities\nfor parks to develop and are seeking a reality check --- there is not enough time nor money to do them all.\nIt may seem controversial to put DePave Park in front of playgrounds and recreation areas, but we are\nrunning out of time- and resolutions aren't enough. Alameda residents will support a smart plan which I\nbelieve can be developed if we put the time and thought into preparing a Request For Proposals for\nDePave Park. I also support a Community Advisory Committee to review the recent survey on Enterprise\nPark.\nYears from now, residents will be grateful we spent money on natural resiliancy and saved them the cost\nof building sea walls and levees.\nI am confident that if you step up and make Shoreline Parks a priority, the people of Alameda will support\nyou.\nSincerely,\nPatricia Lamborn\n3226 Encinal Ave. Alameda\npatricia.lamborn@aol.com", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18706, "text": "6-B\nExhibit -\nFrom:\njohnsen cyndy\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nComment on Item 6-B for Park Commission Meeting Tonight\nDate:\nThursday, December 12, 2019 9:58:06 AM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***\nRE: 6-B - Review and Recommend Park and Recreation Facilities Project Priorities\nDear Commissioners,\nIn your discussion tonight around prioritizing parks, I hope that priority is given to\nparks that can do the most for Alameda's various goals - not only to provide access,\nrecreation, and learning opportunities for people to connect with nature, but also, if\npossible, to help our unique island environment by addressing key environmental\ngoals. Chief among those goals is confronting the critical threat of sea level rise\nthrough design. From what I understand, DePave Park seeks to do that. Therefore,\nI\nhope you support the next steps for that project, and apply that kind of thinking to all\nparks being considered. If there's a matrix of factors, design for future sea level rise\nand habitat protection seem like good points to include.\nThanks for your consideration,\n-Cyndy Johnsen\nP.S. Please post this under the \"Correspondence\" exhibit for public consumption.", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18705, "text": "palm trees that are 20 - 25 feet (approximately half the size of existing trees) or 4 - 5 smaller palm\ntrees that are 10 - 15 feet tall. ARPD recommends planting the three taller trees in the circle\naround the bandstand due to the historical nature of that area. The palm tree that fell down,\nbehind the Isabelle Clark memorial bench could be replaced with another palm tree in the coming\nyears, however ARPD staff recommends a different species that provides shade for the bench\nsuch as an oak tree. Palm trees are being discouraged for planting in Alameda because the\nfronds are not compostable and do not contribute much to carbon sequestration since they do not\nhave a broad leaf canopy. These replacement palm trees will be a slightly different species than\nthe existing palm trees but will look similar. The current species is not recommended anymore\nbecause when they get diseased, it creates a light dust that easily spreads to the other palms.\nI agree that palm trees do little for carbon sequestration, insect and bird populations, and do not\nprovide adequate shade. They are also not native. They may have some limited historical value.\nStaff is seeking input and direction from the Commission on this tree and asphalt replacement\nplan.\nFINANCIAL IMPACT\nARPD is allocating at least $90,000 in FY 2019/20 from the Park Maintenance Replacement\nCapital Improvement Fund, which totals $175,000.\nRECOMMENDATION\nReview, discuss and approve a plan to replace trees and pathway asphalt at Jackson Park.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAmy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director\nExhibits:\n1.\nJackson Park Tree and Asphalt Replacement Plan\n2.\nTree Photo Examples", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18704, "text": "WCA opinion constitutes conflict of interest as the same company removes trees. Any opinion\nand recommendations from WCA should be discarded. An independent certified arborist who is\nnot familiar with WCA's recommendations and not associated with the company should provide\nan opinion on the health and condition of trees. This report should be attached to the staff report.\nThe planting locations between street and pathway were a poor choice because it\ndoes not provide enough space for the roots to grow due to the adjacent concrete. See\nExhibit 2 which shows that these large trees are within inches of the concrete gutter.\nThis is the case with just about every street tree in Alameda. The situation is not unusual or\nunique, and the spacing may even be better than many street strips.\nThe sycamores are also not an appropriate species for Alameda because there is\ntoo much salt from our shallow water table. The same problem is seen on Bay Farm\nIsland.\nThis discussion should be part the update on the Master Street Tree Plan in July 2020. The\nPark commissioners should not be asked to accept this as a fact prior to the MSTP update\nand a thorough analysis. Currently, sycamores are included in the plan and continue to be\nplanted throughout the island.\nThe pruning practice in decades past was done poorly with large branches cut and\nthat practice can create decay in limbs and the trunk during regrowth. This type of pruning\nof large branches is no longer done unless there is a dead/decaying branch or it is\nsignificantly weighing down the tree and the entire tree will benefit from that weight\nreduction.\nAmy Wooldridge clarified in an email she is referring to the practice of \"pollarding.'\nThe pollarding was done many years ago, possibly decades, as evidenced by the size of the\nbranches above the pollarding cuts. The question is not whether the practice can create decay\nbut whether the trees currently have decay and how decay can be addressed with minimal\nintervention.\nRedwood and oak trees are recommended by the arborist to be planted in Jackson Park and they\nthrive in environments closer to the ocean. ARPD will be considering and consulting on other\nspecies as well. ARPD also has a magnolia in stock that it plans to plant in one of the circles near\nEncinal Avenue that previously had trees. The final location will be dependent upon the approved\nlocation for the landscape play area. Two potential locations for the play area are indicated on\nExhibit 1.\nThe arborist recommends planting 50 or more trees over the next several years with a minimum\nof 20 feet between each tree. There is enough space available in open areas as well as declining\ntree replacement for the next 3-5 years.\nSince the WCA report identified all sycamores as \"declining\", does that mean all of them will be\nremoved and replaced in the next 3-5 years?\nThis fiscal year, ARPD will be planting the magnolia tree and additional trees throughout the\npark. We have also has allocated $10,000 to purchase palm trees. This can fund either three", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18703, "text": "6-A\nExhibit 2\n12-12-2019\nComment on staff report from Ani Dimusheva, anidimusheva@gmail.com, 510-387-\n4084\nPlease include in public record and on the city's website. Comments in red font below.\nApprove Tree and Asphalt Replacement Plan for Jackson Park\nTo: Honorable Chair and Members of the Recreation and Park Commission\nFrom: Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director\nRe: Approve Tree and Asphalt Replacement Plan for Jackson Park\nBACKGROUND\nOn September, 12, 2019, the Recreation and Parks Commission discussed a play area at\nJackson Park and also directed staff to bring back a maintenance plan for Jackson Park that\naddressed the asphalt pathways and trees.\nThis report provides information and location of the existing trees, a plan and options for replacing\ntrees and the proposed areas of asphalt pathway to be replaced in 2020 (Exhibit 1).\nThere is no specific plan and options for replacing trees in the staff report. For example, if you\nremove all sycamores around the perimeter of the park, what species will replace them? The\ndiscussion is general and premature considering the upcoming MSTP update. See below.\nDISCUSSION\nPathway Asphalt Replacement\nThe Alameda Recreation and Parks Department (ARPD) is allocating $80,000 toward asphalt\nreplacement this fiscal year for Jackson Park. The areas noted in red on Exhibit 1 highlight which\npathway locations will be replaced with this funding allocation. The asphalt replacement will occur\nin 2020 and specific locations may vary slightly based on field conditions. The areas being\nreplaced are the most degraded areas and pose the highest safety risk. It includes a large portion\nof the asphalt pathways on the southern portion of the park and approximately half of the\npathways in the northern half between San Jose Avenue and Encinal Avenue. ARPD will allocate\nadditional funding in the next two fiscal years to complete the asphalt replacement at Jackson\nPark.\nTrees\nThe sycamore trees along the streets where there are no sidewalks are under Public Works'\nresponsibility. Any trees either within the park or located on the park side of sidewalk/pathway\nare ARPD's responsibility. The ARPD Parks Foreperson met with an arborist from West Coast\nArborists, the City's tree management company, who stated that all of the sycamores at Jackson\nPark are declining due to the following factors:", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18702, "text": "Attached is the agenda for the Recreation and Parks Commission meeting tonight, Dec. 12th,\nat 7:00pm at City Hall, 3rd Floor. The first item is an update on Jackson Park and its\nexisting trees and their overall condition, plans to plant more trees as well as showing where\nARPD will replace more than half of the asphalt pathways in the park. If you open the\nagenda, then click on the blue links this will send you to the staff report (#2019-7546) and\nthe exhibits.\nMy apologies for the late email on this item. The agenda was posted per noticing\nrequirements last Thursday. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. If\nyou are interested in this item and cannot attend the meeting, you can email me your\ncomments and I'll provide them to the Commissioners and will include it as part of the\ndiscussion.\nThank you,\nAmy\nAmy Wooldridge\nRecreation and Parks Director, City of Alameda\n(510) 747-7570\nawooldridge@alamedaca.gov\nwww.alamedaca.gov/recreation\nFind us on Facebook at PlayARPD", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18701, "text": "6-A\nExhibit 2\nFrom:\nAmy LaThanh\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nCc:\nRobert LaThanh; Misha David Chellam; J.J. Navarro\nSubject:\nRe: Jackson Park tree and asphalt maintenance plan on Rec and Parks Commission meeting tonight\nDate:\nThursday, December 12, 2019 11:33:23 AM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions.\n***\nHi Amy,\nThanks for sending the agenda and plans over. I have a few comments that I'd like to make\nsure are included in the discussion tonight since I won't be able to attend in person.\nRegarding the asphalt:\nI am excited that this is happening! Yay!\nI would like to mention though that all of the asphalt around the 1100 block of the park\nis really bad - so much so that it's not really safe for kids to ride their bikes. I would\nadvocate for the entrity of it to be replaced if possible.\nI would also advocate for not removing the asphalt near the Dumb Friends bench --\nmany folks use those ramps to get to the other side of the street. If it's a safety concern,\nperhaps simply adding crosswalks there to slow traffic might be good (and cheaper)?\nRegarding the landscape playground location:\nThe two options suggested are good. I would also suggest looking at the far end of the\npark by the Dumb Friends bench. Reason being is that there are a bunch of apartment\nbuildings right there, many with children residents (and therefore it will be less likely\nthat people will be offended by the location)\nIn order of placement, my preference would be:\n1. In front of the KFC near Encinal; dead area anyways, closer to business district\noverflow, can't be worse than a KFC\n2. In front of the Dumb Friends bench; many apartments with children\n3. Middle of the park in front of 1232/1236; fine but doesn't need to be center piece\nof the park\nThanks so much for all of the city's work on this! I'm excited we'll soon have more to offer at\nJackson Park!\nCheers,\nAmy\nOn Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 9:34 AM Amy Wooldridge <AWooldridge@alamedaca.gov> wrote:\nHello Jackson Park neighbors,", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18700, "text": "6-A\nExhibit Z\nFrom:\nGary Cates\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nCc:\nbmathieson@aol.com\nSubject:\nParks and Recreation Commission Meeting, Dec 12, 2019\nDate:\nTuesday, December 10, 2019 6:09:49 PM\n*** CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***\nDear Ms. Wooldridge,\nWe will not be able to attend the next commission meeting where the Jackson Park improvement plan is on\nthe agenda. However, we would like to express our preference for items contained in Exbit 1 of the Staff\nReport.\n1. That the landscape play area, if approved, be located in the southern most spot indicated in the report.\nFor your reference this would be directly across from 1236 Park Ave.\nWe believe the northern spot is too close to Encinal Ave and would expose children to health hazards\nassociated with automobile noise, traffic and pollution.\n2. That a redwood or palm tree be considered for one of those circles that previously had trees as two\nmature magnolia trees already exist near Encinal Ave.\nWould you please share these thoughts with members of the commission?\nThank you for your consideration.\nGary can Mary Ann Cates\n1250 Park Ave", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18699, "text": "Installation of the Woodstock Park playground rebuild began last month and is anticipated to\nbe completed by mid-January, pending weather.\nRecreation Services\nAlameda Youth Committee (youth leadership group) donated 10 turkeys to the Alameda\nFood Bank and did a fundraiser at the Mayor's Tree Lighting Festival for the American Red\nCross - Fire Disaster Relief.\nVoting is now open for the 2020 Starlight in the Park movies. You can vote on Facebook,\nInstagram or at the Recreation office and centers.\nARPD is gearing up for summer hiring, which will begin in January 2020.\nJuly 4th Parade - Staff is presenting options for event coordination to City Council on January\n7, 2020.", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18698, "text": "EXHIBIT 1\n12/12/19 ARPD Director's Report - Presented by Recreation and Park Director Amy\nWooldridge\nMastick Senior Center\nNovember letter appeal has raised $13,350; our members are very generous!\nWe received a gift of $12,532.63 from an estate. These types of memorial donations are\nheld in a Legacy Fund and generally used for one-time expenditures.\nOver $700 was raised in a four hour lobby jewelry sale yesterday\nMembership is now over 2,800 which is higher than normal and more than appropriate for\nmid-year.\nParks Maintenance\nProjects being funded by new capital Park Maintenance Fund:\nThe projects are as followed:\nFY 2019-20\nJackson Park asphalt\nShoreline Park asphalt\nDrinking fountains at, Skate Park, Washington, Lincoln, Franklin, Tillman, Leydecker, Godfrey\nWashington Park chain-link\nRemoval of old chain-link at Rock Wall [completed]\nLincoln and Godfrey concrete pathway replacement\nBike racks at Sweeney, and picnic areas\nRenovate horse shoe pits at Washington [completed]\nReplace basketball standards at McKinley and Lincoln\nFY 2020-21 (to be finalized)\nShoreline Park asphalt\nLeydecker and Tillman concrete pathway replacement\nReplace the 6 remaining wood park signs with concrete Park signs\nReplace aluminum parks signs\nIrrigation controllers at Leydecker\nReplace barbeques at Washington and Tillman\nOngoing maintenance projects completed recently include:\nA 48\" box magnolia tree at Longfellow Park was installed and staff is currently completing\ninstallation of a deep water irrigation system to lessen stress on the tree during droughts.\nInstalled a new drinking fountain at Washington Park\nInstalled donated picnic table and new drinking fountain at the Cityview Skate Park\nTagged an unhealthy tree at Jackson Park and will be removing soon", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18697, "text": "Speaker Pat Lanborn, Alameda resident, Sierra Club member: Requests De-Pave first and Enterprise\nsecond as we need to focus on the climate action resiliency plan and is willing to put in the time and\neffort to support the cause.\nSpeaker Mary Spicer, Stand up paddler, outrigger and dragon boater: Organizes on-water clean ups.\nPartners with BayKeeper. Received sponsorships for clean ups. Supports De-Pave Park. Wildlife in\nthis area is so unique and precious because of the rock wall. Seal population is growing. Important\nto bring more nature back to this area. Concern about getting too many people on the water in front\nof Enterprise Park that will impact the feeding of animals.\nMOTION\nVice Chair Robbins motion to complete Fernside & Eastshore pathway project and Towata Park\nkayak launch in conjunction with that; followed by De-Pave Park and then Enterprise Park with the\nRegional Sports Complex as last priority. Director to follow up to provide staffing and funding needs\nfor all of these.\nM/S Vice Chair Robbins / Commissioner Limoges.\nMotion carried by a 5 - 0 voice vote: All in favor.\nITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA:\nField Fee Analysis\nAnnual Paratransit program\nReview and Comment on General Plan - Open Space, Recreation & Parks Element\nStaffing and resources for project management\nSET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, January 9, 2020.\nADJOURNMENT\nM/S Commissioner Limoges / Commissioner Barnes\nMotion carried by the following voice vote: All in favor with a 5 - 0.\nChair Alexander adjourned the meeting at 9:40 PM.\n4", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18696, "text": "Motion by Vice-chair Robbins to purchase and plant 3 palm trees around the bandstand and plant the\nfourth when funding is available.\nM/S Vice Chair Robbins / Commissioner Barnes\nMotion carried by the following 3 to 1 voice vote: Ayes: Vice Chair Robbins, Chair Alexander and\nCommissioner Barnes. Commissioner Navarro - abstain. Noes: Commissioner Limoges.\nMotion by Commissioner Barnes to approve asphalt replacement plan as presented by staff.\nM/S / Commissioner Barnes / Vice Chair Robbins\nMotion carried by a 5 - 0 voice vote: All in favor.\n6-B Review and Recommend Park and Recreation Facilities Project Priorities.\nARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the presentation which included an outline of the \"Life of a Park\nProject\", current and pending projects and park projects constructed by developers and maintained\nby ARPD. See Exhibit 3 for written correspondence from the public.\nSpeakers\nSpeaker Linda Carloni, Golden Gate Audubon: Support De-Pave Park. Important for carbon\nsequestration. Climate change is an urgent priority and time to build this park which sequesters\ncarbon instead of releasing more.\nSpeaker Majorie Powell, Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve: Support De-Pave Park. Vitally\nimportant, supports birds. Many depend on Seaplane Lagoon and area out there. City needs to\nfocus on climate change and rising sea level. People are interested to volunteer and move the\nproject forward.\nSpeaker Richard Bangert: Support prioritizing De-Pave Park. In favor of all of the parks but there's a\ndifference with De-Pave Park because it involves a complete re-engineering of the shoreline. Not a\ntraditional park. Main goal is rising sea level adaptation. Directly adjacent is an existing wetland on\nfederal property. Would greatly enhance the whole wetland ecosystem there. Also supports\nNorthwest Territories but difference is East Bay Regional Park District already has $6.4 million to start\nplanning and implementing. Do master plan for De-Pave Park and then start looking for grants.\nFunding for De-Pave Park is not in competition with other parks like Sweeney Park. Would seek\nfunding from Coastal Commission and SF Bay Restoration Authority.\nSpeaker Irene Dieter: Obvious that this body needs to request more funding from City Council for\nparks and recreation. Director needs an assistant working with her to accomplish these tasks. Keep\nin mind that Council passed an emergency climate action resolution.\nSpeaker Pat Potter, Community Action for Sustainable Alameda: Believes in the importance of De-\nPave Park and focusing on climate realities. Vision of Enterprise Park is less of a recreational park\nand more of a learning and research park. Importance of bay restoration. Kids from Encinal High\nSchool could learn the science of climate change. Have greenhouse to grow tree seedlings. Shift\nwhat this park could be with an emphasis on research and education.\n3", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18695, "text": "Chair Alexander: Went to Tree Lighting Festival and said it was a great event. Took a Mastick Senior\nCenter trip to San Francisco to see the holiday lights which was a well-organized trip. Also walked\nthrough Jackson Park and went to the Encinal Boat Launch. Went to 37th Annual Krusi Park\nGeneration Bowl who's participants have played there every year since they were kids. Interested in\nhelping work on outreach at schools.\nNEW BUSINESS\n6-A Approve Tree and Asphalt Replacement Plan for Jackson Park\nARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the presentation which included the tree and asphalt plan and\nrecommendation from the West Coast arborists about choices of appropriate trees and their\nmaintenance. See Exhibit 2 for written correspondence from the public.\nSpeakers\nSpeaker Jim Lott, 1193 Park Avenue: Jackson Park is about trees and way they were thought\nout and planned. Symmetrical design and intentionally planted. Think about overall design in\nplanting plan. Do it slowly with intention. Read letter from Lisa Kloffkorn\nSpeaker Betsy Mathieson, 1185 Park Avenue: Great to see plans progressing. Put magnolia\ntree so it is symmetrical with an existing single magnolia. Keep meandering pathways.\nSpeaker Irene Dieter: Trees evoke emotion. Would like to take a high look at trees around the\nCity. Trees across City are being over pruned and it's only a matter of time until they are\nhurting and die. Canopies are being removed and they are being pruned like \"brooms.\" Glad\nparks will be included in upcoming Master Tree Plan.\nSpeaker Mary Manning, 1167 Park Avenue: Advocate for a not very shady tree behind the\nbench. It's one of the areas to enjoy the sun and get warm. Overhanging branches can create\na mess on the bench. Kids jump off back of bench and may try to jump into a tree if it were\nplanted nearby. Middle asphalt pathways are where picnic benches are and where people\nhave birthday parties and people in wheelchairs use it and kids on bikes use it because it's\nsafer.\nSpeaker Christopher Buckley: A City planner with some arboreal knowledge and was involved\nin past Master Street Tree Plan. Needs to be more discussion of tree plan and species. This\nis a very historical park and symmetry and history of species should be preserved. It's a very\ndistinctive feature and contributes to attractive nature of the park. Use existing species,\nincluding London Planes (sycamores). Many parks have had soil compaction problems and\nthe Batchelder report has mitigation measures to assist existing trees. Consider cabling and\nbracing landmark trees like magnolias to prevent branches from breaking off.\nSpeaker Karen Larsen: The middle path in north side of the park is heavily used by kids on\nbikes, grandparents, toddlers and gives access to picnic benches.\nMOTIONS\n2", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18694, "text": "apd\nALAMEDA RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION\nMINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING\nDATE:\nThursday, December 12, 2019\nTIME:\n7:03 p.m. Called to Order\nPLACE:\nCity Hall Council Chambers\nA video recording of the meeting may be viewed at https:llalameda.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx\nThe following are action minutes in keeping with the Sunshine Ordinance 2-91.17.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Alexander, Vice Chair Robbins, Commissioner Limoges, Commissioner Barnes and\nCommissioner Navarro\nStaff: Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) Director Amy Wooldridge\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nChair Alexander moved to accept the minutes of November 14, 2019 Regular Meeting as presented.\nM/S Commissioner Limoges / Vice Chair Robbins. All in favor with 5 ayes.\nWRITTEN AND ORAL COMUNICATIONS\nWritten Communication\nOral Communication\nSpeaker Richard Bangert: Submitted a comment letter and asked it be posted online as\npublic comment on the website. It was not posted online as is the custom with City\nCouncil and Planning Board. Public needs to know all of the input. Director Amy\nWooldridge will follow up with the procedure in accordance to the Sunshine Ordinance.\nREPORTS FROM THE RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR\nARPD Director Amy Wooldridge gave the report. See Exhibit 1.\nREPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS\nVice Chair Robbins: Would like to participate in the Fourth of July steering committee. Loves the\nconcrete ARPD signs. Talked to Wood Middle P.E. teacher who would like to support ARPD and will\npost signs at all schools. Interested in being a liaison for AUSD. Happy about the picnic table at\nCityview Skate Park.\nCommissioner Barnes: There was a meeting of the Climate Action team where the documents for a\ntwo year plan, including looking at the city tree plan were reviewed. The next steps are on the City of\nAlameda's website.\nCommissioner Navarro: Received ARPD winter activity guide. A lot of parents at the schools aren't\naware of all of the ARPD camps. Would like to find other ways to do outreach with the schools to\npromote the camps. Checked out Encinal Boat Launch and was impressed with the facility. Spent\ntime at Jackson Park in anticipation of discussion.\n1", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18693, "text": "advise the Council if the task would be burdensome.\nCommissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that the Council would\nrather have the City Attorney perform legal work than\nadministrative work; stated the City Attorney is obviously more\nvalued as a lawyer.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 8:57 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, Secretary\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Community Improvement\nCommission and Alameda Reuse and\n8\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting\nJune 28, 2005", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18692, "text": "understanding of the Council's direction.\nThe City Attorney stated that the direction from the Council was to\nprovide a proposal that addresses issues regarding the Charter,\nCouncil oversight in order to provide a threshold to limitation of\nthe City Attorney's current budgeting authority, and to address\nother issues discussed, i.e., an RFQ panel of attorneys.\nChair Johnson stated the Council does not intend to limit the\ndollar amount; the Council could spend $800,000 on one case; the\nfocus is on hiring outside counsel.\nThe Acting City Manager stated that sometimes it is not known how\nmuch money will be necessary for hiring outside attorneys in cases\nwhere the City gets sued; usually there is a proposal from a\nconsultant advising what the cost will be when other departments\nhire consultants; the Council would like to be advised who the\noutside counsel would be.\nChair Johnson stated it is not necessary to have a dollar amount in\ncontracts; the Council needs to be advised who the attorney is that\nwould handle the matter.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that it is not in the interest of the\npublic for the Council to be involved in every single hiring\ndecision; there should be a threshold.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council does not want to be\ninvolved in every single hiring decision.\nChair Johnson stated there would be a greater awareness and\nsensitivity to hiring outside counsel; there have been instances\nwhere the Council has questioned why outside counsel was hired; the\nissue is not a dollar limit; stated the Council could discuss the\ntype of issues that should involve the Council; the City Attorney\ncould address the matter in her proposal.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested a summary of litigation and the\nestimates for finalization; requested that the Council receive\nadvanced notice when the amount of a consultant's contract is\nanticipated to increase.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that all managers should be able to\nprovide the Council with an on-going ledger.\nChair Johnson stated that the task of providing the ledger to the\nCouncil should not be burdensome; requested that the City Attorney\nSpecial Joint Community Improvement\nCommission and Alameda Reuse and\n7\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting\nJune 28, 2005", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18691, "text": "The City Attorney stated the information would be provided to the\nCouncil before the City Council Meeting; stated that she would\nbring the proposal to the July 5 Closed Session Meeting with the\nadvanced copy of all information requested; she hears the Council\ndirection in terms of a desire for policy direction to provide the\nadditional thresholds and Council involvement and oversight for all\ngoverning bodies matters would be discussed and direction taken\nfrom the Council.\nChair Johnson stated that she does not expect that any outside\ncounsel would need to be hired within the next week, inquired what\nwas decided on the interim.\nThe City Attorney responded that she would like the Council to keep\na reasonable, fair and equitable approach; all department heads are\nauthorized to spend monies when the budget is adopted $75,000 or\nless is the current amount without Council authorization.\nChair Johnson stated that no one else in the City has authorization\nto spend over $800,000.\nThe City Attorney reiterated her request for a reasonable approach.\nChair Johnson stated that the Council is always fair and\nreasonable; stated that she made it clear at the budget meeting\nthat the Council is not changing the amount of the City Attorney'\nbudget but is exercising Council responsibility.\nCommissioner/Board Member deHaan stated that the direction for\nother City departments might change also; the City is in\nextraordinary times in reviewing the budget, controlling staffing,\nand developing needed services.\nCommissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that the Council does not\nwant to make it significantly more difficult for the City Attorney\nto be able to do her job.\nCommissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that delivery of successful\nservices to the residents is ultimately the end responsibility; the\nquestion of reasonableness is not incidental; rapid responses are\nnecessary for the legal team; the City is shooting itself in the\nfoot if rules do not allow for rapid responses.\nThe City Attorney stated that she is fully confident that the\nproposal submitted on July 5 will be adequate for all purposes.\nChair Johnson requested that the City Attorney summarize her\nSpecial Joint Community Improvement\nCommission and Alameda Reuse and\n6\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting\nJune 28, 2005", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18690, "text": "Attorney to bring the hiring of outside counsel to Council but the\nmatter was not part of the motion; that he is not sure how many\nother Councilmembers gave the direction to the City Attorney; staff\nfollows direction given by the Council ; it is not necessary to have\na motion and vote; the City Attorney would provide a proposal to\ndetermine the extent of Council overview; that he questions whether\nthe City Attorney should hire outside counsel or come to the\nCouncil voluntarily to request consent of hiring outside counsel.\nChair Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney could come to\nCouncil when the hiring of outside counsel was necessary in the\ninterim, to which the City Attorney responded that she would not\nhire outside counsel until July 5; noted that there are existing\ncounsel, bills and litigation.\nChair Johnson stated that the Council is not addressing attorneys\nthat are already working for the City.\nCommissioner/Board Member Daysog inquired whether the City Attorney\nintended to hire new outside counsel in the next ten days, to which\nthe City Attorney responded in the negative.\nCommissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the Council requested\na\nsummary of existing litigation and hopes to have the information\nprovided at the next meeting ARRA has a substantial amount of\nlitigation; noted there are fixed and variable portions of the\nbudget Council would like to keep control of outside counsel\nspending the oversight philosophy is important.\nChair Johnson stated that all the Council agreed that there was a\nneed to provide some authority for emergency spending.\nCommissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that that it is important\nto establish a policy that is consistent across all governing\nbodies.\nCommissioner/Board Member deHaan stated that the Council requested\nto be involved in interim decisions and hopes to be receiving said\ninformation.\nChair Johnson stated that the Council requested a list of\nattorneys, including scope of service; the information should be\npresented before the next Council meeting; inquired whether the\nCity Attorney's proposal would be in the agenda packet or presented\nin advance; stated she would prefer that the proposal was not\ndistributed to the Council on the night of the meeting.\nSpecial Joint Community Improvement\nCommission and Alameda Reuse and\n5\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting\nJune 28, 2005", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18689, "text": "outside counsel and needs to be more in line with the intention of\nthe Charter; changes can be made as time goes on and when the\nCouncil feels more comfortable a lot of money is being spent on\noutside attorneys and the Council has an obligation to be more\naware of outside attorney costs.\nCommissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that defining the\nparameters of discretion and how the discretion relates to Section\n8-5 of the Charter is the issue; the Council is in the process of\ndefining discretionary parameters of \"may empower\" the City\nAttorney or any other City office meets Council expectations\nthrough the establishment of the budget i threshold parameters need\nto be established; the Council is moving in the direction that will\nwork for both sides but will not be established tonight.\nChair Johnson stated that clear direction was given to the City\nAttorney to bring the matter of hiring of outside counsel back to\nthe Council at the last Closed Session Meeting.\nCommissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that his interpretation of\nthe Charter is that because there was no specific ordinance or\nresolution defining \"may empower\" the past practice is still in\neffect.\nChair Johnson stated that is not what she heard at the last\nmeeting.\nThe City Attorney stated that she is working on a proposal to be\npresented to the City Council on July 5; that she hears what the\nCouncil is saying and understands that there is a desire for\nadditional oversight the proposal will provide additional Council\ninvolvement and discretion, and provide significantly less\ndiscretion on the City Attorney's part.\nChair Johnson stated that the Council is not asking for less\ndiscretion on the City Attorney's part; stated that Council should\ndo what the Charter says; the interpretation of the Charter could\nbe that the Council gives consent to the City Attorney to spend\nmoney on outside attorneys by putting a line item in the budget or\nthe interpretation of the Charter can be that the Council is not\ngoing to give consent by a line item; the latter was made clear at\nthe June 7 Joint City Council, CIC, ARRA Meeting the Council is\nallocating $470,000 but the City Attorney does not have the\ndiscretion to spend it without the Council's consent.\nThe Acting City Manager stated that the [June 7] action of the\nCouncil was to adopt the budget ; Chair Johnson requested the City\nSpecial Joint Community Improvement\nCommission and Alameda Reuse and\n4\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting\nJune 28, 2005", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18688, "text": "the Mayor's request and would return with an oversight proposal.\nChair Johnson stated that the direction to operate consistently\nwith what the Charter provides has already been given to the City\nAttorney.\nThe City Attorney concurred with Chair Johnson; stated that the\nattorney retained by the Council in 1989 provided an analysis of\nthe direction regarding retention of outside counsel.\nChair Johnson stated that the Council also gave direction regarding\nthe Charter stating that the Council consent is required to hire\noutside attorneys.\nThe City Attorney stated that the consent has been given through\nthe budget in the past 16 years; the policy can be changed and\nwould be discussed on July 5th.\nCommissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that the budget enables the\nCity Manager and department heads to hire individuals; the Council\ndoes not need to be involved in the actual hiring but might want to\nbe involved in instances above or below certain thresholds; stated\nthat the Council is moving in the right direction.\nCommissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the initial clarification\nwould be with the Charter; noted there is dispute between the City\nAttorney and the Council; the Council feels that they have the\nauthority to consent to the hiring of outside legal counsel.\nChair Johnson stated that there is no need to hire an attorney to\nprovide an opinion on the language of the Charter; the language of\nthe Charter is very plain and clear.\nCommissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the Council could move\nforward if the language of the Charter has been determined.\nChair Johnson stated that there is a $470,000 litigation\ncontingency in Risk Management and an additional $350,000 for\nAlameda Power & Telecom; noted that the City Attorney is stating\nthat the Council has consented to the hiring of outside counsel by\napproving the line items in the budget over the past 16 years; the\nCouncil has given a blanket authorization to the City Attorney to\nhire outside counsel and that is not the level of oversight that\nthe Charter intends ; the Charter was drafted to provide needed\nchecks and balances; the City Attorney's office has five attorneys\nand also spends a significant amount of money on outside counsel ;\nstated that the Council should have more of a role in the hiring of\nSpecial Joint Community Improvement\nCommission and Alameda Reuse and\n3\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting\nJune 28, 2005", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18687, "text": "City Attorney's office for a future meeting noted the hiring of\noutside counsel was not part of the budget adoption.\nChair Johnson stated the matter could be brought back at the July 5\nCity Council Meeting if the Council action is not clear.\nThe City Attorney stated the matter is on the July 5 Council agenda\nper Council's request for discussion in closed session; noted that\nshe was requested to provide a proposal at the last performance\nevaluation.\nChair Johnson stated different interpretations of the Council's\nactions at the June 7 Council Meeting are not necessary; the\nCouncil can place the matter on the July 5 Council Meeting in open\nsession; that she does not believe the matter is a closed session\nitem.\nCommissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that she distinctly\nremembers that there was a certain amount of concern in discussing\nauthorized amounts in open session because of litigation\nstrategies.\nChair Johnson stated that the concept needs to be adopted in open\nsession.\nThe City Attorney stated that she is proceeding to provide a\nproposal at the July 5 Closed Session Meeting in order to not\nreveal litigation strategies and to respond to the Council's\nrequest for additional oversight and threshold identification; any\nbudget amendments should subsequently be placed on an open session\nagenda; at the last performance evaluation, the Council requested\nthat the matter initially be addressed in closed session.\nChair Johnson stated there is also direction that action has to be\nconsistent with the Charter.\nThe City Attorney concurred with Chair Johnson.\nChair Johnson stated that the Charter provides that the Council\nconsent to the hiring of outside counsel.\nThe City Attorney distributed an opinion by Robert Logan which\naddressed budget appropriations and authorizations; stated that it\nis appropriate for the Council to follow the pattern and practice\nthat has been in place for over 16 years and which was adopted at\nno less than five public meetings where a budget appropriation for\nthe City Attorney was authorized; stated that she did understand\nSpecial Joint Community Improvement\nCommission and Alameda Reuse and\n2\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting\nJune 28, 2005", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18686, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING\nTUESDAY - - -JUNE 28, 2005- - -6:45 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:22 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Commissioner/Board Member Daysog, deHaan,\nGilmore, and Chair Johnson - 4.\nAbsent :\nCommissioner/Board Member Matarrese - 1.\nNote: Chair Johnson announced that Commissioner/Board Member\nMatarrese would not be teleconferencing from El Salvador because\nthe phone connection was not working.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(05-034CIC) Discussion/review of the City Charter and related\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and Community\nImprovement Commission (CIC) policy, procedures, and management\npractices.\nChair Johnson stated that the City Attorney was requested to\nprovide thoughts on emergency spending for outside counsel: noted\nthat the hiring of outside counsel is approved by the Council and\nthat some slight revisions need to be made to the CIC and ARRA By-\nlaws, etc. in order to provide consistency between the City\nCouncil, CIC and ARRA.\nCommissioner/Boare Member Daysog inquired whether the issue of\nhiring outside counsel was related to determining what the\nthreshold would be.\nChair Johnson responded that the City Attorney was to provide\ninformation on how much would be required to cover the interim\nperiod before the matter was brought back to the Council.\nCommissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that she understood that\nthe matter would be addressed at a meeting in July.\nChair Johnson stated that a memo was received stating that an\noutside attorney had been hired; the City Attorney indicated that\nthe issue regarding hiring of outside counsel applied to the\nCouncil, not the CIC or ARRA.\nThe City Attorney distributed the minutes of the June 7, 2005\nCouncil Meeting stated the Council requested a proposal from the\nSpecial Joint Community Improvement\nCommission and Alameda Reuse and\n1\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting\nJune 28, 2005", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18685, "text": "Page 3 of 3\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nMay 13, 2009\nD.\nPatron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.\nPlease enable the time on the computer internet terminals, not to show how much time is\nremaining in a session, but the actual time clock. In order to show the clock, other items would\nalso be revealed, but we are currently investigating another way to do this, time permitting.\nPlease fix the computer system; 12 minutes without movement is very painful, and you can't get\nanything done. We have reached reliable speeds with our internet service provider, and\napologize for the unhappy experience. In the future, please ask for assistance with your problem,\nand staff may be able to troubleshoot it.\nLIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nVice President Hartigan asked about the consumer product regulations regarding lead in children's\nbooks. Chisaki explained that books printed before 1985 are being removed and boxed while awaiting a\nfinal decision on what will be done. In relation to a comment by President Belikove on a library that\nwas lending prom dresses, Hartigan remarked that he had read about a bike lending library as well.\nHartigan then asked Director Chisaki to talk a little about the current budget situation. Chisaki noted\nthat over the past three years, the Library has cut about 21% from its budget, so will not be asked to cut\nmore in the next fiscal year. Current staff will be retained, but there will be no part-time pay increases\ngranted. President Belikove inquired whether the Foundation or Friends might be willing to provide a\nmonthly stipend to help relieve the staffing burden. Chisaki indicated these organization's monies are\nnot meant for that type of support, as that is something the City is supposed to provide. What the City\ndoes not provide are funds for public IT needs, and the Foundation is behind that.\nVice President Hartigan mentioned that he was happy to see that the LEED certification is approaching\nits end of days. Chisaki said that a letter from Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) has gone out giving\nthe Library renewable energy credits, and all questions posed by the U.S. Green Building Council have\nbeen responded to. It is hoped we will get silver certification, but if not we will appeal the decision.\nDIRECTOR'S COMMENTS\nThere were no comments.\nADJOURNMENT\nPresident Belikove asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Vice President Hartigan so\nmoved; Member Wetzork seconded the motion which carried by a 3-0 vote.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJanichina\nJane Chisaki, Library Director and\nSecretary to the Alameda Free Library Board", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18684, "text": "Page 2 of 3\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nMay 13, 2009\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nNeighborhood Library Improvement Project (G. Wetzork)\nChristopher Noll and Alyson Yarus of Noll & Tam were in attendance at the Board meeting to\ngive input and answer any questions the Board might have. Director Chisaki said the NLIP team\nhad met the previous Wednesday to go over scope of work. Cost estimates had come in much\nlower than expected, so it looks like everything on the list will be done. Member Wetzork\npraised Noll & Tam for their work in keeping costs under the budgeted amount.\nDirector Chisaki went over the proposed improvements for each branch, and asked the Board if\nthey had a preference on which branch would go first. Chisaki had met with Member Butter the\nprevious week; she had been pleased with the direction the NLIP team was taking, and was in\nfavor of having the Bay Farm Island branch renovated first. After more discussion, Member\nWetzork made a motion to accept the recommendations from the NLIP team for the final scope\nof work, and to accept the recommendation that the Bay Farm Island branch be the first\nrenovation done. Member Hartigan seconded the motion which carried by a 3-0 vote.\nMarc Lambert asked where the $100,000 the Friends had pledged towards the renovation effort\nwould be used. Director Chisaki said that it may go towards art for the branches. President\nBelikove said the Art Exhibit Committee would like to be in on selection of the branch art.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nArt Exhibit Committee (R. Belikove)\nPresident Belikove said the Art Exhibit Committee is hugely successful, with shows scheduled\nthrough March 2010. Comic book artist Eric Larsen has his work up now, and will be doing a\ndemonstration in conjunction with his reception on May 20th. The Committee is building their\npublicity list and trying to contact more organizations that may be interested. Vice President\nHartigan mentioned how great the Wood Museum of History was this year, as the kids had really\ndone a fantastic job. The next exhibit will be by Multi-Cultural Center artists.\nB.\nAlameda Free Library Foundation (A. Mitchell)\nDirector Chisaki said the Foundation's executive board met last month, and the full Board will\nhave their next meeting on May 18th; it is expected they will vote on naming the Children's\nProgramming Room after Jane Felker. The Foundation will be hosting the June Chamber Mixer\non Wednesday, June 10. The Board will receive invitations to this event.\nC.\nFriends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Lambert)\nMarc Lambert said they were nearing a critical situation with the Caf\u00e9. Many of the volunteers\nwho had regular shifts have moved on to other things and it has been hard to fill their slots.\nLambert encouraged everyone to be on the lookout for people who might want to get involved.", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18683, "text": "Chy\nOF\nN\u00b0\n&\nTERKA\nGRATER\nMinutes of the\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING\nMay 13, 2009\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nRuth Belikove, President\nMike Hartigan, Vice President\nGail Wetzork, Board Member\nAbsent:\nKaren Butter, Board Member\nAlan Mitchell, Board Member\nStaff:\nJane Chisaki, Library Director\nMarsha Merrick, Recording Secretary\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nAn asterisk indicates items so accepted or approved on the Consent Calendar.\nA.\n*Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Month of May 2009.\nAccepted.\nB.\n*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of March 11, 2009. Approved.\nC.\n*Library Services Reports for the Months of February and March 2009. Accepted.\nD.\n*Financial Report Reflecting FY09 Expenditures by Fund for March and April 2009. Accepted.\nE.\n*Bills for Ratification for the Months of March and April 2009. Approved.\nThere were no questions or comments from the Board, so President Belikove asked for a motion to\naccept the Consent Calendar as presented. Vice President Hartigan so moved; Member Wetzork\nseconded the motion which carried by a 3-0 vote.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\nThere were no comments.", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18682, "text": "Mr. Tai explained to the Board that the reason for replacing one Oak tree with two Oak trees is\nthat most likely only one will survive.\nMs. Altschuler added that the requirement of two Oak trees was a decision of this Board many\nyears ago. Not every tree will survive. This just ensures that each tree that is removed will be\nreplaced.\nM/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval, for the removal of one Coast Live\nOak Tree as stated in the draft Resolution. 3-0-2.\nAyes:\n3;\nNoes:\n0;\nAbsent:\n2;\nMotion carries.\nM/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Certificate of Approval, for the partial demolition of an\nexisting 622 sq. ft. residence at 320 Pacific as stated in the draft Resolution. 3-0-2.\nAyes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries.\nREPORTS:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoardmember Lynch attended the Special Planning Board workshop on March 3rd regarding\nAlameda Point and she is concerned that the Flight Tower is not included in the Historic District\nand would like staff to agendize this for a future meeting.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT:\nM/S (Lynch/Miller) to adjourn the meeting at 7:53 pm.\nRespectfully Submitted by:\nJustice\nJudith Altschuler, Secretary\nHistorical Advisory Board\nG:\\PLANNINGHHAB\\AGENMIN\\Agemin.05/2-3-05 MIN.doc\nMinutes of March 10, 2005\nSpecial Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n3", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18681, "text": "Mr. Tai stated that the applicants are proposing to raise the existing structure in order to integrate\na new single-family dwelling into the existing structure. The construction will involve removal\nof the existing front fa\u00e7ade of the building as well as the front portion of the roof. This matter is\nbrought before this Board because it involves partial demolition of a structure built prior to 1942.\nStaff feels that there is no evidence that the structure exhibits any architectural or historical merit\nand that the proposed project will be more consistent with the adjacent homes than the existing\nbuilding. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Board approve the Certificate of Approval as\nstated in the draft Resolution.\nVice Chair Anderson opened the floor for public comment.\nIvan Chiu, Architect, stated that the tree should be removed because one trunk is leaning over the\nfence toward the adjacent property while another is leaning toward the existing structure. At the\nrecommendation of the arborist, the applicant wishes to remove the existing Oak in order to\neliminate the possibility of the tree causing damage to the neighboring property. Mr. Wong also\ninformed the Board that the proposed design intends to keep the Craftsman style appearance and\nto preserve salvageable portions of the existing building by incorporating the structure into the\nrear of the new building.\nVice Chair Anderson closed public comment and opened Board discussion.\nBoardmember Lynch stated that she visited the property and feels that the tree does look sick.\nShe also feels that the existing structure should not be considered a historic resource. She also\nfeels that this structure should not be referred to as a \"craftsman\" style because there are no\n\"craftsman\" style elements on the existing or proposed structure.\nVice Chair Anderson asked if the old house is structurally sound enough to support the proposed\nnew house.\nMr. Chiu stated that the detail of the design has not yet been looked into. He does not anticipate\nany problems.\nMr. Tai stated that lifting and moving the house is considered necessary to comply with setback\nstandards. If the house were completely demolished then several variances would be required.\nMr. Miller asked if the neighbors were ok with this project.\nMr. Tai stated that there were no comments as of yet.\nVice-Chair Anderson stated that one of the conditions of the Resolution states that the applicant\nmust replace the removed tree with two new trees. She is concerned that the lot cannot support\ntwo 15 gallon Oak trees. Would it be possible for the Board to require the applicant plant one\nOak tree and another type of tree?\nMinutes of March 10, 2005\nSpecial Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n2", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18680, "text": "MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD\nSPECIAL MEETING OF THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2005\nCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nVice Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Secretary Altschuler called\nthe roll.\nMEMBERS PRESENT:\nVice-Chair Anderson, Boardmembers Miller & Lynch.\nMEMBERS ABSENT:\nChair McPherson, Boardmember Tilos.\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nSecretary Altschuler, Allen Tai, Planner III,\nRecording Secretary Debbie Gremminger.\nMINUTES:\nM/S (Lynch, Miller) to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 3, 2005 with\ncorrections. 3-0-2.\nAyes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent: 2; Motion carries.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSIONS:\nNone.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Discussion only)\nNone.\nACTION ITEMS: (Discussion/Action\n1.\nCA05-0003 320 Pacific Avenue - The applicants request a Certificate of Approval to\nremoval a Coast Live Oak tree. The tree has a 24\" diameter and large low-angled trunks that\nextend across the property line. The application also includes a request to partially demolish an\nexisting 622 square-foot, pre-1942 building as part of a new proposal to construct a single-family\nresidence on the property. The site is located at 320 Pacific Avenue, within an R-4,\nNeighborhood Residential Zoning District.\nAllen Tai, Planner III, was present and briefly reviewed the staff report as presented. He\ninformed the Board that the property owner is requesting a Certificate of Approval for two items.\nThe first is to allow the removal of a Coast Live Oak tree that is located along the western edge\nof the property. The second request involves the partial demolition of the existing single-family\ndwelling.\nMinutes of March 10, 2005\nSpecial Historical Advisory Board Meeting\n1", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18679, "text": "Member Nielsen spoke to George Phillips comments regarding how the community's involvement\nthrough cash and in-kind donations and volunteering made a significant impact on the success of the\nClub, and her concern was that other agencies might not have these resources. She also mentioned the\nsupport to the Boys and Girls Club from Abbott, including their volunteer support.\nShe added that she was also moved by Liz Varela's comments on how funding cuts are pushing their\nagency to a breaking point, where they might need to eliminate some services.\nShe hoped we could continue a conversation that included support for our safety-net services that went\nbeyond the funds available through the CDBG grants.\nMember Biggs suggested we might consider holding forums on specific areas of need identified in our\nsurvey such as Neglected and Abused Children, and Housing Discrimination.\nStaff commented that we are already using this model with the reconvening of the Domestic Violence\nTask Force.\nVice-President Villareal asked that, the Board/ ATAH agree to co-sponsor a Not In Our Town Film\n(NIOT) series and Harvey Milk Day Event. The series would consist of a NIOT screenings of films at\nthe College of Alameda on Racism / March 19th, and Immigrants and Hate Crimes against them / 4/16,\nand at Wood Middle School on May 21st /LGBT issues. The May screening would be part of a Harvey\nMilk Day celebration.\nThe Board has presented NIOT films in the past. Co-Sponsors for these screenings and activities would\ninclude the AMCCC, COA, CARE, and for the 5/12 event, AUSD.\nM/S Wasko / Nielsen for The Board and ATAH to Co-sponsor (with AMCC, AUSD, COA, CARE) a\nNot In Our Town Film series and related events to be held on March 19 (Racism), 4/16 (Immigration)\nand 5/21 (LGBTQ / Harvey Milk Day) Unanimous\n4.\nBOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nStaff announced that the Sunshine Ordinance will go into effect on February 1st, 2012, and reviewed\nchanges that impact our Board.\nStaff reported that Season For Nonviolence activities will begin Monday with daily readings in\nElementary and Middle Schools, 23 Bullying Prevention assemblies in 13 Elementary and Middle\nSchools, and a Speech Contest.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n6. ADJOURNMENT\nMotion to adjourn M/S Dailey / Villareal Unanimous\nMeeting adjourned at 9:05\nRespectfully Submitted: Jim Franz - Secretary\nG:\\Comdev\\SSHRB\\PACKETS(2012)January 2012\\MINUTES January 2012.doc", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18678, "text": "M/S Biggs / Dailey that the Board support the staff recommendations on implementing a $2.50 charge\nfor the Medical Return Trip Improvement Program (MRTIP) Paratransit taxi service, and that the Board\nalso receives periodic reports as to the usage of the Taxi and scholarship programs.\n3-B.\nJOINT DISCUSSION AND WORK SESSION WITH THE BOARD AND IT'S\nWORKGROUPS TO REVIEW 2011 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND SET GOALS FOR 2012.\nPresident Wasko explained that while this agenda item allows us to take actions to accomplish our\ngoals, it is primarily a discussion time and an opportunity to reflect and brain-storm,.\nMember Nielsen concurred, citing her appreciation of a meeting where we discussed the status of our\nSister City Workgroup, and our December 2011 meeting where we explored options on how we could\nbest be a voice regarding the allocation of CDBG funds, and also had a chance to connect with service\nproviders.\nPresident Wasko initiated a discussion regarding the status of our Community Needs Survey and how\nthe Board wishes to frame their presentation to the Council on February 21st\nExtensive community outreach, including articles in the Journal, SUN, and Sing Tao, helped us achieve\nthe 1,700+ responses, 200 more than the 1,500 / 5% of Alameda HH, we felt necessary for the survey\nto be statistically significant. The new alamedasurvey.com domain also made it easier to promote the\nsurvey.\nResponses to the Spanish and Chinese language sites have been slow, but we continue to outreach to\nthese populations. We have also received nearly 200 hard copies of the survey which were completed\nat the libraries, Food Bank, Mastick, faith communities and other community partners\nWhile email was our primary method of communication with partners, we have found that person to\nperson follow-up was critical, since many partners receive scores of emails each day.\nIt was agreed that we will be able to draw some \"basic\" information from the survey to present to the\nCouncil at the meeting on February 21st.\nHowever, the Board has always felt that outside, professional help should be available to help evaluate\nthe data and help us reach meaningful conclusions. It was agreed that, the data could be interpreted in a\nnumber of ways. Options discussed to accomplish this included: help from Doug's contacts at St.\nMary's, speaking with Deputy City Manager Alex Nguyen regarding contacts he used for the city's\nwebsite survey, contacting Supervisor Chan for help, asking CDBG staff if there might be in-house\nassistance or funds with which to hire someone like David Pontecorvo, or asking the council if funding\nwas available. When we completed our 2005-2006 survey and met with them, they asked\n\"Why didn't you come to us for help analyzing the data?\"\nPresident Wasko noted how attentive the Mayor and Council have been during our previous\npresentations and that we are touching their hearts.\nShe added that Service Providers should be encouraged to bring their clients to speak. Those who\nattended our December Public Needs Hearing have already been extended an invitation to attend and\nbring clients to that meeting. Having a variety of service providers who represent the breadth and\ncomplexity of our safety net of services would also help the Mayor and Council understand why we feel\nthis is such a critical issue. The Board reviewed the Needs Letter we will present at the meeting, agreed\nthat it was a powerful statement, and made some minor formatting changes. Members Nielsen and\nBiggs, and President Wasko have met as the Assessment and Awareness Workgroup working to\ndevelop the survey format. They will meet again to finalize the presentation to the Council. Member\nBiggs has agreed to lead the discussion.", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18677, "text": "Social Service Human Relations Board\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting, Thursday, January 26, 2012\n1. CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL President Wasko called the meeting to order\nAt 7:05 p.m. Present were: Vice-President Villareal, members Biggs, Dailey, and Nielsen.\nAbsent was: Member Holder\n2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES\nThe minutes of the December 1, 2011 Regular Meeting were approved as amended.\nMotion / Second: Dailey / Biggs Unanimous\n3.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n3-A.\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PARATRANSIT TAXI SERVICE MODIFICATION --\nPRESENTATION BY GAILPAYNE, TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR -\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT\nGail Payne explained that her department manages the City of Alameda Paratransit Program in\npartnership with Mastick Senior Center. The program has four components: a Scholarship Program,\na Paratransit Shuttle Program, a Free Trips to Mastick Senior Center Program, and a Taxi Program.\nTonight's presentation is on proposed changes to the Medical Return Trip Improvement Program\n(MRTIP), which currently provides free trips to eligible residents (East Bay Paratransit certified\nriders) when returning home from medical appointments within Alameda County.\nPublic Works Department staff is recommending charging eligible residents $2.50 per MRTIP travel\nvoucher. Staff conducted a review of Paratransit taxi services offered by other cities in north\nAlameda County, and determined that these jurisdictions - except for Berkeley - charge a nominal\nfee for their services. For example, Oakland charges $3 for taxi travel vouchers valued at $10;\nAlbany reimburses 70 percent of the metered fare; Emeryville reimburses 90 percent of the metered\nfare. This recommendation will reduce the overall costs to the program, is consistent with\nneighboring jurisdictions, and allows the City to apply the cost savings to the Alameda Paratransit\nShuttle service. This recommendation is consistent with the service level guidelines that the\nAlameda CTC PAPCO have approved and with Alameda CTC's Draft Implementing Guidelines for\nMeasure B funded City-based programs.\nMs. Payne explained the average cost of a taxi trip is $24, and that, while the program has sufficient\nfunds available for the program in FY 12-13, it needs to identify additional funds beginning with\nFY 13-14. A recent survey indicated 96% of the participants in the taxi program were satisfied with the\nservices provide, and 75% were willing to pay $2. The scholarship program, for those unable to pay, is\ncurrently at $1,000.\nDiscussion: A brief discussion followed, which included comments from member Biggs that sufficient\nscholarship funds should be made available to assure that low-income riders can be accommodated. He\nalso asked that, if the Board is to support the staff recommendation, we receive periodic reports as to\nthe usage of the taxi and scholarship programs.", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18676, "text": "11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\n11-A 2017-4461\nSubcommittee with Commission on Disability Issues regarding Universal\nDesign Ordinance\nDid Not Meet. Staff Member Thomas said they could officially disband that subcommittee.\n11-B 2017-4462\nSubcommittee for Alameda Marina\n*None*\nBoard Member Knox White shared that the accessory dwelling unit and shared living\nordinances were passed by City Council.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nAlan Teague asked what time the tour was and if the public was invited.\nStaff Member Thomas said it was at 530pm and open to the public.\n13. ADJOURNMENT\nPresident K\u00f6ster adjourned the meeting at 9:28pm.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 8 of 8\nJune 26, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18675, "text": "Board Member Burton said they need to set the rules and the applicant can decide whether\nto do slab on grade or homes with crawl spaces.\nBoard Member Burton revised and restated his motion to: revise the development\nplan to change the setbacks on lots 1-8 to 12' minimums to face of porch and 17'\nminimums to face of buildings, the fence along Tilden and all homes come back for\ndesign review, that staff will provide information on the sizes of existing buildings'\nsquare footage within one block of the site, that when the applicant comes back for\ndesign review that a maintenance plan be presented for the private drive and the\nfence along Tilden.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if there was a plan for when the entirety of the Tilden fence\nwould be constructed, given that the homes might be designed and built in phases.\nStaff Member Thomas said the intent was to have the fence built with the first home.\nBoard Member Curtis asked the developer if the foundation plans have been designed for\nthe first two units.\nMr. Mapes said they have not, but that he knows what it will take. He said he is being\npenalized for designing a nicer home (raised floor). He said he will do a slab if that is what\nthe board wants. He said it would be cheaper that way.\nBoard Member Curtis seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.\n8. MINUTES\n*None*\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A 2017-4463\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions\nStaff Member Thomas said they approved four use permits and eight design reviews.\n9-B 2017-4465\nFuture Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Thomas said the July 10th meeting is being moved to July 17th. He said\nthere is a Shipways site tour tomorrow at 5:40pm. He listed future agenda items.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n*None*\nApproved Minutes\nPage 7 of 8\nJune 26, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18674, "text": "Board Member Burton asked what ability they have within the development plan to limit\nunit size.\nStaff Member Thomas said they can limit size via the development plan. He said staff\nis\nmore concerned with the look of the design than exactly how many square feet.\nBoard Member Burton suggested that they could ask for the designs to be much more\nsculpted when they come back. He amended his motion to ask that the designs come to\nthe board for review, rather than being approved at the staff level. Board Member Curtis\nseconded the motion.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked if it was possible to have all the designs be presented and\napproved simultaneously, while allowing the builder to proceed with only 1-2 units at a\ntime if desired.\nStaff Member Thomas said they outlined the lots, home orientation, parking locations, and\ncirculation in the development plan. He said they liked the idea of potentially getting some\nvariety by doing the designs a couple at a time.\nBoard Member Curtis said he was not looking for detailed construction drawings, but\nrather renderings of streetscapes to put the project into scale for the neighborhood.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she was concerned about how the private drive and perimeter\nfence would be maintained.\nStaff Member Thomas said he would need to review the original conditions of approval on\nthe final map from seven years ago.\nStaff Member Sablan asked if the motion intended for the universal design elements to be\ninstalled as originally approved and not just demonstrate how they could be included if the\nhomeowner desired.\nBoard Member Burton responded in the affirmative.\nBoard Member Knox White asked that when the plan for the fence came back it include\ndetails of how it would be maintained. He asked that staff bring back information on the\nsize of buildings in the neighborhood when the board considers the design of the units.\nBoard Member Curtis said he was reluctant to vote for something that would require the\ndrawings to be redone because of the cost.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 6 of 8\nJune 26, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18673, "text": "Board Member Knox White said they should check with Public Works about maintenance\nand concerns about pedestrians' proximity to traffic if there is growth along the wall. He\nsaid the homes are out of scale for the neighborhood and we should consider setting some\nguidelines for the sizes of the homes.\nBoard Member Curtis agreed with the other board members.\nBoard Member Zuppan agreed with the previous comments about design, scale, and the\nfence on Tilden. She said the homes are near busy streets and the design needs to take\npotential accidents into consideration.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he would like to see the second stories and home sizes better\nmatch the neighborhood. He suggested reducing the number of duplexes in the project.\nHe said he would like to see the fence issue come back.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said he would like to see more variation in the architecture beyond just\ncolor and material. He said he would be fine with the ramps being in the garages. He said\nhe would like the universal design requirements to remain.\nSteve Sorenson said the builder is a good builder and wants to build good homes.\nMr. Mapes said the crawl space would be more like 30\" above grade, not 12\". He said\nthere are many duplexes along Fernside Boulevard.\nBoard Member Mitchell said using garages for accessibility is a bad idea because garages\nare often cluttered and obstructed.\nBoard Member Burton made a motion to approve the resolution amending the\ndevelopment plan, keep the visitability and accessible unit standards but allow the front\nyard setbacks on lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 be amended to be 12' minimum to front porch and 17'\nminimum to face of building, and have the fence along Tilden come back for design review.\nBoard Member Curtis seconded the motion.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked for clarification as to whether the design reviews for lots 1\nand 2 were part of the motion.\nStaff Member Thomas said the resolution just defines the setbacks, and staff would be\nresponsible for design review.\nBoard Member Knox White said that they should give direction on unit size now for staff\nto consider during design reviews.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 5 of 8\nJune 26, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18672, "text": "Board Member Zuppan said her recollection from the previous discussion was that the\nTilden fence was supposed to be of above average design and not a simple wooden fence.\nStaff Member Sablan said that it is what the applicant is proposing, but the design is up\nfor discussion.\nBoard Member Knox White asked if they can change items in the development plan\nbeyond the items requested by the applicant.\nStaff Member Thomas said they can make any changes they wish to the application.\nPresident K\u00f6ster asked if the lots had to be 5,000 square feet.\nStaff Member Thomas said the lots have been approved by City Council already.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nAlan Teague said they should revise the agreement to match the recommended Universal\nDesign ordinance. He suggested the visitability could be accomplished by going through\nthe garage.\nEvan Schwimmer asked that lots 5, 6, and 8 be changed to be single family homes. He\nsaid the duplexes on Versailles would change the character of the neighborhood.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Burton said he is okay with the setback changes for lots one and two. He\nsaid he would go with the board on the setback for the other lots on Versailles. He said\nthe visitability and accessibility requirements are not negotiable. He said he could not\nsupport the designs of the first two homes. He said the design lacked character. He said\nthey are enormous 3400 square foot homes, and that they needed more sculpting.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she does not see much character in the design. She said the\nfence along Tilden is the entrance to Alameda and needs to have more permanence than\na simple wood fence.\nBoard Member Knox agreed with the two previous board members. He asked who would\nbe responsible for the City's side of the fence.\nStaff Member Thomas said they were talking about having vines covering the fence along\nTilden to prevent graffiti from being a problem.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 4 of 8\nJune 26, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18671, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said this ordinance would not add additional process to projects.\nHe said the conversation about waivers would happen at the regular design review hearing\nfor their project and not cause more hearings to occur.\nBoard Member Knox White said he is prepared to support the ordinance. He said the BIA\nletter was disrespectful to Alameda. He said he looks forward to celebrating when City\nCouncil adopts the ordinance.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he will support the ordinance and is comfortable with the\nwaiver process. He said building these changes in during construction are cost effective\nand practical. He said developers want predictability, even if it adds some costs.\nPresident K\u00f6ster said he supports the ordinance.\nBoard Member Knox White thanked the Commission on Disability Issues (CDI)\nsubcommittee members for their efforts promoting visitability, and for beginning this\ndiscussion in the first place.\nBoard Member Burton thanked Ms. Lord-Hausman and Erick Mikiten for their work on the\nordinance.\nBoard Member Zuppan made a motion to approve the resolution with the clarifying\nedits provided during discussion. Board Member Mitchell seconded the motion. The\nmotion passed 7-0.\n7-B 2017-4466\nPLN17-0186 - 2001 Versailles Ave - Applicant: Clifford Mapes. A public\nhearing to consider a proposed development plan amendment and design\nreview for the first two homes on an 11-lot subdivision on a 1.29-acre\nproperty located at 2001 Versailles Avenue at the corner of Fernside\nBoulevard and Versailles Avenue. The project is categorically exempt from\nfurther review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to\nCEQA Guidelines Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects.\nStaff Member Sablan gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3082688&GUID=B8EB6B20-\n7BC-4A18-9910-EAD223D8EOOC&FullText=1\nBoard Member Mitchell thanked staff for saying \"VER-sigh.' He asked for an update on\nthe retaining wall along Tilden.\nStaff Member Sablan said the applicant is proposing a basic wooden fence at this point.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 3 of 8\nJune 26, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18670, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said that projects like Del Monte and Encinal Terminals have no\nproblem meeting the 30% requirements. He said townhome only projects like 2100\nClement would have trouble meeting the 30% requirements.\nBoard Member Curtis said that most projects in Alameda have very high site improvement\ncosts and asked if it was feasible to saddle these units with higher construction costs that\nwould drive prices higher.\nStaff Member Thomas said they have to balance the desire not to drive prices up with the\nneed to build housing that does not exclude entire segments of the population.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she was very concerned about the increased costs that the\nrequirements would add to new units. She said they do not have enough information to\ninitiate these rules.\nPresident K\u00f6ster opened the public hearing.\nAlan Teague said we should require the minimum amount of items needed to make a unit\nvisitable and not add more, in order to avoid adding unnecessary costs. He said any\nentrance, not just the front door, can be used to meet the requirements.\nAlan Pryor said the requirements for visitability seem like a good idea to help people\naccess their homes as they age.\nPresident K\u00f6ster closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Burton said he is eager to move the ordinance forward. He said allowing\nadaptable stairs to meet the requirements would be a mistake. He said the $80,000\nnumber in the BIA letter is a scare tactic. He said we have a reasonable waiver process\navailable if there are issues.\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if the ordinance was likely to just eliminate the construction\nof townhomes in Alameda.\nStaff Member Thomas said that there are pending applications that include townhomes\nwould not be changed due to the current ordinance because they have a mix of housing\ntypes in their projects. He said they can come back and change the ordinance if they find\neach project asking for the same waivers.\nBoard Member Curtis asked why we would move forward with an ordinance that we think\nwill have problems in the future. He said the ordinance encourages vertical development\nand punishes single family development.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 2 of 8\nJune 26, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18669, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JUNE 26, 2017\n1. CONVENE\nBoard Member Mitchell convened the meeting at 7:01pm\n2. FLAG SALUTE\nBoard Member Curtis led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Board Members Burton, Curtis, Knox White, Mitchell, Sullivan, Zuppan.\nPresident K\u00f6ster arrived at 7:03pm.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\n*None*\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nAlan Teague said he was researching the Planning Board's work and said he wished\nthat all of the documents referenced (i.e.- - CA building code) in the agendas were\navailable to the public.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\n*None*\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2017- 4464\nPublic Hearing on Final Revisions to draft Universal Design Ordinance\nStaff Member Thomas gave the staff report. The report and attachments can be found\nat: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3082686&GUID=7B56959C-\nDA03-43D4-BOB5-0E0D8329B17F&FullText=1\nBoard Member Mitchell asked for language in the waivers section to be clarified in the\nordinance.\nBoard Member Zuppan suggested they could simply remove a portion of the wording to\nmake it easier to understand.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked how the proposed ordinance would have impacted costs\nfor previously approved units.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 1 of 8\nJune 26, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18668, "text": "The City Manager stated the City Attorney should not be in the position of taking a\nposition if there are items which cannot be agreed upon; the City Attorney should bring\nback a proposed policy and include what the trades want which differs; then, the\nCouncil can decide what to do.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether Council should direct the City Attorney to\nconsult with various stake holder parties, such as trades representatives, contractor\nrepresentatives, or others who would be a party to a PLA, as well as Mr. Viaming.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would also like the Alameda Point Collaborative\nincluded.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-420) The City Manager reminded everyone to attend the Joint City Council and\nPlanning Board meeting tomorrow night.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-421) Councilmember Tam announced that all Councilmembers attended all or a\nportion of the League of California Cities conference last week; discussed the sessions\nshe attended.\nThe City Manager noted the City's bond rating increased.\nCouncilmember Tam continued her review of the sessions.\nCouncilmembers Chen and Daysog discussed the sessions they attended.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:26 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nSeptember 24, 2013", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18667, "text": "a long time and has discussed, for example, the problem of historic buildings; the\nbuilding's value is pretty much nil; imposing a PLA on a tenant might be a problem if a\nnew roof is needed; there is agreement that all new construction should be subject to a\nPLA; backbone infrastructure should be subject to a PLA; a decision needs to be made\nabout a threshold; Berkeley's is $1 million; the trades would like $250,000; backbone\ninfrastructure and new construction projects are going to reach either threshold; urged\nthat the matter be addressed in the next two or three months since staff would be\nbringing Exclusive Negotiation Agreements (ENAs) to Council pretty soon; stated staff\nwants to be able to address whether or not the project requires a PLA during\nnegotiations.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he suspects the historic district or buildings with\nnegative value would not generate a rent or sale price which would recoup the\ninvestment; however, the possibility of a PLA should not be discounted altogether;\nrequested staff to provide an analysis that includes parameters under which a PLA\nmight or might not work.\nThe City Manager stated staff provided a report a year ago which indicated historic\nbuildings are never going to be worth the amount repairs will cost; a private sector deal\nwill not allow the buildings to be redone; when the buildings are leased, the City gives a\ndollar for dollar rent credit for any tenant repairs; stated that he would provide the report\nto Councilmember Daysog.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he supports moving forward with the two prong\napproach: one PLA specifically for Alameda Point and a second Citywide PLA; the\nwheel should not be reinvented; the City can pick and choose from existing models to\ndetermine what works for Alameda; Berkeley could be the starting point.\nMayor Gilmore clarified that she would prefer to move forward on the Alameda Point\nPLA and park the City projects for a little while; stated the Alameda Point PLA should\nfocus on backbone infrastructure and new construction and the historic district should\nbe carved out; the sticking point is what, if anything, to require of existing tenants.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether Council would like her come back with a policy or try\nto start to negotiate something with the unions.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she wants answers to questions posed in the\nstaff report to allow the Council to craft a policy; stated a sample agreement and\ncategories could be provided when the matter returns.\nMayor Gilmore stated the actual policy should be provided which addresses backbone\ninfrastructure and new construction when the matter is brought back.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City Attorney should work in consultation with the\nbuilding trades council in developing the language.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nSeptember 24, 2013", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18666, "text": "Reasonableness; stated that he looks forward to seeing said details.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council needs to provide direction to staff; suggested separating\nAlameda Point from the rest of the Island; stated one agreement should cover regular\nmaintenance and projects which come up in the City's regular course of business and\nAlameda Point would be treated as its own animal; recommendations should be\nprovided on how to address existing tenants using their own capital to upgrade and\nexpand businesses; the historic district is challenging in and of itself and may need to\nhave special consideration; social justice aspects should be reviewed; people live at\nAlameda Point and there should be some mechanism to allow them to participate in the\ngreat and wonderful projects that are going to happen around them; the City should be\nmindful of ways to get Alameda Point residents to participate in the upside of whatever\nhappens.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Mayor; stated the four items in the staff\nreport [project category, project parameters, cost added to the project and impacts on\npublic policy goals] need to be fleshed out; project parameters could be narrowed down;\nBerkeley has a $1 million minimum; leaseholders doing their own improvements and the\nhistoric core could be treated differently; regarding cost added to the project, perhaps\nsome research could be provided regarding projects in the area; public policy goals\ninclude: historic preservation, marine preservation, competitiveness to attract new\ncommercial users and to retain and expand existing companies, local hiring, and social\njustice issues, including apprenticeship opportunities; that she would like to hear some\nspecifics about apprenticeship opportunities, especially with an eye to Alameda Point\nCollaborative residents.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City is actively engaging in discussions about the\nMaster Infrastructure Plan (MIP), the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and the\nphasing and disposition strategy for Alameda Point; Alameda Point has some unique\nissues beyond a garden variety PLA or PSA; starting with Alameda Point might make\nsense; then, regular maintenance projects could be addressed down the line.\nMayor Gilmore stated the staff report project category 1b, \"City Project,\" represents\nmore predictable, maintenance projects done on a schedule; said projects would be\nparked for a while and the City would start with Alameda Point based on the comments\ntonight; requested further information be provided to Council regarding having a\nconstruction dollar amount which would trigger a PLA, which seems really important to\nbuilding trades; more information is needed about whether having a dollar amount be a\ntriggering event is reasonable and what the amount should be; that she is not\nparticularly concerned about project complexity because she assumes anything at\nAlameda Point is going to be fairly complex, involve multiple trades and take over six\nmonths; Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft raised questions about the timeframe because\nprojects could be entitled in early 2014.\nThe City Manager stated the EIR comment period ends October 21st; staff is probably\ngoing to start bringing proposals early November; staff has been talking to the trades for\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nSeptember 24, 2013", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18665, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated inquired how the City of Berkeley deals with private entities;\nand how Berkeley's citywide policy for public works projects translates in terms of\nrequirements.\nMr. Viaming responded the City of Berkeley set a threshold; stated projects with an\nestimated value over $1 million qualify and require a PLA to be included in bid\ndocuments.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated City leases in building requiring significant rehabilitation\ncould be one potential project category; an example would be Bladium making $2\nmillion in improvements; questioned putting a threshold in place and subjecting an entity\nto a PLA; inquired whether Mr. Viaming has encountered a situation where there is not\nsimply a threshold with regard to the value of the project, but something about the entity\nthat is going to have to implement the PLA.\nMr. Viaming responded that he has dealt with the issue; however, it was not an existing\ntenant doing an improvement; stated the 835 Westfield Project in San Francisco\nrenovated commercial shopping space; a provision in the Agreement required the\ntenant improvement work for a specific period of time to be covered under the\nAgreement and after period of time, the Agreement did not apply; having an existing\ntenant do improvements on a property is difficult; new construction is different; that he\nwould be cautious about imposing a PLA on existing tenants, which might create some\nchallenges; there could be a discussion between the tenant and the building trades.\nProvided input on the standards to include in an agreement: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point\nCollaborative.\nStated entering into an agreement is a partnership: Andreas Cluver, Building Trades\nCouncil of Alameda County.\nStated Alameda has a skilled labor force which looks forward to building Alameda Point:\nJason Bates, IBEW and Alameda resident.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft provided an example of Target taking interest in residents\nwho attended a Housing Authority seminar put on by a retail executive recruiter and\ntrainer, which was a creative example of how the City can help residents acquire jobs in\nAlameda with new businesses; everyone would love to see a jobs/housing balance in\nAlameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Alameda Point cannot just be a real estate project; there\nis some larger meaning in converting a military base into something more peaceful and\npositive, contributing to the wellbeing of residents; the possibility of a PLA is exciting;\none component is learning from the Mandela Center, Oakland Army base, Alameda\nPoint Collaborative or the building trades; the construction trades can help figure out\nways to make economic security tailored specifically to helping homeless families or\nothers in the system, which fulfills a 1995 promise made under the Standards of\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nSeptember 24, 2013", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18664, "text": "associated costs; stated the argument costs are increased is not necessarily true.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Mr. Viaming is recommending more of a hybrid approach; a\nPSA makes sense for something as complex, multifaceted, and long term as Alameda\nPoint; regular Public Works projects would fall under the category of a shorter term PLA;\ninquired what happens when the two types of projects dovetail; stated utilities and\ninfrastructure will be needed at Alameda Point; inquired how the two types work with\nDisposition and Development Agreements (DDAs); stated the City is going to be\nconveying parts of Alameda Point.\nMr. Viaming responded his answer is going to seem a lot like a dodge; stated the issue\nwould probably best be considered by having a discussion with the City Attorney; the\nmechanism and scope depend on a lot of different factors; a number of different\nelements go into in the matrix; that he would suggest deferring until real input is\nprovided regarding the direction in which Council wants to go; next, staff would establish\nthe best model to achieve objectives, which would be used to create the policy\nagreement; then, negotiations could begin; providing an opinion now would be\npremature because he does not know all the elements well enough, and gets the City\ntoo far down the road too fast.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the things in a PSA, such as no strike, no lock out,\njurisdictional dispute resolution process, referral procedures, and having mentorship\nprogram, are all things the City wants and values.\nMr. Viaming stated one option is to come up with a PSA and another option is to put\ntogether a policy which indicates the City is not going to negotiate the Agreement,\ninstead negotiation will be left to the developer; the City policy would include the\nrequired elements and direct developers to negotiate with the building trades; there are\ndifferent ways to accomplish the goal; the City could have a template Agreement and an\naccompanying policy.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether it would be possible to treat Alameda Point as its own\nanimal, because it is being rebuilt from the ground up; stated perhaps some sort of PLA\nthat applies to Alameda Point could be done and some other kind of Agreement could\nbe prepared for the rest of the City's built environment projects, such as replacing sewer\nmains, regular maintenance, or road work; inquired whether having one type of\nAgreement that covers both is better or whether the City could carve out Alameda Point\nand treat it differently.\nMr. Viaming responded the decision is the Council's prerogative; stated the Council\ncould decide to take care of one element first as a separate area; an Agreement could\nrequire that Public Works projects over a certain amount of money would have a PSA\nwith specific elements that must be negotiated by the contractor; the most cost efficient\nway might be to have different approaches; the City probably will need multiple\napproaches.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nSeptember 24, 2013", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18663, "text": "Mr. Viaming responded the City would not want to have a hard deadline and have to\nrace to be covered by a project agreement; stated bid specifications have to be done\nright and bidders need to be notified that an agreement exists which has required terms\nand conditions; lead time is needed; encouraged starting as early as possible because\nwhat will happen in negotiations is not known; further stated more time is needed if hard\nelements are being negotiated; not getting an Agreement done in time and running into\na problem is an unacceptable risk; the City may run out of time and not reach an\nAgreement or end up making a concession.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether negotiations should start six months or a\nyear prior to construction in the example of a new bond funded facility.\nMr. Viaming responded other agencies often start in advance of a bond measure vote\nand have the agreements in place; stated six months, or slightly longer, should be\nprovided for negotiations; six months is more than enough time for most agreements,\nunless there is something particularly difficult.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether there is an overlapping common denominator in\nmost PLAs, such as hiring local, minority or women contractors.\nMr. Viaming responded in the affirmative; stated typical provisions include: scope,\nstrike/lock out, referrals, dispute resolution, and safety; said items are typically covered\nat a macro level; then, local matters include start times, daily machinations and\npaydays; the agreement standardizes certain things; social progress provisions are\ngenerally included in more urban Project Agreements and are becoming more typical in\nthe interior Bay Area, but not rural areas.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the City of Berkeley addressed a citywide PLA a year and\na half ago; inquired what is the general trend and whether any other cities are\nconsidering citywide PLAs.\nMr. Viaming responded that he does not know.\nCouncilmember Chen stated an argument against PLAs is the inability for non-union\nworkers and contractors to compete; inquired how to respond to said argument.\nMr. Viaming responded the argument comes up all the time; inability to bid on a \"union\"\nproject is fundamentally not true; stated PLAs for public entities are open to union and\nnon-union; the California Supreme Court in a San Francisco Airport case determined a\ncontractor can decide whether or not to bid on a project; whether union or non-union\nspecific work conditions are required of any bidder; projects are open and available to\nall contractors; provided an example of a bond funded community college project with a\nlarge number of non-union contractors performing work under a Project Agreement; the\nother argument is cost claiming non-union contractors have to add money to bids\nbecause they will have to pay more; reviewed how benefits are structured and\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nSeptember 24, 2013", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18662, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--SEPTEMBER - 24, 2013- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(13-418) Rose Sandoval, SEIU 1021, discussed BART employees working conditions\nand urged people to contact the City's BART Board representative.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(13-419) Provide Comments on Possible Project Labor Agreement (PLA) Policy.\nUrged adoption of a PLA: Assemblymember Rob Bonta.\nThe City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nMichael Viaming, Viaming and Associates, gave a Power Point presentation and\naddressed Council questions.\nMayor Gilmore stated Alameda Point is in the forefront; the project will take 20 to 30\nyears; multiple projects will be built over a long period of time; inquired whether Mr.\nViaming would argue for a Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA) instead of a Project\nLabor Agreement (PLA); further inquired whether perhaps 5 or 10 years would be a\nreasonable check in point; noted attracting initial projects might be difficult.\nMr. Viaming responded a PSA makes more sense and is a more cost effective solution\nthan a PLA, which would take considerable time to negotiate; stated a PSA makes more\nsense because of the long term and multiple constructions types that will be done; his\nrecommendation would be a PSA or a policy which would require developers to\nnegotiate with the building trades; the same thing can be accomplished in different\nways; estimating when the check in evaluation should be depends on the amount of\nconstruction; there would be nothing to evaluate if a 5 year timeline were selected and\nnothing happens; the time should be shorter, such as three years, if there is lot of\nconstruction up front; the City should gauge the construction economy and developer\ninterest to select a good timeline.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when a PSA should be negotiated; whether a PLA or\nPSA ever delays the start of a project; and how far in advance discussion should begin.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nSeptember 24, 2013", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18661, "text": "Association.\n3. Review Draft Transit/Transportation Demand Management Plan.\n4. Approve the I-880/Broadway/Jackson Transportation Project.\n5. Approve the TDA Bike/Pedestrian Grant Submittal.\n7.\nAnnouncements/Public Comments\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, said he sits on the\nBART Bicycle Advisory Task Force and he invited the Commission and public to attend the next\nmeeting scheduled for Monday, April 3 from 6-8 pm at the East Bay Paratransit office. He\nexplained that the meeting would cover Project 529, a bike registration and theft deterrent\nprogram, created by J Allard, former Microsoft Xbox program manager with the assistance of\nConstable Rob Brunst from the Vancouver British Columbia police department. Under Project\n529, bicyclists can register their bicycles with their cell phone, local bike shop or police\ndepartment and the program includes superior database and social media components. He would\nlike to see a regional program spearheaded.\nCommissioner Vargas announced an event called Mobility 21, which is scheduled for April 3 in\nSacramento. He said Mobility 21 is a Southern California nonprofit that allows Metropolitan\nPlanning Organizations (MPOs) to get together and strategize about ways to obtain funding for\nSouthern California. He explained that's something that has been explored in Central and\nNorthern California.\n8.\nAdjournment\n9:40 p.m.\nPage 14 of 14", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18660, "text": "Commissioner Bertken asked Chadi Chazbek if they are going to rebuild the Jackson on ramp so\nthere are two lanes onto the freeway.\nChadi Chazbek replied no.\nCommissioner Bertken asked Chadi Chazbek then what is the difference.\nChadi Chazbek replied the difference is that right now you have two lanes that come up, but the\nright lane puts motorists on Broadway and since there is a small volume of cars that go through\nthe weave section they're going to remove that from the on ramp altogether.\nCommissioner Bertken stated that it's important to understand that a good portion of the project\nhas to do with Oakland's side of the tunnel rather than Alameda's side.\nCommissioner Miley replied that Commissioner Bertken's comments were correct, but it's a\nmatter of working with our neighbor.\nJennifer Ott reminded the Commission that there would be an approximate 3-minute travel\nsavings to get to the freeway and that would be a significant amount of time saved even when the\nspeeds are reduced within the tube. However, she agreed with Commissioner Miley that there are\nbenefits for Oakland such as congestion improvements and pedestrian safety enhancements,\nespecially in Chinatown. Consequently, Oakland and Alameda would see major improvements.\nCommissioner Bellows thanked everyone for spending the evening with them and giving a\nthorough presentation.\nCommissioner Soules said the improvements proposed in Oakland would not mean Alamedans\nwouldn't benefit. She explained that Alameda residents commute through the tube and travel\nonto Interstate 880 and that would impact Alameda. In addition, she mentioned that having to\ndrive through Oakland Chinatown during peak hours can be intense because you have to watch\nout for pedestrians and bicyclists, so the improvement would also benefit Alamedans.\n6.\nStaff Communications\n6.A. BART 2017 Fact Sheet (Information)\n6.B. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items\n1. Approve Transportation Projects in Alameda's 2017-2019 Capital Improvement Program and\nProvide Input on 2019-2027 Transportation Projects.\nStaff Payne said there is a special meeting on April 26 to approve the Transportation Projects in\nAlameda's 2017-2018 Capital Improvement Program.\n2. Accept the Annual Report on the Alameda Landing and Marina Shores Transportation\nDemand Management Program and Progress on the Citywide Transportation Management\nPage 13 of 14", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18659, "text": "Jennifer Ott stated that the City is working with Parsons to assist with evaluating alternatives if\nfunds are available. She said they are also looking at how those remaining funds could be\nreprogrammed to fund multimodal improvement for Alameda, Oakland and potentially\nChinatown. However, she explained that ACTC was just beginning their public process and\nAlameda staff would keep their eye on potential unused funds.\nCommissioner Miley replied the way Trinity Nguyen spoke about the CIP process he felt the\nTransportation Commission would make the decision on what projects were funded. So, he\nwanted to know if this was an Alameda, Oakland or joint project.\nJennifer Ott replied Trinity Nguyen was speaking about any unused funds. However, the project\nthat was presented this evening was under ACTC, the project sponsor, and any unused funds for\nmultimodal improvements would have to go through a reprogramming process where Alameda\nwould have to meet ACTC's criteria.\nTrinity Nguyen replied the CIP process is all the funds within their measure and there are bike\nand pedestrian components as well as livable streets funding pots as well. She noted that the\nmore broad the funding pot the more competitive it is. Yet, she said she would work with\nJennifer Ott to see what project they would like to see move forward.\nCommissioner Miley seconded Trinity Nguyen's comment about staff doing a good job and he\npointed out that the public said the tube was not adequate for bicycling or walking. Nonetheless,\nhe was excited to see the presentation that evening and he wanted to see the project move\nforward with the public's questions and comments addressed.\nCommissioner Bellows replied there would be additional ACTC scoping sessions in May and\nduring different points along the line.\nCommissioner Bertken said the biggest benefit for Alameda would be to tackle the problem at\nthe Jackson Street ramp going to the freeway during the a.m. peak period because currently the\nproject does not address this issue. He explained that the project team left the conflict between\nthe Jackson Street ramp and the Interstate 980 exit and there's not enough traffic on the\nBroadway ramp to cause a problem in the a.m. peak.\nChadi Chazbek asked Commissioner Bertken if he was talking about the northbound Broadway\noff ramp.\nCommissioner Bertken said he was talking about the Broadway off ramp going to Broadway\nright alongside the Jackson Street ramp.\nChadi Chazbek replied he's heard this before and the weave is a problem. However, the real\nbottleneck is the two-lane ramp drop to one lane coming before the weave section and that's the\ncapacity constraint within the corridor. He explained that the weave is the main constraining\nelement and the project team conducted travel runs through the area with results showing\nmotorists slowing down as they come up the ramp while the two lanes merge into one lane. Yet,\nhe emphasized that the project would improve the issue.\nPage 12 of 14", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18658, "text": "multimodal, pedestrian and bicycle issues. He said 55 people would like to see a down payment\nmade to build a pedestrian and bicycle bridge from Alameda to Oakland, 20 people said it would\nbe great to open the west side walkway and 17 people would like the funds to be used to\npurchase boats for water taxi service from Alameda to Jack London Square. He said most people\nwant to do something else with the multimodal funds and felt the City needs to send that\nstatement to ACTC.\nLucy Gigli, Bike Walk Alameda President, stated that this project has been around for a long\ntime with multiple iterations. She said it was Measure B and then Measure BB funds and $75\nmillion was allocated for Alameda to use on this project. She explained that Brian McGuire\nmentioned if the project funds were partially used, there would be $10-15 million left that could\nbe used for the City. Thus, she encouraged the Commission to use the remaining funds for true\nmultimodal projects that address issues that are across the Estuary.\nDenyse Trepanier said the project is multimodal in name only and she felt walking her bicycle\nthrough the tube was a horrible experience. She explained that although connections to the tube\nmight be improved, the switchbacks introduced would only make the situation worse. She\nreferenced the Bay Bridge project, which was supposed to be multimodal. However, the path\nremains randomly open on weekend days to bicyclists. She also pointed out that the off ramp\ngoing through and cutting across the bicycle and pedestrian path within the tube would reduce all\naccess across the west end of Alameda. Based on what she heard, this may be a great solution for\nvehicular traffic because they need to solve the congestion problem, but she felt the multimodal\nfunds earmarked for this project should specifically improve multimodal connections.\nCommissioner Morgado exclaimed that he was hearing a lot about the money and he wanted\nmore information about the funding allocation.\nTrinity Nguyen replied ACTC is working on the Comprehensive Investment Plan (CIP), which is\ndone every two years for a 5-year programming period. She pointed out that there are Measure\nBB funds specifically related to multimodal access from Oakland to Alameda and vice versa and\nthere are several components to that funding source. She went on to say that as cities submit\nprojects and request funding, the programming team would evaluate the requests to make sure it\nmeets the criteria such as: feasibility, the city's local match contribution and the current stage of\nthe project. Afterwards, recommendations would be made for the ACTC to review for action and\nthe next review period is scheduled for July 1, 2017 with a programming period of 5 years with a\n2-year allocation window. She said they're going to provide recommendations for the ACTC to\nreview in April and they will work with the cities that submit projects.\nCommissioner Miley asked if the project is in the CIP.\nTrinity Nguyen replied the project includes two funding components. She explained that the\nproject was included in Measure B, so there were funds dedicated for the general\nBroadway/Jackson project. The second component, Measure BB, was included as a component\nto address multimodal access between Alameda and Oakland. The funds could be used for a\nvariety of benefits, but has to fit into a certain description. Ultimately, she said the total on the\nMeasure BB side is $75 million and the Measure B is $8 million.\nPage 11 of 14", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18657, "text": "Chadi Chazbek replied the slowdown in the tube would be longer under one alternative versus\nthe other. He explained that the distance would be the same, but it would take longer to travel\nthrough the tube under one of the alternatives.\nCommissioner Bellows replied both alternatives would have 25 miles per hour (mph) limit in the\ntube.\nChadi Chazbek said that was correct and even when traveling 25 mph in the tube motorists'\ntravel time would be significantly less under alternative A1: Jackson Horseshoe.\nCommissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.\nJim Strehlow felt the project would take a while to get going given the existing situation with\nbicyclists and motorists leaving the Posey Tube. He said first, given the current conditions,\nvehicles coming out of the Posey Tube and into Oakland have trouble getting over to the most\nright-hand turn lane even when traveling 5 mph. He further explained that vehicles have\ndifficulty crossing a solid white line to get into the two right-hand turn lanes onto 6th Street\nbecause the paint starts way too soon out of the tubes. He wondered if the project team could\npaint dotted lines there because technically it is illegal for motorists to cross a solid white line.\nHe expressed the issue now so the project team won't make the same mistake with the new\ndesign. Second, he noted that he's a cyclist and when traveling out of the Posey tube he would\nlove to be able to go onto the roadway straight onto Harrison Street instead of being on the\nsidewalk and having to get up to the intersection and push the pedestrian crossing button. He\nsensed that it would be better for him to negotiate the traffic with the vehicles side by side then\nto wait and get to a point to push the pedestrian button and then cross the intersection. Third, he\nsaid he was happy with the project, including the way it's been put together and announced.\nFourth, he said he would be interested in knowing more about the actual elevation/slope that\nbicyclists would have to negotiate with the switchbacks. He would also like the switchback\nconcept to be presented clearly within the designs and for the project team to explain how\nbicyclists would negotiate the short distance elevation and loop-to-loop just to get through,\nbecause he's concerned that he would not be able to do it as his age. Fifth, he believed the 25\nmph limit through the Posey Tube was strange and the police could not enforce the speed when\nmotorists want to go 50 mph. Finally, he's interested to see if there will be any anti-occupy\nprotests and if the project team could slope some of the off ramp at a certain point somewhere\nbetween 9 or 10 degrees to make it harder for protestors to go up the ramps and into the freeway.\nBrian McGuire said as a Bike Walk Alameda Board member, he would normally get excited to\nsee a $10-15 million project move forward on a bicycle and pedestrian path that would open up\nthe west side of Alameda to Oakland. He stated that recently, Bike Walk Alameda completed its\n10-year anniversary of bike and pedestrian counts through the tube and over the Park Street\nBridge. Consequently, they found three reasons why people do not use the tube: 1. when\nbicyclists pass one another that requires one of the bicyclist to lift their bike up and over the rail;\n2. There is considerable noise in the tube; and 3. There is pollution and air quality issues within\nthe tube. He believed that opening the west side path seems to be a type of mitigation for the\nimpacts of the switchbacks. Therefore, he did not understand how this could be considered a\nmultimodal improvement over the current situation. He explained that he took a poll on Alameda\nPeeps, a Facebook group, to see how people would spend $10 million dollars to address\nPage 10 of 14", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18656, "text": "during the highest peak hours; and 5. staff address the two left turn lanes merging into one within\nthe intersection at Constitution Way.\nCommissioner Soules seconded the motion.\nCommissioner Vargas amended the motion for staff to consider including within the scope that\nmoves forward, whether that is preliminary engineering or final design, visual simulation to\nassist with the refinement.\nCommissioner Soules asked for clarification to the amendment.\nCommissioner Vargas said the visual simulation should be considered within the scope of the\nnext phase.\nCommissioner Soules seconded the motion.\nThe motion was approved 7-0.\n5.B. Review I-880/Broadway/Jackson Transportation Project (Information)\nCommissioner Vargas stated that the Alameda County Transportation (ACTC) manages the\nproject and will be presenting the report and update. He explained that since his firm is\ncompensated by ACTC on some of the project's work, he has a financial conflict of interest and\nmust excuse himself.\nJennifer Ott, Director of Base Reuse and Transportation Planning, introduced Trinity Nguyen,\nACTC Director of Project Delivery.\nTrinity Nguyen introduced the project team, Susan Chang, ACTC Project Manager, Chadi\nChazbek HNTB, Alice community outreach and Flora, project support.\nChadi Chazbek presented the report.\nCommissioner Bellows said she understood the concept of two-way bicycle traffic in the Posey\nTube, but she asked Chadi Chazbek if any thought has been given to placing incoming bicycle\ntraffic in the Webster Tube. Therefore, there would be one-way bicycle traffic in the Posey Tube\nand one-way bicycle traffic in the Webster Tube.\nChadi Chazbek replied the project team has not looked at this, but could.\nCommissioner Bellows referred to slide 18 \"Preliminary Traffic Analysis Results, AM Peak\nHour\" and asked Chadi Chazbek about the travel time for the Thru Tube. She asked if the Thru\nTube would be a fixed distance. Therefore, she wondered why the results were 840 seconds\nversus 180 seconds.\nPage 9 of 14", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18655, "text": "every day he would see someone almost hit. He explained that it's easy for cars making a left\nturn to see the eastbound motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. However, he felt it would be\ndifficult for motorists to see the westbound bike lanes. Ultimately, motorists would be crossing\ntwo bike lanes and a sidewalk when they turn into the driveway and that's going to be difficult.\nCommissioner Miley said Commissioner Hans made an excellent point. He wondered whether\nthere was a way to prohibit this left hand turn, especially since it could be a potential safety\nissue.\nStaff Wheeler said they have been looking at those turns into the driveway. She stated that one\nreason the bicycle facility is elevated across the driveway was to make sure the cars slowed\ndown before getting to the facility. Signage was included to show motorists that the area\ncontained a two-way bicycle facility. Further, she said staff considered closing off the turn both\nin and out of the driveway, but the property owner was against the idea.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that he thought about having no left turns at certain times of the day\nand that should be analyzed and implemented in this design. Additionally, he asked Staff\nWheeler if staff looked at implementing bicycle-only signals similar to the ones implemented in\nDavis, California and a few other cities.\nStaff Wheeler replied staff looked at this idea, but they did not study it in detail. The project team\nunderstood that it would be expensive and there would be much larger vehicle impacts at both\nintersections from adding phases for bicycle and pedestrian crossings. She noted that the AC\nTransit Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project would travel down Ralph Appezzato Memorial\nParkway and possibly make a left turn onto Webster Street. This project would allow staff to\nconsider adding a bicycle signal on Webster Street in the future when they add a BRT project.\nCommissioner Miley wondered if staff had studied the cost for Commissioner Bellows' idea to\nremove the center median to add back the third eastbound travel lane at the intersection on\nAtlantic Avenue at Constitution Way.\nStaff Wheeler said staff looked at this during the project's earlier phase and before the detailed\ndesign was produced. She explained that the cost would be approximately $400,000 to remove\nthe medians on both sides of the street and to change the traffic signals.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff to include some of the provisions such as analyzing the\nmovement of two left turn lanes coming into one lane, and including a warning for bicyclists that\nwould show an approaching auto conflict.\nCommissioner Bellows stated the Commission received nine letters of support and three letters\nthat seemed to support the project, but included design comments.\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve staff's design Option 1, but included the following\nadditions: 1. an education and enforcement piece should be included in the project; 2. staff\nattempt to limit construction impacts to motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and businesses in the\narea; 3. staff install appropriate signage to warn bicyclists about motorist conflicts; 4. staff\nevaluate including a \"no left turn\" sign at westbound Atlantic Avenue turning into the driveway\nPage 8 of 14", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18654, "text": "analysis for future years shows there could be more traffic impacts, so that is something that\ncould be considered in the future.\nCommissioner Bellows said that regarding installing the midblock crossing later, if the\nCommission chose Option 1 that wouldn't really work because the overall project design would\nchange.\nStaff Wheeler replied the Option 2, with midblock crossing, includes a small bulb-out, which\ncould be installed now, and the crossing could be installed later, if desired. She also noted that\nthe area that would need to be changed to install the midblock crossing - between the driveway\nand where the protected bikeway straightens out - is not large, so it is not out of the question that\nit could be modified in the future.\nCommissioner Bertken stated that there must be a way to have the bicycles gather and wait for a\ngreen signal, similar to when pedestrians gather and wait for the signal to change and then they\ncross the intersection. He felt installing signage there does not really solve the problem because\nmany motorists won't see bicycles coming through.\nStaff Wheeler said the turning vehicle warning signs would alert motorists that bicyclists may be\napproaching and they should proceed slowly.\nCommissioner Soules asked Staff Wheeler about the enforcement plan, which she read as part of\nthe public comment portion within the staff packet. She particularly wanted to know whether\nstaff would be working with the Alameda Police Department to make sure vehicles comply with\nthe California Vehicle Code. She also said the mid-block crossing could encourage greater use\nand that could affect traffic. She asked Staff Wheeler if the project team discussed how to\nimplement enforcement and education.\nStaff Wheeler replied they have not developed a plan yet and they would conduct public outreach\nto all of the groups using the area before, during and after construction.\nCommissioner Soules replied it would be good to have additional information sent out to the\ncommunity. She also said it would be good to understand the project's phasing and staff should\ninclude this information in the Commission's future agendas as well as update the community\nabout the construction impacts. She asked Staff Wheeler if staff determined the project's\nmaintenance costs.\nStaff Wheeler stated that they have not worked on the calculations, but they have been thinking\nabout maintenance costs as the design was being developed. Overall, there would be costs for\nlandscaping and maintenance of the facility.\nCommissioner Hans asked staff about that driveway on the southside of Atlantic Avenue. He\nasked Staff Wheeler if motorists would be able to make the left turn into this driveway.\nStaff Wheeler replied yes.\nCommissioner Hans said a similar turn exists in front of Lincoln Middle School where almost\nPage 7 of 14", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18653, "text": "volumes, and roadway width. She stated that the City's key guidance criteria were: pedestrian\nvolumes, collision history and the distance to the signalized intersections. The crossing is not too\nfar from the nearby signalized intersections and it would be safer for pedestrians to cross at one\nof them. She noted that if the City installed a rectangular rapid flashing beacon, the vehicles\nwould be required to yield to pedestrians, but they may not stop. She indicated that the pedestrian\nguidance thresholds for a marked crossing are 20 total pedestrians, or 15 senior pedestrians, in\nthe peak hour. Staff counted 12 seniors and 17 total pedestrians crossing when conducting\npedestrian counts this year, during the highest peak hour - 11:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. Thus, she\nexplained the pedestrian counts were just under the guidance thresholds. Finally, she stated that\nthere was one pedestrian-involved collision in 10 years, even though pedestrians regularly cross\nthere.\nCommissioner Bertken asked Staff Wheeler if pedestrians do not press the pedestrian push-\nbutton, then does the crosswalk not exist?\nStaff Wheeler replied no, since it would still be a marked crosswalk.\nCommissioner Bertken replied that if the rapid flashing beacon lights are not blinking, then\nAtlantic is just a throughway and it does not delay motorists. So, it's only when the pedestrian\npresses the button to cross that motorists are delayed.\nStaff Wheeler replied that the traffic impacts of the options with and without the midblock\ncrossing are about the same, since cars only need to yield to pedestrians and are not required to\nstay stopped, as at a red traffic light.\nCommissioner Miley stated that the priority tonight was to see the gap closed. Regarding the\nmid-block, he said he could take it or leave it and he questioned whether the mid-block crossing\nwould be used more. He felt Commissioners Bertken and Vargas echoed his concerns about the\nturning actions at Constitution Way. He also noted that the staff report said during the peak p.m.\nhours there were 173 vehicular turns and during the peak a.m. hours there were 110 turns from\nAtlantic Avenue onto Constitution Way. He believed when looking at the drawings and\nconceptualizing the queuing concern, a simulation would be useful. He asked Staff Wheeler if\nstaff looked at signalizing traffic so left and right turns could proceed simultaneously. He also\nwondered if there was a way to signalize the controls, like a scramble, to allow pedestrians and\nbicyclists to cross the intersection without any cars proceeding.\nStaff Wheeler replied that the City explored the simultaneous right and left turn idea but that\nbecause there is a combined through and right turn lane eastbound on Atlantic Avenue, the right\nturns cannot proceed in a turn-only phase, because they might be stopped behind a through car.\nCommissioner Bellows wondered if, rather than giving a lane to the left turns, could they use\nsome of the median and make that a left turn lane and scoot everything over, thereby maintaining\nall three existing lanes. That would provide a free right turn lane.\nStaff Wheeler said they also looked at that option, but rejected it because it increases the cost\nsince they would have to remove the center median on both sides of the street, to make room and\nto allow for the alignment of lanes across the intersection. However, she explained that the traffic\nPage 6 of 14", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18652, "text": "intersection and conduct a visual simulation for the various phases that are involved to see where\nconflicts reside. He also stated that he did not see signage planned for the driveway area.\nCommissioner Bertken replied there is a warning sign just before the driveway that says you\ncannot move ahead unless the lane is clear. He then said there is a sign that says if you are a car\nmaking a turn you have to yield to pedestrians and he felt that was overkill.\nStaff Wheeler replied that currently a stop sign is not present for cars exiting the driveway, but\nthere will be and she said there would be a warning sign, showing that bicyclists are traveling\ntwo-ways, for cars entering and exiting the driveway. The information can be found call outs #6\nand #7 of the staff report, Exhibit 5.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that when looking at the traffic operations reports, the Level of\nService (LOS) heading westbound would stay the same and he asked Staff Wheeler if anything\ncould be done to improve it, since the City would be spending approximately $1 million on this\narea. In addition, he said that since the project's costs are high, he would like to find out why\nthey have increased. He understood that the design received significant changes while remaining\ncutting edge, but he wondered if it would make sense to spend the funds on testing the design\nwith paint, rather than concrete work.\nStaff Wheeler said in regards to Commissioner Vargas' questions, firstly, truck traffic was\nanalyzed and that Public Works had been a great advocate for considering the truck routes. Staff\nalso conducted counts of the number of trucks on this block. She stated that trucks would be able\nto make all of the turns from one truck route to another. Secondly, she said when looking at the\ntraffic analysis, staff could look into that if there is more time and resources. Commissioner\nVargas clarified that it would be a visual simulation at Constitution Way and Atlantic Avenue,\nand would be useful for the right-hand turns at the southwest corner. Commissioner Vargas\nechoed the same concern that Commissioner Bertken expressed at this intersection. Lastly,\nregarding the costs, Staff Wheeler stated that the project brought to the Commission over a year\nago used the existing travel lanes and did not move the curb. She explained that the previous\nestimate did not include soft costs (i.e. construction support and management), nor did it include\na 25 percent contingency, both of which are included in the current project cost. The concrete\nwork alone, including building the facility on the south side of the street, but not including the\ndemo work or staging work, is approximately $260,000. She said that is one of the largest items,\nat a quarter of the project's total cost. She further explained that the largest cost is the signal\nwork, estimated at $270,000, because they have to install the protected left turn phases at\nConstitution, and physically move some of the traffic signal poles. She noted that both of these\nsub-costs are without the contingency added in.\nCommissioner Vargas asked why the mid-block crossing was deleted.\nStaff Wheeler replied the City did study this and was hoping to come up with a design that\ndirectly addresses the current illegal mid-block crossings. The City looked at different locations\nfor the mid-block crossing and how it would impact traffic and safety. She said there are no strict\nwarrants, so the project team looked at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and\nCalifornia Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for guidance criteria. They\nreviewed the factors such as the vehicle speed limits, collision history, visibility, pedestrian\nPage 5 of 14", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18651, "text": "from doing SO. He requested that staff provide the number of cars heading eastbound in both\nlanes.\nSusie Hufstader, Bike East Bay staff member and Alameda resident, thanked Alameda staff for\nproviding a beautiful design given all the complications and constraints surrounding the area.\nShe said when she moved to Alameda, she was impressed with the protected bike lanes on\nShoreline Drive and Fernside Avenue. She mentioned that Alameda has always been a front-\nrunner for these types of facilities and the City providing protected intersections would take it to\nthe next level. She pointed out that this design would allow all types of bicyclists to use the\nprotected bike lane. She noted that the city of Oakland's bike projects, especially on Fruitvale\nAvenue, would allow the entire Cross Alameda Trail to continue into Oakland and towards the\nFruitvale BART Station.\nDenyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda representative and Alameda resident, said she would be\na big consumer of the bike facility because she resides near the project. She voiced her full\nsupport towards staff's presentation and she felt this project is very forward thinking. She\nexplained that this project would allow bicyclists to connect from Jean Sweeney Park to the\nCross Alameda Trail from the west end. She also said having bicyclists ride in the door zone is\ndangerous and a stripe of paint does not suffice. She pointed out that the plan is very forward\nthinking because it offers protected facilities at the intersections where cyclists need the most\nprotection. She thanked Alameda staff, the engineering firm and everyone who worked on the\ndesign for being creative because there were a lot of challenges to overcome. Additionally, she\nsaid the project was critical if Alameda is going to provide safe passage for bicyclists along the\nnorthern end of the island. Therefore, she asked the Commission to approve the design to close\nthe Cross Alameda Trail gap.\nBrian McGuire, Alameda resident, thanked staff and said it may seem like a small effort, but this\nwas important when connecting Seaplane Lagoon to Fruitvale BART and beyond. He stated that\nconnecting these segments was not only important, but it rebalanced the equity of the bicycle\ninfrastructure within Alameda and that is important for residents in the west end. He explained\nthat the biggest users of this path would be students going to and from Jean Sweeney Park to the\nRalph Appezzato segment. He exclaimed that the bike path would also alleviate congestion in\nand around the tube by moving users from cars to bicycles. He felt the project area was\ncomplicated, but staff got it right. Also, staff provided a safe bicycle facility without sacrificing\ntoo much from vehicles. So, he urged the Commission to approve the plan.\nCommissioner Vargas complimented staff for bringing AC Transit, and Alameda Police and Fire\nDepartments into the conversation when they were not initially engaged. He felt this is not just a\nmultimodal corridor, but also a combination of funnels that are concentrated at a couple of\npoints. He said a lot of attention should be placed on the design, so that staff do not favor one\nmode of transportation. He pointed out that the flow of freight trucks was mentioned briefly and\nhe wanted to hear more about it. He indicated that he attended a conference in the Central Valley\nand he explained that the last mile of getting freight to the destination was a constant concern. He\ntold Staff Wheeler that it was good to see the traffic lane widths were not substandard. He also\nechoed Commissioner Bertken's concerns about bicyclists' safety. He noted that the southeast\ncorner of Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way contained many opposing movements. So, he\nwondered if there's a way for staff to go beyond the standard traffic operations analysis for an\nPage 4 of 14", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18650, "text": "Staff Wheeler replied the surfaces of the sidewalk and the protected bike lane would be different\n(concrete and asphalt, respectively), but they would be at the same grade without a vertical\nseparation. She also noted that there would be striping along the protected bike lane, so\npedestrians and bicyclists could visually see the difference.\nCommissioner Vargas asked Staff Wheeler about the vast difference between the mid-block\ncrossing cost that was estimated a year ago and the cost estimated now.\nStaff Wheeler explained that, last year, the project without the mid-block crossing was estimated\nat $200,000 to $400,000. She said the project's current cost, based on a more detailed design, is\napproximately $1 million and the mid-block crossing would cost approximately $150,000.\nCommissioner Bertken asked Staff Wheeler about the left turn movement on Constitution Way\nheading south, to eastbound Atlantic Avenue. He said there is a two-lane left turn pocket and the\ndesign concept appears to show an elimination of one of the two lanes on Atlantic Avenue. The\nresult of widening the curb at Atlantic Avenue, which took out a traffic lane, would create a two-\nlane turn pocket that merges into one lane.\nStaff Wheeler replied staff would look into this further.\nCommissioner Bertken said he travels that way often and if he has to merge in the middle of the\nintersection that will be difficult. He also asked Staff Wheeler if a sign would be installed at the\ncorner to alert cars to give way to bicyclists traveling behind them. However, he explained the\nunderlying issue would be that motorists do not see bicyclists because they are moving behind\nthem. So, he wondered if staff could address that by alerting bicyclists that cars are turning at\nthis southwest corner of Constitution and Atlantic.\nStaff Wheeler said she could include these ideas in the design concept.\nCommissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.\nJim Strehlow stated that the Commission spoke about the Cross Alameda Trail design two years\nago. He said he argued against that design because it did not include the bus stop. He said the\nCommission approved that design and he was not quite sure how that was going to work out. He\npointed out that he was relatively happy with the current design with one exception. He felt\nbicyclists would not need separated bicycle lanes. He stated that many bicyclists ride on the\nsidewalks without protected bicycle lanes, sharing the space with pedestrians along Webster by\nthe College of Alameda. He stated that he did not understand why bicycle lanes were needed on\nthis one block of Atlantic Avenue, especially when he only sees one bicyclist and maybe five or\nsix pedestrians every half hour.\nHe said the design on this one segment does not warrant taking away a traffic lane from Atlantic\nAvenue, especially a right-hand turn lane. He said as the cars move from two lanes into one\nlane, the staff report indicated that motorists would incur 1 to 7.5 seconds of delay at the\nintersection. However, he believed that was wrong and there will be over 2 minutes of delay\nbecause cars that want to make a right-hand turn onto Constitution Way would be prevented\nPage 3 of 14", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18649, "text": "Public Works repaint the street and remove the double yellow lines that motorists illegally cross.\nHe also asked the Commission if this issue was an action item or will it be left the way it is.\nCommissioner Bellows replied the Commission could place this issue on the next agenda and she\nasked staff to address it.\nStaff Payne said AC Transit will be rescheduling and shortening the route on Sunday, March 26.\nShe explained that the schedule and route change would remove the operators waiting at that\nstop. She further said the buses were stopping because the operators were running hot and that\ncaused them to wait at the time point, where Stanton Street is the designated time point.\nJim Strehlow said the officer stated that this behavior was creating a traffic hazard. Thus, Public\nWorks should remove the double yellow line, enforce traffic, or relocate the bus stop.\nCommissioner Bellows replied she would speak to staff about it.\nCommissioner Miley stated that the Commission received a letter from Nina Klem and he wanted\nto make sure that Public Works staff received the letter as well. He asked staff to forward the\nletter to the appropriate parties at Public Works to see if spot treatments could be made to\nincrease the safety of the bridge for students who ride their bicycles to and from Lincoln and Bay\nFarm Middle Schools.\n3.A. Earth Day Festival: Saturday, April 22 - 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.\n3.B. Transportation Commission Special Meeting: Wednesday, April 26 at 7 p.m.\n3.C. Correspondence to Transportation Commission (Information)\n3.D. Warm Springs Invitation (Information)\n4.A. Approve Meeting Minutes - March 22, 2017 - Special Meeting Minutes (Action)\nCommissioner Vargas followed up with Jim Strehlow's comments about the March 22, 2017\nCommission meeting minutes. He said the meeting minutes need to be reviewed for accuracy\nand grammar. He said he would leave his notes with Staff Payne to review. Therefore, he asked\nthat the Commission hold off on approving the minutes.\n5.\nNew Business\n5.A. Approve Design Concept for Cross Alameda Trail Gap Closure on Atlantic Avenue\nbetween Webster Street and Constitution Way (Action)\nStaff Wheeler, Transportation Planner for the Alameda Planning Division, presented the report.\nCommissioner Miley asked Rochelle Wheeler about the delineation between the cycle track and\nthe sidewalk.\nPage 2 of 14", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18648, "text": "Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes\nWednesday March 22, 2017\nCommissioner Michele Bellows called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nMichele Bellows (Chair)\nChristopher Miley (Vice Chair)\nJesus Vargas\nGregory Morgado\nThomas G. Bertken\nSamantha Soules\nMichael Hans\nStaff Present:\nJennifer Ott, Base Reuse and Transportation Planning Director\nShahram Aghamir, City Engineer\nSergeant Ryan Derespini, Alameda Police Department\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\nRochelle Wheeler, Transportation Planner\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident, said the minutes from last month's Transportation Commission\nmeeting said that he spoke about the Posey Tube and the roadway and there was graffiti on the\npanels. He pointed out that graffiti existed on some of the panels, not all of the panels. Most\nimportantly, last month he discussed AC Transit Line 19 where he presented a diagram and\nexplained while driving that he was stopped behind the bus near the Stanton Street bus stop. He\nstated that during the meeting, Sergeant Derespini, stated that his comments were valid and\nPublic Works staff promised that the issue would be resolved. The next morning, the bus\noperator stopped in front of him and this time he was riding his bicycle. He spoke to the operator\nand was told to contact the police if he felt it was an infraction. That morning, he called the\nAlameda Police Department and was told unless they are there to cite the behavior it is under the\njurisdiction of the Sheriff's Department. He called the Sheriff's Department twice that day and\nthe following Monday without any response since. He felt the contact number for the Sherriff's\nDepartment was like a straw dog set up to exist, but not to service citizens' needs. He asked the\nTransportation Commission if anything could be done to either relocate the bus stop or have\nPage 1 of 14", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}
{"rowid": 18647, "text": "Vice President Burton motioned to continue the meeting for an additional 15 minutes.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster seconded the motion\nMotioned carried 5-0; no abstentions\nMatt Naclerio, Public Works Director, stated that sidewalk repair work will usually take\nplace within 30 days of being marked with pink paint. After the temporary repair the\nlocation is placed on a permanent list, and that list currently has a 4- 5 year period.\nThey will attempt to double the number of permanent repairs this year. The white paint\nis property owner responsibility. Owners receive a notice and have 60 days to repair\nthe sidewalk.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to make the determination of consistency with the\nGeneral Plan\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion\nMotion carried 5-0; no abstentions\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or\nmake a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral\nto staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body\nat a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the Chair, direct staff to\nplace a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.\nNone\n12. ADJOURNMENT\n10:59 p.m.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 14 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "pages_fts": 11109, "rank": null}