Central to Encinal West Side-

• Prunus Caroliniana  —-Poor Condition
• Ligustrum    —-Very Poor Condition
• Prunus Carolina  —-Very Poor Condition

Central to Encinal East Side-

• Ficus Nitide   —-Very poor Condition
• Prunus caroliniana—Poor Condition

Central to Encinal west Side-

• Ligustrum    —- Poor Condition
• Prunus       —–Very poor

Yet more reason that there should have been public discussion of the plan. There was no “Health of trees” issue. The information apparently doesn’t address whether better care could have returned these trees to health, but the numbers certainly suggest that the clear-cutting was more a matter of convenience (to the building of the project, for future maintenance issues, etc) than of necessity.

It’s not too late to join the 374 people who have signed the petition for the trees

But this wasn’t a one-time occurrence, it’s a part of a large pattern that kicked into high gear about three years ago and continues unabated. One only need to look at the ongoing canceling of the Transportation Commission and what staff feel is necessary to agendize for them, to see that there is virtually no proactive outreach on transportation planning in this city.

Case in point, the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan (CWTP or “CountyPlan”), which is the long range planning document for Alameda County. It is updated once every four years and ends up prioritizing regional funding for the county. If you’re not in the County Plan, your project’s going to have a hard time getting funding.

This year’s County Plan is extremely important. The Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC, pronounced Acka Tacka in Australian) is looking to extend the Measure B sales tax and double it. Which means that the current ½ cent sales tax will become a 1-cent sales tax and it will be collected for longer. The County Plan is the document that is being used to decide which projects are specifically called out for funding in this tax measure.

On February 25, ACTC released a call for projects to include in the CountyPlan, these were due on April 12. This process was not a surprise, the development of the County Plan is a quadrennial event, and there had been a lot of discussion at the County ACTAC (a staff advisory group that Alameda(City) Public Works employees sit on). Specifically, the proposed Call for Projects was in the ACTAC’s December 2010 update, and their January 2011 update. Meaning there was nearly five months of notification about issue.

Despite the knowledge that this call for projects was coming and that it was going to have a tight turn time, and that it was a significant event, Public Works put together a list of projects worth nearly $200 million that never saw the light of day until after it was submitted and the deadline for submittal had passed.

So you might think that this list would be a kitchen sink of projects culled from the high priority lists of the City’s transportation plans. Say, $125 million for a West End bike/ped/transit bridge as identified in the Estuary Crossing feasibility study. But you’d be wrong. While there are some priority projects on the list, the submittals include projects that come out of nowhere, including a $90+ million to upgrade the Fruitvale Bridge to Lifeline status AND rehab the rail bridge for some reason at an additional cost of $50 million, and a $4 million park-and-ride project that highlights bus routes that no longer exist as a reason for being built. The park-and-ride was a project that the Transportation Commission, years ago, suggested was not a great transit project with tiny transportation benefits, and that was before the Line 19 disappeared.

No community transportation groups were consulted on whether or not the proposed projects met the needs of pedestrians, cyclists or transit riders. The lack of discussion at the Transportation Commission or the City Council meant that City Staff made significant financial policy decisions that will affect Alameda transportation funding for the next 25 years (the length of the Measure B reauthorization). And now it’s too late.

It’s time to insist on transparency in the planning of public projects and put the public back in public works. Sign the tree petition and support the call for public involvement and accountability.

The 12.2 acres of possible future open-space in the business park isn’t a single contiguous piece of property. There are buildings in the middle of it and its three distinct pieces of property. Here’s the map from the presentation:

Proposed Sports Complex at Harbor Bay Business Park

But it was pointed out to me today that I wasn’t looking at this very closely and that there are existing buildings and parking lots breaking up this land and the buildings that I thought were going to be parks buildings, are actually a daycare facility and some other businesses. Here’s the same map with the 12.2 acres highlighted:

Yellow is the actual open space

The light yellow circle in the bottom left indicates a piece of land that may, or may not, be a part of the swap. I can’t tell. Here’s the thing, it’s clear that Cowan and company are aware that this is a problem. Watching their promotional video after learning about this, you realize that every time the fly-over gets to a private building or a break in the park, it quickly cuts to a new shot.

And here’s the problem that this possibly causes. The City Charter states, “The City Council shall determine that said “new public park” is of comparable size and utility and serves the same service area with substantially the same amenities and improvements.”

Which brings us to the Charter, which says, “The City Council shall determine that said “new public park” is of comparable size and utility and serves the same service area with substantially the same amenities and improvements.” This is a wiggly word, and I’m sure smart people can argue that “comparable” doesn’t mean “all together” because “the numbers add up the same.” But given that that logic would mean that you could break a 10 acre park into a 1000 pieces and zone them open space and call it comparable and be done with it. This is probably a bit of a stretch. It’s clearly not the spirit of the Charter.

This isn’t like for like in any way, but more on that later.

At tonight’s meeting of the City Council you will hear the first reading of the draft sunshine ordinance. I want to thank staff for their hard work on this important ordinance. For the most part, their revisions make the ordinance clearer and stronger.

I would like to respectfully disagree with staff’s recommendation that the council add language to the ordinance to allow the council to vote to begin new action items after 10:30pm. This was the number one concern voiced by the community at the Sunshine Task Force workshop and seen as a significant impediment to participation in local governance. As is often pointed out, ordinances can be changed. I’d like to ask that the Council approve the language without this escape clause, and commit to revisiting the issue if problems arise.

I would also like to ask that you reject three specific revisions proposed in the staff rewrite. I am attaching an edit of all three that I have worked with Acting City Attorney Mooney on, we are in agreement that they answer the concerns of staff and meet the intentions of the Task Force. These issues are:

1. Don’t limit the documents that require immediate disclosure
2. Don’t remove the accessible formats requirement
3. Make sure the City has time to cure violations before lawsuits must be filed

Issue 1: Don’t limit the documents that require immediate disclosure

Staff have recommended striking language in 2-92.10 (a) (page 27). In doing so, the change removes the broad categories that the paragraph had meant to cover and creates a very limited list of items (items that were intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive). Staff also had concerns that the language was not concise enough to allow non-legal staff to determine when a document is considered an “immediate disclosure” document.

To address staff’s concerns but maintain the intent of the Task Force, I propose amending the STF’s recommended text as such;

Proposed revision from original text:

(a) An immediate disclosure request is a request for (1) public records which have been previously distributed to the public, such as past meeting agendas and agenda-related materials, and including public records requests, within the past calendar year, or (2) public records such as statements of economic interests that have, by other law, a requirement to be disclosed within a specific shortened time frame. All immediate disclosure requests shall describe the records sought in as focused and specific language as possible so they can be readily identified and shall state the words “Immediate Disclosure Request” across the top of the first page of the request and on any envelope in which the request is transmitted.

Issue 2: Don’t remove the accessible formats requirement

Staff was concerned that the original language of 2-90.17 (a) (2) (page 30) was simply guidance, not required, and therefore not appropriate for an ordinance. The use of file formats is extremely important in openness and the STF felt it was important that the city affirmatively state its commitment to using formats that are widely accessible. In order to provide clearer direction to staff on the need for accessible data platforms and formats, and provide some wiggle room for situations for which there is no available option but a proprietary system, I propose:

Proposed revision from original text:

 (2) Except in the case where the City can cite a significant overriding consideration, Electronic electronic formats should shall be chosen such that they can be viewed on a variety of mainstream computing platforms using freely available software. Electronic formats susceptible to obsoletion and patent licensing restrictions should be avoided. Formatsand formats dependent on a single operating system or proprietary software program should shall also be avoidednot be used.

Issue 3: Make sure the City has time to cure violations before lawsuits must be filed

Staff added a sentence in section 2-93.3 (a) (page 31) in order to provide the City with more certainty about the filing of lawsuits regarding violations of the Sunshine Ordinance. The addition of this language highlights a missing issue in the ordinance itself (clear deadlines for complaint filings) and compounds the issue by not allowing the city’s process to complete before a lawsuit against the city must be filed.

I would like to ask the council to consider adding a junior statute of limitations to the ordinance that clarifies when actions must be taken and which gives the city and residents some expectation about the timing of the complaint process. This proposed process would extend the deadline for the filing of legal complaints about violations of open/public meetings by two weeks in order to allow the Open Government Commission to take action before legal action must occur. It would not change the timeline for closed session related complaints.

Proposed addition for filing a complaint:

As mentioned above, I have spoken with the Acting City Attorney who was responsible for these staff recommendations, and she has agreed that these recommendations would meet her concerns and be acceptable.

During the public workshop, the Sunshine Task Force heard loudly that the biggest barrier to participating in City Council meetings (and other meetings) is the length and lateness of these meetings. The council has rules that are meant to try and keep meetings from running too long. As such, the task force proposed that no new action items be taken up after 11pm (staff has changed the deadline to 10:30 at the recommendation of Mayor Gilmore). Anyone who has watched a meeting that went late knows that we’re not getting the best and brightest thinking at 12:30 in the morning. And most people can’t stay that late to hear something that they care passionately about.

Under the proposal, the council can still here informational updates, so meeting management will become a little more necessary. (The council has already moved City Manager communications to the end, so it’s a step in the right direction).

Alameda staff are recommending that the council add some wiggle room to the proposal. That the council can vote to ignore this rule. While the suggestion is based on well-meaning ideas (as in what if 10 people show up to a meeting and they want the issue heard rather than having to return to another meeting), the suggestion undoes the point of the recommendation.

Sunshine requires consistency so that folks aren’t trying to guess what will happen. If people are afraid that the council will just vote to hear items after 10:30, then we are back to where we started. If such a provision needs to be included, then there should be a high bar for voting to ignore this rule (unanimous council perhaps). Flexibility is important, and public participation can make processes less efficient, but in the end maintaining reasonable expectations about processes is what gives the process its power. The council should tread lightly in working to immediately undermine this rule. Better to leave it as written and work to fix it if there are problems.

The original video can be found at YouthSports4Alameda, which had to be set up because none of the sports organizations in town have actually stepped up to support this proposal. Alameda has a need for more sports fields, but I’m not sure anyone ever said “Hey, lets put them in the business park” before this swap idea came up.

Political campaign tactics like this are only going to enflame the community (witness the recent reaction to HBIA’s campaign letters. The council should have heard this issue next week as was planned and let it die the quick death it was headed for. Did we really need two more months of this?

Through the entire night, Grijalva made the extremely convincing point that at the time, public safety people felt they were dealing with a suicidal man who was standing in the water with plenty of time before exposure would lead him to harm, and had a rational expectation that the proper equipment to help with the situation was just minutes away.

His report did not excuse the tragic result of Zack’s death, in fact it highlighted a number of failures that contributed to Zack not being saved. Watching his entire presentation, while certainly not exhilarating, would be well worth the time of anyone curious about what actually occurred on Memorial Day at Crown Beach.

Most moving that night was Zack’s foster-mom, Denise Berry, who is clearly (and understandably) still upset by the incident, saying that all she wants is for the city to fix the problems that led to this misfortune, and that she felt that the report did a good job of identifying the issues, and that the City is making strides towards fixing them.

The above photos are photos of the Mif Albright Golf course taken 10 years apart from the same vantage point at the top of the Fire Training Tower along Island Drive. The most recent of them is 9-years old, and when the next one is taken, you’ll see that the tiny shrubs along the roadway are now gigantic trees. I’ll write more about the trees another time, it’s fascinating.

Next week, the council is scheduled to discuss a Memorandum of Agreement with Harbor Bay Isle Associates, unfortunately, there are real questions about the appraisal of the Mif property that have come up, and the council needs to ask for a new appraisal before they have the discussion.

The Mif appraisal is based on incorrect assumptions about the property and its comparables.

The appraisal chooses three properties to analyze in both the Mif and North Loop property appraisals; here is what it highlights about each:

Grand Marina

“[I]n the case of [Grand Marina], the buyer was responsible for obtaining zoning and approvals.” It further identifies that the “[b]uyer was responsible for changing zoning and obtaining entitlements during the escrow. The final approvals include 6 on-site [below market rate units].”

Boatworks

“[Boatworks reported sales price] is substantially higher than [Grand Marina] and [Neptune Pointe] because it included zoning, approvals, and possibly other contingencies.”

Neptune Pointe

The May 23 report states: “The purchase price will be established in an on-line auction opening June 1, 2011.” Meaning the “sale price” that the appraisal uses isn’t a sale price at all, in fact it isn’t meaningful by any measure, as no one has had a chance to bid on the project. The appraisal also lists significant environmental issues, the fact that they land is zoned “Governmental administrative,” contains buildings that must be demolished (and include asbestos) and is only accepting all-cash bids.

Mif Property

The appraisal states that “the general plan could be amended and the property could be rezoned to build 112 residential units.” This number has now increased 16% to 130 residential units. Further, the appraisal assumes that “15% of the units [will] be affordable housing.” Which does not align with the HBIA settlement that the council previously approved. The two corrections, in and of themselves, should increase the appraisal $1-2 million, money that the City should be collecting it’s fair share of.

Tuesday’s staff report clearly indicates that the Mif Property is more closely aligned to the Boatworks project than Grand Marina project stating:

If the City Council approves the package of documents described above, including the PEA, DA Amendment, and a 130-unit Tentative Map, then HBIA would provide the City with $7. 2 million in addition to the 12. 2 acres of land on North Loop Road valued at approximately $8 million in the City s appraisal in exchange for the rezoned Mif property and the development rights afforded to HBIA under the amended development agreement.”

So in order for the swap to go through, the Mif will include zoning, approvals and other contingencies just like the Boatworks project. And on top of that the Mif would be exempt from affordable housing requirements.

Oddly, the appraisal chooses to price the Mif similar to Grand Marina. And while it is true that the appraisal for the Mif is 17.5% higher than Grand Marina, this does not appear to be enough given the 16% increase in residential units in the plan and the fact that the appraisal assumes the Mif will have a 15% affordability requirement, from which it is specifically exempt.

The appraisal also clearly states that Boatworks was likely worth significantly more than Grand Marina due to it’s having been rezoned and entitled. Yet it appears to assume that the Mif will be non-entitled and that the zoning will be likely, but not completed (“could be rezoned” and “could be amended”).  But this deal doesn’t exist without the rezoning and entitlements. Furthermore, Boatworks IS providing affordable housing and IS providing public open-space, expensive things that the Mif is not providing (one might argue they are providing the opposite).

It’s true that the actual sale price of the Boatworks project is unknown. Yet, like the Neptune Pointe site, the appraisal uses the property as one of its three comparables. This means that in reality the appraisal is based on a single comparable. One that has significant differences than the Mif. The City should get a second appraisal that is based on multiple comps.

The current appraisal raises significant issues related to the Boatworks project, issues that may be completely inaccurate (like the sales price). Yet it legitimizes the sale price of that project, while distancing itself stating that it is unconfirmed. The City Council should not be making decisions in this environment. Providing two new independent appraisals would make sure that the Council, along with staff and the community, are fully cognizant of negotiating boundaries that they are working in.

If the appraisal comes back higher, it should not too difficult for our impressive new and existing negotiating staff to include a profit sharing provision for future proceeds of the entitled project that are above $17.8 million ($10 million cash to the community and $7.8 that HBIA could get for their existing property, per the North Loop appraisal). Either way, the city wins.

There are state laws that require the public disclosure of agendas within 72-hours notice, but Alameda has now moved to 10-day notice, something that will be enshrined in the sunshine ordinance that will be coming to the council at the end of September.

This means that residents will now have time to discover what is being discussed at the council, ask questions about it, do research, talk to their neighbors and then contact their council members where in the past. In the future, these noticing timelines will be in effect for “special meetings” as well, which are meetings held outside of the regularly scheduled timeline. State law requires only 24-hour notice of them.

Unfortunately, the Sunshine Task Force was not responsible for this, they acted 4-1 to make notification only four days, the “1” (that was me) wanted a week, the change is more dramatic that discussed at the Task Force, and has everything to do with City Manager John Russo who is putting it in place without any requirement to do so, and who is making the recommendation to the Council that all meetings be noticed this way.

The Agendas can be found here:

9/7/11 ARRA Agenda
9/7/11 City Council Agenda

]]> http://www.johnknoxwhite.com/2011/08/26/sunshine-shining-alameda/feed/ 0 http://www.johnknoxwhite.com/2011/08/23/alamedas-city-attorney-hiring-process/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=alamedas-city-attorney-hiring-process http://www.johnknoxwhite.com/2011/08/23/alamedas-city-attorney-hiring-process/#comments Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:02:39 +0000 jknoxwhite http://www.johnknoxwhite.com/?p=1307 Updated: The City has released the agenda for the 8/30 special council meeting.

Last Friday, the City of Alameda sent out a press release that finally outlined the process for hiring a new, permanent City Attorney, a process that should be complete by “early fall.”

After receiving 42 resumes, the City interviewed seven candidates on July 30. It’s my understanding that eight candidates were invited to the interviews, but that one dropped out before the interviews took place. At the meeting, the City Council created a short list of 3 candidates who will be re-interviewed on August 30^th.

The press release states that “City Manager John Russo will also be present to observe the process.” Which would lead one to believe that he’s not actively participating in the discussions. Left unsaid is what the process will be after the 30^th, but based on the City Manager hiring, the council will likely select a preferred candidate, do their due diligence and background checks, then negotiate a contract with the person.

We’ll learn the name of the lucky candidate in “Early fall” which likely means October.