I’m writing with concerns about the Prioritized Transportation Project list being presented at the City Council meeting on Tuesday night

The list’s methodology is opaque, and the listed projects themselves are unknown and have not been discussed by the community or boards/commissions, so if the council adopts this list it will not be addressing the issues of non-transparency in transportation planning that we have seen in the last few years.

While I made many of the “planning board review” comments in the staff report, the staff does not entirely reflect those comments. In fact, the way in which they have been addressed misses the main point of many of them. The latest proposed draft adds to our understanding of the underlying issues with the process. However, there are changes that would help us get to the heart of the problems with the following issues:

The proposed draft contains errors

The presentation unveils a newly devised methodology but contains numerous errors, including calculation errors in the very first project (overstating the rating by nearly 20%) I only looked at the top row, I can’t speak to whether it is an anomaly or not? Another example, the chart uses scores that are inconsistent with the detailed criteria (Required Mitigation is given 1 pt per project, though the criteria states it should be 2pts).

The methodology ignores key planning documents that were created with significant public, board/commission and council discussion.

While giving points for Transit, Economic developments and EIR requirements, the proposed draft fails to make use of the Long Range Transit Plan, The Economic Development Strategic Plan or actual EIR requirements to determine the scoring of projects. The result is projects that have never been discussed receiving points based on unknown factors and staff’s assumptions.

Projects on the list have not been discussed as to their appropriateness on the priority list

It should be noted that the Planning Board never discussed the projects listed, focusing instead on the commenting on the ranking methodology. If the council intends to have a recommendation on projects from the Transportation Commission and Planning Board, they are not receiving that. The Planning Board gave input on the methodology, mostly concerns with it, but the report never returned with a revised proposal for consideration. Neither body recommended that the council accept or adopt this priority list, which would seem to be a significant procedural problem, as both are advisory boards to the council. This is the very type of exercise that they should be making recommendations on.

Projects that cannot proceed are prioritized above projects that are ready to move

The proposed list mixes projects that cannot move forward (e.g. Estuary Crossing Shuttle Project study report, which cannot begin until the Coast Guard agrees to support a bridge, per council direction), projects that have had zero public planning or participation (e.g. Miller-Sweeney Bridge improvements), with projects that have finished their public processes and are ready to move forward (e.g. Cross Alameda Trail). This gives the impression that some projects are priorities even though they can’t proceed to the next planning stage, it also blurs the line between projects that have had public participation and those that have not. This is a significant transparency issue.

Next steps

Based on these concerns, I am attaching a proposed methodology that was created by an ad hoc group of people interested in these issue, and I would like to ask that the council to direct staff to take it back to the TC and PB for revision and a final recommendation after the Council provides input on the priority list and direction on how they would like it shaped.

As this is the first time that this is done, it will take some time and discussion to complete, however, once it’s set up correctly, the annual presentation of this list should be simple, easily understood and run smoothly. It is important that we get this right before moving forward. There are significant funding decisions being made once a final draft is complete.

Staff’s work on this was not for naught, it has helped to clarify some of the issues with the proposal in the way that iterative discussion often provides. I have attached a proposed methodology that I think captures the goals of this project, to transparently and methodically prepare a list of the City’s transportation project priorities, in a straightforward, common sense, and mindful way.

Finally, I’d like to give my thanks to John Russo for giving the direction to create this list in the first place. It’s a big step forward and further evidence of his commitment to transparency and open government.

Respectfully,

John Knox White

Recommended process for prioritizing transportation projects in Alameda

I. Prepare two lists

The priority process should have two lists or sections

1. Implementation Projects list: These are projects that have gone through a public planning process and been recommended by a board, commission or the Council (including a complete PSR when appropriate), and
2. Consideration Projects: those that are in the process of discussion in public, etc. have issues that must be addressed, or have been identified by not started a planning process

Currently, all projects on the list are considered “ready to go” yet a number of them have had no public presentation or discussion. These should not be prioritized above projects that have completed these processes and are ready to roll. Keeping two lists will not effect funding, as it will help delineated the type of funding that will be sought (planning vs. constructing) and will give the community a simple understanding of the priorities of the city.

II. Tie Scoring to plans and planning processes

The City of Alameda has spent a lot of time and money on developing plans to guide our future development, project scoring and prioritization should be driven by these processes. (or the city could stop creating plans).

The current draft gives priority to regional bodies in determining our needs, when this list should be helping us work with the region to identify the projects we want. Multiple scoring categories end up giving points for appearance in regional plans, working with regional staff, and addressing regional concerns. These lists should identify our needs, funding discussions, inclusion in regional plans, etc. should be driven by our needs.

Scoring should encompass the following:

Bike, Ped and CBTP plans (4 pts each)

These are all done well and make sense, they are transparent, based on community developed plans, and serve as a model for the rest of the scoring.

General Plan (4 pts)(currently called Transportation Elements):

One point should be given for each of the four General Plan Transportation Goals that the project supports:

1. Circulation Goal
2. Livability Goal
3. Multimodal Goal
4. Implementation Goal

The current proposal relies on small, individual policies which mistakenly equate to policies like:

“Maintain the historic street grid and maximize connectivity of new developments to the grid, as well as within any new developments.” (a policy that guides the design of every project, but doesn’t help identify priorities)

With:

“Promote methods to increase vehicle occupancy levels.” (a policy that gives guidance to the types of projects we should prioritize)

In this category, the city’s interest is that the Goals of the General Plan are being met, relating the scoring to whether they meet the goals. In giving points to this category, staff can identify the listed Objectives that the project meets (the Transportation Element has three policy levels, goals, which are broken down to objectives, which then have policies to support them).

Transit Benefits:

Use the Transit Plan like the Bike Plan, Ped Plan and CBT Plan. The prioritization list should reflect adopted plans, not individual staff or community member feelings about the importance of a project.

Quick aside: If plans are out of date, they should be updated, we shouldn’t base our planning on whether we’ve appropriately updated our plans or not and changing the scores because of it.

The current proposal is based on insider knowledge of plans that have never been discussed in public and ignores the planning that our Public Transit Committee and community have gone through.

Regional Significance (Delete):

Get rid of this category altogether, the list is supposed to be a list of priorities for the City. Our list should be driving the regional significance of our projects, not the other way around. The Countywide Transportation Plan (CWTP) should adopt our priorities, not the other way around, especially since City Staff are the ones making recommendations to the CWTP.

I don’t propose that we have no regional responsibilities, we certainly do, but those responsibilities should be captured in our planning documents (and they are!)

You will likely hear that this is related to funding. But that’s an application issue for funding, not a priority-needs issue. By developing a priority list, we can go to funders and say “this is one of the city’s priorities, and it’s a regionally significant project….money please.” This category will not help or hurt that. It just inappropriately skews the results.

Ingress/Egress (1 pt):

We all recognize that our tubes and bridges are important, this category gives them a boost. Though it should be noted that they projects for these ingress/egress locations will also be prioritized through inclusion in various plans that are also being scored, the regional significance of the projects will have been identified in these processes.

Economic Development (4 pts):

The current proposal prioritizes projects that support new development over our existing business districts and economic interests. This is counter to many of Alameda’s economic development goals.

Additionally, the City has an Economic Development Strategic Plan, this scoring should be tied to whether the project supports it or not (irrespective of whether or not it is a new development or Park/Webster Street for instance).

I don’t understand how we quantify the difference between “Improve” and “significantly improve” as proposed by staff. I would suggest that planning is less exacting that we acknowledge that some project “may” improve economic development and others will “likely” improve them. (staff should justify this, see below)

2 points: Supports goals in the Economic Development Strategic Plan

4 points: Supports specific initiatives listed in Strategy 5 of the EDSP: “Provide for Internal and External Multimodal Circulation”

Required mitigation (1 pt):   

Staff’s initial inclination was correct, keep as 1 pt. The only proposed change is that staff should cite the environmental document that requires a specific project. If a project is not called out in an EIR as a mitigation, it should not score as one.

III. Develop Project Summaries

When a project is added to the list, there should to be a summary sheet for each of them. The sheet should include basic, easy to understand information that provides a clear explanation of the project, it’s goals and includes citations for how the scoring was determined. All of this work is being done (or should be) in creating the list so let’s have an online archive with those summary sheets. A simple database could be used to generate both the sheets and the priority list. The sheet should include:

1. Project Goal
2. Project description (250 words or less)
3. Project status in planning process (list 1 or 2)
4. Project Cost
5. Project Operations and Maintenance over multiple life-cycles
6. Citations for each criteria category:
   1. Bike Plan
   2. Ped Plan
   3. CBT Plan
   4. General Plan
   5. Transit Plan
   6. Ingress/Egress
   7. Economic Development
   8. Mitigation

IV. Approve the priority list

Once the methodology is accepted by the Transportation Commission and Planning Board then all of the projects on the Implementation List should all have public presentations, unless there has been one in the last 24 months. The council can determine whether they want the methodology to return for adoption. I would propose an off-agenda report once the Planning Board approves it, and it can be called for review if there are concerns from council members, and of course staff can always agendize it if they are concerned.

In addition, the top projects on the Consideration list should have an overview of what the project is, and what the process for developing the project will be. (could be as simple as identifying the goal of the project, the assumed design and next steps and planned meetings)

During this discussion, the City should have a discussion about how these projects get on the list to begin with. The recent Gibbons Drive debacle is an example of how responding on a case-by-case basis to neighborhood complaints can prioritize low-necessity projects in neighborhoods that are engaged within the political process while possibly higher-need projects (like traffic calming at Pacific/Lincoln in front of the Academy of Alameda where kids have actually been hit by cars, and the City has gone through a planning process) are not pursued for funding. It should be noted that neither of these projects is on the priority list now.

This is an issue the TC raised when it adopted the traffic calming program nearly 10-years ago. It has never been addressed. Right now, the squeaky wheel gets the funds, no matter what the need is.

In future years, the process will ensure that the projects on the list have been vetted and there will be no need to play catch up with years worth of planning projects. This is not an onerous process, it simply asks staff to be aware of the plans that have been created, remain faithful to them (or identify changes in them and make them). Whatever methodology is used will require the same level of work, unless the criteria is a gut-feeling assessment, and identifying how projects are consistent with our plans will strongly support grant-writing as it will pre-identify community support for proposed projects.

• The meeting was a perfect example of how public involvement, even when its contentious, is good. Disparate voices, many who often disagree, came, ranted and then magically made the process for moving forward 10,000 times better. Instead of choosing from a list of 6 uninspiring trees picked by Public Works because they won’t possibly damage sidewalks in a decade or two, there will be a survey of characteristics that the public would like in their streetscape. Then professional landscape designers from the community will engage with Public Works to help select the trees that meet that criteria. A perfect example of planning and design trumping engineering-first principles.
• It was clear that the Public Works department is still unclear on what they did wrong. After stating that the Phase I project was a huge success, they then started presenting how they have changed every single aspect of the 2^nd phase, ignoring consultant advice and relying on the personal anecdotal evidence received by the PW Director. At one point, PW’s 2^nd in command responded that public input on parking kiosks was done in the form of calling city staff from other cities to see how kiosks have worked for them.
• Old plans and policies, not one of which stated that 21 trees would be cut down all at once, were trotted out to support the fact that this was all well planned and understood. Again and again, Public Works took the position that they did everything right, but that we’ll change the policies/rules for the future so that everything will be done differently.
• Apparently the Master Tree Plan exempts streetscape projects from noticing. PW wrote the plan. Not once did they explain what part of the community asked to have that exemption written into it. I’ll but $5 on the fact that that issue was never  discussed and that nobody ever really noticed it. Others, more involved in the development of the plan can correct me if I’m wrong.
• After saying that pedestrian bulb-outs were removed from the plan based on the feedback of PSBA, “a few phone complaints” and “concerns of the risk management office {apparently Alameda is a special place where bulbouts are a risk liability to the City, unlike the rest of the universe…I mean seriously}, it turns out that the bulb-outs were value-engineered out of the plan to save money. However, the ones in phase 1 are where the healthy trees are, etc. Irony?
• Some members of the public were looking to recall the council over this, convinced that just a council people approved the plan. This was put to rest hopefully.
• After making some compelling statements about public process, School Board member Trish Spencer stood up, pointed at PSBA Executive Director and started yelling “you don’t even live here” in what was the ugliest moment of the entire meeting. This followed the Public Works Director saying that City Staff rushed the Tree removal and streetscape work based on Ratto’s comments at the City Council. Ratto found himself in the unfortunate position of having to say “I’m an employee who expresses the opinions of my Board when they ask me too.” It was a really ugly and divisive way to end the meeting.
• The other jaw dropper was during a combative question from the audience about how PW could possibly have thought that the policies they were following (and had written) could make sense, the Public Works Director told an audience member “Then you should have gotten involved in developing the Master Tree Plan a few years ago.” {To this day, Public Works doesn’t seem to understand that the Master Tree Plan policy allows for the non-notification of trees in a streetscape, but doesn’t require it. Therefore, they still made a decision not to notice the trees.}
• It’s clear that significant changes to the way that the city plans public works projects have to be undertaken. I think after last night, the City Manager’s office, who were in attendance, should have a very good idea of what the problems are with the “planning” that is coming out of the PW dept.
• Lastly, Deputy City Manager Alex Nguyen “guaranteed” that staff would be bringing the council a Public Participation Policy for the city in the next couple of months. (that’s #2 on the petition, #1 is plant bigger trees, which we’ll get as well, though they may come in the form of smaller trees that grow 2-3 feet a year, two done, one to go).

Here’s the twitter feed, all the un-identified ones are mine, many of them are quotes from people in the meeting, though I rarely used “‘s, still getting used to twitter:

Staff presentation interupted twice by angry people. #alamtg

#alamtg parking meter uproar. Folks hate the kiosks.

#alamtg pw did outreach on parking meters. Asked cities what is the best way to implement there predetermined decision

#alamtg had to remove trees for streetlights.

#alamtg had to remove parking meters for trees

#alamtg eek. Support for kiosks! I’m personally fan

#alamtg parking kiosks are a pilot.

#alamtg calls get out “get back to the trees”

#alamtg didn’t it occur to you in the last five years to talk to the public

#alamtg comment “you have to notice trees in residential areas. It didn’t occur to you to notice?”

#alamtg tree master plan says trees should be kept under most circumstances

#alamtg streetscape plan says shade is undeairable….(laughter)

#alamtg 2002 plan says “over time” trees will be removed.

#alamtg exception for streetscape to clear cut

#alamtg PW director is getting testy with people’s questioning of PW de isions

#alamtg Only plans that show streetscape drawings are in 2000 vision plan

#alamtg apparently no drawings done for streetscape work during committee work

#alamtg PW says tree plan requires no notice for streetscape. And community approved

#alamtg school board member Spencer shouts “I wonder what they are thinking now!

#alamtg oh joy. Dot activity to decide tree types for the project.

#alamtg Speaker demands promise that what was done in this phase will not happen in the future.

#alamtg people want to know who to recall

#alamtg PW director just told an audience member that they “should have been involved in the tree plan” if they really cared

#alamtg businesses received notice that “site prep” would begin. No mention of trees.

#alamtg shop owner. We don’t speak for PSBA and sometimes PSBA doesn’t speak for us.

@HRiderReed: Just said my piece… Here’s to moving forward. Lots of bogus goin on here #alamtg

#alamtg detailed list of trees being discussed. Caonpy. Damage to sidewalks. Size. Yawn

#alamtg we get to vote on six trees

@HRiderReed They’re letting everyone share their opinion via voting for species of tree #alamtg

#alamtg brisbane box. Mature at 50ft with 30 ft crown

#alamtg crape myrtle. 25 ft with 15 ft crown

#alamtg silver linden. 50 ft with 40 ft crown

@MonkeyBarsCA Hooray!! They’re using my online voting idea! Nice work #Alameda – way to go! #alamtg

@HRiderReed Hooray!! They’re using my online voting idea! Nice work #Alameda – way to go! #alamtg

#alamtg “starbucks tree might regrow. Will PW allow it to grow. Ans. No

#alamtg New trees will be 10-12ft

#alamtg chinese pistache 65 ft crown: 50

#alamtg frontier elm. 40 ft crown:30 ft

#alamtg hedge maple 35 ft crown: 35

#alamtg petition with 400+ sigs delivered

#alamtg process issues back on the forefront

#alamtg SB Spencer, when people are upset. A project should stop until its worked out.

#alamtg “Time to move forward in the process, so lets slow done and plan”

#alamtg landscape architect says tree options inappropriate for Alameda.

#alamtg Ezzy Ashcraft says: know the landscape designer, highly respect her

#alamtg a.nguyen says. Funding limits options. Master tree plan is the limit of what can be done.

#alamtg B. Mooney: stop saying “we can’t do that” and start working to do things different

#alamtg Tree officianado A. Dimushiva says tree plan gives more choice than PW is offering. All we need is in there.

#alamtg drop dead deadline for funding is: Oct. 2012. Then most of it disappeared.

#alamtg Economic Development did the design work. Then AMG killed it and PW took it over.

#alamtg Spangler jumping on bulbouts. When were changes made.

#alamtg PSBA asked for bulbouts to be removed and PW got a few calls.

#alamtg PW removed bulboutz to lower costs in third RFP attempt to save costs.

#alamtg Apparently people can take avoid parked cars at corners. But bulbouts the same size as that car are a problem.

#alamtg trees in previous bulbouts are the ones that are doing well

#alamtg Ratto there were no bulbouts in the plan originally.

#alamtg apparently thousands were saved by removing no existent bulbouts?

#alamtg Ratto. Streetscape plan was approved by council. Does he mean vision plan?

#alamtg SB Spencer. Lets do everything but trees so that we can decide on types of trees.

#alamtg back to kiosks

#alamtg now planning for moving forward.

#alamtg staff to meet with tree experts.

#alamtg consensus forming around the idea of asking public what characteristics the want and then let community experts choose the trees

#alamtg like the occupyoakland general assembly. Without the cool hand signals

#alamtg trees unite many people

#alamtg business owner reading a statement about impact on local biz during fourth quarter holidays. “thanks a lot city”

#alamtg PW Director says PSBA Exec asked the council to start as fast as possible.

#alamtg clarifies that PSBA Director comments were at Council

#alamtg PSBA ED clarifies that his comments at the behest of his board.

#alamtg Ugly “you don’t live here comments” starting.

#alamtg people leaving

#alamtg next steps. Back to identifying criteria

#alamtg shade. Growth rate. Canopy width. Damage to hardscape

#alamtg common sense recommendation. Just ask for positive attributes. Let experts figure out how to make it work

 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.

I’ll write more about this tomorrow, but have set up a little on-line petition to call on the council to make meaningful changes to make sure this never happens again. Let’s get something positive moving on this before its too late and forgotten.

Find the petition here:

Turns out that you can make stuff up. The City is claiming that these notices are not theirs. Might be a fantastic protest, kudos. To add phenomenal insult to injury, Public Works noticed the stumps for removal! You can’t make this stuff up. Sign the petition.

Protest? hilarious

Public Hearing / Scoping Session of the Environmental Impact Report for the proposal to reconfigure the Chuck Corica Golf Course, build up to 130 housing units on the lands currently occupied by the Mif Albright 9-hole course and build playing fields on 12 acres of land on North Loop Road in the Harbor Bay Business Park.

The Planning Board will not be allowed to even discuss issues unrelated to the scoping of the EIR, this would include taking a position on the project. So heading off to the meeting to try and convince the Board that it’s a bad project and they should tell the council is a poor use of your time. The only outcome of that action is a longer meeting, one is asking for something that can’t legally happen.

It might help manage expectations if people realize that it is very unlikely that the EIR, if it is ever conducted, will have findings that will stop this project. EIR’s are information documents, designed to make sure that decision-making bodies, and the public, are aware of the impacts of projects before they get built. They may find impacts, but only need to mitigate them, or make a finding of “overriding considerations” to move forward. However in the case of this EIR, it’s likely that “traffic” will be the big concern, and the EIR isn’t going to find a huge one. Consider the current traffic situation (actually 2007, pre-economic meltdown):

There are 5326 housing units on Bay Farm Island according to the Census and these generate 1726 trips down Island Drive during the peak hour commute (per the Harbor Bay Village VI EIR). That’s .324 trips per household in the morning peak rush hour. The peak hour is when the crush happens for 20 minutes at Island and Robert Davey Jr. So you can extrapolate that information and find that 130 homes will likely generate about 42 car trips during the peak hour through Island and Doolittle. An increase of 2.4%. Given that these are slightly smaller homes (meaning likely fewer children), the number is likely a little high. Wither way, it’s not insignificant, but it’s not going to blow out the intersection enough to stop a project.

So tonight, consider the State’s guidelines on scoping and why it’s a good idea:

Scoping has been helpful to agencies in identifying the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in an EIR and in eliminating from detailed study issues found not to be important.

EIRs have to look at alternatives, so if there is one that is not “don’t do it” (which will already be studied), bring it up and ask to have it looked at. If there are plans and programs within the City that this will negatively impact, ask to have an analysis of the impact included in the EIR. The State’s guidelines include a checklist for possible issues on page 239, they are:

• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and ForestryResources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology /Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards & Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology / Water Quality
• Land Use / Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population / Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation/Traffic
• Utilities / Service Systems
• Mandatory Findings of Significance

The Checklist then has a list of questions for each category that can be answered on the pages that follow.

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?