See what happens when you keep posting story after story about the same 911 tapes and the supposed cover-up because you aren’t getting your tapes instead of taking up the Police Chief on his offer to meet with you means you end up looking sort of silly when you have to write about what actually happened, because it’s so less nefarious than you initially made it out to sound.

I will admit though, David Howard did a fair job of retelling the information that he received from the Police Chief even though in the end it made his anonymous source (or “sources”) look like a complete nutjob (or nutjobs).

So what did we learn from this? That’s right: take the Police Chief up on his offer to go over the facts of the investigation before writing endlessly about cover-ups. Particularly if the incident was duly noted in local police blotters as well.

Also, speaks very highly about the Police response time in Alameda.  40 second response time?   Not bad at all.

After more than a decade in which San Francisco politics was partly defined by antidevelopment and historic preservation forces, a backlash has begun. Many are surprised, however, that Beckstead’s neighborhood of 90 Victorian homes, whose owners share a passion for preserving old houses, has become the rebel stronghold against the city’s ambitious plans to preserve large swathes of San Francisco in a patchwork of historic preservation zones.

…

But even compatible plans can be frustrated by burdensome regulations, some property owners said.

“I consider myself a preservationist, and I encourage preservation,” said Robin Levitt, an architect who lives in an 1890s false-front Victorian house in the Hayes Valley neighborhood. Levitt said he abandoned plans to replace rotted staircases on the front of his house because historic preservation requirements were too expensive and time-consuming.

“When regulations make it prohibitive economically to make improvements on your property,” Levitt said, “it’s over the top for me.”

This goes back to the whole issue of the Habanas request to remodel its front, when the perception becomes that these historic regulations and rules make it harder for people to make improvements or make it economically unfeasible for a business to stay in business, it becomes much harder for the average person to be in support of wholesale preservation for preservation’s sake alone.

One of the issues that came up in the comments section was about the historic significance because the Habanas building is on the National Register of Historic Places, actually a significant swath of Park Street is on that National Register as well.   I tried to look up what the specifics of the Business District was, but apparently that record has not been digitized yet.     But as another commenter uncovered, being listed on the National Register of Historic Places doesn’t obligate a private homeowner or property owner to do anything:

From the Federal perspective (the National Register of Historic Places is part of the National Park Service), a property owner can do whatever they want with their property as long as there are no Federal monies attached to the property…

And:

National Register listing places no obligations on private property owners. There are no restrictions on the use, treatment, transfer, or disposition of private property.

While it’s true that the whole of the Park Street Business District has been designated a “Historic Monument” in the City of Alameda and therefore requires a Certificate of Approval from the Historic Advisory Board before any construction is allowed, it’s the lack of consistency that I think is super troublesome for me.   For example, while I was listening to the HAB meeting again, I ran across the public comment that really annoyed me the first time I listened to it.   This was the statement from the Alameda who scoffed at the stacking door system proposed by Habanas and said that while Habanas said they were trying to evoke a European feel he said he never saw anything like that in photos of Paris or Germany.   Personally, I found several photos — mostly from Paris — but a few in Belgium of stacking door systems, but whatever.   He also mentioned that he had never seen anything like that in Alameda either.  But we all know that one exists, right, and not too far away from Habanas:

Here’s another photo to see the doors closed:

So all this talk about historic stuff made me wonder what Pappos looked like before its current iteration, Alamedainfo.com had this photo of when it was the Skylight Cafe:

As you can see it is vastly different. While the structure is the same, the original door: gone. Original windows: gone. Addition of the outdoor seating area has largely changed the appearance of the entrance as a whole. I can’t tell if the window next to the door way was added or if there was always a window there, but I don’t remember Pappos having difficulty changing up the look and modernizing the front of their historic building.    After all, according to the letter that AAPS sent to the HAB:

AAPS considers elements of the corner entry; polychrome tile, wood paneled ceiling, early 20th century bronze-plated steel storefront window system, presumed marble bulkheads, and the wood entry door to be historic materials contributing to the historic character of the property and should be retained. If the paint were removed from the bulkheads and storefront sash, the corner bay would be one of the best preserved historic storefronts in the district.

It’s unclear as to why the Skylight Cafe’s wood entry door and storefront windows were okay to remove from Pappos but not okay when it comes to Habanas.   I don’t think that anyone will argue that the new Pappos is not 100% better than the old Skylight Cafe and certainly the more modern touches made did not compromise the historic integrity of the building.    I think when it comes to preservation in Alameda the larger question should be asked, what is significant about a particular building or structure as opposed to attempting to find something within the structure to save for the sake of preservation alone.

Action Alameda commenters (and Action Alameda’s “publisher”) repeatedly called the — I’m guessing here — lack of coverage in the newspaper as a “coverup.”

Personally, the Alameda Police Department under Mike Noonan has been more forthcoming and transparent than the Police Department has been previously.   They have a presence on Facebook, on Twitter, and now Nixle.   Add to that the Daily Police Logs that are uploaded to the City’s website, if you want to know about anything happening, crime wise, in Alameda, it’s fairly easy to get that sort of information.

It’s interesting that Action Alameda and its commenters would characterize a lack of headline coverage in the newspaper as a “cover-up.”   Because certainly the incident did get covered in the Alameda Sun’s police blotter.   One would think that if Alameda Police were truly “covering up” the incident that it wouldn’t even make it’s way to a public blotter that can be pretty much reproduced anywhere.   And while Action Alameda and it’s commenters feel as though there isn’t enough reporting about all those dastardly crimes in Alameda, they only need to follow the Police Department on Twitter or on Facebook to get all the updates of breaking events like this one:

Strong arm robbery just occurred Webster/Haight #alameda. Suspect 2 black males w/dreads. Last seen wearing blk hoodie w/blu backpack—
  (@AlamedaPD) January 18, 2012

That makes it seem like there are more crimes in Alameda, not less.   It must be difficult and exhausting to see bad things and assume the worst about everything and everyone all the time.   You know because all those tools above, plus participation in crime mapping applications, is attempting to hide the fact that Alameda, like all cities, has crime.

But of course, in Action Alameda fashion, the subject is still getting top billing after several more attempts to get the same 911 records instead of just taking the Police Chief up on his offer to meet to discuss the case, Action Alameda has decided that alleging a “cover up” would be much more compelling because apparently the withholding of the 911 records is proof positive that something nefarious is afoot.    Here’s what the First Amendment Coalition says about 911 records:

…We are not aware of a case that specifically says that tapes of 911 calls or similar calls to law enforcement must be released, but there are two cases that touch on the subject

…

The Supreme Court held that the exemption in Government Code section 6254(f) for “records of investigations,” like the exemption in the same section for “records of complaints” to law enforcement, allows law enforcement to withhold the records completely. Law enforcement may have to release certain specific information in the records, but not the records themselves. Id.; see also Williams v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 337 (1993). Unfortunately, this precedent means that an agency could prevail with arguments that the recording/transcript you seek is exempt as an investigatory record.

More likely than not, the investigation is on-going and so the 911 records are being withheld because of that, but it’s so much more dramatic to make the issue seem bigger than it actually is.

However, in the best case scenario, if Transitional Kindergarten is offered, it appears that AUSD intends to place them at scattered sites — it appears that two classes will probably be the magic number —  and not at all neighborhood schools.   In order to maximize funding, it would probably make sense to site as many in Title I schools to be able to collect that money from the Federal government in addition to state money, off the top of my head I would say Paden, Haight, and Washington appear to be good candidates because of capacity.

Just as an aside, a new change in the Kindergartern Round-up process, rather than drop off all paperwork to the neighborhood school, parents will now drop off the packets to the district office.   I’m not really sure how I feel about that, given that not all of the packet can be turned in at the same time.   In my experience last year, as organized as I was, I had to make drop offs a few times because of the medical and dental paperwork.  I remember that the medical and dental paperwork couldn’t be filled out too early or it wouldn’t be accepted.   So schlepping down to the district office will definitely not be as convenient as popping in to your neighborhood school.

But back to Transitional Kindergarten, Gilroy Patch has a good summary of what happened with the state budget which has left Transitional Kindergarten in limbo:

…Gov. Brown’s budget proposal puts transitional kindergarten on the chopping block, leaving the placement of these children in limbo.

“Parents and school districts are being held hostage,” says Debra Weller, a kindergarten teacher in attendance at the Jan. 13 press conference held by [State] Senator [Joe]  Simitian. “Parents now have to figure out if they want to put down those nonrefundable deposits at preschools or wait it out.”

As for the school districts throughout the state that have already begun the process of planning and coordinating the new program at their campuses, they too are at a crossroads.

“Districts have spent time and money, money that’s hard to come by, to make this a success for children,” she says. “It’s so disheartening that something so good for teachers and students … and now to have the rug pulled out from them.”

According to the released proposed state budget, “a decrease of $223.7 million Proposition 98 General Fund to reflect the elimination of the requirement that schools provide transitional kindergarten beginning 2012-13. These savings will be used to support existing education programs.”

…

The immediate savings of removing 25 percent of the students from traditional kindergarten (those that are not 5 years old by Sept. 1) go directly into the creation of the TK program to serve these younger students. By removing the $223.7 million from the state budget but implementing the date change for enrollment, the state will be leaving thousands of students either back at home or in preschool and school districts losing 25 percent of their ADA funds for incoming kindergarteners.

…

The governor’s proposed budget as of Jan. 5 leaves about 125,000 children out of the classroom in 2012,  Simitian says.

“This would be the largest displacement of children from public schools in our nation’s history,” he says.

#1 Daughter is already looking forward to receiving her red envelope, the money promptly goes into her little bank account which has amassed quite a bundle given that we haven’t given her access to ever spend anything out of it.

Apparently, Lawrence Berkeley Lab is supposed to announce today which city it will locate its second campus in, hopefully Alameda can get some good news this Lunar New Year.   Fingers crossed!

So this year may you and your families be healthy and prosperous!

Let me give you an example.   The first was a profile of Bluefin Sushi Thai, a Japanese/Thai restaurant that took over the old Bips Broiler location on the East End.   First off, I’ve heard that opening a restaurant and having a successful one is really really difficult.  So one would imagine that given the difficulty in opening a restaurant, a restaurant in its first few months would have a lot of kinks to work out.   So this restaurant opens on January 3 and right out of the gate it gets a negative review on Patch.   Someone went on opening night and had a less than stellar experience.  Surprise!

Some similar nasty reviews were also left on Yelp, but that’s the problem in general with Yelp, everyone thinks they’re fricken Ruth Reichl, it’s obnoxious.

Then there were the reviews on Yelp for the Red Onion, remember it just opened last week and people want to knock off points because they aren’t executing everything perfectly?  Are you kidding me?    Who are these people?    Someone even went on opening day and then gave the business one star!    Who does that?

For those that don’t Yelp, it’s this crowd source-y rating site, I’ve Yelped in the past, but my general rule of Yelping is that I don’t give anything less than 4 stars for local small businesses, I’ll ding big businesses with less stars, but for the small businesses I generally go with the “if I don’t have anything nice to say” sort of philosophy.  I’m pretty cognizant of the fact that small businesses can be hurt by negative perceptions, it’s just a shame that more people are too caught up in playing at being a professional critic.   Let’s just say I’m sure Gael Greene never just appeared on someone’s opening day and expected to have  impeccable service .

I guess I’m just a little cranky at folks who seems to be full of non-helpful criticism and instead want a business to conform to their standards of appropriateness.   Whether it is restaurants where folks have unrealistic expectations of perfection on their opening day, or restaurants that want to maximize their floor space but have run afoul of key groups in this City, or service shops that had the audacity to attempt to compete with existing businesses.   Of course when it all boils down, if the business is not successful, it’s money out of the pocket of the business owner and not all of the self-appointed experts who know better of how it should be.

Great!

For those of you do not, you may find this little bit of political gossip rather intriguing and it sort of is timely because Alameda’s Planning Board is on its way to being fully fleshed out with the nominations of John Knox White and Kristoffer Koster (there’s umlauts in there somewhere) on Tuesday night.    In Alameda, the nominations to the Planning Board are all made by the Mayor and then approved by the full Council.  The vote by the full Council is mostly ceremonial since I don’t think anyone has ever been blocked by the City Council for appointment or have received anything less than an unanimous vote.  I was just reminded that there was a non unanimous vote for one recent appointment.   Of course no reason was given for the abstention, but this appointment has gone on to be one of the best and most informed Planning Board members so just goes to show what happens when people vote (no abstain) for political reasons.   But I digress.   In San Leandro, each member of its City Council gets to appoint and individual to the Planning Board — they call it the Planning Commission over there — and technically that person serves as the pleasure of the appointing Councilperson.

In theory it sounds ideal, that way when regime changes happen, the new administration isn’t stuck with appointees that they may disagree with and planning and land use issues are often very sticky areas.   In practice, it can be abused.   Now I write this knowing very little about the political relationships in San Leandro, but this struck me as pretty petty.

Apparently San Leandro Councilmember Ursula Reed had appointed this guy Chris Crow as her representative on the Planning Commission in November of 2010.   This year, Chris Crow decided that he wanted to run for a City Council seat.   Oh, did I mention that in San Leandro they have district elections, so one would run for a seat in a particular district as opposed to running in a City wide election as we have in Alameda.   Because he lives in Ursula Reed’s district he has already filed papers indicating that he would like to run.

Rather than wish Chris Crow good luck, Ursula Reed decided to remove Chris Crow from his Planning Commission seat.   In an email that she sent to him, that was then sent to San Leandro Patch by Chris Crow:

“I am not clear as to why you would run against me instead of waiting for me to term out,” Reed wrote. “Not sure that I should keep you as my commissioner though, since you don’t have my back.”

So on Tuesday night the San Leandro City Council went ahead and okayed Chris Crow’s removal from the Planning Commission.  Yeah, kinda shitty and makes me glad that while there is a certain amount of political thought behind Alameda’s Boards and Commissions, you don’t see folks getting the wholesale boot because they dare to run for City Council.

Although don’t feel too sorry for Chris Crow though, his political awareness seems to be pretty lacking given the fact that he told Patch that he was considering moving into a different district to run, from San Leandro Patch:

“I know they may think it’s biting the hand that fed me,” said Crow, who is nevertheless determined to run for council – although he said he might move and run from a different district.

…

Crow said he might move to the fourth district and run for the open seat, or move into the sixth district which could pit him against Prola.

Okaaaayyy…maybe he should have figured that out before he prematurely submitted his paperwork to the Clerk’s office.   If he eventually decides to move into one of the two districts he will have needlessly burned a bridge with a potential supporter. Geez, that’s Political Relationships 101.

There is the acknowledgement that Lawrence Berkeley Lab’s second campus is a highly desirable prize for the cities vying for the privileged of hosting the second campus because of the big J word: jobs.   Of course there is also the acknowledgement that there is no perfect site, which is the reason why — some experts suggest — that it’s taking LBL so long to actually make a decision.  The report throws in a little about the rising sea level and storms potentially being a problem for all the sites because of the low elevation and proximity to the water.

I think what this profile sort of solidified was the fact that the Albany site is a long shot, due to the removal of Golden Gate Fields from the tax rolls,  the potential intrusion into sensitive birding areas, and of course the possibility that Albany votes might reject any proposal that comes up for a vote.

Similarly, as others have suggested before, if LBL really wants to get a bang for their buck the only real sites that should be contenders are the ones that they don’t have to pay a dime for — Alameda and Richmond — so that the construction costs are the only expenditure necessary.   And of course, why build on land already owned by LBL, why not take the land being offered and save the Richmond site for other future potential uses when prime real estate is being offered, for free?

According to the report, LBL will have a decision within the month and will want to complete construction by 2016.

As an aside I have to say, this was a highly encouraging tweet from Mayor Marie Gilmore on Tuesday morning if one looks at it colored with a LBL perspective:

Just left the Pentagon after meeting Navy Deputy Sec. Roger Natsuhara. Alameda Point discussed.—
Marie Gilmore (@MarieLGilmore) January 17, 2012

With positive movement on Alameda Landing, let’s hope that Alameda can keep up the momentum.

What is interesting is the listing of all the outstanding debts owed by the Community Improvement Commission (aka Redevelopment Agency).   Because of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Redevelopment agencies across the state, one of the components of the upheld legislation is to provide a listing of all the enforceable obligations owed by the CIC.   This list is super important because only the obligation itemized on the list can be repaid, and this list has been created to provide a buffer between the time that the successor agency itemized obligation list, the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) needs to be created.

I’m not even going to post the grand total of eligible obligations, because I nearly had a heart attack when I saw it.   It appears that the City has added a bunch of additional stuff that they may have to fund, or will eventually have to fund as a way to ensure that they keep as much money as possible.

The other interesting agenda item is the appointment of not one, but two Planning Board members.    The Planning Board seems to one of the only Boards that folks are most interested in serving in and generally has a long list of potential candidates for appointment.   This time is no different, with no less than 17 applicants.   At first there was only one vacancy that has been left unfilled since the end of last year, but last week’s Planning Board meeting was the last for Rebecca Kohlstrand.

Of course the resignation of Rebecca Kohlstrand leaves the the Planning Board without a transportation expert.  The resignation of two architects last year — one seat was filled with another architect — leaves the Planning Board with only one architect.   If I were filling the seats I’d fill it out with one transportation expert and the other seat with another architect.   Given the big projects moving forward, it will be important to have folks with some level of expertise in critical Planning Board type issues.