body,date,page,text,path
PublicArtCommission,2021-03-24,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:01pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners
Mark Farrell and Kirstin Van Cleef.
Absent: Tierney Sneeringer (excused).
Lois Butler (Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the Commission.
3. MINUTES
3-A 2021-753 Review and Approve February 23, 2021 Draft Minutes
A motion to approve the February 23, 2021 draft minutes was made by Vice
Chairperson Rush and seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt,
Vice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef and Farrell. Nays: none. The
motion carried 4-0.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A 2021-752 Recommend that City Council Approve 1925 Everett Street as
the New Location for the Dan Fontes Mural and a Grant Increase of $1,500 to
Cover Redesign Costs; Select and Recommend a New Mural Design to City
Council for Approval
Staff member Gehrke updated the Commission on the Dan Fontes Mural project,
and presented two new mural design options, ""Park Street 1909"" and ""Egret"". Staff
sought and received over 800 responses from the public on both designs. Staff
also sought feedback from the property owner, who prefers the ""Egret"" design.
Gehrke requested PAC select and recommend a new mural design to the City
Council for approval.
Staff member invited and answered clarifying questions.
Janet Koike expressed support for the egret design, as it represents estuary
wildlife. Via email, public member Mi'chelle Fredrick expressed support for the
egret design, as it aligns with the artist's existing body of work.",PublicArtCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-03-24,2,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Commissioners discussed the proposed art. Discussion points included the
following:
the egret design connects Alameda's public art to existing local artwork by the
artist, and is appropriate for the location
the proposed location is in a high-traffic area that would showcase Alameda's
public art well
Commissioner Farrell made a motion to recommend to City Council to approve a)
1925 Everett Street as the new location for the Dan Fontes mural, b) a grant
increase of $1,500 to cover redesign costs and c) the selection of the egret design.
Motion was seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice
Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion
carried 4-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff member Gehrke informed the commission that the art installation at Jean
Sweeney Park is expected to begin at the end of March.
Gehrke updated the commission that the Public Art Ordinance amendments are
scheduled to be brought to the Planning Board on April 26th Commissioners were
invited to attend the meeting.
Secretary Butler announced that a public art small grant mural has been completed
at the intersection of Webster St. and Atlantic Ave.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Chairperson Gillitt shared that a second mural has been completed at the
intersection of Webster St. and Santa Clara St.
Commissioner Farrell shared that the public artwork in the windows of the vacant
building at the intersection of Park St. and Lincoln St. should be tracked to ensure
that it is properly maintained or replaced while the building gets new tenants.
9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 6:32pm.
Respectfully submitted,
2",PublicArtCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2021-03-24,3,"Minutes of the Public Art Commission
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Lois Butler
Economic Development Manager
Secretary
Public Art Commission
3",PublicArtCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,1,"Approved Minutes
Transportation Commission Meeting
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Time:
6:30 p.m.
Location:
Due to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners were
able to attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom.
City Hall was NOT open to the public during the meeting.
Legistar Link:
  https://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811333&GUID=861FEF9A-1D51-4AD8-
8E6C-EB2F878B1A64&Options=info/&Search=.
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules and Commissioners Yuen, Kohlstrand, Hans, Rentschler and Weitze.
Absent: Vice Chair Nachtigall
This was Commissioner Rentschler's first meeting and everyone welcomed him.
2. Agenda Changes
None.
3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855384&GUID=13BD4EBF-0DC4-
 4FD9-B3A1-B123E9507062&FullText=1.
Gail Payne, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, discussed the tentative upcoming joint meeting
with the Planning Board on May 10 and other scheduled meetings.
4. Announcements / Public Comments
No public comments.
Chair Soules congratulated Commissioner Kohlstrand for her Lifetime Achievement Award with
WTS, they had honored her for all her hard work in the Transportation field.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
1",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,2,"5. Consent Calendar
5A. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, July 22, 2020
(Action Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855385&GUID=AF4ED835-78EE-
40E7-AAEA-EOF5814FD2F8&FullText=1.
Commissioner Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Yuen
seconded. A hand raise vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
5B. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, January 27,
2021 (Action Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855386&GUID=A5B2B626-D69B-
43BE-AC28-53D36B14D68E&FullText=1.
Commissioner Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Yuen
seconded. A hand raise vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Discuss Water Emergency Transportation Authority's Pandemic Recovery Program
(Discussion Item)
Kevin Connolly, from WETA (Water Emergency Transportation Authority), introduced this item
and gave a presentation. The report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855387&GUID=ABA17FD9-653F-
4496-88DF-C941A16FDBD8&FullText=1.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions #6A.
Commissioner Weitze wanted to know what kind of hop through ridership was normal, the short
hop from Alameda to Oakland.
Mr. Connolly said it was less than 10 per day. That's also because the only option was Oakland to
Alameda, not the reverse.
Commissioner Kohlstrand had concerns about the connecting transit service and making sure there
were enough parking facilities. She also wanted to know what was the status of the 96 Bus. She
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
2",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,3,"wanted to make sure they were not hampering people using the ferry either because there weren't
enough public transit options or parking places.
Mr. Connolly said WETA has had an effective partnership with the City of Alameda and a good
partnership with AC Transit. AC Transit was working on a proposal to serve the new Main Street
Terminal. He spoke on the drawbacks of the 96 Bus and that the option AC Transit was developing
would be better. He did not want to go into much detail, he did not want to ""steal their thunder""
He was very optimistic and grateful for the work done by AC Transit.
Staff Member Payne discussed how AC Transit was ""moving mountains"" to make this happen,
and they had been under a lot of pressure due to the Pandemic. There is an upcoming meeting
where it would be discussed further. For parking, she discussed the new parking lot at Seaplane
Lagoon has 400 spaces and that there was more work to do.
Commissioner Weitze asked if the plan was to charge for parking or had it been pushed off.
Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, said she didn't have a timeline to share. There were plans for
paid parking at Alameda Point but as for now, there was no parking fee. It had been put on hold
with the Pandemic, but they would move forward with that in the future.
Commissioner Weitze asked if it was unlikely that they would start charging for parking in August.
Staff Member Foster said that would be fair to say.
Commissioner Rentschler thanked Mr. Connolly for his presentation and commended WETA for
embracing change since now with the Pandemic it was a great time to do it. He urged WETA and
the commission to keep an open mind on what the possibilities could be. He thought the bike
access at Seaplane Lagoon was better and safer and encouraged the same bike structure that was
at the Main Street Ferry terminal. He was not optimistic about the bus but was happy they were
trying it. He did not want to see an experiment that doesn't work to become permanent.
Commissioner Yuen discussed the decision to potentially cut AC Transit services and wondered
if the influx of Federal dollars from the new stimulus bill earmarked for local transit would
translate into support for this new route.
Chair Soules said that was a great question and reminded everyone that AC Transit was not on the
call and she did not want to get too far off the agenda topic of WETA service.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
3",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,4,"Staff Member Payne said that was the trade-off, these types of Federal Stimulus Packages can't
provide operations money long term into the future. She discussed how the services have to equal
out with the other local jurisdictions serviced by AC Transit.
Chari Soules said that could have discussions at other meetings about how that stimulus money
would be used.
Public Comments #6A
Cyndy Johnson, with Bike Walk Alameda, believed the proposed Alameda Main Street to Oakland
Short Hop Ferry Service would be a fantastic option for Central and Western Alameda Commuters.
She thought this would greatly benefit cyclists who wouldn't have to run the risk of getting bumped
off the bus due to lack of bike racks and would encourage more bike commuters. She saw this plan
as a win, win, win. She did share some concerns from fares to what services would be offered at
certain times. She ended by saying all of Bike Walk Alameda was excited by this proposed plan.
Jim Strehlow discussed a few issues. First, he thought it was a hike to get from Webster Street to
the ferry to get to Oakland, therefore riding the ferry would not be an option for him. Secondly, he
told about 150 people how he rode the Alameda to San Francisco Ferry to get to the Moscone
Center to get his vaccine and he found it to be a very pleasant and fun trip. Thirdly, he was
concerned about how WETA tied into the water taxi program of Alameda. He had asked many
times for a status report of the water taxi program from Rochelle Wheeler.
Staff Member Payne gave a reminder about the water taxis that the Alameda Landing Waterfront
Project was currently in construction and they were required to build the infrastructure for it. That's
why it hadn't happened, that project is still in construction.
Rochelle Wheeler, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, said she was able to share more
information with Mr. Strehlow. City staff is constantly discussing water taxi options and other
matters around water taxis, mainly operating costs.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A
Commissioner Weitze asked if the city had any plans to look at the intersection of Main Street and
Appezzato due to a potential increase in traffic. He also urged WETA, in the interest of going big,
to initially drop the short hop fare to just a dollar and advertise the hell out of it. He believed it
would be a good campaign to ""get off the island for just a buck"".
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
4",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,5,"Staff Member Payne discussed the funds (Measure BB) for improving bus services, and one of the
projects was improving Appezzato Parkway for buses. They were waiting to see what AC Transit
does first before starting on that project. That intersection had also been noted as a potentially good
location for a roundabout.
Donya Amiri, Principal Engineer with Public Works, discussed how they would be improving
signal timing and what adjustments they had already done to that intersection and others. They
would also be revisiting the intersections along Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway (RAMP) to
improve signal timing and for bicycle operations.
Commissioner Kohlstrand was supportive of the proposed reintroduction of the ferry service that
was proposed here. She wanted to see a mid-year review to see what the ridership was like and
encouraged to have someone from AC Transit present. She believed they needed to take a
comprehensive look at how they would provide transit services on the island. She agreed with
Commissioner Rentschler's point about it being a ""zero-sum game"" if they gain something in one
area and lose it in another. She continued to be concerned about having limited parking and thought
that should be monitored.
Chair Soules talked about her own experiences with being a Bay Farm Ferry user and why driving
is easier and more appealing She was glad they were adding a midday service. She thought a
quarterly review would be beneficial to see how the stimulus was being used and she was curious
to see the uptake on the Clipper START. Often equity programs are offered but rarely used. She
also found the Hop Through App to be very convenient.
Mr. Connolly thanked the commission and also shared that he had skepticism about the bus transfer
to the ferry. He believed that now was the time to test it and was happy to come back and share
whatever data they needed. They were open to experimenting and trying new things to see what
worked best. He also clarified to Ms. Johnson (public speaker) about the service start, they
proposed to start in July for Harbor Bay and deferring the start for Seaplane and Main Street until
August to line up with AC Transit. For South San Francisco they were looking to start in October.
6B. Endorse the 10-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the Two-year CIP
Budget (Action Item)
Robert Vance, Supervising Civil Engineer with Public Works, introduced this item and gave a
presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855388&GUID=BB1D41D2-D58B-
488F-88F3-CBBB28D144FE&FullText=1.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
5",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,6,"Public Comments for #6B.
Jim Strehlow said in regards to Vision Zero he described what he saw daily as he rides his bike
around. He saw people ignorant of the laws and people crossing in front of him even though he
had the right away. He also described people crossing when he had the green light. He wanted to
see more education included in Vision Zero for pedestrians for their damn safety and his safety.
Chair Soules thanked Mr. Strehlow and clarified that Vision Zero did have a good outreach
component.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions, Comments, and Discussions for #6B.
Commissioner Weitze wanted clarification on why Urban Forest and Landscape Maintenance was
recommended even though it had a low score.
Staff Member Payne reminded everyone that the map was out of date, this had been mentioned in
the Staff Report.
Staff Member Vance described why Urban Forest and Landscape Maintenance was included, it
was because it does share funding with some of the Transportation projects. It has to be funded
somehow, there are street trees that need to be maintained for safety and aesthetic reasons.
Commissioner Weitze was curious about the equity of paving management. This was a very broad
category and with equity in mind, certain parts of Alameda were in desperate need of being
repaved, and certain parts of Alameda were doing well.
Staff Member Vance discussed the equity score of the projects and how they could use similar
criteria that Oakland used to put more of an equity focus on how they spend pavement funds. It
was something that could be incorporated into these projects since they were citywide.
Commissioner Weitze said he hoped they would be more focused on parts that had not been paved
in a while.
Staff Member Vance said these projects had traditionally been condition-based, the pavement
management in the past had typically followed the sewer replacement program. The funding
available for pavement was almost a 1:1 with sewer, the city would rehab 3 miles of sewer per
year and then pave 3 miles of sewer per year. That limited the choice for pavement, but if there
were more funding for pavement there would be more choices where it could go.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
6",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,7,"Chair Soules recommended a past Transportation Commission meeting to Commissioner Weitze
where pavement funding was further discussed. She agreed that looking at this through an equity
lens was important but the timing and conditions of when pavement needs to be replaced was a
big deal for the Capital Budget.
Commissioner Weitze said what he was worried about the new Main Street neighborhood, on the
estuary side of Site A, would be overlooked since developers keep backing out.
Commissioner Kolhstrand asked about the dedicated grant funding column and that it didn't fit
with the ""123"" criteria. She pointed out where he had stepped out of the form.
Staff Member Vance said she was correct and that he would have to take a look at that.
Chair Soules explained what they had been trying to achieve and explain the rating system.
Commissioner Kohlstrand believed they had come a long way in terms of a more rigorous system
of evaluation. She wanted to see feasibility included, really thinking about is this something that
could be implemented right now. She also observed that with Urban Forest and Landscape
Maintenance and other maintenance projects and wondered if there should be some sort of split of
funds. She saw that there was not a lot of differentiation among the scores and wondered if they
were capturing all the right goals. She noted that the recommendations for moving ahead do not
align with the scores and thought that needed to be rethought. She pointed out ways they could
improve transit services, she felt that it was being pushed to the bottom of the list.
Staff Member Payne described how the ranking process worked and how they had had this problem
before. She pointed out an oversight that paratransit money funds benches and bus shelters and
bus stops in general.
Staff Member Vance said some of the planning projects are and aren't included in the Capital
Budget. He explained the criteria for the different categories.
Chair Soules said that tweaking the actual criteria to make them more appropriate for capital VS
maintenance would be worth looking at. She explained how these criteria worked great but many
other factors need to be recognized. It was a very nuanced system that could always be refined.
Commissioner Yuen agreed with what Commissioner Kohlstrand had said in terms of considering
the feasibility and that some of the scorings do not align with projects that were moving ahead.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
7",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,8,"She wondered if the scoring was discerning enough and suggested having a 1-5 scoring instead.
She thought the table was very clear but wanted more clarity for scoring and the recommendations.
Staff Member Vance said that version was included in the staff report.
Chair Soules suggested having a few slides where it clearly shows what the process will look like
since it will morph over time, which would help the city understand it more.
Commissioner Rentschler acknowledged the great work by Public Works and how they were
constantly being asked to do more with money they don't have, there would always be tradeoffs.
He saw policies like safety and complete streets with the same projects. He discussed all the
benefits of roundabouts and how that can be beneficial for different policies. He encouraged how
good design was important and didn't want to see the same cookie-cutter mistakes made.
Chair Soules said that the staff had come a long way in developing these tools and they were not
perfect or easy and continual feedback was expected.
Commissioner Kohlstrand gave a thought on the tradeoff of roundabouts and traffic signals. She
clarified that the staff was not recommending putting anything about roundabouts in the capital
budget, it got a no recommendation, and traffic signal systems got a yes. She wondered if there
was any room for modification so that in the traffic system they could find the ability to introduce
roundabouts. She wanted to see a study to learn where the roundabouts would be most appropriate.
Staff Member Vance said roundabouts were being considered within funded capital projects so
they don't have to wait for everything else. He said the roundabout study was continuing and as
that developed it was something that could be funded later under future capital budgets. For traffic
signals there were two categories, one was rehabilitation and maintenance and the other is for
traffic signal modifications/modernization. Roundabouts would be more equivalent to
modernization and part of the study is to help coordinate those future investments.
Commissioner Rentschler said solving a problem with a problem is the problem, the traffic signals
were the problem. He discussed how traffic signals have always caused these issues and how the
rest of the state and the country were moving towards roundabouts. He urged creative thinking on
the part of Public Works to stop chasing high maintenance, high-cost signals. He pointed out that
Caltrans's website had a page dedicated to education about the benefits of roundabouts.
Chair Soules checked if there were any other public comments and asked if anyone was ready to
make a motion.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
8",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,9,"Commissioner Kohlstrand said she was prepared to make a motion to endorse the program with a
caveat that there would be a greater investment in roundabouts. She wanted the commission to
express its interest in a different way of thinking without completely disrupting the improvement
process.
Commissioner Rentschler said he would second that with the knowledge that his fellow
commissioners had already put a lot of work into this. He wanted to support something that
acknowledged the situation they were in but also to have a citizen's voice be heard on this subject.
Chair Soules said the last meeting was very educational on roundabouts and not public review on
any particular intersection. She asked Staff Member Payne if this was one path forward, in the 10-
year CIP to revisit mobility elements and goals related to specific intersections to identify where
roundabouts or traffic signals would be most beneficial.
Staff Member Payne said that was something they were already in the process of doing. They were
doing a city-wide roundabout analysis. She then discussed the last meeting where roundabouts had
been heavily discussed to inform Commissioner Rentschler and explained the next step in the
process.
Staff Member Vance said this information helps as they start refining the 10-year CIP and to see
what is important.
Chair Soules wanted to know if this would lead to an assessment of whether or not a signal vs a
roundabout would be more appropriate. She did not want to take on each roundabout separately or
project by project. She discussed how the study would help them with that decision.
Commissioner Kohlstand made a motion to endorse the 2-year CIP with the caveat that the
Transportation Commission recommends greater investment in roundabouts compared to
traffic signals. Commissioner Rentschler seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and
the motion passed 6-0.
6C. Discuss Smart City Master Plan Overview (Discussion Item).
Staff Member Payne introduced this item and gave a presentation, Staff Member Amiri also
presented. Attachments and staff report can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855389&GUID=C2EE96F5-1065-
42FC-891B-2D68855AC1E6&FullText=1.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
9",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,10,"Board Clarifying questions and comments #6C.
Commissioner Weitz asked if the theory behind this was that the structure would get put in but
then private companies would then run the actual access. He wondered how that would work for
equitable internet access since private companies could charge whatever they wanted.
Staff Member Payne said that was correct, the city does not plan on being a service provider. The
asset as a city would be the infrastructure and to be able to put this super-fast fiber into the ground
the city could then leverage that asset to lower rates or public wifi access.
Commissioner Yuen wanted to know more about the impact on transportation infrastructure. She
wanted to hear about changes and benefits that could be seen as part of this.
Staff Member Payne said that they could have a better emergency response for the Fire Department
and with the same technology AC Transit could use their signal detection, all of this would be
wrapped into what the fiber could provide. She also noted that driverless cars were just around the
corner and they would also use this type of technology.
Staff Member Amiri also discussed how this would all tie together and the process of updating the
conduits.
Chair Soules discussed the frustration and expense of trying to deploy new technology on old
infrastructure. She was excited that Alameda was doing this and saw it as a public agency function
to invest in this type of infrastructure.
Commissioner Kohlstrand thanked Chair Soules for her insight and wanted to make sure they
captured the equity part of this. She asked about overhead wires that are currently going through
backyards and wanted to know if there were opportunities for undergrounding utilities at the same
time as they were installing this fiber.
Staff Member Payne said that was a project for Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) and they were
currently in the process of undergrounding different corridors. They would be working with AMP
because it is all related.
Commissioner Yuen brought up the comment about the lack of knowledge around Smart Cites and
new mobility options and how in the future this could be an educational item for the commission.
She said she would love to learn more about this and the importance of new technologies.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
10",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,11,"Staff Member Payne said she could look into when someone from Iteris could come. She added
that fiber would be the backbone part of the infrastructure and this would be the expensive part
and it won't be completed overnight.
Chair Soules compared this to the electrical on your home, which is the heaviest investment but
you are better off in the long run. She saw this as helping the community to embrace new
technology. She also seconded getting an information item on the agenda for a future meeting to
learn more about what the fiber cables will do for Alameda.
Staff Member Amiri added that with the CIP that they discussed earlier the fiber cables will tie
into that as well.
Public Comments for #6C.
Jim Strehlow said that with technology improvements in the city there is also an increase in remote
computer hacking opportunities into the city's services. He wanted to see security reviews on all
such projects. He also discouraged putting everything into electrical cabinets due to accidents. He
believed that roundabouts would slow down police, fire, and ambulance services. He wanted to
hear from those parties on their opinion on roundabouts. He believed that the solution was to better
educate people and not waste money on roundabouts.
6D. Review and Comment on the General Plan Schedule of Planning Board Public Hearings
(Discussion Item).
Staff Member Payne introduced this item on behalf of Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning
Building and Transportation. The staff report can be found at
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855390&GUID=6F196672-B114-
463B-9E5D-7984C3E15500&FullText=1.
Chair Soules thanked everyone for their time on this.
There was no discussion or comments on the schedule.
7. Announcements / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow had three issues. First, he wanted a residential loading zone for each street so that
Amazon and other delivery trucks don't block traffic as they do every day. Secondly, Orion Street
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
11",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,12,"has different demographics, North was residential and South was commercial, when changes for
Orion Street were discussed he wanted this difference noted. Lastly, he wanted the commission to
promote ""Bike to Wherever Day,"" which would be on May 21st.
Chair Soules promoted the website alameda2040.org to get people excited and involved with the
General Plan.
8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
12",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf