{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2011-12-14", "page": 1, "text": "TERKA\nORATED\nMinutes of the\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING\nDECEMBER 14, 2011\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:05pm.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nCatherine Atkin, President\nNancy Lewis, Vice President\nSuzanne Whyte, Board Member\nMichael Hartigan, Board Member\nGail Wetzork, Board Member\nAbsent:\nNone\nStaff:\nJane Chisaki, Library Director\nChristina Baines, Recording Secretary\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nAn asterisk indicates items so enacted or adopted on the Consent Calendar.\nA.\n*Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Month of November 2011.\nB.\nCorrected Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of November 9, 2011. Board\nMember Hartigan noted the minutes did not reflect discussions covered under new business items,\nand requested that be corrected, as well as the adjournment paragraph. Draft Minutes of the\nRegular Library Board Meeting of December 14, 2011.\nC.\n*Library Services Report for the Month of October 2011.\nD.\n*Financial Report Reflecting FY12 Expenditures by Fund for November 2011.\nE.\n*Bills for Ratification for the Month of November 2011.\nBoard Member Whyte arrives at 6:09pm.\nBoard Member Wetzork made a motion, seconded by Board Member Whyte, to adopt the items excluding\nthe draft minutes. The minutes will be corrected as requested. The motion was carried by a 5-0 vote.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2011-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2011-12-14", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2 of 7\nMinutes of the Alameda Free\nLibrary Board Meeting\nDecember 14, 2011\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA. Library Strategic Plan/Update (J. Chisaki). Following the Board's direction, Strategic Plan Goals 3\nand 7 were presented for discussion: The Board approved the format presented by the Library\nDirector. Director Chisaki indicated that a materials count is currently underway at the Libraries to\ndetermine in-house use/survey to confirm staff's belief that the library is as busy as it was prior to cuts\nin hours and staff and to confirm circulation numbers.\nPresident Atkin requested a breakdown of each of the items for discussion and asks the Board if they\nwould like to talk about them; the Board agreed.\nGOAL 3: VISITORS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD LIBRARIES WILL HAVE SAFE,\nWELCOMING, AND COMFORTABLE SPACES TO USE THE LIBRARIES' RESOURCES AND\nPROGRAMS AND TO INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER.\nObjective 1: Eighty-five percent of Alameda residents will express in a community survey that the\nneighborhood libraries are safe, welcoming, and comfortable spaces.\nThe Library has not conducted a survey. The Library does not have the funding to conduct a survey\nsimilar to the one used during the strategic planning process. It may be possible to do a \"Survey\nMonkey\" online survey at a future date. The City has conducted so many online surveys in the past\nfew weeks that the community may be tired of online surveys. In-house surveys always produce\noverwhelming positive results because you are \"preaching to the choir.\"\nObjective 2: Attendance at the neighborhood libraries as measured by door count will increase by 10% per\nyear.\nFull year statistics are not available and it was recently discovered that the door counters at all\nthree locations probably are working properly. One of the counters at the West End Library is\nmounted just high enough that many children are not counted!\nDiscussion: Board Member Hartigan asked for an explanation as to why the door counters were not\nworking. Director Chisaki explained the counters work off of an electric eye. The counters are\nnot\ngood quality, and they count coming and going, so the total numbers are cut in half. Some counters\nare plugged into light switches, and when the switch is turned off the counter resets. Also, at the West\nEnd Branch the \"eye\" was located at a level too high to count young children. We are looking for\nbetter quality counters to more efficiently track our numbers. Board Member Hartigan expressed\nconcern with the steady fall in numbers, and suggested to find an alternative count method. Further\ninquired about the number of reads of the counters per month. President Atkin also suggested the\nhours of operation should be taken into consideration and attendance of programs. Also, it may seem\nbusier because of the cut in hours and the number of people visiting the libraries, the attendance and\nthe use of the collection? In response to President Atkin's concerns, Director Chisaki clarified that\nprograms are not driven by numbers and funding, but by staffs' interests and community input. Board\nMember Hartigan suggested documenting the number of programs; but understand we do have budget\nissues and concerns, and then later can come back to Council and indicate this is what the community\nwants. Do not just add it so we can meet our goal and go on to the next one. Board member Whyte", "path": "LibraryBoard/2011-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2011-12-14", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3 of 7\nMinutes of the Alameda Free\nLibrary Board Meeting\nDecember 14, 2011\nsuggested that the in-house poll might show that the numbers may be down because people are using\nthe library in the traditional sense, as a reference, and actually not removing the resources from the\nlibrary.\nObjective 3: Use of the neighborhood library collections will increase by 10% per year.\nThe collections at both neighborhood libraries are being re-balanced. The experiment of having\nprimarily adult fiction at one location and non-fiction at the other, has failed. This will be re-\nexamined after the collections are redistributed. The fiction collection is growing at the West End\nand the non-fiction collection at the Bay Farm Island Library needs to be adjusted before a true\ncount can be taken.\nDiscussion: Board Member Hartigan: What is the percentage change at the Neighborhood Libraries?\nDirector Chisaki reported it is down about 21% for adults and steady for childrens' use. Overall, Bay\nFarm is pretty flat, Main and Went End have gone down. When we reopened branches, WEB had\nmostly non-fiction and BFI had mostly fiction for adults. We have since made the entire collection\nfloating as a way to rebalance the collection. Board Member Whyte's question pertained to stack\nspace and the reconfiguration of the libraries, could the decrease be because of the lack of stack space?\nDirector Chisaki responded that in the beginning it definitely contributed, but with the floating\ncollection it will balance out. Board Member Hartigan indicated that where as the number of\nprograms is of lesser importance to him; this one is of more importance to him. It should increase, not\ngo down, this should be starred. The Board agreed this is a very important item and needs to be\nfollowed closely.\nObjective 4: The number of programs offered at neighborhood libraries will increase by 5% per year.\nThis is going to be difficult to accomplish, particularly for adult programs. Any programs will have\nto take place during open hours as the library does not have enough staffing to accommodate after-\nhours programming. More children's programs have been scheduled at the neighborhood libraries,\nbut this has been made possible thanks to the budget made available by the Friends of the Library\nand the ability of the Supervising Children's Librarian being able to leave the Main Library to\nconduct the programs at another site. If staffing is further reduced children's programs will either\nhave to conducted by on-site staff or be a \"purchased\" program presented by an outside entity.\nActivities under consideration:\n1. Provide library visitors with remodeled or redesigned libraries in which to use the resources and attend\nprograms. West End Library completed October, 2010; Bay Farm Island Library completed March,\n2011.\n2. Provide library visitors with comfortable seating in which to read and relax. New or re-finished\nfurnishings provided at both neighborhood libraries, thanks in part to a $100,000 donation from the\nFriends of the Library.\n3. Provide library users with an attractive display area for new books or themed displays. Both\nneighborhood libraries have a \"new book\" area and staff has been creating themed book displays as\nappropriate.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2011-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2011-12-14", "page": 4, "text": "Page 4 of 7\nMinutes of the Alameda Free\nLibrary Board Meeting\nDecember 14, 2011\n4. Provide library visitors with additional computers at the neighborhood libraries. Both neighborhood\nlibraries increased the number of computer work stations for children and adults in the remodel\nprocess. However staff observation at the Bay Farm Island Library is not the need for more\ncomputer workstations but more seating/study tables. Rarely, if ever, are all the desktop\nworkstations in use. Many customers bring in their own laptops and are seeking table and chairs to\nuse with the wireless. Staff is currently considering decreasing the number of public computers in\nfavor of offering study table space.\nDiscussion: Board Member Hartigan requested further information on this item. Director Chisaki\nexplained that staff is proposing four computers be removed and placed in reserve. This would allow\nan open table for patrons visiting with their own laptops. Board Member Hartigan clarified that there\nwould still be two computers available with the Library catalog.\nGOAL 7: ALAEMEDANS WILL BE ABLE TO MORE EASILY AND EFFECTIVELY\nCONNECT TO THE ONLINE WORLD.\nObjective 1: Use of databases will increase by 10% each year. There has been a decrease of about 25%\nin usage. In 2009-10 the average numbers of searches were 30,069; decreasing to 22,974 in 2010-11;\nand 10,327 for the first four months in 2011-12. This decrease may be attributed to the change in\nweb page format. The databases are more difficult to locate as a user needs to know to look for\n\"eResources\" in the navigation bar to be directed to a page with other digital content items, and\nthen click on \"databases\" to find the desired database. The direct link to databases for children and\nteens was removed and all databases were lumped together in alphabetical format rather than user\ngroup.\nDiscussion: Director Chisaki described a mobile application coming soon which will allow users to\nsearch from their cell phones, laptops, tablets, etc. Library patrons will be able to access their account,\nrenew their books, download e-books, get into databases without having to reauthenticate each time,\nbecause they will have done so with the application, and we hope that will help with our database use\nbecause it will be right there at their fingertips.\nObjective 2: Each year, the number of unique visitors to the library portal web pages will increase by\n10%. The Library has little data on the number of unique visitors. Aggregate statistics are available\nfor about the past 11 months (last six months of FY10-11 and the first five months of FY11-12).\nAccording to Supervising Librarian David Hall, the bounce rate for the library web site is high at\n+60%. This is not a satisfactory bounce rate even if some of the traffic is not completely leaving the\nlibrary but going to another URL for the library's web catalog. This could be that the library web\nsite does not have the information desired by the user or the information is there but is not easy to\nlocate. Web page redesign and marketing of the web page may help increase customer usage and\nlower the bounce rate.\nObjective 3: The majority of Alameda residents will express in a community survey customer satisfaction\nwith library technology. We have not conducted a satisfaction survey.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2011-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2011-12-14", "page": 5, "text": "Page 5 of 7\nMinutes of the Alameda Free\nLibrary Board Meeting\nDecember 14, 2011\nObjective 4: Uptime for all computer systems will be 95% on an ongoing basis. \"Computer systems\"\nmeans the hardware servers and the associated software applications has been operating at a +95%\nlevel. This includes Horizon (circulation software); HIP (human interaction proof - provides\ngraphics); WebReporter (report manager); TM3 (telephone notification for notices); SIP (session\ninitiation protocol - interface between the RFID system & public access to the main system, and\nother applications); mail server (email notification); and the public access servers. There are\ndifferentials with a 99% uptime for combinations of services such as Horizon and HIP, and lower\nlevels for other hardware/software combinations. This uptime analysis does not include peripherals\nsuch as PC's, thin clients, monitors, keyboards, etc. as much of these hardware pieces have been\nreplaced within the last two years and are replaced on a continuing basis as necessary.\nDiscussion: Director Chisaki reported that we meet our 95% uptime.\nActivities under consideration:\n1. Provide classes for the public on database use.\nThe Technology Resource Services division was created in FY10-11. A PT Librarian was hired to\ncreate and conduct programs/classes and to assist the public with technology issues on the public\nfloor. The School Resource Services (SRS) division provides in-classroom demonstrations of\ndatabase instruction for grade level/curriculum appropriate databases. Classes in basic computer\nuse;\ninternet searching; self-paced computer instruction; Overdrive instruction; social networking;\njob search skills; digital photography; library catalog; among others, are offered in\nthe\ncomputer\nlab on a continuing basis using both volunteer and staff instructors.\nDiscussion: Providing classes as best we can, the classes are full. A social networking class was\ncancelled due to lack of attendance in mid-December. It was scheduled right before the holidays and\nthe couple of people who had signed up were contacted. The SRS Linda Valler is doing an amazing\njob, we have reached record number of people, and buying her the mini laptop and projector was\nmoney well spent. The children get really excited to see the live demonstration.\n2. Run a \"did you know?\" campaign (did you know you can get reading recommendations through the\nAFL website, you can practice for the GED online, etc.).\nClasses for database instruction are provided along with the associated publicity for class sign-ups.\nMost classes are full enrollment. Recently a flyer promoting database use was created for the\nCareer Section of the library. The Boys & Girls Department has created a rotating notice board for\nchildren's databases, services, and programs, however it is new enough that we don't know if it's\nhad an impact or not.\nDiscussion: Director Chisaki explained some of the benefits of this database. For example, if you take\na civil service test the database will track your progress. Log in and create an account, take the test\nover and over, and watch for improvements.\n3. Provide pathfinders to online resources and other electronic services.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2011-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2011-12-14", "page": 6, "text": "Page 6 of 7\nMinutes of the Alameda Free\nLibrary Board Meeting\nDecember 14, 2011\nThis is an on-going project. One pathfinder has been created to promote \"Learning Express\nLibrary,\" a database that offers practice tests for a variety of skills / grade levels. The Reference\nDepartment is in the process of creating more simple pathfinders for the library databases.\nDiscussions: Reference is providing guides to resources.\nFollow-up questions/Comments: Board Member Hartigan would like to see the database use\npromoted\nor\nwhatever\nthe\nBoard can do to really drive that into a positive direction, it is a really\nimportant objective of this category. The other are of concern for him is visitors on the website, but\nat this point, maybe there is nothing that can be done until it is changed. And at that point, then\nreally advertise and highlight the databases. Vice President Lewis agreed. President Atkin stated\nshe likes Board Member Hartigan's idea, the branches, like a new restaurant, when you reopen it,\nyou really have to reengage and be happy that you went back there, you have to consciously build it\nback up. Board Member Wetzork indicated the information has to be easily accessible, not everyone\nis computer literate. President Atkin expressed appreciation of the information and of the format\nit was presented, seconded by Board Member Whyte.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nAlameda Free Library Foundation (J. Chisaki) Director Chisaki reported the Foundation is\nworking really hard to sell out the concert and are confident. Raintree Studio is taking photos for them.\nB.\nFriends of the Alameda Free Library (K. Minney) Director Chisaki reported the Friends are\ndesperately looking for recipes for; if they do not receive 100 the project will fail.\nC.\nPatron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response. None\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS. NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\nThere were no members of the public present.\nLIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nPresident Atkin attended the Amanda King concert; reported she is over the top with an amazing voice.\nVice President Lewis shared a photo of the Library Board Members at the Energy Kiosk dedication on\nOctober 6, 2011, Alameda Municipal Power included in their November power bill.\nDIRECTOR'S COMMENTS\nRequest consideration to discontinue the $5.00 ILL fee and restore service and goodwill to the Alameda\nFree Library customers. Also the Art Committee will not be submitting a policy for consideration, if one\nis needed, I will craft one.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2011-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2011-12-14", "page": 7, "text": "Page 7 of 7\nMinutes of the Alameda Free\nLibrary Board Meeting\nDecember 14, 2011\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, President Atkin adjourned the meeting at 7:10pm.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJane Chisaki, Library Director and\nSecretary to the Alameda Free Library Board", "path": "LibraryBoard/2011-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2011-12-14", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, December 14, 2011\nCommissioner Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nPhilip Tribuzio\nJesus Vargas\nKathy Moehring\nThomas G. Bertken\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Consultant\n2.\nMinutes\nCommissioner Vargas moved approval of the minutes for the June 22, 2011 meeting.\nCommissioner Bertken seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.\nCommissioner Tribuzio moved approval of the minutes for the September 28, 2011 meeting.\nCommissioner Vargas seconded the motion. Commissioner Bertken abstained. Motion passed 3-\n0.\n3.\nOral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments\nJon Spangler gave a report on the west span of the Bay Bridge where paths are being planned on\nboth the north and south sides. The cost is expected to be $550 million, and is expected to be\nconstructed in ten years. At a recent public outreach meeting for the project, 75 people attended.\nMr. Spangler will forward more information.\nPage 1 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2011-12-14", "page": 2, "text": "4.\nNew Business\n4A.\nPresentation of Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and\nPlans.\nStaff Payne summarized the staff report.\nCommissioner Vargas requested a briefing about the Safe Routes to Transit application.\nStaff Payne responded that the funding source originates from bridge tolls in the Bay Area. The\ngoal of the grant is to divert drivers across the bridges to become transbay bus passengers.\nTransForm staff stated that the funding cycle was really competitive. They liked the grant\napplication, and stated it was well written and a beneficial project.\nCommissioner Moehring asked if the communities that received the grant application were closer\nto the bridge.\nStaff Payne responded that it was difficult to compete against projects that focused on higher-\ndensity areas. There is a feeling that suburban communities tend not to win as many Safe Routes\nto Transit grant applications.\nCommissioner Moehring asked if there will be public meetings for the Shoreline Dr/Westline Dr\nbike lane project.\nStaff Khan emphasized that the Shoreline Dr/Westline Dr bike lane project is going to have quite\na bit of outreach starting in March 2012. Staff is waiting for Caltrans to authorize expenditures.\nStaff will bring this item to the Transportation Commission.\nCommissioner Vargas wanted to know what the TSM/TDM measures are as a prelude to the\nupcoming Transportation Commission meeting.\nStaff Payne stated that the measures are in five broad categories.\nStaff Khan provided an overview of the TSM/TDM Plan purpose. The idea is that developers\nwill be able to address trips generated by a development using a menu of TSM/TDM measures.\nThe intention is to mitigate peak hour trips using the TSM/TDM measures.\nCommissioner Moehring was pleased about obtaining the Gibbons Drive Safe Routes to School\ngrant application.\nCommissioner Moehring stated that the Mecartney/Island intersection is enormous and was\ninterested to know if the City could improve it without grant monies. She admires how much\neffort staff puts into grant efforts. She wanted to know how much it would cost for traffic lights.\nStaff Khan stated that this intersection has two lanes in each direction. This intersection could be\nsignalized. If it is signalized then it could make a big difference. The City could use internal\nPage 2 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2011-12-14", "page": 3, "text": "funds for this project or could tap into developer funds on the basis of the new development in\nthe area. He felt that it needs to be signalized.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that he is interested in helping staff with brainstorming on this\nintersection improvement.\nStaff Payne stated that local funds usually are used to leverage outside funds as the local match\nto help stretch the limited funds farther so that more areas of the city benefit from the limited\nfunds.\nLucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda, was impressed with the quarterly report and how it is\nshown. It makes everything clear. About the Shoreline Dr/Westline Dr bike lane project,\nBikeAlameda is hoping to have a lot of public input. They are hoping for a cycle track\nconfiguration - one that is similar to Fernside Blvd. She hopes that some of the analysis from\nthis bike lane project could go into a cycle track concept.\nLucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda, for the Mecartney/Island project, she urged the group to\nthink outside the box in terms of traffic calming such as roundabouts or other kinds of things to\nhelp out huge intersections.\n4B.\nProposed Bus Stops at Maitland Avenue and Harbor Bay Parkway.\nStaff Payne summarized the staff report.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if there any ADA issues with the concrete pad broken by the tree on\nthe north side.\nStaff Payne responded that the concrete bus pad corresponds with AC Transit's template.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if there are any maintenance issues pertaining to the tree.\nStaff Payne stated that the tree well provided should be sufficient space for the tree to thrive.\nCommissioner Bertken asked about the debris on the sidewalk in the photo.\nCommissioner Moehring and Gail Payne answered that the debris are leaves.\nCommissioner Moehring: It is nice to see that the City is installing bus stops. She stated that it\nwould be nice if this item came as a recommendation to the City Council as opposed to already\nhaving been approved by the City Council and in the CIP.\nPage 3 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2011-12-14", "page": 4, "text": "what Lucy said. Alameda has every pre-qualification to be a world famous bicycle-friendly\ncommunity yet the City needs infrastructure to match it. He had three points:\n1) On the class I bike paths on page 4 - He would like to see 12 feet as the recommended\nminimum because these paths become multi-use paths. Twelve feet accommodates\nmultiple conflicts, users, directions and speeds. Twelve feet should be the floor and\nshould be the minimum for each side of the west span of the Bay Bridge. Golden Gate\nBridge is ten feet and seems too narrow.\n2) On Page 34 regarding in-street bike corrals, earlier in the year we had conversations\nabout having them in front of businesses such as Stones Cyclery even on a trial basis.\nPark Street is going to need more bike parking due to the elimination of the parking\nmeters along Park Street totaling about 100 de-facto bike parking spaces.\n3) Class II bike lanes - such as Central Avenue between Willow Street and Oak Street is 5.5\nfeet - if you recommend an effective door zone of five feet between the bicycle tire and\nthe parked car to allow for sudden doors to be opened, then need to place bicycle tire on\nthe bike lane line on the Central Avenue bike lane. It says something about the current\npractice as three feet yet they are talking about changing it nationally because the average\ndoor on an SUV is four feet when open. Bicyclists need one foot between the door and\nthe bicycle to ensure that the bicyclist is predictable and safe. He recommends an\nincrease in the width of bike lanes and at least a four-foot door zone.\nCommissioner Tribuzio asked about loop detectors and if they are the same as the ones at\nintersections for vehicles.\nStaff Khan replied that loop detectors detect the metal of a car and staff increases the sensitivity\nto detect bicyclists. Cameras are becoming more common such as on Webster Street and\neventually on Park Street to ensure better detection of bicyclists.\nCommissioner Tribuzio asked about bicycle racks. The guidelines showed two kinds - U shaped\nand the ring kind. He questioned if it would be cheaper to use the ring kind for construction.\nPage 4 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2011-12-14", "page": 5, "text": "Staff Khan replied that the key is that the bicycle should be attached at two points.\nBarry Bergman stated that the inverted U has become the national standard. It provides more\nsupport for bicyclists at two points. The labor is not that much greater than with the ring type.\nThe City is recommending the inverted U as the standard; however, both types are considered\nacceptable.\nCommissioner Vargas - The dialogue between BikeAlameda and the City is great to see. The\ngoal is to make it a more bike friendly city. Developers can use it as the opportunities come up\nand SO he likes the concept of the guidelines. In Spain, he saw some loaner bikes where\nindividuals can borrow bicycles. Perhaps the City can include this item in the next revision. He\nhas minor comments that he will share later. He asked about the timing of the revisions.\nStaff Khan responded that January 6 is the deadline for responses; however, this time has been\nextended since staff will take this item to the January 19 Economic Development Commission\nmeeting and to the Planning Board in February so comments are open. Staff will take the item to\nthe City Council in March or April.\nStaff Payne stated that staff is in contact with the Air District, which has a loaner bike pilot\nproject. Unfortunately, Alameda is not a pilot study city yet possibly could be at future stages so\nstaff is monitoring the project.\nCommissioner Moehring - It would be amazing to have loaner bikes at the ferry terminals for the\nAmerica Cup. Loaner bikes would open up the City for tourists.\nCommissioner Bertken - It looks to be a commercial enterprise in Paris.\nCommissioner Moehring - In Amsterdam, they are looking for a basic bike and they just need\naccess.\nStaff Khan discusses that the design guidelines addresses how to design a facility. It does not\naddress how to design a program so the loaner bike program would not be appropriate in the\ndesign guidelines.\nCommissioner Moehring - When it comes to the width of the bike lane, the City needs to look at\nthe width of the street. We are limited by the width of the street. The bike lanes should be as\nwide as possible.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if looking at the volumes could justify widening the facility.\nStaff Khan - It is a good point, which Barry tried to capture. Around the waterfront, the City\nalso would want a jogging path. We tried to find information from the United States. For\nvehicles, local streets could have 10-foot wide travel lanes. For collectors, we may want to have\nwider lanes with 11-foot lanes. Arterials should have 12-foot lanes. The speed of the car also\nshould play a role because we do not want the drag of trucks to pull the bicyclist under the\nwheels. Barry and he looked at Harbor Bay Parkway with faster speeds. The street would need\nPage 5 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2011-12-14", "page": 6, "text": "wider travel lanes. Fernside Blvd. has seven to eight foot bike lanes since it has the space. It\ndepends on the user and needs of the road. It is why we call these guidelines because staff needs\nto use judgment based on the street conditions. We do not allow less than eight feet for parking\nlanes. The streets are mostly 36 feet, which means two ten feet travel lanes and two eight foot\nparking lanes. We want to maintain at least eight feet of parking lane and see where we can\nincrease the bike lane width.\nCommissioner Bertken questioned if the guidelines will go to the Planning Board. He asked\nabout having a public hearing on the guidelines. Once the City Council adopts the guidelines,\nthen the staff follows the guidelines. Some items affect properties and developers.\nStaff Khan replied that the entire document will go to the Planning Board. The TC is a public\nhearing because this meeting is following all the rules of a public meeting.\nCommissioner Bertken - Usually the usual routine is to announce it as a public hearing.\nCommissioner Moehring - BikeAlameda has discussed this document as a larger group even\nthough only a few representatives are attending the meeting this evening. Obaid said that he\nwould take the TC member recommendations to the next level.\nCommissioner Bertken - He expressed concern that the meeting does not quite cover the\nordinance details.\nStaff Khan replied that some portions of the guidelines will become an ordinance such as parking\nratios and those items would be separately dealt with at the Planning Board or the City Council.\nCommissioner Bertken - He wanted to know which pieces would be subject to the City Council\nand would have more detailed review.\nStaff Khan will announce the date of the Planning Board meeting. Two different actions will be\ntaken by the City Council - to approve the guidelines and to adopt City ordinances on specific\nitems in the guidelines for parking and shower requirements.\nCommissioner Moehring - She wanted to know if the TC members will be making a\nrecommendation to accept the guidelines.\nCommissioner Vargas - He is fine with providing input over the next few months.\nCommissioner Bertken - He wanted to know if this document will come back to the TC in a\nrevised form.\nStaff Khan - He stated that staff could bring it back as a second draft.\nCommissioner Moehring - She stated that staff should bring back a second draft redlined copy at\nthe January meeting.\nPage 6 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2011-12-14", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Bertken - TC is supposed to adopt policies.\nStaff Khan - The TC member comments are captured in the meeting minutes. The TC comments\nwill be used as the TC recommendations and then it will go to the Planning Board. Staff could\nkeep the TC comments separate if desired. Staff is hearing that the TC will start meeting every\nother month starting next year.\nStaff Payne confirmed that there will be a January meeting.\nCommissioner Bertken made the motion to bring a draft redlined copy at the January meeting;\nCommissioner Vargas seconded the motion.\n4D. Additional Bicycle Racks for Park Street\nStaff Khan summarized the staff report.\nCommissioner Bertken - asked a question about the legend.\nStaff Khan replied that the drawings are meant for the detailed engineering design. The details to\nfocus on are the bike rack symbols. The bus stations at Encinal Avenue and other locations may\nbe able to have more bike parking.\nLucy Gigli - President of Bike Alameda - BikeAlameda did rush to walk down Park Street to see\nwhere to place additional bike racks. It ends up that potentially 35 to 40 bike racks along that\ncorridor would be installed. BikeAlameda still is concerned about losing 100 parking meters and\ngoing down to 35 to 40 bike racks. BikeAlameda is not sure how the new bike racks are going to\naccommodate the bike parking. BikeAlameda would like the city to consider an in-street bike\nparking pilot program at some location that is convenient. It would take away one parking space\nfor about ten bike parking spaces. Instead of plenty of bike parking, BikeAlameda is seeing a\nstreetscape with less bike parking. BikeAlameda would like to see one or two of these in-street\nfacilities in place along Park Street.\nJon Spangler - The net lose is about 100 bike parking spaces when considering the parking\nmeters eliminated and the original 12 bike racks installed. The new 35 to 40 bike spaces would\nclose about one half the gap. He made the same request to look at in-street bike parking. One of\nthe locations is Stone Cyclery and the owner of the bar next door. The idea of the shared\nsupervision would work in that location. He hopes that it will be looked at on Webster Street\nand Alameda Landing on its next round to the Planning Board.\nBonnie Wehmann of BoardMemeber BikeAlameda, EBBC and League Instructor Certified - She\nexpressed her concern about the bike racks. It seems so minimal. It would be great to convert\nparking spaces to in-street bike parking.\nCommissioner Moehring - She asked if this issue has gone to PSBA.\nStaff Khan - It is not impacting anything on the sidewalk or parking so it has not gone to PSBA.\nPage 7 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2011-12-14", "page": 8, "text": "Staff will take the item to PSBA if it impacts parking. If there is a high demand for bicycle\nparking, staff will work with Bike Alameda to define those peak demand times and then staff\ncould do the analysis to provide appropriate supply of bike parking. Staff could report back\nfrom the fieldwork to determine what is needed. The concern is that the street sweepers cannot\nclean the in-street bike parking areas. The adjacent businesses would need to come to an\nagreement to maintain it.\nCommissioner Moehring - She asked if there could be stickers redirecting bicyclists to\nadditional bike parking around the corner by the Alameda Theatre.\nStaff Khan - He has not seen this bike parking fully utilized.\nLucy Gigli stated that this parking is on Central Avenue, which is 1.5 blocks away and is\ninadequate bike parking unless it is for a more secure bike parking.\nCommissioner Moehring - Most people only leave their bike for short-term bike parking needs.\nThe City would need to talk to the individual businesses to get their buy-in on the front end. We\nknow it benefits everyone; however, we want to have buy-in from the businesses.\nStaff Khan - He agreed to have buy-in from the businesses.\nJon Spangler - The issue of bike theft has been on the rise in Alameda. One of the things that\nneeds to happen is a public education campaign on the need to use a serious U lock and not a\ncable lock. He has a neighbor who has lost three bikes along Park Street within three months.\nHe hopes that this is something that the Police Department, businesses and BikeAlameda could\nhelp with this effort.\nCommissioner Moehring - Inverted U bike racks support the heavy duty bike locks because they\nallow bicyclists to use better locks. The old style of bike racks such as at Mastick Senior Center\nmake it difficult to use the U lock.\nCommissioner Tribuzio - I have not noticed bike racks at Mastick Senior Center. It would be\nadvantageous to park bikes in a more secure location when leaving it for a full day. The problem\nis where to set up more secure bike parking. It could be a commercial enterprise. Revenues\nexist from parked cars yet the City is not receiving revenue from parked bicycles.\nCommissioner Vargas - He had a question about the bike corral and if there is precedent in\nAlameda.\nStaff Khan - Staff has proposed a bike corral in the guidelines. In-street bike parking exist in\nBerkeley. Staff looks for adequate visibility and adjacent businesses need to agree to keep it\nclean and maintained.\nCommissioner Moehring - She likes what they do in New York where they extend the bus\nshelter for covered bike parking.\nPage 8 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2011-12-14", "page": 9, "text": "Pam Cargill of BikeAlameda - She mentioned the need for additional bike parking along\nRedwood Square near the post office. Another location for additional bike racks is by the Bank\nof Alameda in the alley. It would be better with inverted U bike racks. The current bike parking\nat this alley does not function well.\nCommissioner Moehring - She questioned the safety in that alley.\nPam Cargill - She is not concerned about safety in that area because it is close to a well traveled\narea of Park Street.\nCommissioner Moehring - She agreed about the need to look at these two locations for\nadditional bicycle parking.\nStaff Khan - He stated that he has discussed Redwood Square with Gail Payne and Lucy Gigli,\nand that we will see additional bike racks in the future at these locations.\n4E.\nEstuary Crossing Shuttle Extension to Wind River.\nStaff Payne summarized the staff report.\nCommissioner Moehring - She stated that she feels it is a fabulous program.\n5.\nStaff Communications\nStaff Khan explained the Sunshine Ordinance. It will take effect in February 2012. There will\nbe specific language that will be inserted onto the Transportation Commission agenda. Some of\nthe key provisions include public access to information. Staff will be receiving training on it.\nIn January, staff will present Transportation Commission Bylaws Revisions, Revised Draft\nBicycle Design Guidelines and the Alameda Paratransit Program. Commissioner Tribuzio has\nsubmitted his resignation. He has worked hard and staff appreciates his efforts.\nStaff Payne stated that a new Alameda Unified School District representative will begin\nattending the Transportation Commission meetings.\n6.\nAnnouncements\nCommissioner Moehring stated thank you to Commissioner Tribuzio for all his hard work and\nthank you to the staff.\n7.\nAdjournment\n8:50 PM\nPage 9 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf"}