{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 1, "text": "CITY\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nWEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER\nThe meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m. by Board President Peter Horikoshi.\nPresident Horikoshi called attention to the memo from the City Manager to the Civil Service Board\ndesignating the Human Resources Manager to serve as Acting Human Resources Director and\nExecutive Secretary of the Civil Service Board. The FY 2013/2014 and FY 2014/2015 budget does\nnot include the Human Resources Director position.\nJill Kovacs, Acting Human Resources Director, stated that there is no longer a Human Resources\nDirector. Also, eventually there will be a recruitment and appointment to the Human Resources\nManager position but until that time; she will be serving as the Interim Human Resource Manager.\nMember McHugh asked if the Human Resources Director position was eliminated. Acting Human\nResources Director Kovacs stated yes the position is eliminated but not the classification.\nPresident Horikoshi asked that if sometime in the future they wanted to fund that position they could.\nActing Human Resources Director Kovacs stated yes.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT: President Peter Horikoshi, Vice President Dean Batchelor, Members Linda\nMcHugh, Marguerite Malloy and Zara Santos\nActing Human Resources Director Kovacs introduced Zara Santos who is the newly appointed\nCivil Service Board Member.\nABSENT: Liz Warmerdam, Assistant City Manager\nSTAFF PRESENT: Jill Kovacs, Acting Human Resources Director and Executive Secretary to\nthe Board\nStephanie Sierra, Assistant City Attorney II\nFred Marsh, Finance Director\nChris Low, Senior Management Analyst\nTiffany llacqua, Human Resources Analyst I\nSharlene Shikhmuradova, Administrative Tech II\nBeth Fritz, Administrative Assistant II\n3.\nMINUTES:", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 2\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting July 24, 2013\nA.\nApproval of Minutes of the Regular meeting of April 10, 2013.\nMember McHugh moved that the April 10, 2013 Minutes be approved as written. Motion was\nseconded by Vice President Batchelor which was passed by a 5-0 vote.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nSUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR\nJULY 24, 2013\n4-A.i. ELIGIBLE LISTS ESTABLISHED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nAdministrative Management Analyst\n06/04/2013\n2013-13\n(designated to Police Records Supervisor)\nCity Planner\n01/10/2013\n2013-02PR\nEarly Morning Street Sweeper Operator\n04/30/2013\n2013-18PR\nElectrical Maintenance Technician\n01/28/2013\n2012-41\nFire Apparatus Operator\n07/03/2013\n2013-11PR\nHuman Resources Analyst I\n06/27/2013\n2013-21PR\nJourney Lineworker\n03/11/2013\n2013-04\nMaintenance Worker II\n05/06/2013\n2013-17PR\nParalegal\n04/18/2013\n2013-09\nPolice Captain\n05/01/2013\n2013-12PR\nSupervising Civil Engineer\n04/30/2013\n2013-10\n4-A.ii. ELIGIBLE LISTS EXTENDED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nAdministrative Technician Il\n01/09/2013\n2012-42\nPublic Works Coordinator\n08/29/2012\n2012-24\nSupervising Librarian\n05/24/2012\n2012-18\nPolice Officer\n02/19/2013\n2013-05\nBal, Cameron\nPola, Danelle\nBurnaugh, Michael\nRenfield, Levin\nGarcia, Marshall\nSchlitt, Alyssa\nGrubb, Joel\nSchock, Lindsey\nHorvath, Jason\nPolice Officer\n4/16/2012\n2012-05\nAnderson, Jeffrey\nGroh, Jay\nPerdue, Dan\nViera, Jonathan\nAsefi, Mostafa\nGoyt, Shane\nRhodus, Steven\nViveros, Victor\nBoyer, Coopy\nHolmes, Benjamin\nRhoton, Kyle\nWagner, Justin\nConcepcion, Pete\nHoudashelt, Richard\nSaffold, Darryl\nCote, Tyler\nHowells, David\nSanjideh, Arvin\nDeys, Jon\nHuff, Jonathan\nSherman, Matthew\nElliot, Joseph\nLew, Eugene\nSlater, Ari\nFuller, Christopher\nMoore, Aaron\nStevenson, Bryce\nGlaspy, Daniel\nMourdriak, Sergey\nTatarian, Vatche\nGreen, Andrew\nOlsen, James\nVieira-Riberio, Alexander\nF:\\CSB - Human Resources\\CSB\\All Minutes/201: Minutes\\2013-07-24 CSB Minutes-Final.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 3\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting July 24, 2013\n4-A.iii. ELIGIBLE LISTS EXPIREDICANCELLED/EXHAUSTED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nAdministrative Services Coordinator\n01/23/2013\n2012-43\n(designated to Library Services Coordinator)\nAdministrative Management Analyst\n06/04/2013\n2013-13\n(designated to Police Records Supervisor)\nAssistant City Attorney II\n11/05/2012\n2012-26\nAssistant Engineer\n11/21/2012\n2012-37PR\nCity Planner\n01/10/2013\n2013-02PR\nCustomer Services Supervisor\n02/28/2013\n2013-08PR\nElectrical Maintenance Technician\n01/28/2013\n2012-41\nLibrarian\n01/23/2013\n2012-44\nLine Working Supervisor\n01/02/2013\n2012-39\nMaintenance Team Leader\n10/29/2012\n2012-30\nPlanner I\n05/04/2011\n2011-12\nPolice Officer\n01/10/2013\n2012-33\nSenior Energy Resources Analyst\n11/08/2012\n2012-35\nSenior Fire Code Compliance Officer\n01/10/2013\n2012-48PR\nSenior Librarian\n08/27/2012\n2012-10\nSenior Management Analyst\n01/10/2013\n2013-01PR\nUtility Energy Analyst\n05/24/2012\n2012-14\n4-A.iv. LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS\nExisting Classification Specification Revision:\nDivision Chief\nNew Class Specifications:\nCommunications Engagement Specialist\nHuman Resources Analyst I\nPolice Records Supervisor\nMember Malloy moved that the Consent Calendar items be approved. Motion was seconded\nby Member McHugh which was passed by a 5-0 vote.\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A. Approval of Request for Lateral Transfer to New Classification\n-\nSenior Management Analyst to Fire Administrative Service Supervisor\nInformation was provided to Board. No action required.\nActing Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that at their last few meetings, the Board has been\ndiscussing the shift in the City's approach in the classification structure. The City has had some\nclassifications that are very generic in general and used in multiple departments. With advances in\ntechnology and special technical skills required in different areas, the City has found that it would be\nbetter served to have position specific classifications in many cases. Over time, staff will be working\nto make those changes. As is in all cases, while work is done to develop new classifications and\nspecifications, City operations must continue and as Secretary to the Civil Service Board, the Human\nF:\\CSB - Human Resources\\CSB\\AI Minutes/2013 Minutes/2013-0 CSB Minutes-Final.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 4, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 4\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting July 24, 2013\nResources Director has the authority approve certain actions such as lateral transfers or designation\nof eligible lists.\nMember Santos asked if this means that the transfer is done on an incumbent basis. Acting Human\nResources Director Kovacs stated yes. Member Santos stated, so the idea is that if there are other\nincumbents in the Senior Management Analyst classification, they would subsequently be moved to a\nmore specific classification. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that is correct. For\ninstance, this Senior Management Analyst is moving to the Fire Administrative Services Supervisor\nclassification. In Human Resources, there is another Senior Management Analyst and sometime in\nthe future the Board will be presented with a Senior Human Resources Analyst job specification to\napprove and be advised of a lateral transfer of an incumbent from the general Senior Management\nAnalyst classification to the specialized Senior Human Resources Management Analyst classification.\nMember Santos stated the idea being, the incumbent is already qualified and it is just a cleanup of the\nclassification. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated yes.\nPresident Horikoshi asked if this person was already working in the Fire Department. Acting Human\nResources Director Kovacs stated yes.\nVice President Batchelor asked if this person who was a Senior Management Analyst, has met the\nmajority of the examples of duties of the new Fire Administrative Services Supervisor job\nspecification. He further stated, that the Senior Management Analyst job specification establishes\nthat incumbents are to supervise assigned staff, and asked if this particular individual possessed the\nskills to be able to supervise this new group. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated, yes,\nand added that this is not a new group of employees that will be supervised. The\nSenior\nManagement Analyst assigned to the Fire Department currently supervises these employees.\nMember McHugh asked if there was change in duties. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs\nstated no.\nPresident Horikoshi stated that it sounds like what is being stated is that the Senior Management\nAnalyst classification has been used in more than one department. And now Human Resources is\nworking to make the positions more specific, and that it does not necessarily mean that that part of\nthe organization will change or that the structure will change. The title will be more reflective of the\nactual duties of that particular position. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that is\ncorrect and further stated that the job specification supports that title.\nVice President Batchelor asked if the Senior Management Analyst classification stays open, can other\npeople be assigned to it? Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that the classification will\nprobably be retained. There may be instances where the City would want a general position.\nVice President Batchelor asked if the City has made the decision to get rid of the Senior Management\nAnalyst positions and move folks into other more specific classifications, but will retain the general\nclassification as well. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that the City will still retain the\ngeneral classification to possibly use at a later date. But, in those unique circumstances where there\nis a certain specialized expertise or skill set required, specialized classifications will be used as\nopposed to a general classification. Member Santos stated, for clarification, the position is not open\nbut the classification is still there.\nF:\\CSB - Human Resources\\CSB\\AII Minutes/2013 Minutes\\2013-07-2 CSB Minutes-Final.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 5, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 5\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting July 24, 2013\nMember Santos asked if creating these new classifications is based on the actual job duties as well\nas duties that are a goal down the road for career development and promotions. She also asked if\nthe process for this is basically looking at the incumbent's current duties or were there additional\nduties listed for what the needs of that position might be in the future. Acting Human Resources\nDirector Kovacs stated that whenever a classification and the corresponding job specification is\ndeveloped, the intent is that it is fluid and flexible, so that the job specification does not have to be\nreviewed and reapproved by the Civil Service Board every few months. Acting Human Resources\nDirector Kovacs further stated that this is why job specifications say \"Example of Duties.\" An\nincumbent might not necessarily perform every single duty that is listed in the specification at a given\ntime. However, operational needs and employee duties may change in the department and the job\nspecification is designed to accommodate such shifts.\n5-B. Designation of Eligible List\n-\nAdministrative Management Analyst, 2013-13 for Police Records Supervisor\nvacancy. PD. 4065.001\nInformation was provided to the Board. No action required.\nMember McHugh asked if there was not a big response to the recruitment. Acting Human Resources\nDirector Kovacs stated yes and that it is difficult to attract candidates for this position. There was only\none candidate and when the position was offered to the individual they declined the position. The\nPolice Department is also looking at other alternatives.\nMember Malloy asked how long the prior person had been in the position. Acting Human Resources\nDirector Kovacs stated approximately three to four years.\n5-D. Activity Report - Period of March 1, 2013 through May 31, 2013.\nFULL-TIME HIRES\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n03/18/13\nPolice\nPolice Officers (2)\n03/18/13\nPolice\nIntermediate Clerk\n03/18/13\nPolice\nPublic Safety Dispatchers (2)\n04/08/13\nLibrary\nLibrary Circulation Coordinator\n04/16/13\nPolice\nPolice Officers (2)\n04/29/13\nAlameda Municipal Power\nJourney Line Worker\n05/01/13\nLibrary\nLibrarian\n05/06/13\nAlameda Municipal Power\nElectrical Maintenance Technician\n05/28/13\nCity Attorney's Office\nParalegal\nRECERTIFICATION TO FULL TIME\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n05/13/13\nCommunity Development\nSupervising Planner\nPROMOTIONS\nF:\\CSB - Human Resources\\CSB\\All Minutes/2013 Minutes\\2013-07-24 CSB Minutes-Final.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 6, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 6\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting July 24, 2013\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n03/10/13\nAlameda Municipal Power\nCustomer Service Supervisor\n03/24/13\nPolice\nPolice Sergeant\n05/13/13\nPublic Works\nEarly Morning Street Sweeper\nJOB CLASS TITLE CHANGED\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n03/24/13\nFire\nto Fire Administrative Svcs Coordinator\nLATERAL TRANSFER\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n04/10/13\nFire\nAdministrative Technician I\nFrom City Attorney\nRETIREMENTS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n03/29/13\nFire\nAdministrative Technician III\n04/01/13\nCommunity Development\nSenior Combination Bldg Inspector\n05/31/13\nPolice\nChief of Police\nSEPARATIONS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n03/21/13\nPolice\nAdministrative Management Analyst\n03/23/13\nPolice\nPolice Officer\n04/01/13\nCommunity Development\nPlanning Services Manager\n04/19/13\nCommunity Development\nCommunity Development Director\n05/29/13\nPolice\nPublic Safety Dispatcher\nActing Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that on the Activity Report, staff has divided out the\ncategories more to show which separations are retirements. She further stated that under\nSeparations, there were three people who resigned to accept employment elsewhere.\nMember Santos asked if the Separations include resignations and terminations. Acting Human\nResources Director Kovacs stated yes.\nMember McHugh asked if those going elsewhere went to other municipalities. Acting Human\nResources Director Kovacs stated yes.\nActivity Report accepted by the Board.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\nF:\\CSB - Human Resources\\CSB\\All Minutes\\2013 Minutes\\2013-07-24 CSB Minutes-Final.do", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 7, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 7\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting July 24, 2013\n7.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nPresident Horikoshi welcomed Zara Santos to the Civil Service Board.\n8.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)\nActing Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that Chris Low, Human Resources Senior\nManagement Analyst, is now officially in AMP and no long with the Human Resources Department.\nAlso, Emily Hung is no long with the City of Alameda. She accepted a position with the City of San\nLeandro.\nActing Human Resources Director Kovacs introduced the new Human Resources Analyst I, Tiffany\nllacqua, to the Civil Service Board.\n9.\nCONFIRMATION OF NEXT CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING\nNext Civil Service Board Meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 2, 2013.\n10.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 5:26 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJill Koyacs\nActing Human Resources Director and\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board\nF:\\CSB - Human Resources\\CSB\\All Minutes/2013 Minutes/2013-07-24 CSB Minutes-Final.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 1, "text": "CITY COUNCIL/AUSD SCHOOL BOARD SUBCOMMITTEE\nSPECIAL MEETING\nJuly 24, 2013\nAlamaeda Unified School District\nMarina Conference Room\n2060 Challenger Drive,\nAlameda, CA 94501\nUNADOPTED MINUTES\nSPECIAL SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING: The special sub-committee meeting of the Alameda\nUnified School District (AUSD) City/School joint sub-committee was held on the date and place\nmentioned above.\nCALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Mayor Marie Gilmore at 11:04 AM.\nATTENDANCE:\nMarie Gilmore - Mayor, City of Alameda\nKirsten Vital - Superintendent, Alameda USD\nLena Tam - Member, Alameda City Council\nBarbara Kahn - Member, Alameda USD Board of Education\nNeil Tam - Member, Alameda USD Board of Education\nRobert Shemwell - CBO, Alameda USD\nDennis McDaniels - Alameda Recreation & Park Department\nAmy Wooldridge - Director, Alameda Recreation & Park Department\nAlex Nguyen - Assistant City Manager, City of Alameda\nDennis Berkshire - Consultant, Aquatic Design\nA. CALL TO ORDER:\n1. CALL TO ORDER / GENERAL INTRODUCTION: City Council Members, Board Members and\ntheir respective staff introduced themselves.\n2. Purpose of Subcommittee and Meeting Schedule:\nMayor Gilmore stated the purpose of the meeting: to have a breakout discussion between the City of\nAlameda and AUSD School Board and bring these discussions back to each respective board.\nThe Subcommittee agreed to have staff come together and arrange a schedule for upcoming meetings.\nB. REVIEW AND DISCUSS:\n1. Discussion of possible long-term solution for Emma Hood and Encinal High Swim Centers.\nThe Subcommittee discussed the pools, with staff noting that one 50 meter pool costs about $5M. This\nsize allows for 17 lanes and would require about 7 acres (3-4 for the pool and another 3-4 for parking).\nAlameda High School does not have 7 acres available to accommodate such a swim center. One idea is to", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 2, "text": "have satellite parking with a shuttle to the pool if adequate acreage is not available. The Subcommittee\nclarified that the pool at Alameda High School is on school district property and does not belong to the\nCity.\nThe Subcommittee discussed the possibility of locating a pool on the former naval base and the\ndifficulties in transporting/shuttling students for physical education classes.\nThe Subcommittee discussed the possibility of hosting meets, noting that parking will be an issue\nwhen considering at least 2 spectators per swimmer at such events. The Subcommittee discussed\nthe possibility of building a small hotel to accommodate out-of-area swimmers and families\n2. Discussion of Alameda Little League donation to City of Alameda and Alameda Unified School\nDistrict to install lights at Rittler and Wood Baseball fields.\nThe Subcommittee noted interest in Kofman Auditorium is a separate issue and not part of the pools\ndiscussion. The Subcommittee noted that in the event of a major earthquake, only the Kofman lobby and\nauditorium have been retrofitted aside from the student classrooms. District staff has been directed to look\nfor interim space for the District Office but vacating the site will require fencing around the area. The\nBoard plans to hold larger public meetings to discuss the cost of retrofitting VS. tear down costs.\nA member of the public noted that a single swim center would have to figure out how to accommodate\nstudents at both comprehensive public high schools.\nReport on Redevelopment\nWith the dismantling of redevelopment agencies, the Subcommittee discussed the City as a successor\nentity with 80% economic development and 20% affordable housing with the Housing Authority serving\nas a separate entity. The City will be putting together an oversight Board of 7 members.\nThe Subcommittee noted the school board has nominated Board Member McMahon to serve on the\noversight Board. The District and the City will discuss two agreements - Mastick and the pass through\n($4M) before the oversight Board meetings. Staff will meet at the end of the month to discuss these issues\nfurther and are working jointly on a resolution.\nTidelands, Eagle Avenue, Next Steps\nThe Subcommittee noted the redevelopment agreement between the City and the District is an unusual\none and required more engagement and discussion of options.", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 3, "text": "A member of the public asked about the proposed Project Leaf community garden idea for the former\nIsland High School site on Eagle Avenue. The Subcommittee noted staff is waiting to hear back from the\nstate regarding a $2.5M grant to develop the property.\nThe Subcommittee noted that the District must follow the law in terms of how surplus property is\ndisposed of and the District has little control over who owns the property and no discretion to prefer one\nproject over another.\nAlameda Point Next Steps\nThe Subcommittee noted that the disposition strategy will be going before the Planning Board in 12-18\nmonths and that City staff will be consulting with the District to discuss where the District would like\nacreage. Currently the set aside site is near the proposed business park, and the District may prefer to be\nlocated closer to the residential areas. The Subcommittee noted prior to going before the Planning Board,\nstaff will work with the District on the location of the 12 acres; this project is at least 4 years away.\nRollover MOU for Pools for 2012-13\nThe Subcommittee noted the MOU expired in June and suggested a rollover. The Subcommittee noted\nthat lead abatement is not part of the agreement and added that staff is hopeful some nonprofit and/or\ncommunity organization would be willing to help support the lead abatement fix.\nNew Business\nNone at this time.\nAdjournment\nMayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:08 p.m.", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 4, "text": "THIS MEETING WAS RECORDED (AUDIO ONLY) AND IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S\nWEBSITE AT http://www.cityofalamedaca.gov/City-Hall/Document-Archives.", "path": "SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission Minutes: Wednesday, July 24, 2013\nCommissioner Jesus Vargas called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nJesus Vargas (Chair)\nChristopher Miley (Vice Chair)\nMichele Bellows\nThomas G. Bertken\nSandy Wong\nEric Schatmeier\nStaff Present:\nStaff Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\nStaff Alan Ta, Public Works Assistant Engineer\nStaff Heba El Guendy, Public Works Supervising Civil Engineer\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\n3.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\nCommissioner Vargas attended the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and\nAssociated Bay Area Governments (ABAG) meeting on July 19th regarding the One Bay Area\nPlan and the adoption of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Ultimately, he was glad to see\nland use and transportation planning coming together.\nAlex Nguyen, Alameda City Manager, introduced Heba El Guendy, Supervising Civil Engineer,\nwho is in charge of the City's transportation unit.\nStaff El Guendy said that she joined the City's Public Works Department a month ago and her\n24-years of experience centers on traffic engineering, roadway design and transportation\nplanning. She explained that she has experience as a consultant and has worked for several years\nin the public sector. Additionally, she said she is passionate about the implementation of\ncomplete streets.\n4.\nConsent Calendar\n4A.\nMeeting Minutes - June 26, 2013\nPage 1 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Bellows seconded\nthe motion. The motion was approved 5-0; 1 abstention.\n5.\nNew Business\n5A. Resident Appeal of Public Works Staff's Decision to Not Install the No Parking Street\nSweeping Signs on the 2600 Block of La Jolla Drive\nStaff Ta gave an overview of the item.\nCommissioner Schatmeier clarified with staff that their recommendation was to not recommend\nthe signs.\nStaff Ta replied staff is recommending the signs not be installed.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if the installation of the signs have any influence on the number\nof times the streets are swept.\nStaff Ta explained that the residential streets have a set schedule and they are swept on a weekly\nbasis.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if the signs are not installed, then occasionally cars will be in\nthe way.\nStaff Ta replied yes.\nCommissioner Vargas said he spoke with a City sergeant about the fact that his street was swept\nacross the street where there are signs and later into the day they swept the other side without\nsigns. He then asked about the safety implications if the signs are not added.\nStaff Ta replied he is not aware of any safety impacts with the signs being present or not.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.\nAnn Leonardo, resident of La Jolla Drive, created the petition because the street cleaner comes\nup Broadway, enters into the La Jolla and attempts to get into the cul-de-sac, which is 125 feet\nlong, and cannot because of the parked cars. Consequently, the street cleaner continues up\nBroadway. She apologized to the staff and Commission for the amount of time that it has taken\nto review the issue. When she decided to execute the petition, she attempted to notify her\nneighbors by knocking on their doors. She felt the street around the cul-de-sac is used as a kind\nof catch all for parking.\nRobert Erdmann, resident of La Jolla Drive, reviewed the staff report, public comments and\nappeal. He stated that all opposing comments were address in Staff Ta's notes during his field\nPage 2 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 3, "text": "visit on October 22nd. He sent an email the next day and thanked Staff Ta for coming out and\nmade it clear that he was against the no parking street sweeping signs and parking restrictions on\nthe 2600 La Jolla Drive block.\nCommissioner Miley asked the residents if the gutters and curbs are generally clean on their\nblock.\nAnn Leonardo replied that she hired a gardener to clean the 80-foot strip in front of her house.\nThe gardener clears the gutter and he blows underneath cars. However, she felt the residents\nshould not have to do it if there is a street cleaning vehicle going up and down the streets.\nRobert Erdmann replied that he grew up on the block and his continued duty is to pick up some\noccasional leaves and soda cans. He stated tall trees are not present on their block and the wind\nblows some leaves from the other block, but he sweeps them up because it is not a huge issue.\nPeriodically, on Thursdays, there are not many cars on the street so they could get into the street.\nCommissioner Schatmeier confirmed with Robert Erdmann that at times the street sweeper is\nunable to clean the gutter area.\nRobert Erdmann said he is usually at work, but his wife does occasionally see the street sweeper\nunable to get into the gutter area.\nCommissioner Wong referred to page 5 of the staff report where there are two pictures of a\ntypical Thursday street cleaning morning compared to a non-street sweeping morning. Overall,\nthe snap shots look like there are more cars. So, she asked if staff could look into moving the\nstreet sweeping day to a time when it is not as heavily used.\nStaff Ta replied staff has spoken to the maintenance department and asked if they could move the\ntime, but the City's street sweeping schedule is a complicated matrix and to change it for a 125-\nfoot cul-de-sac is not a reasonable use of staff time.\nCommissioner Wong asked staff what are the scheduled street sweeping dates for Broadway.\nStaff Ta replied the days are Monday and Thursday.\nCommissioner Wong explained since the opposite side of Broadway is on Monday then the street\nsweeper could go down the cul-de-sac since it is a non-street sweeping day. Additionally, based\non the photo from the presentation the cul-de-sac would be less impacted by cars.\nStaff Ta replied that there would still be an impact of parked cars regardless of the day.\nCommissioner Miley asked if the City is required to sweep 100 percent of City streets.\nStaff Ta replied that the City has a schedule to sweep all the public streets, but he is not certain of\nCity policy.\nCommissioner Bellows said her street contained signs on one side because it was needed to\nPage 3 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 4, "text": "maintain the overflow and water quality of the Bay from the affluent running off during storms.\nShe went on to say residents could request the signs, but 50 percent or more residents must agree\nwith the need to erect signs and restrict parking. Ultimately, the City is meeting and exceeding\nthe requirement to sweep the streets and the City does not have to sweep every street because the\noutflow to the Bay is far less.\nCommissioner Miley replied that the City has a broader standard and not just a block-by-block\npolicy.\nCommissioner Miley moved to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Bellows seconded\nthe motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n5B. Encinal High School Improvements - Phase II\nStaff Ta presented the report.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if Taylor Avenue would still be two-way.\nStaff Ta replied yes.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff based on the improvements initially there were 20 movements\nand in Phase II would there be far fewer movements.\nStaff Ta replied yes.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff if there are warrants to be checked regarding the stop signs.\nStaff Ta replied that there are, but they are reviewing them qualitatively. Also, based on the\ngeometry and the layout of the five-way intersection, if three cars appear it is hard to see which\ncar goes first. Consequently, the intersection would not be a great candidate for an all-way stop\nsign.\nCommissioner Miley asked about the peak-hour traffic volumes and how many cars are coming\nfrom Central Avenue or Third Street and turning onto Taylor Avenue.\nStaff Ta said that the counts are found in the presentation.\nCommissioner Wong said that she understood the bus stop relocation, which makes sense.\nHowever, on the opposite side found on Figure 15, \"Passenger Loading Zone\", there is\nsignificant congestion in the morning compared to the afternoon. So, if they put the Passenger\nLoading Zone 4 right there, then that block or create congestion even though cars are pulling to\nthe side. She felt one of the main issues are drivers who are coming from Central Avenue\ntowards the high school stop in the middle of the intersection when students are entering the\ncrosswalk from Third Street across Central Avenue instead of stopping by Central Avenue and\nTaylor Avenue. She went on to explain that all motorists should stop where they are supposed to\nstop because cars on Central Avenue would line up until they almost touched the kids. Third\nStreet becomes backed up and drivers going down Central Avenue cannot pass the traffic and\nPage 4 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 5, "text": "make sweeping turns onto Taylor Avenue.\nStaff Ta replied that they reviewed it and were thinking of a few other options, but their priorities\nwere to improve pedestrian and bicycle access.\nCommissioner Wong asked staff to move the drop off point down to the corner near the student\nparking driveway and access to the bay because it is less congested. She emphasized not at the\nfive-way intersection but nearby so only one crosswalk would be moved.\nStaff Ta replied that staff could review the benefits of relocating the passenger-loading zone to\npossibly two locations. Also, he noted they have been working with Encinal High School and\nAlameda Unified School District on the improvements.\nStaff Payne referred to Exhibit 3 in the staff report and asked Staff Ta if they were still working\nwith the school district or is it on hold. She just wanted clarification because that passenger\nloading zone is east of the driveway.\nStaff Ta replied that it is still a recommendation.\nCommissioner Wong stated she understood that, but on the opposite side there are near misses\nwhen cars approach on Central Avenue going westbound from Taylor Avenue and Third Street.\nCommissioner Bellows stated that she supported Commissioner Wong's comments and asked\nstaff with the projected future growth and warrant for the flashing beacon are these proposed\nimprovements compatible with this structure.\nStaff Ta replied that he does not see them as being incompatible.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff based on the illustration presented if the street narrows down\nas it approaches the other crosswalk at Lincoln Avenue.\nStaff Ta replied that the street opens at the crosswalk.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.\nJerry Juhala said for part of last year he helped Officer Yakas conduct crosswalk duties at the\nschool in the mornings. He fully supported the Public Work proposal. He urged the Commission\nto do at least some of the items proposed before the school year begins. He recommended that\nthey erect the portable signage that says \"No left turn from Central onto Third Street\" and \"No\nleft turn from Taylor Avenue onto Third Street.\" The signs would make it significantly safer for\nstudents to cross going to school and the signage has limited cost. He felt any change would\nrequire an educational period for the students and parents. Furthermore, he thought that the\nloading zones are a good idea, and would help stop parents dropping kids in the middle of the\nintersection.\nKaren Greaves, Taylor Avenue resident, said her biggest issue is the restriction of turning onto\nTaylor Avenue from Central Avenue and Third Street. She felt Taylor Avenue is not the issue,\nPage 5 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 6, "text": "but it is the parents that are in a hurry and want to drop their children off at the most convenient\nplace. This recommendation is not the right solution.\nKurt Peterson, Block Captain of 200 Santa Clara Avenue, said they had two community\nmeetings and he attended the last meeting. He noted that the congestion problem is one hour of\nevery weekday and the overwhelming issue is speeding cars headed towards Third Street. He\nfound over 90 percent of the residents did not want to see Taylor Avenue closed, but the staff\nwants to recommend partially closing Taylor Avenue. Police presence of one hour of every day\nwould help. He complained that the City did not provide an email with the community\ncomments after the meeting.\nDebbie Jennings, Taylor Avenue resident, created the petition and obtained the signatures to\nobject to the change. She said that the intersection does not meet the qualification for traffic\nsignals, but does that mean that the state of California would not allow the City to install the\nlights or does that mean if the City installed the lights then the City must pay the bill. She\nrecommended having a no left turn at anytime during the AM and PM school rush, but closing\nTaylor Avenue is not going to solve the problem.\nWendell Stewart, Santa Clara Avenue resident, said he supported Kurt Peterson's comments, and\nthat only one hour each day is a problem.\nSonja Christianson considered herself an expert because she has lived in the area for over 18\nyears and walked across that crosswalk to take her child to Paden Elementary every morning.\nShe felt that the traffic speed is one of the biggest issues and it is not addressed in the\npresentation. Also, occasionally she crossed the intersection going on a walk, and they have not\naddressed the most dangerous intersection is Lincoln Avenue and Central Avenue due to the\ncurves and the speeding. She requested a traffic signal.\nHarold Jennings, disagreed with blocking entry onto Taylor Avenue and during the school\nhours, he supported a crossing guard or a police presence. Overall, he recommended that the City\nspend more time looking at the intersection.\nSusan Hodges said she does not live in Alameda, but her grandson goes to Encinal High School,\nand she attended all of the public meetings. The majority of the attendees wanted an on-demand\nstop light. She supported moving the bus stop, the crosswalk, but the stop light would help.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, explained that he\nhas ridden through this intersection before and he is glad that the intersection is getting attention.\nThe previous speaker mentioned an on-demand stop light, and he suggested that there be an on\ndemand, all direction stop pedestrian signal. The action would demonstrate the Commission and\nCity's belief in a pedestrian friendly City. Also, a uniform no left turn during the peak periods\nsimilar to San Francisco's policy would help.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff if other warrants besides traffic counts could help erect the\ntraffic signal.\nStaff El Guendy replied that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provide\nPage 6 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 7, "text": "for eight warrants that are needed to erect a traffic signal. However, even if all eight warrants are\nmet, the final approval is subject to engineering judgment. She stated that staff provided\nsignificant information in the report with two alternatives to address the communities' concerns.\nShe also explained the cost for a full signal at the five-legged intersection would equal to\n$500,000 or more, and the City would be responsible for the bill. Also, if they were to install\nsignals that are not warranted that would subject the City to liability if a collision were to occur.\nUnwarranted stop signals increase certain types of collisions such as car rear and right angle\ncollisions.\nCommissioner Schatmeier referred to Jon Spangler's comments about restricting left turn\nmovements during peak hours and that is already done on Park Street. He asked staff if it could\nbe considered an alternative rather than closing Taylor Avenue.\nStaff Ta replied that some of the signage already has been addressed, and staff wanted to\nmaintain the westbound Central Avenue left turn for people who live east of the school to access\nthe back of the school. Also, staff wanted to allow motorists coming down Third Street to bypass\ncongestion at the crosswalk on Central Avenue.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said he was sympathetic to the sweeping turns that were presented in\nthe report. However, he understood the residents' concerns of closing off the street. Ultimately,\nhe was looking to find an alternative to address both issues and restricting access during peak\nperiods on Central Avenue coming from the base onto Taylor Avenue might help.\nStaff Ta explained that the improvement provided a refuge and visibility to the motorist and\nallowed them to creep out without concerns of the sweeping movements. Staff addressed Taylor\nAvenue residents' concerns in the alternative proposal.\nAlex Nguyen asked Staff Ta to go over the alternative proposal with the Commission.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff to go over the public's response of the alternative proposal.\nStaff Ta explained that based on the community's input with a permanent limitation onto Taylor\nAvenue staff developed this alternative, which is very similar in design, but maintains the\nmovement inbound so during off peak hours there is no change to the intersection, but peak\nhours they could not turn from Central onto Taylor Avenues. However, motorists would be able\nto enter onto Taylor Avenue from Third Street and there would be signage located within the\nvicinity of Encinal High School to restrict left turns.\nCommissioner Vargas asked Debbie Jennings if her group reviewed staff's alternative proposal\nDebbie Jennings replied that there is some support from the residents.\nKurt Peterson stated that you need a raised barrier in the red area illustrated in the presentation.\nAlso, the unsafe turn from Central Avenue onto Third Street is needed to be addressed.\nCommissioner Miley wondered if the Safe Routes to School program could provide funding\nopportunities.\nPage 7 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 8, "text": "Staff El Guendy replied that high schools are eligible for federal Safe Routes to School grants.\nAlso, there might be some regional funds available.\nStaff Payne stated that Measure B does not have a competitive grant program.\nCommissioner Miley felt that the best thing was to have physical presence to oversee activity, but\nthat requires funding. He supported the alternative to the recommendation and staff should\nidentify grant opportunities.\nCommissioner Bertken stated that if they are forming the motion that they should include\nrecommendation two.\nCommissioner Wong asked staff how long would they study affects after implementation and\nwould the study look at the population increases.\nStaff El Guendy replied that the study would be dictated by the school season and staff could\nconduct additional observations for the stop control.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said the concern is the left hand turn from eastbound Central Avenue\nonto Taylor Avenue and staff presented it as a sweeping turn that caused safety concerns. So,\nsigns limiting the turn during peak hours would be erected, but he did not hear about a stop sign\nbeing installed in that direction.\nStaff El Guendy replied installing a stop sign for Central Avenue would require both directions.\nThus, warrants would have to be evaluated for the overall intersection for all approaches.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if staff was proposing a stop sign on Central Avenue.\nStaff El Guendy said no.\nAlex Nguyen asked for clarification before the Commission made a motion. He asked the\nCommission if staff should not go ahead with the big loading zone until they studied the\npossibility of moving it down across the other loading zone.\nCommissioner Wong recommended the alternative to staff's recommendation with further study\nof moving the loading zone.\nCommissioner Bertken said Donald Lum Elementary School has yield markings located before\nthe crosswalk where motorists are supposed to stop and wondered if that could be included in\nthis proposal.\nStaff Ta replied they are \"Yield here for pedestrian\" markings with triangles across the street like\nshark teeth and they could review adding them to the proposal.\nCommissioner Miley made a motion to accept the alternative to the recommendation one with\nstaff to review Commissioner Wong's recommendation to shift the loading zone # 4 from its\nPage 8 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 9, "text": "current location further down to Lincoln and Central Avenue. He also added that staff should\nreview Commissioner Bertken's comment to add \"Yield to pedestrian\" markings painted on\nCentral Avenue.\nCommissioner Schatmeier commented that staff should study the traffic volumes for the\nsweeping turn, which was one of the differences between staff's recommendation and the\nalternate.\nCommissioner Vargas asked Sergeant Simmons his opinion about staff's recommendation one\nand the alternate based on a safety perspective.\nSergeant Ron Simmons, Alameda Police Traffic Section Supervisor, felt the first\nrecommendation was the safest recommendation based on pedestrian and bicycle movements,\nand he appreciated alternative two, but he would like to see \"No stopping anytime\" signs on the\ncurve of the sweeping turn from westbound Central Avenue to eastbound Taylor Avenue\nbecause he noticed when painted red the parents stop at that intersection to drop-off their kids.\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve the alternative to staff's recommendation and review\nCommissioners Wong, Bertken, and Shatmeier's comments as well as exploring future funding.\nCommissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n5C. Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans\nStaff Payne presented the report.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff about the conclusion of Neptune Park pathway after they\napproved the IN and Out Burger development.\nStaff Payne stated that is under Alameda Landing Remnant Parcel Updates under item #6.\n6.\nStaff Communications\nChanged Date for Next Regular Transportation Commission Meeting\n- Tuesday, September 24 at 7 p.m., City Council Chambers\nSpecial Transportation Commission Meeting with the Planning Board on Monday,\nSeptember 30 at 7 p.m., City Council Chambers (Main Item of Discussion - Revised\nDraft Regional Transit Access Study)\nAlameda Landing Remnant Parcel Updates\n-\nWent to the Planning Board on Monday, July 22. The use permit for the Chase Bank,\nIn and Out Burger driver thru aisle, and Safeway Gas station with exception with\nwine and beer was approved. On August 12, the project is headed for the site design\nand landscaping. Approval is subject to the provision of the crosswalk on Stargell\nAvenue and Webster Street, which is in the state right-of-way. Now, staff is\ncommunicating with Caltrans to get approval of the crosswalk. There will be a\nmeeting with Caltrans next week to get feedback on the alternatives to the design.\nAdditionally, staff will apply for an encroachment permit for the installation of a\nPage 9 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 10, "text": "pedestrian signal at that leg and the establishment of the crosswalk. Overall, the site\nplan has been revised and a fence in the center median on Stargell Avenue was\nincluded to prevent jaywalking and mid-block crossing.\nAC Transit Line OX - Opening to Local Riders\nBART Strike Updates and Lessons Learned\n-\nThere may be a BART Strike on Monday, August 5.\n-\nCommissioner Bellows said she received positive comments on how the City handled\nthe BART strike because residents said it went smoothly.\n-\nCommissioner Shatmeier said that two days ago, he was catching the bus towards the\ncoliseum and usually he takes the Harbor Bay Ferry. He saw a sign that says City of\nAlameda shuttle to the ferry and he was not aware of it. He would like to know how\nthe City is getting the word out about the service.\n-\nStaff Payne replied that she sent out an announcement to the Commission email list\nserv about the shuttle and staff set up a City webpage about the BART strike, which\nincluded information about the shuttle. Moreover, she linked the shuttle to the\n511.org website.\nPosey and Webster Tube Rehabilitation Project - Next Steps\nPotential Future Meeting Agenda Items\n-\nRevised Draft Regional Transit Access Study\n-\nAC Transit Line 51A Performance Initiative Grant\n-\nAlameda Point Planning Document\n-\nAC Transit Comprehensive Operations Analysis\n-\nAlameda Ferry Terminal Station Access Plan\n-\nCity of Alameda Transit Disruption Plan\n-\nPort of Oakland's Ron Cowan Parkway Proposed Class I Path\n-\nTraffic Control and Contingency Plan during Construction for I-880/29th Ave./23rd\nAve. Interchange Improvement Plan in Oakland: Public Information Program and\nTransit Impacts\n7.\nAnnouncements/ Public Comments\nJon Spangler wanted to say the BART Pilot project looks good, but the July BART strike did\nslow things down because it took away their first 5-days. Yet, they are working on getting the\nbikes through and the BART Board is scheduled to evaluate the outcome in October.\n8.\nAdjournment\n9:04 pm\nPage 10 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}