{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2019-07-24", "page": 1, "text": "City of Alameda Page 1\nCivil Service Board Minutes - DRAFT\nRegular Meeting July 24, 2019\nCITY\nOF\nof\nTERRA\nRATED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nWEDNESDAY, July 24, 2019\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER\nThe meeting was called to order at 5:07 p.m. by President, Marguerite Malloy.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT:\nPresident Marguerite Malloy, Members Bob Barde, John Nolan, Human\nResources Director and Executive Secretary of the Civil Service Board,\nNancy Bronstein\nABSENT:\nDonna Hom, Troy Hosmer\nSTAFF PRESENT: Chris Low, Senior Human Resources Analyst\nSabina Netto, Senior Human Resources Analyst\nJessica Romeo, Senior Human Resources Analyst\nSteven Woo, Human Resources Analyst Il\nNafisah Ali, Human Resources Analyst I\nChad Barr, Administrative Technician II\n3.\nMINUTES:\nPresident Malloy moved to accept the April 03, 2019 Minutes. Motion was seconded by\nMember Barde which was passed by a 3-0 vote.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n4-A. SUMMARY REPORT OF EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND\nCLASSIFICATIONS FOR April 3, 2019.\n4-A-i. ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\n(March 1, 2019 - May 31, 2019)\nAccount Clerk\n03/06/2019\n2018-1610-02\nAccount Manager\n04/17/2019\n2019-7616-01", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2019-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2019-07-24", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda Page 2\nCivil Service Board Minutes - DRAFT\nRegular Meeting July 24, 2019\nAdministrative Management Analyst\n05/13/2019\n2019-1410-01\nAdministrative Technician Il\n04/15/2019\n2019-1465-01\nAssociate Civil Engineer\n05/16/2019\n2019-3140-01\nElectrical Engineer - Promotional\n03/04/2019\n2019-7230-01\nFinancial Services Manager\n04/08/2019\n2018-1695-01\nFire Captain - Promotional\n03/07/2019\n2019-4520-01\nHuman Resources Analyst I - Promotional\n05/29/2019\n2019-1258-01\nHuman Resources Analyst Il - Promotional\n05/30/2019\n2019-1260-01\nInvestigation Divisions Office Assistant (Office\n04/16/2019\n2019-1550-01\nAssistant)\nMaintenance Worker II\n04/15/2019\n2019-2520-02\nPermit Technician II - Promotional\n05/28/2019\n2019-3270-01\nPermit Technician III - Promotional\n04/23/2019\n2019-3274-01\nPolice Lieutenant - Promotional\n04/30/2019\n2019-4020-01\nSenior Account Manager\n04/17/2019\n2019-7617-01\nSenior Building Code Compliance\n03/21/2019\n2019-3246-01\nOfficer - Promotional\nSenior Human Resources Analyst\n05/29/2019\n2019-1265-01\n-\nPromotional\nSystem Operator Trainee - Promotional\n03/06/2019\n2019-7761-01\n4-A-ii. CONTINUOUS ELIGIBLE LISTS DATE FIRST ESTABLISHED EXAM NO.\nCombination Building Inspector\n10/16/2018\n2018-3245-01\nPolice Officer - Academy Graduate\n10/12/2017\n2017-4040-01\nPolice Officer - Lateral\n09/11/2017\n2017-4040-02\nPolice Officer - Recruit\n09/15/2017\n2017-4057-01\nSenior Fire Code Compliance Officer\n01/08/2019\n2018-3247-01\nSystem Operator\n02/20/2019\n2018-7760-01\n4-A-iii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nAbandoned Vehicle Technician -\n11/06/2018\n2018-4079-01\n(Police Technician)\nAdministrative Technician Il\n03/22/2018\n2017-1465-01\nAMI System Administrator\n10/18/2018\n2018-7290-01\nEnergy Resources Analyst\n09/24/2018\n2018-7075-01\nFire Apparatus Operator - Promotional\n10/15/2018\n2018-4505-01\nMaintenance Worker\nI\n10/19/2017\n2017-2510-01\nManagement Analyst\n05/10/2018\n2018-1420-01\nPermit Technician I\n04/19/2018\n2018-3000-01\nPlanner III - Promotional\n11/06/2018\n2018-6040-01\nSenior Utility Accountant\n03/14/2018\n2018-7425-01\nService Lineworker\n04/27/2018\n2018-7765-01\nUtility Service Planner -\n05/22/2018\n2018-7250-01\n(Electrical Distribution Tech)\n4-A-iv. ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIRED/\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nCANCELLED/EXHAUSTED\nAccountant I\n11/02/2017\n2017-1677-01\nAccount Clerk\n04/12/2018\n2017-1610-01\nAdministrative Management Analyst\n05/13/2019\n2019-1410-01\nAssistant General Manager - Energy Resource 09/19/2017\n2017-7056-01\nPlanning", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2019-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2019-07-24", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda Page 3\nCivil Service Board Minutes - DRAFT\nRegular Meeting July 24, 2019\nElectrical Engineer - Promotional\n03/04/2019\n2019-7230-01\nFirefighter\n10/23/2017\n2017-4500-01\nFleet Services Assistant (Office Assistant)\n03/14/2018\n2018-1550-01\nGardener\n06/28/2017\n2017-21\nPark Maintenance Worker II\n04/12/2018\n2018-5261-01\nPlan Check Engineer\n10/01/2018\n2018-3230-01\nSenior Building Code Compliance\n03/21/2019\n2019-3246-01\nOfficer-Promotional\nTraffic Signal Technician -\n04/17/2018\n2018-2570-01\n(Traffic Signal Maintenance Technician)\n4-A-v. LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS\nExisting Classification Specification Revision:\n-\nRedevelopment Manager to Base Reuse Manager\nNew Classification Specifications:\n- None\nPresident Malloy moved to approve Consent Calendar items 4-A-i, 4-A-ii, 4-A-iii,\nand 4-A-v. Motion was seconded by Member Nolan, which was passed by a 3-0\nvote.\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n5-A. Activity Report - Period of March 1, 2019 through May 31, 2019.\nFULL-TIME HIRES\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n03/18/19\nFire\nFire Administrative Services Manager\n03/18/19\nLibrary\nLibrary Technician\n03/18/19\nPublic Works\nMaintenance Worker I\n03/25/19\nAMP\nProcurement Analyst\n03/25/19\nPolice\nPolice Technician\n04/01/19\nAMP\nSafety Officer\n04/02/19\nRecreation & Parks\nGardener\n04/08/19\nAMP\nUtility Energy Analyst\n04/10/19\nCity Manager's Office\nCity Manager\n04/16/19\nFinance\nAccount Clerk\n04/20/19\nFinance\nAccount Clerk\n05/13/19\nFinance\nAdministrative Technician Il\n05/13/19\nCity Attorney's Office\nCity Attorney\n05/28/19\nAMP\nSystem Operator\n05/28/19\nBase Reuse\nOffice Assistant\nPROMOTIONS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n03/17/19\nFire\nDivision Chief", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2019-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2019-07-24", "page": 4, "text": "Office Assistant\n03/28/19\nIT\nInformation Technology Manager\n03/30/19\nPolice\nPolice Lieutenant\n04/20/19\nFire\nFirefighter\n05/02/19\nAMP\nProcurement Analyst\n05/09/19\nLibrary\nSupervising Librarian\nSEPARATIONS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n03/02/19\nPolice\nPolice Officer\n03/06/19\nPolice\nPolice Officer\n03/11/19\nFire\nFirefighter\n04/02/19\nAMP\nCustomer Service Representative\n04/11/19\nBase Reuse\nAdministrative Technician Il\n04/24/19\nPublic Works\nMaintenance Worker Il\n04/24/19\nRecreation & Parks\nAccounting Technician\n05/09/19\nAMP\nApprentice Lineworker\n05/12/19\nCDD\nAdministrative Technician Il\n05/15/19\nPublic Works\nManagement Analyst\n5-B. Informational Report, March 12, 2019, Regarding Acknowledgement to\nReturn to Civil Service Position:\n-\nJeff Delbono\nMarch 15th, 2019, Acknowledgement of Application to Temporarily Vacate Civil Service\nPosition:\n-\nJames Colburn\nMarch 31, 2019, Acknowledgement of Return to Civil Service Position:\n- Brandon Baley\nRegular Agenda Items accepted without questions.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNo comment from public.", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2019-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2019-07-24", "page": 5, "text": "City of Alameda Page 5\nCivil Service Board Minutes - DRAFT\nRegular Meeting July 24, 2019\n7.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)\nSecretary Bronstein asked Board if they would like to invite Jan Brandt to the next meeting\nto say thank you for her service and the Board had no objections.\nPresident Malloy asked if Michael Roush had provided information on the need for ethics\ntraining for Board members. Secretary Bronstein confirmed the members do not have to\ndo it in the future if they do not seek reimbursement for expenses related to the Civil\nService Board.\n8.\nCONFIRMATION OF NEXT CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING\nThe October meeting was confirmed for Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 5:00 PM.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 5:12 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nNancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director\nM\nand\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2019-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2019-07-24", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\nWEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2019\nChair Soules convened the meeting at 7:00pm.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Vice Chair Soules, Commissioners Johnson, Nachtigall, Kohlstrand, Weitze,\nHans.\nAbsent: Commissioner Yuen.\nGail Payne, Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the newest member,\nCommissioner Weitze.\nCommissioner Weitze provided a brief background about himself and why he wanted to\nbe on the Commission.\nStaff Member Payne announced that Commissioner Yuen was out because she recently\nhad a baby boy.\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\n3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT\n3-A AC Transit Proposed Line 96 Increased Frequency and Route Adjustment for\nAlameda Point, Community Meeting: Wed, July 31 at 6 p.m., Alameda City Hall and Public\nHearing: Wed, Aug 7 at 2 and 6 p.m., AC Transit, 1600 Franklin St..:\nhttp://www.actransit.org/public-hearings/\n3-B Transportation Commission Meeting: Wed, Sept. 25 at 7 p.m.\n3-C Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) 2019 Trainings in September and\nOctober: register on Fire Department web page\n3-D Upcoming Grant-Funded Bicycle Safety Education Classes:\nhttps://bikeeastbay.org/alamedabikeed\n3-E Travel Tips Workshop by the Center for Independent Living at Mastick Senior Center\n- Friday, Sept 13, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.\n3-F Tsunami Presentations: Thurs, Sept. 19 at 6:30 p.m. (boating community) and Wed,\nOct. 30 at 6:30 p.m. (citywide) - City Hall, Council Chambers\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2019-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2019-07-24", "page": 2, "text": "Jim Strehlow said he wants to address electric scooters and bicycles misusing the bike\nlanes. He said that on July 4th, he was bicycling on Broadway when a car turned suddenly\nand nearly hit him. He wondered how many near misses happen because there is no\nreporting for that statistic. He told a story of a car using a bike lane in Oakland and creating\na hazard, pointing to the confusing lane markings as the likely cause.\n4. CONSENT CALENDAR\n4-A 2019-7113\nDraft Meeting Minutes - May 22, 2019\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked staff to review her comments on page 8 of 9, at the top,\nfor accuracy.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand motioned approval of the minutes as corrected.\nCommissioner Nachtigall seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\n5. NEW BUSINESS\n5-A 2019-7114\nBoard Elections\nStaff Member Payne introduced the item. The staff report can be found at:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4065041&GUID=92522B1C-\n 5433-4A75-92C6-46086298E374\nCommissioner Johnson nominated Commissioner Soules as chair. Commissioner\nKohlstrand seconded the nomination. The nomination passed 6-0.\nCommissioner Soules nominated Commissioner Nachtigall as Vice Chair.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.\n5-B 2019-7115\nDiscuss the I-880 Express Lanes\nStaff Member Payne introduced the item. The staff report and exhibits can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4065113&GUID=AAD5A3EC-\n6AE6-45E4-9DD0-654529F301EC&FullText=1\nBarbara Laurenson, MTC, gave a presentation.\nCommissioner Nachtigall asked how far apart the entrances and exits would be along the\ncorridor.\nMs. Laurenson showed a map illustrating the types and characteristics of entrances and\nexits to the express lanes.\nCommissioner Nachtigall asked if all buses, whether public or private, would be able to\nuse the lanes toll free.\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2019-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2019-07-24", "page": 3, "text": "Ms. Laurenson said that all buses would be free.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if Uber and Lyft vehicles with three total passengers would\nalso be free.\nMs. Laurenson said that those vehicles would also be free.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if consideration has been given to mandating Fastrak to\neliminate cash lanes.\nMs. Laurenson said that conversation has not gone very far.\nThere were no public speakers.\n5-C 2019-7116\nApprove the Clement Avenue Safety Improvement Project Recommendations (Andrew\nThomas, Director of the Planning, Building and Transportation Department) Outcome:\nCommission to provide recommendations\nAndrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Department Director, gave a\npresentation. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4065114&GUID=20E10C59-\n20AE-43AE-AF1F-F761759F89D7&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand said she did not feel like all three alternatives got a fair\ncomparison, and that staff was advocating for one alternative. She asked what the\nadvantage of the hybrid alternative would be.\nStaff Member Thomas said the hybrid alternative eliminates fewer parking spaces and\nkeeps the Park Street intersection the same as it is today.\nThaddeus Wozniak, project consultant from CDM Smith, said that if there is a decision not\nto use a two-way bikeway for the entire Cross Alameda Trail, there would have to be a\ntransition somewhere. He added that if the hybrid alternative is chosen, the transition\nwould be at Walnut and if bike lanes are chosen for the corridor, the transition would be\nat Grand. He said the hybrid option continues the two-way bikeway as far as possible in\nthe areas where there are few driveways before transitioning to traditional bike lanes.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand said Alameda has so few streets that trucks and buses can run\non and that she is concerned that we are giving so much priority to bicycles on this\nparticular street. She said option 3 puts more capital improvements into the street that\nwould make it harder for buses to run in the future.\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2019-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2019-07-24", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Member Payne said that they discussed the Line 19 restoration with AC Transit and\nspecifically chose Buena Vista to increase ridership with a wider catchment area. She\nadded that Clement is a truck route and that staff prefers not to burden the truck route with\na bus route as well.\nCommissioner Johnson asked if the bike signal at Park Street would be on demand, or\nalways active.\nMr. Wozniak said the plan would be to have detection so that the bike signal phase would\nonly activate when a bicyclist is present.\nCommissioner Johnson asked what would happen to the abundant power poles and lines\nalong the north side of the street.\nStaff Member Thomas said the higher voltage lines run along the northern side and they\nhave been told by AMP to not expect to underground those lines. He said that there will\nbe some poles that get undergrounded along the northern side with each new\ndevelopment, but the 115kv lines will stay.\nCommissioner Nachtigall asked how option 3 would make it so that more street trees could\nbe placed along the corridor.\nStaff Member Payne explained how street trees could be placed in the striped visibility\nzones adjacent to the bike facility near intersections. She added that more detail would be\nincluded as the plans get further developed.\nCommissioner Weitze asked what percentage of the project is already paid for.\nStaff Member Payne said they have a federal grant for over five million dollars that will pay\nfor 88% of the project.\nCommissioner Weitze said that his research showed that trailered boats could only be\nnine feet wide without getting a wide load permit.\nCommissioner Johnson asked for more information about the stop sign discussion that\nhas taken place.\nStaff Member Thomas said they would put in stop signs when it is warranted. He said the\nAlameda Marina project would result in some additional stops signs.\nMr. Wozniak said there would be two new four way stops at two new locations for access\nto the Alameda Marina project.\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2019-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2019-07-24", "page": 5, "text": "Chair Soules asked for and received confirmation that the parking loss counts do not\nreflect additional loading zones that may be added. She said that Clement may become a\nmore attractive bus route as there is increased development in the area. She asked how\nthe two-way bikeway would work with bus stops.\nMr. Wozniak explained the safety benefits of not having buses crossing bike lanes to\naccess stops. He said a bus boarding island can be built where there is parking adjacent\nto the bikeway.\nChair Soules asked what the alternative truck route would be if it were not Clement.\nStaff Member Thomas said that Buena Vista would be the alternate truck route. He said\nthe City has been working with residents to move the existing truck route segments off of\nBuena Vista.\nChair Soules asked what the data were showing for safety on this corridor compared to\nother areas in Alameda.\nStaff Member Payne showed the slide demonstrating the number and locations of\ncollisions along the corridor. She said the wide lanes contribute to speeding and a\ndisproportionate number of incidents. She said that there are fewer incidents being seen\nwhere protected bike lanes have been installed.\nChair Soules opened the public hearing.\nJim Strehlow said the key on page 5, figure 4 was not clear. He said adding street trees\nnear Everett would make it very difficult for the businesses in that area. He said the current\ndesign is working fine. He questioned whether there are enough collisions to warrant such\na major design change. He said he liked the shade he gets currently in the afternoon when\nriding on the south side of the street. He asked how many bike routes we need. He said\nthere are alternatives, and he uses Buena Vista because it continues further east. He\nexpressed support for option 1.\nShawn Throwe said he owns the only remaining boatyard in Alameda. He said four years\nago they asked the board to not support this plan and the Commission agreed. He said\nhe had 54 wide load trucks last year, up to almost 17 feet wide. He said truckers have\noptions to go to other cities. He supported option 2 because otherwise his trucks would\nrequire police escorts. He said he never sees bicycles during the weekdays when his\ntrucks would transit the area.\nJim Devlin said he chose to move to Alameda because he wanted a safe place for\nbicyclists and pedestrians. He said the streets are not safe for his son to ride on. He said\nthe area is going to change with all the residential being added and those people will want\nto be able to navigate safely. He endorsed option 3.\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2019-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2019-07-24", "page": 6, "text": "James Falaschi, Alameda Marina, said they support the staff recommendation and look\nforward to working with the City to make it a reality.\nBonnie Wehmann said she supports option 3. She said she teaches kids how to bicycle\nsafely and drivers get angry and impatient sharing the road with bicyclists. She said\nprotected bike lanes provide the most safety.\nSusie Hufstader, Bike East Bay, said she supports the protected bike lane. She said her\npartner test rode her commute to Berkeley today and said it was really hard and stressful\nhaving cars brushing by all the time. She said the Cross Alameda Trail is about a bigger\nvision that is safe, comfortable and continuous.\nPat Potter, Bike Walk Alameda, supported option 3. She said this option makes the most\nsense. She said they want to get 40% more people on bikes. She urged the commission\nto imagine what the street will look like in the future, not what it looks like today.\nNorene Griffin shared some research about the health and safety benefits of protected\nbike lanes. She said this project is needed to meet the City's goals. She supported option\n3. She said she does not let her son ride his bike in Alameda because it is not safe.\nSuzanne Diers said her family owns property near Clement Ave where two boat related\nbusinesses operate. She said option 3 would make maneuvering boats more difficult, and\nthat it was not necessarily the safest option. She said narrow streets do not make drivers\nslow down. She suggested putting the bike lanes through the marina property.\nGene Oh supported option 3. He cited studies that show increased economic activity when\nbike lanes replace space for cars. He said bike lanes reduce gridlock. He said adding\nprotected bike lanes would help future proof Alameda for things like autonomous delivery\nvehicles.\nAbraham Warner said he rides his bike a lot, but avoids Clement. He supported option 3.\nRich Cusimano supported option 3. He said he and his son were struck by a driver riding\nin what would be the option 2 bike lanes. He said they chose to come home that day on\nClement because they used Pacific earlier and it did not feel safe. He said the protected\nbike lane would be the safest option and would get more people to use their bike. He said\nthat under any option, that traffic calming would be critically important.\nZach Kaplan said he finds Clement to be the most conducive route to get to Park Street.\nHe said he has never had a problem riding on Clement. He objected to option 3 because\nit puts cyclists on the wrong side of the street. He said this would be a waste of taxpayer\nmoney. He requested that if option 3 is chosen, that sharrows be placed in the traffic lane\nto remind drivers that bicyclists are legally permitted in the roadway.\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2019-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2019-07-24", "page": 7, "text": "Chair Soules closed the public hearing.\nCommissioner Weitze said that multiple people have suggested this money be used for\nother uses, such as police. He asked if that is permitted.\nStaff Member Payne said that this is a competitive federal grant that can only be used on\nthis project.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand said she is concerned about option 3. She said she does not\nwant to hurt businesses along Clement Avenue. She said she supports better access for\nbicyclists and improved safety where we are able. She said she is not convinced that even\nthe in-street bike lanes of option 2 would be the best on this street. She said she is\nconcerned about the dimensions of option 2, though is leaning towards that option. She\nexpressed worry about the serpentine alignment of alternative 3. She said she is\nconcerned about the design of the Park Street intersection under option 2, asking why\nthere cannot be a bike lane there.\nMr. Wozniak explained that the center line at Park Street is pushed really far to the south\nto accommodate turning trucks from southbound Park Street onto westbound Clement\nAvenue. He said the two-way bikeway uses unused space next to the northern curb in\noption 3.\nStaff Member Payne said the situation is exacerbated because the lane that trucks turn\nfrom at Park Street is against the curb, where at many intersections there would be parked\ncars enabling trucks to turn from further away.\nCommissioner Hans said he participated in the recent ride with Bike Walk Alameda and\nenjoyed hearing from business owners and seeing how option 3 would still allow trucks to\ncomplete their turns. He said he supports option 3 because it would be the safest\nalternative.\nCommissioner Johnson said he was initially in favor of striped bike lanes, but hearing the\ncomments and feedback from the breakout sessions he is now strongly in support of option\n3. He said new families moving into developments along the waterfront will be looking for\nthis type of facility and that it supports the City's goals.\nCommissioner Weitze said the project is paid for. He said we are adding lots of people to\nthat side of the island and no amount of new car lanes will fix the traffic issue. He said we\nneed to get people out of their cars as much as possible. He supported the idea of\nproviding continuity of bike infrastructure across the island. He said he cannot put human\nbodies between parked cars and moving cars and strongly supports option 3.\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2019-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2019-07-24", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Nachtigall said there will be lots of change in that area and the Cross\nAlameda Trail should have continuity. She added that she strongly supports option 3 as a\nway to get people out of vehicles. She supported the idea of adding sharrows to provide\nexperienced bike riders an alternative.\nCommissioner Johnson endorsed the idea of including sharrows in the eastbound lane.\nChair Soules asked what the difference might be in overall cost, and City contributions,\nbetween option 2 and option 3.\nStaff Member Payne said they have not done detailed cost estimates for the different\noptions. She said $74,000 of City funds would be combined with Measure B and BB funds\nto fulfill the local match requirements.\nMr. Wozniak said that most of the costs would surround the sidewalk and bulb outs work.\nHe said the cost differences between options are not that great.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the local match funds from B and BB have to be used for\ntransportation projects, and could not go to police or parks or other uses.\nChair Soules said making accommodations for businesses is very important for Alameda's\njobs-housing balance. She asked if we have worked with Alameda Police to help\ncoordinate wide loads and mitigate some of the impacts to businesses.\nStaff Member Thomas said that staff can work more closely with different departments as\nmore detailed plans are developed. He said 11 foot lanes are standard in business areas\nacross Alameda and we need to figure out how to operate businesses in this corridor with\n11 foot lanes.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand said the industrial nature of Clement is different than a\ncommercial district like Park Street.\nChair Soules asked if the bikeway could be smaller.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the facility is already at the minimum width permitted.\nChair Soules asked if the idea of doing option 2 now and option 3 later was considered.\nStaff Member Thomas said that having the new segments of the Cross Alameda Trail\nopening up to the west in 2020 will increase the need for this facility in the very near future.\nMr. Wozniak said the Alameda Marina project is beginning work and needs to know what\ntype of facility the City wishes to have built along their project frontage. He said there is\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2019-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2019-07-24", "page": 9, "text": "also a timeline on the federal funds which means they will not be available in the future\nwhen the City is ready to change configurations.\nStaff Member Payne said there are federal requirements that we keep anything that is\ndone in place for at least 20 years.\nCommissioner Johnson made a motion to endorse option 3 with the condition that\nsharrows be included in the eastbound travel lane. Commissioner Weitze seconded\nthe motion.\nChair Soules suggested including a bike counter with the bike signal at Park Street as a\nway to develop metrics and performance reporting on projects like this.\nStaff Member Payne said that metrics are a citywide initiative that staff is working on\ndeveloping.\nThe motion passed 5-1 (Kohlstrand opposed.)\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n6-A City Council Staff Report on Intersection Visibility Recommendations and Verbal\nReport on Council Action\nStaff Member Thomas gave an update on recent City Council actions.\n6-B Oakland Alameda Access Project: Informational Presentation scheduled for\nSeptember 17, 2019 City Council meeting\nStaff Member Thomas previewed the topic which will be before City Council for discussion\nin September.\n7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT\nNone.\n8. ADJOURNMENT\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:38 p.m.\n9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2019-07-24.pdf"}