{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING\nWednesday, March 24, 2021\n1. CALL TO ORDER\nChairperson Adam Gillitt called the meeting to order at 6:01pm.\n2. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Chairperson Adam Gillitt, Vice Chairperson Liz Rush, Commissioners\nMark Farrell and Kirstin Van Cleef.\nAbsent: Tierney Sneeringer (excused).\nLois Butler (Secretary) and Amanda Gehrke present as staff to the Commission.\n3. MINUTES\n3-A 2021-753 Review and Approve February 23, 2021 Draft Minutes\nA motion to approve the February 23, 2021 draft minutes was made by Vice\nChairperson Rush and seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt,\nVice Chairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef and Farrell. Nays: none. The\nmotion carried 4-0.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENTS\nNone.\n5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A 2021-752 Recommend that City Council Approve 1925 Everett Street as\nthe New Location for the Dan Fontes Mural and a Grant Increase of $1,500 to\nCover Redesign Costs; Select and Recommend a New Mural Design to City\nCouncil for Approval\nStaff member Gehrke updated the Commission on the Dan Fontes Mural project,\nand presented two new mural design options, \"Park Street 1909\" and \"Egret\". Staff\nsought and received over 800 responses from the public on both designs. Staff\nalso sought feedback from the property owner, who prefers the \"Egret\" design.\nGehrke requested PAC select and recommend a new mural design to the City\nCouncil for approval.\nStaff member invited and answered clarifying questions.\nJanet Koike expressed support for the egret design, as it represents estuary\nwildlife. Via email, public member Mi'chelle Fredrick expressed support for the\negret design, as it aligns with the artist's existing body of work.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 2, "text": "Minutes of the Public Art Commission\nWednesday, March 24, 2021\nCommissioners discussed the proposed art. Discussion points included the\nfollowing:\nthe egret design connects Alameda's public art to existing local artwork by the\nartist, and is appropriate for the location\nthe proposed location is in a high-traffic area that would showcase Alameda's\npublic art well\nCommissioner Farrell made a motion to recommend to City Council to approve a)\n1925 Everett Street as the new location for the Dan Fontes mural, b) a grant\nincrease of $1,500 to cover redesign costs and c) the selection of the egret design.\nMotion was seconded by Chairperson Gillitt. Ayes: Chairperson Gillitt, Vice\nChairperson Rush, Commissioners Van Cleef and Farrell. Nays: none. The motion\ncarried 4-0.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff member Gehrke informed the commission that the art installation at Jean\nSweeney Park is expected to begin at the end of March.\nGehrke updated the commission that the Public Art Ordinance amendments are\nscheduled to be brought to the Planning Board on April 26th Commissioners were\ninvited to attend the meeting.\nSecretary Butler announced that a public art small grant mural has been completed\nat the intersection of Webster St. and Atlantic Ave.\n7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n8. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nChairperson Gillitt shared that a second mural has been completed at the\nintersection of Webster St. and Santa Clara St.\nCommissioner Farrell shared that the public artwork in the windows of the vacant\nbuilding at the intersection of Park St. and Lincoln St. should be tracked to ensure\nthat it is properly maintained or replaced while the building gets new tenants.\n9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nChairperson Gillitt adjourned the meeting at 6:32pm.\nRespectfully submitted,\n2", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 3, "text": "Minutes of the Public Art Commission\nWednesday, March 24, 2021\nLois Butler\nEconomic Development Manager\nSecretary\nPublic Art Commission\n3", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nTransportation Commission Meeting\nWednesday, March 24, 2021\nTime:\n6:30 p.m.\nLocation:\nDue to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners were\nable to attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom.\nCity Hall was NOT open to the public during the meeting.\nLegistar Link:\n  https://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811333&GUID=861FEF9A-1D51-4AD8-\n8E6C-EB2F878B1A64&Options=info/&Search=.\n1. Roll Call\nPresent: Chair Soules and Commissioners Yuen, Kohlstrand, Hans, Rentschler and Weitze.\nAbsent: Vice Chair Nachtigall\nThis was Commissioner Rentschler's first meeting and everyone welcomed him.\n2. Agenda Changes\nNone.\n3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855384&GUID=13BD4EBF-0DC4-\n 4FD9-B3A1-B123E9507062&FullText=1.\nGail Payne, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, discussed the tentative upcoming joint meeting\nwith the Planning Board on May 10 and other scheduled meetings.\n4. Announcements / Public Comments\nNo public comments.\nChair Soules congratulated Commissioner Kohlstrand for her Lifetime Achievement Award with\nWTS, they had honored her for all her hard work in the Transportation field.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 2, "text": "5. Consent Calendar\n5A. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, July 22, 2020\n(Action Item)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855385&GUID=AF4ED835-78EE-\n40E7-AAEA-EOF5814FD2F8&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Yuen\nseconded. A hand raise vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.\n5B. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, January 27,\n2021 (Action Item)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855386&GUID=A5B2B626-D69B-\n43BE-AC28-53D36B14D68E&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Yuen\nseconded. A hand raise vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Discuss Water Emergency Transportation Authority's Pandemic Recovery Program\n(Discussion Item)\nKevin Connolly, from WETA (Water Emergency Transportation Authority), introduced this item\nand gave a presentation. The report and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855387&GUID=ABA17FD9-653F-\n4496-88DF-C941A16FDBD8&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions #6A.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to know what kind of hop through ridership was normal, the short\nhop from Alameda to Oakland.\nMr. Connolly said it was less than 10 per day. That's also because the only option was Oakland to\nAlameda, not the reverse.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand had concerns about the connecting transit service and making sure there\nwere enough parking facilities. She also wanted to know what was the status of the 96 Bus. She\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 3, "text": "wanted to make sure they were not hampering people using the ferry either because there weren't\nenough public transit options or parking places.\nMr. Connolly said WETA has had an effective partnership with the City of Alameda and a good\npartnership with AC Transit. AC Transit was working on a proposal to serve the new Main Street\nTerminal. He spoke on the drawbacks of the 96 Bus and that the option AC Transit was developing\nwould be better. He did not want to go into much detail, he did not want to \"steal their thunder\"\nHe was very optimistic and grateful for the work done by AC Transit.\nStaff Member Payne discussed how AC Transit was \"moving mountains\" to make this happen,\nand they had been under a lot of pressure due to the Pandemic. There is an upcoming meeting\nwhere it would be discussed further. For parking, she discussed the new parking lot at Seaplane\nLagoon has 400 spaces and that there was more work to do.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if the plan was to charge for parking or had it been pushed off.\nLisa Foster, Transportation Planner, said she didn't have a timeline to share. There were plans for\npaid parking at Alameda Point but as for now, there was no parking fee. It had been put on hold\nwith the Pandemic, but they would move forward with that in the future.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if it was unlikely that they would start charging for parking in August.\nStaff Member Foster said that would be fair to say.\nCommissioner Rentschler thanked Mr. Connolly for his presentation and commended WETA for\nembracing change since now with the Pandemic it was a great time to do it. He urged WETA and\nthe commission to keep an open mind on what the possibilities could be. He thought the bike\naccess at Seaplane Lagoon was better and safer and encouraged the same bike structure that was\nat the Main Street Ferry terminal. He was not optimistic about the bus but was happy they were\ntrying it. He did not want to see an experiment that doesn't work to become permanent.\nCommissioner Yuen discussed the decision to potentially cut AC Transit services and wondered\nif the influx of Federal dollars from the new stimulus bill earmarked for local transit would\ntranslate into support for this new route.\nChair Soules said that was a great question and reminded everyone that AC Transit was not on the\ncall and she did not want to get too far off the agenda topic of WETA service.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Member Payne said that was the trade-off, these types of Federal Stimulus Packages can't\nprovide operations money long term into the future. She discussed how the services have to equal\nout with the other local jurisdictions serviced by AC Transit.\nChari Soules said that could have discussions at other meetings about how that stimulus money\nwould be used.\nPublic Comments #6A\nCyndy Johnson, with Bike Walk Alameda, believed the proposed Alameda Main Street to Oakland\nShort Hop Ferry Service would be a fantastic option for Central and Western Alameda Commuters.\nShe thought this would greatly benefit cyclists who wouldn't have to run the risk of getting bumped\noff the bus due to lack of bike racks and would encourage more bike commuters. She saw this plan\nas a win, win, win. She did share some concerns from fares to what services would be offered at\ncertain times. She ended by saying all of Bike Walk Alameda was excited by this proposed plan.\nJim Strehlow discussed a few issues. First, he thought it was a hike to get from Webster Street to\nthe ferry to get to Oakland, therefore riding the ferry would not be an option for him. Secondly, he\ntold about 150 people how he rode the Alameda to San Francisco Ferry to get to the Moscone\nCenter to get his vaccine and he found it to be a very pleasant and fun trip. Thirdly, he was\nconcerned about how WETA tied into the water taxi program of Alameda. He had asked many\ntimes for a status report of the water taxi program from Rochelle Wheeler.\nStaff Member Payne gave a reminder about the water taxis that the Alameda Landing Waterfront\nProject was currently in construction and they were required to build the infrastructure for it. That's\nwhy it hadn't happened, that project is still in construction.\nRochelle Wheeler, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, said she was able to share more\ninformation with Mr. Strehlow. City staff is constantly discussing water taxi options and other\nmatters around water taxis, mainly operating costs.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A\nCommissioner Weitze asked if the city had any plans to look at the intersection of Main Street and\nAppezzato due to a potential increase in traffic. He also urged WETA, in the interest of going big,\nto initially drop the short hop fare to just a dollar and advertise the hell out of it. He believed it\nwould be a good campaign to \"get off the island for just a buck\".\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 5, "text": "Staff Member Payne discussed the funds (Measure BB) for improving bus services, and one of the\nprojects was improving Appezzato Parkway for buses. They were waiting to see what AC Transit\ndoes first before starting on that project. That intersection had also been noted as a potentially good\nlocation for a roundabout.\nDonya Amiri, Principal Engineer with Public Works, discussed how they would be improving\nsignal timing and what adjustments they had already done to that intersection and others. They\nwould also be revisiting the intersections along Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway (RAMP) to\nimprove signal timing and for bicycle operations.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand was supportive of the proposed reintroduction of the ferry service that\nwas proposed here. She wanted to see a mid-year review to see what the ridership was like and\nencouraged to have someone from AC Transit present. She believed they needed to take a\ncomprehensive look at how they would provide transit services on the island. She agreed with\nCommissioner Rentschler's point about it being a \"zero-sum game\" if they gain something in one\narea and lose it in another. She continued to be concerned about having limited parking and thought\nthat should be monitored.\nChair Soules talked about her own experiences with being a Bay Farm Ferry user and why driving\nis easier and more appealing She was glad they were adding a midday service. She thought a\nquarterly review would be beneficial to see how the stimulus was being used and she was curious\nto see the uptake on the Clipper START. Often equity programs are offered but rarely used. She\nalso found the Hop Through App to be very convenient.\nMr. Connolly thanked the commission and also shared that he had skepticism about the bus transfer\nto the ferry. He believed that now was the time to test it and was happy to come back and share\nwhatever data they needed. They were open to experimenting and trying new things to see what\nworked best. He also clarified to Ms. Johnson (public speaker) about the service start, they\nproposed to start in July for Harbor Bay and deferring the start for Seaplane and Main Street until\nAugust to line up with AC Transit. For South San Francisco they were looking to start in October.\n6B. Endorse the 10-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the Two-year CIP\nBudget (Action Item)\nRobert Vance, Supervising Civil Engineer with Public Works, introduced this item and gave a\npresentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855388&GUID=BB1D41D2-D58B-\n488F-88F3-CBBB28D144FE&FullText=1.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 6, "text": "Public Comments for #6B.\nJim Strehlow said in regards to Vision Zero he described what he saw daily as he rides his bike\naround. He saw people ignorant of the laws and people crossing in front of him even though he\nhad the right away. He also described people crossing when he had the green light. He wanted to\nsee more education included in Vision Zero for pedestrians for their damn safety and his safety.\nChair Soules thanked Mr. Strehlow and clarified that Vision Zero did have a good outreach\ncomponent.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions, Comments, and Discussions for #6B.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted clarification on why Urban Forest and Landscape Maintenance was\nrecommended even though it had a low score.\nStaff Member Payne reminded everyone that the map was out of date, this had been mentioned in\nthe Staff Report.\nStaff Member Vance described why Urban Forest and Landscape Maintenance was included, it\nwas because it does share funding with some of the Transportation projects. It has to be funded\nsomehow, there are street trees that need to be maintained for safety and aesthetic reasons.\nCommissioner Weitze was curious about the equity of paving management. This was a very broad\ncategory and with equity in mind, certain parts of Alameda were in desperate need of being\nrepaved, and certain parts of Alameda were doing well.\nStaff Member Vance discussed the equity score of the projects and how they could use similar\ncriteria that Oakland used to put more of an equity focus on how they spend pavement funds. It\nwas something that could be incorporated into these projects since they were citywide.\nCommissioner Weitze said he hoped they would be more focused on parts that had not been paved\nin a while.\nStaff Member Vance said these projects had traditionally been condition-based, the pavement\nmanagement in the past had typically followed the sewer replacement program. The funding\navailable for pavement was almost a 1:1 with sewer, the city would rehab 3 miles of sewer per\nyear and then pave 3 miles of sewer per year. That limited the choice for pavement, but if there\nwere more funding for pavement there would be more choices where it could go.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 7, "text": "Chair Soules recommended a past Transportation Commission meeting to Commissioner Weitze\nwhere pavement funding was further discussed. She agreed that looking at this through an equity\nlens was important but the timing and conditions of when pavement needs to be replaced was a\nbig deal for the Capital Budget.\nCommissioner Weitze said what he was worried about the new Main Street neighborhood, on the\nestuary side of Site A, would be overlooked since developers keep backing out.\nCommissioner Kolhstrand asked about the dedicated grant funding column and that it didn't fit\nwith the \"123\" criteria. She pointed out where he had stepped out of the form.\nStaff Member Vance said she was correct and that he would have to take a look at that.\nChair Soules explained what they had been trying to achieve and explain the rating system.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand believed they had come a long way in terms of a more rigorous system\nof evaluation. She wanted to see feasibility included, really thinking about is this something that\ncould be implemented right now. She also observed that with Urban Forest and Landscape\nMaintenance and other maintenance projects and wondered if there should be some sort of split of\nfunds. She saw that there was not a lot of differentiation among the scores and wondered if they\nwere capturing all the right goals. She noted that the recommendations for moving ahead do not\nalign with the scores and thought that needed to be rethought. She pointed out ways they could\nimprove transit services, she felt that it was being pushed to the bottom of the list.\nStaff Member Payne described how the ranking process worked and how they had had this problem\nbefore. She pointed out an oversight that paratransit money funds benches and bus shelters and\nbus stops in general.\nStaff Member Vance said some of the planning projects are and aren't included in the Capital\nBudget. He explained the criteria for the different categories.\nChair Soules said that tweaking the actual criteria to make them more appropriate for capital VS\nmaintenance would be worth looking at. She explained how these criteria worked great but many\nother factors need to be recognized. It was a very nuanced system that could always be refined.\nCommissioner Yuen agreed with what Commissioner Kohlstrand had said in terms of considering\nthe feasibility and that some of the scorings do not align with projects that were moving ahead.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 8, "text": "She wondered if the scoring was discerning enough and suggested having a 1-5 scoring instead.\nShe thought the table was very clear but wanted more clarity for scoring and the recommendations.\nStaff Member Vance said that version was included in the staff report.\nChair Soules suggested having a few slides where it clearly shows what the process will look like\nsince it will morph over time, which would help the city understand it more.\nCommissioner Rentschler acknowledged the great work by Public Works and how they were\nconstantly being asked to do more with money they don't have, there would always be tradeoffs.\nHe saw policies like safety and complete streets with the same projects. He discussed all the\nbenefits of roundabouts and how that can be beneficial for different policies. He encouraged how\ngood design was important and didn't want to see the same cookie-cutter mistakes made.\nChair Soules said that the staff had come a long way in developing these tools and they were not\nperfect or easy and continual feedback was expected.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand gave a thought on the tradeoff of roundabouts and traffic signals. She\nclarified that the staff was not recommending putting anything about roundabouts in the capital\nbudget, it got a no recommendation, and traffic signal systems got a yes. She wondered if there\nwas any room for modification so that in the traffic system they could find the ability to introduce\nroundabouts. She wanted to see a study to learn where the roundabouts would be most appropriate.\nStaff Member Vance said roundabouts were being considered within funded capital projects so\nthey don't have to wait for everything else. He said the roundabout study was continuing and as\nthat developed it was something that could be funded later under future capital budgets. For traffic\nsignals there were two categories, one was rehabilitation and maintenance and the other is for\ntraffic signal modifications/modernization. Roundabouts would be more equivalent to\nmodernization and part of the study is to help coordinate those future investments.\nCommissioner Rentschler said solving a problem with a problem is the problem, the traffic signals\nwere the problem. He discussed how traffic signals have always caused these issues and how the\nrest of the state and the country were moving towards roundabouts. He urged creative thinking on\nthe part of Public Works to stop chasing high maintenance, high-cost signals. He pointed out that\nCaltrans's website had a page dedicated to education about the benefits of roundabouts.\nChair Soules checked if there were any other public comments and asked if anyone was ready to\nmake a motion.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 9, "text": "Commissioner Kohlstrand said she was prepared to make a motion to endorse the program with a\ncaveat that there would be a greater investment in roundabouts. She wanted the commission to\nexpress its interest in a different way of thinking without completely disrupting the improvement\nprocess.\nCommissioner Rentschler said he would second that with the knowledge that his fellow\ncommissioners had already put a lot of work into this. He wanted to support something that\nacknowledged the situation they were in but also to have a citizen's voice be heard on this subject.\nChair Soules said the last meeting was very educational on roundabouts and not public review on\nany particular intersection. She asked Staff Member Payne if this was one path forward, in the 10-\nyear CIP to revisit mobility elements and goals related to specific intersections to identify where\nroundabouts or traffic signals would be most beneficial.\nStaff Member Payne said that was something they were already in the process of doing. They were\ndoing a city-wide roundabout analysis. She then discussed the last meeting where roundabouts had\nbeen heavily discussed to inform Commissioner Rentschler and explained the next step in the\nprocess.\nStaff Member Vance said this information helps as they start refining the 10-year CIP and to see\nwhat is important.\nChair Soules wanted to know if this would lead to an assessment of whether or not a signal vs a\nroundabout would be more appropriate. She did not want to take on each roundabout separately or\nproject by project. She discussed how the study would help them with that decision.\nCommissioner Kohlstand made a motion to endorse the 2-year CIP with the caveat that the\nTransportation Commission recommends greater investment in roundabouts compared to\ntraffic signals. Commissioner Rentschler seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and\nthe motion passed 6-0.\n6C. Discuss Smart City Master Plan Overview (Discussion Item).\nStaff Member Payne introduced this item and gave a presentation, Staff Member Amiri also\npresented. Attachments and staff report can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855389&GUID=C2EE96F5-1065-\n42FC-891B-2D68855AC1E6&FullText=1.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 10, "text": "Board Clarifying questions and comments #6C.\nCommissioner Weitz asked if the theory behind this was that the structure would get put in but\nthen private companies would then run the actual access. He wondered how that would work for\nequitable internet access since private companies could charge whatever they wanted.\nStaff Member Payne said that was correct, the city does not plan on being a service provider. The\nasset as a city would be the infrastructure and to be able to put this super-fast fiber into the ground\nthe city could then leverage that asset to lower rates or public wifi access.\nCommissioner Yuen wanted to know more about the impact on transportation infrastructure. She\nwanted to hear about changes and benefits that could be seen as part of this.\nStaff Member Payne said that they could have a better emergency response for the Fire Department\nand with the same technology AC Transit could use their signal detection, all of this would be\nwrapped into what the fiber could provide. She also noted that driverless cars were just around the\ncorner and they would also use this type of technology.\nStaff Member Amiri also discussed how this would all tie together and the process of updating the\nconduits.\nChair Soules discussed the frustration and expense of trying to deploy new technology on old\ninfrastructure. She was excited that Alameda was doing this and saw it as a public agency function\nto invest in this type of infrastructure.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand thanked Chair Soules for her insight and wanted to make sure they\ncaptured the equity part of this. She asked about overhead wires that are currently going through\nbackyards and wanted to know if there were opportunities for undergrounding utilities at the same\ntime as they were installing this fiber.\nStaff Member Payne said that was a project for Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) and they were\ncurrently in the process of undergrounding different corridors. They would be working with AMP\nbecause it is all related.\nCommissioner Yuen brought up the comment about the lack of knowledge around Smart Cites and\nnew mobility options and how in the future this could be an educational item for the commission.\nShe said she would love to learn more about this and the importance of new technologies.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 11, "text": "Staff Member Payne said she could look into when someone from Iteris could come. She added\nthat fiber would be the backbone part of the infrastructure and this would be the expensive part\nand it won't be completed overnight.\nChair Soules compared this to the electrical on your home, which is the heaviest investment but\nyou are better off in the long run. She saw this as helping the community to embrace new\ntechnology. She also seconded getting an information item on the agenda for a future meeting to\nlearn more about what the fiber cables will do for Alameda.\nStaff Member Amiri added that with the CIP that they discussed earlier the fiber cables will tie\ninto that as well.\nPublic Comments for #6C.\nJim Strehlow said that with technology improvements in the city there is also an increase in remote\ncomputer hacking opportunities into the city's services. He wanted to see security reviews on all\nsuch projects. He also discouraged putting everything into electrical cabinets due to accidents. He\nbelieved that roundabouts would slow down police, fire, and ambulance services. He wanted to\nhear from those parties on their opinion on roundabouts. He believed that the solution was to better\neducate people and not waste money on roundabouts.\n6D. Review and Comment on the General Plan Schedule of Planning Board Public Hearings\n(Discussion Item).\nStaff Member Payne introduced this item on behalf of Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning\nBuilding and Transportation. The staff report can be found at\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855390&GUID=6F196672-B114-\n463B-9E5D-7984C3E15500&FullText=1.\nChair Soules thanked everyone for their time on this.\nThere was no discussion or comments on the schedule.\n7. Announcements / Public Comments\nJim Strehlow had three issues. First, he wanted a residential loading zone for each street so that\nAmazon and other delivery trucks don't block traffic as they do every day. Secondly, Orion Street\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 12, "text": "has different demographics, North was residential and South was commercial, when changes for\nOrion Street were discussed he wanted this difference noted. Lastly, he wanted the commission to\npromote \"Bike to Wherever Day,\" which would be on May 21st.\nChair Soules promoted the website alameda2040.org to get people excited and involved with the\nGeneral Plan.\n8. Adjournment\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}