body,date,page,text,path
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,1,"DRAFT
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
October 25, 2006
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:38 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Robb Ratto
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier
Members Absent:
Jeff Knoth
Michael Krueger
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II
Chair Knox White requested that Item 6A be addressed immediately because of the number of
public speakers.
6A.
REVIEW ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMEND BUS STOP LOCATION ON
OTIS DRIVE AND REVISIT COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY
CUNCIL TO ADPT AC TRANSIT BOARD'S BUS STOP POLICY.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report.
Bus Stop Location - Otis Drive. At the last meeting in May, the Commission made a
recommendation that the City Council adopt AC Transit's bus stop policy, but did not comment
on the merits of specific bus stop locations on Otis Drive. Because of the public interest in this
issue, the PW Director has since requested that the Commission make a recommendation about a
specific location for the stop. Staff Bergman reviewed the background of the issue, and noted that
some of the major considerations were the impacts on the neighborhood such as removal of on-
street parking, street trees, opposition from adjacent property owners, sign clutter, potential
conflict with street furniture, the need for new crosswalks, availability of lighting, presence of
traffic control devices, availability of ramps, etc.
Staff assessed the possible locations in that area and assumed that bus stops would be in position
at Otis and Willow, which had not gone through the process yet. He described the spacing,
signage, street furniture, crosswalk, striping, visibility and tree removal issues at the
intersections. Staff requested that the Commission recommend a location for a bus stop at one of
the listed locations.",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,2,"Chair Knox White inquired whether the neighboring property owners had been notified of this
discussion meeting.
Staff Bergman noted that at this time, there was no proposal to actually install anything at those
locations, and that the standard noticing procedure had been followed.
Chair Knox White did not feel comfortable moving forward with this item without hearing from
the residents at these locations. He suggested that the discussion be refocused on Otis Drive at
Sandcreek Way, and whether or not there were other, better options; the discussion may be
rescheduled for November after taking public comment.
Commissioner Ratto inquired when and why the bus stop was abandoned.
Audience member responded that it was abandoned in February 2005 because of safety issues.
Public Comment
Elmer Garlitz, 1511 Pacific, noted that he has worked as a crossing guard at Otis and Sandcreek
Way for Lum School, and that he was totally opposed to a bus stop anywhere near Sandcreek
Way and Otis Drive. He believed it would create a safety problem for the crossing guards in
getting the children across the street, and noted that it would be very difficult to hold the children
until the bus went by. He believed the bus should be held to allow the children to cross. He
believed the bus stop as proposed would create a safety hazard because the bus stop sign was
placed in such a position that the bus stops right on top of the crosswalk, thereby blocking the
view of oncoming traffic from either direction from behind the bus, requiring the crossing guard
to step into the path of oncoming traffic without being seen until he or she clears the body of the
bus. Since the average traffic speed is about 30 mph, this would mean that a driver could not
safely stop the vehicle in time to avoid striking a pedestrian using the crosswalk. He would like
to see changes in the current signage.
Barbara Nemer suggested that this bus stop would be a mistake, and noted that two children had
been hit at Franklin Elementary the previous week. She did not understand why a bus stop that
had been removed for safety purposes would be reconsidered. She noticed that there were no red
curbs in other areas of Alameda where bus stops were located.
Diane Voss cited an article in the Alameda Journal of September 5 2006, which referred to the
crossing guards as ""sentinels of safety."" She urged the Commission to listen carefully to the
opinions of the crossing guards, who had been consistent in their opinion that a bus stop at Otis
Drive and Sandcreek Way would be unsafe. She had been told the red curb was to prevent people
from parking or stopping there to keep the visibility at the crosswalk open, not so a bus stop
could be placed there. She believed that the spreadsheet's statement that no additional signage
was required at Otis and Sandcreek was incorrect, and that it would have to be put up for the bus
alone. She noted that the sheet did not mention the children who use the crosswalk at Otis and
Sandcreek. She believed that a bus stop at either location would not have children crossing every
day at their respective locations. She noted that the children would be at Otis and Sandcreek, not
2",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,3,"at Otis and Pond or Otis and Sandalwood. She believed that a bus stop at this location would
have a far great potential for a pedestrian accident than the other two listed on the spreadsheet.
She believed that safety should be the primary issue, and urged the Commission not to allow the
bus stop to be reinstalled at Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way.
Marilyn Teploe agreed with the previous speakers' statements, and noted that her driveway was
located right at the crosswalk. She noted that the red curb was there when she moved in six years
ago, and that it was not put there because of the bus. She believed it was put there for the safety
of the schoolchildren, and added that she also did not have parking in front of her house. She
would be in favor of a bus stop in the vicinity of Pond Isle.
Liz Cleves noted that there were skid marks at the crosswalk at Otis and Sandcreek, which was of
concern to her. She agreed with the other speakers that it was a very dangerous crosswalk, and
was extremely concerned that a bus would block a driver's view of children in the crosswalk.
Shannon Nicholson, 2122 Santa Clara Avenue, noted that she had also seen the skid marks and
uses extreme caution in that area. She agreed with the previous speakers, and cited AC Transit's
Board Policy #508 that ""the ultimate decision for placement of a bus stop is made by the
jurisdiction in which the stop is located. The bus stop must also be convenient to the places
where passengers wish to go."" She questioned how many passengers wish to go to the area near
Otis and Sandcreek Way. She believed that a midblock bus stop directly in front of a crosswalk
used primarily by children would not be in the best interest of AC Transit or the City of
Alameda, and would definitely not be in the best interest of the children and other pedestrians.
Closed Public Comment
Chair Knox White inquired how many buses travel through the area during school; at what times
were they scheduled to go through; and what was the usage of the stop.
Nathan Landau, AC Transit noted that with the number of buses going through the area, that bus
ran every 30 minutes, with one in each direction.
Staff Bergman noted that the stop was in usage for a very short time, and data from AC Transit
on that stop was not available. The stop had been there for one year or less.
Commissioner Ratto inquired whether the Police Department had changed their opinion on the
bus stop's safety issue.
Staff Bergman replied that they had not heard anything.
Chair Knox White was glad to hear the public's comments on this issue, and noted that the
question was not whether there should be a bus stop, but where it should be located. He noted
that if safety was a compelling issue at this stop, as the residents believe, he believed the other
two should be examined more closely. He would like to hear staff's assessment of the safety
issues, and whether a crosswalk at one of the other two alternatives would have adequate
3",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,4,"visibility. He would entertain a motion to bring this item back in November in order to discuss
the validity of selecting another site for this stop.
Commissioner Schatmeier would support a bus stop located somewhere, but did not want the
conclusion to be that there would be no bus stop located anywhere.
Staff Khan expressed concern about the proximity of establishing additional crosswalks at
adjacent intersections, and recommended channelizing pedestrians toward the existing crosswalk
at Sandcreek Way. He indicated that the concerns of the crossing guards could be addressed by
working with staff and AC Transit.
Commissioner Ratto moved to eliminate the possibility of putting a bus stop at Otis Drive and
Sandcreek Way, to agendize looking at Sandalwood Isle and Pond Isle at the November meeting,
and to instruct staff to do the appropriate noticing. Commissioner McFarland seconded. Motion
passed unanimously, [4-0].
Revisit Commission Recommendation to City Council to Adopt AC Transit Board's Bus Stop
Policy
Staff Bergman summarized the staff report, and noted that bus stop spacing recommendations
were fairly consistent within the City's current transit plan, which was a range of 800-1300 feet
for local routes. He noted that the 63 was considered a local route. Staff was concerned that there
were some provisions in the policy that were not applicable to the City, and this might be better
handled as part of the Transit Plan Update through the TMP. Staff recommended that in terms of
spacing, until the TMP is amended, that the City use the existing Transit Plan's guidelines of
approximately 1000 feet.
Staff Khan noted that AC Transit policy was more focused on a service-oriented approach, in
terms of how to provide and improve service. He noted that the examination of crosswalks and
pedestrian ramps were not addressed in the AC Transit policy; that was another reason that staff
recommended that when the TMP was looked at as a whole, all those concerns could be
addressed to be more consistent with the rest of the TMP policy.
Public Comment
There were no speakers.
Closed Public Comment
Chair Knox White noted that the long-range transit plan for the TMP would probably be worked
on within two to three years, and agreed with staff that this would be a great time to work on
these issues. He believed there may have been a lack of clarity regarding the current City plan
regarding the guidelines.
Staff Khan inquired whether the Chair was recommending that this be taken to the Planning
Board and City Council to be adopted as a policy; at this time, it is a recommended policy.
4",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,5,"APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to accept the approval of the September 27, 2006 minutes.
Commissioner Ratto seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White noted that he had attended the previous City Council meeting, and that they
had supported the Transportation Commission's seven recommended policies. Staff Khan would
present the details of that meeting.
7A.
REVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON DRAFT FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONCEPTS.
Staff Khan presented the staff report on this item, and noted that it would be part of the
Transportation Master Plan and the Multimodal Circulation Plan.
5",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,6,"Mark Spencer, Principal, DKS Associates, Oakland, made the presentation on this item, and
described the scope and goals of the Draft Functional Classification System. He noted that the
three main classifications were arterial, collector and local streets. He noted that Caltrans follows
the functional classification system put forth by the FHWA, and that any municipality must
follow that system to qualify for federal funding. He noted that Denver used a multimodal
approach based on surrounding street context and land use, and they created five new street
types: residential, main, mixed use, commercial and industrial. He displayed those street types on
the overhead screen and described their functions. Austin, Texas, used a ""great streets plan,""
which promoted streets as public places, and they accepted congestion as part of success. He
noted that most cities were not trying to achieve every one of their objectives with every kind of
street concept; some streets will accept more congestion and lower service levels in exchange for
a vibrant, multimodal, multifunctional, pedestrian-dominant street. They instituted several new
street types: pedestrian-dominant, bike and local access, mixed mode, commuter, rapid transit
(with no on-street parking). He noted that a mixed mode street was designed to serve slow-
moving vehicles accessing the street frontage uses, and discouraged any kind of through traffic
by design. A four-foot safe zone for parking access and bicycle room was also included, similar
to the bike lane on Santa Clara Street. He noted that pavement treatment was also used for
crosswalks, parking and safe zones.
He noted that the 25 mph concept was used in Denver and Austin, and that Austin used narrow
lanes, on-street parking and ""commuter streets."" Palo Alto used landscaped medians, curbs,
narrow travel lanes, curb extensions and 25 mph limits; they used physical changes to the street
to force the slow speed. Santa Cruz was the only city using the term ""enforcement"" with respect
to the speed limit. Traffic calming is consistent with the bulbouts and curb extensions. Santa
Cruz has gateway issues from Highways 1, 9 and 17. Portland did not specifically address
gateway issues in their street classifications. He requested input and direction from the
Commission.
Public Comment
There were no speakers.
Closed Public Comment
Chair Knox White wanted more clarification on where they were in the process, and what the
next step would be. He also thought that the Commission would start from the work done by the
Circulation Task Force as a base going forward; he was surprised to find that was not mentioned
in this report. He believed that they had already laid out what they were looking for, and noted
that he liked the grids and believed they were easy to understand.
Commissioner Schatmeier was gratified to learn that the City was not tied into the arterial
format, and that other cities had also used unorthodox ways of defining their streets without
jeopardizing funding. He was surprised to find that was not mentioned in the report.
6",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,7,"Staff Khan noted that this was an initial draft item, and would come back to the Commission in
November or December with more detail.
Mark Spencer noted that they did not want to bring a finished product to the Commission before
it was able to comment on it.
Chair Knox White hoped that at the next meeting, they would be able to go back to the work they
have already done, and to see how the report mirrors that. He liked the comments regarding
landscaping.
Mark Spencer noted that information from a subcommittee of the Transportation Commission
was used as a starting point for developing the City's street classification system.
Chair Knox White noted that even Alameda's commercial streets were residential in character,
and that he believed the classifications identified those characteristics. He liked the goals stated
by the City of Austin.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that with respect to the classification exercise, he felt somewhat
constrained because they did not have extensive knowledge about what could be done, without
jeopardizing funding for improvements. Having seen this document, he was relieved that there
would be a variety of ways of treating classification systems that did not jeopardize funding; if
he had known they had that flexibility at the time, perhaps they would have been able to exercise
more imagination in that regard.
Chair Knox White noted that he would entertain a motion to accept the findings and use the
previously defined Task Force classifications as a guideline for the type of plan the Commission
would like to see.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to accept the findings and use the previously defined Task
Force classifications as a guideline for the type of plan for the multimodal plan, including the
Santa Cruz street classification names, and the type of information contained in the Denver plan
in terms of how the classifications and overlays affect the streets as a whole. Commissioner Ratto
seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
Chair Knox White suggested that the Commission address the Shuttle Study next to
accommodate the public speakers.
7C.
REVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON INITIAL FINDINGS OF
WEST END SHUTTLE STUDY
Staff Bergman noted that the consultant, John Atkinson, would present his preliminary findings
to date, and added that this would be rolled into the TSM/TDM plan and Transit Plan within the
TMP. He noted that Mr. Atkinson had considerable experience operating local shuttle systems,
and would bring real-world experience to this matter.
7",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,8,"John Atkinson noted that the tasks had not followed in a chronological order and that they used a
generic, multimodal method to look at the hubbing from the 12th Street BART station to the
Ferry Terminal, and in looking at services within a 10-12 mile perimeter of those hubs. They also
looked at various vehicle types and scenarios of operation. His recommendation to staff was that
the City not become involved directly in transportation operations, and that they look at some
type of turnkey method for logistic, legal and operational concerns. He added that it would be
better to hire a contract for that service. He noted that he could see the City initially needing to
close the gap until the second or third phase was underway.
Chair Knox White inquired what the initial goal was. John Atkinson replied that it was to look at
establishing a viable multimodal link between BART and the Ferry to the areas of development
out on the West End.
A discussion of ridership in other cities and City funding ensued.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired whether the City had a policy about contracting for services
of this type. He recalled that AC Transit used to have a policy about not contracting out for
services. John Atkinson replied that there were private shuttles not operated under AC Transit.
He noted that historically, AC Transit has not used a private contractor, with the exception of the
East Bay Paratransit Consortium. He described the low-fare and no-fare zones, and noted that it
was postulated that there would be service sufficient to allow people to live in the development
without an automobile; that service would be more frequent than every 30 minutes.
Chair Knox White noted that the Commission would provide a range of scenarios to City
Council. He was surprised to see AC Transit not mentioned as a possible operator, and he agreed
with Commissioner Krueger's idea of adding new transit systems that not only compete, but are
another system for people to use. He believed that part of the plan needs to address how it fits
into any perceived West End transit service that exists, or will exist, as the development goes
forward.
John Atkinson noted that they should coordinate whatever service would be proposed with what
AC Transit currently proposes so they did not compete for ridership and detract from each
other's services. He added that if AC Transit was interested in bidding on the project, they
should be included as one of the potential operators.
Commissioner Ratto noted that following the discussion between the City and AC Transit, it may
be that the City's service may best serve the West End.
John Atkinson noted that this would tie in with the TSM/TDM plan, and that it would incorporate
other programs in the West End.
No action was taken.
8",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,9,"7B.
RECONCILING OF TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDED
POLICIES FOR REVIEWING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS (EIRs)
WITH THE PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION MASTER
PLAN (TMP) POLICIES.
Staff Khan presented the staff report and summarized the discussion from the City Council
meeting. Staff recommends to the Transportation Commission to assign the task of examining
the seven policies, and to provide a recommendation during the November meeting. The City
Council had approved the process for a General Plan Amendment, and for staff to move forward
with the updating of the Transportation Element of the General Plan. During the discussion on
October 17, the Council raised issues relating to the seven new policies, particularly Policy 7
regarding the congestion that could be acceptable within the City at certain locations and
intersections. City Council comments related to this policy were very specific, and that it may
need some language revisions. According to the City Council minutes, Council directed that
Policy 7 be rewritten. Staff prepared some discussion points to be considered by the
Transportation Commission, and that if Policy 7 were to be expanded in terms of providing
guidance regarding how the City would address acceptable congestion levels. Also, the
implementation of the policy during the review process and the threshold would be considered.
Staff Khan noted that staff also recommended allowable impacts to pedestrians, bicycles and
transit be verified due to increasing congestion. Staff also recommends accepting increasing
queues at intersections, as a result of increasing congestion. He noted that the next item was to
establish quantifiable impacts to the emergency response times. Increasing congestion may
increase the emergency response times, so there may be some kind of a threshold that should be
established for policy guidance. He stated that the last item was a quantifiable level of service for
different modes of transportation that are required at congested locations and intersections. City
Council also approved that policies 1 through 6 be used as guidelines until the General Plan is
amended. Council also indicated that if those guidelines were to be followed, there may be some
conflicts with the existing General Plan. City Council has asked the Transportation Commission
to examine and address any potential conflicts so the guidelines may be used until the General
Plan policies are adopted. He distributed a list of items prepared by staff to the Commissioners.
Chair Knox White noted that he would look at the items, and would suggest that the
subcommittee do the same, but did not believe that the City Council asked the Transportation
Commission to develop a list of conflicts and their solutions. He noted that they said they would
use the guidelines, and noted that staff may identify where they conflicted directly with the
General Plan. He noted that if the City Council minutes stated that, they did not reflect the
discussion that was held at the end of that hour the previous week. He would review the video to
confirm his assessment. He noted that it would not be practical for him to read through the
General Plan to identify conflicts, and that if staff found conflicts, he would be willing to discuss
it further at the November meeting. He stated that he respectfully believed that staff is attempting
to fight the EIR policies.
Staff Khan stated that it was not the intention to ask the Commissioners to create or provide the
thresholds to staff. Staff was attempting to follow City Council's direction with respect to
clarifying language.
9",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,10,"8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
A discussion of the packet preparation timeline and meeting schedules ensued. It was decided
that the Circulation Subcommittee would meet by November 8 to follow up on Item 7B, and to
allow it to fit into the Alameda Landing schedule.
Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
10",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf