body,date,page,text,path
PublicArtCommission,2007-04-25,1,"Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Conference Room 360, City Hall
1.
CONVENE:
7:04 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioners Rosenberg and
Wolfe
Commissioner Cervantes was absent.
STAFF PRESENT:
Douglas Vu, Planner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary
3.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the Regular Meeting of February 28, 2007
Chair Huston motioned to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 28, 2007, as
amended.
Commissioner Wolfe seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 4
[Absent: Commissioner Cervantes - 1]
Minutes for the Regular Meeting of March 28, 2007
Vice-Chair Lee motioned to approve the minutes for the meeting of March 28, 2007, as
amended.
Commissioner Wolfe seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 4
[Absent: Commissioner Cervantes - 1]
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
5.
REGULAR AGENDA:
A. Approval of Meeting Calendar for 2007 - Tabled, continued to Meeting
Of May 23, 2007
B. Rhythmix Cultural Works Public Art Proposal - Applicant: Cal Vita
Janet Koike reminded the Board of the grand opening scheduled for June 2, 2007 and
mentioned some of the acts that will be performing at the Arts Center.
Chair Huston asked how the public art portion is separate from the rest of the regular
activities planned for the organization. Her question specifically was, ""How is the art
public?"" What part is going to be accessible to the public and how will it be accessible?
The Commission discussed many options for fulfilling the public art obligation.",PublicArtCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-04-25,2,"Continued to Meeting of May 23, 2007
C. Alameda Towne Centre History Panels - Tad Savinar
Mr. Savinar gave an update of the progress of the art installation at Alameda Towne
Center.
Mr. John Larson spoke about the panels being installed at Alameda Towne Centre. He
described the panels and talked about the frustrating work behind them.
Chair Huston expressed sympathy for his frustration.
Commissioner Rosenberg spoke to the requirements and felt that the Commission could
not impose ""diversity' requirements for artwork.
Commissioner Wolfe mentioned the economic disparity and that some people had
cameras and could take pictures, some of which would end up in the pictorial record.
Mr. Larson mentioned that the people with farms didn't have cameras and didn't take
pictures therefore there is little or no record of the diversity of Alameda.
Mr. Savinar asked what they were envisioning so he could respond to the request.
Commissioner Wolfe responded by saying that a short description of the project and
artist would be helpful.
Mr. Chuck Millar expressed concern that the Commission was unfairly criticizing the
panels.
The Commission clarified that it is their job to ask questions of the artists to make sure
they consider all possibilities when creating a public art project.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 8:48 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Vu, Secretary
Public Art Commission",PublicArtCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
April 25, 2007
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Acting Chair Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier
Srikat Subramanium
Absent:
Jeff Knoth
John Knox White
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
Eric Fonstein, Development Coordinator
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
March 28, 2007
Commissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes as presented. Commissioner
Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0, with Commissioner Subramaniam
and Commissioner McFarland abstaining.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
a.
Multimodal Circulation Plan
No meeting had been held since the last report.
b.
Pedestrian Plan
No meeting had been held since the last report.
c.
TSM/TDM Plan
No meeting had been held since the last report.
5.
Oral Communications - Non-Agendized Items",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,2,"None.
6.
Old Business
None.
7.
New Business
7A.
Options for Routing and Stop Locations on AC Transit Line 63 Between the Intersections
of Otis Drive at Grand Street and Whitehall Road at Willow Street
Outcome: TC to provide direction to staff regarding alternatives to be analyzed and
appoint subcommittee to work with staff.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and summarized the background and scope of this item.
The Commission had recommended that bus stops be installed on Otis Drive at the intersection
of Pond Isle; that decision was appealed. On March 6, 2007, the City Council reviewed that
appeal and directed the Commission to exhaust all options for other stop locations, as well as the
potential rerouting of the 63 onto Shoreline Drive, where it previously operated. The staff report
also includes information presented by AC Transit, which was read to the Commission at the last
meeting, discussing some other issues on Line 63 to provide a broader context for this
discussion. Currently, Line 63 operates on a very tight schedule.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the school routes could be considered part of the
discussion, and asked whether it would be possible to serve the school, and cut that part out of
the 63 route in order to save running time for a net savings or neutral effect. Staff Bergman noted
that generally, staff would consider if other routes could be altered, too. He understood that most
of the routes also operate on very tight schedules.
Open public comment.
Peter Muzio believed that a bus stop at Lum School was a bad idea, which he had previously
expressed at the City Council meeting. He distributed a letter to the Commission that he had
written in opposition to the stop.
Acting Chair Ratto noted that could be done at the end of the public comment. He noted that a
decision would not be made at this hearing.
Kevin Dong noted that he was a homeowner at Otis and Willow, and noted that after attending
the City Council meeting, he realized there must be a balance between ridership and run time. He
noted that Shoreline had more population density. He questioned the data by AC Transit stating
that there was more ridership on the new route, and inquired whether it was because of
population growth or the new stop at Whitehall improving the ridership. He noted that the
proposed Alameda Landing stop would add 10 minutes to the run time, and that it made this a
nonissue. He suggested putting the bus stops where they were wanted or needed, rather than
worrying about two or three minutes of run time.
Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, noted that there were tradeoffs, and that it was
already difficult for people to get to the hospital because of the reroute to Shoreline. She noted
2",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,3,"that Shoreline had poor sidewalks on the beach side. She hoped the reroute would not negatively
impact elderly people. She noted that wherever the route goes, she hoped that good stop spacing
would be retained in accordance with the transit plan's guidelines.
Liz Cleves noted that she was grateful that AC Transit and Public Works was looking at this route
so thoroughly. She concurred that the stops at Whitehall and Willow near a convalescent home
inadequate. She noted that between Park and Grand, there was a greater density of people on
Shoreline compared with the same cross streets on Otis. She distributed an aerial photo of those
streets, and believed the stops should be near riders, and not based on run time.
Diane Voss believed that Line 63 should be removed from the Town Centre, which is already
becoming congested. She noted that passengers carrying packages take longer to board a bus.
She stated that the congestion would also bring unsafe conditions due to impatient drivers, and
added that run time would be saved by not going through the center itself. She stated that
Shoreline is a better location for the route, as it would serve the Hall of Justice and the post
office. She said that Lum Elementary students would not use the bus.
Geoff Kline noted that he was disappointed that the report did not discuss ridership, nor was
safety addressed. He noted that run times and driver breaks were certainly important, but not at
the expense of those two items.
Adrienne Langley-Cook, Commission on Disabilities, noted that the Post Office had no sidewalk
near the bus stop, and that the crosswalks were not totally defined on Shoreline. She believed a
crosswalk near the Albertson's would be very valuable and would increase access to Town
Centre. She would like to see a wider sidewalk near Shoreline to accommodate seniors and the
disabled.
Kathi Young noted that she lived at Shoreline and Willow, which meant a long walk to get to the
bus. She noted that the stop at Whitehall and Willow was inadequate for disabled access, and that
it was dangerous and ill-lit. She believed there should be public transportation along that street,
and added that there were some turns at Alameda Point that did not seem to go anywhere.
Closed public comment.
Commissioner Krueger requested that AC Transit speak to the ridership issue, and added that no
AC Transit service actually made money.
Sean Diest Lorgion, AC Transit, said that they wish to provide service to higher density areas.
Commissioner Krueger inquired how much the ridership might increase, and whether there was
any ridership from the lagoon homes that would be lost. Mr. Diest Lorgion noted that the current
bus stop was at Willow and Whitehall, which would still be used if the route went on Shoreline;
no bus stops would be lost. He was concerned about possibly removing service from South
Shore.
3",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,4,"Commissioner Krueger inquired how much additional fare box revenue the new routing would
bring in. Mr. Diest Lorgion estimated it would be about 25 extra riders a day at an average fare of
70 cents, which would not pay for itself. He noted that the current route has about 1800
passengers a day, and that an extra 25 passengers per day was a small addition.
Staff Khan noted that 25 riders per day would add approximately $6800 annually at 70 cents
average fare, while the annual cost of operating a bus is at least $300,000 a year.
Acting Chair Ratto requested that the letters be read into the record by Staff Bergman:
Submitted by Chair John Knox White: ""The Line 63 is already not meeting the needs of its
current riders. The delays on the line have created a sporadic and unpredictable service, causing
usability to diminish. Before any changes in routing are considered for a specific portion of the
line, priority needs to be given to providing Alamedans with a service that meets its schedule.
This means removing up to four minutes of run time, or adding another bus. Given AC Transit's
current finances and current proposed losses from the State totally $7 million this year, and $5
million a year in perpetuity thereafter, increase in the operational cost of the line by 25% should
only be considered if service cuts elsewhere will not take place. If staff's comment is correct,
other service improvements in Alameda, such as extending the Line 51 to Fruitvale should be
identified for what the additional $300-500,000 could provide.
""Line 63 already makes an incredibly circuitous route, making the line difficult to use for riders
heading to Oakland from west of Webster Street. Adding run time should only be done in
connection with the implementation of other service efficiencies. With regards to Otis versus
Shoreline, AC Transit should identify the ridership potential for both Otis routing of the Line W
and Shoreline routing of the Line 63. It makes sense that the same routing should be used for the
two lines. We should know the ridership potential for all lines on both streets. We need to be
aware of the cost effectiveness of the switch if it entails adding another bus to the route. Staff
should determine if the additional ridership can offset adding an additional bus. At an annual fare
box recovery of $875 per full-fare, five day a week rider, 342 new daily riders would be needed
to fully recover an additional bus.
""Staff should consider a two-phase approach if additional operational efficiencies cannot be
found to make identified switches. Phase One: Keep the existing routing, install stops as per TC
recommendation, and reduce overall runtime to meet schedule needs. Phase Two: Integrate
Alameda Landing transit needs with Line 63, look at bifurcating the two lines in order to reduce
scheduled run times to both west end and east end lines, and making routing changes identified
at that time.""
Received from Ursula Apel: ""Dear Members of the City Council and Transportation
Commission: I was delighted to hear of plans to install a new Line 63 bus stop on Otis Drive
near Lum School. My husband and I live on Kitty Hawk Road, so our closest stop now is the one
at Whitehall and Willow, which has no sidewalk on the north side, and no marked crosswalk on
Whitehall. I am in my 70s, and like many senior citizens, I find it much easier to carry groceries
and other purchases home if I can take a bus for as much of my trip as possible. If there were a
stop at Lum School, I would have only a short walk to my home, and a stop at Pond Isle would
4",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,5,"also be convenient for me and for others in my neighborhood who live on Yorkshire, Greenbriar
and other streets. Several of my neighbors who ride the bus do not speak English very well, so
I
have agreed to speak for them. One suffers from cancer, and has lost the use of her arms, so she
is unable to drive. My husband also cannot drive, but he enjoys going to the coffee shops at the
shopping center. Due to his heart problems, he has to walk slowly and rest often. Taking the bus
would allow him to get there faster, while still walking the short distance to the stop, which
would be good for his health.
""I know that people who live on Otis have their own concerns about parking and other issues, but
a good system of bus stops and sidewalks is an asset to the whole community. I used to take the
63 when it ran on Shoreline, and the bus stops there were not the best. When I stepped off the
bus, my feet would sink into the sand because there is no sidewalk on the beach side. I don't
think a wheelchair could use these stops safely. Although putting the 63 back on Shoreline would
make it convenient for the many people who live on that street, I ask that you please not do so
unless a more stable surface can be provided for people getting on and off the bus. Whatever the
City decides about the best locations for 63 stops, I hope you remember how important it is for
citizens to have access to public transportation. That means not only providing frequent stops,
but also ensuring that well-kept, usable sidewalks and other walkways lead to those stops. The
elderly, disabled, and many other depend on having good bus stops close to us.""
Received from Peter Muzio: ""After reviewing the notes posted online concerning this agenda
item, I noted that 27 people had actually taken the time to write and/or attend meetings here at
City Hall. All of the 27 people are opposed to adding any bus stops to Otis Drive between
Willow and Grand. However, the City is for either one or two additional bus stops. By reading
the online file notes, it is apparent that an unidentified person on City staff, for reasons unknown,
really wants a bus stop at Lum School. City staff indicated initially that a bus stop at Lum School
would be approximately halfway between the existing bus stops at Grand and Willow. To that
end, the Transportation Committee [sic.] was tasked with evaluating the situation. They
determined that Lum School is not centered between Grand and Willow, so they recommended a
bus stop be installed near Ivy Walk. This located would be approximately centered between the
existing bus stops at Grand and Willow. As this I'd not coincide with the wishes of the City staff,
City staff requested that two sets of bus stops be installed so they could still get the desired stop
at Lum School. So the score is one big (City staff) vote for two bus stops, one medium
(Transportation Commission) vote for one bus stop, and 27 little (residents along Otis Drive)
votes against additional bus stops. At the City Council meeting on March 6, 2007, additional
people (parents of children attending Lum School) spoke against the reinstallation of the bus
stops at Lum School.
""Having just reviewed the additional run time and cost information provided in advance of the
April 25, 2007, Transportation Commission meeting, it is apparent that barring a magical funding
source, the 63 bus line needs to cut the number of bus stops along its route, not increase the
number of stops.
""As you already know, people at the Willow (east) end of the subject area who do not want an
additional bus stop because City Councils do not require builders to provide sufficient off-street
5",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,6,"parking at multiple unit buildings, and therefore, they really need to on-street parking spaces. I'm
sure they will tell you they are well-served by the existing bus stop at Willow and Whitehall.
""Otis Drive is a wide street with limited access. Between Willow and Grand, only Sand Creek
Way intersects it on the south side, and Sand Creek does not go south to the beach. The ""isles""
which intersect on the north side are all one-block, dead-end cul de sacs. It is natural for people
to drive fast on Otis than they would on a narrower street or a street with cross streets every
block. This is why visibility is so important to pedestrians. The people near the proposed Lum
School location are seriously concerned about pedestrian safety is a bus stop is placed such that it
blocks the visibility of oncoming traffic. The proposed bus stop location in front of 1815 Otis is
on the wrong side of the crosswalk. Ditto the proposed eastbound stop. This is the reason there
has been so much opposition to this bus stop.
""Safety problem #1: It is safer to have bus stops located where cross streets and crosswalks are
located at the rear of the bus, rather than in front of the bus. This allows pedestrians to see
oncoming traffic, and traffic to see the pedestrians. The proposed bus stops at Lum School have
the megabuck crosswalk in front of the bus. This is the least safe location. People exiting the bus
will be drawn to the front of the bus to cross the street. Some of the correspondents on this
subject suggest that the crossing guards will prevent people from crossing the street while the
bus is present. They fail to consider that the school is in session 185 days out of 365 days, and
only from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. This is a small percentage of the bus schedule. This crosswalk is used
by residents in the area, as well as kids that use the playground facilities when school is not in
session, as well as kids and adults that use Rittler Park on weekends and during the summer. The
bus stop should be located where they are safe all day and all year. It is ridiculous to use an
existing red curb for a bus stop when the red curb is there to ensure visibility for the people using
the crosswalk. You have spent a fortune on this crosswalk. If you had gone to the trouble of
preventing cars and SUVs from parking there, 24/7/365, ever since the crosswalk was installed,
then you don't want a bus to park there, either. You want people to cross the street behind the
bus, and not in front of the bus.
""Safety problem #2: The proposed bus stops at Lum School are in a very complex traffic area.
there are three houses between Sandalwood Isle and Waterview Isle on the north side of Otis.
This is a short block, not a long block. Sand Creek Way and the Lum School dropoff lane
intersect Otis on the south side between Sandalwood and Waterview. Add in a supercrosswalk
which does not align with any of the four intersections, and you can imagine that cars are coming
from all directions at the same time. All cars from these four intersections must turn onto Otis, as
none go straight across. Having the crossing guards not let pedestrians cross while the bus is
present is great for the pedestrians, but does nothing for the autos that are coming from each
other from all directions. When the children are arriving at school in the morning, and leave in
the afternoon, there are many vehicles parking on all nearby side streets, as well as in every
available space on Otis, and every available space in the Lum School dropoff lane. Cars are
turning onto and back out of Sandalwood Isle and Waterview Isle, and also entering Otis from
the dropoff lane in Sandcreek Way. It is heavily congested. The supercrosswalk is in the middle
of this very confused traffic pattern. Adding a bus to the mix only exacerbates the congestion and
limits the visibility.
6",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,7,"""The City of Alameda has put a great deal of effort into making pedestrian crossings as safe as
possible. Do not take a step backwards!
""Although there are ramps located at the supercrosswalk at Otis, there are unrecognized ADA
problems with putting a bus at Lum School. The only reason to place a bus stop on Otis at
Willow and Grand is to attract riders. There are no cross streets in this area. North of Otis are
one-block dead-end cul de sacs with low-density, single-family houses. South of Otis are four
blocks of housing: two blocks of single family, and two blocks of medium-density apartments
and condos. The bulk of the potential riders reside south of Otis. To get to Otis from the south,
there are two routes: One is Ivy Walk, which leads directly to Otis. The other is Snowberry Walk
which leads you into the back of Lum School, then along a driveway through the Lum School
grounds to Sandcreek Way, approximately one block distance, then along Sandcreek Way for one
block to Otis.
""ADA Problem #1: When school is not in session, there is a chain attached with a padlock across
the driveway through Lum School. I can step over the chain, but a handicapped person cannot.
You will have to tell the principal at Lum School to stop using the chain. Whatever the reason the
chain serves will be eliminated. I do not know, but I suspect the chain reduces the likelihood of
vandalism, as this driveway leads past the office entrance, which is not visible from the street or
from the residences in the area. Also, as this parking lot is not visible from the street, and school
is only in session during the day, and then only 185 days out of a 365 day year, the same reasons
for closing the gates to the parking lot at Crown Beach at sunset would be in play for limiting
access to this parking lot.
""ADA Problem #2: There is no ADA ramp to get up only the sidewalk on Sandcreek Way. My
wife is disabled; we went to vote at Lum School last election. We used the supercrosswalk, but
when we got to the area near the school office where the voting booths were located, there was
no ADA ramp to get off the sidewalk to the driveway that leads to the office. This is the same
driveway that would be used by people cutting through the schoolyard to get to a bus stop,
should one be placed at Lum School.
""The City has indicated the building a bus stop at Ivy Walk would require painting and marking a
crosswalk. I pointed out that the crosswalk at Heather Walk and Heather Isle does not have a
painted crossing. That is the very next bus stop west of Grand. However, I was informed that the
regulations now require newly installed bus stops to have a marked crossing, and the Arlington
Isle stop does not need a crossing because it is grandfathered in under the old regulations. I do
not believe that painting a crosswalk near Ivy Walk will encourage students at Lum School to
cross Otis when they have the supercrosswalk at Lum School.
""To summarize: No one (other than an unnamed person on City staff) wants the bus stops. Shelve
this proposal, and revisit it someday if someone actually expresses a need for a bus stop and you
can buy the extra few minutes of run time that will be needed. And if you are absolutely
compelled to put in a stop, put it on the safe side of crosswalks and intersecting streets so that it
does not interfere with the visibility needed by us old, gray-headed pedestrians crossing this
heavily used street, and vehicles entering the traffic on Otis Drive. A stop at Ivy Walk would be
much safer than a stop at Lum School or a stop at Willow. Sincerely, Peter Muzio.""
7",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,8,"Commissioner McFarland noted that in addition to the bus routing and timing, there was an issue
of needed sidewalk improvements at some of the bus stops. He would like staff and AC Transit
to address those issues.
Acting Chair Ratto appreciated the comments about accessibility on Shoreline, and asked staff to
specifically to look into the Whitehall/Willow bus stop issue, particularly the poor condition of
the stop. He acknowledged the costs factored into every decision that must be made, and he
added that he had a great desire to serve on the subcommittee.
In response to a question by a member of the audience whether a resident could serve on the
subcommittee, Staff Khan noted that staff was considering doing a survey of residents and riders
in that area. He believed a public workshop would be the perfect forum to define what the
subcommittee's scope would be, and suggested forming the subcommittee first. Staff intended to
return in June. He noted that he was not sure if there was a precedent for a citizen serving on a
subcommittee, and Staff Bergman noted that some subcommittee hearings had been open to the
public.
Commissioner Schatmeier would support a subcommittee, and noted that the issue of cutting
running time had not yet been addressed. He agreed that the subcommittee would be the perfect
vehicle to address those issues, and volunteered to serve on the subcommittee.
Commissioner Krueger also volunteered to serve on the subcommittee.
Acting Chair Ratto noted that the subcommittee would work with staff and AC Transit, and
would like Liz Cleves to serve as a liaison between the community group and the subcommittee.
Liz Cleves would like to nominate Diane Voss to serve because she was in school full-time.
Staff Khan noted that staff would try to schedule a meeting for the following week.
Staff Bergman noted that the public speakers' names have been added to the mailing list, and
invited other members of the public to leave their contact information.
No action was taken.
7B.
Citywide Curbside Bus Stop Access Action Plan
Outcome: TC to reaffirm City 's practice of providing curbside access to bus stops and
provide guidance regarding flexibility in this practice. Discussion/Action
Staff Bergman summarized the staff report, and added the City Council had directed the City
Manager to work with the Commission to develop a plan to provide unobstructed curbside access
to all bus stops in Alameda. Most of that work had been completed, and there were some
remaining that were still underway, and were brought to the Transportation Technical Team
(TTT) in March 2007. He noted that there were a number of residents and businesses who
objected to the parking restrictions, generally with the impact on on-street parking. Staff wished
8",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,9,"to bring the matter to the Transportation Commission to reaffirm the City's current practices
regarding the provision of curbside access at bus stops, and to identify any areas where the
policy could be flexible. He noted that the objections raised at the TTT meeting included:
1.
A disabled resident indicated that having parking restrictions near his home would
be a hardship;
2.
A business owner stated that parking restrictions would harm his business;
3.
A church member talked about parking restrictions exacerbating existing parking
shortages during church events;
4.
A resident stated that many parents use the on-street parking as they drop their
children of at school.
He noted that most of the bus stop consolidation had been implemented, particularly on the 51,
and that other lines could be revisited with respect to relocation or revisiting regarding potential
problems that they cause
Open public comment.
Staff Bergman noted that Chair Knox White also submitted comments on this item:
""Where staff feels that neighborhoods have identified major constraints due to lost street parking,
staff level study and decision-making should be acceptable to see if existing City policy would
allow for consolidation, stop move, etc. Recent changes to the bus stop placement policy allow
for more flexibility in placing stops, as was used in the recommendation for Otis. The City of
Alameda maintains very stringent minimum parking standards for both residences and
businesses. As such, before too much discussion is had about removing bus stops, these
standards and the usage of the mandated parking should be evaluated, or the City should get rid
of the requirement.
""In residential areas, staff should also identify whether the City mandated parking for autos is
being used as well, before studying major stop location redesign. Household garages used for
storage, etc., eat up a lot of onstreet parking as well. Perhaps a policy that neighborhoods do a
parking study, looking at available off-street spots, use of those spots and other street uses should
be considered a first step. For those areas where a high percentage of off-street parking is being
used for parking, then staff can determine if the removal of 2 to 3 spots will necessitate parkers
to walk more than 100 feet, 10 percent of the bus rider maximum walk. If this is found to be the
case, then bus stop removal would be weighed as a measure of total daily ridership versus total
daily parking usage. Whichever is higher would represent the solution which maximizes
community benefit.
""In business districts - Park Street and Webster Street - have parking removed for stops already,
and shops are doing well financially. Staff should try to accommodate parking needs in
neighborhood business districts without removing stops. The Transportation Commission has
historically supported transit in commercial areas.""
9",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,10,"Staff Bergman noted that an email was sent to him by a business owner who had spoken at the
TTT meeting:
""We are owners of Wilmot's Books, a small independent bookstore that has been in existence on
the West Side of Alameda for the last year and a half. During that time, we have run a successful
business, despite being in a tough industry and being located a bit off the main business section
of town. We've also been happy to become part of the community and a strong presence in the
neighborhood for culture, literature and the arts, and most importantly, a place where people can
come and hang out and shop. We are located at 478 Central Avenue, which is the intersection of
5th and Central Avenue, and is one of the locations that would possible be affected by the
proposed changes in parking.
""While our business is successful, it is also quite vulnerable. The difference in our succeeding
and encountering great challenges can be the difference of just a few customers each day. The
difference of a good day versus a bad day is directly linked to the parking in front of our store.
While parking S already quite scarce in our neighborhood, the changes in parking would take
away the three most important spots we have, which are directly in front of the store late in the
afternoon. Since the changes proposed for directly across the street going in the opposite
direction affect the early morning, people living in the neighborhood would be more likely to
park in front of our store in the evening. The net result is that we would lose our most important
parking for over half the hours that our store is in operation.
""While we are very supportive of public transportation, we are also aware that a bus has never
stopped to drop off anyone at this stop. The bus stop is not used, and certainly not needed. It is
located two blocks from the school, so the students simply do not use this stop to be dropped off.
If a change is going to be discussed, it should be to get rid of this stop that causes nothing but
confusion. I cannot put it any simpler than this: If you choose to take away our parking, even for
just a few hours at a time, you will force us to move, and we will need to shut down this store. It
is my assumption that the City of Alameda would rather have an independent bookstore instead
of parking for a bus stop that isn't used. Thank you for your consideration, Tim and Mary
Wilmot.""
Staff Bergman noted that the stop he referred to only serves one of the school lines, so the
restriction was only for the hours when that bus was in operation.
Joyce Larrick, representing herself and Rebecca LeValley, who was unable to attend. She read
Ms. LeValley's comments:
""As a middle-aged and short bus rider, it is difficult enough climbing on and off some of the
larger cruise line-type buses currently in service without the added obstruction of winding
through parked cars to get to the bus. I think the tragic accident in San Francisco yesterday where
a handicapped man was killed because a truck driver did not see his low silhouette in the
crosswalk highlights some of the potential dangers to bus riders trying to board buses through
high-profile SUVs, etc. I cannot see the possible advantage to a business of having their
customers frustrated by the inability to get in or out or a parking space blocked by a boarding or
discharging bus. Frustration leads to rash action and injuries. While we caution children against
10",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,11,"chasing balls out into the street between parked cars, and now you want to send bus riders into
the same danger.""
Ms. Larrick noted that following her involvement with Earth Day, she supported bus ridership to
reduce pollution and congestion. She believed the City should encourage more people to use the
bus.
Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, was sympathetic to the concerns of business owners,
and noted that bus riders were customers, too. She did not believe the City should take a step
backwards on not providing access to the bus, and believe that all stops should have access. She
believed the effects on a business would be minimal, and that the problems of the transit stops
were outweighed by the greater good. She suggested that moving the stop a block in one
direction or another may be a good compromise without adversely affecting good bus stop
spacing.
Deborah James believed the school bus was the only bus that stopped by the book store. She
noted that the 63 was often late and jam-packed because it served two high schools. She added
that people often use the bus stop as a dropoff for Chipman Middle School.
Geoff Kline wished to respectfully disagree with the transit advocates, and believed there were a
number of places in Alameda, especially on lightly traveled streets, where ""flag stops"" [where
the stop is marked by a sign and there are no parking restrictions] could be installed rather than
removing parking spaces where parking was problematic. He did not believe that painting all the
curbs red was the solution, and he did not believe it was realistic for everyone to get out of their
cars. He believed the drivers should be able to have a place to park.
Deborah James noted that riders at flag stops would not be visible to the bus driver unless the
rider ran into the street.
Closed public comment.
Commissioner Krueger believed it was important to be flexible, and to listen and weigh the
concerns of all parties in order to be fair. He did not believe every case should be an exception.
He did not support the idea of a flag stop. He believed the times of the restriction should be
negotiated, based on the hours of operation. He believed assessment should be made to move or
consolidate stops. With respect to Chair Knox White's comment about the lack of parking in
residential neighborhoods, he suggested that a parking survey be employed to determine if
garages are being used for vehicles.
Commissioner Schatmeier agreed with Commissioner Krueger's comments. He believed that bus
service was an asset rather than a liability to the community. He supported flexibility as
described by Commissioner Krueger.
Commissioner McFarland supported the flexibility as outlined by Commissioner Krueger, and
believed the policy should stand.
11",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,12,"Commissioner Subramanium believed that policies were in place in order to have consistent
implementation across the City, and did not believe that having exceptions would benefit the
City.
Acting Chair Ratto noted that it was best to work with Public Works and AC Transit to deal with
red curbs. He supported the bus plazas on Park and Webster Street, and believed that the
Transportation Commission might as well disband if they could not stand firm on this policy.
Pertaining to flexibility, he believed that staff should assist residents in consolidating bus stops
and work with AC Transit because there were exceptions to the rule. He believed the burden of
proof was on the appellant, and they need to show a real need for the parking spaces. He believed
the garage should be used for cars and not storage.
Commissioner Krueger moved the following:
1) All bus stops should have parking prohibitions during the hours of bus operations.
2) If there are problems with eliminating parking at a particular location, the relocation or
consolidation of bus stops should be considered. In the case of an appeal of a decision to
remove on-street parking, staff should work with the appellant to explore options for flexibility,
but the burden of proof is on the appellant to demonstrate the need for the on-street parking
spaces.
3) The level of bus ridership and demand for on-street parking at the location should be
considered in such decisions - if the parking demand is high and bus ridership is low,
preservation of parking should be given greater emphasis.
4) Any changes to bus stop locations should ensure consistency with the Long Range Transit
Plan's recommended bus stop spacing of approximately 1000 feet.
5) City should explore ways to encourage private property owners to make better use of
existing off-street parking.
Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
7C. Review and comment on Civic Center Parking Garage Management Plan Policies and
Procedures.
Outcome: TC to review and provide comments on draft Parking Management and
Operations Plan. Discussion/Action
Staff Eric Fonstein, Economic Development Coordinator, Development Services Department,
summarized the staff report and described the scope and background of the proposed parking
structure, which should be completed by December 2007. He noted there was a perception of
reluctance to use a parking structure if it is difficult or complicated to use.
Commissioner Subramanium inquired whether car sharing had been considered, such as in
Oakland and San Francisco. Acting Chair Ratto noted that had not been examined at this time.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that car sharing was business operation, and that enough
business must be generated for it to be economically viable.
12",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,13,"Open public comment.
Jim Strehlow noted that he was primarily a bicycle rider and pedestrian, and recalled the
discussion of this item at the City Council meeting. He noted that there could be alternatives to
paying for parking, such as free parking or alternative transportation, as well as merchant
validation programs. He requested clarification of the TDM page 1, section 1, line 4-6, which
stated that it would generate limited revenue to pay for operations, and the remainder would
repay the loan. He would like to see the profit and loss for the next three years.
Closed public comment.
Staff Fonstein explained the attendant and gate approach, and noted that the 50 cents per hour
rate was similar to the parking rates on the street. He further explained the details of the structure
pay-by system, and noted that it was similar to eight of BART's East Bay parking structures. He
noted that a gate approach was twice as capital-intensive, requiring ticket dispensers and
receptors, as well as the gates themselves and staff required for maintenance, emergencies or
malfunctions.
Commissioner Krueger believed it was unusual to pay for the next time the driver would use the
parking structure. He inquired whether it could be purchased the same day if movie tickets were
ordered in advance. Staff Fonstein noted that he would consider that idea.
Staff Fonstein stated that there would be a four-hour maximum. He noted that daily parking
could be used via a monthly parking program.
A discussion of parking enforcement ensued.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if any consideration had been made to using the garage as a
park and ride lot, and noted that the garage will be very close to the most heavily traveled transit
streets in the City. He stated that given the maximum number of hours people would be
permitted to park, use as a park and ride lot would not be possible.
Acting Chair Ratto believed that if there was a surplus of monthly passes within the district, that
park and ride could be considered.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that could be an attractive possibility for revenue generation,
although that was not the primary purpose of the garage.
Commissioner Krueger believed that onstreet parking should be more expensive to encourage
people to use the garage.
Acting Chair Ratto noted that the Class II bike lane on Central would be restored in front of the
high school, and that the diagonal parking be converted to parallel parking.
Staff Khan noted that the City was waiting for construction to be completed.
13",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,14,"Acting Chair Ratto noted that was important, and should be included in the report. He thanked
staff for an excellent job on this item over the many months of development.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to recommend that the City Council accept the proposal,
including restoring the Class II bike lane; prevalidation with a code for movie tickets; examine
car sharing; examine the optimum pricing of street parking versus garage parking; transit riders
included in monthly passes; return to parallel parking on Central. Commissioner McFarland
seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Khan noted that staff wished to discuss the EIR for Harbor Bay Village, which was
suggested to come before the Transportation Commission by the Planning Department. He
distributed the Draft EIR document, and indicated that the public comments would close May 4,
2007. He invited the Commissioners to request that it be agendized, and he would request that
the Planning Department extend the public comment period to accommodate Transportation
Commission comments.
Staff Khan handed out bicycle surveys to invite comments regarding pedestrian/bicycle access
issues. He noted that it was also available on the City's website.
Acting Chair Ratto noted that the Park Street Spring Festival would be held on Mother's Day
weekend (May 12 and 13). He noted that last year, 40,000 people attended the downtown
festival.
Staff Bergman noted that the draft Transportation Element has been circulated to the various
boards and commissions, including the Economic Development Commission, Commission on
Disabilities, the Climate Protection Task Force, Rec and Parks Commission and the Housing
Commission. It would be completed in mid-June.
Staff Bergman noted that the next ILC meeting would be held May 31, 2007, and that further
information would be emailed to the Commissioners.
Acting Chair Ratto complimented Staff Khan on doing an excellent job in front of the EDC the
previous week.
Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
i:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2007/052307/042507minutes-final.doc
14",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf