body,date,page,text,path
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
April 23, 2008
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:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier (arrived at 8:00 p.m.)
Srikant Subramaniam
Nielsen Tam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
Michael Fisher, Division Chief, Fire Department
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
January 23, 2008
Commissioner Ratto moved approval of the minutes for the January 23, 2008, meeting
and minutes as presented. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion
passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Krueger abstained). Absent: Commissioner Schatmeier.
b.
March 26, 2008
Commissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the March 26, 2008,
meeting and minutes as presented. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Ratto abstained). Absent: Commissioner
Schatmeier.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White noted that the Bicycle Plan Subcommittee had met briefly, during
which the process for moving forward was discussed.
Transportation Commission
Page 1 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,2,"Chair Knox White noted that the Pedestrian Task Force had met, which will be discussed
later in the meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Open public comment.
Councilmember Doug DeHaan provided an informational update regarding the
Esplanade project approved by the City Council within Harbor Bay and concerns
expressed by some community members. Public concern had been expressed about the
ferry service, and that the parking lot at the terminal was at 90 to 100% capacity every
day, which limited the City's ability to add ridership to the ferry.
The Council expressed an interest in looking at alternatives for improving ferry ridership.
He noted that the commercial portion of the Harbor Bay Association had run a very
successful shuttle service from BART and within the development itself. He added that it
was a private effort, and in doing so, it had served their population well. The developer
who sat on the Harbor Bay Board noted that he could not commit them to extend that, but
that he would work with the rest of the community to look at extending a shuttle service
into Harbor Bay. Councilmember DeHaan stated that another option that was suggested
was developing a staging area near the beginning of Ron Cowan Parkway where people
could park and take a shuttle to the ferry terminal. A third alternative would be to
restripe the existing parking lot, which, he estimated, could create perhaps ten additional
parking spaces. He encouraged the Commission look at the alternatives.
Councilmember DeHaan discussed the farebox recovery ratio history for the service and
noted that the Council wants the ferry to be successful. He noted that the additional
activity from new development would be helpful to the ferry. He encouraged the
Transportation Commission and Public Works to move forward on this issue and to
provide an update. He noted that a shuttle service would benefit not only Alameda
residents, but also people from other areas via the Ron Cowan Parkway.
Bill Smith wished to discuss the fourth bore and fourth platform for BART, and stated
that he had been instrumental in getting bicycles onto BART and the buses. He believed a
shuttle would be able to connect the different neighborhoods to Alameda Point. He was
glad that there were no overhead elevated tracks and steel wheels on the rapid transit
trains. He discussed SunCal and the TOD.
Close public comment.
6A. Resident Appeal of Parking Restrictions on to Provide Emergency Access on
Palace Court (Continued from March 26, 2008 meeting).
Staff Bergman presented the staff report. He summarized the history of the project, and
displayed and described the appellant's concerns. The Alameda Municipal Code
authorized the Public Works Director to remove parking based on safety considerations.
Transportation Commission
Page 2 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,3,"Staff solicited input from residents, and received some comments in favor, some in
opposition, as well as some suggested alternatives, such as allowing people to park on the
sidewalks, as was done previously. The Fire Code required a 20-foot clearance for
emergency vehicle access. The Fire Department indicated that they had some vehicles
that were 9.5 feet wide, which so removing parking on one side of the street would be
sufficient, as it would provide 16 feet of clearance. To mitigate the impacts, parking was
removed on the even side of the street, as fewer spaces were impacted. He noted that the
two-hour parking restriction on the other side of the street was removed to provide full-
time on-street parking for four additional spaces.
Staff Bergman noted that the decision was appealed, and that the appellant made several
points. The appellant believed that there were alternative methods of providing access,
such as sidewalk parking, that would allow the on-street parking to be retained.
Staff noted that this recommendation was not made because it was prohibited by Section
22500(f) of the California Vehicle Code, which stated that ""no person shall stop, park, or
leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to
avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or
official traffic control device on any portion of a sidewalk, or with the body of the vehicle
extending over any portion of a sidewalk."" In addition, the sidewalks are not constructed
to support the weight of the vehicles, and there was concern about the impact that parking
on the sidewalk would have on pedestrian traffic. The appellant submitted a letter
subsequent to his initial appeal, raising additional points. One suggestion was to relocate
the curb to widen the street, in order to provide emergency access. The Alameda
Municipal Code required that public sidewalks be at least five feet in width; by removing
the 18 inches from each side of the street, that would provide an additional three feet,
giving 27 feet. Since the parking lane was typically eight feet wide, that would leave only
11 feet of clear space available, which would be insufficient for emergency access.
The appellant further suggested that a parking permit program, which had been discussed
by the City as a number of neighborhoods in the City are dealing with similar problems.
When staff researched the costs and other requirements to implement such a program, it
was found that it was typically funded through the General Fund. At this time, the City
had difficulty in finding resources at this time. He noted that may be viable in the future,
but would not be practical at this time.
Staff Bergman noted that the appellant's second basis for appeal noted that a request had
been made for a hearing regarding this matter, and the Municipal Code authorized the
Public Works Director to implement parking prohibitions based on safety considerations
prior to the appeal being held. This TC meeting provided the appellant, as well as other
members of the public, with the opportunity to request that the decision be overturned.
Staff Bergman noted that the third basis for appeal was a request for documentation
establishing the need to eliminate the on-street parking. This information was
communicated to the appellant and other affected resident in the notification sent out on
January 23, a copy of that letter was included in the packet. Also included were the
Transportation Commission
Page 3 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,4,"initial appeal, the subsequent letter from the appellant, and comments from residents.
Given that the 18 spaces has been removed from one side of the street, and full-time
parking has been restored at four additional spaces, there was a net loss of 14 full-time
on-street parking spaces. Staff recommended that the Transportation Commission support
the Public Works Director's decision to eliminate the parking on the odd side of the
street.
Commissioner Krueger noted that there appeared to be a pickup truck and a large boat
trailer, and inquired whether staff had observed that on the site. Staff Khan replied that he
had not seen it on the site. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether it was legal to park
those large vehicles on the street, given the existing parking problem. Staff Khan replied
that there was a restriction of commercial vehicles to be parked in residential areas, and
there were some time limits as well.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether 10 feet would be enough
width to fit the 9.5-foot-wide vehicle through, Michael Fisher, Fire Department, replied
that it would be very impractical, and that the Fire Code required a minimum of 20 feet in
width. An allowance was being made by bringing the width down to 16 feet.
Open public comment
Marc Voisenat, appellant, noted that the street was 24 feet wide, and noted that taking
parking from one side of the street only created 16 feet. He believed that if 20 feet was
needed, that the neighborhood should not settle for 16 feet. He had not realized that the
Fire Department had made an allowance to 14 feet, and did not know how they came to
that determination. He believed that if the Fire Department took the position that the
Code should be followed, then it should be adhered to. He displayed a photo of the street,
and noted that two vehicles were allowed to park on the sidewalk in a special parking
designation. He believed that if they were allowed to make those accommodations there,
and the Fire Department allowed accommodations to shorten the width of the lane, then
he believed his suggestions should be considered. He noted that some of his ideas
originated from the City, such as parking on the street curb. He suggested that trimming
1.5 feet from each side of the street, and making the width of the parking seven feet
would yield 14 feet with parking on both sides of the street. He suggested that the City at
least mark the parking spots, and added that people generally parked as close to the other
vehicles as safely possible in order to create more parking spots. He noted that church
parkers generally were not aware of that, and sometimes parked where they could take up
two to three spots with one car. He believed that painting the parking spaces would not
have a big fiscal impact for the City. He did not understand the difficulty in implementing
and supervising permit parking, and did not believe it would be more difficult than
supervising a no-parking zone. He believed that the fees for the parking permits would
help supplement the cost of supervising the program, and added that it would also give
the appearance that parking was restricted on Palace Court. He believed that 14 feet
would be sufficient for the fire vehicles to pass.
Edith Brady, 529 Palace Court, noted that the boat and truck had been moved to their
Transportation Commission
Page 4 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,5,"believed that people should use alternative modes of transportation.
Karen Goddin, 527F Palace Court, inquired where the closest fire hydrant was located.
Staff Fisher replied that it was on Central Avenue. She further inquired why an
emergency response could not be made with a smaller vehicle than a fire truck. Mr.
Fisher replied that the typical response to an emergency medical service call in Alameda
required one engine company with three personnel (captain, driver and a paramedic), as
well as a paramedic ambulance with two paramedics on it, for a total of five people. He
noted that was the minimum County-required response within the City of Alameda.
Matthew McHenry, 534 Palace Court, believed the permit parking should be examined,
and that it would be the best and easiest solution. He would like to know why it was such
an expensive and difficult solution.
Close public comment.
Chair Knox White reminded the Commission that this was an appeal hearing, rather than
trying to solve the problem. The Commission may make recommendations to staff
following the Commission's decision.
Commissioner Krueger believed that more time should be given to the alternatives, and
requested that staff answer the question about the parking permit, specifically about the
break-even cost for the system itself.
Staff Khan replied that Staff Bergman's research regarding cities such as Berkeley and
Walnut Creek found that the cities had created a neighborhood parking program, which
was subsidized by the General Fund. He understood that the question was whether the
permit program could be fully paid by the residents. In order to make the program viable,
the permits must be issued and tracked, and guest permits must be issued, fees must be
collected and enforcement must take place. He noted the resources would be extensive
Transportation Commission
Page 5 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,6,"for a smaller program, and that this was viable on a larger scale; in that case, police
officers and other personnel could be hired just for the permit program.
Commissioner Ratto thanked the Fire Department for living in the real world and
accepting the 16-foot-wide fire lane, rather than the 20-foot width required by Code. He
noted that if that were not the case, the neighborhood would not have any parking on
either side of the street. He noted that because the Commission was only dealing with the
appeal, he would bring the public comment brought forth by Mr. McDowell regarding
other streets to staff and request that they look into it. He noted that he had grown up in
Alameda, and was aware of two different instances where houses had burned to the
ground because the Fire Department did not have access to them. In those cases, parking
had been changed to allow parking on only one side of the street. He was sensitive to
public safety, and added that he would vote to deny the appeal.
Chair Knox White echoed Commissioner Ratto's comments, and shared his concern about
selective enforcement on other streets. He understood that some allowances could be
made to the 20-foot lane widths, and believed the selective enforcement stemmed more
from a desire to avoid this problem on other streets, rather than ill will. He believed this
issue should be addressed on a policy level by the City. He noted that the Transportation
Commission has generally supported parking permits, and that they were cited in the
Transportation Master Plan currently in circulation. He noted that the permit program
should be made in a cost-neutral way when 10% budget cuts were being made to every
program. He noted that the program would become cost prohibitive almost immediately.
He noted that the Public Works Director identified this as a safety hazard, and that was
the primary concern of the City. He believed the Fire Department had provided
documentation establishing the need to eliminate on-street parking, as identified in
Condition 3.
Commissioner Ratto moved to approve the staff recommendation to deny the appeal.
Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0.
Chair Knox White believed the City needed to address the permit parking issue, which
continued to come up before the Commission. He understood staff's concern about
setting the parking program up, and that because it was a benefit to the neighborhood, it
should pay for itself. He would like staff to cost the proposed program out, in order to
create a cost-neutral program.
Commissioner Krueger expressed concern about the photo of the handicapped spaces on
the sidewalk, which seemed to contradict the Vehicle Code.
Staff Khan noted that the City had been trying to create allowances on that street, as well
as the need for handicapped parking. Staff considered that it was located at the end of the
street, with minimal fire access and through traffic issues. However, if the neighborhood
was unhappy with that allowance and wanted those spaces removed, staff would take that
into consideration.
Transportation Commission
Page 6 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,7,"7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Review and Provide Recommendations on the Proposed Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010.
Staff Hawkins presented the staff report, and reviewed the process for and projects in the
Capital Improvement Program in detail. She noted that there was additional detail on the
website at www.ci.alameda.ca.us. She noted that the CIP will go to City Council in June.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether the carryover projects used
previously allocated funds, Staff Hawkins replied that the money will have been
earmarked and would not come out of the new budget. She added that there had been
insufficient staff for approximately four years to address the carryover projects.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the website contained more details on the
projects than what was available in the packet, Staff Hawkins replied that the data sheet
for every project was available on the website. She added that there was generally a more
detailed description of the proposed project, but that design plans were usually not
included. She noted that further details could be obtained by calling the Lori Kozisek
Public Works Department at 510/749-5840.
Staff Khan wished to point out the annual projects described in the packet, and noted that
page 204 listed the Bicycle Program and the Safe Routes to School improvements. Under
the Bicycle Program, the bulk of the money in 2008/2009 will be spending in preparation
of the Bike Plan; the City anticipated that some of the projects will be implemented in
2009/2010. The Safe Routes to School improvements will be continued, and the maps
will be developed throughout the City. This program also funded any requests from the
Alameda Unified School District for analysis and review of drop-off zones and parking.
He noted that the Congestion Management Plan funded streets in the Congestion
Management Program, and the staff wished to avoid a situation where a deficiency plan
must be created. The City may conduct studies addressing signal coordination and signal
timing. On-call striping and signing work was performed upon Commissioner request,
and the City was attempting to upgrade the signals to meet current requirements. He
noted that the Transit Pass program issued all City employees an EcoPass or universal
pass; he anticipated that the program would be in place in June or July of this year.
Chair Knox White inquired whether the $110,000 in Measure B funds for the Bicycle
Program was all for staff time. Staff Khan replied that most of the funds were earmarked
for staff time to perform any studies. He added that most of the annual programs were for
staff time, except for striping and signing. Staff Hawkins replied that all of the Bike and
Ped funding was applied towards the Sidewalk Program. She noted that ACTIA requires
that all projects funded through the bicycle and pedestrian portion of Measure B must be
on an approved list, while projects funded through the streets and roads portion do not.
By funding bicycle and pedestrian projects through the streets and roads funding it
prevents the City from having to continually update the project list.
Transportation Commission
Page 7 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,8,"Commissioner Schatmeier inquired whether the City had joined the Alameda County
program Safe Route to School program. He inquired whether that would come out of the
CIP. Staff Khan replied that if funding were to be provided to the County, it would not
come out of this program, and that it provided salaries for employees.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the Tree Plan, Staff Hawkins
replied that when a tree was removed, one was generally planted. She noted that staff
intended to wait for the Master Tree Plan, and implement it as proposed.
With respect to the unfunded projects, Chair Knox White inquired whether the long-range
transit plan update would start in Fall 2008. Staff Khan replied that the City applied for
grant funding for this project, and that it was unfunded because the City had not heard
back from the funding agency yet.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the disposition of the program if
the City did not receive the grant, Staff Khan replied that Public Works would need to
remove the project.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that there was a great deal of need, with few resources.
He expressed concern about government priorities in general, and was glad to see there
was a list of unfunded projects, which highlighted the need. He noted that bus shelters,
which the Transportation Commission had expressed an interest in, were listed under
""Other,"" without a proposed funding source. He was curious about the allocation. Staff
Hawkins replied that went towards the Citywide Development Fee, and that a study
identified specific projects. She noted that 27% would be paid for by development, and
73% to be paid for by the City; the General Fund would offset it.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the Long-Range Transit Plan update was listed in
the unfunded category, and included language reading, ""Pending approval of Caltrans
Community-Based Transportation Planning. Staff Khan replied that was a grant that the
City had applied for.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the $157 million figure for curb ramps and $86
million in sidewalk repairs on page 5 in the Unfunded Projects was correct, and not a
typo. Staff Hawkins noted that they were correct, and that the sewer repair work was also
in that range. She noted that the figure covered a complete replacement over 20 years.
She noted that truncated domes at the intersections were required to comply with the
ADA, which was a huge new cost.
Open public comment
Bill Smith noted that he would make his comments would be available on web video, and
noted that he would like the Coast Guard housing to be converted into disabled veterans.
He would like the infrastructure to be improved with a mini transit system that would be
monitored with a collaborative public/private joint venture to be shared with the
community at large.
Transportation Commission
Page 8 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,9,"Close public comment
Chair Knox White noted that $250,000 had been identified in the two-year plan for the
cross-estuary environmental project, which he believed was very good. However, he
believed that the proposed project could become so large that it would not be able to
move forward in three or four years. He suggested that with the tight City finances, that
the money may be better used in other bike and pedestrian programs. He believed that the
environmental study was very important, and that it should be done when possible.
Staff Hawkins noted that was included because the projects that received capital funding
had feasibility studies, environmental studies and often, designs completed. She
suggested that as the Transportation Commission consider going forward with the City
Bicycle Plan update, that some of the other projects that would be funded be prioritized.
Commissioner Krueger noted that on page 7 in Unfunded Projects, the study for the Otis
Reconfiguration caught his attention. He noted that the issue came up several times with
the neighbors' concern about safety on Otis. Staff Khan noted that he was trying to get it
funded through the TMP process, and that it was listed because it was presently
unfunded. If the contingency money from the TMP is not used, these funds could
possibly be used for the Otis Drive study.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the bus shelters were listed on the unfunded list, and he
recalled that the City would go forward with the bus shelter program. He had hoped to
get some grants, which had fallen through. He inquired whether it would be taken back to
Council.
Commissioner Krueger moved to recommend that the City Council approve the CIP
program, as well as the following: 1) bus shelter procurement and maintenance be
brought back to City Council for direction on finding funding; 2) bicycle, pedestrian
and transit projects be prioritized in the CIP; 3) if it appears unlikely that capital
funding will be available for the cross-estuary bicycle/pedestrian crossing
improvements, the funding reserved for the environmental work for the project be
reallocated toward other projects in the bicycle plan; and 4) funding be made available
to study the potential reconfiguration of Otis Drive. Commissioner Ratto seconded the
motion. Motion passed 7-0.
Chair Knox White suggested that the monetary figures in the reports be consistent so that
they are reflected either in dollars or thousands of dollars. He noted that the score column
was not explained, and suggested that it be eliminated if it is not clarified.
Staff Hawkins noted that it examined the environment, cost-effectiveness, available
funding, and that it was an attempt to prioritize things.
7B.
Proposed Implementation of Parking Restrictions on Central Avenue in
Front of the New Theater and Cineplex to Improve Traffic Circulation and
Transportation Commission
Page 9 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,10,"Access.
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and summarized the background and details of this
item. He noted that representatives of the Police Department were available to answer
questions. He noted that their goal was to provide a clear access for the Police and Fire
Departments in front of the theater, particularly with the number of people accessing it.
He noted that other cities provided loading/unloading zones in front of the theater with no
parking allowed to ensure that the environment was safe.
Commissioner Krueger recalled that there had been parallel parking and bike lanes prior
to the construction project. Staff Khan confirmed that both were present in the
recommended design. Commissioner Krueger inquired what would happen to the bike
lanes if the parking was removed on one side. Staff Khan replied that the proposed
design includes an eight-foot parking lane, a five-foot bike lane, and then the travel lane
of 11-12 feet. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether traffic would have to pull into
the parking area across the bike lane. Staff Khan replied that was in line with the
standards, and was common in commercial zones. He noted that the speeds should not
increase. The speeds would be controlled by the pedestrian and other activity near the
street.
Commissioner Krueger noted that right-turning traffic onto Oak would create a de facto
right-turn lane. Staff Khan replied that staff considered a right-turn lane, but there was not
enough space or justification. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether a bulbout could
be considered to prevent that situation. Staff Khan replied that was not considered as part
of this item, and that the request came after the construction was nearly complete. He
added that it could be considered in the future.
Open public comment.
Bill Smith noted that it was important to protect the safety of the children, and that
cameras were important to monitor safety. He suggested that volunteers with police-
quality cameras would help maintain decorum when large numbers of children attended a
movie. He suggested that signage also be used to maintain control of the situation, and
that a crosswalk be placed in the middle of the street as well.
Close public comment.
Commissioner Ratto inquired whether the yellow zone would be a ""no parking"" zone in
non-loading hours. Staff Khan replied that the City would work with the Business
Association in terms of the time, and that allowing parking had been considered for non-
peak hours. The zone could be signed appropriately after consultation with the Business
Association. Commissioner Ratto believed there should be no parking there, with the
exception of commercial vehicles during certain times. He believed that the desire was to
have no parking from that driveway up to Oak Street, and did not want to see people
fighting over the parking spaces during off-hours. He noted that he supported this
Transportation Commission
Page 10 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,11,"concept, and that it would be considered by the Park Street Business Association (PSBA)
Board of Directors at its next meeting.
Chair Knox White inquired where the 35 required bike parking spaces had gone. Staff
Bergman replied that there were 40 spaces in the garage, including bike lockers and
racks.
Chair Knox White noted that this plan was similar to the Jack London Cinema - a big
theater with no parking in front of it, and across the street from a parking lot with no way
to cross the street. He did not believe this was a pedestrian-friendly area. He believed it
was unfortunate that this plan was coming forward at this time, after years of planning in
this area. He noted that the traffic and parking plan came to the Transportation
Commission two years ago, which he believed was the time to make these
recommendations. He agreed with Commissioner Krueger that the red curb would
become a de facto right turn lane, which would be more dangerous for pedestrians and
bike riders trying to navigate the intersection. He did not see how 270 feet of no-parking
zone could be created without a bulbout. He noted that he was not against the dropoff
zone, but questioned whether that much space was needed either for dropoff or
emergency access. He believed there should be bike parking in front of the theater, that
bicyclists would be more likely to use this than the parking in the garage. He noted that
other cities provided bike parking in front of the theater, and believed that those spaces
would be full of bikes on a summer evening. He was concerned that the City was trying
to solve this problem quickly and cheaply, and did not believe this added to the area. He
had not heard anyone justify the need to park four or five fire trucks in front of the theater
at any given moment, and believed this created a very unfriendly environment for
pedestrians.
Lt. Dave Boersma, APD Traffic Division, noted that this was a compromise, and that
from a public safety standpoint, he preferred a red zone in front of the entire area, without
allowing any parking. He noted that 187 feet of white zone was a lot of space, and that at
20 feet per parking space, this would allow a lot of cars to park. He noted that an
alternative to the red zone was to leave it as a metered parking zone, which created
double parking problems in front of the building, and would not allow for emergency
vehicle access. He noted that they were primarily concerned about the vehicular traffic
flow through the area. He added that he hoped that drivers did use the red curb zone as a
de facto right-turn lane, as this would keep the traffic flow moving. He was concerned
that there would be a lot of traffic stuck at the red light on westbound Central Avenue at
Oak Street, which would then back up and impact Park Street. APD proposed a right-turn
lane at the intersection, but that there was not enough space where the street narrowed to
put an actual right-turn only lane. They believed that having the red zone would be a
good compromise.
Commissioner Krueger would like to see a mid-block crosswalk, as suggested by Mr.
Smith. He noted that there will be a lot of pedestrians wanting to cross over to the theater
entrance, and believed the City should acknowledge people's actual behaviors and design
the crosswalk to suit.
Transportation Commission
Page 11 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,12,"Staff Khan noted that when crosswalks are designed, staff look at pedestrian visibility and
safety; staff did not want the pedestrians to be a place where motorists did not expect
them. By putting white lines on the street, a safe environment would not be provided,
especially at night. He believed that a crosswalk at this location may create more
concerns.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the alleyway met the standard to constitute an
unmarked crosswalk. Staff Khan replied that the alleyway was an access point. He noted
that between two signalized intersections, crossing would be considered jaywalking.
Lt. Boersma understood that an unmarked crosswalk must be a prolongation of the
sidewalk; that there was no sidewalk, only a driveway onto private property. Therefore,
there was no unmarked crosswalk.
Commissioner Ratto noted that a PSBA member who owned a restaurant across the street
from the theater would request the PSBA Board to request that the City install a mid-
block crosswalk with in-pavement crosswalk lights. He noted that as executive director of
PSBA, he would work for this recommendation. However, as a Transportation
Commissioner, he would vote against that recommendation. He noted that this could give
a false sense of security to people crossing the street, and he did not believe that it was
needed between two controlled lights. He understood the concern about the de facto right
lane, and noted that PSBA would be against the bulbout at that corner, as it would
negatively impact traffic flow. He inquired whether vehicles could turn left from Oak into
the garage. Staff Khan replied that they could.
Commissioner Ratto believed that while 40 bike parking spaces in front of the theater was
excessive, he suggested that some bike racks be put in proximity to the theater. Staff
Khan replied that this could be done, and added that the City could used some grant
money for that purpose. They also considered putting some bike parking in the alleyway.
Commissioner Krueger believed the priority should be putting the bikes in front of the
theater, and that there would be security concerns with alleyway parking. He suggested
that the real issues be acknowledged, that the proposal is more about maintaining traffic
flow than meeting the needs of pedestrians. He believed that congested traffic would be
better for pedestrians, and that smoothly flowing traffic would be more dangerous for the
pedestrians.
Lt. Boersma noted that both traffic and pedestrian issues were relevant, and that drivers
would still double park; there would also be a risk to passengers. He believed this would
proposal would eliminate the ability to do that, and there would be an impact. He noted
that there would be queues in front of the theater, especially for the blockbuster movies.
He would discourage people crossing in between the two corners, and believed that a
mid-block crosswalk would make things worse. He believed it would impede the traffic
flow and give people a false sense of security. He believed the proposed plan addressed
the pedestrian safety, traffic flow and emergency access issues.
Transportation Commission
Page 12 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,13,"Commissioner Ratto noted that this would not be set in stone, and that if there were
problems, changes could be made.
Chair Knox White responded that it would be better to get the plan right the first time.
Chair Knox White noted that he would move against this, but did support removing the
parking. He supported the creation of a dropoff zone, the commercial loading zone and
the a red curb for sight lines. He opposed the creation of 270-foot-long de facto new lane
along Central Avenue. He understood the sight line issue as described by the lieutenant,
but was very concerned about drivers making right turns at the corner while pedestrians
waited to cross. He would rather see a bulbout that would prohibit the quick right turn.
He believed the proposed plan would not lead to good traffic flow and a vibrant
downtown, but that the proposal could be changed to achieve that goal.
Commissioner Ratto moved to approve the staff recommendation to approve Proposed
Implementation of Parking Restrictions on Central Avenue in Front of the New Theater
and Cineplex to Improve Traffic Circulation and Access. Commissioner McFarland
seconded the motion. Motion failed 2-5 (Knox-White, Krueger, Schatmeier,
Subramaniam, Tam opposed).
Commissioner McFarland left the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Commissioner
Subramaniam seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-1 (Ratto opposed).
7C.
Review of Draft Pedestrian Plan
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and acknowledged the hard work of Gail Payne in
the preparation of the Draft Pedestrian Plan. This item will be brought back for action in
the May meeting. He described the pedestrian plan in detail, and displayed the
PowerPoint presentation on the overhead screen. He noted that it provided guidelines
above and beyond the ADA guidelines. He noted that goals were recommended by the
Transportation Commission as part of the TMP policies: circulation, livability,
transportation choice and implementation. He noted that several public meetings were
scheduled to discuss this plan, and described the progress of the plan. He described the
points assigned to the project for reaching the project goals, totaling 100 points; a project
totaling 70-80 points would trigger its implementation. He noted that high priority
projects included those considered over the next 10 years; the high priority projects
would cost approximately $10 million over that time, and these included accessible
signals, countdown signals, and intersection enhancements.
Staff Khan described the medium priority projects, which were planned over five-plus
years, to be pursued after the high priority projects were funded. Staff expected $2
million from Measure B sources, $3 million from Safe Routes to School and competitive
grants. He noted that public hearings would be conducted in April and May, and expected
Transportation Commission
Page 13 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,14,"that the Transportation Commission would hear this item for action in May. The final
draft of the Pedestrian Plan will be created in May and June, and then taken to City
Council for acceptance. Staff would like this plan to be adopted as part of the
Transportation Element of the General Plan.
Open public comment.
Adrienne Langley-Cook noticed that the draft plan identified a walkway through her back
yard, and requested that it be corrected to reflect that there was no such pathway.
Chair Knox White noted that this comment was passed to staff, and that it would be
removed from the plan.
Tony Daysog complimented the Transportation Commission on its work, and wished to
see Alameda become even more pedestrian friendly. He recalled past major pedestrian
accidents. He noted that this was not only a quality of life issue, but also a safety issue.
Bill Smith echoed Mr. Daysog's comments, described a recent serious pedestrian accident
and re-emphasized the need for pedestrian safety.
Close public comment.
Chair Knox White commended Gail Payne on the quality of this plan.
No action was taken.
8.
Staff Communications.
Staff Khan noted that a meeting was held earlier in the day on the Broadway-Jackson
Study update. The project is moving forward as scheduled, and staff hoped to meet with
the Chinatown community in May. He anticipated bringing it to the Transportation
Commission for its June 25 meeting. The goal is that the project study report will be
completed and submitted to Caltrans by the end of July. He noted that good feedback had
been received from the Oakland and Alameda communities, and believed that consensus
has been building towards the alternative in terms of providing access through Sixth
Street, as well as providing new ramps as discussed.
Chair Knox White believed that it would be good to have a public hearing in Alameda to
make it more convenient to Alamedans, particularly since the City was paying for part of
the project.
Staff Khan noted that the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study was moving forward, and
distributed a handout to the Commissioners. The study would look into alternatives that
will address several user requirements, as identified by Gail Payne. Several meetings will
be held, and the study schedule was listed on page 4. Two meetings have been held on
Transportation Commission
Page 14 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,15,"April 10 and April 12, one in Oakland and one in Alameda. More meetings will be held
in May, at the Jack London Aquatic Center and at City Hall West. The Draft Report will
be presented in the fall of 2008, and staff hoped to complete the project with a
recommendation to City Council in early 2009.
Chair Knox White inquired whether the Transportation Commission was involved in the
process. Staff Khan replied that this item would be brought to the Transportation
Commission one or two times.
Staff Bergman noted that future agenda items included a presentation on AC Transit's
Line 51 Task Force in either the June or July meeting. He noted that AC Transit was in
the process of making staffing changes so that potential service changes on Line O are
still being studied. Staff Khan noted that preliminary data from AC Transit indicate that
few local riders were using Line O, so the elimination of local service on the transbay
route that had initially been discussed may not be appropriate.
Staff Khan noted that the universal transit pass program was being discussed for use by
all City employees, which may be implemented by June. He noted that the passes would
include the bearer's photo.
Staff Khan noted that staff had been directed to work with AC Transit staff regarding the
potential implementation of shuttle service between Alameda and BART.
Chair Knox White wished to ensure that there would be sufficient notification for future
appeals. He believed there should be a written procedure requiring noticing when a
tentative agenda was set. Residents would be informed at least 20 days in advance if
possible, and a staff report and additional information would be available a week in
advance.
Staff Khan noted that he had a video from Paden Elementary School that he had
originally planned to show this evening, but would show at a later time.
9.
Adjournment:
10:30 p.m.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC/2008\052808\042308minutes-draft-rev.doc
Transportation Commission
Page 15 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf