body,date,page,text,path
SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard,2012-06-27,1,"CITY COUNCIL/AUSD SCHOOL BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING OF AUSD SUBCOMMITTEE
June 27, 2012
Alameda City Hall, Room 360
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
UNADOPTED MINUTES
SPECIAL SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING: The special sub-committee meeting of the AUSD City/School joint sub-
committee was held on the date and place mentioned above.
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by President Sherratt and Mayor Gilmore at 9:10 AM.
PRESENT for AUSD BOARD: Members Mooney and Sherratt
ABSENT: None
PRESENT for CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Gilmore
ABSENT: Councilman Bonta
CALL TO ORDER / GENERAL INTRODUCTION: Mayor, Board Members and their respective staff introduced
themselves.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes from the March 19, 2012 meeting were considered.
MOTION: Member Mooney
SECOND: Mayor Gilmore
That the minutes from the March 19, 2012 meeting be approved as submitted.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ORAL COMMUNICATION: none.
CITY/SCHOOL DISTRICT ISSUES:
Alameda Point Plan as Approved
City Staff provided a brief presentation regarding the Point Development Plan. The Subcommittee discussed the zoning in
place, project-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR), conveyance in 3 large segments, and the overall infrastructure
plan. The Subcommittee further discussed a potential transportation grant, the 12-acre District parcel area, the hospital
location, and the possibility of the hospital pulling sewer lines all the way across the Base.
Staff clarified the timing on rezoning and the EIR, noting it must first go to the Counsel with the specific scope and would
hopefully result in a contract in September. The 1st version draft EIR could be about 6 months and would be a public
process which could result in an additional 9 months to 18 months. The goal is to have the zoning and EIR done in the last
half of 2014. Staff will be working with the Planning Board, Commissions, and the School Board on soliciting public
input. Talks would begin this fall and include a discussion of where a school might be needed as far as actual placement.
The Subcommittee further discussed the 282 units formerly occupied by the Coast Guard and the surplussing process;
screening the property for the public; 8 acres estuary park; homeless accommodation under HUD jurisdiction; Navy
disposition in 2013; recommendation for a multi-family overlay zone; infrastructure needs and impact.
Staff clarified that the Tidelands presents serious issues that need to be addressed separately. These issues will be worked
out in pieces between the City and the District. Board Members asked for as much information in advance as possible to
allow maximum flexibility. District staff mentioned the former Island High School site, noting the City expressed interest.",SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2012-06-27.pdf
SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard,2012-06-27,2,"Pros/cons have to be laid out regarding flexibility and generation rates currently show at 4800. There would be a need for
elementary, middle, and high school seats availability but it may be an investment property if the District determines we
don't need a school. If it is determined to be surplus property, the District is required to offer it first to certain entities and
any purchase would be obligated to pay fair market value. Although specific needs have not been identified at this time,
the District would like to be flexible.
City Staff clarified that currently the Base plan shows 1400 housing units at the Point with an additional 700 outside. The
District requested that City staff work with District staff to discuss and agree upon generation rates because developers
often have different numbers.
Swimming Pools
The Subcommittee discussed the continuance of the pools through this fiscal year, but noted in 2013/14 and beyond things
may change.
City staff noted the City Manager had met with members of the swimming pool community this week and some expressed
an interest in taking over the management of the pools.
The Subcommittee further discussed the importance of District input and the newspaper noting that the City intends to end
the pools agreement with the District next June. Mayor Gilmore noted the City has not definitely agreed or decided what
to do, but the potential to not renew the agreement exists. Board Members noted it would be most helpful to start figuring
out a solution in January rather than waiting until May for a final decision.
Redevelopment Pass Through Agreement
Staff will work through potential solutions. Tax increment funds are allocated as an enforceable obligation. The County
auditor and controller is in ""hold"" mode at this point but City Staff will keep District staff abreast of any developments.
District staff reminded everyone that the Board would need to take public action to allow the District to negotiate this
item.
Adjournment
President Sherratt and Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:01 AM.",SubcommitteeoftheCityCouncilandSchoolBoard/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, June 27 2012
Commissioner Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Kathy Moehring
Thomas G. Bertken
Michele Bellows
Christopher Miley
Members Absent:
Jesus Vargas
Sandy Wong
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Staff Khan asked the Commission to move item 4E up, because there was a consultant that would
speak on behalf of the project.
Staff Payne stated that Sergeant Ron Simmons would have to be contacted so that he could join
the meeting earlier than scheduled.
Commissioner Moehring replied staff should contact Sergeant Ron Simmons and as soon as he
joins the meeting, the commission would move the item forward.
2.
Minutes
Approval of Minutes - May 23, 2012
Commissioner Miley made a motion to approve the May 23, 2012 minutes. The motion was
approved 3-0; 1 abstention.
3.
Oral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments
None.
Page 1 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,2,"4.
New Business
4A.
Transportation Commission Bylaws - Order of Business Revisions
Staff Payne presented the staff report.
Commissioner Miley replied the presentation was helpful and the suggestions would allow the
meetings to precede a little smoother. He asked if one speaker could speak at both public
comment periods.
Staff Payne replied yes and that each person has a three-minute time limit at each of the public
comment periods.
Staff Khan explained that the intention was to allow the public to comment and that is why it is
agendized twice.
Commissioner Moehring also explained that public comment was originally scheduled at the end
of the meeting. So, the public had to sit through the entire meeting, which at times could be
lengthy. So, as a courtesy to the public, the agenda included two comment periods.
Commissioner Bertken asked if the Commission would have the written copies of all the
information in the consent calendar. He was concerned that a percentage of the public would not
be able to obtain the reports online. So, he asked staff if there is a way for the public to have
copies of the reports.
Staff Payne said that the standard procedure is to have all hard copies available at the City
Clerk's office and available at the City libraries.
Commissioner Bertken asked if it would be onerous to have a few copies at the meetings.
Staff Payne said that per the Sunshine Ordinance staff is required to supply one copy at the
meeting. So, they do have materials present.
Commissioner Bertken replied that people coming to the meeting and viewing the consent
calendar might want to see the reports that coincide to the subject of the consent calendar.
Therefore, there should be two or three copies at the meetings. He also explained to staff that, at
some point, staff should announce that the documents are available on the web.
Staff Payne said the city's website link is available on the second page of the Transportation
Commission's meeting agenda.
Commissioner Berktken made a motion that the Commission should adopt the new bylaws.
Commissioner Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.
Page 2 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,3,"4B.
Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Payne presented the staff report.
Staff Khan presented the Access Plan for Alameda Point, the Miller Sweeney Bridge
Replacement project, and current and upcoming traffic calming projects.
Commissioner Bellows wanted clarification on the Island Drive/Robert Davey Jr. Drive traffic-
calming project could use a pedestrian scramble where everyone would stop and let everyone off
might help during the morning hours.
Staff Khan replied that the scramble phases are viable; however, they impact the overall traffic
signal operation. Additionally, the traffic volumes at Island Drive, Robert Davey Jr. and Packet
Landing would greatly impact pedestrian activity. Also, when a scramble is installed, they would
have to change the signal heads and that is quite expensive.
Commissioner Moehring announced that item 4E. would be presented next.
4E.
Webster Street Intelligent Transportation Systems/Smart Corridors Project and
Community Meeting Update
Staff Khan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Miley asked Staff Khan if he could describe in more detail Phase II of the project
and if it would include cameras in the tubes.
Staff Khan responded that Phase II would continue the communication connection through the
Webster and Posey Tubes. The City contacted Caltrans in regards to the cameras in the Webster
and Posey Tubes. Caltrans explained that the cameras were for Homeland Security and could not
be used for other purposes. Staff is trying to see if there is enough space to hang the camera in
the Posey and Webster Tubes. Alameda staff also is working with Oakland staff to look at a
Smart Corridor on Harrison Street. Staff is also interested in looking into the connection
between 6th Street and Jackson Street on ramp.
Joy Bhattacharya, PE, PTOE, TJKM Transportation Consultants, worked on the signal
coordination portion and presented a visual simulation of the intersection.
Staff Khan responded that they have increased the crossing times for pedestrians. The current
system uses a 4 feet per second walking speed for pedestrians, which is faster for older
pedestrians. The new standard is 3.5 feet per second.
Commissioner Moehring stated that the simulation was useful and she opened the floor to public
comment.
Page 3 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,4,"the department should only install the system at Webster Street. He felt that instead of spending
money on electric signs that display traffic information, the City should build a public website or
iPhone application so the public can see the intersections and traffic conditions. He wanted to
thank Joy Bhattacharya for producing the simulation because the simulation is a 2012 solution,
which community members need.
Commissioner Moehring stated that Webster Street has been looking for something like this for a
long time. She thought about the community feedback that she received and one of their
concerns was that the traffic coordination would reduce people visiting the nearby shops. She
wholeheartedly disagreed with that concern and she believes that it will improve the streetscape
and increase shopping activity. She stated that as soon as Constitution Way was built, 80 percent
of the traffic was diverted from Webster Street to Constitution Way. Additionally, she hopes that
the coordination system will bring some of the traffic back at a nice pace. Furthermore, she felt
the signal coordination prevents speeding.
Sergeant Simmons, Alameda Police, agreed and said that the coordinated traffic light system
would prevent drivers from speeding to beat the light changes. If drivers had an understanding of
the flow of lights during the commute hours, they would stop and visit the stores and then
continue through the corridor.
Commissioner Moehring mentioned that the Fire Department station is right off of Webster
Street on Pacific Avenue. The traffic signal would make life easier for the department, and
would allow trucks to more easily travel through the intersection.
Rick Zombeck, Division Chief for Alameda Fire Department, supported the solution and felt the
system is good for the community. His station responds up and down the Webster Street corridor
often and Station # 2 is the second busiest station in the City.
Commissioner Moehring stated that it is a very busy pedestrian corner. She questioned whether
the electric signs going up could be used for other purposes such as when the City conducts the
festival on Webster Street and there are street closures.
Staff Khan replied he would work with the West Alameda Business Association; however, the
City cannot use the signs for advertisements. The signs could be used when the City supports a
fair or festival. He would take up the suggestion to the City Manager for approval.
Commissioner Miley stated that he is happy to see the corridor modernized. He believes that the
system would provide the City with a lot of flexibility in terms of managing the flow of traffic.
He asked staff to explain the project's relationship to the Broadway/Jackson project. As a
commuter through that area, he felt the electric signs would be helpful, especially when the tube
gets backed up. He wanted to know how the City planned to work with Oakland to further
relieve the congestion.
Page 4 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,5,"Staff Khan stated that the Commission's action would be to either accept or reject staff's
recommendation to move the project towards the construction phase and then to vote to prioritize
the following two items: Central Avenue and Webster Street crosswalk and Pacific Avenue and
Webster Street traffic signal.
Commissioner Miley made a motion to accept staff's recommendation to allow the project to
move to the construction phase and to prioritize the Central Avenue and Webster Street
crosswalk and the Pacific Avenue and Webster Street traffic signal. Commissioner Bellows
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.
4C.
Proposed Shoreline Drive/Westline Drive Bike Lane Project Community Meeting
Update
Staff Payne presented the staff report.
Commissioner Bertken asked Staff Payne if the Commission saw the grant application to
Caltrans.
Staff Payne replied that she could provide it to him if he was interested.
Commissioner Bertken replied that since it was the basis of where they received the money, it
would be interesting to see it.
Staff Payne replied that one of the seven variations is the Caltrans grant application placeholder
and the Commission will see the variation tomorrow night along with the other six project
concept ideas.
Commissioner Moehring asked whether staff had a breakdown of attendees' residences and what
were the pros and cons. She wanted to see a break down of people who live right along
Shoreline Drive.
Staff Payne replied that staff did not ask attendees where they lived, but she knew how staff
reached out to attendees. They conducted an outreach encompassing a 300-foot radius around
Westline and Shoreline Drives. Thus, an estimated 15,000 people were informed and that
included the condominium and apartment units. Also, Bike Alameda reached out to bicyclists,
and the Public Works Department issued a press release and placed barricades in the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Moehring said that staff did a great job reaching out to residents and she was
curious about the statistics of the attendees because in addition to all users of the road giving
input the residents also should participate.
Page 5 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,6,"Staff Payne replied that they heard more from the neighborhood and bicyclists more than from
residents throughout the entire City of Alameda. She also mentioned that the document displays
broad range of opinions.
Commissioner Miley asked if staff conducted outreach through the Alameda Unified School
District.
Staff Payne replied that she tried to get the meeting included in the Lum School newsletter, but
they did not publish it. Ultimately, she emailed the information to the Lum and Wood school
administration and the PTAs, but she does not know how they distributed the news.
4D.
Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines
Staff Khan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Moehring stated that she and Commissioner Bellows noticed on page 25 that staff
might want to edit the pictures.
Staff Khan replied staff would correct the issue.
Commissioner Moehring replied staff did a terrific job incorporating the comments and working
with the community including Bike Alameda and all concerned parties.
Commissioner Miley believed that staff conducted an extensive outreach effort, which is
wonderful.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the issue regarding right turn lanes. He referred to the
diagram on page 23 and it showed the cyclists moving straight through and there is a crossover
on the right turn traffic, which looks very abrupt.
Staff Khan replied that on page 23, Figure 10, it was a standard treatment for all bicycle lanes
when they get to the intersection.
Commissioner Bertken stated that he was not arguing that point, but there were no dimensions on
the diagram and it appeared that there was just one lane of traffic coming in. Thus, the diagram
was a bit ambiguous.
Staff Khan replied the diagram is a bit misleading and when staff looked at standards around 200
feet in advance. They dropped the bike lane and included the dashed line to guide the motorists
and bicyclists.
Commissioner Miley made a motion to accept the draft guidelines as presented and request that
they be presented to the Planning Board. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The
motion was approved 4-0.
Page 6 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,7,"4F. I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation and Circulation Improvements
for Alameda Point, Oakland, Chinatown, Downtown Oakland and Jack London Square
Staff Khan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Miley asked about the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) portion and whether staff
considered any other stop locations. He also questioned whether conceptual stop plans were
being developed and would staff look at specifics in the next coming months.
Staff Khan stated that is exactly right. Their rule of thumb is a bus stop located within every one-
half mile. This is just a planning document for now and nothing will continue until staff works
with the community and local transit operators.
Commissioner Moehring opened the floor to public comment.
Jim Strehlow stated that there are many laudable designs of the project, but the project fails the
goal of the deficiency plan. The plan would improve the traffic at Harrison Street and 6th Street.
He referred to slide 6 or page 11 in the original documents. He viewed Webster Street and 6th
Street as a new choke point with more vehicles entering per hour. The shorter off ramp was a
convenience not a necessity for Alameda residents at the expense of the Chinatown
neighborhood and hits the intersection of Webster Street and 6th Street. He then referred to slide
9 and explained, as designed, 6th Street is a walkway to nowhere given there are no businesses
and traffic will increase. He suggested the following modifications: 1) close Webster Street from
going into Alameda and route traffic around Chinatown, 2) change the bus routes to go down 6th
Street instead of 7th Street, 3) staff should consider a long-term, ten year plan for the tube that
would shift vehicles away from the off ramp at Broadway and 5th Street and turn the area as a
cyclist and pedestrian way, and 4) when referring to slide 4 on the Alameda side, staff should
remove the dedicated right-hand bus lane because vehicles could no longer make right-hand
turns. He suggested keeping the right-hand turn lane because there will be traffic that would want
to make a right turn onto Webster Street, so the City should allow that lane to be shared.
Commissioner Miley stated that since it is a conceptual design for future BRT stops, he would
like staff to consider a stop at 14th Street and Harrison Street looking at the employment centers
in downtown Oakland. When mentioning the Octavia Boulevard corridor of San Francisco, it
would be good for staff to include pictures of that segment. Regarding I-880, he felt the area is a
dark passage, and it is not a friendly location. Thus, he suggested that the city of Oakland
consider some type of art and light installation or CBS might be interested in installing billboards
with backlighting. Furthermore, he asked what are the city of Oakland's efforts for the project
and especially what are they doing to create consensus around the project.
Staff Khan replied that the project is a joint effort so both cities are working together. At this
moment, Alameda is looking towards starting a community outreach effort in the Chinatown
neighborhood. Given that the City is the sponsor, but most of the land is located in Oakland,
staff has looked at developing the scope of work to work cooperatively with Oakland.
Page 7 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,8,"Commissioner Miley replied that he understood that idea, but his concern was that Alameda
would look like the only ones pushing for this project. He felt that many of the City's
development projects coming down the pipeline are going to create more traffic coming in and
out of the City. The City of Oakland also has development plans close to the Chinatown
neighborhood and Alameda.
Staff Khan replied that Alameda officials want the City to work in coordination with the city of
Oakland.
Commissioner Miley replied he agreed with Mr. Strehlow and staff should look into the
suggestions that he brought up. He felt the outreach plan sounds like a similar process to
Shoreline Drive and there should be a process for presenting concepts and receiving community
input.
Staff Khan replied that both cities have to remind themselves that the region has recognized the
area as an important project. Whenever staff presents to the community, they have to take a step
back to let them know that revitalization would occur as more funding comes in and if they do
not reach consensus then the funding would go to other parts of the County.
Commissioner Bellows stated that she worked on the project some time ago, and she drives the
Market Street and Octavia Blvd. intersection frequently. She suggested that staff should include
traffic counts when speaking about the Market Street and Octavia Blvd. intersection. She also
questioned staff's backup plan if they do not receive Measure B funds and if staff be able to
execute an environmental review.
Staff Khan replied that the project is a Tier 1 project regardless if Measure B passes. He
explained that not having the Measure B authorized in November may slow the project
implementation, but the project is prioritized in the Countywide Transportation Plan and would
get the regional support to move forward. Regarding the environmental document, he does not
want to jump to that because there was a lot of community concern about the Alameda County
Transportation Commission jumping too fast to the environmental document.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the arrangement of the roadway between Harrison Street and
Broadway. He stated that two blocks of traffic from the freeway to Broadway weave against the
traffic and within the two ramps on the opposite side of the street attempting to get over to
Broadway.
Staff Khan replied that staff has looked into it. He explained that there would be a two-phased
signal for Webster Street going towards Alameda and as the ramp touches down. There would
be a left-turn lane going towards Alameda. He further explained that the lane heading towards
Oakland is located on the right side and there would not be a huge weave there, but there is some
friction.
Commissioner Moehring explained that she was happy to see that all parties are highly motivated
to do something. She mentioned that the letter received by the Commission from the Chinatown
neighborhood a several months ago did not include solutions.
Page 8 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,9,"Commissioner Bellows replied the letter was written some time ago and staff has made some
progress with the objections of the letter.
Staff Khan replied the concerns from the Chinatown community were directed towards the
project study report (PSR), and the current concepts came after the PSR. He further explained
that the staff for the city of Oakland was aware of the concerns.
5.
Staff Communications
The League of American Bicyclists awarded the City of Alameda with a bronze award.
There is a new ferry service between South San Francisco and Alameda/Oakland.
The service began Monday, June 4th and it is a 40-50 minute ride. The ferry system runs
Monday through Friday with three morning departures and two evening departures and fits 149
passengers and over 30 bicycles. Additionally, there are some shuttles at the South San
Francisco end.
Complete Street Policy requirement for the City.
Staff will bring information about the Complete Street Policy to the Commission in September.
The policy requirement is coming from the following two different sources: 1) the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) recently approved the One Bay Area Grant and the funding is
coming from federal sources. Every jurisdiction should have a complete street policy adopted by
early 2013, and 2) the Alameda County Transportation Commission has a Complete Street
requirement in their funding agreement that the City signed and must adhere to it by June 30,
2013 to receive Measure B funds. One advantage for the City is that they recently updated their
Transportation Element in the General Plan.
Future Meeting Agenda Items:
Regular scheduled meeting Wednesday, July 25th
Election of the Transportation Commission Chair and Vice Chair
Franklin School mid-block crossing proposal
Traffic Plan during construction of I-880 between 29th Avenue and 23rd Avenue
Draft Alameda Point Transit Access Plan
Proposed Neptune Park Path Conceptual Layout
An update on the Draft Prioritized Transportation Project List
Regular scheduled meeting Wednesday, September 26th
Quarterly Report
An update on the Shoreline Drive proposed bike lane project
An update on the accessible pedestrian signals grant
Page 9 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,10,"Complete Street Policy
Commissioner Moehring mentioned that the City Carshare parking space at Webster Street and
Santa Clara Avenue was a success and staff is looking to create an additional carshare space.
Staff Payne replied that staff is coordinating the efforts now.
Commissioner Miley asked would the consent calendar take affect at the July meeting.
Staff Payne replied yes.
Commissioner Moehring stated that staff and her fellow commissioners have been wonderful to
work with and have done an excellent job.
6.
Announcements/ Public Comments
None.
7.
Adjournment
Commissioner Miley made a motion to adjourn in honor of Chair Moehring and for her
distinguished service for the City of Alameda.
9:40 pm
Page 10 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf