body,date,page,text,path
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,1,"Approved Minutes
January 23, 2019
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Monday, January 23, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.
Present:
Vice Chair Murray; Members Chiu, Johnson, and Sullivan-
Cheah
Absent:
None
Program staff:
Grant Eshoo, Samantha Columbus
City Attorney staff: John Le
Staff called roll of case participants. All parties were present.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
None.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Program staff announced that January 25 is the last day to turn in applications for
the open RRAC seat.
Program staff requested Committee members provide their availability for future
special meetings to hear additional cases. Members indicated their availability for
special meetings on February 7, February 25, March 4, and March 11.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1
None.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the November 7, 2018 regular meeting
The Committee agreed to table consideration of this item to a future meeting to
allow revisions.
5-B. Approval of the minutes of the November 19, 2018 special
meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-
Cheah). Motion passed 4-0.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,2,"Approved Minutes
January 23, 2019
5-C. Approval of the minutes of the November 27, 2018 special
meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-
Cheah). Motion passed 4-0.
5-D. Approval of the minutes of the December 5, 2018 special meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-
Cheah). Motion passed 4-0.
5-E. Approval of the minutes of the December 12, 2018 special meeting
Motion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-
Cheah). Motion passed 4-0.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. Discussion of vote for Chair and Vice Chair
Member Chiu expressed support for Vice Chair Murray, who has been serving as Interim
Chair, to continue as Chair, and for Member Sullivan-Cheah to serve as Vice Chair.
Vice Chair Murray stated that, should the Committee gain a fifth member, the
Committee could hold a new vote for Chair and Vice Chair at that point.
7-B. Vote on Chair and Vice Chair
Motion and second to elect Vice Chair Murray as Chair of the Committee (Members Chiu
and Johnson). Motion passed 4-0.
Motion and second to elect Member Sullivan-Cheah as Vice Chair of the Committee
(Members Chiu and Johnson). Motion passed 4-0.
Positions are effective immediately.
7-C. Case 1110 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B101
Tenant: Nasir Khan
Landlord: Andy King",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,3,"Approved Minutes
January 23, 2019
Proposed rent increase: $164.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,811.00,
effective October 1, 2018
Mr. King stated that current ownership purchased the building a little over a year ago,
and the previous owner left a lot of deferred maintenance to address. Over the course
of the past year, they have spent over $3 million on seismic bracing, replacing rotting
balconies, roof maintenance, re-painting, and amenities including a gym, children's play
area, new seating, and gas barbecue grill. To cover some of that investment they are
asking for rent increases in excess of five percent. The rent increases are also informed
by the market rates, with the landlord renting comparable one-bedroom units for
$2,200.
Mr. Khan stated that the increase would be a burden. He is the sole income earner for a
four-person household that includes his wife and two children, and he also provides
support for his parents. He has lived in the unit since 2015 and has paid rent in a timely
manner. He stated he generally makes about $1,400 every two weeks, but his work
hours vary. He said in previous years the rent has increased 4.9 percent.
Chair Murray asked Mr. King if he wanted to respond. Mr. King said he appreciated Mr.
Khan's concerns but it can be difficult to keep rents affordable while also making repairs
to the property, particularly addressing seismic safety.
Member Chui asked Mr. Khan if there was an increase amount with which he would be
comfortable. Mr. Khan responded five percent.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah, and Chair Murray asked Mr. Khan for clarification and details
about his family and employment situations. Mr. Khan reported that his children are 4
and 6 years old, and they attend school in Alameda; his wife has been unable to find
work and he anticipates she will continue to take care of the home and children; he
currently works as a salesman; and he is paid hourly and typically receives an annual
raise between $0.50 and $1 per hour.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if Mr. Khan could express the rent increase he would
be comfortable with as a dollar amount. Mr. Khan responded $82. Vice Chair Sullivan-
Cheah asked what financial impact the full rent increase would have on Mr. Khan's
household. Mr. Khan stated he would not be able to afford food and out-of-pocket
medical expenses.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked what utilities are included in the rent. Mr. King
responded that all utilities are included except for gas. Mr. Khan stated a typical gas bill
is sometimes $15, but varies depending on the season.
Committee members had no further questions.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,4,"about debris left behind from the construction, and although it has since been cleaned
up, the inspector informed her that the landlords have lost their construction permit for
a new apartment, perhaps having to do with the City's electrical code. This occurred in
September and the tenants received the rent increase notices in October.
Upon review of her statement, Ms. Conway corrected the amount of the property tax
discrepancy she alleged to $20,071, which was $8,000 less than what Ms. Rousseau
submitted.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,5,"Approved Minutes
January 23, 2019
Chair Murray asked Ms. Rousseau if she wanted to respond. She stated that she believes
the discrepancy in the property tax figures may be due to the purchase occurring in the
middle of the calendar year. The utility estimate includes $600 for garbage service every
two months and is also the same that the previous owner used during the sale. She said
she was unsure what Ms. Conway was referring to in reference to the lost permit.
Member Johnson asked if Ms. Rousseau had received a comprehensive assessment or
official report of the maintenance issues prior to purchasing. Ms. Rousseau confirmed
that they did.
Member Chiu asked clarifying questions about Ms. Conway's tenancy and the property.
She stated that she has lived there since 2010, her rent increased $19 in 2011, $45 in
2017, and $50 in 2018, and she was comfortable with those increases. She added that
the property does not include laundry or common areas other than stairwells, hallways,
and lighted outdoor spaces.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked whether Ms. Conway was the only working adult in the
unit. She responded that she was, and her use of ""we"" in submitted materials refers to
tenants of other units. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked what sources had informed her
statement that 1/3 of take-home pay is a reasonable amount. She responded that in her
experience it is a common rule and often a prerequisite when property management
companies are evaluating applicants.
Chair Murray asked clarifying questions about Ms. Rousseau's family and finances. She
responded that she bought the property with her brother, who is disabled and not able
to work. She said he receives SSI and she provides him with additional support. She
stated her brother is dependent on income from the building to supplement his income,
which was their intention when they purchased the property, and the purchase was also
a retirement investment. Chair Murray asked what the impact on Ms. Rousseau and her
brother would be if they did not get the rent increase they were seeking. She responded
that she would not be able to help her brother as much as she wanted, and that it would
limit needed upgrades to the building. She said the electrical upgrade would cost $30,000,
and interior painting would cost $3,000 per unit, and the building has seven one-bedroom
units of similar size.
Ms. Conway questioned whether her unit should be considered a one-bedroom apartment
because it does not have interior doors. Ms. Rousseau provided a floorplan of the unit.
Chair Murray noted that Ms. Rousseau's submitted expenses include the annual housing
program fee, which the Ordinance expressly forbids from passing on to tenants.
Chair Murray asked Ms. Conway about the current condition of her unit. Ms. Conway
stated that none of the issues identified in her submission rose to the level of emergency.
She said she wears slippers to avoid injuries due to loose floor tiles, and the windows are",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,6,"Approved Minutes
January 23, 2019
hard to open and close. She stated she loves the apartment and has a close relationship
with the neighbors. Chair Murray stated that it seemed she was reporting on maintenance
issues that need to be addressed. Ms. Conway raised the issue of the revoked
construction permit for a rear unit, which is not occupied. Chair Murray noted that Ms.
Rousseau had not disclosed any issues with permits or intent to construct.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Conway if the previous landlord had a formal process
for submitting maintenance issues or repair requests. She replied that she would call the
previous owner to report maintenance problems. She said she had not submitted a
request about the loose tiles or windows.
Chair Murray asked if either landlord or tenant had changed their positions. Ms. Conway
asked if Ms. Rousseau would consider a 3 percent increase, and Ms. Rousseau declined.
Chair Murray asked Ms. Rousseau if there was an amount smaller than $391 that would
meet her goals and needs. Ms. Rousseau suggested $1,300 per month, a $245 increase.
Ms. Conway countered with a rent of $1,125 per month. Ms. Rousseau declined, noting
that she calculates the property tax increase alone is $246 per unit. Ms. Conway noted
the housing program fee cannot be included.
Chair Murray asked Ms. Conway about her income. She responded that she is salaried
and usually gets a 2 percent raise per year.
Member Chiu asked Ms. Rousseau if she knew how long the previous landlords had owned
the building. She said she did not, but it was a long time, and the property had passed
from parents to children, which explained the low tax base.
Chair Murray asked Ms. Rousseau what effect not getting the full requested increase
would have on her ability to address deferred maintenance. Ms. Rousseau responded that
it would be hard to keep up with the needed maintenance. Chair Murray asked if Ms.
Rousseau had set aside any funds for maintenance and upgrades based on the
assessments and inspections conducted during the purchase. Ms. Rousseau stated that
they had, but they had not anticipated the full cost of the electrical upgrade because of
the undergrounding requirement, which added about $20,000.
Ms. Conway made an offer of $1,200 per month. Chair Murray asked Ms. Conway if an
increase to $1,300 would force her to move. Ms. Conway stated that she could continue
to live there but it would require a change of lifestyle.
The parties agreed on a monthly rent of $1,250. Program staff clarified that the effective
date would be Feb. 1, 2019.
At 7:55 p.m., the Committee agreed to take a five minute break.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,7,"Approved Minutes
January 23, 2019
7-E. Case 1190 - 2412 Eagle Ave., Apt. E
Tenant: Marine Hovanessian
Landlord: Kathy Rousseau
Proposed rent increase: $391.00 (50.1%), to a total rent of $1,171.00,
effective January 1, 2019
Ms. Rousseau stated that the current rent of $780 a month is 230 percent below the
market rate, based on comparable one-bedroom units in the area. She said she was
requesting the same $391 increase for all tenants of the property, and even with the
increase, the rent would still be 50 percent below the market rate. Ms. Rousseau pointed
out that the amount she was requesting was comparable to the amount the rent would
be had the previous owner increased the rent 4.25 percent each year over the length of
the tenancy.
Ms. Hovanessian referred the Committee to the letter she submitted. She added that she
has lived in the unit for 15 years and had built her life based on her existing rent.
Specifically, she sponsored her mother's immigration to the United States in 2009 and
her father's in 2013, and he explained that she is financially responsible for them, as they
are unable to work because of their age and language barriers. She said she understands
Ms. Rousseau's position, but the increase will have a large impact on her and her parents.
The building does not have laundry facilities. There have been no upgrades to her
apartment in the 15 years she has lived there. She said there are cracks between the tiles
in her kitchen floor that water gets into. The windows cannot fully close which lets in cold
air. She said living in Alameda provides a safe community for her parents. Her apartment
is a little smaller than Unit D from the previous case.
Member Chiu asked for clarification on previous rent increases and her finances. Ms.
Hovanessian stated that there had been few rent increases during her tenancy,
including none during the first six years. She said her monthly income is about $4,500
monthly, and expenses are about $4,430.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked for clarification on the condition of Ms. Hovanessian's
apartment. She stated the previous owners replaced a broken heater and a window that
would not close, although the window still has issues.
Chair Murray noted that Ms. Hovanessian stated in her materials that no increase would
be reasonable. Given the costs outlined by Ms. Rousseau, Chair Murray asked if there
was any increase that Ms. Hovanessian could afford. Ms. Hovanessian questioned
whether Ms. Rousseau would be OK with a 5 percent increase. Chair Murray responded
that the hearing was an opportunity for the parties to talk directly and make offers.
Ms. Hovanessian clarified that her mother and daughter lived with her immediately after
their immigration, but her parents and daughter now lived in a small two-bedroom",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,8,"Approved Minutes
January 23, 2019
apartment elsewhere in Alameda. She said her daughter work part-time and attends
college, and she contributes to her daughter's food and utilities, as well as pays the full
$1,600 monthly rent on that apartment, in addition to her own.
The parties were not able to reach an agreement and the Committee began
deliberations.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated that neither party's position S unreasonable. He said in
these situations he considers who has the financial ability to absorb more financial
hardship.
Chair Murray stated it may not be possible for the tenant to continue this arrangement
with two households in the long-term, but the Committee can consider a compromise
that avoids forcing an immediate relocation.
Member Johnson stated she believes the landlord is justified in seeking an increase of
more than 5 percent, but that those buying a rental property must consider the
likelihood of successfully seeking a 50 percent increase when deciding on a purchase
price.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated he believes the tenant's position that 10 percent is a
maximum increase she could afford based on her budget.
Member Johnson stated that the owner did make an investment, and it is reasonable to
expect a return.
Chair Murray noted that both parties are trying to provide financially for family
members who are unable to work. She noted that the committee only has the ability to
make a decision for one year.
Member Johnson stated she believes a 50 percent increase is too large, but a 10
percent increase may not be enough for the landlord given the higher tax base and few
rent increases over the years.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that their decision on this case, as well as the building's
history, would be part of the public record and could therefore be considered if the
landlord seeks a new increase on the unit after a year.
Member Chiu suggested a $100 increase, recognizing it would be a challenge for the
tenant but perhaps low enough to give her time to figure out a long-term solution. Vice
Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated he thought it was reasonable, but emphasized he
understands that a roughly $15 per month difference is not trivial for tenants on tight
budgets. Chair Murray questioned whether $15 a month would be trivial for a landlord.
Members Chiu and Johnson said they believed it would not be trivial because it helps to
establish a base for future rents.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,9,"Approved Minutes
January 23,2019
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah motioned for an increase of $100 effective February 1, 2019.
He amended his motion to an increase of $0 for January 2019, followed by an increase
of $100 from February 2019 through December 2019. Motion seconded by Member
Chiu. The motion passed as amended 4-0.
7-F. Case 1193 - 2121 Santa Clara Ave., Apt. 5
Tenant: Damu Sudi Alii
Landlord: Edward Wong
Proposed rent increase: $50.00 (4.8%), to a total rent of $1,100.00, effective
January 1, 2019
Mr. Alii said he is a senior on fixed income and has been renting this unit from Mr.
Wong since 2006. For the first three or four years, he said, there were no rent
increases, but in the last five or six years the size of the requests had steadily
increased. He said he has been supplementing his income by working part time as a
teacher and musician, but his deteriorating health is making work difficult. He feels the
amount is unreasonable given the living space, which is a converted garage. He has to
pay additional money for storage space elsewhere on the site. He is now at a point
where he cannot keep up with the increases. He said the ventilation in the unit is not
good, and poor heat retention leads to higher utility bills. He stated Mr. Wong has been
a good landlord but has not always addressed his requests, such as fixing the gap
under his front door.
Mr. Wong said the unit is 800 to 900 square feet and used to be a firehouse. He said he
values Mr. Alii as a tenant. He said his other tenants are all Section 8, and the increases
he is asking from them are double what he is asking from Mr. Alii. He said the building
is old and requires a lot of maintenance, and n the last four to five years, he has had to
replace the sewer and roof. He said he believes he is asking for a reasonable rate of
return, adding that he and his wife are in their 80's and depend on income from the
property.
Mr. Alii said he intends to stop using the storage space to decrease his costs. Mr. Wong
said he would reduce Mr. Alii's overall payments by $15 if he removes his items from
storage. Chair Murray asked Mr. Alii if he could afford a $35 rent increase. Mr. Alii said
it would still be a hardship.
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Alii to clarify his concerns about rising expenses.
Mr. Alii said he is partly worried about absorbing future increases, but primarily he does
not think the unit is worth the price Mr. Wong is asking.
Member Chiu asked how many units the property has. Mr. Wong said Mr. Alii's unit is a
small cottage behind four units. Chair Murray asked about Mr. Wong's income. He",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,10,"Motion and second for an increase of $0 for January 2019, followed by an increase of
$35 effective February 2019 through December 2019 (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and
Member Chiu). Motion passed 3-1.",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2019-01-23,11,"Approved Minutes
January 23, 2019
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2
None.
9. MATTERS INTIATED
Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked about the timeline for approving another Committee
member. Program staff responded that following the submission deadline on January
25, it will take a few weeks to process applications and for the Mayor's office to review
them and decide which applicants to interview.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
RRAC Secretary
Grant Eshoo
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on March 4, 2019",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-01-23,1,"FINAL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2019
Chair Miley convened the meeting at 7:14pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Miley, Commissioners Hans, Johnson, Soules.
Absent: Commissioners Nachtigall and Palmer.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
*None*
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow said he is finding many Lime bikes being left in inappropriate locations
such as blocking sidewalks. He said the September minutes were not approved at the
December meeting and are not on the current agenda.
Chair Miley announced that the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan workshop would be
held at Alameda High School on the upcoming Saturday morning at 9am.
Staff Member Payne read the announcements listed in the Agenda.
3-D Upcoming Grant-Funded Bicycle Safety Education Classes
Jim Strehlow said he is seeing an influx of foreigners in Alameda and he wonders if
there is an education gap regarding rules of the road for bicyclists. He said the more
diversity there is the more difficult it will be to educate the public about basic traffic laws
because of language barriers.
Commissioner Soules congratulated the City for the rollout of their new website. (*Note-
Due to a wiring issue, Commissioner Soules microphone was not working.)
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4-A 2019-6461
Draft Meeting Minutes - July 25, 2018
4-B 2019-6462
Draft Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2018
Commissioner Hans made a motion to accept the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Soules seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
1",TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-01-23,2,"5. NEW BUSINESS
5-A 2019-6463
Approve the Central Avenue Webster Street Options for Further Analysis
and the Two-way Bikeway Extension between Paden School and McKay
Avenue
Staff Member Payne introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3836629&GUID=E9A72FB1
ADF9-4D58-8CFF-3637BA660926&FullText=1
Thaddeus Wozniak, CDM Smith, gave a presentation.
Chair Miley asked how the transition from the two way bikeway to bike lanes at 8th st.
would work.
Mr. Wozniak said that the transition would have a two stage turning movement for the
westbound bikes and eastbound riders would continue straight. He said they would
coordinate the signal timing to make that turning movement consecutively.
Staff Member Payne summarized the outreach to this point and outlined the next steps
(detailed in the staff report.)
Commissioner Johnson asked whether the two right hand turn lanes from Central to
Webster in the Continuous Bike Lane option would have the bike lane going straight
through the turning vehicles.
Mr. Wozniak explained how the peak hour turn lane would work. He said the intent
would be to have turns coming from one lane or the other depending on time of day, but
not both.
Chair Miley opened the public hearing.
Brian McGuire introduced a video of what the current City Council members had to say
about the plan and what to do at the Webster and Central intersection.
Hazel McGuire said kids should be safe and that the bike lane should be closer to the
sidewalk and the parked cars should be closer to the moving cars. She said she loves
biking and walking to school and parks.
Linda Asbury, Executive Director of WABA, said the plan that was approved in 2016 was
not the compromise that they agreed to before the meeting. She said meetings need to
be had at the intersection in question to understand the problem. She said the
businesses cannot afford to lose street parking. She said we need traffic calming. She
2",TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-01-23,3,"said we need to be fair to the businesses that put their investments and jobs on the line
daily.
J. Lucey said he supports the four lane with traffic calming proposals. He said staff
appears to have a clear bias against the business owners. He said the elimination of
parking would be hard on the businesses. He said recent construction by PG&E
illustrated the traffic that may occur with lane reduction.
Jim Strehlow said this area is not comparable to Shoreline or Fernside. He said Castro
Valley completed its main street design two years ago and favored business needs over
the wants of bicyclists. He said trucks serving Neptune Plaza must use Central Ave and
any road diet proposal would prohibit this. He said bicycle safety should mean avoiding
truck routes like Central Ave.
Jon Spangler said bicyclists on Castro Valley Blvd are taking their lives in their own
hands. He said backing up traffic is an acceptable price to pay to keep pedestrians from
getting hit. He said the continuous bike lane and two way protected bike lanes are the
only options that provide any safety to cyclists. He said the Page crosswalk needs to be
taken care of. He said safety is the primary responsibility.
Marie RiccoBene, representing the Park Webster Condominium HOA, said safety is very
important. She said evacuation is a large concern for residents. She said they support
better pedestrian crossings and calming measures. She said they support the four lane
option with traffic calming.
Bonnie Wehmann, Easy Street Cycling, said she fully supports the protected bike lanes.
She said sharrows are confusing and do not always help. She said people are often
double parking in traditional bike lanes which forces kids on bikes into traffic. She said
the data shows that when you bring bikes into an area you bring more business.
Chair Miley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Johnson pointed out that they are not selecting any one design tonight
and only choosing the four options to study further.
Chair Miley said the Webster and Central intersection was a major issue when this was
before the commission previously. He said all the speakers tonight gave good feedback
about issues to review when studying the four options. He said sharrows are not an ideal
bicycle facility and do not seem like a good solution for a segmented corridor.
Commissioner Soules said it would be nice to have a real compromise solution between
the business district and cyclists' preferences. She said she would like to see the
intersection during peak travel times. She said she is concerned about vehicles diverting
to other streets. She said she would like to see what the answer is for getting people off
3",TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-01-23,4,"the island in an emergency. She asked what the process would be in regards to coming
back to this body before it goes to City Council for a decision.
Staff Member Payne said they would come back to the Transportation Commission with
a preferred option later in the year before proceeding to Council.
Commissioner Soules asked if the parking was going to remain in all options.
Staff Member Payne said parking will remain on both sides of the street. She said the
more detailed design may remove some spaces in the corridor for daylighting purposes.
She said there is also the option of using the parking near Croll's for a peak hour turn
lane.
Chair Miley said the analysis should look at where it may be appropriate to add loading
zones.
Commissioner Johnson asked what the rules were for delivery trucks blocking the bike
lane.
Alameda PD Sgt. Foster said at no point are you legally allowed to block a bike lane. He
said that it is not something that frequently enforced unless there is an immediate safety
issue or ongoing complaints.
Commissioner Hans said he was okay approving the study of the four options and will
look to see how much parking is lost under each option.
Chair Miley relayed a message from Commissioner Nachtigall that she supports moving
forward with studying the four options.
Commissioner Hans made a motion to approve the staff recommendation to study
the four proposed alternatives. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.
Chair Miley asked that staff include all the comments as items to consider when studying
the options.
Staff Member Payne reminded the commission that there are two actions required,
adding the recommendation to extend the protected bikeway from Paden School to
McKay Ave.
Commissioner Hans added the staff recommendation to extend the two way
protected bikeway from Paden to McKay to his motion. Commissioner Johnson
confirmed his second of the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
4",TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-01-23,5,"5-B 2019-6464
Recommendation to Adopt the Street Sections associated with the City's
Adaptive Reuse Infrastructure Project within Alameda Point
Staff Member Wikstrom gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3836630&GUID=AD849568-
98D3-4162-B696-A05E6F647303&FullText=1
Chair Miley opened the public hearing.
Brian McGuire said we have an opportunity to design a street network from scratch. He
said that the design on Tower should match the design on Pan Am where the bike lanes
are next to the sidewalk to match up with the bike lanes east of Pan Am.
Commissioner Johnson asked if there was a reason why the new design for Tower did
not use one way protected bike lanes.
Staff Member Wikstrom said they just went with the simplest idea which is to mirror the
already approved design for Tower east of Pan Am. He said that conceptually they may
be able to achieve the suggested one way protected lanes, depending upon the need to
place utilities within the already defined right of way. He said they can pursue the idea
but cannot guarantee the execution.
Chair Miley asked if the final plan would come back to this body and Council before
completion.
Staff Member Wikstrom said their intention was to approve the street sections and they
would go to 100% design and the construction without coming back to the commission.
He said he could come back with this section in a few months with an update or the
commission could just give direction to pursue the idea if possible. He said there is no
reason on the surface why they would not pursue a one way cycle track unless there
was a physical constraint with the utilities that prevented it from being possible.
Jon Spangler said he agreed with the suggestion to pursue one way protected bike
lanes. He said that if that is not possible, consistent one way buffered bike lanes would
be preferable to switching from a two way cycle track to one way bike lanes.
Chair Miley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Soules said she was glad that these refinements are being addressed
early on. She said she is happy to examine the possibility of making a good faith effort to
implement the one way protected lanes on W. Tower Ave, pending any serious fiscal
impact or delay in the project.
5",TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-01-23,6,"Commissioner Soules made a motion to approve the item. Commissioner Hans
seconded the motion.
Chair Miley relayed Commissioner Nachtigall's support for the staff recommendation.
The motion passed 4-0.
5-C 2019-6465
Approve the City of Alameda Transportation Program Plan for Seniors
and People with Disabilities for Fiscal Year 2019/2020
Staff Member Payne gave a presentation. The staff report can be found at:
Ittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3836631&GUID=A4C4061C-
02EA-4E64-BF8E-477856E96851&FullText=1
Commissioner Hans made a motion to accept the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A 2019-6466
Oakland-Alameda Access Project - Request Transportation Commission
Member on Advisory Group
Staff Member Payne said they are hoping to find a member of the Transportation
Commission to be a member of the OAAP Advisory Group.
Chair Miley asked what they time commitment would be.
Staff Member Wheeler said the group has had two meetings to date. She said there will
be 2-4 more meetings.
Chair Miley said he could work with staff to identify a commissioner, noting that some
members were not present.
Commissioner Johnson asked if this project is examining the other bridges across the
estuary and not just the tubes.
Staff Member Wheeler said the project is focused on the tubes and their connections to
880.
Commissioner Johnson asked if anyone is working on the other connections like the
Fruitvale Bridge.
6",TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-01-23,7,"Staff Member Wheeler said they are working with Alameda County on a grant
application to replace or retrofit the Fruitvale Bridge to become a multimodal lifeline
structure.
6-B Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Transportation Choices Plan and Housing Element Update and Next
Steps
2. Transportation Management Association Annual Reports
3. Alameda County Transportation Commission Capital Improvement
Program Grant Submittals
4. West End Ferry Terminal Service and Access
Commissioner Johnson asked if the issue of the bike paths on Harbor Bay can be
evaluated by and hopefully improved.
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow asked if there was any follow up regarding Commissioner Miley's previous
request to pursue improvements to vehicular circulation in Oakland near High St.,
Alameda Ave, and 880. He said there were originally plans to connect Alameda Ave to
42nd Ave which would alleviate the current congestion. He apologized for his
interruption during item 5-A. He said allowing someone more than three minutes without
announcing the decision publicly gives the appearance of bias.
Chair Miley asked staff to pursue an update to the High Street issue. He said he should
have announced that the video shown in item 5-A would be longer than three minutes.
Jon Spangler announced that Changing Gears Bike Shop would be closing in about a
month due to development at Alameda Point. He said the owner would stay open if he
could find an appropriate space on the West End.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Miley adjourned the meeting at 9:03pm.
7",TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf