{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-04-27", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nApril 27, 2005\nChair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:45 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:\nMembers Present:\nJohn Knox White\nPatianne Parker\nMichael Krueger\nRobb Ratto\nRobert McFarland\nEric Schatmeier\nAbsent:\nJeff Knoth\nStaff Present:\nBarbara Hawkins - Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works\nBarry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works\nJennifer Ott - Development Manager, Development Services\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nCommissioner Krueger asked that Chair Knox White's comments regarding the Cross Alameda\nTrail Feasibility Study be amended to state that \"Caltrans allows lanes to be less than 12 feet\nwide on highways.\" He also requested that the minutes be amended to state that \"at times he\nbikes and drives along Atlantic Avenue..\n\"\nCommissioner Parker moved acceptance of the minutes, with the changes as requested.\nCommissioner Ratto seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 6.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS\nNone.\n6.\nOLD BUSINESS\nTransportation Commission\nPage 1 of 8\nApril 27, 2005", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-04-27", "page": 2, "text": "6A.\nRecommendations from other City Boards and Commissions on Draft TMP\nJKW: The Planning Board asked to have a visioning statement inserted before the first paragraph\nto define \"multimodal\" as including autos, transit, bicycles, walking, and needs for people with\ndisabilities.\nCirculation Goal: The Commission on Disability Issues asked to add \"barrier free\" to the last\nsafe and efficient transportation systems.\nA1.1 concern by the Planning Board that bikes and pedestrians were not specifically\nincluded, definition above takes care of that.\nA-1.4 Add on all streets and in all sections of the City.\nA-1.5 Housing Commission transit indemnities is an implementation goal covered under\nthe transit plan.\nA-1.6 Commission on Disability Issues covered in the introduction\nA-1.8 The EDC had a comment on including smooth cross island flow in the city.\nThought it was incorporated in Did add into this, \"without unduly disrupting the quality of life\nfor residents\".\nA1.11 Planning Board was split, some wanted to minimize, others support cul de sacs\nA-2.5 Multi modal cross estuary travel added in \"bike, pedestrian shuttles or high occupancy\nvehicle only crossings\" are types of projects we should be looking at.\nA-2.6 included Planning Board's recommendation\nA-5.3 EDC had suggested to fixed route AC Transit system to enhance mobility for those\nwithout access to personal transportation. Prefer the word provide, enhance sounds like it's\nan option.\nA6.6 Planning Board suggested in adding this policy. Require monitoring programs to\nensure TSM (JKW added \"and TDM\") measures mitigate impacts.\nObjective A-7 Add the underlying section of enhancing the viability of non-automotive\ntransportation modes.\nUsed Planning Board language\nA-7.4 Planning had a comment on the fact that they felt identifying rights of way doesn't\nmean results are not always the way you hope it to come out but need to try.\nB-1.1 PB and Rec and Parks Commission supported. Left as written\nB-2.5 Left as written\nB-3.1 Planning Board supported the language as written, left as written\nB-4.2 CDI Recommendation including people with disabilities.\nB-5.1 The Parks Department indicated the permit program should be designed so that they\nwould not impact on adjacent neighbors and homeowners use their garages for parking\ninstead of storage.\nB-5.2 Included the Planning Board's recommendation of shared parking in mixed used areas.\n1.2 Stays the same\n2.2 did not include disability to better serve pedistrian needs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.\nNot a citywide circulation goal. To be dwelt with on construction projects.\nC2.5 The Planning Board added in to promote land use that would encourage alternate\nmodes of transportation and enable agencies to procure grant funding.\nC3 The Planning Board recommended more bike related polices so added two more.\nC3.2 and C3.3\nTransportation Commission\nPage 2 of 8\nApril 27, 2005", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-04-27", "page": 3, "text": "C3.4 Bike Lanes on Park Street (Remove Parking)\nC2 Development of Pedestrian Plan\nC3 Development of Bike Plan\nC6.2 Walking, bicycling and automobiles. Add in people with disabilities on this list\nD's No other comments\nAfter D5 removed, no longer in transportation.\nJon Spangler's comments:\nA1.8 Instead of the current wording use; encourage traffic within, to and thru Alameda to use the\nappropriate streets in the system in providing clear and effective traffic control measures to\nensure smooth flow.\nA2.3 Increase in Vehicle occupancy levels\nA7 Drop the word Modes\nB5.2 Chair Knox White used shared parking strategies\nC2.4 & C3.1 City of Alameda Plan\nC6.2 Pursue strategies thru reduce or eliminate conflics, increase accessibility, and faster multi\nmodel compatibility\nClosed Public Comment\nCommissioner Ratto's Comments:\nA1.4 Do not believe it should be changed\nA1.11 Planning Board's comments were concerned with trying to prohibit traffic going thru.\nAdd physical interrupt the grid system, don't think anything wrong with it Adding on the main\nisland. So just add the work physically.\nB4.1 Could incorporate the suggestion from C2.5 by just putting encouraged development\npatterns and land uses that encourage the use of alternate modes and reduce the rate of growth in\nregional wide vehicle miles traveled.\nB5.1 Neighborhoods chronic problems add something about new developments.\nStaff Hawkins recommended the comments from the different boards that appear to be\nimplementation recommendations should be included as an appendix in back. In this way, even\nif they are not appropriate for the policies portion of the TMP, their comments will still be taken\ninto account and included at a later time.\n7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n7A.\nReview and Comment on the Proposed Civic Center Parking Garage and Oak\nStreet Streetscape Designs\nStaff Ott of the Development Services Department reviewed the proposed parking garage project.\nShe stated that the proposed garage would be located on Oak Street between Santa Clara Avenue\nand Central Avenue. The current design includes six levels and 352 spaces. She noted that the\nTransportation Commission\nPage 3 of 8\nApril 27, 2005", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-04-27", "page": 4, "text": "project would be implemented through a design-build contract, so the internal circulation may\nchange. The exterior design is scheduled to be taken to the Planning Board in June for approval.\nStaff Ott described several mitigation measures that were developed to address pedestrian safety\nat the garage entrance/exit. These include textured paving, a speed bump, lights and sound to be\nemitted as vehicles exit, and concave mirrors. The sidewalk would be widened by six feet on\nOak Street in front of the project to help direct pedestrians away from the building and provide\nimproved visibility for drivers exiting the garage. Six parking spaces total to be removed, and\nlandscaping will be included. She noted that PSBA unanimously approved this design.\nStaff Ott noted that eight bicycle lockers (accommodating 16 bicycles) and 24 bicycle racks\nwould be included on the first floor of the garage. Also, there will be lighting in front of the\npedestrian-only entrance so pedestrians won't feel drawn to the vehicular entrance.\nStaff Ott stated that there was an initial study on parking and traffic impacts, which illustrated\nthat there is going to be an insufficient supply of parking given the anticipated demand\nassociated with the theater project as planned.\nThe only required traffic mitigations determined to be directly associated with the project are\nsignal timing adjustments, although there are other mitigations for required to reach a \"less than\nsignificant impact\" determination for 2020 as well as for the cumulative impacts of all\ndevelopment, including Alameda Point.\nCommissioner Krueger asked if access to the bicycle parking area is to be provided through the\nvehicular entrance as well as the side entrance. Staff Ott indicated that bicyclists would be able\nto use either entrance.\nChair Knox White noted that in the negative declaration that impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists\nwere not addressed. He asked if they were addressed somewhere else. Staff Ott replied that the\nCommunity Improvement Commission (CIC) had expressed concerns about these issues, and\nthat these concerns were addressed internally, working with the Public Works Department.\nChair Knox White stated that after accounting for the landscaping, if the sidewalk along Oak\nStreet would actually be narrower after the proposed widening. Staff Ott indicated that the\nsidewalk would be wider than what is currently there.\nCommissioner McFarland asked if the intention is to have both bicyclists and pedestrians utilize\nthe widened sidewalk area. Staff Ott responded that this was not the intention, but that the\nremoval of the on-street parking should help to enhance safety for bicyclists along the block.\nShe noted that the proposal would not preclude Class II bike lanes along Oak Street in the future.\nCommissioner Krueger stated that this assumes that a 10' lane width would be sufficient for\nmotor vehicle traffic. He asked if there are other scenarios that would require wider traffic lanes.\nStaff Hawkins responded that the only reason would be if Oak Street were to be designated a\ntruck route. She noted that if volume were the issue, an additional lane would be necessary,\nwider lanes would not be helpful.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 4 of 8\nApril 27, 2005", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-04-27", "page": 5, "text": "Chair Knox White Opened Public Comment\nJon Spangler asked what security would be provided for the bicycle parking, and whether this\narea is covered. He also requested that signage be added at the vehicular entrance to make it\nclear that bicycles can use this entrance. Mr. Spangler stated that the building should be\ndesigned so that it may be converted to retail space if needed in the future. He also stated that\nthe Class II bike lanes on Oak Street are important, and indicated that he supported widening\nOak Street in the future for safety purposes, but not to add more lanes.\nMr. Spangler expressed his support for the views of Bike Alameda, and stated that the project\nshould be designed to give bicyclists equivalent access to Park Street as motor vehicles. He\nindicated his support for the removal of diagonal parking on Central Avenue.\nTreya Weintraub expressed her support for restoring the bike lane on Central Avenue between\nWalnut Street and Oak Street and removing the angled parking.\nLucy Gigli, the president of Bike Alameda, asked the Commission to address the project in terms\nof bicycle safety, noting that with 350 parking spaces that many more vehicles will be present at\nthis location. She stated that improvements at this location are especially important, due to the\nproximity to Park Street, the main library, and City Hall. Bike Alameda recommends several\nmitigations:\nMs. Gigli stated that currently bicyclists on Central Avenue are routed onto sidewalk and\nare redirected into the street in the Park Street district, where there is significant traffic.\nShe recommended restoring the bike lanes on Central Avenue between Walnut Street and\nOak Street\nShe requested that shared roadway stencils and signs be installed along Oak Street from\nLincoln Avenue to Encinal Avenue in place of the potential future bike lanes; this will\nhelp to alert both bicyclists and drivers to one another.\nMs. Gigli asked for assurance that bike lanes will not be precluded on Oak Street and that\n10' travel lanes will be acceptable\nMs. Gigli requested that these improvements be implemented as part of the garage\nproject.\nAndy Cutright stated that one reason he and his family decided to move to Alameda was because\nof the bike lanes, and that the community and economy will be enhanced by maintaining safe\naccess for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. He stated that bike lanes are preferable to\nsignage only, but that signs are preferable to no bicycle designation.\nCheri Galan stated that she prefers to use her bike rather than a car, and that she feels unsafe\nwhen riding with her children on streets without bike lanes. She stated that it is important to\nhave a north-south bicycle facility near Park Street, Grand Avenue is too far away, and that it is\nimportant to address issue now, not in planning off in the future.\nRochelle Reed stated that she lives on south end of Oak Street and works on Blanding, that she\ncommutes by bike, but doesn't use Oak Street. She expressed concerns that Oak Street currently\nfeels unsafe to bike, and the parking garage will make it less safe.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 5 of 8\nApril 27, 2005", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-04-27", "page": 6, "text": "Carl Babcock stated that he also lives on Oak Street and tries to ride his bike for local errands,\nbut that it is difficult to get to many shops safely. He requested that the bike lane be restored on\nCentral Avenue and, if possible, create a bike lane on Oak Street.\nPublic comment closed\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked staff if they could respond to the bicyclists' concerns. Staff Ott\nstated that the project would include shared roadway stencils (sharrows) and signs on Oak Street\nfrom Encinal Avenue to Lincoln Avenue. She also noted that widening the sidewalk would\nincrease bike safety in front of the garage. She said that the removal of diagonal parking on\nCentral Avenue is not currently included in the project. She anticipates this will be discussed as\npart of the TMP.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that the garage will have bicycle parking, and asked if it\nis\nappropriate to include project elements to help bicyclists reach the facility safely. Staff Ott\nagreed that safe bicycle access is important, but noted that the project is attempting to meet many\nobjectives with a limited project budget. She stated that the bike lane issues on Central Avenue\nshould not be linked to the garage, and expressed concern that stakeholder groups not in\nattendance may be opposed to removing the diagonal parking on Central Avenue.\nCommissioner McFarland asked if the library or garage would be completed first. Staff Ott\nresponded that the garage is scheduled to be completed first.\nCommissioner McFarland asked if there was a cost estimate for restriping Central Avenue. Staff\nOtt responded that staff is looking into this.\nCommissioner Ratto stated that the funding sources for the project is an important issue, and that\nto fund funding for striping Central Avenue would require taking money from another element of\nthe project. He said that he and PSBA support restoring parallel parking on Central Avenue,\nsince the 350-space parking garage should meet parking needs. He said that if there are other\norganizations that oppose removing the diagonal parking, which would bring the General Plan\ninto compliance, they should state their case to Council. Commissioner Ratto stated that\nbicyclists should not be diverted onto the sidewalk on that block. He also stated that he doesn't\nbelieve the restriping should be considered as a mitigation for the parking structure, but other\nfunding should be available.\nCommissioner Krueger asked how the mitigation measures would be funded. Staff Ott\nresponded that only the signal timing adjustments would be funded through the project\nCommissioner Krueger asked if it would be possible to find other funding for the signal timing\nas well as the bike lanes, since they both seem related to the project. Staff Ott said they are\nconcerned that the project bid will come in higher than the funding that's available\nCommissioner Ratto stated that it is up to the City Council to determine the funding decisions,\nand that members of the community can bring these issues to the Council.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 6 of 8\nApril 27, 2005", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-04-27", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Schatmeier asked where would revenues from the garage go to. He asked if fees\ncould be adjusted to raise funds. Staff Ott responded that part of the funding is from a HUD\nSection 108 loan, which will be repaid in part with meter revenues.\nSchatmeier asked if the garage would be used for commuters, patrons of\nbusinesses, or both. Staff Ott indicate that both would be using the facility, and that they are\nconsidering monthly permit parking spaces, possibly with smart cards.\nCommissioner Parker asked if the garage will be set up to accommodate vanpooling. Staff Ott\nsaid she would look into that and respond.\nCommissioner Parker stated that mitigation is generally done project by project, not on a\ncumulative basis, and that mitigation needs to be done in context. She stated that the project\nshouldn't necessarily pay for all mitigations, but funding should be looked at for other related\nmeasures.\nChair Knox White noted that the packet says the stenciling will be on Oak Street from Central\nAvenue to Lincoln Avenue, but that Staff Ott had indicated Encinal Avenue in her presentation.\nStaff Ott noted that Bike Alameda prefers Encinal Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, and that may be\npossible.\nChair Knox White stated that he believes the Central Avenue bike lanes should be considered as a\nmitigation for the garage project. He noted that other mitigations are as far away as Santa Clara\nAvenue/Broadway, and that the bike lanes are close enough to the garage that it should be linked.\nCommissioner Ratto moved approval of the following: 1) Bicyclists and citizens deserve\nsignage and stencils on Oak Street from Encinal Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, 2) the bike lane on\nCentral Avenue between Walnut Street and Oak Street should be restored, 3) the diagonal\nparking on Central Avenue should be removed, 4) funding be found to implement these\nmitigations as the project progresses, and 5) signage should be included at the entrance to the\nparking structure indicating that bicycle parking is available. Commissioner Schatmeier\nseconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 6.\n7B.\nRecommendations for Countywide Bike Plan\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report. He noted that the Alameda County Congestion\nManagement Agency is beginning its bicycle plan update process before the City of Alameda has\nhad the chance to update its plan. Following discussions with CMA staff, project\nrecommendations for the countywide plan were developed with input from the Transportation\nCommission's Bicycle Plan Subcommittee and members of the public. Recommendations from\nthe full TC will in turn be forwarded to the City Council, which will forward its\nrecommendations to the CMA.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 7 of 8\nApril 27, 2005", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2005-04-27", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Schatmeier moved to recommend the following projects for inclusion in the\nAlameda Countywide Bicycle Plan:\n1) Feasibility study and capital costs of estuary crossing from Alameda's west end to\nOakland\n2) Segments of the Bay Trail in Alameda County, including those in the City of Alameda\n3) The following route through central Alameda: Along Main Street from the Main Street\nferry terminal to Pacific Avenue, along Central Avenue from Pacific Avenue to Fernside\nBoulevard, along Fernside Boulevard to the bike bridge, the bike bridge itself, and\nalong Doolittle Drive from the bike bridge to the city's border with Oakland.\n4) Along Island Drive from Doolittle Drive to Mecartney Road, along Mecartney Road\nfrom Island Drive to the Harbor Bay ferry terminal.\nCommissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote -\n6.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 8 of 8\nApril 27, 2005", "path": "TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf"}