{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-03-22", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nMARCH 22, 2006\nChair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:\nMembers Present:\nJohn Knox White\nEric Schatmeier\nMichael Krueger\nRobert McFarland\nAbsent:\nRobb Ratto\nPattianne Parker\nJeff Knoth\nStaff Present:\nBarbara Hawkins, City Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works\n2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES\nChair Knox White moved the approval of the February minutes to next meeting.\nCommissioner Schatmeier had a question regarding the motion by Commissioner Knoth\nabout the required capacity on Atlantic Avenue.\nChair Knox White indicated that this could be clarified under item 6A on the agenda,\nwhen the Northern Waterfront DEIR is discussed.\n3. AGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\n4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Knox White mentioned that at the ILC meeting Councilmember Matarresse\nasked AC Transit to come and address the TC on the 51 bus bunching issue. AC Transit will be\ncollecting data why it's happening at certain times and will try to bring that to the TC in May.\nHe also noted that representatives of the Alameda Point Collaborative spoke on behalf of Lifeline\nfunding to continue operations of the 63 bus service for Alameda Point.\nStaff Hawkins added that the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has redirected the funding\nthat has been used for the Alameda Point service to certain Census tracts, so AC Transit is\nPage 1 of 7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-03-22", "page": 2, "text": "looking for another funding source to maintain this service on the 63. She indicated that to\nensure that this happens it will be helpful to make recommendations to the CMA.\nChair Knox White said that only two Census tracts identified are in southwest Berkeley and\nCherryland, so that in the first round the CMA will be accepting applications for other locations\nas well.\nChair Knox White noted that the ILC also discussed concerns about buses using the High Street\nBridge. Residents are opposed to the noise from the buses using the bridge, while AC Transit is\nconcerned about the additional cost that would be incurred by redirecting them to less direct\nroutes. AC Transit has asked the City to identify how it would like the deadhead buses to be\ndealt with. Councilmember Matarrese has indicated that he will ask the Council to direct this\nissue to the TC for recommendations.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nJean Sweeney commented on the plan to convert diagonal parking to parallel parking on Central\nAve. between Walnut and Oak. She stated that this will increase the difficulty in finding parking\nat\nthe Veterans Building when there are evening functions, and that she has discussed this with a\nnumber of people active in veterans activities who have expressed this concern. While there is a\nlot in the back of the building, the Recreation and Parks Dept. keep their vehicles there. Ms.\nSweeney also stated that it would be helpful to have more than one handicapped space in front of\nthe building, as it is difficult for some people to walk a long distance to the building. She asked\nthe Commission for its assistance with this situation.\nBill Smith suggested the development of an \"eco-destination resort\" at Alameda Landing to\nminimize the number of vehicles that would use the site.\n6A. Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental Impact\nReport (DEIR)\nChair Knox White stated that the purpose of having this item on the agenda was to review the\nTC's original recommendations for the Northern Waterfront GPA, as well as to review the\nrecommendations made regarding the DEIR at the March meeting.\nPublic Comment\nJean asked if the TC was proposing to extend any streets through the Beltline property.\nChair Knox White had said that the TC was not proposing the construction of any streets.\nClose Public Comment\nCommissioner Kruger moved to adopt a clarification regarding item 1, so that the\nrecommendation would read: \"Establish a Northern Waterfront District Transit District or\nPage 2 of 7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-03-22", "page": 3, "text": "amend the Citywide Development Fee Ordinance to fund expanded Northern Waterfront transit\nservices in corridors through and between the Northern Waterfront and the high ridership\ngenerators inside and outside the City such as Oakland BART stations, airport, transit hubs,\netc.\" Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed passed unanimously, 4-0.\nChair Knox White noted that the TC had recommended deleting the following policies:\n10.6.j - Prohibit extension of north/south residential streets through the Alameda Beltline\nrailyard site.\nPS-3 - Provide primary access to this site shall be from Sherman Street.\nChair Knox White suggested clarification of the deletion of 10.6.j to indicate that the TC does not\nwant to advocate for extending streets through the former Belt Line railyard, but to indicate that\nthe intention is to not have high-capacity through streets through the site. He suggested that the\nGPA's recommended prohibition on extending the streets be deleted in case a new land use\nscenario emerges for the site.\nCommissioner Krueger emphasized that in support of the General Plan, the TC doesn't want to\nincrease through traffic capacity. He stated that his primary concern is connectivity.\nSeveral suggestions were made regarding clarifying language but no motions were passed.\nChair Knox White suggested leaving the recommendation to delete the policy.\nCommissioner Krueger moved to correct Item 5 to read: \"Facilitate use of Clement Street as a\nmajor east west corridor through the City and to remove traffic volume from other east west\nstreets such as Buena Vista and Lincoln by prioritizing efforts to extend Clement from\nSherman Street to Tilden. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed unanimously,\n4-0.\nThe Commission then discussed the DEIR recommendations approved at the March 22 TC\nmeeting. Chair Knox White stated that regarding the recommendations for the DEIR, he wanted\nto be careful to focus on clarifications of what was approved at the previous meeting, since the\ncurrent meeting had only four members in attendance.\nChair Knox White moved that that the previously approved motion 1 regarding the EIR report be\nclarified as follows: With the EIR's proposal to convert Atlantic to four lanes, the TC feels that\nthe recommendation is not consistent with General Plan policy 4.1.c of the City's General Plan,\n\"Do not increase through-traffic capacity on the Main Island.\" Commissioner Schatmeier\nseconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.\nChair Knox White said that regarding the proposed extension of Clement, the issue is the turning\nradius from Park onto Clement and its impact on truck traffic. The City would need to take two\nhouses and a funeral home, and the feasibility of this is unknown. Therefore, it's not a fixable\nsolution. The TC wanted to highlight the ability to mitigate this. He stated that the Council may\nwant staff to look at other truck route options to make avoid this problem.\nPage 3 of 7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-03-22", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Hawkins said that the proposed extension would not take the funeral home but only a\ncouple of parking spaces. In addition, she said that there is a level of service issue at Clement\nand Park, so there would need to be a capacity enhancement to address this.\nCommissioner McFarland stated that his understanding is that the capacity issues are the primary\nconcern, not the truck route.\nChair Knox White suggested removing the previously recommended language that Council\nshould direct staff and just say that the TC recommends that the City Council prioritize the\nconnection of Clement to Tilden. He noted that the intention of the recommendation is to help\nensure the City make a commitment to this project while reviewing the impacts discussed in the\nEIR.\nStaff Hawkins said that when it goes to project level EIR, if it's not feasible that it would impact\nthe development of a specific project. Therefore the feasibility of the proposed extension would\nbe discussed as part of a project level EIR.\nChair Knox White said that he wanted to respect the wishes of Commissioner Parker, as she\nraised this issue and was not in attendance, and recommended keeping this recommendation as\nis.\nChair Knox White asked about the tube capacity, which Commissioner McFarland had raised at\nthe March meeting.\nStaff Bergman said that the handouts discussed the assumptions, as well as indicating the hour by\nhour traffic counts in the year 2000.\nChair Knox White asked if the calculated capacity takes into account the fact that there are stop\nlights on either end of the tube or just assumes free flow and go on forever.\nStaff Bergman said that he had talked to Virendra Patel on that and said that the signal on the\nOakland side has a very short cycle as well as a free right turn, so there is not much impact on\nthe capacity of the Posey Tube. He noted that on the Webster tube there is a pretty long distance\nbetween the exit from the tube and the traffic signals. There is also a split at Constitution,\nproviding additional lanes and capacity.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said that he was confused about the traffic volume and trip generation.\nThe supporting material chart shows trips and vehicle capacity in the tubes but that it doesn't\nnecessarily correlate to trip generation. He asked if the materials could be clarified to indicate\nwhere we are talking about person trips and where we are talking about vehicle trips.\nCommissioner Krueger agreed, stating that the focus should be on maximizing mobility for\npeople, not just vehicles.\nCommissioner Krueger suggested adding a clarifying statement to be submitted along with the\nTC's recommendation about policies to be deleted, which was discussed earlier.\nPage 4 of 7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-03-22", "page": 5, "text": "Commissioner Krueger moved to include the following explanatory text to accompany the\nTC's recommendation to delete policies 10.6.j and PS-3 from the GPA: \"These two policies\nprohibit full use and/or any future extension of the Alameda grid system. Depending on the\nfuture outcome of the ballot initiatives for the Alameda Beltline property or the future\ndevelopment plans for the Pacific Storage property, extension of the grid may not be necessary\nor desirable. However, until the future uses are established for these two sites, the General\nPlan should not prohibit any future consideration of access to the Pacific Storage or the\nBeltline site from the north-south streets in the grid.\" Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the\nmotion. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.\nChair Knox White asked to discuss the right of way for the proposed rail transit, and referred to\nthe cross-section drawings from the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study.\nStaff Hawkins stated that staff looked at the constraints of the roadway system on both sides and\nlooking at both the existing Clement and connecting into Atlantic. This included a look at\npotential cross-sections from Main to Tilden to see how the different modes of transportation\ncould be accommodated. This also included the geometrics of a road that would be constructed\nbetween Sherman and Clement, so even though this is a preliminary proposal, it is based on\npretty refined measurements.\nStaff Hawkins said that the original light rail study did not get to the refined level that was done\nin the trail feasibility study. She noted that San Francisco is currently using a rail system that has\nshared turning lanes with vehicles but doesn't have shared through lanes.\nCommissioner McFarland said that it is possible to get 15 minute headways for a rail service\neven if there is a mile of single tracking.\nCommissioner Krueger questioned whether Clement is the best right-of-way for a potential rail\ncorridor.\nCommissioner McFarland also noted that space would be required for stations. He suggested\nthat if rail were implemented in this corridor, it should probably be operated in the street, shared\nwith vehicle traffic.\nChair Knox White said that the TC has a concern that the right of way that is being discussed in\nthis plan could have operational issues. He suggested that another route for the rail might have\nto be considered. Commissioner Krueger agreed.\nStaff Hawkins said that it is difficult to protect right-of-way because of the various competing\nneeds for things such as development, transportation, parking, and shoreline access. She noted\nthat there is a pinch point between the developer's property and a retaining wall near the water\nby the Encinal Terminals site. It is difficult to determine how much space should be set aside\nwithout knowing the operational demands, and it could be costly. She stated that additional\nanalysis would be needed to provide some of this information.\nPage 5 of 7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-03-22", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner McFarland stated that the TC shouldn't preclude the possibility of having the\nsystem run in the street as opposed to an exclusive right-of-way, as this may actually be more\nappropriate.\nChair Knox White moved that the City, when accepting the General Plan Amendment, needs to\nbe aware the transit right away that is referred to is a single track shared right of way with turn\nlanes and automobile traffic. The Transportation Commission is concerned that the amount of\nsingle track right of way from the Fruitvale Bridge to Sherman could possibly limit effective\ntransit operations. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed\nunanimously, 4-0.\nChair Knox White asked about the \"scattered residential properties\" referred to in the report.\nStaff Hawkins pointed them out on the map for clarification.\n7A.\nPedestrian Plan\nChair Knox White asked what the timeline was and that maybe at the next TC meeting discuss\nthem.\nStaff Bergman said that the Task Force meeting was held last week and overall structure was\nconfusing to some people. The relationship between the Pedestrian and Circulation polices were\nconfusing as to what the stand-alone Pedestrian plan document was going to look like. Maybe\nget feedback from the TC as to how to put the two together.\nChair Knox White asked said that should talk more on the structure at the next months TC\nmeeting as to how to put the policies together.\nStaff Bergman said that 4 basic goals were established as part of the Circulation Plan with\nobjectives and polices underneath those. The question is what would a stand-alone Pedestrian\nPlan include. He distributed a copy of the policies previously approved by the TC which\nindicated policies most relevant to the Pedestrian Plan.\nStaff Hawkins said that the Task Force should not be relied on to develop the policy language but\nto provide feedback and endorse the final product.\nChair Knox White said that after the next meeting their recommendations will go to the boards\nand commissions for approval and comments.\nStaff Bergman said that it maybe May or June to bring the project before the TC committee.\n8. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nPage 6 of 7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-03-22", "page": 7, "text": "Staff Bergman explained that the bus shelter survey was extended a little longer than originally\nproposed and that about 250 responses were received. The consultant will be wrapping it up\nsometime next week and then will get an analysis on it to present at the next meeting.\nStaff Bergman noted that the Request for Qualifications did receive some proposals in the\nprocess of evaluating them and then will have a work scope put together to complete the\nCirculation Plan.\nStaff Bergman stated that the Alameda Landing project was originally going to be presented to a\njoint meeting of the TC and Economic Development Commission, but these will instead be\nhandled separately. The TC will likely have the opportunity to discuss this project in April.\nStaff Hawkins noted that the proposed CIP is posted on the City's web site. She noted that this\nincludes proposed projects, deferred projects, and project descriptions. She noted that the TC\nrecommendations are not included, because CIP was broken up into annual projects and capital\nprojects. Annual projects, such as feasibility studies, will not show up in the CIP.\nCommissioner Krueger asked about the bus stop/red curbs inventory. Staff Hawkins said Public\nWorks is very short-staffed, but that Barry Bergman and Greg Stoia have developed a data sheet\nfor the inventory and this effort will be moving forward.\n9. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.\ni:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\\TC\\2006/0406/32206 tc min-FINAL. doc\nPage 7 of 7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf"}