{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-09-27", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nSeptember 27, 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\nJeff Knoth\nMichael Krueger (arrived 7:40 p.m.)\nRobert McFarland\nRobb Ratto\nEric Schatmeier\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Program Specialist II\nDoug Garrison, Supervising Planner, Dept. of Planning and Building\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nCommissioner Ratto moved approval of the June 28, 2006 minutes. Commissioner\nSchatmeier seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Commissioner McFarland moved\napproval of the August 30, 2006 minutes. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion passed,\n5-0 (Abstained: Ratto)\n3. AGENDA CHANGES\nChair Knox White moved to move Item 7B to the beginning of the meeting to\naccommodate AC Transit staff in attendance.\n4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nMultimodal Circulation Plan is moving forward. Will be presented to go to an EIR draft\nguidelines to the council October 17th but a request for funding an EIR to update the\ntransportation element of the General Plan, which will be the guiding principles of the TMP.\nPedestrian Plan will be on the agenda for the next meeting.\nChair Knox White noted that AC Transit has formed a task force to look at the bunching of buses\non the 51 line, and thanked AC Transit for their work on this issue.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 1 of 12\n9/27/06 Meeting Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-09-27", "page": 2, "text": "7B. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING AC TRANSIT'S PROPOSED TRANSIT\nSTREETS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ALAMEDA.\nStaff Bergman mentioned that this Agreement would largely formalize what already exists, since\nrepresentatives from the City and AC Transit currently meet through the Interagency Liaison\nCommittee (ILC).\nChair Knox White mentioned Item 3 that it was a good job explaining what the city will provide\nto AC Transit. He suggested that the City and the Transportation Commission be sent the\nagendas or meeting packets from AC Transit's Planning and Operations Subcommittees and\nBoards as to the items.\nChair Knox White noted that the City Council asked the TC to make a recommendation to them\nif the Agreement meets the needs of the City.\nCommissioner Ratto moved to recommend to the City Council that they adopt the Transit\nStreets Cooperative Agreement. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed\nunanimously, 6-0.\n7A.\nREVIEW AND COMMENT ON DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL\nIMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTER REDEVELOPMENT\nAND EXPANSION PROJECT\nStaff Garrison of the Planning Department said that he was at the meeting to receive comments\non the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Alameda Towne Center expansion\nproject. He noted that the EIR will be brought back to the Planning Board in October, and that\nthe Planning Board expressed an interest in hearing the Transportation Commission's comments.\nCommissioner Krueger asked if the Planning Board will have a second public meeting to take\ncomments on the project.\nStaff Garrison answered that there would be second meeting. The public will have until October\n12th to submit their comments on the EIR. The Environmental Consultant and Planning Staff\nwill prepare the final EIR, which includes responses to those comments. Another meeting may be\nscheduled at the Planning Board to discuss broader project issues. If the Planning Board would\nlike another workshop, that may be scheduled, otherwise they will schedule a hearing.\nChair Knox White asked why was not the gas station included in this EIR.\nStaff Garrison said that the property is not owned by the shopping center. Safeway decided to\nsubmit a separate application for the gas station rather than be included in the Towne Centre EIR.\nHowever, the gas station traffic was included under the baseline, which is other projects that\nwere reasonably foreseeable.\nChair Knox White asked why the intersections of Park Street/Encinal Avenue.and Park Street/San\nJose Avenue were not analyzed in this study along with bridges and tubes.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 2 of 12\n9/27/06 Meeting Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-09-27", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Garrison said that the scope of the analysis was determined by the engineering staff in the\nPublic Works Department and based on their understanding of city traffic and existing conditions\nalong with anticipated traffic conditions.\nChair Knox White asked if traffic from existing Target stores in the area was used to estimate the\ntrip generation.\nStaff Garrison responded that the analysis used the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)\ntrip generation numbers for shopping centers.\nChair Knox White asked if it is known how this compares to large general merchandise stores.\nStaff Garrison said no.\nPublic Comment\nJon Spangler expressed concern about the lack of some traffic data in the EIR, such as the\nimpact on Park Street intersections and trip generation comparisons to other Target stores. He\nstated that there were no mitigations in the DEIR to address bicycle and pedestrian safety, such\nas new facilities to help pedestrians crossing the parking lot. He recommended that the project\npay for its full impact on the community, and that it pay for a transportation demand\nmanagement (TDM) study and mitigations. He suggested that there might be a better location in\nAlameda for a Target.\nTim Erway stated that the EIR included faulty traffic numbers based on a 2003 study. He stated\nthat there is only a limited number of main streets and some narrow neighborhood streets\nproviding access to the area, and he predicted that the project will create significant congestion\nas a result. He stated that the mitigations do not appear to be sufficient, even if the majority of\nthe traffic is generated on-island.\nMark Irons agreed with the other two speakers on the traffic problem that the project will create,\nespecially on Park Street.\nClosed Public Comment\nCommissioner Krueger said that buses appear to have a problem entering the center at the new\nentrance on Park Street. He asked if AC Transit provided input in the design and if they feel that\ntransit operations will still work with more intensive use and the parking garage along the bus\nroute.\nSean Diest Lorgion from AC Transit said that at the meeting with the Park Street entrance they\nwere not there when it was designed. The final plan was that the bus stop would be re-located\nfarther back. It's a temporary location where it is right now. It will move further back towards\nSafeway to the crosswalks. Private vehicles have had to stop and back up to let the buses in.\nHave asked staff to put a stop bar at the location to keep the traffic farther back.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 3 of 12\n9/27/06 Meeting Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-09-27", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Krueger_wanted to know if A/C Transit could consider a way to allow transit\naccess to be more efficient, since the current route has conflicts with vehicle and pedestrian\ntraffic. Adding Target and the parking garage will increase the intensity of its use.\nSean Diest Lorgion from A/C Transit said he would be interested in working with City staff and\nthe developers on this.\nStaff Khan responded that he had talked with AC Transit and the developer. Shifting the center\nline is being considered to help the buses navigate the turn.\nChair Knox White had questioned Mr. Erway to clarify his comment about the 2003\ntransportation study on his concerns that the existing numbers are not correct.\nMr Erway said that there was no way to know if the existing numbers on the graph was correct.\nHe compared the 2003 map along with the 2025 projected map. The projected numbers came up\nless than the 2003 numbers. It does not seem correct.\nStaff Garrison said that he would not expect traffic volumes to decrease over time, but that it\nis\npossible that the level of service could improve as a result of the mitigations. He said that actual\ntraffic counts were done in 2005, and the numbers were lower than numbers from 2002. This\nwas attributed to construction at the shopping center or a number of vacant retail stores. He also\nnoted that the ITE trip generation numbers have been updated, based on real-world data, and the\nfactors are now lower than what they had been. As a result, the 2003 traffic numbers almost\ncertainly overestimated the traffic volumes.\nStaff Khan agreed with Staff Garrison. He noted that the 2025 map was a draft and was not\nintended to be posted on the web site. The map is being updated and should be finished in a\ncouple of weeks.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that South Shore is more accessible to non-motor vehicle modes\nthan many other shopping centers, and asked if this was accounted for in the trip generation\nrates.\nStaff Khan said that the 7th Edition of the ITE trip generation book takes into account some of the\nother factors that weren't in the 6th Edition. It does provide information on shopping centers that\nare in urban areas on transit and pedestrian access. This was used for the Towne Centre project,\nwhich was classified as an urban shopping center.\nStaff Garrison stated that the baseline traffic was measured on the street in 2005. If the numbers\nwere lower than the 2002 numbers, the 2002 numbers were used.\nChair Knox White asked if the EIR assumes any mitigations that were required by the Mitigated\nNegative Declaration in 2003 that have not been implemented yet.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 4 of 12\n9/27/06 Meeting Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-09-27", "page": 5, "text": "Staff Garrison stated that the signal was actually installed after the traffic counts were done, so\nthe existing traffic should be better than what was projected in the traffic study. In the 2003\nmitigation the driveway next to the new Walgreens was supposed to make it a right turn only.\nThis one has been implemented since last month. This mitigation was not assumed in the\nbaseline.\nChair Knox White said that under the pedestrian and bike circulation, everything in the EIR was\npreviously approved, so there are no new bike or pedestrian amenities. The EIR reads as if these\naccommodations are part of the new plan, but there should be mitigations over and above this.\nHe noted that the EIR does not look at project impacts on bicyclists and pedestrians off-site. He\nasked about the proposed addition of stop signs, except where it would cause traffic to back up.\nStaff Garrison said that for vehicles entering from Otis, stop signs may result in queuing onto\nOtis. If an east-west sidewalk is added, this may have to be reconsidered.\nChair Knox White said that we're trying to create centers on the Island. Creating more parking is\nnot the way. There's tremendously over parking this project, this amount may only be needed 3-\n4 days per year. The minimum here is 4.0 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., the same as the maximums at\nAlameda Landing.\nStaff Garrison said it would be useful for the Planning Board if there was some consensus from\nthe TC about parking. He noted that addition of new sidewalks may required tradeoffs, such as\nreducing the amount of parking.\nStaff Garrison responded that the parking study that was done was a combination 2002 count\ncompared to ITE's, which at the time was a little over 4 spaces per 1,000. This was applied to\nthe additional floor area, and added 20% based on the improved selection of retailers.\nChair Knox White asked if the traffic distribution is based on actual counts.\nStaff Khan said that distribution is based upon existing traffic patterns and future land use\nchanges and it is determined by how the traffic is going from one place of origin to destination.\nMost of the time it goes down to a judgment call.\nChair Knox White expressed concern that Target may have a different trip generation pattern than\na shopping center.\nChair Knox White recommended reducing the number of vehicle lanes and adding bike lanes to\nOtis, Park, and Shoreline, to mitigate the impacts of traffic on bicycle circulation. He also\nrecommended mitigating the impacts of the increased vehicle traffic on pedestrians by widening\nthe existing sidewalk along the west side of Park Street, much of which is three feet wide, and\nadding an east-west sidewalk along the inside Burger King and banks.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 5 of 12\n9/27/06 Meeting Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-09-27", "page": 6, "text": "Staff Garrison noted that an issue raised in the EIR was traffic trying to exit onto Shoreline to\nmake a left turn. There are a couple of options. One is to put in that left turn lane and the other\nto make it an all way stop.\nChair Knox White stated that the main pedestrian path is along Whitehall Street, adjacent to the\nproposed Target. He recommended that the sidewalks be extra wide, and commented that\ncurrently pedestrians are required to cross many driveways.\nChair Knox White applied the seven TC-approved guidelines for reviewing EIRs to this project:\n1. Not widening roadways in response to new development. That mitigation needs to come\nfrom somewhere else than pumping more traffic through the city.\n2. Widening of intersections. - not an issue for this project\n3. Speed limits should be 25 mph. - not an issue for this project.\n4. The effects of bike, pedestrian and transit environment outside of the project site itself\nhas not been analyzed in a meaningful way.\n5.\nEIRs would not proposed mitigation significantly degrade the pedestrian and bike\nenvironment - he stated that the three proposed mitigations don't.\n6. New stop signs do not qualify as TDM. He suggested Trader Joes needs a stoplight\nbecause it there are major pedestrian bicycling issue getting into the center from Otis\nfrom that intersection.\n7. This would require additional analysis.\nCommissioner Knoth expressed concern that Whitehall Place is the major entry to the parking\ngarage to Target, and must accommodate a bus route, vehicle traffic, a bike lane and the main\npedestrian path. He also stated that there is a ten-foot bike path connects here as well. He asked\nif a 15-foot bicycle and pedestrian path could be installed at the Office Max driveway to divert\npeople off Whitehall.\nStaff Garrison responded that this could be looked at, but there are feasibility concerns due to\nproximity to Office Max and the required realignment of the existing traffic signal. Also, there\nare neighboring properties with different owners that could impact this.\nCommissioner Knoth said that the parking lots at Safeway and Trader Joes are difficult to walk\nthrough. He asked if more frequent walkways through the parking lot could be added, although\nthis may require a reduction in parking.\nCommissioner Krueger suggested improving the pedestrian and access at the expense of slightly\nreducing parking or creating more spaces in a parking structure. He recommended some type of\nsidewalk on both sides of all internal roadways. He asked if raised sidewalks could be used\ninstead of speed bumps to enhance pedestrian access and slow traffic, as in the Wind River\nparking lot.\nChair Knox White suggested that the TC provide guidance to the Planning Board and possibly\nask staff to put together some suggested methodologies regarding reducing the amount of\nTransportation Commission\nPage 6 of 12\n9/27/06 Meeting Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-09-27", "page": 7, "text": "parking required. He noted that some of the TC's recommendations will have to come at the\nexpense of the parking supply.\nMr. Garrison they can proceed with that general guidance taking a look at some of these\nenhancements to see what the parking number comes up to at that point. He said that the\nPlanning Board has discretion regarding parking ratios, and that some recommendations could be\nincluded in the analysis to determine the impact on parking. One option may be to reduce\nparking, require them to monitor parking usage, and possibly require the addition of a second\ndeck on the parking structure in the future. This would have to be discussed with the architects.\nThe project architect said that there are some leases that stipulate the availability of four spaces\nper 1000 square feet. However, Target has a large area for storage/stockroom space, and it may\nbe possible not to count this space as part of the square footage. He suggested that it may be\npossible to do some other things to improve the floor plan/site plan/parking plan. He said that a\nsecond parking deck would be very expensive and should be avoided.\nCommissioner Krueger moved that the TC recommends that the use of a lower parking ratio\nshould be investigated in order to allow for the addition of more pedestrian, bicycle and\ntransit mitigations such as the addition of sidewalks, bus stops, bike lanes etc. Commissioner\nKnoth seconded. Motion was approved, 5-1 (Ratto).\nStaff Khan expressed concern that by recommending the removal of travel lanes that this could\nresult in a policy conflict with the City's standard of Level of Service D at the intersections.\nChair Knox White responded that they are only asking that these options be investigated. Once\nstaff has conducted its analysis, staff can reach its own conclusions about whether these ideas\nmake sense.\nCommissioner Krueger moved to recommend as a mitigation for the project that the City look\ninto installing three lanes with bi-directional turn lanes for the streets boarding the project - Otis,\nPark, and Shoreline. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion approved unanimously, 6-0.\nChair Knox White stated that the 15-foot bike/ped path connecting to the east side of the project\nis problematic, that bicyclists coming out of the center will have a difficult time making a left\nturn onto Park Street.\nArchitect expressed concerned that 15 feet is a pretty big expanse of sidewalk for what it is trying\nto do. Maybe there should be some flexibility to include landscaping. The Shoreline Trail is 8 ft\nwide.\nStaff Bergman stated that a minimum is 8 feet and recommended is 10 feet for a multi use path,\nalthough wider facilities are recommended for high-use areas.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved that the City look for a mitigation for left-turning bicyclists\nheading onto Park Street. Commissioner Krueger seconded. Passed 4-2 (Ratto, Knoth).\nTransportation Commission\nPage 7 of 12\n9/27/06 Meeting Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-09-27", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Knoth moved that bike lanes be considered for Park Street as a connector to the\n15 foot bike/ped path going to the center as a mitigation for the impacts of the project.\nCommissioner Krueger seconded. Motion approved, 5-1 (Ratto).\nCommissioner Krueger moved that as a mitigation for the increased intensity of the project, that\nthe sidewalk on the west side of Park Street be widened to at least 5 feet. Commissioner Knoth\nseconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.\nCommissioner Krueger moved that there be sidewalks on both sides of every road within the\ncenter, and that the intersections of the parking lot and locations where sidewalks cross multiple\nentries into the parking spaces be separated by raised crosswalks. Commissioner Schatmeier\nseconded. Motion failed, 4-2.\nCommissioner Krueger moved that every internal roadway should have a continuous sidewalk\non at least one side and there should be more sidewalks down the center of parking aisles for\naccess for people getting out of their cars and walking to the center. Commissioner Schatmeier\nseconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.\nStaff Khan stated that this could be problematic, since Harsch may not own all of the property.\nChair Knox White responded that in the past Harsch has managed to find ways to construct\nsidewalk on their property, so he suggested that they be asked to include these improvements.\nCommissioner Knoth moved that pedestrian safety mitigations be made on Whitehall Place\nbecause of the additional traffic traveling through this corridor and into the Target parking lot.\nCommissioner Ratto seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.\nCommissioner Ratto moved that there should be more fully detailed explanation regarding the\ntrip generation numbers. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.\nChair Knox White asked that this explanation be included in the EIR analysis.\nStaff Khan stated that if assumptions were used that resulted in larger trip generation numbers,\nthat this would raise the parking estimates.\nCommissioner Ratto moved that the EIR look specifically at the impact of the project on the\nintersections of Park Street/Clinton, Park Street/San Jose and Park Street/Encinal.\nCommissioner Krueger seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.\nCommissioner Krueger made a motion that a mitigation be made relating to the impact of traffic\ngenerated by the project on transit service. Commissioner Ratto seconded. Motion passed\nunanimously, 6-0.\nChair Knox White stated he felt that we did not have a TDM plan.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 8 of 12\n9/27/06 Meeting Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-09-27", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Spangler stated that when Wind River moved here the city Public Works and Planning\nDepartment staff sat down with Wind River saying that we can't require you to do these\nlitigations but we think they would be a good idea. Suggest the mitigation worded as a gester of\na sign of commitment to the community that Harsch Development and Target along with the\ndevelopment team offer a transportation management plan voluntarily to the city to account for\ntheir new square footage.\nCommissioner Knoth moved that as part of our recommendation suggest as other developments\nin town have voluntarily offered up greater than requested TDM projects ala Wind River.\nEncourage the applicant to go above and beyond to accommodate mitigations for the other\n650,000 square feet. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed, 5-1 (Ratto).\nCommissioner Krueger moved that the committee take a 5 minute break and extend the meeting\ntime to 11:15. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.\n7C. SELECTION OF TWO COMMISSIONERS FOR THE COMMITTEE REVIEWING\nBIG BOX RETAIL\nChair Knox White stated that Commissioners Ratto and McFarland have been selected to be on\nthe committee reviewing big box retail.\n7D. COMMENT ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES OF THE ALAMEDA LANDING\nPROJECT WITH REGARDS TO THE RECENT TC-APPROVED 7\nDEVELOPMENT POLICIES.\nChair John Knox White reported the results of his review of the project using the TC-approved\nguidelines:\nChair Knox White spoke regarding Mitigation T/C 5-A, the Tinker Avenue Extension. He\nnoted that currently it is a two-lane street that does not connect to Webster. He would\nconsider the proposed 4-lane section adjacent to this to be a widening.\nStaff Khan noted that west of 5th, Tinker would only need to be increased to four lanes in\nconjunction with the development at Alameda Point.\nT/C 11A and 11C call for intersection widenings.\nWidening the Atlantic/Webster intersection would degrade the bicycle and pedestrian\nenvironment.\nStaff Khan noted that Tinker is proposed to have bike lanes from Main to 5th, and east of\nthere to be an off-street path.\nT/C 20D - The discussion of signals at Mitchell/5th, Marina Village Parkway/Mariner\nSquare Loop, and Tinker/5th should include references to bike loops.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 9 of 12\n9/27/06 Meeting Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-09-27", "page": 10, "text": "Chair Knox White noted that the approved mitigations refer to a TDM plan, but it does not talk\nabout the plan's goals, how it will be monitored, or who will produce the plan. He asks that the\nplan be brought to the TC before it goes to the City Council. He emphasized that goals need to\nbe established up front.\nStaff Khan stated that Planning is heading up this effort, and their staff can be requested to do a\npresentation.\nPublic Comment\nJon Spangler stated that the TDM plan should reflect the operation of a water-based cross-\nestuary shuttle.\nPublic Comment Closed\nChair Knox White stated that some TDM measures, such as flexible work weeks, cannot easily\nbe monitored to estimate trip reductions.\nStaff Khan noted that there are goals established in the TCMP.\nChair Knox White responded that there should be other goals beyond those relating to tube\ntraffic. He supports the project's emphasis on TDM measures, but doesn't see why they are\nproposing the amount of parking they are, since trips are being reduced. Providing too much\nparking will undermine the TDM measures.\nStaff Khan stated that City staff have been working to find ways to monitor the TDM plan, and\nhave been looking at examples from other cities, but have not found a satisfactory methodology\nup to this point.\nChair Knox White suggested using two of the four proposed lanes on Tinker as bus-only lanes.\nStaff Khan responded that queue jump lanes are being proposed on Tinker.\nChair Knox White made the following comments:\nWhile there are bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the project, getting to and from the\nproject for these users will be difficult.\nThe plan refers to minimizing traffic on minor residential streets, this may conflict with\nthe TMP policies. The project streets should not function like those on Bay Farm Island.\nPlan proposes 24-hour streets, this is best achieved by vibrant neighborhoods and\nsidewalks\n5th Street should be no more than three lanes\nparking ratios should be reconsidered\nCommissioner Krueger moved the following:\nTransportation Commission\nPage 10 of 12\n9/27/06 Meeting Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-09-27", "page": 11, "text": "The following conflicts with the seven policy guidelines endorsed by the TC should be\naddressed: a) policy #1: proposed Tinker extension, b) policy #2: additional lanes proposed for\nthe Atlantic and Webster intersection, c) policy #3: the Tinker extension should be designed to\nencourage 25 mph speed by drivers, d) policy #4: EIR does not address impacts of the project\non bicycle and pedestrian environment outside of the project area, e) policy #5: EIR does not\naccount for negative impacts on bicyclists and pedestrians, particularly regarding proposed\nAtlantic and Webster intersection improvements, f) policy #7: Level of Service worse than D\nshould be acceptable at the Atlantic and Webster intersection.\nCommissioner Knoth seconded. Motion was approved unanimously, 6-0.\nCommissioner Ratto moved that the Commission wishes to highlight the extreme necessity for\ncompleting the extension as a way of making this project work. Commissioner Knoth\nseconded. Motion was approved unanimously, 6-0.\nCommissioner Krueger moved that the conflict between the amount of parking being provided\nand the plans for an aggressive TDM be resolved. They are in conflict and we shouldn't do\nboth because it's a waste of money; let's decide what we are really going to do. Commissioner\nRatto seconded the motion. Motion was approved unanimously, 6-0.\nCommissioner Krueger moved that the feasibility study of the bicycle and pedestrian\nconnection to Oakland be included, and that any conflicts with the long-term transit plan for\nAlameda Point be resolved in a way that one doesn't preclude the other. Commissioner Ratto\nseconded. Motion was approved unanimously, 6-0.\n8. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Bergman mentioned that the ethics test needed to be completed before the first of the year.\nCommissioners will be reimbursed for the cost of the test.\nStaff Bergman commented on the W. End Shuttle Analysis. This is the work scope that the TC\nreviewed several months back. It's underway now and looking to wrap that up within the next\nmonth or SO. At this point the consultants gave us some background information especially\nlooking at alternative fuel vehicles and potential routing to key destinations. Staff Bergman said\nit would be on the next agenda for October.\nStaff Bergman showed photos of pedestrian improvements completed at Alameda Towne Centre.\nStaff Bergman announced that the City was awarded a grant from the Bicycle Transportation\nAccount to construct a path on the east side of Fernside Boulevard connecting San Jose Avenue\nto the bike bridge. An additional 10 foot path adjacent to the existing 5 foot sidewalk. The grant\nis for just under $600,000.\nStaff Khan said that in October we will also have some information on street classification from\nthe consultants and will have a presentation on that. He said that three meetings have been\nTransportation Commission\nPage 11 of 12\n9/27/06 Meeting Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-09-27", "page": 12, "text": "scheduled with the consultant to come back here. By December have the street classification\nfinalized. Will do October, November and December.\nMeeting adjourned at 11:25 PM.\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\\TC\\2006\\0906\\to min 92706-FINAL.doc\nTransportation Commission\nPage 12 of 12\n9/27/06 Meeting Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf"}