{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-10-25", "page": 1, "text": "DRAFT\nTRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nOctober 25, 2006\nChair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:38 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.\nMembers Present:\nJohn Knox White\nRobb Ratto\nRobert McFarland\nEric Schatmeier\nMembers Absent:\nJeff Knoth\nMichael Krueger\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Program Specialist II\nChair Knox White requested that Item 6A be addressed immediately because of the number of\npublic speakers.\n6A.\nREVIEW ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMEND BUS STOP LOCATION ON\nOTIS DRIVE AND REVISIT COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY\nCUNCIL TO ADPT AC TRANSIT BOARD'S BUS STOP POLICY.\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report.\nBus Stop Location - Otis Drive. At the last meeting in May, the Commission made a\nrecommendation that the City Council adopt AC Transit's bus stop policy, but did not comment\non the merits of specific bus stop locations on Otis Drive. Because of the public interest in this\nissue, the PW Director has since requested that the Commission make a recommendation about a\nspecific location for the stop. Staff Bergman reviewed the background of the issue, and noted that\nsome of the major considerations were the impacts on the neighborhood such as removal of on-\nstreet parking, street trees, opposition from adjacent property owners, sign clutter, potential\nconflict with street furniture, the need for new crosswalks, availability of lighting, presence of\ntraffic control devices, availability of ramps, etc.\nStaff assessed the possible locations in that area and assumed that bus stops would be in position\nat Otis and Willow, which had not gone through the process yet. He described the spacing,\nsignage, street furniture, crosswalk, striping, visibility and tree removal issues at the\nintersections. Staff requested that the Commission recommend a location for a bus stop at one of\nthe listed locations.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-10-25", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Knox White inquired whether the neighboring property owners had been notified of this\ndiscussion meeting.\nStaff Bergman noted that at this time, there was no proposal to actually install anything at those\nlocations, and that the standard noticing procedure had been followed.\nChair Knox White did not feel comfortable moving forward with this item without hearing from\nthe residents at these locations. He suggested that the discussion be refocused on Otis Drive at\nSandcreek Way, and whether or not there were other, better options; the discussion may be\nrescheduled for November after taking public comment.\nCommissioner Ratto inquired when and why the bus stop was abandoned.\nAudience member responded that it was abandoned in February 2005 because of safety issues.\nPublic Comment\nElmer Garlitz, 1511 Pacific, noted that he has worked as a crossing guard at Otis and Sandcreek\nWay for Lum School, and that he was totally opposed to a bus stop anywhere near Sandcreek\nWay and Otis Drive. He believed it would create a safety problem for the crossing guards in\ngetting the children across the street, and noted that it would be very difficult to hold the children\nuntil the bus went by. He believed the bus should be held to allow the children to cross. He\nbelieved the bus stop as proposed would create a safety hazard because the bus stop sign was\nplaced in such a position that the bus stops right on top of the crosswalk, thereby blocking the\nview of oncoming traffic from either direction from behind the bus, requiring the crossing guard\nto step into the path of oncoming traffic without being seen until he or she clears the body of the\nbus. Since the average traffic speed is about 30 mph, this would mean that a driver could not\nsafely stop the vehicle in time to avoid striking a pedestrian using the crosswalk. He would like\nto see changes in the current signage.\nBarbara Nemer suggested that this bus stop would be a mistake, and noted that two children had\nbeen hit at Franklin Elementary the previous week. She did not understand why a bus stop that\nhad been removed for safety purposes would be reconsidered. She noticed that there were no red\ncurbs in other areas of Alameda where bus stops were located.\nDiane Voss cited an article in the Alameda Journal of September 5 2006, which referred to the\ncrossing guards as \"sentinels of safety.\" She urged the Commission to listen carefully to the\nopinions of the crossing guards, who had been consistent in their opinion that a bus stop at Otis\nDrive and Sandcreek Way would be unsafe. She had been told the red curb was to prevent people\nfrom parking or stopping there to keep the visibility at the crosswalk open, not so a bus stop\ncould be placed there. She believed that the spreadsheet's statement that no additional signage\nwas required at Otis and Sandcreek was incorrect, and that it would have to be put up for the bus\nalone. She noted that the sheet did not mention the children who use the crosswalk at Otis and\nSandcreek. She believed that a bus stop at either location would not have children crossing every\nday at their respective locations. She noted that the children would be at Otis and Sandcreek, not\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-10-25", "page": 3, "text": "at Otis and Pond or Otis and Sandalwood. She believed that a bus stop at this location would\nhave a far great potential for a pedestrian accident than the other two listed on the spreadsheet.\nShe believed that safety should be the primary issue, and urged the Commission not to allow the\nbus stop to be reinstalled at Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way.\nMarilyn Teploe agreed with the previous speakers' statements, and noted that her driveway was\nlocated right at the crosswalk. She noted that the red curb was there when she moved in six years\nago, and that it was not put there because of the bus. She believed it was put there for the safety\nof the schoolchildren, and added that she also did not have parking in front of her house. She\nwould be in favor of a bus stop in the vicinity of Pond Isle.\nLiz Cleves noted that there were skid marks at the crosswalk at Otis and Sandcreek, which was of\nconcern to her. She agreed with the other speakers that it was a very dangerous crosswalk, and\nwas extremely concerned that a bus would block a driver's view of children in the crosswalk.\nShannon Nicholson, 2122 Santa Clara Avenue, noted that she had also seen the skid marks and\nuses extreme caution in that area. She agreed with the previous speakers, and cited AC Transit's\nBoard Policy #508 that \"the ultimate decision for placement of a bus stop is made by the\njurisdiction in which the stop is located. The bus stop must also be convenient to the places\nwhere passengers wish to go.\" She questioned how many passengers wish to go to the area near\nOtis and Sandcreek Way. She believed that a midblock bus stop directly in front of a crosswalk\nused primarily by children would not be in the best interest of AC Transit or the City of\nAlameda, and would definitely not be in the best interest of the children and other pedestrians.\nClosed Public Comment\nChair Knox White inquired how many buses travel through the area during school; at what times\nwere they scheduled to go through; and what was the usage of the stop.\nNathan Landau, AC Transit noted that with the number of buses going through the area, that bus\nran every 30 minutes, with one in each direction.\nStaff Bergman noted that the stop was in usage for a very short time, and data from AC Transit\non that stop was not available. The stop had been there for one year or less.\nCommissioner Ratto inquired whether the Police Department had changed their opinion on the\nbus stop's safety issue.\nStaff Bergman replied that they had not heard anything.\nChair Knox White was glad to hear the public's comments on this issue, and noted that the\nquestion was not whether there should be a bus stop, but where it should be located. He noted\nthat if safety was a compelling issue at this stop, as the residents believe, he believed the other\ntwo should be examined more closely. He would like to hear staff's assessment of the safety\nissues, and whether a crosswalk at one of the other two alternatives would have adequate\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-10-25", "page": 4, "text": "visibility. He would entertain a motion to bring this item back in November in order to discuss\nthe validity of selecting another site for this stop.\nCommissioner Schatmeier would support a bus stop located somewhere, but did not want the\nconclusion to be that there would be no bus stop located anywhere.\nStaff Khan expressed concern about the proximity of establishing additional crosswalks at\nadjacent intersections, and recommended channelizing pedestrians toward the existing crosswalk\nat Sandcreek Way. He indicated that the concerns of the crossing guards could be addressed by\nworking with staff and AC Transit.\nCommissioner Ratto moved to eliminate the possibility of putting a bus stop at Otis Drive and\nSandcreek Way, to agendize looking at Sandalwood Isle and Pond Isle at the November meeting,\nand to instruct staff to do the appropriate noticing. Commissioner McFarland seconded. Motion\npassed unanimously, [4-0].\nRevisit Commission Recommendation to City Council to Adopt AC Transit Board's Bus Stop\nPolicy\nStaff Bergman summarized the staff report, and noted that bus stop spacing recommendations\nwere fairly consistent within the City's current transit plan, which was a range of 800-1300 feet\nfor local routes. He noted that the 63 was considered a local route. Staff was concerned that there\nwere some provisions in the policy that were not applicable to the City, and this might be better\nhandled as part of the Transit Plan Update through the TMP. Staff recommended that in terms of\nspacing, until the TMP is amended, that the City use the existing Transit Plan's guidelines of\napproximately 1000 feet.\nStaff Khan noted that AC Transit policy was more focused on a service-oriented approach, in\nterms of how to provide and improve service. He noted that the examination of crosswalks and\npedestrian ramps were not addressed in the AC Transit policy; that was another reason that staff\nrecommended that when the TMP was looked at as a whole, all those concerns could be\naddressed to be more consistent with the rest of the TMP policy.\nPublic Comment\nThere were no speakers.\nClosed Public Comment\nChair Knox White noted that the long-range transit plan for the TMP would probably be worked\non within two to three years, and agreed with staff that this would be a great time to work on\nthese issues. He believed there may have been a lack of clarity regarding the current City plan\nregarding the guidelines.\nStaff Khan inquired whether the Chair was recommending that this be taken to the Planning\nBoard and City Council to be adopted as a policy; at this time, it is a recommended policy.\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-10-25", "page": 5, "text": "APPROVAL OF MINUTES\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to accept the approval of the September 27, 2006 minutes.\nCommissioner Ratto seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nThere were none.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Knox White noted that he had attended the previous City Council meeting, and that they\nhad supported the Transportation Commission's seven recommended policies. Staff Khan would\npresent the details of that meeting.\n7A.\nREVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON DRAFT FUNCTIONAL\nCLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONCEPTS.\nStaff Khan presented the staff report on this item, and noted that it would be part of the\nTransportation Master Plan and the Multimodal Circulation Plan.\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-10-25", "page": 6, "text": "Mark Spencer, Principal, DKS Associates, Oakland, made the presentation on this item, and\ndescribed the scope and goals of the Draft Functional Classification System. He noted that the\nthree main classifications were arterial, collector and local streets. He noted that Caltrans follows\nthe functional classification system put forth by the FHWA, and that any municipality must\nfollow that system to qualify for federal funding. He noted that Denver used a multimodal\napproach based on surrounding street context and land use, and they created five new street\ntypes: residential, main, mixed use, commercial and industrial. He displayed those street types on\nthe overhead screen and described their functions. Austin, Texas, used a \"great streets plan,\"\nwhich promoted streets as public places, and they accepted congestion as part of success. He\nnoted that most cities were not trying to achieve every one of their objectives with every kind of\nstreet concept; some streets will accept more congestion and lower service levels in exchange for\na vibrant, multimodal, multifunctional, pedestrian-dominant street. They instituted several new\nstreet types: pedestrian-dominant, bike and local access, mixed mode, commuter, rapid transit\n(with no on-street parking). He noted that a mixed mode street was designed to serve slow-\nmoving vehicles accessing the street frontage uses, and discouraged any kind of through traffic\nby design. A four-foot safe zone for parking access and bicycle room was also included, similar\nto the bike lane on Santa Clara Street. He noted that pavement treatment was also used for\ncrosswalks, parking and safe zones.\nHe noted that the 25 mph concept was used in Denver and Austin, and that Austin used narrow\nlanes, on-street parking and \"commuter streets.\" Palo Alto used landscaped medians, curbs,\nnarrow travel lanes, curb extensions and 25 mph limits; they used physical changes to the street\nto force the slow speed. Santa Cruz was the only city using the term \"enforcement\" with respect\nto the speed limit. Traffic calming is consistent with the bulbouts and curb extensions. Santa\nCruz has gateway issues from Highways 1, 9 and 17. Portland did not specifically address\ngateway issues in their street classifications. He requested input and direction from the\nCommission.\nPublic Comment\nThere were no speakers.\nClosed Public Comment\nChair Knox White wanted more clarification on where they were in the process, and what the\nnext step would be. He also thought that the Commission would start from the work done by the\nCirculation Task Force as a base going forward; he was surprised to find that was not mentioned\nin this report. He believed that they had already laid out what they were looking for, and noted\nthat he liked the grids and believed they were easy to understand.\nCommissioner Schatmeier was gratified to learn that the City was not tied into the arterial\nformat, and that other cities had also used unorthodox ways of defining their streets without\njeopardizing funding. He was surprised to find that was not mentioned in the report.\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-10-25", "page": 7, "text": "Staff Khan noted that this was an initial draft item, and would come back to the Commission in\nNovember or December with more detail.\nMark Spencer noted that they did not want to bring a finished product to the Commission before\nit was able to comment on it.\nChair Knox White hoped that at the next meeting, they would be able to go back to the work they\nhave already done, and to see how the report mirrors that. He liked the comments regarding\nlandscaping.\nMark Spencer noted that information from a subcommittee of the Transportation Commission\nwas used as a starting point for developing the City's street classification system.\nChair Knox White noted that even Alameda's commercial streets were residential in character,\nand that he believed the classifications identified those characteristics. He liked the goals stated\nby the City of Austin.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that with respect to the classification exercise, he felt somewhat\nconstrained because they did not have extensive knowledge about what could be done, without\njeopardizing funding for improvements. Having seen this document, he was relieved that there\nwould be a variety of ways of treating classification systems that did not jeopardize funding; if\nhe had known they had that flexibility at the time, perhaps they would have been able to exercise\nmore imagination in that regard.\nChair Knox White noted that he would entertain a motion to accept the findings and use the\npreviously defined Task Force classifications as a guideline for the type of plan the Commission\nwould like to see.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to accept the findings and use the previously defined Task\nForce classifications as a guideline for the type of plan for the multimodal plan, including the\nSanta Cruz street classification names, and the type of information contained in the Denver plan\nin terms of how the classifications and overlays affect the streets as a whole. Commissioner Ratto\nseconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.\nChair Knox White suggested that the Commission address the Shuttle Study next to\naccommodate the public speakers.\n7C.\nREVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON INITIAL FINDINGS OF\nWEST END SHUTTLE STUDY\nStaff Bergman noted that the consultant, John Atkinson, would present his preliminary findings\nto date, and added that this would be rolled into the TSM/TDM plan and Transit Plan within the\nTMP. He noted that Mr. Atkinson had considerable experience operating local shuttle systems,\nand would bring real-world experience to this matter.\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-10-25", "page": 8, "text": "John Atkinson noted that the tasks had not followed in a chronological order and that they used a\ngeneric, multimodal method to look at the hubbing from the 12th Street BART station to the\nFerry Terminal, and in looking at services within a 10-12 mile perimeter of those hubs. They also\nlooked at various vehicle types and scenarios of operation. His recommendation to staff was that\nthe City not become involved directly in transportation operations, and that they look at some\ntype of turnkey method for logistic, legal and operational concerns. He added that it would be\nbetter to hire a contract for that service. He noted that he could see the City initially needing to\nclose the gap until the second or third phase was underway.\nChair Knox White inquired what the initial goal was. John Atkinson replied that it was to look at\nestablishing a viable multimodal link between BART and the Ferry to the areas of development\nout on the West End.\nA discussion of ridership in other cities and City funding ensued.\nCommissioner Schatmeier inquired whether the City had a policy about contracting for services\nof this type. He recalled that AC Transit used to have a policy about not contracting out for\nservices. John Atkinson replied that there were private shuttles not operated under AC Transit.\nHe noted that historically, AC Transit has not used a private contractor, with the exception of the\nEast Bay Paratransit Consortium. He described the low-fare and no-fare zones, and noted that it\nwas postulated that there would be service sufficient to allow people to live in the development\nwithout an automobile; that service would be more frequent than every 30 minutes.\nChair Knox White noted that the Commission would provide a range of scenarios to City\nCouncil. He was surprised to see AC Transit not mentioned as a possible operator, and he agreed\nwith Commissioner Krueger's idea of adding new transit systems that not only compete, but are\nanother system for people to use. He believed that part of the plan needs to address how it fits\ninto any perceived West End transit service that exists, or will exist, as the development goes\nforward.\nJohn Atkinson noted that they should coordinate whatever service would be proposed with what\nAC Transit currently proposes so they did not compete for ridership and detract from each\nother's services. He added that if AC Transit was interested in bidding on the project, they\nshould be included as one of the potential operators.\nCommissioner Ratto noted that following the discussion between the City and AC Transit, it may\nbe that the City's service may best serve the West End.\nJohn Atkinson noted that this would tie in with the TSM/TDM plan, and that it would incorporate\nother programs in the West End.\nNo action was taken.\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-10-25", "page": 9, "text": "7B.\nRECONCILING OF TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDED\nPOLICIES FOR REVIEWING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS (EIRs)\nWITH THE PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION MASTER\nPLAN (TMP) POLICIES.\nStaff Khan presented the staff report and summarized the discussion from the City Council\nmeeting. Staff recommends to the Transportation Commission to assign the task of examining\nthe seven policies, and to provide a recommendation during the November meeting. The City\nCouncil had approved the process for a General Plan Amendment, and for staff to move forward\nwith the updating of the Transportation Element of the General Plan. During the discussion on\nOctober 17, the Council raised issues relating to the seven new policies, particularly Policy 7\nregarding the congestion that could be acceptable within the City at certain locations and\nintersections. City Council comments related to this policy were very specific, and that it may\nneed some language revisions. According to the City Council minutes, Council directed that\nPolicy 7 be rewritten. Staff prepared some discussion points to be considered by the\nTransportation Commission, and that if Policy 7 were to be expanded in terms of providing\nguidance regarding how the City would address acceptable congestion levels. Also, the\nimplementation of the policy during the review process and the threshold would be considered.\nStaff Khan noted that staff also recommended allowable impacts to pedestrians, bicycles and\ntransit be verified due to increasing congestion. Staff also recommends accepting increasing\nqueues at intersections, as a result of increasing congestion. He noted that the next item was to\nestablish quantifiable impacts to the emergency response times. Increasing congestion may\nincrease the emergency response times, so there may be some kind of a threshold that should be\nestablished for policy guidance. He stated that the last item was a quantifiable level of service for\ndifferent modes of transportation that are required at congested locations and intersections. City\nCouncil also approved that policies 1 through 6 be used as guidelines until the General Plan is\namended. Council also indicated that if those guidelines were to be followed, there may be some\nconflicts with the existing General Plan. City Council has asked the Transportation Commission\nto examine and address any potential conflicts so the guidelines may be used until the General\nPlan policies are adopted. He distributed a list of items prepared by staff to the Commissioners.\nChair Knox White noted that he would look at the items, and would suggest that the\nsubcommittee do the same, but did not believe that the City Council asked the Transportation\nCommission to develop a list of conflicts and their solutions. He noted that they said they would\nuse the guidelines, and noted that staff may identify where they conflicted directly with the\nGeneral Plan. He noted that if the City Council minutes stated that, they did not reflect the\ndiscussion that was held at the end of that hour the previous week. He would review the video to\nconfirm his assessment. He noted that it would not be practical for him to read through the\nGeneral Plan to identify conflicts, and that if staff found conflicts, he would be willing to discuss\nit further at the November meeting. He stated that he respectfully believed that staff is attempting\nto fight the EIR policies.\nStaff Khan stated that it was not the intention to ask the Commissioners to create or provide the\nthresholds to staff. Staff was attempting to follow City Council's direction with respect to\nclarifying language.\n9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-10-25", "page": 10, "text": "8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nA discussion of the packet preparation timeline and meeting schedules ensued. It was decided\nthat the Circulation Subcommittee would meet by November 8 to follow up on Item 7B, and to\nallow it to fit into the Alameda Landing schedule.\nMeeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.\n10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf"}