{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting\nWednesday, April 25, 2007\nConference Room 360, City Hall\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:04 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nChair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioners Rosenberg and\nWolfe\nCommissioner Cervantes was absent.\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nDouglas Vu, Planner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary\n3.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the Regular Meeting of February 28, 2007\nChair Huston motioned to approve the minutes for the meeting of February 28, 2007, as\namended.\nCommissioner Wolfe seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 4\n[Absent: Commissioner Cervantes - 1]\nMinutes for the Regular Meeting of March 28, 2007\nVice-Chair Lee motioned to approve the minutes for the meeting of March 28, 2007, as\namended.\nCommissioner Wolfe seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 4\n[Absent: Commissioner Cervantes - 1]\n4.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA:\nA. Approval of Meeting Calendar for 2007 - Tabled, continued to Meeting\nOf May 23, 2007\nB. Rhythmix Cultural Works Public Art Proposal - Applicant: Cal Vita\nJanet Koike reminded the Board of the grand opening scheduled for June 2, 2007 and\nmentioned some of the acts that will be performing at the Arts Center.\nChair Huston asked how the public art portion is separate from the rest of the regular\nactivities planned for the organization. Her question specifically was, \"How is the art\npublic?\" What part is going to be accessible to the public and how will it be accessible?\nThe Commission discussed many options for fulfilling the public art obligation.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 2, "text": "Continued to Meeting of May 23, 2007\nC. Alameda Towne Centre History Panels - Tad Savinar\nMr. Savinar gave an update of the progress of the art installation at Alameda Towne\nCenter.\nMr. John Larson spoke about the panels being installed at Alameda Towne Centre. He\ndescribed the panels and talked about the frustrating work behind them.\nChair Huston expressed sympathy for his frustration.\nCommissioner Rosenberg spoke to the requirements and felt that the Commission could\nnot impose \"diversity' requirements for artwork.\nCommissioner Wolfe mentioned the economic disparity and that some people had\ncameras and could take pictures, some of which would end up in the pictorial record.\nMr. Larson mentioned that the people with farms didn't have cameras and didn't take\npictures therefore there is little or no record of the diversity of Alameda.\nMr. Savinar asked what they were envisioning so he could respond to the request.\nCommissioner Wolfe responded by saying that a short description of the project and\nartist would be helpful.\nMr. Chuck Millar expressed concern that the Commission was unfairly criticizing the\npanels.\nThe Commission clarified that it is their job to ask questions of the artists to make sure\nthey consider all possibilities when creating a public art project.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nMeeting adjourned at 8:48 pm\nRespectfully submitted,\nDouglas Vu, Secretary\nPublic Art Commission", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nApril 25, 2007\nChair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.\nMembers Present:\nMichael Krueger\nRobert McFarland\nActing Chair Robb Ratto\nEric Schatmeier\nSrikat Subramanium\nAbsent:\nJeff Knoth\nJohn Knox White\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\nEric Fonstein, Development Coordinator\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nMarch 28, 2007\nCommissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes as presented. Commissioner\nSchatmeier seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0, with Commissioner Subramaniam\nand Commissioner McFarland abstaining.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\na.\nMultimodal Circulation Plan\nNo meeting had been held since the last report.\nb.\nPedestrian Plan\nNo meeting had been held since the last report.\nc.\nTSM/TDM Plan\nNo meeting had been held since the last report.\n5.\nOral Communications - Non-Agendized Items", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 2, "text": "None.\n6.\nOld Business\nNone.\n7.\nNew Business\n7A.\nOptions for Routing and Stop Locations on AC Transit Line 63 Between the Intersections\nof Otis Drive at Grand Street and Whitehall Road at Willow Street\nOutcome: TC to provide direction to staff regarding alternatives to be analyzed and\nappoint subcommittee to work with staff.\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report, and summarized the background and scope of this item.\nThe Commission had recommended that bus stops be installed on Otis Drive at the intersection\nof Pond Isle; that decision was appealed. On March 6, 2007, the City Council reviewed that\nappeal and directed the Commission to exhaust all options for other stop locations, as well as the\npotential rerouting of the 63 onto Shoreline Drive, where it previously operated. The staff report\nalso includes information presented by AC Transit, which was read to the Commission at the last\nmeeting, discussing some other issues on Line 63 to provide a broader context for this\ndiscussion. Currently, Line 63 operates on a very tight schedule.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the school routes could be considered part of the\ndiscussion, and asked whether it would be possible to serve the school, and cut that part out of\nthe 63 route in order to save running time for a net savings or neutral effect. Staff Bergman noted\nthat generally, staff would consider if other routes could be altered, too. He understood that most\nof the routes also operate on very tight schedules.\nOpen public comment.\nPeter Muzio believed that a bus stop at Lum School was a bad idea, which he had previously\nexpressed at the City Council meeting. He distributed a letter to the Commission that he had\nwritten in opposition to the stop.\nActing Chair Ratto noted that could be done at the end of the public comment. He noted that a\ndecision would not be made at this hearing.\nKevin Dong noted that he was a homeowner at Otis and Willow, and noted that after attending\nthe City Council meeting, he realized there must be a balance between ridership and run time. He\nnoted that Shoreline had more population density. He questioned the data by AC Transit stating\nthat there was more ridership on the new route, and inquired whether it was because of\npopulation growth or the new stop at Whitehall improving the ridership. He noted that the\nproposed Alameda Landing stop would add 10 minutes to the run time, and that it made this a\nnonissue. He suggested putting the bus stops where they were wanted or needed, rather than\nworrying about two or three minutes of run time.\nSusan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, noted that there were tradeoffs, and that it was\nalready difficult for people to get to the hospital because of the reroute to Shoreline. She noted\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 3, "text": "that Shoreline had poor sidewalks on the beach side. She hoped the reroute would not negatively\nimpact elderly people. She noted that wherever the route goes, she hoped that good stop spacing\nwould be retained in accordance with the transit plan's guidelines.\nLiz Cleves noted that she was grateful that AC Transit and Public Works was looking at this route\nso thoroughly. She concurred that the stops at Whitehall and Willow near a convalescent home\ninadequate. She noted that between Park and Grand, there was a greater density of people on\nShoreline compared with the same cross streets on Otis. She distributed an aerial photo of those\nstreets, and believed the stops should be near riders, and not based on run time.\nDiane Voss believed that Line 63 should be removed from the Town Centre, which is already\nbecoming congested. She noted that passengers carrying packages take longer to board a bus.\nShe stated that the congestion would also bring unsafe conditions due to impatient drivers, and\nadded that run time would be saved by not going through the center itself. She stated that\nShoreline is a better location for the route, as it would serve the Hall of Justice and the post\noffice. She said that Lum Elementary students would not use the bus.\nGeoff Kline noted that he was disappointed that the report did not discuss ridership, nor was\nsafety addressed. He noted that run times and driver breaks were certainly important, but not at\nthe expense of those two items.\nAdrienne Langley-Cook, Commission on Disabilities, noted that the Post Office had no sidewalk\nnear the bus stop, and that the crosswalks were not totally defined on Shoreline. She believed a\ncrosswalk near the Albertson's would be very valuable and would increase access to Town\nCentre. She would like to see a wider sidewalk near Shoreline to accommodate seniors and the\ndisabled.\nKathi Young noted that she lived at Shoreline and Willow, which meant a long walk to get to the\nbus. She noted that the stop at Whitehall and Willow was inadequate for disabled access, and that\nit was dangerous and ill-lit. She believed there should be public transportation along that street,\nand added that there were some turns at Alameda Point that did not seem to go anywhere.\nClosed public comment.\nCommissioner Krueger requested that AC Transit speak to the ridership issue, and added that no\nAC Transit service actually made money.\nSean Diest Lorgion, AC Transit, said that they wish to provide service to higher density areas.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired how much the ridership might increase, and whether there was\nany ridership from the lagoon homes that would be lost. Mr. Diest Lorgion noted that the current\nbus stop was at Willow and Whitehall, which would still be used if the route went on Shoreline;\nno bus stops would be lost. He was concerned about possibly removing service from South\nShore.\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Krueger inquired how much additional fare box revenue the new routing would\nbring in. Mr. Diest Lorgion estimated it would be about 25 extra riders a day at an average fare of\n70 cents, which would not pay for itself. He noted that the current route has about 1800\npassengers a day, and that an extra 25 passengers per day was a small addition.\nStaff Khan noted that 25 riders per day would add approximately $6800 annually at 70 cents\naverage fare, while the annual cost of operating a bus is at least $300,000 a year.\nActing Chair Ratto requested that the letters be read into the record by Staff Bergman:\nSubmitted by Chair John Knox White: \"The Line 63 is already not meeting the needs of its\ncurrent riders. The delays on the line have created a sporadic and unpredictable service, causing\nusability to diminish. Before any changes in routing are considered for a specific portion of the\nline, priority needs to be given to providing Alamedans with a service that meets its schedule.\nThis means removing up to four minutes of run time, or adding another bus. Given AC Transit's\ncurrent finances and current proposed losses from the State totally $7 million this year, and $5\nmillion a year in perpetuity thereafter, increase in the operational cost of the line by 25% should\nonly be considered if service cuts elsewhere will not take place. If staff's comment is correct,\nother service improvements in Alameda, such as extending the Line 51 to Fruitvale should be\nidentified for what the additional $300-500,000 could provide.\n\"Line 63 already makes an incredibly circuitous route, making the line difficult to use for riders\nheading to Oakland from west of Webster Street. Adding run time should only be done in\nconnection with the implementation of other service efficiencies. With regards to Otis versus\nShoreline, AC Transit should identify the ridership potential for both Otis routing of the Line W\nand Shoreline routing of the Line 63. It makes sense that the same routing should be used for the\ntwo lines. We should know the ridership potential for all lines on both streets. We need to be\naware of the cost effectiveness of the switch if it entails adding another bus to the route. Staff\nshould determine if the additional ridership can offset adding an additional bus. At an annual fare\nbox recovery of $875 per full-fare, five day a week rider, 342 new daily riders would be needed\nto fully recover an additional bus.\n\"Staff should consider a two-phase approach if additional operational efficiencies cannot be\nfound to make identified switches. Phase One: Keep the existing routing, install stops as per TC\nrecommendation, and reduce overall runtime to meet schedule needs. Phase Two: Integrate\nAlameda Landing transit needs with Line 63, look at bifurcating the two lines in order to reduce\nscheduled run times to both west end and east end lines, and making routing changes identified\nat that time.\"\nReceived from Ursula Apel: \"Dear Members of the City Council and Transportation\nCommission: I was delighted to hear of plans to install a new Line 63 bus stop on Otis Drive\nnear Lum School. My husband and I live on Kitty Hawk Road, so our closest stop now is the one\nat Whitehall and Willow, which has no sidewalk on the north side, and no marked crosswalk on\nWhitehall. I am in my 70s, and like many senior citizens, I find it much easier to carry groceries\nand other purchases home if I can take a bus for as much of my trip as possible. If there were a\nstop at Lum School, I would have only a short walk to my home, and a stop at Pond Isle would\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 5, "text": "also be convenient for me and for others in my neighborhood who live on Yorkshire, Greenbriar\nand other streets. Several of my neighbors who ride the bus do not speak English very well, so\nI\nhave agreed to speak for them. One suffers from cancer, and has lost the use of her arms, so she\nis unable to drive. My husband also cannot drive, but he enjoys going to the coffee shops at the\nshopping center. Due to his heart problems, he has to walk slowly and rest often. Taking the bus\nwould allow him to get there faster, while still walking the short distance to the stop, which\nwould be good for his health.\n\"I know that people who live on Otis have their own concerns about parking and other issues, but\na good system of bus stops and sidewalks is an asset to the whole community. I used to take the\n63 when it ran on Shoreline, and the bus stops there were not the best. When I stepped off the\nbus, my feet would sink into the sand because there is no sidewalk on the beach side. I don't\nthink a wheelchair could use these stops safely. Although putting the 63 back on Shoreline would\nmake it convenient for the many people who live on that street, I ask that you please not do so\nunless a more stable surface can be provided for people getting on and off the bus. Whatever the\nCity decides about the best locations for 63 stops, I hope you remember how important it is for\ncitizens to have access to public transportation. That means not only providing frequent stops,\nbut also ensuring that well-kept, usable sidewalks and other walkways lead to those stops. The\nelderly, disabled, and many other depend on having good bus stops close to us.\"\nReceived from Peter Muzio: \"After reviewing the notes posted online concerning this agenda\nitem, I noted that 27 people had actually taken the time to write and/or attend meetings here at\nCity Hall. All of the 27 people are opposed to adding any bus stops to Otis Drive between\nWillow and Grand. However, the City is for either one or two additional bus stops. By reading\nthe online file notes, it is apparent that an unidentified person on City staff, for reasons unknown,\nreally wants a bus stop at Lum School. City staff indicated initially that a bus stop at Lum School\nwould be approximately halfway between the existing bus stops at Grand and Willow. To that\nend, the Transportation Committee [sic.] was tasked with evaluating the situation. They\ndetermined that Lum School is not centered between Grand and Willow, so they recommended a\nbus stop be installed near Ivy Walk. This located would be approximately centered between the\nexisting bus stops at Grand and Willow. As this I'd not coincide with the wishes of the City staff,\nCity staff requested that two sets of bus stops be installed so they could still get the desired stop\nat Lum School. So the score is one big (City staff) vote for two bus stops, one medium\n(Transportation Commission) vote for one bus stop, and 27 little (residents along Otis Drive)\nvotes against additional bus stops. At the City Council meeting on March 6, 2007, additional\npeople (parents of children attending Lum School) spoke against the reinstallation of the bus\nstops at Lum School.\n\"Having just reviewed the additional run time and cost information provided in advance of the\nApril 25, 2007, Transportation Commission meeting, it is apparent that barring a magical funding\nsource, the 63 bus line needs to cut the number of bus stops along its route, not increase the\nnumber of stops.\n\"As you already know, people at the Willow (east) end of the subject area who do not want an\nadditional bus stop because City Councils do not require builders to provide sufficient off-street\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 6, "text": "parking at multiple unit buildings, and therefore, they really need to on-street parking spaces. I'm\nsure they will tell you they are well-served by the existing bus stop at Willow and Whitehall.\n\"Otis Drive is a wide street with limited access. Between Willow and Grand, only Sand Creek\nWay intersects it on the south side, and Sand Creek does not go south to the beach. The \"isles\"\nwhich intersect on the north side are all one-block, dead-end cul de sacs. It is natural for people\nto drive fast on Otis than they would on a narrower street or a street with cross streets every\nblock. This is why visibility is so important to pedestrians. The people near the proposed Lum\nSchool location are seriously concerned about pedestrian safety is a bus stop is placed such that it\nblocks the visibility of oncoming traffic. The proposed bus stop location in front of 1815 Otis is\non the wrong side of the crosswalk. Ditto the proposed eastbound stop. This is the reason there\nhas been so much opposition to this bus stop.\n\"Safety problem #1: It is safer to have bus stops located where cross streets and crosswalks are\nlocated at the rear of the bus, rather than in front of the bus. This allows pedestrians to see\noncoming traffic, and traffic to see the pedestrians. The proposed bus stops at Lum School have\nthe megabuck crosswalk in front of the bus. This is the least safe location. People exiting the bus\nwill be drawn to the front of the bus to cross the street. Some of the correspondents on this\nsubject suggest that the crossing guards will prevent people from crossing the street while the\nbus is present. They fail to consider that the school is in session 185 days out of 365 days, and\nonly from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. This is a small percentage of the bus schedule. This crosswalk is used\nby residents in the area, as well as kids that use the playground facilities when school is not in\nsession, as well as kids and adults that use Rittler Park on weekends and during the summer. The\nbus stop should be located where they are safe all day and all year. It is ridiculous to use an\nexisting red curb for a bus stop when the red curb is there to ensure visibility for the people using\nthe crosswalk. You have spent a fortune on this crosswalk. If you had gone to the trouble of\npreventing cars and SUVs from parking there, 24/7/365, ever since the crosswalk was installed,\nthen you don't want a bus to park there, either. You want people to cross the street behind the\nbus, and not in front of the bus.\n\"Safety problem #2: The proposed bus stops at Lum School are in a very complex traffic area.\nthere are three houses between Sandalwood Isle and Waterview Isle on the north side of Otis.\nThis is a short block, not a long block. Sand Creek Way and the Lum School dropoff lane\nintersect Otis on the south side between Sandalwood and Waterview. Add in a supercrosswalk\nwhich does not align with any of the four intersections, and you can imagine that cars are coming\nfrom all directions at the same time. All cars from these four intersections must turn onto Otis, as\nnone go straight across. Having the crossing guards not let pedestrians cross while the bus is\npresent is great for the pedestrians, but does nothing for the autos that are coming from each\nother from all directions. When the children are arriving at school in the morning, and leave in\nthe afternoon, there are many vehicles parking on all nearby side streets, as well as in every\navailable space on Otis, and every available space in the Lum School dropoff lane. Cars are\nturning onto and back out of Sandalwood Isle and Waterview Isle, and also entering Otis from\nthe dropoff lane in Sandcreek Way. It is heavily congested. The supercrosswalk is in the middle\nof this very confused traffic pattern. Adding a bus to the mix only exacerbates the congestion and\nlimits the visibility.\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 7, "text": "\"The City of Alameda has put a great deal of effort into making pedestrian crossings as safe as\npossible. Do not take a step backwards!\n\"Although there are ramps located at the supercrosswalk at Otis, there are unrecognized ADA\nproblems with putting a bus at Lum School. The only reason to place a bus stop on Otis at\nWillow and Grand is to attract riders. There are no cross streets in this area. North of Otis are\none-block dead-end cul de sacs with low-density, single-family houses. South of Otis are four\nblocks of housing: two blocks of single family, and two blocks of medium-density apartments\nand condos. The bulk of the potential riders reside south of Otis. To get to Otis from the south,\nthere are two routes: One is Ivy Walk, which leads directly to Otis. The other is Snowberry Walk\nwhich leads you into the back of Lum School, then along a driveway through the Lum School\ngrounds to Sandcreek Way, approximately one block distance, then along Sandcreek Way for one\nblock to Otis.\n\"ADA Problem #1: When school is not in session, there is a chain attached with a padlock across\nthe driveway through Lum School. I can step over the chain, but a handicapped person cannot.\nYou will have to tell the principal at Lum School to stop using the chain. Whatever the reason the\nchain serves will be eliminated. I do not know, but I suspect the chain reduces the likelihood of\nvandalism, as this driveway leads past the office entrance, which is not visible from the street or\nfrom the residences in the area. Also, as this parking lot is not visible from the street, and school\nis only in session during the day, and then only 185 days out of a 365 day year, the same reasons\nfor closing the gates to the parking lot at Crown Beach at sunset would be in play for limiting\naccess to this parking lot.\n\"ADA Problem #2: There is no ADA ramp to get up only the sidewalk on Sandcreek Way. My\nwife is disabled; we went to vote at Lum School last election. We used the supercrosswalk, but\nwhen we got to the area near the school office where the voting booths were located, there was\nno ADA ramp to get off the sidewalk to the driveway that leads to the office. This is the same\ndriveway that would be used by people cutting through the schoolyard to get to a bus stop,\nshould one be placed at Lum School.\n\"The City has indicated the building a bus stop at Ivy Walk would require painting and marking a\ncrosswalk. I pointed out that the crosswalk at Heather Walk and Heather Isle does not have a\npainted crossing. That is the very next bus stop west of Grand. However, I was informed that the\nregulations now require newly installed bus stops to have a marked crossing, and the Arlington\nIsle stop does not need a crossing because it is grandfathered in under the old regulations. I do\nnot believe that painting a crosswalk near Ivy Walk will encourage students at Lum School to\ncross Otis when they have the supercrosswalk at Lum School.\n\"To summarize: No one (other than an unnamed person on City staff) wants the bus stops. Shelve\nthis proposal, and revisit it someday if someone actually expresses a need for a bus stop and you\ncan buy the extra few minutes of run time that will be needed. And if you are absolutely\ncompelled to put in a stop, put it on the safe side of crosswalks and intersecting streets so that it\ndoes not interfere with the visibility needed by us old, gray-headed pedestrians crossing this\nheavily used street, and vehicles entering the traffic on Otis Drive. A stop at Ivy Walk would be\nmuch safer than a stop at Lum School or a stop at Willow. Sincerely, Peter Muzio.\"\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner McFarland noted that in addition to the bus routing and timing, there was an issue\nof needed sidewalk improvements at some of the bus stops. He would like staff and AC Transit\nto address those issues.\nActing Chair Ratto appreciated the comments about accessibility on Shoreline, and asked staff to\nspecifically to look into the Whitehall/Willow bus stop issue, particularly the poor condition of\nthe stop. He acknowledged the costs factored into every decision that must be made, and he\nadded that he had a great desire to serve on the subcommittee.\nIn response to a question by a member of the audience whether a resident could serve on the\nsubcommittee, Staff Khan noted that staff was considering doing a survey of residents and riders\nin that area. He believed a public workshop would be the perfect forum to define what the\nsubcommittee's scope would be, and suggested forming the subcommittee first. Staff intended to\nreturn in June. He noted that he was not sure if there was a precedent for a citizen serving on a\nsubcommittee, and Staff Bergman noted that some subcommittee hearings had been open to the\npublic.\nCommissioner Schatmeier would support a subcommittee, and noted that the issue of cutting\nrunning time had not yet been addressed. He agreed that the subcommittee would be the perfect\nvehicle to address those issues, and volunteered to serve on the subcommittee.\nCommissioner Krueger also volunteered to serve on the subcommittee.\nActing Chair Ratto noted that the subcommittee would work with staff and AC Transit, and\nwould like Liz Cleves to serve as a liaison between the community group and the subcommittee.\nLiz Cleves would like to nominate Diane Voss to serve because she was in school full-time.\nStaff Khan noted that staff would try to schedule a meeting for the following week.\nStaff Bergman noted that the public speakers' names have been added to the mailing list, and\ninvited other members of the public to leave their contact information.\nNo action was taken.\n7B.\nCitywide Curbside Bus Stop Access Action Plan\nOutcome: TC to reaffirm City 's practice of providing curbside access to bus stops and\nprovide guidance regarding flexibility in this practice. Discussion/Action\nStaff Bergman summarized the staff report, and added the City Council had directed the City\nManager to work with the Commission to develop a plan to provide unobstructed curbside access\nto all bus stops in Alameda. Most of that work had been completed, and there were some\nremaining that were still underway, and were brought to the Transportation Technical Team\n(TTT) in March 2007. He noted that there were a number of residents and businesses who\nobjected to the parking restrictions, generally with the impact on on-street parking. Staff wished\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 9, "text": "to bring the matter to the Transportation Commission to reaffirm the City's current practices\nregarding the provision of curbside access at bus stops, and to identify any areas where the\npolicy could be flexible. He noted that the objections raised at the TTT meeting included:\n1.\nA disabled resident indicated that having parking restrictions near his home would\nbe a hardship;\n2.\nA business owner stated that parking restrictions would harm his business;\n3.\nA church member talked about parking restrictions exacerbating existing parking\nshortages during church events;\n4.\nA resident stated that many parents use the on-street parking as they drop their\nchildren of at school.\nHe noted that most of the bus stop consolidation had been implemented, particularly on the 51,\nand that other lines could be revisited with respect to relocation or revisiting regarding potential\nproblems that they cause\nOpen public comment.\nStaff Bergman noted that Chair Knox White also submitted comments on this item:\n\"Where staff feels that neighborhoods have identified major constraints due to lost street parking,\nstaff level study and decision-making should be acceptable to see if existing City policy would\nallow for consolidation, stop move, etc. Recent changes to the bus stop placement policy allow\nfor more flexibility in placing stops, as was used in the recommendation for Otis. The City of\nAlameda maintains very stringent minimum parking standards for both residences and\nbusinesses. As such, before too much discussion is had about removing bus stops, these\nstandards and the usage of the mandated parking should be evaluated, or the City should get rid\nof the requirement.\n\"In residential areas, staff should also identify whether the City mandated parking for autos is\nbeing used as well, before studying major stop location redesign. Household garages used for\nstorage, etc., eat up a lot of onstreet parking as well. Perhaps a policy that neighborhoods do a\nparking study, looking at available off-street spots, use of those spots and other street uses should\nbe considered a first step. For those areas where a high percentage of off-street parking is being\nused for parking, then staff can determine if the removal of 2 to 3 spots will necessitate parkers\nto walk more than 100 feet, 10 percent of the bus rider maximum walk. If this is found to be the\ncase, then bus stop removal would be weighed as a measure of total daily ridership versus total\ndaily parking usage. Whichever is higher would represent the solution which maximizes\ncommunity benefit.\n\"In business districts - Park Street and Webster Street - have parking removed for stops already,\nand shops are doing well financially. Staff should try to accommodate parking needs in\nneighborhood business districts without removing stops. The Transportation Commission has\nhistorically supported transit in commercial areas.\"\n9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 10, "text": "Staff Bergman noted that an email was sent to him by a business owner who had spoken at the\nTTT meeting:\n\"We are owners of Wilmot's Books, a small independent bookstore that has been in existence on\nthe West Side of Alameda for the last year and a half. During that time, we have run a successful\nbusiness, despite being in a tough industry and being located a bit off the main business section\nof town. We've also been happy to become part of the community and a strong presence in the\nneighborhood for culture, literature and the arts, and most importantly, a place where people can\ncome and hang out and shop. We are located at 478 Central Avenue, which is the intersection of\n5th and Central Avenue, and is one of the locations that would possible be affected by the\nproposed changes in parking.\n\"While our business is successful, it is also quite vulnerable. The difference in our succeeding\nand encountering great challenges can be the difference of just a few customers each day. The\ndifference of a good day versus a bad day is directly linked to the parking in front of our store.\nWhile parking S already quite scarce in our neighborhood, the changes in parking would take\naway the three most important spots we have, which are directly in front of the store late in the\nafternoon. Since the changes proposed for directly across the street going in the opposite\ndirection affect the early morning, people living in the neighborhood would be more likely to\npark in front of our store in the evening. The net result is that we would lose our most important\nparking for over half the hours that our store is in operation.\n\"While we are very supportive of public transportation, we are also aware that a bus has never\nstopped to drop off anyone at this stop. The bus stop is not used, and certainly not needed. It is\nlocated two blocks from the school, so the students simply do not use this stop to be dropped off.\nIf a change is going to be discussed, it should be to get rid of this stop that causes nothing but\nconfusion. I cannot put it any simpler than this: If you choose to take away our parking, even for\njust a few hours at a time, you will force us to move, and we will need to shut down this store. It\nis my assumption that the City of Alameda would rather have an independent bookstore instead\nof parking for a bus stop that isn't used. Thank you for your consideration, Tim and Mary\nWilmot.\"\nStaff Bergman noted that the stop he referred to only serves one of the school lines, so the\nrestriction was only for the hours when that bus was in operation.\nJoyce Larrick, representing herself and Rebecca LeValley, who was unable to attend. She read\nMs. LeValley's comments:\n\"As a middle-aged and short bus rider, it is difficult enough climbing on and off some of the\nlarger cruise line-type buses currently in service without the added obstruction of winding\nthrough parked cars to get to the bus. I think the tragic accident in San Francisco yesterday where\na handicapped man was killed because a truck driver did not see his low silhouette in the\ncrosswalk highlights some of the potential dangers to bus riders trying to board buses through\nhigh-profile SUVs, etc. I cannot see the possible advantage to a business of having their\ncustomers frustrated by the inability to get in or out or a parking space blocked by a boarding or\ndischarging bus. Frustration leads to rash action and injuries. While we caution children against\n10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 11, "text": "chasing balls out into the street between parked cars, and now you want to send bus riders into\nthe same danger.\"\nMs. Larrick noted that following her involvement with Earth Day, she supported bus ridership to\nreduce pollution and congestion. She believed the City should encourage more people to use the\nbus.\nSusan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, was sympathetic to the concerns of business owners,\nand noted that bus riders were customers, too. She did not believe the City should take a step\nbackwards on not providing access to the bus, and believe that all stops should have access. She\nbelieved the effects on a business would be minimal, and that the problems of the transit stops\nwere outweighed by the greater good. She suggested that moving the stop a block in one\ndirection or another may be a good compromise without adversely affecting good bus stop\nspacing.\nDeborah James believed the school bus was the only bus that stopped by the book store. She\nnoted that the 63 was often late and jam-packed because it served two high schools. She added\nthat people often use the bus stop as a dropoff for Chipman Middle School.\nGeoff Kline wished to respectfully disagree with the transit advocates, and believed there were a\nnumber of places in Alameda, especially on lightly traveled streets, where \"flag stops\" [where\nthe stop is marked by a sign and there are no parking restrictions] could be installed rather than\nremoving parking spaces where parking was problematic. He did not believe that painting all the\ncurbs red was the solution, and he did not believe it was realistic for everyone to get out of their\ncars. He believed the drivers should be able to have a place to park.\nDeborah James noted that riders at flag stops would not be visible to the bus driver unless the\nrider ran into the street.\nClosed public comment.\nCommissioner Krueger believed it was important to be flexible, and to listen and weigh the\nconcerns of all parties in order to be fair. He did not believe every case should be an exception.\nHe did not support the idea of a flag stop. He believed the times of the restriction should be\nnegotiated, based on the hours of operation. He believed assessment should be made to move or\nconsolidate stops. With respect to Chair Knox White's comment about the lack of parking in\nresidential neighborhoods, he suggested that a parking survey be employed to determine if\ngarages are being used for vehicles.\nCommissioner Schatmeier agreed with Commissioner Krueger's comments. He believed that bus\nservice was an asset rather than a liability to the community. He supported flexibility as\ndescribed by Commissioner Krueger.\nCommissioner McFarland supported the flexibility as outlined by Commissioner Krueger, and\nbelieved the policy should stand.\n11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 12, "text": "Commissioner Subramanium believed that policies were in place in order to have consistent\nimplementation across the City, and did not believe that having exceptions would benefit the\nCity.\nActing Chair Ratto noted that it was best to work with Public Works and AC Transit to deal with\nred curbs. He supported the bus plazas on Park and Webster Street, and believed that the\nTransportation Commission might as well disband if they could not stand firm on this policy.\nPertaining to flexibility, he believed that staff should assist residents in consolidating bus stops\nand work with AC Transit because there were exceptions to the rule. He believed the burden of\nproof was on the appellant, and they need to show a real need for the parking spaces. He believed\nthe garage should be used for cars and not storage.\nCommissioner Krueger moved the following:\n1) All bus stops should have parking prohibitions during the hours of bus operations.\n2) If there are problems with eliminating parking at a particular location, the relocation or\nconsolidation of bus stops should be considered. In the case of an appeal of a decision to\nremove on-street parking, staff should work with the appellant to explore options for flexibility,\nbut the burden of proof is on the appellant to demonstrate the need for the on-street parking\nspaces.\n3) The level of bus ridership and demand for on-street parking at the location should be\nconsidered in such decisions - if the parking demand is high and bus ridership is low,\npreservation of parking should be given greater emphasis.\n4) Any changes to bus stop locations should ensure consistency with the Long Range Transit\nPlan's recommended bus stop spacing of approximately 1000 feet.\n5) City should explore ways to encourage private property owners to make better use of\nexisting off-street parking.\nCommissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.\n7C. Review and comment on Civic Center Parking Garage Management Plan Policies and\nProcedures.\nOutcome: TC to review and provide comments on draft Parking Management and\nOperations Plan. Discussion/Action\nStaff Eric Fonstein, Economic Development Coordinator, Development Services Department,\nsummarized the staff report and described the scope and background of the proposed parking\nstructure, which should be completed by December 2007. He noted there was a perception of\nreluctance to use a parking structure if it is difficult or complicated to use.\nCommissioner Subramanium inquired whether car sharing had been considered, such as in\nOakland and San Francisco. Acting Chair Ratto noted that had not been examined at this time.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that car sharing was business operation, and that enough\nbusiness must be generated for it to be economically viable.\n12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 13, "text": "Open public comment.\nJim Strehlow noted that he was primarily a bicycle rider and pedestrian, and recalled the\ndiscussion of this item at the City Council meeting. He noted that there could be alternatives to\npaying for parking, such as free parking or alternative transportation, as well as merchant\nvalidation programs. He requested clarification of the TDM page 1, section 1, line 4-6, which\nstated that it would generate limited revenue to pay for operations, and the remainder would\nrepay the loan. He would like to see the profit and loss for the next three years.\nClosed public comment.\nStaff Fonstein explained the attendant and gate approach, and noted that the 50 cents per hour\nrate was similar to the parking rates on the street. He further explained the details of the structure\npay-by system, and noted that it was similar to eight of BART's East Bay parking structures. He\nnoted that a gate approach was twice as capital-intensive, requiring ticket dispensers and\nreceptors, as well as the gates themselves and staff required for maintenance, emergencies or\nmalfunctions.\nCommissioner Krueger believed it was unusual to pay for the next time the driver would use the\nparking structure. He inquired whether it could be purchased the same day if movie tickets were\nordered in advance. Staff Fonstein noted that he would consider that idea.\nStaff Fonstein stated that there would be a four-hour maximum. He noted that daily parking\ncould be used via a monthly parking program.\nA discussion of parking enforcement ensued.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if any consideration had been made to using the garage as a\npark and ride lot, and noted that the garage will be very close to the most heavily traveled transit\nstreets in the City. He stated that given the maximum number of hours people would be\npermitted to park, use as a park and ride lot would not be possible.\nActing Chair Ratto believed that if there was a surplus of monthly passes within the district, that\npark and ride could be considered.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that could be an attractive possibility for revenue generation,\nalthough that was not the primary purpose of the garage.\nCommissioner Krueger believed that onstreet parking should be more expensive to encourage\npeople to use the garage.\nActing Chair Ratto noted that the Class II bike lane on Central would be restored in front of the\nhigh school, and that the diagonal parking be converted to parallel parking.\nStaff Khan noted that the City was waiting for construction to be completed.\n13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 14, "text": "Acting Chair Ratto noted that was important, and should be included in the report. He thanked\nstaff for an excellent job on this item over the many months of development.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to recommend that the City Council accept the proposal,\nincluding restoring the Class II bike lane; prevalidation with a code for movie tickets; examine\ncar sharing; examine the optimum pricing of street parking versus garage parking; transit riders\nincluded in monthly passes; return to parallel parking on Central. Commissioner McFarland\nseconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.\n8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Khan noted that staff wished to discuss the EIR for Harbor Bay Village, which was\nsuggested to come before the Transportation Commission by the Planning Department. He\ndistributed the Draft EIR document, and indicated that the public comments would close May 4,\n2007. He invited the Commissioners to request that it be agendized, and he would request that\nthe Planning Department extend the public comment period to accommodate Transportation\nCommission comments.\nStaff Khan handed out bicycle surveys to invite comments regarding pedestrian/bicycle access\nissues. He noted that it was also available on the City's website.\nActing Chair Ratto noted that the Park Street Spring Festival would be held on Mother's Day\nweekend (May 12 and 13). He noted that last year, 40,000 people attended the downtown\nfestival.\nStaff Bergman noted that the draft Transportation Element has been circulated to the various\nboards and commissions, including the Economic Development Commission, Commission on\nDisabilities, the Climate Protection Task Force, Rec and Parks Commission and the Housing\nCommission. It would be completed in mid-June.\nStaff Bergman noted that the next ILC meeting would be held May 31, 2007, and that further\ninformation would be emailed to the Commissioners.\nActing Chair Ratto complimented Staff Khan on doing an excellent job in front of the EDC the\nprevious week.\nMeeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.\ni:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\\TC\\2007/052307/042507minutes-final.doc\n14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}