{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-12-12", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nSPECIAL MEETING\nDecember 12, 2007\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\nMichael Krueger\nRobert McFarland\nRobb Ratto\nEric Schatmeier\nSrikant Subramaniam\nMembers Absent:\nNielsen Tam\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\n3.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nOctober 17, 2007 Special Meeting\nb.\nOctober 24, 2007\nChair Knox White noted that page 12 read, \"Chair Knox White noted that the Transportation\nCommission would recommend that this issue return to the City Council.\" He clarified that the\nTC recommendations were to be sent back to the City Council.\nCommissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the October 17, 2007, special\nmeeting and October 24, 2007 minutes, as amended. Commissioner Ratto seconded the motion.\nMotion passed 4-0.\n2.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nChair Knox White noted that since the audience members are attending to comment on Item 7-B,\nthat it be heard first, followed by Item 7-C and then 7-A.\nChair Knox White noted that Commissioner Schatmeier arrived.\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-12-12", "page": 2, "text": "4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\na.\nPedestrian Plan Task Force\nChair Knox White noted that he would ask Commissioner Tam to replace former Commissioner\nKnoth as the third member of the subcommittee. He noted that they met quickly for an update,\nand a pedestrian plan proposal would be presented in the spring.\nStaff Khan noted that the plan was a preliminary draft, which presented the existing information\ngathered to date. The project selection and cost issues had not been addressed.\nChair Knox White noted that several members of the public had attended as well.\nb.\nAlameda Point Task Force\nChair Knox White noted that the last meeting had been canceled, and that the next meeting\nwould be held December 13, 2007.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nOpen public hearing.\nThere were none.\nClose public hearing.\n6.\nOLD BUSINESS\nThere was none.\n7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n7B.\nApproval of Parking Removal to Provide Adequate Stopping Areas for Bus Stops\nAlong Encinal Avenue Between Mound Street and High Street.\nStaff Bergman summarized the staff report, and noted that it was recommended that the City be\nflexible wherever possible and consolidate stops where appropriate. He displayed the proposed\nalternative changes. Alternative 1 had more of an impact on parking; Alternative 2 had received\npublic comment and concern; Alternative 3, by changing the location of the westbound stop,\nplaced a stop on the near side of the intersection, which was not preferred in bus operations\n(Alternative 2 would have a stop on the far side of the intersection); Alternatives 4 and 5 would\nhave exceeded the spacing guidelines, which staff preferred to avoid. The ridership numbers\nwere highest at the Encinal and High (33 riders per day), and Encinal and Fountain (11 per day)\nstops. The recommendation of removing those two stops would have meant removing the two\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-12-12", "page": 3, "text": "more heavily used stops. As a result of those figures and community feedback, staff\nrecommended keeping the stops at those locations, and implementing the parking restrictions,\nwhich would mean installing red curb at Encinal and Mound, impacting three parking spaces on\nthe westbound side of the street. Staff recommended limited parking restrictions at the\nEncinal/High and Encinal/Fountain stops, based on the hours of bus operations.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier whether any of the proposed changes\nwould impact running times on Line 63, Staff Bergman replied that staff could not determine that\nto be SO.\nCommissioner Krueger believed there was an inconsistency in the labeling of Alternatives 4 and\n5 with respect to page 2 and Attachment 3. Staff Bergman replied that the real Alternative 4 was\nidentified correctly in the table. On page 2, Alternatives 4 and 5 should be swapped.\nOpen public comment.\nRachel Allen, 1231 Court Street, noted that she was opposed to Alternatives 2 and 3, which\nwould place a new bus stop on the corner of Court and Encinal. She was opposed to the proposal\nbetween of the impacted shared parking with the church. She noted that the crosswalk was used\nby students, and she was concerned about the safety of a special needs child living nearby. She\nsupported Alternative 1.\nKatherine Neal Manalo, 2919 Encinal, expressed concern about her son's health related to noise\nand pollution, affecting his asthma and pulmonary problems. She believed that Alternative 3\nwould be a problem, especially the students who .may dart into the street. She appreciated the\nbus service, and supported Alternative 1; she suggested eliminating the Mound stops.\nDave Nederhood, Pastor, ACLC, noted that the church did not have off-street parking. He\npresented signatures from church members in support of Alternative 1.\nCliff Reese, 3004 Encinal Avenue, spoke in support of Alternative 1. He noted that 3014 Encinal\nwas a four-plex, with two drivers per unit. He added that they shared the eight parking spaces\nwith that building.\nMark Betts, 1300 Mound Street, noted that his house was only seven feet from the sidewalk. He\nnoted that on Mound, there were nine houses with no off-street parking. He noted that there was\nonly five feet between the retaining wall to the telephone pole. He noted that on Court Street,\nthere was 21 feet from the house to the curb, which was enough room to attenuate the noise. He\nnoted that his house and sidewalk were cracking from the vibration impact from Mound Street.\nClose public comment.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that he supported the staff recommendations, and believed that\nwith respect to the existing bus stop at High and Encinal (OX), it was impossible to for a bus to\nmake the tight right turn at High and also be able to stop at the red curb. Staff Bergman noted\nthat he had not heard from AC Transit operations, but staff would look into that issue.\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-12-12", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Krueger understood the point made by Commissioner Schatmeier, but did not\nnecessarily agree that it would justify removing the parking restriction. He believed that it was\nstill necessary to keep the cars from parking there. He suggested that it may be better to relocate\nthe stop.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired about the final agreements that resulted from the community\nmeetings. Staff Bergman noted that he would contact Mr. Betts regarding the outcome of the\ncommunity meetings regarding the stops on Encinal.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that he was disappointed that there was not some opportunity to\nclean up the stops, which seemed to be somewhat confusing. He would have been inclined\ntowards the consolidation option before hearing the public comment, but that seemed to be the\nwill of the Commission.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the staff recommendation. Commissioner\nMcFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.\n7-C. Review and Comment on the Update to the Economic Development Strategic Plan.\nEric Fonstein, Economic Development Coordinator, Development Services Department,\npresented the staff report and described the Economic Development Strategic Plan. He noted that\nthis presentation was a mid-point review, and noted that the EDSP was not intended to supersede\nthe City's policy documents. He detailed the Plan's seven economic priorities:\n1.\ncreate industrial and office jobs;\n2.\nincrease the quality and availability of retails jobs and services;\n3.\npromote business travel and limited impact tourist attractions;\n4.\ncreate recreational and entertainment facilities;\n5.\nprovide internal and external traffic circulation;\n6.\nfoster new enterprises; and\n7.\npromote administrative hearing.\nHe noted that the Economic Development Commission endorsed the plan at its last meeting, and\nadded the inclusion of a vision statement, which was included in the Commission packet. They\nalso wished to include an overall direction of the Strategic Plan as a core statement. The\nPlanning Board also endorsed the plan in its most recent meeting.\nOpen public hearing.\nThere were no speakers.\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-12-12", "page": 5, "text": "Close public hearing.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired why the results of the telephone survey did not match the City's\ndemographics as a whole, and would like to include the Census figures to identify the\ndiscrepancies.\nChair Knox White noted that the mid-term goal on page 8 of \"working with regional, state and\nfederal agencies to provide stable funding for a BART shuttle service to Marina Village Business\nPark\" should be connected with the existing Line 19 service every half hour. He believed the\ndocument should acknowledge the existence of the service. He noted that the Planning Board\nwas working on green building codes, and recommended that it be a near-term, rather than a\nmid-term goal. He noted that a long-term goal was the development of residential space at\nAlameda Point, which identified the development of green standards, and suggested that the role\nof mixed use be included in sustainable, green development. He noted that the current parking\nstudy was a near- and mid-term goal, and inquired when it would be addressed.\nStaff Fonstein replied that Planning and Building, Development Services and Public Works were\ntaking their time to closely examine the statistical analysis before bringing it forth. Staff hoped to\npresent the document early in 2008.\nChair Knox White noted that the long-term plan to have a center at Alameda Point with retail\nshops, including an anchor grocery store and links to transit nodes, should mention mixed use as\na way to achieve the Transportation Commission's long-term goals. He hoped that the larger,\nmore historic trees could be retained, or not be replaced with much smaller trees. He noted that\nhe had attended many outdoor movies in the park, and noted that they were shown at the park\nthat was furthest from most of the housing. He suggested holding them at some of the parks in\ncentral Alameda to reduce the amount of driving.\nChair Knox White agreed that creating bike paths in lanes throughout Alameda Point would be a\ngood goal, but did not understand why it was listed under \"Recreation and Entertainment\" on\npage 19. He believed that bike paths certainly belonged under \"Recreation,\" but that bike lanes\nshould be included in the Internal/External Traffic Circulation section because of their\nimportance in everyday travel. On page 21, he did not understand the near-term goal of exploring\npublic transit with shorter routes and shuttles. He noted that the many shuttle discussions\nincluded the need for efficient and well-run routes, and he did not believe the survey clarified\nwhat shuttles meant to people. He noted that page 22 should read \"Emery Go-Round,\" not\n\"Emeryville Go-round.\" He noted that the long-term goal on page 23 to create a seamless\nnetwork of streets to \"achieve integration throughout the City, and to minimize traffic\ncongestion,\" seemed to not be consistent with the policies stated by the City Council's EIR\npolicies to use streets to minimize traffic congestion. He believed that Alameda Point should be\nintegrated into the street grid. Staff Khan believed the intention was to minimize congestion by\nadding TSM or TDM measures, not by adding or widening streets. He noted that the goal was to\nminimize congestion. Chair Knox White requested that the language be clarified.\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-12-12", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Krueger noted that he was also curious about the shuttle issue, and wondered\nwhether the shuttle issue had been explored in other ways. He inquired whether people wanted a\nshuttle because it was free, or because it was not run by AC Transit, or whether it was because it\nhad a different route. Staff Fonstein replied that with respect to the Marina Village Business\nPark, staff met annually with the human resource directors of major companies in Alameda to\nbuild a good rapport with businesses. He noted that the human resource directors that that was a\ndesire. It could be a more tailored program, or lack of publicity of existing services at this time.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that he worked at Wind River, and that an announcement was sent\nout soliciting employee feedback on a BART shuttle. He responded to the contact at the human\nresources department, stating that there was a bus that ran every half hour to two different BART\nstations, stopping in front of Wind River; she was not aware that there was a bus, and the\ncompany dropped the survey at that point. He believed that the shuttle could be explored further,\nand wondered how much of it was a demand for something different, and how much was the lack\nof knowledge about existing services. He suggested that bus passes or other incentives could be\nused to augment the existing services.\nChair Knox White noted that Peralta College just voted to provide the students with free bus\npasses.\nCommissioner Schatmeier believed that there was an inaccurate public perception that buses\nwere seen as dirty and noisy, and that shuttles were seen in a much more positive light. He would\nlike to see the consciousness regarding the two forms of public transit to be raised.\nCommissioner Ratto agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier's comments, and noted that Table 2\non page 13 should include mention of the stations regarding the fa\u00e7ade grant program, as well as\nfor the storefronts. He did not believe that Chair Knox White's wishes regarding the trees would\ncome to pass; he noted that the new lighting on Park Street was much closer together than the old\ncobra lighting, which necessitated the removal of many old trees for spacing. He added that there\nwere two dead trees in front of the Hob Nob that should be removed. He added that a tree\nmidblock northbound, coming up from Alameda Towne Centre was leaning into the second\ntransit lane. With respect to in lieu fees, he inquired where DSD had determined where they\nwould be feasible. He noted that PSBA would push for an exemption next year.\nChair Knox White noted that some of the street lights were very bright and intrusive.\nCommissioner Ratto disagreed, and noted that there were both inside and outside lights that were\nintended for illuminating the sidewalks and transit lanes.\nStaff Fonstein noted that the Planning Board had recommended that the title of Strategy 5, which\nread, \"Internal and External Traffic Circulation\" should be changed to \"Multimodal\" instead\nof\n\"Traffic.\"\nCommissioner Ratto moved to accept the proposal with the attached Commission comments.\nCommissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-12-12", "page": 7, "text": "7-A.\nReview of Practices to Evaluate Development Impacts to Bicycles, Pedestrians and\nTransit.\nStaff Khan presented the staff report. He described the LOS practices used in Palo Alto, as well\nas in Florida, for different modes of transportation, and then evaluating them in advance of\ndevelopment that occurs. He noted that they examined the effective green time for a pedestrian to\ncross an intersection in conjunction with the cycle length of the signalized intersection. He noted\nthat this method was simple to calculate. At unsignalized crossings, the method examines how\nmany gaps were available in the traffic stream. It also examined how much delay a pedestrian\nwould experience. The Highway Capacity Manual also has a method for calculating bicycle\nimpacts, and looked at substantial additional data that would be needed to calculate that\ninformation. He noted that Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) recommended avoiding\nusing one LOS method for all modes. The consultant looked at the combination of the Highway\nCapacity Manual method to calculate the delay to pedestrians, transit and other modes like\nbicycles.\nStaff Khan noted that it was important to establish a quantitative method to simplify the\ncalculations, and to provide better information to developers. For the impacts on bicyclists, staff\nrecommended using the method used by the Florida DOT, which used physical parameters in\nconjunction with the volumes and the speeds on a street. Staff was considering the Highway\nCapacity method, which gave a delay for each approach at an intersection. On a corridor basis,\nstaff recommended, and AC Transit has supported, using the corridorwide analysis (Arterial\nLevel of Service analysis), which provided the travel time or delays on an arterial or a street. It\ntook several intersections in the analysis into account, and provided the total delay that a line can\nexperience.\nChair Knox White noted that Dowling Associates had worked on a similar project for the City of\nSan Francisco, and he was surprised to see very little of their work in this report. Staff Khan\nreplied that he asked the same question, and Dowling stated that they took it into account; they\nalso stated that they were also working for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to\ndevelop standards for a highway capacity manual. He understood that knowledge was\nincorporated in this study.\nAt the request of Chair Knox White, Staff Khan read the letter from Nathan Landau of AC\nTransit, regarding the report and the recommendation of transit. AC Transit was interested in\nlooking at corridorwide impacts; staff was also interested in using intersections as well. He noted\nthat he had not received specific direction regarding CEQA issues.\nChair Knox White noted that as multiple LOS standards are set up for multiple transportation\nforms, there will be conflicts, especially when possible mitigations impact other modes. He\ninquired about the process going forward with respect to any tradeoffs and consistency in the\nprocess.\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-12-12", "page": 8, "text": "Staff Khan noted that public process would be critical, and he hoped that at the beginning of\n2008, there would be more specifics in terms of the intersection impacts. He believed it would be\na policy decision.\nChair Knox White noted that reality often did not line up with a report's predictions, and noted\nthat sometimes, mitigations at an intersection did not change the congestion at the next\nintersection, resulting in an unchanged travel time.\nStaff Khan agreed with that point, and noted that many EIRs did not address what would happen\nin the intersection upstream from the congested intersection. Staff recommended including\narterial level of service criteria as well, which would also help the transit analysis.\nChair Knox White was concerned about using the HCM pedestrian information, because it was\ninformation already collected for cars at an intersection. He understood that this was a model,\nand noted that the City may decide that it is too complicated and nuanced. He also believed that\nit should be thoroughly examined. He inquired when it would be completed.\nStaff Khan replied that it was promised for the summer of 2008, and added that public input and\nfeedback would be critical.\nCommissioner Krueger echoed Chair Knox White's comments about pedestrians, and while he\nsupported a simple, quantitative model, he also supported considering capturing other factors\nbesides delay, perhaps in a future refinement. He believed that qualitative factors that influence\nthe choice of intersections did not reflect delay, but affected pedestrians more than drivers. He\nnoted that the bicycle discussion addressed the environment more than delay. He would like to\nsee more balance in that aspect of the report. He noted that having to stop, even without a delay,\nwas more of a burden for bicyclists than for pedestrians or drivers. He added that when he biked,\nhe avoided streets with stop signs, sometimes in favor of streets with lights. He would like to see\nmore balance in that respect.\nChair Knox White agreed with staff's recommendation to have a list of various LOSs for various\nmodes.\n8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Khan noted that MTC requested the Transportation Commission's input for the next 25-\nyear plan being developed. The survey was being conducted, and examined issues like global\nwarming, congestion, emissions and other issues. The website address is:\nwww.mtc.ca.gov/t2035.\nCommissioner Ratto requested that Staff Khan email the link to the Commissioners.\nChair Knox White suggested that the URL be posted on the City's website.\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-12-12", "page": 9, "text": "a.\nFuture Meetings\nStaff Khan noted that staff would look at those methods in February. He added that the car share\npresentation would be made in January. He believed the parking study would be presented in\nearly 2008.\nChair Knox White noted that with respect to the ferries, a staff member from Senator Perata's\noffice stated that they would be willing to have a public meeting in Alameda, possibly in January\nat the Transportation Commission to discuss the cleanup language.\nStaff Khan noted that he tried to get more information from the City Manager's office, but none\nwas available at this time.\nb.\nBroadway/Jackson\nStaff Khan noted that a traffic simulation and analysis had been prepared, and staff has been\nreviewing the recommendations in terms of traffic patterns on the other side of the Tube. Future\ndevelopment and traffic flow through the Tube was also under review. The next step would be\nget the feedback for a presentation in early 2008.\nCommissioner Ratto suggested that staff begin an outreach to the other business associations.\nCommissioner Krueger requested an update on the status of the effort to install red curbs at bus\nstops.\nStaff Bergman noted that there were three or four curbs that required further follow-up.\nStaff Khan noted that the Line 63 item would go to City Council on January 15, 2008. Staff\nwould send the Transportation Commission's recommendation to City Council.\nCommissioner Schatmeier would like to see an item updating matters that the Transportation\nCommission has spent a lot of time on, such as Line 63. He added that an ILC meeting was held\nrecently, and would like an update since he cannot always attend the meeting.\nStaff Bergman noted that the ILC meeting consisted of updates on other issues, such as Line 63\nand the 51 Task Force. The EcoPass is being pursued, and concerns were raised about the\nTransbay O line, particularly when the local riders filled the buses in lieu of the 51, preventing\nthe Transbay riders from using the bus.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier regarding the Otis bus stop issue, Staff\nBergman replied that was part of the Line 63 issue, and would go to Council in January.\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.\n G:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\\TC/2008/012308\\121207minutes-draft.do\n9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf"}