{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nApril 23, 2008\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:\nJohn Knox White\nMichael Krueger\nRobert McFarland\nRobb Ratto\nEric Schatmeier (arrived at 8:00 p.m.)\nSrikant Subramaniam\nNielsen Tam\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\nBarbara Hawkins, City Engineer\nMichael Fisher, Division Chief, Fire Department\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nJanuary 23, 2008\nCommissioner Ratto moved approval of the minutes for the January 23, 2008, meeting\nand minutes as presented. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion\npassed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Krueger abstained). Absent: Commissioner Schatmeier.\nb.\nMarch 26, 2008\nCommissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the March 26, 2008,\nmeeting and minutes as presented. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion.\nMotion passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Ratto abstained). Absent: Commissioner\nSchatmeier.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nThere were none.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Knox White noted that the Bicycle Plan Subcommittee had met briefly, during\nwhich the process for moving forward was discussed.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 1 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Knox White noted that the Pedestrian Task Force had met, which will be discussed\nlater in the meeting.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nOpen public comment.\nCouncilmember Doug DeHaan provided an informational update regarding the\nEsplanade project approved by the City Council within Harbor Bay and concerns\nexpressed by some community members. Public concern had been expressed about the\nferry service, and that the parking lot at the terminal was at 90 to 100% capacity every\nday, which limited the City's ability to add ridership to the ferry.\nThe Council expressed an interest in looking at alternatives for improving ferry ridership.\nHe noted that the commercial portion of the Harbor Bay Association had run a very\nsuccessful shuttle service from BART and within the development itself. He added that it\nwas a private effort, and in doing so, it had served their population well. The developer\nwho sat on the Harbor Bay Board noted that he could not commit them to extend that, but\nthat he would work with the rest of the community to look at extending a shuttle service\ninto Harbor Bay. Councilmember DeHaan stated that another option that was suggested\nwas developing a staging area near the beginning of Ron Cowan Parkway where people\ncould park and take a shuttle to the ferry terminal. A third alternative would be to\nrestripe the existing parking lot, which, he estimated, could create perhaps ten additional\nparking spaces. He encouraged the Commission look at the alternatives.\nCouncilmember DeHaan discussed the farebox recovery ratio history for the service and\nnoted that the Council wants the ferry to be successful. He noted that the additional\nactivity from new development would be helpful to the ferry. He encouraged the\nTransportation Commission and Public Works to move forward on this issue and to\nprovide an update. He noted that a shuttle service would benefit not only Alameda\nresidents, but also people from other areas via the Ron Cowan Parkway.\nBill Smith wished to discuss the fourth bore and fourth platform for BART, and stated\nthat he had been instrumental in getting bicycles onto BART and the buses. He believed a\nshuttle would be able to connect the different neighborhoods to Alameda Point. He was\nglad that there were no overhead elevated tracks and steel wheels on the rapid transit\ntrains. He discussed SunCal and the TOD.\nClose public comment.\n6A. Resident Appeal of Parking Restrictions on to Provide Emergency Access on\nPalace Court (Continued from March 26, 2008 meeting).\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report. He summarized the history of the project, and\ndisplayed and described the appellant's concerns. The Alameda Municipal Code\nauthorized the Public Works Director to remove parking based on safety considerations.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 2 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 3, "text": "Staff solicited input from residents, and received some comments in favor, some in\nopposition, as well as some suggested alternatives, such as allowing people to park on the\nsidewalks, as was done previously. The Fire Code required a 20-foot clearance for\nemergency vehicle access. The Fire Department indicated that they had some vehicles\nthat were 9.5 feet wide, which so removing parking on one side of the street would be\nsufficient, as it would provide 16 feet of clearance. To mitigate the impacts, parking was\nremoved on the even side of the street, as fewer spaces were impacted. He noted that the\ntwo-hour parking restriction on the other side of the street was removed to provide full-\ntime on-street parking for four additional spaces.\nStaff Bergman noted that the decision was appealed, and that the appellant made several\npoints. The appellant believed that there were alternative methods of providing access,\nsuch as sidewalk parking, that would allow the on-street parking to be retained.\nStaff noted that this recommendation was not made because it was prohibited by Section\n22500(f) of the California Vehicle Code, which stated that \"no person shall stop, park, or\nleave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to\navoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or\nofficial traffic control device on any portion of a sidewalk, or with the body of the vehicle\nextending over any portion of a sidewalk.\" In addition, the sidewalks are not constructed\nto support the weight of the vehicles, and there was concern about the impact that parking\non the sidewalk would have on pedestrian traffic. The appellant submitted a letter\nsubsequent to his initial appeal, raising additional points. One suggestion was to relocate\nthe curb to widen the street, in order to provide emergency access. The Alameda\nMunicipal Code required that public sidewalks be at least five feet in width; by removing\nthe 18 inches from each side of the street, that would provide an additional three feet,\ngiving 27 feet. Since the parking lane was typically eight feet wide, that would leave only\n11 feet of clear space available, which would be insufficient for emergency access.\nThe appellant further suggested that a parking permit program, which had been discussed\nby the City as a number of neighborhoods in the City are dealing with similar problems.\nWhen staff researched the costs and other requirements to implement such a program, it\nwas found that it was typically funded through the General Fund. At this time, the City\nhad difficulty in finding resources at this time. He noted that may be viable in the future,\nbut would not be practical at this time.\nStaff Bergman noted that the appellant's second basis for appeal noted that a request had\nbeen made for a hearing regarding this matter, and the Municipal Code authorized the\nPublic Works Director to implement parking prohibitions based on safety considerations\nprior to the appeal being held. This TC meeting provided the appellant, as well as other\nmembers of the public, with the opportunity to request that the decision be overturned.\nStaff Bergman noted that the third basis for appeal was a request for documentation\nestablishing the need to eliminate the on-street parking. This information was\ncommunicated to the appellant and other affected resident in the notification sent out on\nJanuary 23, a copy of that letter was included in the packet. Also included were the\nTransportation Commission\nPage 3 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 4, "text": "initial appeal, the subsequent letter from the appellant, and comments from residents.\nGiven that the 18 spaces has been removed from one side of the street, and full-time\nparking has been restored at four additional spaces, there was a net loss of 14 full-time\non-street parking spaces. Staff recommended that the Transportation Commission support\nthe Public Works Director's decision to eliminate the parking on the odd side of the\nstreet.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that there appeared to be a pickup truck and a large boat\ntrailer, and inquired whether staff had observed that on the site. Staff Khan replied that he\nhad not seen it on the site. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether it was legal to park\nthose large vehicles on the street, given the existing parking problem. Staff Khan replied\nthat there was a restriction of commercial vehicles to be parked in residential areas, and\nthere were some time limits as well.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether 10 feet would be enough\nwidth to fit the 9.5-foot-wide vehicle through, Michael Fisher, Fire Department, replied\nthat it would be very impractical, and that the Fire Code required a minimum of 20 feet in\nwidth. An allowance was being made by bringing the width down to 16 feet.\nOpen public comment\nMarc Voisenat, appellant, noted that the street was 24 feet wide, and noted that taking\nparking from one side of the street only created 16 feet. He believed that if 20 feet was\nneeded, that the neighborhood should not settle for 16 feet. He had not realized that the\nFire Department had made an allowance to 14 feet, and did not know how they came to\nthat determination. He believed that if the Fire Department took the position that the\nCode should be followed, then it should be adhered to. He displayed a photo of the street,\nand noted that two vehicles were allowed to park on the sidewalk in a special parking\ndesignation. He believed that if they were allowed to make those accommodations there,\nand the Fire Department allowed accommodations to shorten the width of the lane, then\nhe believed his suggestions should be considered. He noted that some of his ideas\noriginated from the City, such as parking on the street curb. He suggested that trimming\n1.5 feet from each side of the street, and making the width of the parking seven feet\nwould yield 14 feet with parking on both sides of the street. He suggested that the City at\nleast mark the parking spots, and added that people generally parked as close to the other\nvehicles as safely possible in order to create more parking spots. He noted that church\nparkers generally were not aware of that, and sometimes parked where they could take up\ntwo to three spots with one car. He believed that painting the parking spaces would not\nhave a big fiscal impact for the City. He did not understand the difficulty in implementing\nand supervising permit parking, and did not believe it would be more difficult than\nsupervising a no-parking zone. He believed that the fees for the parking permits would\nhelp supplement the cost of supervising the program, and added that it would also give\nthe appearance that parking was restricted on Palace Court. He believed that 14 feet\nwould be sufficient for the fire vehicles to pass.\nEdith Brady, 529 Palace Court, noted that the boat and truck had been moved to their\nTransportation Commission\nPage 4 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 5, "text": "believed that people should use alternative modes of transportation.\nKaren Goddin, 527F Palace Court, inquired where the closest fire hydrant was located.\nStaff Fisher replied that it was on Central Avenue. She further inquired why an\nemergency response could not be made with a smaller vehicle than a fire truck. Mr.\nFisher replied that the typical response to an emergency medical service call in Alameda\nrequired one engine company with three personnel (captain, driver and a paramedic), as\nwell as a paramedic ambulance with two paramedics on it, for a total of five people. He\nnoted that was the minimum County-required response within the City of Alameda.\nMatthew McHenry, 534 Palace Court, believed the permit parking should be examined,\nand that it would be the best and easiest solution. He would like to know why it was such\nan expensive and difficult solution.\nClose public comment.\nChair Knox White reminded the Commission that this was an appeal hearing, rather than\ntrying to solve the problem. The Commission may make recommendations to staff\nfollowing the Commission's decision.\nCommissioner Krueger believed that more time should be given to the alternatives, and\nrequested that staff answer the question about the parking permit, specifically about the\nbreak-even cost for the system itself.\nStaff Khan replied that Staff Bergman's research regarding cities such as Berkeley and\nWalnut Creek found that the cities had created a neighborhood parking program, which\nwas subsidized by the General Fund. He understood that the question was whether the\npermit program could be fully paid by the residents. In order to make the program viable,\nthe permits must be issued and tracked, and guest permits must be issued, fees must be\ncollected and enforcement must take place. He noted the resources would be extensive\nTransportation Commission\nPage 5 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 6, "text": "for a smaller program, and that this was viable on a larger scale; in that case, police\nofficers and other personnel could be hired just for the permit program.\nCommissioner Ratto thanked the Fire Department for living in the real world and\naccepting the 16-foot-wide fire lane, rather than the 20-foot width required by Code. He\nnoted that if that were not the case, the neighborhood would not have any parking on\neither side of the street. He noted that because the Commission was only dealing with the\nappeal, he would bring the public comment brought forth by Mr. McDowell regarding\nother streets to staff and request that they look into it. He noted that he had grown up in\nAlameda, and was aware of two different instances where houses had burned to the\nground because the Fire Department did not have access to them. In those cases, parking\nhad been changed to allow parking on only one side of the street. He was sensitive to\npublic safety, and added that he would vote to deny the appeal.\nChair Knox White echoed Commissioner Ratto's comments, and shared his concern about\nselective enforcement on other streets. He understood that some allowances could be\nmade to the 20-foot lane widths, and believed the selective enforcement stemmed more\nfrom a desire to avoid this problem on other streets, rather than ill will. He believed this\nissue should be addressed on a policy level by the City. He noted that the Transportation\nCommission has generally supported parking permits, and that they were cited in the\nTransportation Master Plan currently in circulation. He noted that the permit program\nshould be made in a cost-neutral way when 10% budget cuts were being made to every\nprogram. He noted that the program would become cost prohibitive almost immediately.\nHe noted that the Public Works Director identified this as a safety hazard, and that was\nthe primary concern of the City. He believed the Fire Department had provided\ndocumentation establishing the need to eliminate on-street parking, as identified in\nCondition 3.\nCommissioner Ratto moved to approve the staff recommendation to deny the appeal.\nCommissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0.\nChair Knox White believed the City needed to address the permit parking issue, which\ncontinued to come up before the Commission. He understood staff's concern about\nsetting the parking program up, and that because it was a benefit to the neighborhood, it\nshould pay for itself. He would like staff to cost the proposed program out, in order to\ncreate a cost-neutral program.\nCommissioner Krueger expressed concern about the photo of the handicapped spaces on\nthe sidewalk, which seemed to contradict the Vehicle Code.\nStaff Khan noted that the City had been trying to create allowances on that street, as well\nas the need for handicapped parking. Staff considered that it was located at the end of the\nstreet, with minimal fire access and through traffic issues. However, if the neighborhood\nwas unhappy with that allowance and wanted those spaces removed, staff would take that\ninto consideration.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 6 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 7, "text": "7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n7A.\nReview and Provide Recommendations on the Proposed Capital\nImprovement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010.\nStaff Hawkins presented the staff report, and reviewed the process for and projects in the\nCapital Improvement Program in detail. She noted that there was additional detail on the\nwebsite at www.ci.alameda.ca.us. She noted that the CIP will go to City Council in June.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether the carryover projects used\npreviously allocated funds, Staff Hawkins replied that the money will have been\nearmarked and would not come out of the new budget. She added that there had been\ninsufficient staff for approximately four years to address the carryover projects.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the website contained more details on the\nprojects than what was available in the packet, Staff Hawkins replied that the data sheet\nfor every project was available on the website. She added that there was generally a more\ndetailed description of the proposed project, but that design plans were usually not\nincluded. She noted that further details could be obtained by calling the Lori Kozisek\nPublic Works Department at 510/749-5840.\nStaff Khan wished to point out the annual projects described in the packet, and noted that\npage 204 listed the Bicycle Program and the Safe Routes to School improvements. Under\nthe Bicycle Program, the bulk of the money in 2008/2009 will be spending in preparation\nof the Bike Plan; the City anticipated that some of the projects will be implemented in\n2009/2010. The Safe Routes to School improvements will be continued, and the maps\nwill be developed throughout the City. This program also funded any requests from the\nAlameda Unified School District for analysis and review of drop-off zones and parking.\nHe noted that the Congestion Management Plan funded streets in the Congestion\nManagement Program, and the staff wished to avoid a situation where a deficiency plan\nmust be created. The City may conduct studies addressing signal coordination and signal\ntiming. On-call striping and signing work was performed upon Commissioner request,\nand the City was attempting to upgrade the signals to meet current requirements. He\nnoted that the Transit Pass program issued all City employees an EcoPass or universal\npass; he anticipated that the program would be in place in June or July of this year.\nChair Knox White inquired whether the $110,000 in Measure B funds for the Bicycle\nProgram was all for staff time. Staff Khan replied that most of the funds were earmarked\nfor staff time to perform any studies. He added that most of the annual programs were for\nstaff time, except for striping and signing. Staff Hawkins replied that all of the Bike and\nPed funding was applied towards the Sidewalk Program. She noted that ACTIA requires\nthat all projects funded through the bicycle and pedestrian portion of Measure B must be\non an approved list, while projects funded through the streets and roads portion do not.\nBy funding bicycle and pedestrian projects through the streets and roads funding it\nprevents the City from having to continually update the project list.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 7 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Schatmeier inquired whether the City had joined the Alameda County\nprogram Safe Route to School program. He inquired whether that would come out of the\nCIP. Staff Khan replied that if funding were to be provided to the County, it would not\ncome out of this program, and that it provided salaries for employees.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the Tree Plan, Staff Hawkins\nreplied that when a tree was removed, one was generally planted. She noted that staff\nintended to wait for the Master Tree Plan, and implement it as proposed.\nWith respect to the unfunded projects, Chair Knox White inquired whether the long-range\ntransit plan update would start in Fall 2008. Staff Khan replied that the City applied for\ngrant funding for this project, and that it was unfunded because the City had not heard\nback from the funding agency yet.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the disposition of the program if\nthe City did not receive the grant, Staff Khan replied that Public Works would need to\nremove the project.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that there was a great deal of need, with few resources.\nHe expressed concern about government priorities in general, and was glad to see there\nwas a list of unfunded projects, which highlighted the need. He noted that bus shelters,\nwhich the Transportation Commission had expressed an interest in, were listed under\n\"Other,\" without a proposed funding source. He was curious about the allocation. Staff\nHawkins replied that went towards the Citywide Development Fee, and that a study\nidentified specific projects. She noted that 27% would be paid for by development, and\n73% to be paid for by the City; the General Fund would offset it.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that the Long-Range Transit Plan update was listed in\nthe unfunded category, and included language reading, \"Pending approval of Caltrans\nCommunity-Based Transportation Planning. Staff Khan replied that was a grant that the\nCity had applied for.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the $157 million figure for curb ramps and $86\nmillion in sidewalk repairs on page 5 in the Unfunded Projects was correct, and not a\ntypo. Staff Hawkins noted that they were correct, and that the sewer repair work was also\nin that range. She noted that the figure covered a complete replacement over 20 years.\nShe noted that truncated domes at the intersections were required to comply with the\nADA, which was a huge new cost.\nOpen public comment\nBill Smith noted that he would make his comments would be available on web video, and\nnoted that he would like the Coast Guard housing to be converted into disabled veterans.\nHe would like the infrastructure to be improved with a mini transit system that would be\nmonitored with a collaborative public/private joint venture to be shared with the\ncommunity at large.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 8 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 9, "text": "Close public comment\nChair Knox White noted that $250,000 had been identified in the two-year plan for the\ncross-estuary environmental project, which he believed was very good. However, he\nbelieved that the proposed project could become so large that it would not be able to\nmove forward in three or four years. He suggested that with the tight City finances, that\nthe money may be better used in other bike and pedestrian programs. He believed that the\nenvironmental study was very important, and that it should be done when possible.\nStaff Hawkins noted that was included because the projects that received capital funding\nhad feasibility studies, environmental studies and often, designs completed. She\nsuggested that as the Transportation Commission consider going forward with the City\nBicycle Plan update, that some of the other projects that would be funded be prioritized.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that on page 7 in Unfunded Projects, the study for the Otis\nReconfiguration caught his attention. He noted that the issue came up several times with\nthe neighbors' concern about safety on Otis. Staff Khan noted that he was trying to get it\nfunded through the TMP process, and that it was listed because it was presently\nunfunded. If the contingency money from the TMP is not used, these funds could\npossibly be used for the Otis Drive study.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that the bus shelters were listed on the unfunded list, and he\nrecalled that the City would go forward with the bus shelter program. He had hoped to\nget some grants, which had fallen through. He inquired whether it would be taken back to\nCouncil.\nCommissioner Krueger moved to recommend that the City Council approve the CIP\nprogram, as well as the following: 1) bus shelter procurement and maintenance be\nbrought back to City Council for direction on finding funding; 2) bicycle, pedestrian\nand transit projects be prioritized in the CIP; 3) if it appears unlikely that capital\nfunding will be available for the cross-estuary bicycle/pedestrian crossing\nimprovements, the funding reserved for the environmental work for the project be\nreallocated toward other projects in the bicycle plan; and 4) funding be made available\nto study the potential reconfiguration of Otis Drive. Commissioner Ratto seconded the\nmotion. Motion passed 7-0.\nChair Knox White suggested that the monetary figures in the reports be consistent so that\nthey are reflected either in dollars or thousands of dollars. He noted that the score column\nwas not explained, and suggested that it be eliminated if it is not clarified.\nStaff Hawkins noted that it examined the environment, cost-effectiveness, available\nfunding, and that it was an attempt to prioritize things.\n7B.\nProposed Implementation of Parking Restrictions on Central Avenue in\nFront of the New Theater and Cineplex to Improve Traffic Circulation and\nTransportation Commission\nPage 9 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 10, "text": "Access.\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and summarized the background and details of this\nitem. He noted that representatives of the Police Department were available to answer\nquestions. He noted that their goal was to provide a clear access for the Police and Fire\nDepartments in front of the theater, particularly with the number of people accessing it.\nHe noted that other cities provided loading/unloading zones in front of the theater with no\nparking allowed to ensure that the environment was safe.\nCommissioner Krueger recalled that there had been parallel parking and bike lanes prior\nto the construction project. Staff Khan confirmed that both were present in the\nrecommended design. Commissioner Krueger inquired what would happen to the bike\nlanes if the parking was removed on one side. Staff Khan replied that the proposed\ndesign includes an eight-foot parking lane, a five-foot bike lane, and then the travel lane\nof 11-12 feet. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether traffic would have to pull into\nthe parking area across the bike lane. Staff Khan replied that was in line with the\nstandards, and was common in commercial zones. He noted that the speeds should not\nincrease. The speeds would be controlled by the pedestrian and other activity near the\nstreet.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that right-turning traffic onto Oak would create a de facto\nright-turn lane. Staff Khan replied that staff considered a right-turn lane, but there was not\nenough space or justification. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether a bulbout could\nbe considered to prevent that situation. Staff Khan replied that was not considered as part\nof this item, and that the request came after the construction was nearly complete. He\nadded that it could be considered in the future.\nOpen public comment.\nBill Smith noted that it was important to protect the safety of the children, and that\ncameras were important to monitor safety. He suggested that volunteers with police-\nquality cameras would help maintain decorum when large numbers of children attended a\nmovie. He suggested that signage also be used to maintain control of the situation, and\nthat a crosswalk be placed in the middle of the street as well.\nClose public comment.\nCommissioner Ratto inquired whether the yellow zone would be a \"no parking\" zone in\nnon-loading hours. Staff Khan replied that the City would work with the Business\nAssociation in terms of the time, and that allowing parking had been considered for non-\npeak hours. The zone could be signed appropriately after consultation with the Business\nAssociation. Commissioner Ratto believed there should be no parking there, with the\nexception of commercial vehicles during certain times. He believed that the desire was to\nhave no parking from that driveway up to Oak Street, and did not want to see people\nfighting over the parking spaces during off-hours. He noted that he supported this\nTransportation Commission\nPage 10 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 11, "text": "concept, and that it would be considered by the Park Street Business Association (PSBA)\nBoard of Directors at its next meeting.\nChair Knox White inquired where the 35 required bike parking spaces had gone. Staff\nBergman replied that there were 40 spaces in the garage, including bike lockers and\nracks.\nChair Knox White noted that this plan was similar to the Jack London Cinema - a big\ntheater with no parking in front of it, and across the street from a parking lot with no way\nto cross the street. He did not believe this was a pedestrian-friendly area. He believed it\nwas unfortunate that this plan was coming forward at this time, after years of planning in\nthis area. He noted that the traffic and parking plan came to the Transportation\nCommission two years ago, which he believed was the time to make these\nrecommendations. He agreed with Commissioner Krueger that the red curb would\nbecome a de facto right turn lane, which would be more dangerous for pedestrians and\nbike riders trying to navigate the intersection. He did not see how 270 feet of no-parking\nzone could be created without a bulbout. He noted that he was not against the dropoff\nzone, but questioned whether that much space was needed either for dropoff or\nemergency access. He believed there should be bike parking in front of the theater, that\nbicyclists would be more likely to use this than the parking in the garage. He noted that\nother cities provided bike parking in front of the theater, and believed that those spaces\nwould be full of bikes on a summer evening. He was concerned that the City was trying\nto solve this problem quickly and cheaply, and did not believe this added to the area. He\nhad not heard anyone justify the need to park four or five fire trucks in front of the theater\nat any given moment, and believed this created a very unfriendly environment for\npedestrians.\nLt. Dave Boersma, APD Traffic Division, noted that this was a compromise, and that\nfrom a public safety standpoint, he preferred a red zone in front of the entire area, without\nallowing any parking. He noted that 187 feet of white zone was a lot of space, and that at\n20 feet per parking space, this would allow a lot of cars to park. He noted that an\nalternative to the red zone was to leave it as a metered parking zone, which created\ndouble parking problems in front of the building, and would not allow for emergency\nvehicle access. He noted that they were primarily concerned about the vehicular traffic\nflow through the area. He added that he hoped that drivers did use the red curb zone as a\nde facto right-turn lane, as this would keep the traffic flow moving. He was concerned\nthat there would be a lot of traffic stuck at the red light on westbound Central Avenue at\nOak Street, which would then back up and impact Park Street. APD proposed a right-turn\nlane at the intersection, but that there was not enough space where the street narrowed to\nput an actual right-turn only lane. They believed that having the red zone would be a\ngood compromise.\nCommissioner Krueger would like to see a mid-block crosswalk, as suggested by Mr.\nSmith. He noted that there will be a lot of pedestrians wanting to cross over to the theater\nentrance, and believed the City should acknowledge people's actual behaviors and design\nthe crosswalk to suit.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 11 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 12, "text": "Staff Khan noted that when crosswalks are designed, staff look at pedestrian visibility and\nsafety; staff did not want the pedestrians to be a place where motorists did not expect\nthem. By putting white lines on the street, a safe environment would not be provided,\nespecially at night. He believed that a crosswalk at this location may create more\nconcerns.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the alleyway met the standard to constitute an\nunmarked crosswalk. Staff Khan replied that the alleyway was an access point. He noted\nthat between two signalized intersections, crossing would be considered jaywalking.\nLt. Boersma understood that an unmarked crosswalk must be a prolongation of the\nsidewalk; that there was no sidewalk, only a driveway onto private property. Therefore,\nthere was no unmarked crosswalk.\nCommissioner Ratto noted that a PSBA member who owned a restaurant across the street\nfrom the theater would request the PSBA Board to request that the City install a mid-\nblock crosswalk with in-pavement crosswalk lights. He noted that as executive director of\nPSBA, he would work for this recommendation. However, as a Transportation\nCommissioner, he would vote against that recommendation. He noted that this could give\na false sense of security to people crossing the street, and he did not believe that it was\nneeded between two controlled lights. He understood the concern about the de facto right\nlane, and noted that PSBA would be against the bulbout at that corner, as it would\nnegatively impact traffic flow. He inquired whether vehicles could turn left from Oak into\nthe garage. Staff Khan replied that they could.\nCommissioner Ratto believed that while 40 bike parking spaces in front of the theater was\nexcessive, he suggested that some bike racks be put in proximity to the theater. Staff\nKhan replied that this could be done, and added that the City could used some grant\nmoney for that purpose. They also considered putting some bike parking in the alleyway.\nCommissioner Krueger believed the priority should be putting the bikes in front of the\ntheater, and that there would be security concerns with alleyway parking. He suggested\nthat the real issues be acknowledged, that the proposal is more about maintaining traffic\nflow than meeting the needs of pedestrians. He believed that congested traffic would be\nbetter for pedestrians, and that smoothly flowing traffic would be more dangerous for the\npedestrians.\nLt. Boersma noted that both traffic and pedestrian issues were relevant, and that drivers\nwould still double park; there would also be a risk to passengers. He believed this would\nproposal would eliminate the ability to do that, and there would be an impact. He noted\nthat there would be queues in front of the theater, especially for the blockbuster movies.\nHe would discourage people crossing in between the two corners, and believed that a\nmid-block crosswalk would make things worse. He believed it would impede the traffic\nflow and give people a false sense of security. He believed the proposed plan addressed\nthe pedestrian safety, traffic flow and emergency access issues.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 12 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 13, "text": "Commissioner Ratto noted that this would not be set in stone, and that if there were\nproblems, changes could be made.\nChair Knox White responded that it would be better to get the plan right the first time.\nChair Knox White noted that he would move against this, but did support removing the\nparking. He supported the creation of a dropoff zone, the commercial loading zone and\nthe a red curb for sight lines. He opposed the creation of 270-foot-long de facto new lane\nalong Central Avenue. He understood the sight line issue as described by the lieutenant,\nbut was very concerned about drivers making right turns at the corner while pedestrians\nwaited to cross. He would rather see a bulbout that would prohibit the quick right turn.\nHe believed the proposed plan would not lead to good traffic flow and a vibrant\ndowntown, but that the proposal could be changed to achieve that goal.\nCommissioner Ratto moved to approve the staff recommendation to approve Proposed\nImplementation of Parking Restrictions on Central Avenue in Front of the New Theater\nand Cineplex to Improve Traffic Circulation and Access. Commissioner McFarland\nseconded the motion. Motion failed 2-5 (Knox-White, Krueger, Schatmeier,\nSubramaniam, Tam opposed).\nCommissioner McFarland left the meeting at 10:00 p.m.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Commissioner\nSubramaniam seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-1 (Ratto opposed).\n7C.\nReview of Draft Pedestrian Plan\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and acknowledged the hard work of Gail Payne in\nthe preparation of the Draft Pedestrian Plan. This item will be brought back for action in\nthe May meeting. He described the pedestrian plan in detail, and displayed the\nPowerPoint presentation on the overhead screen. He noted that it provided guidelines\nabove and beyond the ADA guidelines. He noted that goals were recommended by the\nTransportation Commission as part of the TMP policies: circulation, livability,\ntransportation choice and implementation. He noted that several public meetings were\nscheduled to discuss this plan, and described the progress of the plan. He described the\npoints assigned to the project for reaching the project goals, totaling 100 points; a project\ntotaling 70-80 points would trigger its implementation. He noted that high priority\nprojects included those considered over the next 10 years; the high priority projects\nwould cost approximately $10 million over that time, and these included accessible\nsignals, countdown signals, and intersection enhancements.\nStaff Khan described the medium priority projects, which were planned over five-plus\nyears, to be pursued after the high priority projects were funded. Staff expected $2\nmillion from Measure B sources, $3 million from Safe Routes to School and competitive\ngrants. He noted that public hearings would be conducted in April and May, and expected\nTransportation Commission\nPage 13 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 14, "text": "that the Transportation Commission would hear this item for action in May. The final\ndraft of the Pedestrian Plan will be created in May and June, and then taken to City\nCouncil for acceptance. Staff would like this plan to be adopted as part of the\nTransportation Element of the General Plan.\nOpen public comment.\nAdrienne Langley-Cook noticed that the draft plan identified a walkway through her back\nyard, and requested that it be corrected to reflect that there was no such pathway.\nChair Knox White noted that this comment was passed to staff, and that it would be\nremoved from the plan.\nTony Daysog complimented the Transportation Commission on its work, and wished to\nsee Alameda become even more pedestrian friendly. He recalled past major pedestrian\naccidents. He noted that this was not only a quality of life issue, but also a safety issue.\nBill Smith echoed Mr. Daysog's comments, described a recent serious pedestrian accident\nand re-emphasized the need for pedestrian safety.\nClose public comment.\nChair Knox White commended Gail Payne on the quality of this plan.\nNo action was taken.\n8.\nStaff Communications.\nStaff Khan noted that a meeting was held earlier in the day on the Broadway-Jackson\nStudy update. The project is moving forward as scheduled, and staff hoped to meet with\nthe Chinatown community in May. He anticipated bringing it to the Transportation\nCommission for its June 25 meeting. The goal is that the project study report will be\ncompleted and submitted to Caltrans by the end of July. He noted that good feedback had\nbeen received from the Oakland and Alameda communities, and believed that consensus\nhas been building towards the alternative in terms of providing access through Sixth\nStreet, as well as providing new ramps as discussed.\nChair Knox White believed that it would be good to have a public hearing in Alameda to\nmake it more convenient to Alamedans, particularly since the City was paying for part of\nthe project.\nStaff Khan noted that the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study was moving forward, and\ndistributed a handout to the Commissioners. The study would look into alternatives that\nwill address several user requirements, as identified by Gail Payne. Several meetings will\nbe held, and the study schedule was listed on page 4. Two meetings have been held on\nTransportation Commission\nPage 14 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 15, "text": "April 10 and April 12, one in Oakland and one in Alameda. More meetings will be held\nin May, at the Jack London Aquatic Center and at City Hall West. The Draft Report will\nbe presented in the fall of 2008, and staff hoped to complete the project with a\nrecommendation to City Council in early 2009.\nChair Knox White inquired whether the Transportation Commission was involved in the\nprocess. Staff Khan replied that this item would be brought to the Transportation\nCommission one or two times.\nStaff Bergman noted that future agenda items included a presentation on AC Transit's\nLine 51 Task Force in either the June or July meeting. He noted that AC Transit was in\nthe process of making staffing changes so that potential service changes on Line O are\nstill being studied. Staff Khan noted that preliminary data from AC Transit indicate that\nfew local riders were using Line O, so the elimination of local service on the transbay\nroute that had initially been discussed may not be appropriate.\nStaff Khan noted that the universal transit pass program was being discussed for use by\nall City employees, which may be implemented by June. He noted that the passes would\ninclude the bearer's photo.\nStaff Khan noted that staff had been directed to work with AC Transit staff regarding the\npotential implementation of shuttle service between Alameda and BART.\nChair Knox White wished to ensure that there would be sufficient notification for future\nappeals. He believed there should be a written procedure requiring noticing when a\ntentative agenda was set. Residents would be informed at least 20 days in advance if\npossible, and a staff report and additional information would be available a week in\nadvance.\nStaff Khan noted that he had a video from Paden Elementary School that he had\noriginally planned to show this evening, but would show at a later time.\n9.\nAdjournment:\n10:30 p.m.\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\\TC/2008\\052808\\042308minutes-draft-rev.doc\nTransportation Commission\nPage 15 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}