{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-05-28", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nMay 28, 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\nEric Schatmeier\nSrikant Subramaniam\nNeilson Tam\nMembers Absent:\nRobb Ratto\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nApril 23, 2008\nCommissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the April 23, 2008, meeting and\nminutes as presented. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0.\nAbsent: Commissioner Ratto.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nThere were none.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\na.\nMultimodal Circulation Plan\nChair Knox White requested that the Multimodal Circulation Plan be removed from the agenda\nsince it no longer met.\nStaff Khan noted that would be done.\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-05-28", "page": 2, "text": "b.\nPedestrian Plan\nChair Knox White noted that the Pedestrian Plan Task Force had not met since the last meeting.\nc.\nBicycle Plan Update Group\nStaff Bergman noted that this group would meet June 16, 2008.\nd.\nAlameda Point Advisory Task Force\nChair Knox White noted that the meeting was to present a report from WRT Solomon regarding\nthe MTC Station Area Planning Grant. The first meeting was in March 2007, and they brought\nforth a study that determined three development plans, one of which mimicked the PDC accepted\nby City Council. They also looked at a scenario with higher density than the second plan, which\nwould zero out the net traffic gains from the second plan. He noted that report stated the higher\ndensities would lead to less traffic and more dependence on transit.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS\nThere were none.\n6.\nOLD BUSINESS\n6A.\nReview and Approval of the Draft Pedestrian Plan.\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report, and noted that there had been no changes since the last\npresentation of this plan. He noted that it had been brought to the other Boards and Commissions,\nand that it would be brought to City Council.\nStaff Khan noted that the Pedestrian Plan would be brought to City Council for acceptance in\nearly July 2008, following the recommendations from the Transportation Commission and the\nPlanning Board. It would not be adopted by the City Council until the Transportation Master\nPlan policies completed the CEQA process, which would be in the September/October\ntimeframe.\nStaff Bergman noted that the report detailed the high-, medium- and low-priority projects, and\nthat the report would support future grant applications, as well as guide the Capital Improvement\nProgram in future years. The policies would be adopted as part of the Transportation Master\nPlan, which would then be rolled into the General Plan.\nChair Knox White noted that there had been an issue about the maps, which showed a street and\npedestrian walkway, which went through somebody's house. Staff Khan noted that had been\ncorrected.\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-05-28", "page": 3, "text": "Open public hearing.\nMs. Ani Dimusheva believed the Pedestrian Plan was a very impressive document. She had\nnoticed the phrase \"put more distance between the car and the pedestrian,\" particularly with\nrespect to bulbouts. She believed that bulbouts were necessary in some places in Alameda, but\nshe did not feel in danger when on the sidewalk. She did not believe that bulbouts improved her\nsafety when she crossed the street, but as a driver, she believed that bulbouts were distracting to\nher and made things more difficult when turning. She believed that flashing crosswalks were a\ndistraction, and did not flash predictably when a pedestrian was in the crosswalk. She believed\nthat drivers responded to lights rather than people, and that the flashing lights took her attention\naway from the pedestrians in the street. She believed at the Island/Doolittle intersection, the walk\nfrom the east side of the golf course was pedestrian-unfriendly unless they jaywalked; a\npedestrian could not cross to the east without going down to Island. She believed that an\nimprovement was necessary there. She believed that the trails behind Bayview were beautiful\nand should be left as is, and did not want them to be paved.\nClose public hearing.\nChair Knox White noted that he had some concern about approving the Plan without the\nTransportation Commission seeing the final version, that the document that would go to City\nCouncil for approval had not yet been printed, and that the current document had an incorrect\nmap in it.\nStaff Khan noted that the approval could be conditioned that the changes would be made.\nChair Knox White noted that some issues that trod the line between policy and design guidelines,\nsuch as not putting up \"no-crossing\" signs at bus stops, such as on Atlantic Avenue. He believed\nthat was a policy, and should be in the policy document. He was surprised to find that the design\nguidelines, originally intended as a companion document, would not be ready to go to City\nCouncil at the same time. He noted that would be his preference, which showed buy-in from the\nCity's policy-makers.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired about the Island/Doolittle intersection, and noted that there was\nno sign stating \"no crossing,\" but that there was no crosswalk, and almost no sidewalk.\nStaff Khan noted that the signal operations were an issue, and that there may be a conflict with\npedestrian crossing. He noted that intersection could be added to be addressed in the plan.\nCommissioner Krueger suggested that a second category be created, where intersections simply\nhad no facilities, such as Island/Doolittle, where pedestrian facilities were not in place, rather\nthan pedestrian crossings being prohibited.\nChair Knox White noted that this plan was not the appropriate vehicle to pick and choose specific\nactions, and that he would like to have a discussion about the valid use of the in-pavement lights.\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-05-28", "page": 4, "text": "He believed they were flashy, and seemed as if they would work well; he noted that the current\nbody of work did not support that the $50-75,000 cost would do a proportionately better job than\na yellow pedestrian-caution sign in the middle of the street.\nStaff Khan noted that staff would prepare a presentation by July to address lighted crosswalks as\npart of the design guidelines. He understood that they were feasible and effective in some\nlocations, such as Walnut Creek or San Leandro, generally when visibility was good with no sun\nglare issue, such as on Otis Drive. He suggested that the orientation of the street be considered\nwhen evaluating locations for lighted crosswalks.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether any lower-cost interim solutions could be used for\nlower priority projects, such as signage at Island and Doolittle. He suggested that a sign\nidentifying the last chance to cross the street before getting to the bridge. He added that such a\nsign could be used near the Posey Tube, and that some sidewalks go to the Tube and that some\nsidewalks dead-end.\nStaff Khan believed that was a very good suggestion, and that this could be implemented as part\nof the City's existing maintenance budget.\nCommissioner Krueger shared Chair Knox White's concern about approving a document unseen,\nbut trusted that staff would make the appropriate changes as requested.\nChair Knox White noted that his comment only regarded the map, which staff stated had been\ncorrected, and that nothing else in the document had been changed.\nStaff Khan noted that there were other changes, such as placement of punctuation, but that there\nwere no substantive changes.\nCommissioner Krueger moved to approve the Draft Pedestrian Plan. Commissioner Schatmeier\nseconded the motion.\nChair Knox White requested that Commissioner Krueger amend his motion to state that staff\nshould look at the Island/Doolittle intersection. He noted that it would be hard to fund\neverything.\nCommissioner Krueger suggested that it be tied into the crosswalk lights, and he shared the same\nconcerns about the cost-effectiveness of those lights. He shared the concerns about the crosswalk\nlights and the associated costs.\nCommissioner Krueger amended his motion to approve the draft Pedestrian Plan, but with the\nadditional recommendation that the cost-effectiveness of the crossing lights be examined, and\nto objectively confirm the prioritization of the Island/Doolittle intersection from the standpoint\nof closing a gap in the pedestrian network, and whether funding could be shifted to accomplish\nthat. Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the amendment was acceptable to him, and seconded\nthe amended motion. Motion passed 6-0. Absent: Commissioner Ratto.\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-05-28", "page": 5, "text": "Chair Knox White noted that he would entertain a motion asking that the design guidelines be\nsent to City Council.\nCommissioner Krueger moved to direct that the design guidelines be sent to City Council after\npresentation before the Transportation Commission. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the\nmotion. Motion passed 6-0. Absent: Commissioner Ratto.\nStaff Bergman noted that the estimated cost of crosswalk lights of $50-75,000 were generally\ncorrect, and wished to clarify that those projects had been funded by grants. City funds\ncomprised between 10-20% of those funds.\nChair Knox White inquired whether that grant money could be used for other projects. Staff\nBergman replied that the funding depended on the priorities of the funding agencies, and how\nthey ranked various projects.\nStaff Khan noted that was a good point, and that in this case, the lighted crosswalks came from\nSafe Routes to School funding, and that the funding contained that restriction. He added that\nfurther discussion could take place in July.\n6B.\nReview of Multimodal Evaluation Methods to Determine a Project's Potential\nImpact on Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Modes.\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and noted that there must be an EIR document to identify\nthe impacts and clearly disclose them to the public. He noted that one of the existing significance\ncriteria was the Level of Service D for vehicles at an intersection, which translates to an average\ndelay of 35-55 seconds. Staff had worked with the City Attorney's office and Planning\nDepartment staff, and have gotten feedback from them to ensure the report is complete in\ndeveloping the criteria. He noted that this information would be used to create quantitative\nmethods to evaluate impacts for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit. He described the various\nmethodologies used in the report, particularly in determining future conditions on Webster\nStreet, Park Street and Central Avenue.\nStaff Khan noted that staff was struggling with how to resolve conflicts, particularly between\nmodes. He noted that in addressing transit impacts, they could add a queue jump lane at an\nintersection to improve transit service, but at the same time, that would mean the pedestrian\ncrossing time and pedestrian delay would be impacted. He noted that they must choose between\ntwo modes for the higher priority. He noted that the City Council has the option not to mitigate\nsignificant impacts, if they approve a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and that an EIR\nmust be in place to be able to make that decision. He noted that depending on how significant\nimpacts are defined, even small changes such as striping a bike lane could require a full-blown\nEIR, which could be very expensive for the City.\nStaff hoped that when the street functional classification system was examined as recommended\nby the Transportation Commission, that classification system could guide the City in resolving\nsome conflicts. Staff hoped to identify the streets by a specific mode and their priorities. He\nnoted that some districts faced similar challenges, such as the commercial districts of Park Street\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-05-28", "page": 6, "text": "and Webster Street, where pedestrians were a high priority. Staff requested the Transportation\nCommission's input in how to resolve these conflicts, as well as continuing the dialogue with the\nCity Attorney's office and the Planning Department to ensure no avenues were missed. Staff\nsuggested that the City move forward with the policy in the Transportation Master Plan, but\ncontinue with the criteria development on a slower timeline to allow for additional feedback\nfrom the public and the development community.\nStaff Khan noted that the third approach could be a network approach, which had been used in the\nenvironmental community for wetlands. In that case, the impact to one location could be mitigated\nby similarly improving another location. Staff considered that kind of mitigation, by considering\nbicycle, pedestrian or transit as a network. If impacts occurred at one location, staff would consider\ngoing beyond a certain distance to fix a problem in the network. Staff asked the Transportation\nCommission to extend the timeline for adoption of these criteria by nine to twelve months. Staff\nrequested feedback on the proposed threshold of LOS D for pedestrians, as well as any suggestion\nof preference on those issues, as well as how to resolve conflicts based upon the three listed\nmethods.\nCommissioner Schatmeier inquired how LOS for transit was different than LOS for vehicles.\nStaff Khan explained that the vehicle LOS looks at the whole intersection and all approaches, and\nthat transit LOS looked at the impact on legs with transit. He noted that transit signal priority on\nsome locations would be examined.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier whether delays caused by passengers\nwere taken into account, Staff Khan replied that only delays caused by vehicles were examined.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding corridor LOS for vehicles, Staff Khan\nreplied they were looking into it, and that the intersection may be improved, but the corridor\nLOS would go down.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that Table 13 had a typo, and should read \"optimized.\" He added\nthat Table 14 should read \"mitigated.\" He inquired why the mitigated plan numbers for the 2030\nTMP for southbound Buena Vista and Lincoln were higher than the number for the 2030\noptimized plan. Staff Khan replied that the TMP policy was meant to reduce the classification for\nBuena Vista by shifting traffic onto other streets.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether the model accounted for crossing\ntwo legs of an intersection, such as Encinal and Park, Staff Khan replied that he would check\nwith Dowling and return with that information.\nOpen public hearing.\nJay Davis suggested the use of diagonal crosswalks (scramble phase) for streets like Park or\nWebster Street.\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-05-28", "page": 7, "text": "Close public hearing.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger, Staff Khan noted that the Planning Board\nwanted to be sure this was as easy and consistent as possible. The possibility of using headways\nto define major transit corridors was an option, as opposed to the previously discussed option\nbased on having three bus lines in that corridor.\nCommissioner Krueger believed that the number of routes was not as important than the number\nof buses traveling the routes. He believed that headway was better than number of lines.\nCommissioner Schatmeier believed that transit delays were caused by a number of factors, and\nthat speed was caused by a number of factors.\nChair Knox White believed that the reason to separate the two was to put in queue jump lanes for\nthe buses to jump around the congestion, and mitigate the LOS for transit without mitigating the\nLOS for the cars. He did not believe it made sense to put something together to mitigate all the\ncongestion at Atlantic and Webster by adding a couple of lanes, when all the traffic moved\nquickly to the Tube, only to sit in traffic at that point. He acknowledged that there was no perfect\nsystem, and suggested that the Commission may not need to factor in stops.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that he still struggled with the LOS definition, and what it got\nthe City. He agreed that defining LOS for corridors or intersections was a method for defining\ntraffic problems. He noted that transit delay and transit speeds were determined by many factors,\nand inquired whether it would identify traffic impacts from a particular development.\nStaff Khan confirmed that was correct, and noted that they came from the policies that the\nTransportation Commission recommended last year. He noted that they attempted to address\ndegraded travel time on a corridor, which would impact the transit. He noted that this addressed\nrelative change. He noted that the City could examine the intersections on the corridors, or make\nsome of the transit stops more efficient, and that there were many ways to improve service\ndelivery of transit.\nStaff Bergman noted that as part of the work done by Florida DOT in developing their bicycle\nLOS and pedestrian LOS, they also did a transit LOS, which was very data-intensive and\ncomplex. Staff noted that they attempted to strike a balance in something that the development\ncommunity could use without going through the very labor intensive exercise that would put a\nburden on the City to analyze, and would be difficult for the public to understand. Staff wished\nto show an impact in a way that was easy to quantify.\nChair Knox White noted that he especially liked the real-world analysis that shows what\npedestrian LOS A, B, C and D look like. He was concerned that LOS D might be too optimistic,\nand thought that B might be too stringent. He suggested that LOS C might be a level to look at;\nhe noted that most of the intersections operating in the business districts operate at LOS B. He\nappreciated the Central Avenue bike lanes from Pearl to Oak, shown as operating at LOS B. He\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-05-28", "page": 8, "text": "noted that Webster and Park were examples of streets that he would not ride with his children,\nbut did not believe that Webster and Park must come up to LOS B. He suggested looking at two\ndifferent LOS ratings: one for regional arterial streets, and one for the rest of the streets.\nCommissioner Krueger echoed Chair Knox White's comments, and understood the desire to have\nthe consistency, one reason why LOS D was proposed for all modes. Rather than change the\nmethodologies, he suggested considering a different significance threshold for bicyclists and for\npedestrians. He noted that pedestrians were much more delay-sensitive than drivers, given that\nthey were exposed to the elements.\nProcess for Resolving Conflicts between Modes\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether Chair Knox White was suggesting\nthat instead of headways and number of routes, that the City should look at street classifications,\nChair Knox White confirmed that was the case.\nChair Knox White inquired whether there was a plan in place to ensure this would be completed\nwithin nine to twelve months.\nStaff Khan noted that three departments were working on this issue, and that the City Attorney's\noffice and the Planning Department must be satisfied. He noted that meetings had taken place\namong these departments, and they had determined that nine to twelve months was a reasonable\ntime to go back to the public on this issue and discuss it with the development community. Their\nintention was to complete this is nine months, not to put it off for nine months.\nA discussion of the street classification system and its goals ensued.\nChair Knox White did not see the network approach as a mitigation of the problems. He\nsuggested returning in June, and that this should be done as part of the EIR. He believed this\nspecific issue of how the functional classification maps interacted with each other should go\nforward with the final EIR for adoption by the City Council. He suggested that in June, that the\nCommission return with several scenarios to be prioritized, with the goals of simplicity and\nbeing easy to understand.\nStaff Khan noted that they had discussed how to create a system that did not require discretionary\napproval for each mitigation. The development community wanted to know what to expect with\nrespect to levels of service and kinds of mitigations to expect before coming into a city.\nChair Knox White understood that the concerns were less for very large projects, which would do\nan EIR anyway; the concerns generally surrounded the much smaller projects.\nCommissioner Krueger shared the concern about the network approach, and believed that was his\nleast favorite option. He believed that the pedestrian, bicycle, transit and car environments were\nnot so much like wetlands, and that doing a mitigation in another location was not sufficient or\neffective. He noted that they ran the risk of making one intersection completely impassable for\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-05-28", "page": 9, "text": "bikes, and building a beautiful bike path on the other end of town. He noted that he could see\npositives and negatives with the functional classification and the protected intersection methods.\nHe believed the functional classification might be the most practical choice.\nChair Knox White inquired whether the Transportation Commission would be comfortable with\nmoving forward using the street functional classification, and whether staff would be\ncomfortable as well.\nStaff Khan noted that the administrative draft of the schedule would be delivered on June 4,\n2008, as promised by Dowling. The delay was due to staff's request to include some of the\nintersections in Alameda Point that were not included in the regional network. Staff intended to\nhave the administrative draft reviewed, and the draft EIR would be available in July, in\npreparation to going to City Council in October.\nChair Knox White noted that August would be a difficult month due to vacations, and requested\nthat the EIR be released for longer than 40 days. He requested that it be presented after the\nAugust meeting. He requested that something be brought back in June. He requested that the\nmaps be explained very clearly in the document.\nStaff Khan noted that he would talk with the Planning Department and the City Attorney's office\nto make sure they would be on board with the prioritization. He noted that the policy would be\nadopted which stated it was a City policy, but the remainder would be held off until the criteria\nfor the nine to twelve month schedule came in. He will talk with the Planning Department and\nreport back in June.\nChair Knox White expressed concern that with the number of meetings left, that the discussions\nmay be rushed. He believed that a discussion of the preliminary draft in June would be valuable.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether it would be possible to implement a hybrid approach.\nHe noted that there were some aspects of the protected intersection idea that that he liked, and\nthat he believed they were consistent with the City's stated policy regarding certain intersections\nwhere congestion was inevitable. He noted that approach addressed the concern staff expressed\nabout developers wanting to know how they mitigated.\nChair Knox White believed that was another layer of confusion in dealing with corridors, when\none used the street functional classification, and another was a protected intersection.\nStaff Khan noted that staff would examine that idea.\nNo action was taken.\n7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-05-28", "page": 10, "text": "7A.\nWebster Street Intelligent System/Smart Corridors Project\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and detailed the background and issues of this matter. Staff\nhad been working with Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, AC Transit and the\nCity of Oakland. The City will get some funding from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air,\nfrom the air district, and the funding will be distributed by the congestion management agency.\nHe noted that staff was working with AC Transit, and understood that the San Pablo corridor had\nseen substantial benefit of having the signal priority implemented along the corridor. The signal\nwould detect the bus up to a certain distance, and depending upon the speed and where the bus\nwas, it would extend the green time depending upon the operation at that signal. In addition to\nbenefiting transit riders, it could reduce the overall delay at that intersection for other vehicles.\nStaff Khan noted that the second element of the project was the signal coordination along the\nWebster Street corridor. He noted that was taken into account in giving the City funding. He\nnoted that the third element was to provide better monitoring at intersections and at key\nlocations, and also to have better data collection for vehicle speed and volume along the corridor.\nHe noted that the advantage of having the cameras monitoring information available is that it\ncould be available via internet to travelers, such as www.511.org or the Smart Corridors website.\nThat would also help staff address the concerns of the Webster and Posey Tubes, at the points\nwhere backed up traffic would also impact other crossings in the City. He noted that was also a\nsafety concern for the City to have better incident management.\nStaff Khan noted that the fourth element was to provide this information openly to the public as\nhe described, and that it would give staff the opportunity to make changes as a result of\nmonitoring intersections in real-time. Staff would be able to see such things as lane utilization\nand saturation flow rates. He noted that Webster Street was a key fire department access route to\nthe medical center in Oakland. He noted that federal earmark money will be available through\nCMA for this project as well. He anticipated that ground will be broken in July 2008.\nChair Knox White noted that bike and pedestrian funding generally came out of grants, as\nopposed to stable funding, and inquired whether this funding was considered a grant as well.\nStaff Khan replied that it was a grant, based on the population calculation.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether there would be money for\ninstallation of displays at bus stops, Staff Khan confirmed that there would be funds for displays.\nChair Knox White inquired what the City would be getting for $800,000 that could be spent\nelsewhere.\nStaff Khan replied that incident management was critical for the Tubes, and that the Police\nDepartment has stated that in the last 10 years, over 4,000 calls had been received related to\nincidents in the Tubes. He noted that from the time saved in clearing an incident, there would be\n10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-05-28", "page": 11, "text": "a $6 million savings in increased improvement in productivity costs, and making sure that people\nget to where they were going. Staff wished to provide better information to travelers, and was\nvery concerned to ensure that motorists were informed before getting in their cars and could\nchoose an alternate route. He noted that this was an unfunded project in CIP.\nCommissioner Schatmeier hoped that the 51 Line would be a candidate for bus rapid transit\nthroughout its length. If the City had this signal treatment on Webster Street, it might prove itself\nto be a positive thing.\nChair Knox White believed that Caltrans should provide the funds to maintain their own roads,\nsuch as the tubes. Staff Khan believed that Caltrans may provide some money for this project as\nwell.\nNo action was taken.\n8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nBroadway/Jackson Update\nStaff Khan noted that staff planned to have a presentation made by Dowling and Kimley-Horn at\nthe June 25 Transportation Commission meeting. They will present the results of the models they\ndeveloped. He noted that the option allowing for a left turn coming out of the Posey Tube is\ngaining support, and one potential obstacle is that a proposal has been submitted for a\ndevelopment project in that area.\nEstuary Crossing/Feasibility Study\nStaff Khan noted that a second set of public meetings had been held this month. The public has\nexpressed a desire to see timely results. He requested Commission feedback.\nMonitoring of Oak Street/Central Avenue intersection\nCity Council has directed staff to monitor this location based on concern about potentially\ncreating a de facto right turn lane on westbound Central Avenue at the intersection with Oak\nStreet. Staff is continuing to monitor this and will report back to the TC with the results of this\nmonitoring prior to reporting back to Council. A camera used to monitor the construction will be\nreoriented toward the intersection, and staff will be conducting volume and turning movement\ncounts. Chair Knox White expressed an interest in having pedestrian right-of-way violations\nmonitored.\nFuture plans\nStaff Khan noted that the Shipways project in Marina Village is expected to come forward for a\nreview shortly.\n11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-05-28", "page": 12, "text": "WETA legislation update\nStaff will report back once additional information is available. Chair Knox White expressed\nconcern that there would be no opportunity for people in Alameda to provide input until after\nsomething had been approved.\nFuture meeting agenda items\nItems for June include the Broadway/Jackson presentation, schedule for the LOS criteria, and an\nappeal regarding the installation of street sweeping signs.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT\n12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf"}