{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-06-25", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT\nJune 25, 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\nMembers Absent:\nSrikant Subramaniam\nNeilson Tam\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\nLisa Goldman, Deputy City Manager\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nMay 28, 2008\nCommissioner Krueger noted that page 2 \"MTC Stationary Planning Grant\" should be\n\"Station Area Planning Grant.\"\nCommissioner Krueger noted that there were several comments on pages 10 and 11 that\nhe did not remember making, and inquired whether they were made by someone else.\nPage 10: \"Commissioner Krueger noted that bike and pedestrian funding generally comes\nout of grants Page 11: \"Commissioner Krueger believed that CalTrans should provide\nthe funds to maintain their own roads, such as the Tubes.\" Chair Knox White believed\nthat he had made both comments.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that page 11 should be changed to read, \"Bus rapid\ntransit\" rather than \"rapid transit\".\nCommissioner McFarland moved approval of the minutes for the May 28, 2008, meeting\nand minutes as corrected. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-\n0. Abstain: Commissioner Ratto. Absent: Commissioners Subramaniam and Tam.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nPage 1 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-06-25", "page": 2, "text": "There were none.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\na.\nPedestrian Plan\nChair Knox White noted that the Pedestrian Plan Task Force had not met since the last\nmeeting.\nStaff Khan noted that staff was in the process of completing the draft plan, and will go to\nCity Council as part of the TMP at the end of the year.\nb.\nBicycle Plan Update Group\nChair Knox White noted that the group met on June 16, 2008, where an overview of the\nBike Master Plan update process was presented.\nd.\nAlameda Point Advisory Task Force\nChair Knox White noted that there had been no meetings since the last TC meeting.\nChair Knox White noted that he had spoken to a citizen on the bus regarding the bike\nparking issue at the theater. They had suggested looking at racks for the Park Street area.\nHe noted that the City-owned lot across the street from the theater had a lot of dead\nspace.\nStaff Khan noted that the Police Department had requested an official parking space for\npolice vehicles or others to park there. Staff was in the process of making that change.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that he had driven past Amelia Earhart School and\nLincoln Middle Schools, and had seen the 631 bus in operation. He inquired whether the\nbus operated when school was out of session, and did not believe that was a good use of\nresources.\nStaff Bergman responded that bus ran when summer school was in session, but did not\nknow whether it was in session yet.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS\nThere were none.\n6.\nOLD BUSINESS\n6A.\nOral Update on the Status of Water Emergency Transit Authority (WETA)\nPage 2 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-06-25", "page": 3, "text": "Lisa Goldman, Deputy City Manager, presented the staff report, and described the\nbackground of this item. She noted that SB1093 was introduced by Senator Wiggins of\nVallejo. Sen. Wiggins had voted for SB976, which did not please her constituents. She\nthen took the lead on the cleanup legislation, and ensured that Alameda was included in\nthe discussions. SB1093 had passed the Senate and several Assembly committees, and\nwas currently pending before the Assembly Appropriations Committee. She noted that\nthe City of Vallejo, despite its economic problems, hired a consultant and a lobbying firm\nto assist with this legislation. She noted that they brought forward several interests to\nCity Council and the Transportation Commission, particularly with respect to guarantees\nand protections for ferry riders, and asked that any new bill would guarantee that current\nservice levels were maintained at a minimum for seven years. They also requested that\nfuture fare increases be consistent with historical trends for Alameda ferry services, and\nthat the City be reimbursed for all of its investigation assets associated with the ferry\nservice at fair market value. They estimated that there were approximately $1.2 million of\ndiscretionary money that could have been used for other City purposes. They wished to\nensure that they were reimbursed for monies that could have been used for local streets\nand roads, or other transportation projects in town. They requested a seat on the new five-\nmember board, and Mayor Johnson was appointed to that board by Senator Perata.\nVallejo's former mayor was also appointed to the board.\nMs. Goldman noted that they were also interested in quarterly rider satisfaction surveys,\non-time performance, public meetings in Alameda if a fare increase or schedule change\nwas anticipated. They wanted to ensure that any plans at Alameda Point would not have\nto suffer or change because of the work with the new ferry system. They wished to be\ninvolved in the development of the management plan for emergency response. They\npushed the date for the development plan for completion out six months because they had\na late start; the transition plan must be adopted by July 1, 2009. The ferries cannot be\ntaken away or consolidated until the plan has been adopted by that date. The cities of\nAlameda and Vallejo, as well as the WETA Board, must affirmatively adopt resolutions\nstating that they will move forward. Any proposal to change the fares or schedule must be\nfollowed with a public hearing in Alameda. She noted that they must respect the City's\nGeneral Plan, redevelopment plans, and any existing redevelopment agreements. They\ncannot compel property changes or operational changes prior to the adoption of the\ntransition plan without the affirmative agreement of the City. They must compensate the\nCity in a manner to be determined later. She was hopeful that no major changes would\nfollow, and was disappointed that the permanency of the Board was not established.\nOpen public hearing.\nThere were no speakers.\nPage 3 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-06-25", "page": 4, "text": "Close public hearing.\nCommissioner Schatmeier believed one of the worst features of the bill was the five-\nmember board versus the 11-member board. He believed the five-member board was too\nsmall, and that reducing the number of representatives will make it more difficult for\nriders to directly communicate their concerns to decisionmakers. He believed this\nlegislation and new agency was unnecessary and not very well thought-out. He also noted\nthat he would like for ferry tickets to be good on other ferries. Ms. Goldman noted that\nwould be one major benefit of the new plan. She noted that the new executive director\nwould be John Stanley, who had close ties to Alameda as executive director of the\nHornet.\nChair Knox White noted that staff requested that someone from Senator Perata's office\ncome to hold the hearing in October, but that they stopped returning calls, which he\nbelieved was disrespectful and unfortunate.\nNo action was taken.\n6B.\nBroadway/Jackson Project Update\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and reviewed previous meetings on this ongoing\nproject, which was performed in collaboration with the City of Oakland, ACTIA and\nCaltrans to move the project forward. He noted that it was important to address the weave\nat the Jackson Street on-ramp on I-880 northbound. He noted that the intersection at 7th\nand Harrison was heavily used by pedestrians, so one goal of the project is to reduce\ntraffic at that intersection. Staff would like to shift freeway-bound traffic as much as\npossible, off Chinatown's local streets to arterials. Staff intended to present an alternative\nthat he mentioned previously, which would give drivers exiting the Posey Tube the\noption to make a left turn onto Sixth Street, which would be turned into an arterial street\nand would provide access to the freeway. The Broadway off-ramp would be moved,\nshortened and dropped at Webster Street. There would be a new on-ramp at I-880 North\nat Market Street, including some arterial improvements on 5th Street.\nDave Dickinson of Kimley-Horn Associates, the project consultant, displayed a\npresentation on additional studies that had taken place since February 2008, and discussed\nthe background of the project, as well as recommended alternatives. Their two main\nobjectives with the project study report were to develop a scope of an overall project that\nwas reached through consensus of the stakeholder agencies; and the deeper analysis of\nthe environmental studies. They developed a concept to put in a left-hand turn from\nHarrison to 6th Street, tapping into the 6th Street arterial. They developed elements that\nhad an independent utility so that they could be implemented individually. He displayed\nthe proposed arterial improvements along 6th Street, leading down to the Market Street\non-ramp. The project would also include a southbound off-ramp at Martin Luther King\nJr. with the 5th Street improvements. A left turn would be added from Harrison, exiting\nPage 4 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-06-25", "page": 5, "text": "the Posey Tube onto 6th Street. The study report would be available for agency review in\nmid- to late summer, and finalized by the end of the calendar year, at which time the\nenvironmental process would commence.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier, Mr. Dickinson replied that 6th\nStreet would not require additional right of way, and that it was an underutilized three-\nlane road at this point. Signal coordination and prioritization would be utilized on the\nroadway, which would be relatively cost-effective. There would be intersection\nimprovements at the base of the Market Street and a 6th Street on-ramp.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether 5th and 6th would remain one-way streets. Mr.\nDickinson replied that they would. Commissioner Krueger further inquired whether it\nwould be possible to square off the corner at Broadway near Jack London Square and still\nmaintain the traffic flow. Mr. Dickinson replied that would be possible, with a slight\ncurve to allow cars to turn.\nChair Knox White inquired how the project study report chose its alternatives, and\ninquired whether modeling had been done with respect to the alternatives. Art Dao,\nACTIA, replied that they had done traffic forecasting and origin/destination studies, as\nwell as traffic counts. He noted that a complex traffic forecasting model had been\ndeveloped, and that they were in the process of performing the operations analysis.\nA discussion about the necessity of the \"pork chop\" island and the double turn in the\nintersection at Harrison and 7th Street ensued. Mr. Dickinson stated that it possibly could\nbe eliminated; his staff would examine the number of trips being diverted.\nNo action was taken.\nChair Knox White suggested that Item 7A be heard before Item 6C.\n7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n7A.\nResident Appeal of Public Works Director's Approval of the Installation of\n\"NO PARKING\" Street Sweeping Signs on the 1300 block of Regent Street.\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report, and summarized the background and scope of\nthis item. He displayed the affected area on the overhead screen, and summarized the\nresponses received in the survey. He noted that the first basis for the appeal was that the\nparking restrictions would increase the hardship on parking, which would be twice a\nmonth for each side of the street, for a total of four times each month per block. City\npolicy states that street sweeping signs were installed with the intention of balancing the\nenvironmental needs of the street's cleanliness with the needs for parking in the\nneighborhood. The second basis for the appeal was that the neighbors took pride in the\nstreet, and picked up debris as it collected. The City's concern was that the street\nsweeping machines can remove debris that could not be removed by hand, such as\nmetals, hydrocarbons and small particles from brake pads on cars, etc. This also had to do\nPage 5 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-06-25", "page": 6, "text": "with the City's obligation under the Municipal Storm Water permit, and through the\nClean Water Program to control the runoff into the Bay. Staff recommended that the no-\nparking street sweeping signs be installed on this block in accordance with City policy,\nand to comply with the requirements of the Federal EPA Clean Water Act.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that both the appellants and the letter mentioned casual\ncar poolers, as well as Transbay bus riders. He inquired how many of the current parkers\nwere in that category. Staff Bergman replied that was anecdotal, and that hard numbers\nwere not available at this time. Staff did have boarding and alighting data from the Trans-\nBay bus at that location. The morning boardings were slightly over 100 per day, and\nabout 200 in the evening.\nCommissioner Ratto inquired whether the 1200 block of Regent Street was signed for\nstreet sweeping. Staff Bergman replied that it was, as was the 100 block.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger regarding the duration of daytime\nparking, Staff Khan replied that the parking occupancy survey was conducted at the time\nthe sweepers would go through. Commissioner Krueger suggested it would be useful to\nknow how many cars were there for the entire four hours.\nCommissioner Krueger requested further information on the amount of debris in the\ngutter. Staff Khan noted that the City was trying to determine parking impacts where\nstreet sweeping was installed, and based on that, staff recommends the restrictions, and\nidentifies the conditions of the affected streets. Staff found that there was no scientific\nway to determine the condition, but qualitative analysis observed an accumulation of\ndebris in the storm drain inlets. He noted that the mechanical broom was much stronger\nthan by hand. He noted that removal of debris by hand also increased the suspension of\nparticles into the air, as compared to the sweeper, which vacuums the debris into the\ncontainment chamber.\nOpen public comment.\nMr. Rabin, appellant, noted that the area was used by carpoolers all day. When he arrives\nhome from his night shift at the hospital, he frequently had no place to park, and that cars\nparked on his corner all day long. He noted that he had to move his car to a spot two\nblocks away, and added that this was an ongoing problem for him. He understood that\nstreet sweeping was a necessity, but believed that manual sweeping would be better than\nthe street sweeper. He noted that the vehicle emits hydrocarbons, stirred debris around,\nand left a trail behind it. Some residents have complained that their cars have been\nsideswiped, and others believed that it was a revenue-enhancing practice through the\nPage 6 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-06-25", "page": 7, "text": "issuance of tickets. He added that the street sweeping schedule was sometimes confusing\nand difficult to remember. He would like the casual carpool pickup spot to be moved to\nthe parking area near the theater.\nStaff Bergman noted that staff reviewed off-street parking along the block, and with the\nexception of six, at least one offstreet space is available.\nStaff Khan believed the street sweeping would improve the situation, because carpoolers\nwould not be able to park on the street.\nMr. Rabin, appellant, noted that the residents did not mind street sweeping, but did mind\nhaving the carpoolers parking in the area. He would like to see a parking sticker system\nexplored and instituted.\nStaff Khan noted that staff was looking into that possibility very seriously.\nClose public comment.\nCommissioner Krueger stated that he heard that there is hand-sweeping on Gibbons. Staff\nKhan noted that he was not aware of it, and that it was not sanctioned by the City.\nCommissioner Ratto noted that because of the massive trees on Gibbons, the residents\nbring in a vacuum truck to remove the leaves. He had never seen any hand-sweeping on\nthat street in 10 years.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that he lived at 1204 Regent Street, which had street\nsweeping, and inquired whether anyone had any objection to his participation in this\nissue. He added that he had an off-street parking space.\nCommissioner Ratto noted that he had participated in Park Street issues for six years, and\ndid not object to Commissioner Krueger participating in this issue.\nChair Knox White noted that conflict of interest was financial.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that he had no financial interest in this issue, and that he\nagreed that parking on Regent Street was very difficult.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that the issue of the street being used as a park-and-ride\nlot was critical, and believed that there may not be a problem otherwise. He believed the\nrestriction would take care of most workdays, and did not believe that decisions based on\na guess should be made.\nStaff Khan agreed that a park-and-ride lot would be beneficial near the Park Street\ndistrict, but that a location was difficult to find. He invited suggestions for potential\nlocations. He noted that the City of Davis offers a permit was possible for transit users;\nstaff was looking into that possibility very seriously.\nPage 7 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-06-25", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Ratto agreed with Mr. Rabin that the sweeping schedule was difficult and\nrestrictive. He respectfully asked Public Works to look at the possibility of modifying the\nschedule so that the streets could be swept on the other days to spread out the parking\nrestrictions. He suggested that the City hold discussions with the owners of the Bank of\nAmerica building, and that they offered monthly parking passes in that lot. He suggested\ntalking with the US Bank building, which was underutilized during the day. He noted that\nhe would vote to deny the appeal, and added that the appellant brought up many good\npoints. He commended the appellant for appearing before the Transportation\nCommission, and chided his neighbors for not showing up for the appeal. He believed the\nappellant would have been better supported if his neighbors had appeared as well, and\nadded that it was easy to sign a piece of paper, but that showing up for the meeting was\nvery important. He noted that this would be his last meeting as a Commissioner. He\nsuggested going back to the neighbors, and encouraging them to show up next time.\nCommissioner Schatmeier supported Commissioner Ratto's comments, and that a park\nand ride lot would be an asset to the City.\nCommissioner Krueger believed a park and ride lot would help, but would not solve the\nproblem. To solve the street sweeping issue, the parking utilization must be reduced to\nless than 30%.\nCommissioner McFarland agreed that having all the neighboring streets swept on the\nsame day was a big problem, and that some people did not have off-street parking.\nStaff Khan agreed with that assessment, and had previously suggested modifying the\nschedule. He noted that the maintenance crews looked at making the sweeping pattern as\nefficient as possible without impacting neighborhoods more than necessary. He noted\nthat if no off-street parking is available, the City takes this into account.\nChair Knox White noted that while a park and ride program was being discussed, there\nwas also a large parking garage with many open spaces during the day. He believed this\ncould be a way to solve the park and ride problem. He noted that the Transportation\nMaster Plan had a recommendation for setting up permit parking plans, making them\navailable to neighborhoods. He would like to see some semblance of control over how\nmany people park in an area, and for the public to use public streets as necessary. He\nbelieved residents should be careful in identifying the space in front of their house as\n\"their space.\" He was concerned with street sweeping itself, and believed that it should be\ndone on every street. He noted that other streets, such as Crist Street, were highly parked.\nHe noted that this was a difficult decision, but that the streets were swept only four days a\nmonth. He believed staff would continue to work with the residents with respect to the\nimpacts.\nCommissioner Ratto believed there should be signs on Central, Encinal, Chester and\nCrist.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether a street stayed signed forever. Staff Khan noted\nPage 8 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-06-25", "page": 9, "text": "that staff did not have an occasion to remove a sign, but if they receive a request, it may\nbe because of a substantial land use change, such as a new school. It was staff's goal that\nultimately all streets would be signed.\nCommissioner Ratto moved to accept staff's recommendation to deny the appeal.\nCommissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-1 (No: Schatmeier).\n6C.\nReview of Draft Schedule for Completing Analysis of Thresholds of\nSignificance.\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and noted that the major issue was how to resolve\nconflicts. The City Attorney has stated that a Supplemental EIR would be necessary. He\nnoted that the Transportation Commission has asked staff to determine how to resolve\nconflicts prior to bringing the EIR to the City Council. He noted that they would present a\nschedule to bring the resolution forward. The five items listed in the discussion to be\nimplemented before reaching the goal of having the threshold of significance were:\n1.\nThe final selection of methods of evaluation or level of service criteria;\n2.\nDevelopment of draft implementation policies to address conflicts among\ndifferent transportation modes;\n3.\nRunning the transportation model to see where the impacts were, and how\nto mitigate them;\n4.\nModify the draft policies as appropriate; and\n5.\nProcess the necessary environmental document so City Council could say\nthey understood the conflicts and the impacts, and that they would approve\nthe new thresholds of significance.\nHe noted that the City Council must also disclose the impacts to the public, which was a\nvery important item, in accordance with proposed EIR Policy 7. As an example, he noted\nthat the City of San Jose had selected a few intersections that were protected, and that\nthey would not be mitigated by adding more lanes; they would create a system of other\nmodes in the City, and that the impacts at the other intersection would pay for the\nimprovements. He noted that in order to collect the money from a developer or from\nprojects, it would be critical to have a nexus between the fees collected and the impacts.\nA statement of overriding consideration would be needed for those intersections that\nwould trigger the requirement of a supplemental EIR. He described the contents of the\nschedule in Table 1. He noted that in order to meet the schedule, a joint public hearing for\nthe Draft EIR with the Transportation Commission and the Planning Board was being\nconsidered for August. The Final EIR would be brought to the Transportation\nCommission before it went to City Council. He noted that resolutions to the conflicts\nmust be determined, and that staff hoped to return to the Transportation Commission in\nAugust or September with those recommendations.\nChair Knox White noted that the Transportation Commission requested that the\nprocedures for resolving conflicts come to this meeting, rather than a schedule. Staff\nKhan indicated that staff would continue to bring information forward as it became\nPage 9 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-06-25", "page": 10, "text": "available.\nChair Knox White was confused about the rationale for bringing the San Jose example\nforward, which the Transportation Commission has stated they did not want to follow.\nStaff Khan noted that it would be helpful for the Transportation Commission to clearly\nstate that they did not want to pursue the San Jose example. Staff Bergman noted that the\nTransportation Commission had requested that staff focus on using the functional\nclassification system to resolve conflcits, but that the possibility was brought up of\nblending a few approaches together. He noted that the San Jose example was meant to be\nillustrative.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that the minutes accurately reflected his memory, and that\nhe had asked about the San Jose approach as a hybrid approach. He did not want to drop\nthat subject without further discussion.\nNo action was taken.\n8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Bergman brought the maps that had been produced for the Safe Routes to School\nproject. The rest of the maps would be completed by the end of the summer. He displayed\na video to illustrate the impact of the redesigned drop-off zone at Paden School on traffic\ncirculation.\nEstuary Crossing/Feasibility Study\nStaff Khan noted that staff was looking into some alternatives for creating a crossing\nacross the Estuary. A Technical Advisory Committee meeting would be held on August\n5, 2008, and a Policy Advisory Committee meeting would be held on August 7. Another\nset of public hearings would be held in September and October.\nFuture meeting agenda items\nStaff Khan noted that he did not have any development-related traffic studies or plans at\nthis time. He noted that another appeal on the street-sweeping issue would be held at\na\nfuture meeting. An ILC meeting would be held on July 2, 2008 at City Hall.\nStaff Bergman noted that the City's work on multimodal thresholds of significance was\npresented for discussing at ACTIA's bicycle and pedestrian working group meeting. Hoe\nnoted that there was considerable interest in the City's work among staff from other\nagencies, but no one had undertaken similar work to date.\nStaff Khan noted that the Transportation Master Plan Environmental Impact Report\nwould be released by the second week of July.\nChair Knox White asked about AC Transit-related signage near Willow and Otis, or\nWillow and South Shore. Staff Bergman replied that this related to the proposed\nPage 10 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-06-25", "page": 11, "text": "improvements at bus stops. The improvements will be implemented even if this portion\nof Line 63 is not shifted to Shoreline Drive, as the stops also serve Line W.\nChair Knox White noted that this was the final meeting for Commissioner Ratto.\nCommissioner Ratto noted that it was ironic and gratifying that the four Commissioners\nthat he started serving with were the four Commissioners in attendance. He noted that it\nhad been a pleasure serving with them, and that he had learned much from them. He\nthanked Staff Khan and Staff Bergman for staffing this Commission, and for their efforts\nin informing the public regarding the limitations of the Department. He also thanked the\npublic for their participation.\nChair Knox White thanked Commissioner Ratto for his service.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that he was distressed that this was Commissioner\nRatto's last meeting. He noted that they had disagreed on issues, but that he always\nrespected him as a colleague and a friend. He noted that he would be missed.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT: 9:35 p.m.\nPage 11 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf"}