{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-11-28", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission\nJanuary 13, 2013\nItem 4A\nAction\nTransportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, November 28, 2012\nCommissioner Jesus Vargas called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:03 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nMichele Bellows\nChristopher Miley (Vice Chair)\nEric Schatmeier\nJesus Vargas (Chair)\nSandy Wong\nMembers Absent:\nThomas G. Bertken\nStaff Present:\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\nMatt Naclerio, Public Works Director\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\n3.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\nCommissioner Wong commented that she is a representative for the Alameda Unified School\nDistrict. She received letters from students indicating their concern of the five-legged\nintersection in front of Encinal High School. She mentioned that the intersection has received\nmany accidents and near misses. Furthermore, there is a concern around the Boys and Girls\nClub, Woodstock Education Center, Woodstock Park, and Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway\nonto Third Street. She will monitor the situation and look into the concern further.\nCommissioner Vargas acknowledged the recent election results from Measure B1 and he asked\nstaff to schedule an agenda item to discuss the results and next steps.\nPage 1 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-11-28", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff at some point to share their knowledge of next steps for\nMeasure B1 and potential strategies for supporters of Measure B1.\nCommissioner Vargas explained that dozens of letters and emails were sent to staff regarding the\nagenda items and he opened the floor to public comment.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, asked if there was an update regarding the\nI-880/23rd Avenue/29th Avenue project coming before the City Council.\nCommissioner Vargas replied an update would be given towards the end of the agenda in Staff\nCommunications.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, asked staff to\npresent feedback and strategies after the failure of Measure B1. He attended the last Planning\nBoard meeting and there was a discussion on the new leasing strategy for Alameda Point. He\nfelt the City was now stuck without any option besides the tubes. He stated that the City needs\nbetter transportation options before going further with the development of Alameda Point.\n4.\nConsent Calendar\nCommissioner Schatmeier brought up a technical concern regarding item 4C. Generally, the\naudible voices for the signals at Park Street and Santa Clara Avenue are indistinguishable. He\nwas not sure if the problem existed in the microphone or the signal equipment. Going forward,\nhe would like staff to improve the quality of the signal's information.\nStaff Payne explained that the new standard is to not have the voice because it is too difficult to\nunderstand. As part of state regulations, staff uses the California Manual on Uniform Traffic\nControl Devices (MUTCD) and the manual does not require that voice as part of the new\npedestrian push button equipment.\n4A.\nMeeting Minutes - September 26, 2012\n4B.\nMandatory Ethics Training Requirements\n4C.\nAccessible Pedestrian Signals - New Freedom Grant\nCommissioner Vargas made a motion to approve the consent calendar. Commissioner\nSchatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-0; 2 abstentions.\nStaff Naclerio explained that the Alameda Municipal Code requires a minimum of 4 affirmative\nvotes to approve an action item.\nCommissioner Schatmeier made another motion to approve the consent calendar. Commissioner\nMiley seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0; 1 abstention.\nPage 2 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-11-28", "page": 3, "text": "5.\nNew Business\n5A. Shore Line Drive/Westline Drive Proposed Bikeway Project\nStaff Payne presented the staff report.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comment.\nDavid Duffin, 30-year Alameda resident, felt City staff did an incredible job to develop the\nproject. Although the overall impact certainly satisfies a need for more bicycle access, there are\nthousands of people in the area who have no idea about this project. He has spoken to many\npeople in the area and they have no idea about the project's concept. Alternatively, he proposed\nthat the City leave the area as is or double the pedestrian path within the area to take bicycles off\nthe road and put them within a safe space.\nCarol Gottstein grew up near Shore Line Drive and she felt the comparisons presented in the\nstudy are invalid because they compare Alameda to large cities such as San Francisco, Long\nBeach and Seattle. She felt the project would not work on a narrow and short street and she felt\nthe new infrastructure would create an enormous amount of clutter and future dependency and\nfunds to maintain.\nJeanne Lahaie, member of Team Alameda and Bike Alameda, spoke before the Commission\nindependently. She went to three of the meetings and applauded staff Payne and her team for\ntheir thorough outreach. She lives at Broadway and Shoreline Drive and brought a few\noutcomes from the breakout sessions. First, there are no curb ramps on the sidewalks from the\ncrosswalks. So, it is difficult for individuals with disabilities residing around the area to travel\nsafely. Furthermore, she would like to see the bikeway extended to Washington Park. She\nmentioned the City adopted that idea under the long-term plan and with community support and\nvolunteers the start up costs should be small. She highlighted that bicyclists become confused\nabout where to go at the corner of Broadway and Shore Line Drive, and signs should be posted\nto\naddress it. She is in favor of the plan, but she would like to see two motor vehicle travel lanes\nso as not to create more congestion.\nBruce Kibby, resident of Santa Clara Avenue, believed the process and project design was great\nand he supported the project wholeheartedly. He knew that many people had input on the Shore\nLine Drive bikeway. He urged the Commission to review the priorities of the proposed project\nthat show the proposed bikeway meets them such as improves resident access to\napartment/condos, reduced conflicts on path, improves safety and maintains bay views.\nRandy Rentschler, 20-year resident of Alameda, works in the field of transportation for 20 years.\nHe felt City staff worked hard on the project to create an effective plan, which he fully\nsupported. He pointed out that new Bay Area communities such as Danville have installed\nbikeways on many of their streets. Currently, new collector streets only would be built with a\nbikeway. The Commission and the community should support this project and similar actions on\nother streets in the future.\nPage 3 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-11-28", "page": 4, "text": "Jon Spangler explained that he was born and raised in Redwood City, which is similar to\nAlameda in size. He hoped that the community could recognize improvements that could be\nmade through City staff's hard work. He urged staff to consider creating additional adequate\ndisabled parking access for residents in the neighborhood. Also, stop signs on Shore Line Drive\nand Westline Drive are needed on Shorepoint Court where Westline crosses it and at the U.S.\nPost Office. Lastly, the barriers for the cycle tracks should be raised similar to the Belgium\nexample for the entire length of the cycle track.\nCommissioner Vargas asked Mr. Spangler's opinion on delineators.\nJon Spangler replied that he would rather see a rigid concrete barrier that is usually found in\nparking lots to absolutely stop or slightly deflect a car that is spinning out of control.\nJim Strehlow was satisfied with the City staff's community process and the way they addressed\nthe community. However, he was a bit concerned on a couple of items. First, he acknowledged a\nsafety issue in Figure 1 at Shore Line Drive, Broadway and Bayview Drive. When traveling\ndown Shore Line Drive, hitting the stop sign and then making a right hand turn on Bayview\nDrive, there should be more of a buffer like a green box or sharrows. Overall, he did not\nunderstand how the flow would work in the area and he is concerned with the pedestrian\ncrossings at Park Street and Grand Street. He urged staff to consider budgeting for yield to\npedestrian signs or markings.\nLucy Gigli, President of Bike Alameda, she would like to thank the staff for taking the time to\nengage the community. She felt the project took all community viewpoints into account and the\nproject will be a model for the rest of Alameda County. Her only concern was the cost, which\ndoubled, and may slow the implementation of the project. She suggested phasing and\nprioritizing actions such as moving the bollards to a later phase. She also suggested reducing the\npriority for landscaping such as on Fernside Drive and to produce less costly alternatives in the\ninterim to get the project moving along to not lose funding.\nWarren Vegas, Alameda resident and bicyclist, supported the measure and wanted to see the\nbarrier along the cycle track buffered at 4 to 5 feet. He also asked the Commission and staff to\nthink about adding an additional crosswalk near the McDonalds, which can be dangerous to\npedestrians.\nRandall Block, Alameda resident and bicyclist, felt that Alameda is a great place to bicycle and\nthe proposal creates a separation between bicyclists from cars. He reiterated the belief that City\nstaff had done an excellent job with the community's concerns and question about the project\noverall. Overall, he was speaking for other bicyclists and families about how phenomenal the\nproject was and how much he fully supported the project.\nCatherine Egelhoff, Alameda resident and bicyclist, believed City staff conducted a great job\nwith community input especially given resident's individual needs and concerns. Overall, she\nsupports the project.\nJoyce Larrick, Alameda resident and pedestrian, stated that City staff had done a great job. She\nPage 4 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-11-28", "page": 5, "text": "mentioned that it was hard to walk on the beach on the weekend due to a large volume of cyclists\nwith their children on the path. She questioned the project's timeframe from start to finish and\nwhether the Commission would make a decision that night or would they continue to review the\ndocuments. She hoped that the project finds sufficient funding to maximize the full benefits to\nthe community.\nSusan Sperry, 30-year Alameda and Shore Line Drive resident, voiced her disapproval of the\nproject because her financial investment is tied to her home. She felt the proposal would reduce\nthe value of her home and would bring vehicle and bicycle congestion to the area. She suggested\nthat the project move to Alameda Point and wondered if the project description and community\nmeetings were sent to residents around the area.\nStaff Payne replied all residents within 300 feet of Shore Line Drive and all residents within the\nsingle family housing area between Shell Gate Road and Sunset Road were sent notifications\nabout the project.\nCommissioner Wong asked if the following cycle track buffers (white pavement markings, car\nstops, and raised curbs and medians) found on page 6 of 15 in the staff report were suggestions\nor would actually be implemented.\nStaff Payne replied the white pavement markings would be at 24/7 parking spaces. The parking\nwould create an extra buffer so the City does not have to invest in extra funding in those\nsections. When there is not 24/7 parking within the area, staff recommends the car or wheel\nstops at each end of Shore Line Drive and at the north section of Westline Drive. Staff also\nrecommended even wider physical barriers along the curves. She pointed out that there are two\ncurves - Shore Line Drive/Westline Drive and Shore Line Drive/Broadway - where the median\nwould be 3 feet wide and 6-8 inches in height.\nCommissioner Wong questioned whether the raised curbs and medians would have a drainage\nissue.\nStaff Payne replied staff is recommending the car stops because they do not have to provide\nadditional gutter and drainage, which would be another underground expense.\nCommissioner Miley questioned whether bicycles would be prohibited from the path once the\ncycle track is installed.\nStaff Payne replied no.\nCommissioner Miley reviewed the illustration of a left-turn pocket, straight lane and right-turn\nlane in Figure 8 of the staff report. He wanted to know if that was a right-turn lane into the state\npark.\nStaff Payne replied that it is a right-turn lane because the lane helped the City align southbound\nvehicles in the right space away from the cycle track.\nPage 5 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-11-28", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Miley wanted to know if the Caltrans grant had deadlines that meant the project\nneeded to move forward or the City would lose funding.\nStaff Payne replied that yes in a little over a year from now the City would need to request\nauthorization from Caltrans for construction.\nCommissioner Miley wondered whether the project would move forward to City Council if the\nCommission approved it.\nStaff Payne stated that staff would move forward with the final plan. Since the City obtained\nfederal monies for the project, they will go through a federal process to go out to bid. Before\nstaff releases the request for proposals (RFP) on the construction work, staff will request City\nCouncil approval and then will release the RFP and select a contractor. Staff will go back to\nCity Council for approval of the contractor that staff recommends for construction.\nCommissioner Miley asked if the process would occur over a year.\nStaff Payne replied yes.\nCommissioner Miley wondered whether the City offered residents parking placard during this\ntime.\nStaff Payne explained that the City offered placards and the community has to go through a\nprocess to have a certain number of residents interested in the idea.\nStaff Naclerio stated that the residents would initiate the process, which would require a petition\nand a deposit. The process would require the creation of a self-supporting Assessment District\napproved by a majority residential vote.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff how many parking spaces currently exist on Shore Line Drive\nand once the project moved forward as proposed what would the number then be.\nStaff Payne replied that the exact number of parking spaces is not available to her at this\nmoment, but she knows that the project area consists of 1.6 miles and parking spaces are 20 feet\nlong. Overall, the project would provide 125 additional 24/7 parking spaces on the beach side of\nthe street on Shore Line Drive and on Westline Drive on the west side of that street.\nCommissioner Miley asked if that is a net gain or a reduction because some parking spaces may\nbe eliminated.\nStaff Payne replied during 9 am to 5pm loading zone parking spaces in front of multi-unit\ncomplexes would be for loading purpose only. After 5pm, the parking spaces would be open to\nresidential parking.\nCommissioner Bellows stated that staff worked hard to gather community input and ideas. She\nwas curious about the funding since they had to work within the federal grant terms within one\nPage 6 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-11-28", "page": 7, "text": "year and they are around $400,000 short. She asked staff if they considered phasing as part of\nthe project.\nStaff Payne replied staff should have the funding without seeking additional grants. A large\nnumber of monies would come from Measure B Bicycle/Pedestrian pass through and Vehicle\nRegistration Fee pass through monies.\nStaff Naclerio replied that the City is looking to construct this project within the grant deadlines.\nUntil the bids come in, the City will not know what funds are needed. The City recently\nreceived Vehicle Registration Fee monies. If used, then City would have to reduce its\nresurfacing project funding.\nCommissioner Schatmeier echoed the tremendous effort made by staff to pull all of the\ncommunity's comments together. He spoke about a public comment regarding signage. He\nwondered whether the Commission would see appropriate wayfinding signage included in the\nproject.\nStaff Naclerio said signage requested by tonight's speaker is not included in the project\ncurrently.\nCommissioner Schatmeier questioned the bus shelters on Webster Street and Park Street. He\nassumed that the shelters were funded and maintained by the business association.\nStaff Naclerio replied no.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if the City maintains the shelters.\nStaff Naclerio replied yes the City erected and maintains them.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that the bus shelters should be constantly maintained or they\nwould detract from the project.\nCommissioner Vargas encouraged staff to find additional funds for the project. He considered\nsafety as an important factor for the project as well as personal safety while riding a bike and the\nbicycles themselves.\nCommissioner Miley made a motion to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Bellows\nseconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.\nPage 7 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-11-28", "page": 8, "text": "page 7, Figure 2 of the staff report. He considered the extension problematic because cars are\nalways parked around the area and the future development plan at 2001 Versailles Avenue would\namplify parking demand.\nDavid Commerford, Alameda resident, approved of the restriping at High Street and Fernside\nBoulevard. He commented that the bike lane ends half way down the block and that would\ncorrect that issue because traffic is SO vigorous around that area. He did not believe installing\nspeed signs would be an effective speed deterrent. Yet, he highly approved of the Phase III stop\nsigns at Harvard and Cambridge because that it is a long and wide street. Moreover, he felt\npolice enforcement should be extended past 5pm and there should be signage by the left-turn\nlane onto High Street.\nWarren Vegas thanked the City, Public Works Department and the Police Department for their\nwork. He chaired the group that brought the petition forward a year and a half ago and he was\nspeaking on behalf of the six residents that worked with staff to come up with a proposal for the\ncommunity meetings. He noted that within the six-month survey, there were 6 accidents and 44\ntraffic tickets given on that block. Consequently, there are significant speeding incidents\noccurring on that stretch, which causes increased noise. Also, there is a bicycle lane and families\nresiding around the street with children use the bicycle lane to ride to Edison Elementary School.\nHe believed that speed feedback signs, the light at Versailles Avenue and restriping on High\nStreet are important. Car mirrors are ripped off yet are not reported.\nCommissioner Vargas asked for input on the curb extension comments from Mr. Vegas.\nPage 8 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-11-28", "page": 9, "text": "Warren Vegas replied that there is some concern for reduced parking, but the only concern\nbrought up by the traffic team was that it allowed kids crossing at Versailles Avenue to be more\nvisible to motorists.\nGayle Ewe, Marina Drive resident, supported the project as proposed. She walked her children to\nEdison Elementary School for 11 years and was almost hit by a truck as they entered the\ncrosswalk. She believed that the entire proposal would increase safety and visibility of\npedestrians by motorists.\nDorothy Owens, Versailles Avenue resident, explained that her area contains a lot of cars parked\nall the time. At one point, she asked the employees of the insurance company nearby to park on\nthe other side of Versailles Avenue or Fernside Boulevard, close to the empty lot. In the future,\nshe believed that as development increased, so would the demand for parking. She wondered if\nthe new beacon could go on the insurance company side to keep the parking space.\nJim Strehlow, Gibbons Drive resident, explained that when he gets off at Gibbons Drive and\neventually onto Fernside Boulevard going north he really enjoyed the double dashed center\nmerged lanes that are along Fernside Boulevard whether in the car or the bicycle. While cycling\non Harvard Drive or Fremont Drive, he has the opportunity to turn safely into the center lane\nbecause he could see traffic each way. He heard mention of medians, but he really liked the\nbuffer area on Fernside Boulevard as a bicyclist or motorist. Regarding the Fernside\npresentation, there is a solid white line separation on Fernside Boulevard - when coming from\nTilden Way onto Fernside Boulevard near Pearl Street - he wished it were a dashed line.\nJon Spangler supported the project and he is familiar with this neighborhood. He has been on\nbuses that seem to go well over 25 mph heading towards the Fruitvale BART station and he has\ndriven and cycled in the area. He wanted the area to mimic the other part of Fernside Boulevard\nalong the Estuary towards Doolittle Drive. He questioned whether the striping in Phase II and\nIII could be combined or could jump to Phase III to save some money on the project.\nCommissioner Wong wanted to know if the Rapid Fire Beacon would be active all day and\nwhether pedestrian pavement signals could be placed at this location similar to Encinal Avenue\nnear Franklin School.\nStaff Naclerio replied that In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights are not as effective as the Rapid Fire\nBeacons at having motorists yield to pedestrians. He noted that 80 percent of motorists yield to\nRapid Fire Beacons, which catch their attention and are activated by pedestrian push button.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that a pedestrian button activates the beacon. He felt it may\ncause motorists to only look for the light and not the pedestrian who crosses without having\nactivated the light.\nStaff Naclerio replied that he does not have the statistics to that statement, but the intention is to\ntrain pedestrians and especially school children to press the push button to activate the light.\nCommissioner Wong stated that pedestrians step on a pad at Washington Park to activate the\nPage 9 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-11-28", "page": 10, "text": "light and she wondered if that could be an alternative to the push button.\nStaff Naclerio replied he is not sure if this technology could include stepping on a pad, but\nmentioned that on Pacific Avenue, the City installed a step pad in front of the school and they\nhad to add the pedestrian push button because pedestrians would walk beyond the stepping pad.\nCommissioner Miley stated that the overall cost of Phase II would be about $115,000 to\n$150,000. He commended staff with approaching the project as phases and bringing in the\ncommunity for comment. He noticed that a stop sign or speed bumps was the best way to stop\nvehicular traffic. He was concerned about costs for Phase II and he did not know what the\noverall maintenance costs would be to maintain pedestrian safety and visibility within the area.\nStaff Naclerio replied that it is not a huge maintenance cost for the speed feedback sign and the\ncost was incorporated within the annual maintenance budget. The City does not have experience\nwith the Rapid Fire Beacons so he is not certain what the ongoing or increased maintenance\ncosts associated with the technology would be. Also, the curb extension would have nominal\nmaintenance and the restriping lasts for 5-7 years when using thermoplastic materials. He\npointed out that the high side costs for Phase II would be $135,000, and they could prioritize\nPhase II improvements and may reduce the priority of the speed feedback signs.\nCommissioner Miley asked if Phase II would have the bike lanes go all the way through or would\nit go into Phase III.\nStaff Naclerio replied for the most part there are bike lanes and a couple of areas with sharrows.\nHe confirmed with staff seated at the meeting that the restriping of High Street would create a\ncontinuous lane from the entire length of the bike lane.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if Sergeant Simmons would make a quick overview about the\nNeighborhood Speed Watch Program, especially where it is deployed and the costs to the City.\nSergeant Simmons explained that the City had the Neighborhood Speed Watch Program for\nmany years, but when they tried to get the neighborhood mobilized enough to deploy the\nprogram, they were met with a bit of resistance. There are a couple of groups in the works and\nthey used it once on Central Avenue with positive results. There are zero costs to the police\ndepartment because they partner citizens with volunteers in policing who are with them when\nthey choose to run the program. The volunteers use radar guns - there are ten in total - and the\ndepartment had the guns for many years. When the community deploys the program, the\ndepartment mails non-punitive letters to the registered owners of vehicles and they had success\nwith reducing speeds. The department is currently working on that stretch of Fernside\nBoulevard and spoke with two people who expressed interest in volunteering and they plan to\nconduct training within two weeks.\nCommissioner Miley brought up public comments about a concern for loss of parking spaces on\nVersailles Avenue. He asked if there are any other types of curb extensions that could be used to\nprevent the elimination of the parking space. He suggested a similar copy of the bulb outs along\nPark Street's mid-block area.\nPage 10 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-11-28", "page": 11, "text": "Staff Naclerio replied staff could look at that, but it will be expensive because it would\ncompletely change the drainage of that intersection. He suggested the Commission ask staff to\nlook at additional options. One option would be to re-do the width of the travel lanes, but that\nmay run into problems at a very busy intersection.\nCommissioner Bellows heard that people park there all day and if there was any way to create\nparking limitations (2 hour or 4 hour limit) to promote higher parking turnovers.\nStaff Naclerio replied their concern is when they install the curb extension they do not want to\ndirect vehicles into it. They want to provide a way to direct motorists away from the curb\nextension to the center.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if the beacon could be moved more to the other side of the\nintersection.\nStaff Naclerio said the beacon is being installed in the curb extension that would be raised. They\nare applying an advance warning to the west and east of it.\nCommissioner Vargas asked about implementing Phase II and what is the duration of measuring\nthe performance.\nStaff Naclerio recommended at least a year and to go through all the seasons to assess behavior.\nCommissioner Wong stated that staff mentioned prioritizing the list of the approval process so\nwhen would it be in the future or currently how would it work.\nStaff Naclerio felt that it could be done and he would start by suggesting the red curb for\nvisibility and the restriping of the lane be done first. He pointed out that unlike item 5.A., this\nproject does not have funding in place and staff would have to apply for grants. However, the\ncommunity supported the Rapid Fire Beacons and that should be installed. If they do not find all\nthe money, the speed feedback sign would be prioritized last and moved to the third phase.\nCommissioner Miley stated in terms of priority suggestions, the question to the Commission\nwould be what two curb options should be prioritized. Either they move forward with the one\nwith extension and lose a parking spot or not lose the spot.\nCommissioner Bellows moved to accept the loss of the parking space (option 1) because it would\nultimately be safer and to go with the recommended approach. Commissioner Schatmeier\nseconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.\nPage 11 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-11-28", "page": 12, "text": "5C.\nComplete Streets Policy Resolution\nStaff Payne presented a summary of the report.\nCommissioner Miley moved to adopt the policy resolution. Commissioner Vargas recommended\nthey make an amendment before taking the vote. For clarification, the following statement found\non page 2 \"First City and the County of Alameda to install and operate a bus priority signal\"\nwhether it is first or not should be clarified or modified by staff.\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve the item and to direct staff to amend or clarify the\nfollowing statement \"First City and the County of Alameda to install and operate a bus priority\nsignal\" to determine if that is accurate and to make the necessary corrections before moving the\nitem to the City Council.\nCommissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.\nCommissioner Vargas asked the Commission to vote to move Item 7 - Announcements / Public\nComments - before moving to Item 5D.\nCommissioner Miley made a motion to move item 7 up and Commissioner Wong seconded the\nmotion. The motion was approved 5-0.\n7.\nAnnouncements/ Public Comments\nChristina Trotter, Billy Truong, Reggie Hubbard (students) and Joan Schwartz. (teacher) from\nEncinal High School were concerned with street traffic in front of their school, especially where\nthe five streets including Central Avenue come together. There are no crossing guards and\ntraffic is consistently dangerous throughout the day. They wanted to voice their concern and\nhave the Commission come up with a viable solution.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if it was a daytime or after school issue.\nJoan Schwartz stated her class goes out a lot during the day so the motorists are consistently\ndangerous in their behavior regardless of congestion.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that he would ask staff to look into opportunities to highlight this\nconcern.\nStaff Naclerio replied that based on the comments received, staff would look at the issue. He\nstated that traffic incidents are based on a first in first out process and they would estimate\ncoming back to the group within a few months.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if the Safe Routes to School Program could be incorporated\nwithin the area.\nStaff Payne stated yes high schools are part of the Safe Routes to School Program. There is a\nPage 12 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-11-28", "page": 13, "text": "state and federal program, but one of the two does not fund improvements to high schools.\nJim Wullschleger, Broadway and Central resident, was glad to see the Commission approve the\npedestrian buttons and he is fully in support of the action. He noticed that the pedestrian button\ncould be a nuisance if the locator button is too loud or not adjusted correctly. He felt Staff Payne\ndid a great job on the Shore Line project and he is in support of a volunteer based traffic\nprogram. He would like to see a speed tracker use flash photography to capture speeders once\ntechnology becomes cheaper.\n5D. Revised Draft Prioritized Transportation Project Lists\nStaff Payne presented a summary of the report.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if staff was seeking the Commission's approval of the list so it\ncould move forward to the Planning Board and then the City Council.\nStaff Payne replied the item would go to the Planning Board on December 10, 2012 and the City\nCouncil on January 14, 2013.\nCommissioner Miley thanked staff for taking feedback from the Planning Board, Transportation\nCommission and City Council and incorporating the comments into the list.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked about the paratransit shuttle listed as a project within the list.\nStaff Payne replied the paratransit shuttle is listed on page 1of the Implementation List right after\nExhibit 1.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that he was against the shuttle service before its implementation\nbecause he was skeptical about the way it would be deployed. Thus, he would like to have some\nperformance data since its implementation.\nStaff Payne replied that the performance report would be provided at the next meeting as part of\nthe annual review of the Paratransit program.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that he noticed that part of the next action after implementation is a\nquarterly report coming back to the Commission and Planning Board. Yet, he remembered that\nsome comments provided by others such as the Planning Boardmember John Knox White\nrecommended a report annually or biannually. So, he wanted to know why staff decided on a\nquarterly report.\nStaff Payne stated that staff will present a quarterly report on project updates and they plan to\nupdate the list annually.\nCommissioner Vargas asked how the list considered Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375.\nStaff Payne replied that these bills are highlighted in the Complete Street Policy Resolution (item\nPage 13 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-11-28", "page": 14, "text": "5C) and the Transportation Element is one of the best practices because it is multimodal. The\nTransportation Element's goals add up to eight points of the evaluation criteria. Additionally,\nthe City created Bicycle, Pedestrian and Public Transportation Plans and all of these different\nmodal plans receive rankings. So, the list does capture and represents all the modes.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Bellows\nseconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.\n6.\nStaff Communications\nStaff Payne and Staff Naclerio presented the following updates on activities related to\ntransportation policies and plans:\nOn-going Traffic Calming Projects\nOtis Drive Traffic Calming will come to the Commission in January 2013.\nAC Transit Line OX- Reconsider Opening to Local Riders\nAC Transit re-opened up the Transbay Line OX to local riders in the afternoon. AC\nTransit issued public announcements on November 9 and the maintenance crew updated\nthe decals at all Line OX stops. Emails and 511.org announcements were created.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that he used the Line OX last week for the first time after\nthe implementation. The driver let him on and he clicked his Clipper Card and it presented\nthe local fare. He complimented AC Transit staff for their flexibility, but noticed the sign\nat the Park Street and Santa Clara Avenue bus shelter still says \"Drop Off Only\" and he\ndoes not know what other signage should be changed.\nStatus of Recruitment for the Supervising Civil Engineer\nStaff Naclerio stated that the City recently closed the submission of applications and they\nwould conduct interviews with the top candidates from the ten applications received in the\nupcoming weeks.\nPotential Future Meeting Agenda Items\nCommissioner Miley would like to schedule a briefing and next steps on the results of\nMeasure B1 sometime in January 2013.\nCommissioner Vargas seconded the recommendation on speaking about Measure B1.\nStaff Payne stated that the topic would be placed on the agenda for 2013. The next meeting\nwould take place on January 23, 2013. Other items, as listed on the agenda, include:\nAdditional Proposed City CarShare Pod on Santa Clara Avenue at Webster\nPage 14 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-11-28", "page": 15, "text": "Estuary Crossing Shuttle Final Report for First Year Operations\nProposed Neptune Park Path Conceptual Layout\nTraffic Control and Contingency Plan during Construction for I-880/29th Ave./23rd\nAve. Interchange Improvement Project in Oakland: Public Information Program and\nTransit Impacts\nDraft Regional Transit Access Study (RTAS): Overview of Study Corridors, Transit\nDemand, and Service Examples, Part II\nTraffic Calming Projects regarding the Fernside Boulevard Project - Staff scheduled\na meeting at the Edison School on Thursday, September 27th at 7pm.\nThe last meeting the Commission approved a midblock crossing between Franklin\nSchool and Franklin Park and staff installed the crossing with help from Alameda\nUnified School District staff.\n8.\nAdjournment\n9:39 pm\nPage 15 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf"}