{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission\nJuly 24, 2013\nItem 4A\nAction\nTransportation Commission Minutes: Wednesday, June 26, 2013\nCommissioner Jesus Vargas called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nJesus Vargas (Chair)\nChristopher Miley (Vice Chair)\nMichele Bellows\nEric Schatmeier\nThomas G. Bertken\nMembers Absent:\nSandy Wong\nStaff Present:\nStaff Payne, Transportation Coordinator\nStaff Naclerio, Public Works Director\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nCommissioner Vargas explained that moderate modifications may be made to the consent\ncalendar.\n3.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\nCommissioner Vargas conducted transportation research with his family in the city of Orlando\nand rode the city's monorail.\n4.\nConsent Calendar\n4A.\nMeeting Minutes - April 24, 2013\nNo comments.\nPage 1 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 2, "text": "4B.\nAlameda Paratransit Shuttle - Thursday Central Loop Stop Changes\nStaff Payne stated she received one email from a community member supporting the removal of\nthe shuttle stop on Broadway at Lincoln Avenue. However, she explained the supporter would\nlike to see space made available to view pedestrians and have general visibility. Overall, she\nsaid there is about 50 feet reserved at the bus stop. Staff wants to add one space and that is\nincluded in the staff report in Exhibit 2. Additionally, staff would reserve 20 feet for visibility,\nand the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standard is 10 feet.\nCommissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Bertken seconded\nthe motion. The motion was approved 4-0; 1 abstention.\n5.\nNew Business\n5A. Posey and Webster Tube Rehabilitation Project\nCommissioner Vargas said there has been discussion and letters written by the City Manager and\nMayor.\nStaff Payne introduced Michael Nguyen, Caltrans' Posey Webster Tube Retrofit Project\nManager, who presented. She explained that public comments to date focus on three different\nareas: the retrofit project, ongoing maintenance issues and long range planning of the area.\nMichael Nguyen presented information about the retrofit project. Also, Elizabeth McKee, the\ncultural resources representative for Caltrans, added information to the presentation.\nElizabeth McKee, Caltrans Office Chief of Cultural Resource Studies of the Environmental\nDivision, stated she is part of a functional group that supports the office's engineers. She\nexplained to the Transportation Commission that they evaluate the potential effects of projects\non historical resources, especially when federal funds are involved. She presented a synopsis of\nthe types of evaluations that are conducted.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked about the signs slide within the presentation and he asked if\noverhead lights would be removed on both sides of the tube.\nMichael Nguyen replied that overhead lights would be removed on the Alameda side as well.\nCommissioner Bellows asked about the closed-circuit television (CCTV) and whether that would\ntranslate to changeable message signs so there is warning in the tube.\nMichael Nguyen replied that he is not sure, but Caltrans plans to connect them to the CCTV.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if they monitor the CCTV on Grand Street.\nPage 2 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 3, "text": "Michael Nguyen replied yes.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if someone had to physically type a message to show on the\nmessage board.\nMichael Nguyen replied yes.\nCommissioner Miley wondered when the signs are removed, where are they going to be\npositioned because it was not clearly outlined in the staff report.\nMichael Nguyen replied that they are looking to combine the 45 mph speed limit sign and several\nother signs in the background. Additionally, they may combine them and mount them on the left\nbecause the 45 mph speed limit slightly blocks the building. Moreover, the two Emergency\nMessage Signs (EMS) are proposed to move closer to the intersection to better serve motorists.\nCommissioner Miley said he understood the intent, but he wondered at what intersection would\nthe signs be located. He asked if they would be at the intersection at Constitution Way and\nMarina Village Parkway, because currently the signs warn drivers of a problem, but when drivers\nare at that point it is too late.\nMichael Nguyen replied the signs are moving closer to the intersection by Marina Village\nParkway by the shopping center.\nCommissioner Miley asked in what direction would the lights on the towers would be\nilluminated.\nMichael Nguyen stated the lights would be shining onto the building itself to illuminate the\nbuilding.\nCommissioner Miley asked about the building and its relation to the ventilation process.\nMichael Nguyen stated that is more or less a question for the maintenance engineers, but he\nwould relay the message to staff and get back to the Transportation Commission.\nCommissioner Bertken explained to the Commission that there are big intake fans in the building\nand big channels go below the runway where fresh air comes in and there is an exhaust channel\nin the ceiling. So, essentially it is pushing air from the bottom and it is going up and getting a\ncross flow of air up and down the tube.\nCommissioner Schatmeier wondered if the project included improvements to the ventilation\nsystem.\nMichael Nguyen replied the fans are not in the scope of the project.\nCommissioner Miley asked if it was possible to improve the ventilation system.\nMichael Nguyen said the tube's fans are turned on at certain times, but rehabilitation of the vents\nPage 3 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 4, "text": "Then they changed the access to a gate and people can open it from the roadway. Overall, the\ngate provides a safety measure and it protects kids from falling through the gap in the guardrail.\nCommissioner Bellows asked since the project is a yearlong construction project if Caltrans\nwould have to close traffic in the tube.\nMichael Nguyen replied yes they would have to close traffic in the tube and staff is discussing\nwhether to close the lane adjacent to the sidewalk or close two lanes. He also said, they are\nlooking at the traffic impacts and would have the lane closure reviewed by the City.\nCommissioner Bertken said there was a letter addressed by the City Manager about the screening\nissues at the entrance on the Oakland side of the tube. He went on to say that in the late\nafternoon, it is difficult to see when entering and the Caldecott tunnel has a screening affect just\nbefore drivers enter the tunnel.\nMichael Nguyen replied Caltrans received comments regarding visibility and they are reviewing\nit with staff.\nCommissioner Bertken asked if the issue was included in the project.\nMichael Nguyen replied that they do not know if the issue would cause minimal impact to the\nproject especially since the funding is set. So, if funding allowed a screen for enhanced visibility\nthen it would be added to the project.\nCommissioner Bertken exclaimed visibility is a safety issue.\nStaff Naclerio said the topic was addressed in the meeting with Caltrans earlier that day and\nPage 4 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 5, "text": "Caltrans indicated that they would look into it. He understood that it is not part of the project, but\nhe asked if they could look into it as a subsequent project. Consequently, Caltrans mentioned that\nhistoric impacts would stem from the request.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if Caltrans and Alameda have a Memorandum of Understanding\n(MOU) or Project Charter that highlights the communications of the project.\nMichael Nguyen replied since he is the new project manager, he would have to look at the history\nof dialogue revolving around the project.\nStaff Naclerio replied he is not aware of any agreement.\nCommissioner Vargas asked Michael Nguyen to check with staff and come back to the\nCommission with an answer. Additionally, he understood there are funding limits of around $8\nmillion from the SHOPP fund. Yet, he wanted general background of the greatest expenses.\nMichael Nguyen said the ballpark costs would be $5 million with the tube's rail and two\nwalkways, minor repair of the sidewalk and $2 million for the Posey buildings.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if work would be conducted on the building near the city of\nOakland.\nMichael Nguyen replied there would be work conducted on the Oakland and Alameda side.\nCommissioner Vargas called for public comments.\nJohn Knox White, City of Alameda Planning Board member, spoke as a citizen and felt the\nproject will look great once it is done. However, he had a concern with the solid railing because\nit is at handle bar height and that may cause bicyclists to run their handlebars into it. He noted\nthat around the year 2000, there was a major retrofit project underway for the tube. BikeAlameda\nwent to Caltrans to request improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians in the tube and Caltrans\nreplied that the design and construction process is already underway. In 2007, Caltrans decided\nto conduct additional work on the paths and BikeAlameda went to Caltrans to request the path be\nfixed. Again, Caltrans said it is designed and already underway. In 2013, Caltrans presented a\nprevious version of the presentation at Alameda's Planning Board and Historical Advisory Board\nmeeting and when the organization approached Caltrans they said sorry it is too late and we have\nmoved forward. Overall, he felt Caltrans refused to work with the local community until\nAssemblymember Rob Bonta, City Manager John Russo, Mayor Marie Gilmore, City of\nOakland, Alameda and Oakland bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups wrote letters to\nhighlight the outreach and communication issues. Overall, he asked the Transportation\nCommission to make a motion to ask the City Council to send a letter to Caltrans asking Caltrans\nto partner with the community at the beginning of a project.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, said he sat in on\nthe last couple of rounds when Caltrans was working on the tube and he endorsed Mr. White's\ncomments. He felt Caltrans turns a blind eye to bicyclists and pedestrians, but he appreciated the\nhistorical aspects and the restorations of the project. Also, he would like to see the lighting on\nPage 5 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 6, "text": "the building directed downward due to visual pollution issues. Moreover, back in 2000, he\ntalked to the Caltrans engineers at a public meeting and suggested they place a driveway to have\nan emergency egress out of the Posey Tube for any last minute bail outs. During the\npresentation, a Caltrans representative said the sidewalk/bike lane could not be widened because\nthe roadway was already too narrow. Yet, he did not hear any reference of the California\nLegislation that requires Complete Streets approaches to every project that Caltrans undertakes\nor a reference to the possibility that pedestrians and bicyclists could have equal rights to\nautomobiles.\nCommissioner Vargas called for public outreach by Caltrans on all aspects of any project. He\nalso wanted to review the comments sought from the City's community meetings by\norganizations such as the bicycle coalition.\nMichael Nguyen replied during the environmental process that they worked with Alameda staff\nto post the project's description on their website and receive feedback about the project. Since\nthe current project is programmed under SHOPP, Caltrans does not normally host the public\nmeeting, but have the cities involved to take comments.\nCommissioner Miley stated that Caltrans staff could involve the community during the scoping\nprocess and before the project is programmed.\nMichael Nguyen replied that is correct.\nCommissioner Miley emphasized to Caltrans that the underlining message is to involve the\ncommunity early on before the environmental review.\nCommissioner Bellows said under the project's schedule, there is ample time to have a public\nmeeting to gain input. Also, she felt regardless of the funding source, this is a public project and\nalthough the environmental document typically dictates what type of outreach the sponsor does\nthey can always conduct outreach.\nCommissioner Schatmeier agreed with the need for public outreach, but outreach must be done at\na\npoint when change is possible. He also felt the Transportation Commission should be able to\nhave input early in the process.\nCommissioner Miley stated this happens a lot and has historically been an issue with projects and\nhe knew the City was working on it. He agreed with the comments by the Commissioners and\nfelt that with limited transportation dollars, it is critically important to be smart with investments.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked the Transportation Commission if they would like to make a\nmotion to inform the City Council of the Commission's desire to be informed and have\ncommunity involvement by Caltrans early on in the project process.\nCommissioner Bertken asked Staff Naclerio how could the Transportation Commission get\ninvolved early enough to insert comments.\nStaff Naclerio replied that once a preliminary plan is developed, staff would go to the public to\nPage 6 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 7, "text": "conduct a public meeting for input. Then staff would work with Caltrans to implement the public\ninput as much as they could. Staff would then decide if additional public meetings are necessary\nand if not, the item would be brought to the Transportation Commission.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said he would like to see the public input process happen along the\nway when the project sponsor and City are defining the project. Overall, he felt there must be a\npoint that the Transportation Commission could comment on a range of improvements and other\ninput.\nCommissioner Miley replied he would like public input and the Commission's input conducted\nduring the scoping process. He said in terms of making the motion, if the Commission was\nwilling to incorporate language from Staff Naclerio's comments about involving the community\nand public process during the scoping phase, he would be willing to second the motion.\nStaff Naclerio replied it is easier for the community to respond to a proposal compared to a\nnebulous idea of what may be happening. However, he does think part of the issue with this\nproject is the funding source.\nCommissioner Schatmeier made a motion for the Transportation Commission to request the City\nCouncil to communicate with Caltrans to conduct public input earlier on in the project process\nand especially at a time when public input can influence what is included in the project and the\nproject's scope. Commissioner Miley seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.\nStaff Naclerio replied it might be effective to have that message relayed to the City Manager by\nstaff and the City Manager would work with the Mayor to send the letter.\nCommissioner Schatmeier made an amendment to the motion for staff to work with the City\nManager and the Mayor who would draft a letter of intent to the City Councilmembers.\nCommissioner Miley seconded the motion moved to accept staff recommendations. The motion\nwas approved 5-0.\n5B. Draft Regional Transit Access Study (RTAS)\nStaff Naclerio presented the background for the study.\nCommissioner Bertken asked Staff Naclerio if only comments from the Transportation\nCommission were required after the presentation and public comment.\nStaff Naclerio replied yes.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked what was the action.\nStaff Naclerio replied staff was accepting comments and then they would forward those\ncomments to the Planning Board and the Planning Board would review the document in light of\nthose comments before forwarding their motion to the City Council for acceptance.\nPage 7 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 8, "text": "input incorporated into the final document. He introduced staff Colin Burgett from Nelson\nNygaard Transportation Consulting Associates and subcontractor John Atkinson who are\nworking on the study.\nJohn Atkinson discussed his work with the grant proposal and Regional Transit Access Study\n(RTAS).\nColin Burgett, Principal at Nelson Nygaard Transportation Consulting Associates, presented the\ndetails of the RTAS.\nCommissioner Vargas bequeathed the chair to Commissioner Miley because he is involved with\nAC Transit Line #51 project. He asked AC Transit representative Linda Morris to comment on\nthe presentation and Commissioner Miley would facilitate the discussion.\nLinda Morris, AC Transit Senior Planner, stated she was not there to comment on the draft report\nbecause it was her first time reviewing the report. However, AC Transit has been collaborating\nwith the consultants prior to the draft report and they sent them a letter with their comments on\nthe 1st draft in January 2013 and they will respond to the new draft soon.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff if the Transportation Commission received the comments\nmade by AC Transit on the first draft report.\nLinda Morris replied the letter went to City staff and the consultant.\nStaff Naclerio replied the comments would be forwarded to the Commission for review.\nCommissioner Schatmeier explained that he was asked by staff to comment on an earlier version\nof the report. He told the Commissioners that he and AC Transit provided comments and some\nof the comments were incorporated in the latest draft and others were not.\nCommissioner Miley called for public comments.\nPage 8 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 9, "text": "Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling said he is glad that regional\ntransit is getting attention in this study and BART acted as the pass through agency to get the\nmoney for the City. However, when he reviewed the study and heard the presentation, he heard\nnothing about Alameda's Housing Element and the Multifamily Housing overlay that was\nadopted last year. Nor did he hear a reference to them in the draft of study results in terms of trip\ngeneration. Furthermore, he did not see in the draft or presentation any reference of the scoping\nof the environmental impact statement for Alameda Point because there is an estimated 1,700 to\n4,500 housing units up for development. So, he felt those issues needed to be accounted for in\nthe final version of the study. In a procedural standpoint, he believed there was no mention of\ncommunity meetings set for the study although this is technical study. Also, if the City is moving\ntowards a longtime transit corridor, the community needs to be involved in evaluating that\nchange in the beginning. Finally, he could not help but find misplaced quotation marks and\ncommas in the first few pages of the report beginning on page two and the corrections should be\ntaken care of when the report is presented to the City Council.\nJohn Knox White, City of Alameda Planning Board member, speaking as a citizen said when he\nsat on the Transportation Commission with Commissioner Schatmeier, they conducted the\nTransportation Element and identified Lincoln and Clement Avenues as the two exclusive transit\nstreets. So, he understood that the Transportation Element may be the driving factor of why they\nchose that location. Specifically, he noted the RTAS' analysis does not review the various\nalternatives that are identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Alameda Point. He\nbelieves this is a problem because land use and transportation planning should be conducted\ntogether. Also, he points out that there is not analysis on how the plan will serve commercial\nareas that are not at the Seaplane Lagoon. He goes on to say this will be a driving plan for\ntransportation solutions at Alameda Point and there should be some discussion on transportation\nintegration of the various housing, mixed-use and commercial areas.\nCommissioner Bertken said the presentation made him think that the Lincoln Avenue corridor\nwould replace the AC Transit Line # 51 on Santa Clara Avenue. So, he wanted to know what\nwould the City gain from this change. Based on the consultant's illustrations, the corridor was\nnot serving Alameda Point based on the distance and travel to Fruitvale versus going directly to\ndowntown Oakland. So, the corridor would take longer to travel and would not service Fruitvale\nBART Station. He noted the result would take the highest use transit corridor for AC Transit\nLine #51A and move it down a block without indicating how that would affect the patronage.\nStaff Naclerio replied the purpose of the study was to enhance all transit access for all future\ndeveloped areas. Colin Burgett presented the bubble illustrations that showed access to the\nNorthern Waterfront site and the current location at Santa Clara Avenue does not catch it.\nColin Burgett explained the value would relate to the future development at the Northern\nWaterfront. If the City made the transit change and there is no change to development at the\nNorthern Waterfront, the City would serve a similar ridership market, but not as centralized. Yet,\nwith proposed residential development and job sites closer to the waterfront, that would be a\nvalue from a ridership perspective. Additionally, AC Transit would reduce travel time and costs.\nHe was aware that AC Transit was conducting its own study on the Line #51 so there was no\ninterest on the RTAS to say the line would be relocated. However, the expectation was that AC\nPage 9 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 10, "text": "Transit would conduct a focus study, so that would be the appropriate place for the discussion to\noccur.\nCommissioner Bertken said it would be redundant to have both lines, so, which one is more\nviable.\nColin Burgett replied if AC Transit preferred the Lines #51A and O to operate on Santa Clara\nAvenue, then investing in rapid bus improvements on Lincoln Avenue become questionable.\nCommissioner Bertken said based on the presentation illustration, moving the Line #51 down a\nblock showed the influence lines for various transit. He exclaimed there was still a small island\nof no transit usage down the middle. So, if AC Transit moved the Line # 51 that would not be a\nlittle island anymore, but a large number of residents who would not be able to access the line.\nCommissioner Schatmeier addressed the corridor concerns and said he understood the review of\nlooking at Lincoln, Clement and other potential transit corridors. Yet, he pointed out the City\nwould still establish an east and west transit corridor policy and that is an issue that was not\nsettled by the report. He asked if the Transportation Commission adopted the report would that\nbecome City policy. He referenced the presentation's bubble illustration and how all transit lines\nare equal to each other (e.g. Line #51 operates throughout the day and with higher frequencies\ncompared to Line #20). He also questioned the point of moving a transit line close to an\nemployment center unless there were other reasons for justifying the line. He went on to say the\ninitial transit study conducted by the City with AC Transit recommended a second trunk line for\nthe City down the Buena Vista corridor, through west Berkeley and El Cerrito and on to the\nOakland International Airport. Consequently, he exclaimed the City got the now defunct Line\n#19, which was not a trunk line, nor did it run everyday and had 30-minute headways.\nColin Burgett presumed the line did not survive because there was too much overlap with the\nLine #51 catchment area and it was essentially too close.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said overall the report was reviewing the transit policy of the east and\nwest corridor in Alameda and he hoped that passing on any information or endorsing anything\ngoing forward would not endorse policy for the City to move the main corridor.\nCommissioner Bertken felt the report contained a lot of information and he would like to have\ntime review the document again and make notes. Thus, he would like to delay the comment\nprocess.\nAlex Nguyen, Alameda City Manager, replied that the outcome is contingent on AC Transit's\nresponse. So, he does not want the City to get so far into the planning process and at the end of\nthe day AC Transit does not agree with the plan. He recommended staff have another study\nsession with the Transportation Commission, community members and key members of AC\nTransit.\nCommissioner Miley replied that based on John Knox White's comments, it might be useful to\nhave a joint Transportation Commission and Planning Board meeting on items that deal with\nland use and transportation planning and this might be that item. He also asked the consultant if\nPage 10 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 11, "text": "they analyzed the inclusion of a BART Station at Alameda Point.\nColin Burgett said there were different ideas about constructing a second BART tube crossing,\nbut realistically that would take a long time to be fully realized.\nCommissioner Miley stated the study showed how the City would address transportation\nthroughout the island, but the constraining point is the tube. So he felt queue jump lanes should\nbe analyzed for the tunnel because when the tunnel is congested, it defeats the point of rapid bus\nservice.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied he endorsed the idea of a joint meeting between the\nTransportation Commission and Planning Board because he would like the City to aim for higher\ntransit usage.\nColin Burgett said if the City decided to go for an aggressive Transportation Demand\nManagement (TDM) plan, the system would have the capacity to accommodate double the\nridership.\nStaff Naclerio suggested to the Commission that staff meet with AC Transit to discuss the\npreferences on Santa Clara and Lincoln Avenues and staff would bring the comments back to the\nnext Transportation Commission meeting. Additionally, staff would schedule a joint meeting\nwith the Planning Board and Transportation Commission to discuss the results of the meeting\nwith AC Transit.\n5C. Guidelines for Installation of Parklets\nStaff Naclerio presented the report.\nCommissioner Vargas called for public comment.\nDonna Eyestone, Alameda Resident, assisted with the Park(ing) Day installation on September\n21, 2012. She saw a lot of people come by and create a community building experience.\nFurthermore, she believed it would be good to have this public gathering space so residents and\nvisitors could see what businesses are along Park Street and talk with their neighbors. She also\nthanked Staff Naclerio, Board member Knox White, and Board member Burton for their support.\nDavid Burton, President of the Alameda Planning Board and President for Community Action\nfor a Sustainable Alameda, spoke as a citizen and resident architect to encourage the\nCommission to adopt the guidelines so one or two parklets could build around town as quickly as\npossible. He mentioned that parklets provide great opportunities for community building and\ncasual encounters in the public realm. He thanked Board member Knox White and Donna\nEyestone for their support. During Park(ing) Day, the installation setup began at 8 am and ended\nat 8pm and over 300 people came by to view the installation.\nJohn Knox White endorsed the change that Staff Nacliero mentioned in terms of the approval\nbecause there was some concern that parklets would sprout up like tulips and parking would\ndiminish. He noted the guidelines would create market forces that would prevent an\nPage 11 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 12, "text": "overwhelming construction of parklets.\nJohn Spangler believed the guidelines make sense and thanked Donna Eyestone and the Park\nStreet Business Association for their support. He also noticed the top floor of the parking\nstructure does not have a lot of pedestrian access, SO it would create a great opportunity for a\nparklet and downtown park. Additionally, he would like to see some in street bike parking as the\nnext logical step.\nCommissioner Miley said one of the speakers addressed the temporary and permanent type builds\nof the parklets. He asked if there is any expectation on the length of time that they would be up\nand running.\nStaff Naclerio replied it would be reviewed annually and parklet sponsors would apply through a\ntemporary encroachment permit plus administrative and planning fees. Also, staff anticipated an\naverage cost of $500 for administrative and planning fees.\nCommissioner Miley asked about the approval process and whether the policy would be in place\nafter the Commission approved the guidelines or would it go to the City Council for review.\nStaff Naclerio replied the City Charter gave the Planning Board the right for decisions involving\nlandscape and public right of way. So, staff would work with the Transportation Commission for\ntheir recommendations and the recommendations would go to the Planning Staff and Planning\nBoard would make an approval.\nCommissioner Miley asked Staff Naclerio to incorporate all outcomes or next steps in future staff\nreports when the Commission is asked to make an approval. Overall, he supported the concept of\nparklets.\nStaff Bellows asked if the parklets could be built in residential areas.\nStaff Naclerio replied it is not prohibited, but it is unlikely.\nStaff Bellows said that becomes an unintended consequence and if someone wanted to build a\nparklet then they could.\nStaff Naclerio replied they would still need to fill out an application; staff would put out a notice\nof intent to approve and post the notice for 10 days and allow for public comment. He said if the\nCommission preferred, staff could limit the parklets to commercial areas.\nStaff Bellows asked if there is a maximum length designated for the parklets.\nStaff Naclerio replied the minimum length is one parking space and there is no maximum.\nHowever, the adjacent businesses that are fronting the parklet have to approve the construction.\nCommissioner Vargas said he liked the parklet concept. However, based on other cities'\nfinancial challenges, he wondered if the parking permit fees increase to accommodate the loss of\nrevenue generated from the parking space.\nPage 12 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 13, "text": "Staff Naclerio replied no and staff felt overall that would be nominal and the benefits of the\npublic space would outweigh the costs. Also, the encroachment permit fee is in addition to the\n$500 administrative and planning fee after the notice of intent has been approved.\nCommissioner Bertken said if the parking meters have to be removed would that be part of the\ncost levied on the property owner.\nStaff Naclerio replied the removal of the parking meters would be the responsibility of the\nsponsor of the parklet.\nCommissioner Miley asked Staff Naclerio what is the process if the guidelines need to be revised\nin the future.\nStaff Naclerio replied the process would be the same as they are following now. Staff would go\nto the Transportation Commission with a recommendation to the Planning Board for their\napproval.\nCommissioner Miley stated he is willing to move forward while incorporating Commissioner\nBellow's concerns regarding residential restriction on parklet construction.\nStaff Bellows seconded the statement.\nCommissioner Bertken agreed with the original motion, but wanted to include Staff Naclerio 's\ncomments about the 3/4 or 75% response rate.\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve the guidelines with two amendments, which are the\nrestriction of parklets in residential areas and the language Staff Naclerio provided regarding 75\npercent response rate on either side. The motion was approved 4-0; 1 abstention.\n6.\nStaff Communications\nLocal Rider Issues on AC Transit Transbay Routes\nCity and AC Transit staff are working together to provide reminders about the procedures\nthat local riders can ride on Transbay buses, with the exception of Line OX, which they\nare working to eliminate in late September 2013.\nStatus of AC Transit Lines 314 and 356 (Midday Shopper Shuttles)\nThe lines will be eliminated at some point because they are under utilized and in\nSeptember, there will be some additional studies.\nLinda Morris, AC Transit Senior Planner, the lines are part of the restructuring plan that\nare going through the AC Transit Board right now, because they are the two lowest\nperformers in the district. They are no longer in the restructuring plan going forward in\nPage 13 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 14, "text": "December 2013; however, they are in the Comprehensive Operations Analysis reports\nand have gone to the board earlier this month and in September. The lines are proposed to\nbe eliminated in that report, but they don't have a timeline yet.\nAC Transit Line 51A Performance Initiative Project (Community Workshop on\nTuesday, July 9th at 7 p.m.)\nAC Transit is the lead on the project and City staff is working with AC Transit on the\nfirst community workshop on July 9th. Staff sent out notifications about that and received\ncomments, but AC Transit is the lead and they are receiving most of the comments. Staff\nhas a web page about the project for more information and the meeting results will come\nto the Commission in September.\nIntersection Improvements at Central Avenue/Third Street/Taylor Avenue - Phase\nII (Community Workshop Comment Summaries)\nStaff Payne said City staff has been working at the intersection in front of Encinal High\nSchool and had a couple of community workshops there. So, the item will come to the\nTransportation Commission next month.\nBikes on BART\nStaff gave the Commission the information on BART's analysis on the pilot studies that\nhave been conducted. BART board approved another bikes on board pilot study for 5\nmonths from July 1st to December 1st of 2013. The pilot study allows bikes at all times\nwith the exception of the first three cars during peak commute hours and bikes are never\nallowed in the first car and on escalators.\nCommissioner Miley asked the Commissioners if they are on board with the Bikes on\nBoard policy could they ask the City to send a letter of support.\nStaff Payne replied the Commission should wait and see how the current pilot study plays\nout before they send a letter.\nCommissioner Schatmeier wondered what BART's criteria for success was because the\nmaterial showed that around 85% to 90% had no problem with bikes on board. So, he\nwanted to what is BART's reaction to the 10% to 15% of riders who either do not like the\npolicy or are neutral.\nPedestrian Safety Campaign\nStaff Payne said a $8,900 was awarded for the creation of pedestrian safety videos\ngraphics with the City Public Works logo. They are creating four different videos that are\n15 seconds long and would play before the start of a movie at the Alameda Theatre. The\nvideos would appear later this summer or into the fall and will be played for 5 months.\nPage 14 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 15, "text": "Grant Submittal Update\nThe City was awarded $631,000 to resurface Pacific and Main to 3rd and Otis Park to\nBroadway. Staff would find out tomorrow (June 27th) if their recommendations to fund\nthe Cross Alameda Trail were approved. The project ranked second under Measure B\nBike/Pedestrian Discretionary fund. In addition, the Estuary Crossing Shuttle will\nincrease in frequency and service would begin at 6:30 am to 7 pm with 30-minute\nfrequencies for the next two years. Staff will also hear from Caltrans about the planning\ngrant in August and staff submitted a TIGER grant for the San Francisco Bay Trail.\nPotential Future Meeting Agenda Items\n-\nAC Transit OX- Opening to Local Riders\n-\nResident Appeal of Public Works Staff's Decision to Not Install Street Sweeping\nSigns on La Jolla Drive\n-\nTraffic Control and Contingency Plan during Construction for I-880/29th\nAvenue/23rd Avenue Interchange Improvement Project in Oakland: Public\nInformation Program and Transit Impacts\n-\nRobert Davey Jr. Dr. at Channing Drive Traffic Calming - Phase II\n-\nAC Transit Line 51A Performance Initiative Project\n-\nPort of Oakland's Ron Cowan Parkway Proposed Class I Path\n7.\nAnnouncements/ Public Comments\nJon Spangler wanted to address some issues regarding the Bikes on BART pilot since he is a\nmember of the BART Bike Advisory Task Force. He was at the meeting on May 23rd and BART\nstaff recommended that the pilot change be a permanent change, but the board was more\nconservative. He also understood that the operations managers of BART felt the bike pilot was a\nnon-event and it is exactly what those people want everyday. He urged the Commission to write\na letter or recommend the City to write a letter supporting bikes on board BART as a permanent\npolicy change because the BART board will hold a meeting again in October to reconsider the\npilot.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that all through downtown San Francisco there were repeat\nexamples of bikes getting on and off the wrong cars. He urged Jon Spangler to let the bicycle\ncommunity know that they have to observe the rules whenever they can so they don't wreck the\npilot.\nJon Spangler replied they do that and there are people that don't obey the rules in every aspect of\nour lives and bicyclist seem to be a lighting rod on BART in particular because they are an easy\ntarget, but rules are disobeyed and it's not always willful sometimes it just happens.\nJohn Knox White spoke about a developed project coming before the Planning Board on Monday\non the corner of Willie Stargell Avenue and Webster Street, which has significant access issues.\nHe was concerned that the In and Out Burger development was moving in such a pace that the\nTransportation Commission may miss their window of opportunity to set necessary mitigation\nconditions to enhance access to Neptune Park.\nPage 15 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 16, "text": "Lucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda, stated Neptune Park pathway is the alignment that was\nalready approved by the Commission in January, but she felt the Commission has not looked at\nthe access points at Marina Village Parkway and Constitution on the eastside and Stargell\nAvenue and Webster Street on the Westside. She said there could be an accessible throughway\nfor bicycles and pedestrians between Marina Village, developed housing, the college, and\nAlameda Landing. However, the City is not improving those intersections so the path could be\naccessed safely. Three of the streets Stargell Avenue, Webster Street and Marina Village\nParkway have double left turns or double right turns and there are four and five lane\nintersections, which are horrible for pedestrians and bicyclists to go through. Webster Street and\nStargell Avenue only have one crosswalk and Marina Village and Constitution Way only have\ntwo crosswalks. She requested a big public meeting be held to discuss safe access to Neptune\nPark.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if Webster Street is a state route because that would be an issue\nwith Caltrans.\nLucy Gigli replied one of the intersections is a Caltrans intersection. However, they agreed that\nthey would work better with them in the future and this is an opportunity to test this process.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff if there are any plans to conduct public outreach on this access\nissues or was the intent to bring the topic to the Planning Board or the Transportation\nCommission for comment.\nStaff Naclerio replied that the In and Out development is a project designated for the Planning\nBoard and the Community Development Department is ushering that through. He knew that\nthere was a presentation at the Planning Board that included comments and staff was trying to\naddress those comments. He reminded the Commission that the Neptune Park has not been\ndesigned, but there was a review and approval of the preliminary alignment by the Commission.\nHe said staff anticipated working on this project in the fall and staff would follow the standard\nprocess of presenting a preliminary design and then have a public meeting to elicit public\ncomments. However, he was happy to make the first public meeting at the Transportation\nCommission meeting if the Commission desired.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff for bicycle route continuity to denote where there is a route or\npath and highlight a few participating projects underway so there is some education to the\nCommission about access issues.\nStaff Naclerio replied within that location or throughout the City.\nCommissioner Vargas stated throughout the City.\nStaff Naclerio replied the Bicycle Master Plan shows the gaps and there is a map in the Bicycle\nMaster Plan so maybe that is something to start with.\nCommissioner Bertken highlighted the lack of adequate of pedestrian crossings coming out of the\nWebster Street on the side of the tunnel and the Wiley Stargell Avenue intersection that connect\nPage 16 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 17, "text": "with the Neptune Park pathway.\nJohn Knox White explained that he hoped there are upcoming path improvements through\nNeptune Park because there are some real configuration issues.\nStaff Naclerio replied if the nexus is with the In and Out Burger development that is not coming\nto the Transportation Commission it should be discussed at the Planning Board because the\nCommission does not have the authority to look over those permits.\nLucy Gigli replied the reason she felt the urgency to bring the topic up because the City is\nreviewing the design of the Neptune Park pathway after they approve the IN and Out Burger\ndevelopment.\nCommissioner Miley made a recommendation to have this topic on the agenda for the next\nmeeting to have an understanding with visuals of the proposal of In and Out Burger and how that\nrelates to Marina Village Parkway and Neptune Park because that is a transportation issue.\nStaff Naclerio replied the Planning Board will make a decision on the In and Out Burger\ndevelopment, which also includes a Safeway gas station and a Chase Bank on July 22nd. The\nPlanning Board's meeting is two days before the Transportation Commission's meeting.\nAlex Nguyen recommended that staff plan to bring the topic back to the Transportation\nCommission at the next meeting because there is no certainty that the Planning Board will make\nan approval at the next meeting. So, the timing would give the Transportation Commission time\nto make comments.\nStaff Vargas replied that the Commission should leave it to staff to bring the topic to the\nCommission as a potential agenda item.\nStaff Naclerio said staff will present what they know at the time of the packet about the In and\nOut Burger development and that would include the approved alignment for Neptune Park. Then\nstaff will update the Commission on whether the Planning Board approved or continued that item\nagain.\n8.\nAdjournment\n10:04 pm\nPage 17 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}