{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-12-11", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission Minutes:\nWednesday, December 11, 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)\nThomas G. Bertken\nGregory Morgado\nMembers Absent:\nMichele Bellows\nEric Schatmeier\nSandy Wong\nStaff Present:\nStaff Payne, Transportation Coordinator\nStaff Nguyen, Assistant City Manager\nStaff Patel, Transportation Engineer\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\n3.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\nNone.\n4.\nConsent Calendar\n4A.\nTransportation Commission and Planning Board Minutes:\nMonday, September 30, 2013\nCommissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.\nCommissioner Bertken moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Miley seconded\nthe motion. The motion was approved 4-0.\n4B.\nTransportation Commission Minutes:", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-12-11", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2 of 9\nWednesday, October 23, 2013\nCommissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.\nA quorum was not met, so the Commission will vote at the next meeting held in January 2014.\n5.\nNew Business\n5A. Shore Line Drive/Westline Drive Bikeway Project Update\nStaff Payne presented the report.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.\nRion Cassidy, resident of Bay Street, said he was here in part because he had become convinced\nthat some things violate the public participation policy. He said the Commission approved the\nproject in the past, but today he learned the way comments were handled in the early stages of\nthe project were no longer allowed at this point. He felt that it is a violation. His argument is\nthere are a lot of changes at the last minute and the term \"bait and switch\" came to mind. There\nwas a community meeting and there were four different choices and cycle tracks were an\nalternative. His request was to table the decision until the community weighs in on the decision.\nCommissioner Vargas asked Staff Payne what type of time is available before the decision is\nneeded to lock in the funds.\nStaff Payne replied staff would need to submit the construction drawings to Caltrans by January\n13, which is a request to authorize construction.\nCommission Vargas asked if there was time to make modifications on the existing illustrations.\nStaff Payne replied yes.\nCarol Gottstein, Alameda resident, said the whole project crammed a lot of stuff onto one road\nthat cannot be widened anymore. She said 50 percent of the promised disabled parking spaces\nhave been eliminated or changed and that is disheartening.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if the ADA parking is an item that is delayed like the crosswalks or\nare they currently not feasible.\nStaff Payne replied that the disabled parking is infeasible because the parking spots would only\ncomply at eight feet in width whereas on-street parking widths along this corridor are only seven\nfeet.\nCommissioner Miley asked if staff made every effort to look at every intersection to see if\ndisabled parking could fit.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-12-11", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3 of 9\nStaff Payne said they reviewed every intersection and there are places on some side streets that\nare feasible, but they would be in front of a single-family home. So, they decided not to pursue\nthese spots because it is inconsistent with the City's parking policy.\nCommissioner Morgado asked staff if there was a list of reasons why they were doing this\nbecause there were problems with bicycle riders in the walkway and now there may be problems\nwith pedestrians in the bikeway.\nStaff Payne said the existing path still would be a multi-use path. The conflict point is at the\ncrosswalk where pedestrians are crossing the street.\nCommissioner Morgado said he found it interesting that the pedestrians are prohibited from the\ncycle track, but the cyclists could enter into the walkway because he does not want to see conflict\narise.\nStaff Payne replied that the reason staff kept it as is because there are different types of cyclists\nsuch as families who ride slower. However, she said staff could revisit the issue.\nCommissioner Bertken explained that he was concerned with the traffic along the westbound side\nof the street and the fact that there are a lot of loading vehicles. However, he found staff made\nprovisions for 17 loading zones or 51 parking spaces that would be eliminated in the daytime,\nbut the City would provide parking on the other side.\nStaff Payne replied that the provision said up to 17 loading zones and in those areas with loading\nzones there are condos and apartments. The City would provide 24/7 parking on the other side\nof the street. So, these areas have overall more parking. Additionally, the loading zones are\ndesignated from 9 am-5 pm, and the big demand for parking in that area is at night time.\nCommissioner Bertken wondered if we are really substituting parking for loading zones. He\nwanted to know how many new daytime parking spaces would be available on the bay side.\nStaff Payne replied they do not have an exact count yet but she would send Commissioner\nBertken the exact number.\nCommissioner Vargas stated it was not clear in the presentation whether the U-turn movements\nwould be allowed.\nStaff Payne replied that right now U-turns are prohibited and they will keep that as is.\nCommissioner Vargas talked about the crosswalks and he said the Sand Beach neighborhood is\nsort of in the middle and he wondered if there is a way to include one crosswalk.\nStaff Payne replied it was not a matter of policy, but a matter of the budget. She explained that\nstaff could review the cost estimate and see if it is feasible to include one more crosswalk.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-12-11", "page": 4, "text": "Page 4 of 9\nCommissioner Vargas commented about the bike box, he wanted to know if that works for a\nsignalized intersection or for a stop sign.\nStaff Payne replied it works for both. She said for the signalized intersection, the bikes are\ndetected by video and that is how the signal is triggered to turn green. However, the stop sign is\nthe right-of-way rule.\nCommissioner Vargas asked about the costs going up and if staff was seeking additional new\nfunds.\nStaff Payne replied not at this time because staff believes they can do the project with the\nexisting funds.\nCommissioner Miley commended staff for finding a balance for all users of the area. Overall, the\nproject would be an improvement from what we already have.\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve staff's recommendation with addition that staff work on\nadding one of the eliminated crosswalks from the Fair Haven to Sunset area.\nCommissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.\n5B. Detailed Summary of Transportation Demand Management Plan for Alameda Point\nEric Fonstein, Development Manager Alameda Point, introduced Jim Daisa of Kimley-Horn and\nAssociates to present the report for Alameda Point. Jim Daisa presented the report.\nCommissioner Bertken said some time ago the Commission reviewed a traffic analysis of the\nintersections in town, which was part of the environmental document. There were some areas\nthat needed mitigation. He questioned if the illustration presented part of the connection from the\ntraffic analysis that was done on the intersections or if these intersections that were showing\nsome problems had to be mitigated.\nJim Daisa replied that the environmental impact report looked at the impacts of intersections and\ncontained three different findings: 1. some solution could be done physically and operationally,\nbut it would be expensive; 2. Transportation Demand Management (TDM), which has a goal\ntarget of reducing vehicular trips from commercial development by 30% and residential\ndevelopment by 10%; and 3. significant and unavoidable impacts. He felt there is a lot hanging\non the TDM to reduce trips given that the estimate of trips.\nCommissioner Bertken referred to the environmental document and said there are physical\nimprovements that are going to need to happen even considering the TDM.\nStaff Patel, Alameda Public Works, referred to the environmental document and he stated that if\nthere is less than significant criteria and the physical mitigations are called out then they will be\napplied to the intersections. So, only the ones that are significant and unavoidable would be", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-12-11", "page": 5, "text": "Page 5 of 9\ninfeasible to conduct the physical mitigation.\nCommissioner Bertken said when you have long range goals there is a concern when accepting\nthe environmental document.\nJim Daisa replied that if the physical or operational mitigations bring the number of vehicular\ntrips down to less than significant, then it would be implemented early. However, he said if it\nwas infeasible, there would be reliance on the TDM.\nCommissioner Miley asked about item 9.4 under \"Monitor and reporting\" and wondered whether\nhe could speak about consequences of failing to meet goals and to explain more of the\nbackground regarding the reductions.\nJim Daisa replied that they debated it during the joint meeting with the Planning Board and there\nwere options for consequences of failing to meet the goal. He explained that one example could\nbe the Transportation Management Association (TMA) could go before the City Council for a\nmonitoring report and they would have to go to the Planning Board and revise their plans if they\nfail and that has a monetary impact for development at Alameda Point.\nCommissioner Vargas wanted to know if the Transportation Commission would see the\nmonitoring report, and requested that it occur more than one time per year.\nJim Daisa stated that the City Council may prefer that the Transportation Commission review it,\nand that it could occur every six months.\nCommissioner Vargas said it was good to see sustainable communities and he felt establishing\nmore live/work developments would require City policy to promote those types of land uses in\nthat area or to provide a discount to minimize incoming and outgoing traffic.\nJim Daisa replied that we want to attract people who like compact community living, but he does\nnot know if a policy is necessary and that may be difficult when we are still trying to encourage\ngeneral development to establish here. He felt promoting the area to self selective people and\ncompanies who promote sustainable lifestyles was a good start.\nCommissioner Morgado asked where in the United States are TDM programs implemented.\nJim Daisa replied that TDM is in many municipalities in some form or another. The City's TDM\nis a robust program and even San Francisco has a TDM with a series of incentives. In Oregon,\nstate law mandates trip reduction rules. The company Nike in Portland has a robust TDM\nprogram with shuttles, bicycle amenities and other incentives. TDM programs used to be\nvoluntary, and now there are goals with consequences.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-12-11", "page": 6, "text": "Page 6 of 9\n5C. Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Draft Master Plan\nAmy Wooldridge, City of Alameda Recreation and Parks Director, presented the report.\nCommissioner Miley said since the project is not funded what is the estimated full build-out cost.\nAmy Wooldridge replied that she has not gotten an estimated cost, but she wanted to wait until\nshe knew what the design would look like. She estimated that the project cost would be between\n$5 to $7 million.\nCommissioner Vargas said he remembered going to some of the community meetings and the\nfield visits. He asked if she could highlight the description of the 20-foot right-of-way dedicated\nfor transportation.\nAmy Wooldridge explained that there is a future rail right-of-way requirement since they\npurchased the land from the railroad. She said the agreement states that they had to allocate a 30-\nfoot wide right-of-way for future transportation projects. For the next meeting, staff realized that\nthey need to include that dedication on the next draft of the plan.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if they are seeking input on that now.\nAmy Wooldridge replied she is seeking input.\nCommissioner Vargas said that there was an old building on the site and wondered if there is an\nopportunity to reuse the building.\nAmy Wooldridge replied it is a storage building on the southeast corner and adjacent to the\nbuilding is a small square building that will be converted to a maintenance storage shed. She said\nthey plan to keep the exterior. The building was painted and the roof was fixed by the Church of\nLatter-day Saints. She is not currently including the building in the plans because the general\nconcept is to create a concession building or rail history museum, but that is an expensive piece\nof the project and would be tackled last.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if there was a first phase in mind if $3-$4 million were allocated to\nthe project.\nAmy Wooldridge replied the vision has a few key steps such as soil clean up. A grant was\nsubmitted and by February, staff would have a plan on how to start the cleanup process such as\ndigging everything out and getting rid of the dirt or capping it, which is the cheapest option.\nAlso, they need to insert the utilities (water, electrical, and sewer) and a key component is\nfocusing on the Cross Alameda Trail and placing light fixtures. Afterwards, the fences would be\ntaken down and staff would look at the open space that can be planted. Furthermore, when the\ndesign is in place then staff can start community projects piece by piece with the planting\ncomponents. She then said the second phase would be to build out plazas, playgrounds,\nrestrooms and other important amenities.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-12-11", "page": 7, "text": "Page 7 of 9\nCommissioner Bertken mentioned that foundations could fund this type of project and the\ncommunity utility could be broken up into pieces like the recreation areas and educational\ncenters.\nAmy Wooldridge replied that there are potential federal and private funding sources for\ntransportation, open space, and recreation such as federal rails to trails.\nCommissioner Bertken believed the plan is very professional and very fortunate to get an in-\nhouse member of the group.\nCommissioner Miley asked if the right-of-way has to remain unused.\nAmy Wooldridge replied that the rail right-of-way has to be located on something we can live\nwithout at some point. It should not be on the Cross Alameda Trail, and cannot cross major\nstructures like the parking lots or restrooms.\nCommissioner Vargas said communities do not want noisy facilities adjacent to their homes.\nCommissioner Bertken asked if the rail right-of-way has to be identified at this time or is it just a\ncommitment.\nAmy Wooldridge replied it is the latter because there is no specific design and designation of this\nrail right-of-way.\nCommissioner Bertken stated the placement tends to become a historical item that the City is\nessentially locked into doing. He felt it is better to recognize that fact and point out it is not a\ncommitment.\nStaff Nguyen said he was concerned that it is a rail line, so it can only curve and turn so much.\nAlso, he felt we do not want to build facilities where we later may want to place the route.\nCommissioner Bertken replied that we are locked into providing the design requirements and we\ndo not want to lay it out now because in the future the location may change. He asked if there\nwould be an easement on either side of the park.\nAmy Wooldridge replied no, there is an agreement that the 22 acres has to have a 30-foot wide\neasement across it somewhere.\nCommissioner Miley referred to the Cross Alameda Trail and wondered how it linked up on the\nwestern side along Constitution Avenue and Neptune Park.\nAmy Wooldridge said staff is exploring the connections further especially due to funding. She\nfelt the trickier issue is the eastern side because that is a dangerous curve and they do not have\nthe outline of how to get people across the street in a safe way. Additionally, she said having", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-12-11", "page": 8, "text": "Page 8 of 9\nBoardmember K\u00f6ster on the Planning Board was essential because he has information about the\nDel Monte development.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-12-11", "page": 9, "text": "Page 9 of 9\n6.\nStaff Communications\n6A.\nStaff Recruitment Update\nStaff Nguyen said he would speak to Human Resources about recruitment, and he would provide\nthat information to the Commission.\n6B.\nPotential Future Meeting Agenda Items\nCommissioner Bertken asked if a representative from the Water Emergency Transportation\nAuthority (WETA) could come and present updates and plans sometime soon.\nStaff Nguyen said yes possibly in January or February.\n7.\nAnnouncements/ Public Comments\nNone.\n8.\nAdjournment\n8:35 pm", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf"}