{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-01-28", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMarch 25, 2015\nItem 4A\nAction\nTransportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, January 28, 2015\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\nMichael Hans\nGregory Morgado\nStaff Present:\nAlex Nguyen, Assistant City Manager\nLiam Garland, Deputy Public Works Director\nVirendra Patel, Transportation Engineer\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\n3.\nAnnouncements/ Public Comments\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident, said he visited Bay Farm Island and he was glad to see Public\nWorks working on the bicycle/pedestrian walkways on Island Drive. He stated that Public Works\nshould work on Golf Course Drive because it needs pothole repairs. Also, he felt that the\nCaltrans' signs posted in the Posey Tube that say \"Walk bicycles on sidewalk\" is a way to\npenalize bicyclists.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that he was excited to see the movie theatre parking lot full lately\nand overfull in some cases where drivers have to go up and then down. When he talked to the\nmovie theatre staff, he was told that the City operates the parking lot, but he felt it would be great\nto know how many parking spaces are available.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-01-28", "page": 2, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMarch 25, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 2 of 10\nStaff Payne stated that the Cross Alameda Trail Community Workshop will take place on\nFebruary 10, Harbor Bay Ferry Access Improvements meeting will take place on February 24\nand the Joint Transportation Commission and Planning Board will take place on February 25.\nCommissioner Miley stated that he spoke with Councilmember Oddie and thanked him for\nforwarding the letters from last month's council meeting focusing on traffic issues.\n4.\nConsent Calendar\n4A.\nMeeting Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - November 19, 2014\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve Item 4A. of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner\nSchatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.\n5.\nNew Business\n5A. Discuss Transportation Projects in Alameda's Proposed Capital Improvement\nProgram\nLiam Garland, Deputy Public Works Director, presented the report.\nStaff Payne presented the second half of the report.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that the packet distinguished between rehabilitation and\nenhancement projects and the table provided to staff is only the enhancement projects. When he\nreviewed the enhancement table, staff numbered the projects and arranged the projects by time of\nfunding or implementation. He also said that there were numbers associated to the priorities in\nthe other table found at the end of the staff report. He wondered what relation could be found\nwith the number system in the table.\nStaff Payne replied that the numbering system in the ten-year list was a way to reference the\nprojects for discussion purposes. She also mentioned that all projects are in alphabetical order in\neach of the sections.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked staff when choosing which projects would be implemented in\nthe 2015 - 2017 timeframe and which projects would be implemented in the 2018-2020\ntimeframe was that a function of staff priority or envisioned funding.\nStaff Payne referred to Figure 1 of the staff report and stated that staff used the prioritized\ntransportation list and upcoming grants to compose the draft ten-year list.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff how the Commission could find the numbers for the various\ncategories of rehabilitation projects identified and what were the amounts that go to each of those\nelements.\nPage 2 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-01-28", "page": 3, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMarch 25, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 3 of 10\nLiam Garland replied that staff would present that information at the March Transportation\nCommission meeting.\nCommissioner Bertken asked Staff Payne about the capital improvements projects that were\nlisted for the first two years and how staff would set up their resources such as scheduling city\nstaff or consultants workload. Additionally, he wondered what are the actual priorities to push\nthose projects forward.\nStaff Payne replied that there are three projects presented for the first two years and the Cross\nAlameda Trail project is funded. She also explained that the Cross Alameda Trail project will\nlose the federal funding in December and that was the highest priority although it was second on\nthe list because the list is alphabetical order.\nCommissioner Hans felt the Shoreline Path should not be placed in the long-term 2021-2025\nsection and he wondered how to move the project up.\nCommissioner Vargas noticed that the background found on Exhibit 2 dated back to March 2014\nand he asked staff when the comments would be revised.\nStaff Payne replied that the comments would be updated in March. She also said the\nBayview/Shoreline Path study was placed in the long-term section of the ten-year plan and the\nproject has proponents and opponents.\nCommissioner Hans replied how could the Commission move projects from the long-term to the\nshort-term timeframe.\nStaff Payne replied the purpose of this month's meeting was to hear from the Commission and\nreceive input and bring back a draft plan for approval in March.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated when talking about moving projects up or down was there a\ndollar trade off and would staff have to move another project to medium or long-term to move a\nproject up.\nStaff Payne replied yes because there is only a certain number of staff hours and available funds.\nMayor Trish Herrera Spencer introduced herself and said she was attending all Commission and\nBoard meetings to know what the City was working on. She found the presentation to be\ninformative, but she felt staff should develop a map to coordinate with the projects.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.\nLucy Gigli, Director of Advocacy for Bike Walk Alameda, stated that that her organization has\nbeen working for years with the City on the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list and she\nfound that this list has been the best one that aligned with the bicycle, pedestrian and\ntransportation plans.\nPage 3 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-01-28", "page": 4, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMarch 25, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 4 of 10\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff how to move up Item 39, Bayfarm Island Path Improvements\nproject.\nStaff Payne replied that the project was a rehabilitation project and that would be part of\ncomplete streets under rehabilitation. She explained that staff would work on resurfacing projects\nfor the next fiscal year and they would resurface in sections and look at the worst sections first.\nCommissioner Bellows asked Staff Payne how could the Commission distinguish the project as a\nrehabilitation project.\nStaff Payne referred to page 1 of the staff report under Complete Streets. She also referred to\nExhibit 2, which shows the list and described how each project was categorized.\nCommissioner Miley suggested categorizing the CIP and the priority lists so that they work\nacross both lists regardless of what document he is viewing. Meaning, he could look at Exhibit 1\nof the staff report and see the Cross Alameda Trail is in Category \"X\" and then he could see it in\nthe priority list and find it in Category \"X\".\nStaff Payne replied that staff could reprioritize and re-categorize the list.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if staff anticipated the same source of funding for the\nrehabilitation category and the enhancements projects or does it say in the staff report.\nLiam Garland, replied that for most transportation projects the funding sources would be\nMeasure BB, grant funding and gas taxes. He gave an example of the Urban Forest Management\nproject, which was funded mostly by the gas tax.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked what are the sources for rehabilitation that are not sources for\nthe enhancement projects.\nLiam Garland, replied that there are rehabilitation projects that are not related to transportation\nsuch as sewer replacement projects. Pavement management is a rehabilitation project likely\nfunded by Measure BB, gas tax and vehicle registration monies.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff what was the City's overall network in miles of pavement.\nLiam Garland, replied the number was around 140 miles. He also said in the March\nTransportation Commission meeting the Commission will see a projection of the pavement\ncondition index based on the amount of funding staff was proposing to allocate in the next two\nyears and beyond.\nCommissioner Miley asked if staff could provide an overview of the City needs and the unfunded\nportion of the pavement resurfacing.\nLiam Garland replied there is a program called Street Saver, which figured which streets need\nresurfacing when.\nPage 4 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-01-28", "page": 5, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMarch 25, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 5 of 10\nCommissioner Miley said in the future it would be helpful to see the funding sources available\nand show the project worksheets or factsheets that give a synopsis.\nLiam Garland replied that the submission in March would have three complements: 1. budget\nsheet where the dollars are allocated to which projects and funding sources; 2. narrative of the\ncapital improvement project; and 3. underlying project sheet describing the projects.\nCommissioner Miley stated that the document was a living document and reemphasized that\ngenerally projects move forward because they are on a list, but sometimes priorities change and\nhe does not want to see the City locked into that view on projects. He also would like to see the\nCommission find linkages to projects that have shared goals or phased projects. He gave the\nexample of Central Avenue projects, which could be a combined into phases.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that he was concerned about using capital funding for street and\nroads maintenance and he understood that funding was hard to come by and that streets and\nroads have to be fixed.\nLiam Garland asked Commissioner Schatmeier if a slurry seal was considered a maintenance\nproject.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated yes.\nLiam Garland replied that the City traditionally dealt with streets maintenance as part of capital\nprojects.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said calling street maintenance part of a capital project was a stretch\nand he had no idea how to fix the situation, he just wanted to comment.\nCommissioner Bellows replied that Measure BB states that streets and roads could receive capital\nimprovement funds.\nAlex Nguyen, Assistant City Manager, said the Commission would have to discuss Commissioner\nHans' request to move Bayview/Shoreline Path from long-term to short-term.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff when was the deadline for input.\nLiam Garland replied that they could take in input over the next month or SO.\nStaff Payne said it would be helpful to receive the Commission's input on what Commissioner\nHans' requested to proceed with the feasibility study.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if the path was on the public right of way.\nStaff Payne replied yes.\nPage 5 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-01-28", "page": 6, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMarch 25, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 6 of 10\nCommissioner Miley asked if City owned the right of way.\nStaff Payne replied she would have to look into that.\nCommissioner Miley replied to staff that if the intent was to first begin a study there should not\nbe anything wrong with that. However, he felt as a Commission they need to talk about how\nprojects move up and down the list.\nCommissioner Hans replied that it would be good for the Commission to look at potential\nfunding sources for the study grant and come back with that information.\nCommissioner Vargas needed clarification on the Island Access studies found in the priority list.\nHe wanted to know whether there was consideration from staff to be moving the project up.\nStaff Payne stated the history of the study dates back to 2008 when the City conducted an effort\ncalled the Estuary Crossing Study to improve infrastructure for the Estuary and the west end. The\nhighest priority project became the bicycle/pedestrian bridge, but because of the Coast Guard\nIsland, it was a flaw for moving the project forward. So, staff is going back to the drawing board\nand moving the island access issue back to the forefront, especially in light of several\nCouncilmember referrals related to island access.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that he would like to see this earlier than later and he would like to\nsee the other Commissioners weigh in.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff if the Commission wanted to start the study tomorrow could\nthey.\nStaff Payne replied that they have some resources in house they could start up a small effort and\nscope then they would have to look for grants to move forward.\nCommissioner Miley stated that he agreed about the importance of the study, but he cautioned the\nCommission about moving things forward right now especially when they need to see where\nfunding was coming from. He felt it was best for the Commission to look at the funding chart in\nMarch then decide.\nCommissioner Vargas replied that he recalled a conversation of project prioritization and glanced\nat the minutes of the last meeting. He explained that the element of safety was also a factor into\nthe ranking as well as air quality and vehicles miles traveled.\nPage 6 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-01-28", "page": 7, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMarch 25, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 7 of 10\n5B. Discuss Clement Avenue Complete Street Concept Proposal\nStaff Payne presented the report.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked staff if the $2.4 million estimate for railroad track removal\nincluded filling the holes and paving the street afterwards.\nStaff Payne replied it does not.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff what was the plan for getting the funding to do construction.\nStaff Payne replied the idea was to better understand what the community wanted and then cost\nit\nout once staff had consensus. She said staff would have a better understanding of the full cost\nand they could look at grant funding available and funding from adjacent developments in the\narea to pay their contribution for the project.\nCommissioner Hans asked when working with the utility company do they have a say or\nobligation to fund the project in some way.\nStaff Payne replied staff is working with Alameda Municipal Power on this issue and they are\nstill looking to see what funding sources they could bring to the table.\nCommissioner Morgado asked how many residents versus businesses live on this section of\nClement Avenue.\nStaff Payne replied that the area is in transition because it was once industrial, but there are more\nresidents on the eastern end. She saw the corridor as mixed residential and commercial, and\nexpected the corridor to become more residential in the future.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.\nDorothy Freeman, Alameda resident, said Clement Avenue was a major street and when she\nwent to the workshop meeting, she was pleased to see people come out. She further said the\noverall trail would create a three-mile long stretch where a good portion will link east Alameda\nwith the west creating a safer way to travel to get to the ferry terminal and BART station.\nJim Strehlow wondered if the railroad tracks could be paved over to create 3-4 inches of\nadditional pavement and the utilities would need to work around it.\nJohn Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated that he\nwas on the Cross Alameda Trail Steering Committee for a number of years along with Lucy\nGigli. He felt all the utilities should be grounded including the high voltage because the\nsidewalks on Clement Avenue are not wide enough to present a safe passage for people on\nwheelchairs or someone walking next to someone with a wheelchair. The City would have to\ntake one side of parking out to install a fully buffered bike lane with three feet on each side of the\nlane similar to San Francisco.\nPage 7 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-01-28", "page": 8, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMarch 25, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 8 of 10\nStaff Patel said staff could not pave over the railroad tracks because the tracks are sitting in the\ncenter of the street and the crown of the street would be too high.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that staff has used Fernside Drive as an existing example of\ntheir draft preferred idea. He said Fernside Drive was currently working, so why would not this\ntactic be applied to Clement Avenue.\nJon Spangler replied if you look at Shoreline and Fernside Drives there are no driveways on\nShoreline Drive where the dunes are. He felt, the same goes for Fernside Drive between the\nbridge and Lincoln Middle School. There was one intersection, but for the short length of the\ncycle track it is protected fully on the right side from the bridge to the school. So, there was a\ndifferent curbside issues, which concerned him.\nCommissioner Miley stated for future renderings it would be helpful to see those types of\nconflicts.\nStaff Payne replied that there was one type of conflict that is in the background of the\npresentation and staff chose to treat it with the green pavement driveway in the upper left corner\nof the corridor. She said this was the common type of treatment happening throughout the\ncountry and it was seen as best practices at this point.\nCommissioner Hans said when he worked at Alameda High School he remembered a severe\naccident on Clement Avenue with an adult riding his bike home from work and his tire became\nlocked into the railroad track. So, he appreciated the plan.\nCommissioner Vargas asked about the new item where there were several attendees at the\nJanuary 21 meeting. He wanted a summary of the meeting and he asked staff if that was where\nthe traffic-calming item came up.\nStaff Payne replied there were approximately 40 attendees and they broke out in groups and\nranked goals. She said 80-90 percent approved the San Francisco Bay Trail to be moved from\nBuena Vista Avenue to Clement Avenue. A majority of the participants ranked the two-way\nparking protected bikeway as the preferred idea. She stated that staff would come back with all\nof the input on March 25.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if Bike Walk Alameda placed input as well.\nStaff Payne replied that Bike Walk Alameda attended the meeting and weighed in.\nLucy Gigli, of Bike Walk Alameda, stated that most community input aligned with their\nrecommendations. She advocated for the two-way parking protected bike lanes because that was\nthe only way to get more people out on bikes.\nCommissioner Miley said it was exciting to see the project moving forward in the early stages.\nPage 8 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-01-28", "page": 9, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMarch 25, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 9 of 10\n5C. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans\nStaff Payne presented the report.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff about the Park Street Streetscape project, which came before\nthe Commission last July. He wanted to know if there were any changes in the concept.\nStaff Patel stated there were no changes since the Commission approved the plan and staff will\ngo out to bid very soon.\n6.\nStaff Communications\n6A.\nChair and Vice Chair Elections\nCommissioner Vargas made a motion for Commissioner Bellows to become Chair and called for\nother nominations.\nCommissioner Bellows accepted the nomination. Commissioner Bertken moved to approve the\nnomination and Commissioner Hans seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0; 1\nabstention.\nCommissioner Miley made a motion for Commissioner Schatmeier to become Vice Chair and\ncalled for other nominations.\nCommissioner Schatmeier accepted the nomination. Commissioner Bertken moved to approve\nthe nomination and Commissioner Vargas seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0; 1\nabstention.\n6B.\nUpdate on Ferry Terminal Access (from Ad Hoc Committee)\nStaff Payne presented the next steps of the ad hoc ferry access committee with the Harbor Bay\nmeeting on February 24.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said he favored having one or two representatives from the Planning\nBoard sit on the Ad Hoc Transit Committee. He also wanted to establish City priorities to guide\nAC Transit in its service planning effort.\n6C.\nPotential Future Meeting Agenda Items\n- The next Commission meeting will be Wednesday, February 25\n- AC Transit Service Plan Update\nCommissioner Miley asked staff when will the priority I-880 Broadway/Jackson project come up\nfor discussion.\nAlex Nguyen replied Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) would have their\nstaff and consultant give an update to the Commission in March.\nPage 9 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-01-28", "page": 10, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMarch 25, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 10 of 10\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff what is the City's policy and technical role providing input in\nthe ACTC.\nAlex Nguyen replied that they are opening up that process and inviting City staff to their\nmeetings. So, their job is to show up to the meetings and speak on Alameda's behalf.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if there have been appointments in the past for representation from\nthem.\nAlex Nguyen replied yes, there was a subcommittee of ACTC to get the study to happen. So, that\njob is complete and now there is an outreach component.\n7.\nAnnouncements/Public Comments\nJon Spangler stated that he talked to Jackie Krause from the Mastick Senior Center to allow\nbicycle parking for up to 12 bicycles. He also said Otis Drive needed traffic calming so every\nstreet will be safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Furthermore, he said he was part of the\nKickstarter for Zackees lighted bicycle turn signal gloves and excited about this product.\nCommissioner Miley thanked Commissioner Vargas for his service and he looked forward to\nworking with the new Chair and Vice Chair.\nCommissioner Vargas concurred.\n8.\nAdjournment\n9:01 pm\nPage 10 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-01-28.pdf"}