{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-03-25", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMay 27, 2015\nItem 4A\nAction\nTransportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, March 25, 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:\nMichele Bellows (Chair)\nEric Schatmeier (Vice Chair)\nThomas G. Bertken\nMichael Hans\nChristopher Miley\nGregory Morgado\nJesus Vargas\nStaff Present:\nAlex Nguyen, Assistant City Manager\nLiam Garland, Deputy Public Works Director\nVirendra Patel, Transportation Engineer\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nChair Bellows explained that she would postpone Item 5A (Harbor Bay Ferry Area Parking\nRecommendations) because any Transportation Commissioner who lives near Item 5A may not\nbe able to participate in the debate or vote. The Transportation Commissioners will work with\nCity staff, and then will reschedule the 5A item as a special meeting at the end of April. She\napologized for the inconvenience, and stated that the public comment period will be open until the\nspecial meeting.\nCommissioner Miley moved to have a special meeting for Item 5A. Commissioner Vargas\nseconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-03-25", "page": 2, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMay 27, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 2 of 13\n3.\nAnnouncements/ Public Comments\nDorothy Freeman, Alameda resident, said one week ago she attended a meeting about the I-880\nand 23rd/29th Avenues Overcrossing Project. She observed people asking questions and the\nstandard reply from Caltrans staff and contractors were that traffic studies were conducted. She\nfelt although the traffic studies were conducted 3-5 years ago, they may not have looked at the new\nconstruction work on the northern waterfront. She requested that the traffic study be updated and\nthat the study look at new housing coming on board. She also was concerned with the Ford Street\nintersection across from the Park Street Bridge and wondered whether there would be pedestrian\nor bicyclist controls at the intersection.\nStaff Patel replied that staff was aware of the new traffic arrangement that would occur and staff\nreviewed the traffic signal plans and the new studies that Caltrans provided to them. Pedestrians\ncrossing the intersection could activate the signal. Regarding the traffic studies, he said the studies\ninclude Alameda Landing, Alameda Point and road projects for the City.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident, referred to the Cross Alameda Trail project at Ralph Appezzato\nParkway and during last month's Transportation Commission meeting a plaza area was mentioned.\nHe spoke to staff person Michelle Berner of West Alameda Business Association (WABA), and\nshe said a consultant designer was working with the City, but she does not know the details. He\nurged staff to have the designs of the Webster Street plaza area fully vetted by WABA members.\nStaff Payne replied that the WABA design committee - not Michele Berner - has been working\nwith the City and they have forwarded their design sketch for the Neptune Tower and plaza area.\n3A. Central Avenue Complete Street Concept Proposal Workshop #: Tuesday, April 14 at 6:30\np.m. (Encinal High School Cafeteria, 210 Central Avenue)\nStaff Payne stated that the meeting would introduce the idea of a proposed bikeway along Central\nAvenue between Pacific Avenue/Main Street and Encinal Avenue/Sherman Street.\n3B. Clement Avenue Complete Street Concept Proposal Workshop #3: Wednesday, April 29 at\n6:30 p.m. (Main Library, 1550 Oak Street)\nStaff Payne stated that this meeting would be the third and last workshop.\n3C. Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, May 27 at 7 p.m. (City Hall Council\nChambers)\nStaff Payne stated that a special meeting will be held at the end of April and the regularly scheduled\nmeeting will be held on May 27.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-03-25", "page": 3, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMay 27, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 3 of 13\n4.\nConsent Calendar\n4A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - January 28, 2015\n4B. Joint Meeting Minutes of the Transportation Commission and Planning Board - Approve\nMeeting Minutes - February 25, 2015\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve Item 4A and 4B of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner\nSchatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.\n5.\nNew Business\n5B. Approve 2015-2017 Transportation Projects in Alameda's Proposed Capital Improvement\nProgram and Provide Input on 2017-2025 Transportation Projects\nStaff Garland and Staff Payne presented the report.\nCommissioner Vargas referred to page 7 of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) document\nand stated that the gas tax revenue was projected to drop to $1.6 million dollars per year, and\nwanted to know why the gas tax revenue was reduced.\nStaff Garland replied that the gas tax was calculated with a state formula and the formula reduced\nthe revenue received by the City. He also mentioned that hybrid vehicles are part of the reason for\nthe reduction of gas tax revenue.\nCommissioner Miley referred to page 15 of the CIP document regarding a facility study that the\nDepartment of Public Works was conducting. He wanted to get an idea of what the schedule\nlooked like.\nStaff Garland replied that the facility study should be completed by the fall. Furthermore, he said\nthat his staff procured a third party expert on facility assessment to identify all deficiencies and\ncosts to remedy the facilities. He said that staff would turn the results into a ten-year capital plan.\nCommissioner Miley referred to page 17 of the CIP document and asked if the $13 million needed\nto get the City's roads in \"good\" condition was per year or over two years.\nStaff Garland said the figure was an upfront investment of over two years with a big push on street\nresurfacing to make that big jump to \"good\" condition.\nCommissioner Bellows asked Staff Garland if the City was aiming for the current level, which was\nat the high end of \"fair.\"\nLiam Garland replied yes to maintain the current level.\nCommissioner Vargas referred to the bar chart on page 25 of the CIP document and said the chart\noutlined $19 million in funds, but the text stated by the end of fiscal year June 30, 2017 the", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-03-25", "page": 4, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMay 27, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 4 of 13\nremaining funds would be $20 million.\nLiam Garland replied the numbers should be consistent and the $20 million in funds is a typo.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that some funds, which were initially devoted to street paving\nand road rehabilitation, have been reallocated to transportation. Therefore, he asked for the dollar\namount.\nLiam Garland replied that the funds have not been reallocated, but moved from rehabilitation to\ntransportation and that would be a $10 million project.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said the change would cause the remainder of the other transportation\nprojects to have $9 million for funding.\nLiam Garland replied yes.\nCommissioner Schatmeier explained that part of the short-term capital project plan was updating\nthe pedestrian and bicycle plans, which were completed in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Thus, he\nwanted to know if the transit plan also would be updated since the last update was in 2001 and if\nthere was another source of funding to update the plan.\nStaff Payne replied that the transit plan update was currently going through a separate process with\nCity Council and staff would have a special City Council meeting about this soon. She explained\nfor now there was a placeholder project called the Island Access Study for that item because staff\nwas not sure what the City Council would approve.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked staff if the Island Access Study would be multimodal.\nStaff Payne replied that the City Council would discuss whether to have a separate transit plan and\na separate Transportation Demand Management plan.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked staff if they have identified funding for the study.\nStaff Payne replied no.\nCommissioner Vargas referred to the City's Transportation Element within Exhibit 3 and he\nwondered if there have been changes to the street classification system that described the street\ntypes.\nStaff Payne replied that the Transportation Element was passed in 2009 and the document was a\nsignificant effort. She said if the Transportation Element was to be revised, the Transportation\nCommission would have an active part in the process and staff does not plan to change the\ndocument any time soon.\nCommissioner Bertken said the staff report and presentation was the best presentation of a budget\nplan that he has seen in the many years that he has worked in this profession.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-03-25", "page": 5, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMay 27, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 5 of 13\nCommissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comments.\nDon Sherratt, Alameda Resident and member of Alameda County Fairgrounds Association, said\nthat he was a member of the Alameda Traffic Advisory Committee and Recreation and Park\nCommission for eight years. When he was on the Recreation and Park Commission, there was an\nissue about funding the bike bridge and there was a promise to continue the bike trail all the way\naround Alameda. He spoke with Commissioner Hans and he mentioned a safety issue near the\nbridge and that it was hard to travel by bicycle on that path. He explained that there are four speed\nhumps that slow the speed, so when you go from the bridge to Shore Line Drive there was a gap.\nHe also said that when he was on the Recreation and Park Commission, funding was promised to\ncontinue the bike path from the East Bay Regional Parks District and the City, but the funding did\nnot come through because of political reasons.\nCommissioner Bellows explained to Don Sherratt that the Commission moved the project from\nlong-term to short-term so that project could begin with a feasibility study.\nJim Strehlow referred to Exhibit 2 found on page 5, item 53 of the staff report. He wanted to know\nthe timing of the traffic signals and the flow for cars, bicycles and pedestrians because when talking\nabout major funding and long-term projects residents need to understand the flow of transportation.\nLucy Gigli, Bike Walk Alameda Advocacy Director, reviewed the plan with staff and she asked\nthat Central Avenue and Fifth Street to Sherman Street be pushed up to the short-term projects.\nStaff Payne replied that the Central Avenue project was in the conceptual phase and that was the\nbasis for the meeting on April 14. It was hard to know if the community will accept a bikeway\nalong Central Avenue. She felt it was hard to place the corridor, but staff felt the section between\nPacific Avenue and Fifth Street should be placed in the short-term and the project will be submitted\nas part of a TIGER grant even though they have not gone through the concept proposal since this\nsection is part of the Bay Trail and adjacent to Alameda Point.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff if the approval and vetting phase were deemed viable could\nstaff move the project from the long-term to the short-term in the next round.\nStaff Payne replied yes.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, said he hoped that\nstaff was putting as much effort into obtaining transit funding as they were with the capital funding.\nHe understood that the operations and capital funding rules were different, but the City should\nattempt to rebalance the funding scales.\nCommissioner Miley echoed Commissioner Bertken's comments about staff's excellent work on\nthe report. When he reviewed the priority list, and listened to the various residents, he found that\ntraffic calming and pedestrian safety on Otis Drive was not listed.\nStaff Payne replied that the project was on the long-term list as part of the Otis Drive Bikeway.\nShe also explained that when staff looked at the bikeway proposal, they also reviewed the corridor", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-03-25", "page": 6, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMay 27, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 6 of 13\nas a complete street. She said staff might change the project name to Otis Drive Complete Street.\nCommissioner Miley echoed Jon Spangler's comment about how seeking various funding options\nwere imperative. He said Cal Fire recently had a call for projects for urban greening and it may\nbe out of staff's purview, but Cap and Trade funding may bring more revenue for urban forestry\nprojects.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that the City needed to make transit more user friendly and the\ncapital program could address the transit issue. He suggested that the City could possibly subsidize\ntransfers by AC Transit within City limits.\nCommissioner Vargas said he enjoyed the pictures in the report and he noticed a Geographic\nInformation System (GIS) project that would identify utilities, maintenance and overall\ninfrastructure, which was helpful.\nCommissioner Miley replied that Jim Strehlow brought up a light signalization plan and that should\nbe addressed.\nStaff Patel said staff could address the traffic signal synchronization program.\nCommissioner Bertken made a motion to approve Item 5B. Commissioner Miley seconded the\nmotion. The motion was approved 7-0.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-03-25", "page": 7, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMay 27, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 7 of 13\n5C. Approve the Clement Avenue Complete Street Concept Proposal and the Active\nTransportation Program Grant Submittal\nStaff Payne presented the report.\nCommissioner Schatmeier referred to the PowerPoint slide showing the existing section and\nproposed section. He asked staff if the location of the railroad tracks would be unacceptable to\nmotorists.\nStaff Payne replied motorists tend to travel away from the railroad tracks and veer off into the bike\nspace. She also said the street would need resurfacing to make the road smoother. Furthermore,\nshe stated that the removal of the railroad tracks was ranked highest on the goals for the\ncommunity.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff about the Navy and businesses' views of the proposal. He\nreferenced the city documents and NACTO guidelines relative to challenges of putting a cycle\ntrack in an industrial designated street. He also expressed concern over the quality of the technical\ndocument supporting the recommendations.\nStaff Payne said the Navy restricted parking in front of their facility, so staff planned to work with\nthem to reduce the restriction because it was right near Thompson Field. Regarding the businesses,\nshe stated that staff had several meetings and some businesses were in favor and others were\nopposed. Businesses on the north side had the most significant comments. She explained that the\nbusinesses at Alameda Marina were opposed to the bikeway on the north side. The owner of the\nproperty, Shawn Murphy, supported the project because he was working with the Planning\nDepartment to redevelop the property as a multi-use development in the future.\nCommissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comments.\nShawn Throwe, business owner at the Alameda Marina, said he received a lot of boats on trucks\nand some of the boats are over 15 feet wide. He found the proposal misplaced because the area\nwas zoned industrial and the cycle track should be moved to Buena Vista Avenue. He felt the City\nwas attempting to drive out the boat industry from the island.\nJim Strehlow said Clement Avenue was his secret highway as a child. He stated that he was against\nthe protected bikeway proposal because it was not designed the right way and the bikeway should\nbe placed on the south side not the north side. He told the Commission to ignore the community\nconsensus survey because anyone could have stuffed the comment box. He urged Commission to\nlook at the safety issues and how the businesses use the street.\nSean Svendsen, owner of Svendsen's Boat Works, said he was opposed to the plan because\nAlameda used the corridor as a viable truck route going east to west. He explained to the\nCommission that his business off loads a couple of hundred boats per year and the boats range\nfrom 40-50 feet in length and weigh 20-30 tons. He also said that sometimes the trucks that haul\nthe boats have a wide load escort. He felt it made no sense to create a blind spot for truckers, RVs\nand trailer boats coming in and out of the marina. He believed it was a good idea to remove the", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-03-25", "page": 8, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMay 27, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 8 of 13\nrailroad tracks and make the sidewalk improvements. He was in favor of bike lanes on each side.\nHowever, when looking at objective #8, improving truck access, he does not see that happening.\nZach Kaplan, Alameda resident and bicycle rider, said he was in favor of removing the railroad\ntracks and making the sidewalk improvements, but he was opposed to the cycle track. He\nexplained that he used to own a Class A motor home and the two-way bike track will produce a\nfatality. Also, if he attempted to use the cycle track in the wrong direction he would have to cross\na\nlane of traffic to get to the other side and then cross another traffic lane to get back, so there\nwould be two additional conflicts with motor vehicles.\nSara Sanchez, Alameda Marina business owner, said she was excited for the planned street\nimprovements and she has seen an increase in bicycle activity. She looked forward to the cyclists\nhaving their own space, but she opposed the plan because the corridor is designated as an active\ntruck route. She noted that if the railroad tracks were removed and Clement Avenue was striped\nlike Broadway Avenue then the flexibility for motorists would be preserved and cyclists would\nhave a safe space to ride. She urged the Commission to only approve the street and sidewalk\nimprovements and wait for more data before implementing the cycle track.\nLiz Taylor, Alameda Marina business owner, said there are large trucks that come into the facility\nand people from all over the world come because they have space to offload trucks. She went on\nto say that cyclists generally avoid Clement Avenue. She also noted that Clement Avenue was an\nemergency access route. She felt it was more sensible to have better connectivity between\nFruitvale BART and the Ferry Building through a resource going down Lincoln Avenue.\nJohn McKeon, Alameda resident, former sailor, truck driver and avid cyclist, said that the concerns\nabout the railroad tracks for cyclists are true because the tracks are dangerous. He believed there\nwas a lot of reactive thinking from the public because as a former truck driver, he could envision\nbetter access and egress to the Marina if staff implemented the two-way bikeway proposal in a\nsmart way. He explained that there would be extra room to make a right turn say at Shiller Street\nif the parking spaces were buffered back to allow more of a turning radius. He also did not see a\ncontinuous flow of truck or bicycle traffic throughout the day. The two-way bikeway would make\ntruck drivers more aware of the presence of bicyclists. The two-way bikeway would be safer for\nbicyclists without close to car doors.\nLucy Gigli stated that protected bike lanes and cycle tracks separate and protect people from faster\nmoving traffic. She explained that vehicles going 75 mph zoom by cyclists and the cycle tracks\nseparate cyclists from car doors. Furthermore, she said that 81 percent of respondents were in\nfavor of the cycle track for Clement Avenue. She stood out on Shore Line Drive to obtain people's\nopinions and they were happy about this cycle track plan.\nDorothy Freeman stated that a new development came before the Planning Board labeled as 2100\nClement Avenue and this project would hold 58 new condos between Willow Street and the\nThompson High School football field. However, she said the address is actually 2100 Eagle\nAvenue. All of the traffic would be going down Eagle Avenue and the City will have to construct\na three-way traffic signal for people to go in and out of the development.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-03-25", "page": 9, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMay 27, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 9 of 13\nGinni Dofflemyer, Alameda resident, said the new development planned at 2100 Eagle Avenue\nwould create more traffic at Buena Vista and Eagle Avenues. Regarding the Alameda traffic study,\nshe wanted to know when the document was published and she wanted to know where she could\nread the document. She also asked staff if the rails on Clement Avenue could be repaired or used\nfor transportation because that may be cheaper than taking them out. Furthermore, she requested\nthat the Commission schedule a time to speak about the 2100 Eagle Avenue development so that\nher neighbors can come out to speak.\nBruce Kibby, Alameda resident, felt that the Clement Avenue proposal was a well thought out\nplan. He said as part of the Cross Alameda Trail, the City should be building a trail through the\nClement Avenue section and the protected bike lane would create a feeling of a trail rather than a\nregular bike lane. He appreciated the thorough outreach effort, which was similar to the Shore\nLine Drive outreach effort. When traveling down Shore Line Drive, he sees the changes that were\nmade based on the input at the workshops for that project.\nJon Spangler said that he disagreed with those who support the cycle track. He explained to the\nCommission that the buffer zone was two feet wide between the parked cars and the cycle track\nand that meant people would get \"doored\" when heading towards Park Street. He felt the truck\ntraffic issue needed to be dealt with and the way the parking spaces are away from the curb will\nnot work unless there are police escorts and wide load escorts, which is not acceptable. He\nsuggested that staff go back and review implementing Class 2 lanes in either direction and add\nbuffers by taking parking off of one side of the street.\nTrish Herrera Spencer spoke in her individual capacity as a citizen, and said that she echoed most\nof Jon Spangler's comments. She also questioned the reliability of the resident survey because it\ndid not outline the use of the road and the critical components. As mayor, she received comments\nthat not all bicyclists use the cycle tracks and some bicyclists actually prefer to be in the road.\nDonna Eyestone, Alameda resident, said she biked to work to Harbor Bay and took the Shore Line\nDrive protected bikeway all the way there, which is wonderful. She stated that the cycle track\nallowed her to get out of her car and on to a bike. She mentioned that the door zone was an\nimportant issue and she liked the cycle track on Shore Line Drive when going in the direction of\ncars because she can see whether doors are in the process of being opened. Also, when going the\nopposite direction, a motorist in the passenger seat who is opening the door could see her coming.\nSam Hensley, Alameda Resident, stated that he has two sons that go to the Academy of Alameda,\nand they are huge bikers. He said that he could not think of sending them on Clement Avenue\nwithout them being protected with a two-way bikeway. He suggested that some of the parking\nspaces be removed because the parking demand is not heavy.\nCommissioner Morgado said the railroad tracks have to go and he requested additional street\ninformation from staff. He wondered if staff could look into how removing parking spaces would\nwork out while constructing bikes lane on both sides of the street. He asked staff if the\nCommission needed more information would that preclude them from submitting an application\nfor the grant.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-03-25", "page": 10, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMay 27, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 10 of 13\nStaff Payne replied eliminating parking was not an option to pursue because it was not high priority\nto remove parking in front of someone's home or business.\nCommissioner Bellows replied that she heard the businesses say they wanted to maintain\nflexibility. She wondered if staff could work with them to identify off-street parking at Svendsen's\nBoat Works. She asked staff to think of any creative options, especially since there are homes and\nbusiness on both sides of the streets.\nCommissioner Morgado said staff should even consider reducing parking on the north side to\nincrease the turning radius.\nStaff Payne replied that was something that she did bring up in the presentation and staff would\nconsider the idea because of visibility and the fact that the project was part of the complete street\nprogram.\nCommissioner Bellows said she was concerned about the wide load issue and she asked staff if\nthey could eliminate parking during date time hours when most deliveries occur.\nStaff Payne replied deliveries occur throughout the day.\nCommissioner Hans stated that the street width was 13 feet across and the 6 foot rail road tracks\nacts as a buffer. He went on to say that staff was looking into reducing the street width to 11 feet,\nso he wondered if parking was needed on the north side in order to increase some of the turning\nareas.\nCommissioner Miley referred to the City's Transportation Element objective 4.1.7 and objective\n4.3.3. He felt the project was adhering to the objectives, but he was willing to approve the concept\nwith some modifications for staff to look at Class II bike lanes. Ultimately, he worried that the\ncycle tracks were being shoehorned on Clement Avenue and given the current land use the idea\nmay not work.\nCommissioner Bertken said that removing the railroad tracks was important and he was glad to\nhear from both opposing and proposing views on how the cycle track would work. However, he\nsaid reducing the street width on Clement Avenue for truck traffic was not positive and he wanted\nfurther analysis on having bike lanes on either side of the street.\nStaff Payne replied the grant that staff would be applying for was for the design and construction\nof the proposal and there could be modifications.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff about the amount of the grant.\nStaff Payne replied once staff received direction on how to move forward then they can cost out\nthe concept for the grant application.\nCommissioner Bellows said voting on the agenda item was to move the project forward with an\napplication to the grant. Furthermore, she said the grant amount was on a sliding scale, meaning", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-03-25", "page": 11, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMay 27, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 11 of 13\nthe City may not receive all of the funds they initially requested.\nCommissioner Vargas said he was happy to see the diverse responses and found eight speakers not\nfor the cycle track and four speakers for the cycle track and a few other comments. He explained\nthat he grew up in Chicago and he used to bike ride from the north to south side for many hours\nalongside heavy truck traffic. He felt the most important thing he was trying to bring to the\nconversation was that the community contained industrial traffic. There are numerous driveways,\nand the trucks have large turning radii. He related a conversation that he had with NACTO\nadvocates from Chicago that implemented a lot of cycle tracks and their biggest lesson to him was\nto be careful when putting too many bicycle facilities in industrial areas. He said carving in too\nmuch into the truck traffic would be dangerous. Additionally, he noted that there were public\nconcerns of placing cycle tracks on one side where the destination was on the opposite side of the\nstreet. He re-stated that the NACTO component needed to be factored in and he felt the consulting\nfirm should have done more homework regarding the City's policy. There are heavy traffic\nvolumes and ultimately, he felt staff should keep all the modes of traffic in mind and there must\nbe a balance.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that this is a designated bicycle, truck and transit route and the\nCity must find a way to allow all of the transportation needs to coexist. He asked staff why the\ncycle track was on the north side rather than the south side, which would eliminate many truck\nconflicts on south side. He summarized a business owner's comment regarding how truck access\nwould be improved, and asked for more information. He also questioned the parking demand in\nthe area and he requested that staff provide data on who parked in the area.\nStaff Payne replied that the south side contained a number of dead-end streets and many more\nstreet conflicts since the streets end on the south side of Clement Avenue. Regarding truck access,\nin the future Clement Avenue would extend from Tilden Avenue to Sherman Street. She explained\nClement Avenue would be a through route for trucks in the long term. She also said staff wanted\nto make sure the turning radii was sufficient for the trucks and a loading zone is proposed near\nOak Street. Additionally, she said staff would consider eliminating parking spaces on the street.\nTo eliminate parking on one side of the entire street would not be possible.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked staff if they eliminated parking on one side of the street how\nmany parking spaces would be taken out.\nCommissioner Bellows said there are 220 parking spaces in total on the street.\nStaff Payne replied divide the 220 parking spaces by half for each side of the street.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked staff who is using these parking spaces.\nStaff Payne stated that the area is zoned as multi-use and commercial and residential and used to\nbe industrial. The long-term vision of the street is to be more multi-use (commercial, residential\nretail and some industrial). Currently, it is a mixed corridor.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff what is the parking demand.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-03-25", "page": 12, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMay 27, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 12 of 13\nStaff Payne stated that she does not have it in front of her yet it is not anywhere near 100 percent,\nand the demand depends on the section of Clement Street. She requested that the Transportation\nCommissioners consider approving the traditional bike lane concept.\nCommissioner Miley stated that while the zoning may change, we have existing users and the City\nneeds to balance equity and accommodate all users, but maintain their safety.\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve the concept so that staff could move the item forward to\nthe City Council, but the concept should be focused on traditional Class II lanes. He also hoped\nthe design would not preclude the City from being able to install cycle tracks in the future.\nCommissioner Bellows stated the motion should also make sure that truck traffic is accommodated\nand that the wide loads needed to be accommodated safely.\nCommissioner Bertken asked if the proposal also includes all the key features in the staff report.\nCommissioner Schatmeier wanted more information on parking demand. If the parking is used\nonly 50 percent then staff should consolidate parking on one side of the street and have the cycle\ntrack.\nCommissioner Miley stated that a cycle track could go in the future, pending more information.\nCommissioner Bellows wanted to include more parking information and utilization rates with a\nfeasibility study to see if parking could be consolidated.\nCommissioner Miley made a motion to approve staff concept recommendations with the exception\nof item b, instead make the lanes traditional Class II bike lanes. He also requested that staff\naccommodate truck access. Also, staff would look into parking demand and provide the parking\ninformation moving forward. Commissioner Morgado seconded the motion. The motion was\napproved 4-2, 1 abstention.\n5D. Approve Point-to-Point Car Sharing Policy\nStaff Payne presented the report.\nCommissioner Bertken told staff that a car sitting in front of someone's home for three days could\nbe a bit onerous.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked staff if he reserved a car after 10 pm and parked the car close to\nhis home would he be charged just for driving the car to his house.\nStaff Payne replied that was exactly how you would use the car, and the rental would end once you\narrive at home.\nCommissioner Morgado requested that the review occur after one year.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-03-25", "page": 13, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMay 27, 2015\nItem #4A\nPage 13 of 13\nWalter Rosencrantz of car2go introduced himself and provided a brief overview of the car2go\noperation including an explanation that it makes business sense to move car2go vehicles that are\nnot moving after 24 hours.\nCommissioner Miley moved the staff report with an amendment that staff reviews the progress\nwithin one year rather than within two years. Commissioner Hans seconded the motion. The\nmotion was approved 7-0.\n5E. Approve City of Alameda Paratransit Program Review for Fiscal Year 2015/2016\nStaff Payne presented the report.\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve the staff report. Commissioner Hans seconded the motion.\nThe motion was approved 7-0.\n6.\nStaff Communications\n6A. Update on Ad Hoc Transit Committee\nStaff Payne replied that Board member Knox White is interested in joining the committee and\nCommissioners Miley and Schatmeier are interested. Staff Payne suggested that Commissioner\nHans participate because of the school trips within the area.\n6B. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items\n1. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans\n2. Proposed I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation and Circulation\nImprovements\n3. AC Transit's Comprehensive Operations Analysis\n7.\nAnnouncements/Public Comments\nCommissioner Miley announced that Assistant City Manager, Alex Nguyen, will be leaving to the\ncity of Riverside and he thanked him for his service to the City.\n8.\nAdjournment\n10:07 pm", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf"}