{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-03-23", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes\nWednesday March 23, 2016\nCommissioner Michele Bellows 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)\nJesus Vargas\nChristopher Miley\nGregory Morgado\nThomas G. Bertken\nMichael Hans\nStaff Present:\nStaff Patel, Transportation Engineer\nStaff Payne, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\n3.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\n3.A. Next Transportation Commission meeting would be Wednesday, May 25, 2016, 7 pm\nCommissioner Bertken stated that he received information about the Water Emergency\nTransportation Authority's (WETA) next board meeting. He said the next meeting will be in\nAlameda at City Hall Council Chambers on Thursday, April 7, 7 pm.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said he stopped receiving AC Transit's Interagency Liaison\nCommittee (ILC) meeting notices. He explained that he missed the January meeting and he\nwould like to know when the next meeting will take place.\nStaff Patel said he would check the date and provide the information to Commissioner\nSchatmeier.\nPage 1 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-03-23", "page": 2, "text": "4.\nConsent Calendar\n4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2016\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Hans seconded the\nmotion. The motion was approved 7-0.\n5.\nNew Business\n5.A. Cross Alameda Trail Gap Closure on Atlantic Avenue: Accept a Status Update and\nApprove Grant Application Submittal\nRochelle Wheeler, Alameda Public Works Transportation Planner, presented the report.\nCommissioner Vargas asked for the cost estimate on the range of what the concept may cost,\nnot the actual design, but the construction costs.\nRochelle Wheeler explained that staff brought the $200,000 cost, which pertains to the project\nconcept at its minimum and without the signal work to the Commission in January. She went on\nto say that staff developed the design that was currently attached within the staff report and the\n$200,000 is the cost of construction. However, she explained that the grant application would\nnow include the signal work and mid-block crossing, so the estimate would be $600,000. Yet,\nthe grant monies received from Measure B would be up to $600,000, therefore staff may receive\nthe full amount needed to complete the work.\nCommissioner Schatmeier explained that staff asked the Commission to approve the project in\nconcept in January, but he asked what would staff need from the Commission at this point.\nRochelle Wheeler replied the environmental review stating that this was categorically exempt\nand this particular element that staff is attempting to move forward.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked staff if the Commission decided to take action and accept staff\nrecommendations would that allow staff to proceed.\nCommissioner Bellows said she had a concern about an issue that was brought up during the\nJanuary Commission meeting. She explained that apparently the curb ramps came into question\nand they may become obliterated. So, she asked for clarification on whether staff analyzed all\nADA access for all modes of transportation.\nRochelle Wheeler replied that she received the email that was forwarded to the Commission from\nMr. Grishtohl. She said staff would like to separate users through the crosswalk as much as\npossible and staff will be looking at what is allowed in the vehicle and municipal code because\nthe idea is to separate users as much as possible.\nCommissioner Bertken asked if the Commission was approving an environmental review of this\nportion of the project concept.\nPage 2 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-03-23", "page": 3, "text": "Rochelle Wheeler replied no, this type of project was categorically exempt from environmental\nreview. However, she said if the City is adding a mid-block crossing or implementing traffic\nsignals, then the Commission would have to approve an environmental review. Thus, she asked\nthe Commission to essentially approve the project concept including the portion presented that\nevening.\nCommissioner Bertken asked under what conditions was the project categorically exempt.\nRochelle Wheeler replied it was categorically exempt under state law.\nCommissioner Bellows referred Commissioner Bertken to the staff report, Environmental\nReview, Section 15301.\nCommissioner Bertken stated that the attachment within the staff report indicated signaling and\nother items for the safety of the bicyclists along Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way. He\nasked staff to explain the intention of the signaling.\nRochelle Wheeler replied the design (Exhibit 1) is the same as presented in January.\nCommissioner Bertken replied in January staff did not exhibit a safety example for the bicyclists.\nRochelle Wheeler replied staff is still developing the safety portion for the bicyclists and they\nwill provide the Commission a fully formed example in May. She explained that staff would like\nto provide signal changes such as a dedicated signal for bicyclists.\nCommissioner Bertken replied that bicyclists could not move when other traffic is moving\npresumably.\nRochelle Wheeler said that was correct and that would be studied.\nCommissioner Bellows opened the floor for public comment.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident, stated that he did not see the bus stops analyzed and at the\npreviously meeting he brought up the Main Street to Webster Street section of Appezzatto\nParkway and asked how staff would place the bus stops in that design and no one had an answer\nfor him. He felt he would have to wait for the next Commission meeting to see what is actually\nplanned for this area. He said he continued to favor sharrows because cyclists would ride in the\ndirectional flow of traffic. He explained that he visited the state of Florida not too long ago and\nthey use sharrows, so he wondered what makes Alameda so different. He went on to say that the\nCity needs two lanes on various streets to get across town from Alameda Point. So, taking away\na lane would be contradictory to the City's General Plan. He said the Commission should handle\neveryone's needs not just bicyclists' needs. He stated that he was interested in the earlier design\nwith no right hand turns off Atlantic Avenue onto Constitution Way. However, he hoped that the\nCommission would allow right hand turns from Atlantic Avenue onto Constitution Way close to\nthe designed cycle track because otherwise traffic will back up all the way to Webster Street. He\nexplained further that if a right turn is not implemented then there will be traffic along Webster\nPage 3 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-03-23", "page": 4, "text": "Street onto Atlantic Avenue. He also exclaimed that West Alameda Business Association\n(WABA) was not notified of this project because he attended a meeting with them earlier in the\nday. He pointed out that the level of service concerned him because the level of service would be\nreduced from a level D to level F. He felt the Commission is becoming a traffic congestion\ncreation Commission and as a citizen who has lived in Alameda for 60 years he wondered why\nthe Commission would make things worse.\nCommissioner Miley addressed the public outreach comment brought up by Jim Strehlow. He\nsaid he understood from the January meeting that staff would be engaging WABA and other\nstakeholders. However, he said staff explained that the project's design would be discussed in the\nMay meeting and this meeting would take action to seek grant money. However, in the interim\nstaff would reach out to stakeholders before the May meeting.\nRochelle Wheeler replied that was correct, she reached out to AC Transit and Staff Patel would\ndiscuss reaching out to WABA.\nStaff Patel replied they have reached out to the WABA design committee members with the\nconcept plan leading up to the January meeting.\nCommissioner Miley replied in advance of the January meeting in terms of any additional data or\npotential tweaks to the design that was originally presented in January, staff should reach out to\nWABA again.\nStaff Patel replied yes.\nCommissioner Vargas explained that he did not vote for this item when they met last time and\nthere still was no concept further designed. He said he wished to have heard more about the\nconcepts and impacts to the affected stakeholders before staff requested a grant approval by the\nCommission. He felt troubled that staff said they would provide more information about the\nissues presented at the January meeting, but an update has not been received by the Commission.\nRochelle Wheeler replied she understood Commissioner Vargas' comments, but she did not want\nto come unprepared. Thus, she wanted to give more time to conduct outreach and data gathering\nbefore presenting the full design. She understood that she said this to the Commission at the\nJanuary meeting, but she wanted to make sure there was a thorough design brought forth. She\nwent on to say that the last meeting staff was explicit about the $200,000 identified through\nMeasure B did not include the mid-block crossing or signal work. So, she said staff found\nadditional money where the bicycle signals and mid-block crossing could be included in the\nproject.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that a member of the police department was in the audience. He\nsaid one of the comments that was asked in January was about emergency responders. He wanted\nto know if staff has information or comments about that.\nRochelle Wheeler replied no not yet, but she has that listed as one of the items and will follow\nup.\nPage 4 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-03-23", "page": 5, "text": "Commissioner Schatmeier stated that the Commission approved the concept last month and the\ncycle track and removal of the lane was part of the concept. He explained that the Commission\nlistened to a lot of public comments that were relevant and caused some concerns. He said the\nCommission asked staff to address those concerns, but for this meeting the revised plan is not\nbefore the Commission tonight and they are not going back and revisiting the issue of the cycle\ntrack or the single lane. He understood that this meeting was to move the grant application\nforward and the Commission understood that it was categorically exempt.\nRochelle Wheeler explained in particular staff would like the Commission to approve the\nmidblock crossing location and signal improvements.\nCommissioner Bellows replied for this meeting staff came to the Commission in order to apply\nfor more grant money to create a complete concept including the signals. She explained that until\nthe Commission blessed the action, staff would have to withdraw the preliminary application.\nShe further explained that the final application was not due until after the May meeting. She said\nthe May meeting will allow the Commission to decide if design is not going in the right direction\nand if not, staff will not send the final application.\nRochelle Wheeler replied the Alameda Housing Authority would still move forward with their\nplans, but they would not include the transportation plans.\nCommissioner Bertken said based upon Commissioner Vargas' comments he wanted to\nunderstand the amount of money that would be available and what staff would be asking for in\nthis current grant. He asked staff if the City receives this grant would that include all of the\ntraffic signaling and everything that was discussed or would that be an additional grant that has\nto come down the line.\nRochelle Wheeler replied the $600,000 includes changes to the signals and mid-block crossing.\nCommissioner Bellows replied this would create a more complete project.\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Schatmeier\nseconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-1; Commissioner Vargas voted no.\n5.B. Approve Submittal of Transportation Grant Applications: Active Transportation\nProgram and TIGER\nRochelle Wheeler presented the Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant portion of the\npresentation.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff if the applications would be due in January.\nRochelle Wheeler replied June 15, 2016.\nPage 5 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-03-23", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Bertken said the recommendation talked about approving the whole grant\nsubmittal. However, the recommendation does not specifically mention the two projects that staff\njust spoke about. So, he wanted clarification on whether the recommendation would approve the\nentire package or the two projects.\nRochelle Wheeler replied staff was in the process of selecting which would be the best project to\nmeet the recently released guidelines. So, staff would like to have some flexibility in making\nsure they submit the project that best adheres to the new guidelines.\nCommissioner Bertken stated that he was concerned about staff's recommendation.\nCommissioner Bellows replied the Commission would revise the motion to call upon the specific\nprojects.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that when he read the staff report, he thought he would be hearing a\nrecommendation from staff for one or the other. He mentioned that staff indicated that the first\nproject Central Avenue went through a diverse community interaction, but he did not hear\nanything about community outreach for the Stargell Avenue Project. He felt this would have\nallowed the Commission to make an objective recommendation.\nRochelle Wheeler replied depending on how the term disadvantage community is defined,\nStargell Avenue provides access to the Alameda Point area. Also, depending on how the term is\ndefined, there are some disadvantaged communities around the Stargell Avenue area as well.\nCommissioner Bellows explained that because the guidelines have just come out staff has not\nprocessed what will score the best within the guidelines, but she wondered would this be\ndisadvantaged focus.\nRochelle Wheeler replied yes.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that if the Commission is picking one project over the other without\nhaving additional information it would be good to know if there's more data on one location\nversus the other, so the Commission could make an objective recommendation.\nJennifer Ott, Alameda Point Chief Operating Officer, stated that she is working with Rochelle\nWheeler and Gail Payne on the grant applications. She said last year the disadvantaged\ncommunities weighed heavily on the decision to award the grants. So, they scoured through the\nlist of all the potential improvements and the two that were most competitive were because of the\nAlameda Point Collaborative, which has half children and families that are at risk of\nhomelessness. The Central Avenue Project was selected because there is a school along the route\nthat is very close to the supportive housing community. Yet, she explained staff would need\nsome time to produce the staff report and staff felt it was best to come to the Commission now in\norder to build some flexibility to review the guidelines and see how they are calculating\ndisadvantage communities because it changes from year to year. Consequently, staff chose the\ntwo locations because of the supportive housing communities that are located right at the base.\nPage 6 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-03-23", "page": 7, "text": "Commission Bellows stated that since this information is complex the Commission should break\nthe motion up with the two different funding sources.\nCommissioner Bertken agreed with Commissioner Bellows' comments, but he was concerned\nabout the staff report and the recommendation that stands.\nCommissioner Bellows replied the current recommendation is not specific enough for the\nCommission. So, the Commission will recommend whether staff can submit the grant application\nfor these projects or not.\nCommissioner Schatmeier agreed with Commissioner Bellow's comments and stated for the\nActive Transportation Program portion of the motion the Commission would call out the two\nprojects. He asked Jennifer Ott if she would report back to the Commission after staff selects a\nproject and the Commission would vote to proceed with the selection or not.\nJennifer Ott replied they would not have time to come back to the Commission in May for a vote\nbecause the grant deadline is in June. However, she would report the decision to the Commission\nin May.\nCommissioner Bellows made a motion to approve the Active Transportation Program with an\naddition of the two projects and provide staff flexibility to select one or both of the two projects\nfor the grant application. Commissioner Miley seconded the motion. The motion was approved\n7-0.\nJennifer Ott reported on the TIGER grant application process.\nCommissioner Miley stated that when she went to Washington D.C. the application and project\nwas well received, but went under the wire. He wanted to know the name of the City's lobbyist.\nJennifer Ott replied Ackerman.\nCommissioner Miley replied if there was any way to coordinate efforts and if it has not already\nbeen done with other groups like Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) or other\nlocal agencies that go to Washington D.C. in order to use their weight and resources.\nJennifer Ott replied staff's hope would be to have AC Transit co-apply with them like last year\nand with the addition of the ferry terminal staff's hope would be to co-apply with WETA during\nthe application process.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff for the action that needed to be taken by the Commission.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that there was one action for Item 5B where Commissioner Bellows\nstated that the Commission should split the recommendations since they are recommending for\ntwo funding or grant applications. He explained that so far the Commission took action on the\nActive Transportation Program portion.\nPage 7 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-03-23", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Miley moved to accept staff recommendations with the specific language that can\nbe found on page 2 of item 5B that delineates ramp improvements, Stargell Avenue, Main Street\nand Central Avenue. Commission Vargas made an amendment to the recommendation, if time\nallows, for staff to contact other agencies to co-apply to be part of the grant application.\nCommissioner Schameier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.\n5.C. Status Report of the Citywide Transit and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)\nPlans\nStaff Payne presented the status report.\nCommissioner Vargas said the page numbers should be included in the report. He also asked\nstaff about the outreach efforts and if a stakeholder list was created.\nStaff Payne replied there was a list and she would send the list to the Commission for review.\nCommissioner Vargas replied the list should also include the city of Oakland and the Oakland\noffice of the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) as there\nmay be some synergy with Broadway Street access. He also asked staff about the proposed fees\nof the consultants that were shown on page three. He wanted to know if the fee was considered\nduring the valuation or was it qualifications based only.\nStaff Payne replied the cost was one of the criterion and there were other criteria like experience\nand quality of work.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied that he looked at this page too and he did not remember any\ndeliberation that the committee did and it could be viewed as if they chose the low bidder. He\nsaid they chose the firm they felt was the best and gave the best value for their dollars.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff about the milestones described during the 18-month process\nand he asked what would be the key milestones to have the project under control.\nStaff Payne replied for the May meeting she would come before the Commission about the\nexisting conditions. Afterwards, there would be a near term strategy type of memo, meaning staff\nwould want to implement the strategies as soon as possible. She then explained that the\npreliminary strategies and the draft plan would be the other key milestones.\nCommissioner Hans asked staff who came up with the 400 surveys.\nStaff Payne replied that is the number that allows the research to become statistically significant.\n5.D. Comment on the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) Strategic Plan and\nSeaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal Plan\nPage 8 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-03-23", "page": 9, "text": "Jennifer Ott presented the report.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if they are envisioning that ferry service will still be on the\nother side of Alameda Point.\nJennifer Ott replied this is not a relocation or replacement plan of the existing terminal. She\nexplained that the Main Street Terminal depends on Oakland service and Oakland depends on\nAlameda service, SO both terminals would essentially act as west Alameda ferry service.\nCommissioner Schatmeier explained that when they first analyzed the transportation plan for\nAlameda that was the first time he heard about the Seaplane Lagoon site and at that time of the\ndiscussion, he thought that would replace Main Street Terminal. He also brought up the fact that\nthe Seaplane Lagoon Terminal would have quicker run times.\nJennifer Ott replied the run times would be approximately the same.\nKevin Connolly, Planning and Development for WETA, stated that there are wake-related\nrestrictions because of wild life habitat and speed restrictions.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if there are similar restrictions going up the Estuary.\nKevin Connolly replied there are wake-related restrictions because of vessel fueling and other\nreasons. He said currently it takes 20 minutes from Main Street to San Francisco and\napproximately 20 minutes from Seaplane Lagoon to San Francisco.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff about the 400 temporary parking spaces at Seaplane Lagoon.\nJennifer Ott replied those temporary spaces will become permanent, but the location is\ntemporary.\nCommissioner Bellows referred to the Main Street Terminal and wondered if there was a plan of\naction to gravel where she usually parks.\nKevin Connolly replied yes and staff is analyzing the transit and bicycle access and parking\nissues related to both terminals.\nCommissioner Bellows asked Kevin Connolly in the short-term could that area be graveled.\nKevin Connolly replied the Albert H. DeWitt O Club goes into construction on March 28, so\nAlbert H. DeWitt O Club will have approximately 130 to 140 spaces depending on how they\nstripe it.\nCommission Bellows said divots exist in the dirt lot on the waterside.\nKevin Connolly replied there are currently no plans for that area.\nPage 9 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-03-23", "page": 10, "text": "Commissioner Vargas felt from Commissioner Bellows' comments there was a sense of urgency\nto improve the parking. He wanted to go with that theme and comment to the schedule that staff\nshowed, which it was slightly different than the staff report plan. He also wondered if it was\npossible to move this plan forward because BART is having operational problems with their\ntrains, so there is a sense of urgency to have an alternative route. He asked staff if they could\nshave a year off the projected date. He further asked what could be done and who could\nimplement the project delivery methods. He wondered if the City could take the lead, WETA or\na Joint Power Agency.\nJennifer Ott replied there are a number of factors that drive the schedule, but in terms of\nconstruction of the terminal, the City is responsible because the City is the applicant. She said\nanother issue would be the boat procurement and the time it takes to construct the boats.\nCurrently, the City does not have operating dollars and if to the extent, the City has to depend on\nRegional Measure 3 dollars or some regional gas tax it would not be up for this year's ballot. So,\nultimately it comes down to operating subsidy, timing of the measure and vessel procurement.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff about the $16 million cost for one boat.\nJennifer Ott replied they are big boats.\nKevin Connolly replied it is a 450 passenger vessel and there is a small vessel building\ncommunity in the United States. Additionally, he explained the vessels have to be US built.\nCommissioner Bellows opened the floor for public comment.\nJim Strehlow stated that he felt the plan was a great idea, but when he talked to other people they\nwondered what the \"E\" in WETA stands for. He wondered why WETA has to include the word\n\"emergency\" in the title because the organization should be involved in transportation solutions.\nHe said he was surprised that the WETA administration building at Alameda Point has 50 or so\nparking spaces for their staff and the Alameda Transit Demand Management (TDM) plan\nspecifically looks for employees to find transit alternatives. He was disturbed by the idea that\nthere are different rules for businesses and residents and government agencies exempt\nthemselves. Finally, he said to not forget about Bay Farm Island. He was happy to see the third\nferry option happening, but they did not come up with a solution for Bay Farm Island's parking\nsituation. He exclaimed that residents are having a horrible time with the parking because there is\nway too much of a demand.\nKevin Connolly stated that he appreciated the Commission working with WETA. Regarding\nproviding service, he said they are bursting at the seams for Transbay service demand and this\nspring and summer, they are pulling in vessels that are not formal commuter boats for regular\nservice to combat the demand. He noted that WETA recognized the increased demand and\ngrowing pains as far as parking challenges are concerned, but he was optimistic that they will\nfind a solution.\nCommissioner Miley stated that although the vessels are expensive they are made in America,\nwhich was important. He questioned the 20-year strategic plan because that is a big span of time\nand he wanted to know if WETA will review the plan periodically.\nPage 10 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-03-23", "page": 11, "text": "Kevin Connolly replied that WETA has a10-year short-range plan that is updated every two years\nthat comes with budget constraints and then there's the 20-year plan, which is a guided\nunconstrained document that outlines how they envision themselves developing as an agency.\nCommissioner Miley asked Kevin Connolly if the 20-year plan would be subject to the type of\nreview as the 10-year plan.\nKevin Connolly replied yes, the general practice is to review the 20-year every 5 to 10 years.\nCommissioner Bellows asked Kevin Connolly if WETA use to be called the Water Transit\nAuthority.\nKevin Connolly replied yes, they were called the Water Transit Authority in their inception and\nthe word \"emergency\" got legislated in 2009 with capital funding attached to acknowledge that\nsafety was needed.\nCommissioner Miley stated that it would be great if that \"E\" came with more capital or operating\nfunds because it would be great to be able to buy more boats in the event of an emergency.\nKevin Connolly replied that the project's timetable and the year 2020 date to purchase vessels\nwas provided because a certain amount of funds are drawn down from the Proposition 1B\nprogram and programmed out.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff for a future agenda item to address the Bay Farm parking issue,\nwhich was addressed at a past Commission meeting.\nJennifer Ott stated that the WETA Board has decided to come to Alameda on April 7 to hold\ntheir meeting at 7 pm at City Hall. She explained that many Alameda related items would be\ndiscussed. She said on April 4 the City Council will discuss the ferry terminal and MOU and\nfrom her understanding, there will be a referral from a councilmember to discuss the Harbor Bay\nFerry Terminal's parking issues.\nCommissioner Miley said he understood that staff was working on this issue. He explained that at\na previous meeting staff stated they would work with WETA and other joint agencies.\nJennifer Ott replied that she was happy to come back and brief the Commission, but this topic\nwill also be discussed at the April 4 and April 7 meetings.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said it has been difficult to get operating funds for transit and it is\neasier to obtain capital funds. He felt planners should call out the need for operating funds every\ntime they list funding sources and for them to be very specific about the need for operating funds\nand their scarcity so the word will spread amongst people who are not necessarily professionals\nin order to grasp the obstacles.\nCommissioner Miley explained that a third of Measure B funds are operating and WETA was not\nincluded to the extent that they should have been.\nPage 11 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-03-23", "page": 12, "text": "Commission Vargas stated that since the developer is leading the design and construction of this\nproject the partnership sounds like a Public Private Partnership or P3. He asked staff if the\nproject has the potential for revenue generating if a third entity would charge for parking or\nconcessions to leverage creating new funds.\nJennifer Ott replied the project is not a P3 because it is a city design and they are contracting\nwith a developer. However, she explained that the TDM plan would look at parking charges at\nthe ferry terminal and staff is discussing this option with WETA and AC transit and also trying\nto looking at creative ways to find funding.\nCommissioner Miley made a motion to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Schatmeier\nseconded the motion. Commissioner Vargas made an amendment to the motion by asking staff to\nupdate some of the graphics to match the PowerPoint presentation and schedule because it\nseemed to be more updated on the PowerPoint presentation. The motion was approved 7-0.\n6.\nStaff Communications\n6.A. AC Transit service improvement status\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked Staff Patel if they know what happened to the recommendation\nletter once it was sent to the AC Transit Board.\nStaff Patel said he would come back and let the Commission know.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff to provide a future update on the status of agency staff.\nMeaning, does the agency have staff in house or open positions.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff to look into providing a future update on the\nBroadway/Jackson Project.\nStaff Patel said he believed the city of Oakland and ACTC are looking at a combining the\nconsultants for the two different projects for the freeway and downtown circulation plan. He has\nnot been to a recent meeting with ACTC discussing the new project.\nCommissioner Bellows said she would still like to know what the project entails and for staff to\norganize a presentation.\nCommission Miley seconded that comment.\nStaff Patel replied he would put together a presentation with the ACTC consultant and city of\nOakland.\nPage 12 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-03-23", "page": 13, "text": "7.\nAnnouncements/Public Comments\nJim Strehlow stated that on Thursday, May 12 is Bike to Work Day. He wanted to bring up his\npast comments once again about citizens of Alameda are interested in the City's pot hole repair\nprogram and will there be a grant submission especially with the gas tax dwindling. He also said\nthat he would like to hear about the staff position report that was requested by Commissioner\nVargas.\n8.\nAdjournment\n9:20 pm\nPage 13 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf"}