{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-02-26", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nSPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\nWEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2020\nChair Soules convened the meeting at 7:00pm.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Soules, Commissioners Kohlstrand, Nachtigall, Johnson, Yuen, Weitze\nAbsent: Commissioner Hans\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\n3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT\n3-A Transportation Commission Meeting: Wed, March 25 at 7 p.m.\n3-B Grand Opening Celebration of the Cross Alameda Trail (Main Street to Jean Sweeney\nPark) - Sat, Feb. 29, 10 a.m. to 12 noon, Webster Street Plaza by Ralph Appezzato Pkwy.\nEvent Listing: https://www.alamedaca.gov/Shortcut-Content/Events-Activities/Grand-\nOpening-Celebr ation-Cross-Alameda-Trail\n3-C Traffic Safety Town Hall: Thurs, March 5 at 6 p.m., Love Elementary, Multi-Purpose\nRoom\n3-D Spring into Bike Fair: Sat, March 21 at City Hall parking lot on Oak Street between\nSanta Clara Avenue and Lincoln Avenue\n3-E Bike Festival: Sun, May 3, 12 noon to 3 p.m., Bay Farm School\n3-F Bike to Work and School Day: Thurs, May 14\n3-G Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) 2020 Trainings:\nittps://www.alamedaca.gov/Departments/Fire-Department/Alameda-CERT\n3-H Alameda Active Transportation Plan: Latest info at www.ActiveAlameda.org\n3-I Emergency Alerts for Alameda - Subscribe at AC Alert web page:\nhttps://www.acgov.org/emergencysite/\n3-J\nRegional\nEmergency\nTransportation\nAlerts\n-\nSubscribe:\ntps://511.org/alerts/emergencies/511Aler\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-02-26", "page": 2, "text": "3-K Clipper Card (adults) - order on line or at Walgreens or set up Autoload to add value\nautomatically: https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/getTranslink.do\n3-L Clipper Card Discounts for youth, seniors and people with disabilities\n-\nps://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/discounts/index.do\n3-M FasTrak or new toll tag for upcoming I-880 Express Lanes scheduled to open late\nsummer 2020: on line or at Walgreens (except not Park Street location) and then register\non line: https://www.bayareafastrak.org/en/signup/signUp.shtm\nPublic Comment:\nMaria Gallo spoke about her ongoing efforts to address traffic calming along Fernside\nBlvd. She asked that the traffic engineers answer the question about which configuration\nof Fernside (west or east of High Street) is safer.\nJim Strehlow renewed his question from the January meeting about crossing the solid\nlines of the bike lane on Broadway at Clement. He said he disagrees with the position of\nthe previous speaker regarding the Fernside corridor. He said the no right on red sign\nadded on High Street would divert traffic through the Marina-Windsor neighborhood.\n4. CONSENT CALENDAR\nNone\n5. NEW BUSINESS\n5-A 2020-7745\nEndorse The City Council's Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Policies on Street Width,\nLane Width, Crosswalks And Bulb-Outs to Promote Safe, Livable Streets and\nEnvironmentally Sustainable Transportation Choices; and, Give Direction to Staff on Tools\nFor Improving Safety At Intersections.\nBrian McGuire, Transportation Planner, gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments\ncan\nbe\nfound\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4337173&GUID=77514CDC\n901E-48B2-A86E-047864BE44D5&FullText=1\nCommissioner Johnson asked if the example \"ladder\" crosswalk would be the standard\nfor all crosswalks going forward.\nStaff Member McGuire said the criteria for what types of crosswalks would be used in\nwhich places was being developed internally and as part of the ongoing planning\nprocesses, but were not part of the resolution before the Commission tonight.\nCommissioner Weitze asked what the drivers say contributed to the child-involved\ncollisions.\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-02-26", "page": 3, "text": "Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, said we have the police reports with the primary\ncollision factors for each collision. She added that the interactive web map for the Active\nTransportation Plan included a prompt for drivers to add comments about problem areas\nthat created safety issues.\nStaff Member McGuire added that there are often a number of factors that go into any\ncollision. He said the resolution is focused on enacting national standards based on data\ndriven conclusions.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Director said city staff are trying\nto address these issues from three angles: engineering (the focus of tonight's resolution),\neducation, and enforcement.\nChair Soules opened the public comment.\nSusie Hufstader expressed strong support for the resolution. She said there have been\nmany fatalities in the region lately and Alameda is one of the only cities that is responding\nwith the appropriate sense of urgency. She said we need to make it physically impossible\nto drive at high speeds.\nChristy Cannon said she is most concerned about hitting someone when making right\nturns and that the bulb outs near Lake Merritt have really been helpful in making things\nsafer.\nPat Potter, President of Bike Walk Alameda, expressed support from the resolution and\nliked how it prioritized safety.\nJim Strehlow said we need to drill down on the causes of collisions not just rely on\nstatistics. He said narrow lanes would just bring vehicles closer together and create safety\nproblems. He suggested adding more loading zones for delivery vehicles.\nChair Soules closed the public comment.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand said she supports much of what is in the resolution. She said\nwe are being asked to endorse a lot of high level policies without the data to back that up.\nShe said some of the language is vague, such as where to place crosswalks. She said\nthe standards are not tied to what type of street is being discussed.\nStaff Member McGuire said the most prescriptive elements in the resolution such as lane\nwidths are not reacting to the specifics of local collisions but relying on national level data\nand best practices. He added that staff is continuing to develop detailed standards for their\ntoolkit while striking a balance between having policy makers weigh in on detailed\nstandards versus policy level language.\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-02-26", "page": 4, "text": "streets or developing new projects.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked if we have data to show that the bicycle lane on Central\nhas many collisions. She asked if the physical barrier is necessary for safety and\nquestioned whether two way separated bike lanes are appropriate in applications where\nthere are numerous cross street and/or driveway conflicts.\nStaff Member Thomas outlined some of the safety concerns along Central Avenue that\nlead to the staff recommendation for separated bike lanes.\nChair Soules mentioned that it was clear when she was on the Central Avenue site visit\nthat some of the simpler safety measures that could be applied to the Central and Webster\nintersection had not been deployed. She said there is a balance between doing regular\nmaintenance safety measures and the larger, transformative projects.\nStaff Member Payne stated that Public Works is working with Caltrans to implement short-\nterm visibility and other safety improvements along Central Avenue ahead of the larger\nsafety project.\nStaff Member McGuire said that the resolution preference for separated bikeways does\nnot dictate two-way facilities and that there would be a number of new one-way separated\nfacilities, especially at Alameda Point.\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-02-26", "page": 5, "text": "Commissioner Johnson said we are getting too granular and are looking into the minutiae\nand we should be focused on endorsing the high level national standards while preserving\nflexibility for specific cases.\nStaff Member McGuire explained how staff would use the policy resolution to move\nbeyond some high level discussions that often get renewed with each project and can\nslow down implementation.\nCommissioner Yuen said it may be helpful to more clearly articulate how this policy\ninteracts with other planning and policy documents. She appreciated the clearly defined\nhierarchy to protect vulnerable road users.\nCommissioner Nachtigall said we are moving to a more agile approach, and that a bold\napproach is needed. She said agile is not perfect and it can be iterative.\nCommissioner Johnson asked what was being done on the enforcement side of the\nequation.\nStaff Member McGuire said APD had just completed a two week enforcement period\nwhere they wrote over 900 citations, triple their typical number. He said staffing challenges\nmean that is not sustainable at the moment, but their intention is to fill those vacancies\nand increase enforcement.\nStaff Member Foster said that APD had applied for state funds to help increase their ability\nto conduct enforcement efforts.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if endorsing the resolution would mean they are endorsing\nthe use of bollards.\nStaff Member McGuire said that the resolution endorses the idea that bollards are a cost-\neffective safety measure, but not cost-free and would set up a discussion about budget\npriorities if Council wants to move forward with expanded safety measures.\nCommissioner Weitze said use of bollards would be controversial and giving aesthetic\nguidance is a granular issue that it seemed the Commission was trying to avoid getting\nbogged down with.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand said she is in support of the overall goal and is just trying to\nfigure out how we prioritize implementation.\nChair Soules said the policy seems far reaching and the lack of data or benchmarking\nmake it difficult to know if you are making an informed decision. She said how and where\nwe apply these best practices has a large impact and we need to prioritize how to\nimplement this in the community.\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-02-26", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Nachtigall said she understands what it feels like to re-hash the same\nissues at every meeting and that if this helps move that forward while doing what Council\nhas asked of staff, she supports the resolution.\nChair Soules asked what it would do if they recommended removing some of the specific\nitems around lane widths and bollards and the like while endorsing the general principles.\nStaff Member Thomas said the Commission could take any action they desire, including\nendorsing the resolution but saying they have an issue with some of the specifics because\nthey do not seem thought through.\nCommissioner Weitze said it seemed like the hierarchy was the main part of the resolution\nand most of the rest was very granular and not needed in the resolution.\nCommissioner Johnson made a motion to endorse the resolution and capture and\ntransmit the feedback provided by commissioners to City Council.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand suggested that Council's desire for some of these actions may\nmean that a motion supporting the resolution but capturing hesitation over some of the\nmore specific items would be appropriate.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand seconded the motion while offering an amendment to\nendorse the resolution's concepts with some reservation about some specifics with\nthe assumption that they would be able to revisit them as part of the Vision Zero\nand Active Transportation Plans.\nChairs Soules asked for a friendly amendment to the motion that as we move\nforward and fine tune policies it is done with whatever data is available and we are\ndoing some sort of benchmarking in order to hold ourselves accountable.\nCommissioner Johnson accepted the amendments. The motion passed 6-0.\nStaff Member McGuire briefly described the discussion questions raised in the staff report.\nCommissioner Johnson said he feels strongly about marking all four legs of a crosswalk\nbecause it is a lot to ask for people to walk three legs of an intersection to cross the street.\nHe also said the high visibility crosswalks are important because it prevented him from\nhitting someone at night who was dressed in dark clothing thanks to the contrast created.\nCommissioner Nachtigall supported having all legs of a crosswalk marked.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if crosswalks are ever removed.\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-02-26", "page": 7, "text": "Staff Member McGuire described factors that might lead to a decision not to mark all legs\nof an intersection but was unaware of whether there were any recent cases of removing\na crosswalk.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand said we cannot only rely on the numbers of pedestrians using\na crosswalk to decide whether to provide a marked crosswalk or not.\nStaff Member McGuire said that the \"regular and frequent intervals\" language would\naddress the need for safe crossings on challenging corridors with low volumes of\npedestrians.\nChair Soules said they use a forced spiral in system engineering to automatically revisit\npolicies to implement best practices and lessons learned which could be useful for the\nissues staff is bringing up.\nCommissioner Yuen said she wanted to add \"Equity\" and \"Evaluation\" to the Engineering,\nEducation and Enforcement safety efforts. She said looking where high injury corridors\nmeet places that have historically had underinvestment in active transportation should be\nwhere we prioritize actions.\n5-B 2020-7747\nReview of Alameda Point Parking Plan\nStaff Member Thomas gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4337174&GUID=50F70940\nOF5-47F1-BD97-2A89EAB2EOA1&FullText=1.\nChair Soules opened the public comment.\nJim Strehlow said he is glad license plate readers will be used. He expressed concerns\nabout how data would be stored. He asked if there are plans to track everyone that comes\nand goes from Alameda Point. He asked for the opportunity to provide input on an LPR\npolicy before it goes to City Council.\nChairs Soules closed the public comment.\nChair Soules asked if the LPR policy would be an ordinance or resolution.\nStaff Member Thomas said staff is creating an LPR policy specifically for this parking use\nto take to Council as a resolution.\nChair Soules asked what drove the decision for how much space there would be for public\nparking at Alameda Point.\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-02-26", "page": 8, "text": "Staff Member Thomas said the land plan was intended to provide room to provide surface\nparking and then convert to structured parking if the demand warranted.\nChair Soules said she would like to know what the impact of constraining the availability\nof parking would be over time to organically limit the amount of congestion new\ndevelopment created.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if any of the parking plan would affect Main Street or Pacific\nor other residential streets as having controlled parking.\nStaff Member Thomas said Main Street would be the initial border and staff would have to\nmonitor commuter behavior to see if they are parking in the neighborhoods to avoid paying\nfor parking.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if commercial tenants could lease their extra private parking\nto commuters.\nStaff Member Thomas said that tenants could use their parking in that way unless there\nwas something in their lease preventing it.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand said charging for parking could make an expensive commute\noption more expensive for people who do not have other good options to get to the ferry.\nStaff Member Thomas said that a $5 parking fee would put the cost of a ferry trip well in-\nline with other transbay options.\nCommissioner Weitze suggested we want to draw people towards the ferry in order to\nkeep people away from the estuary crossings so the cost should incentivize that behavior.\nChair Soules said that a modern system can provide a lot of flexibility to manage the\nparking use of different areas for different users by analyzing usage data while preserving\nprivacy.\nCommissioner Nachtigall said we do not want to preclude people from using the ferry and\ncannot get mode shift if the other modes are not available.\nCommissioner Yuen asked for the opportunity to review the data gathered and make\nrecommendations based on it as the system moves forward.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if we would be funneling parkers through the Appezzato\nintersection or Pacific.\nStaff Member Thomas said West Atlantic would be the primary route. He said we would\nbe constantly routing people around construction zones as Alameda Point is developed.\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-02-26", "page": 9, "text": "No action was taken.\n5-C 2020-7748\nReview and Comment on 2019 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Report and\nGeneral Plan Update Work in Progress. The review of the annual report and General Plan\nupdate draft elements are exempt actions under the California Environmental Quality Act\nStaff Member Thomas gave a report. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4337245&GUID=76CC4132-\nA630-4DB1-900C-4AACC4DFECF9&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand said that in the future to accommodate required housing we\nwould have to focus on our transit corridors in order to meet the need for housing while\ndealing with congestion and climate concerns.\nStaff Member Thomas said that much of the focus for future housing would continue to be\nat Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront, but also likely to include shopping centers.\nCommissioner Yuen said it is amazing that we are even coming close to meeting our\nRHNA obligations. She said so much of the climate plan is dependent upon us thinking\nbig and bold about transportation solutions.\nChair Soules suggested it may be useful to have another joint meeting of the\nTransportation Commission and Planning Board at a future date to discuss the housing\nand transportation issues together.\nNo action was taken.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n6-A Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items\n1. Central Avenue Concept - Webster Street Area and Environmental Clearance\n2. General Plan Updates\n3. Active Transportation Plan Updates\n4. Ten-year Capital Improvement Program\n5. Transportation Commission Bylaw Changes\n6-B Future Meeting Dates for 2020 - Meetings start at 7 p.m.\n1. Wednesday, March 25\n2. Wednesday, May 27\n3. Wednesday, July 22\n4. Wednesday, September 23\n5. Wednesday, November 18\n9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-02-26", "page": 10, "text": "7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT\nJim Strehlow said his concerns about the parking management item is about forcing\nprivate businesses become parking enforcers which creates a new burden. He hoped that\nthe City would help private owners address this problem created by the paid parking\nprogram.\n8. ADJOURNMENT\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:44 p.m.\n10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf"}