{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-10-28", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting\nWednesday, October 28, 2020\nTime:\n6:30 p.m.\nLocation:\nDue to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners can attend the\nmeeting via teleconference. The City allows public participation via Zoom. City Hall was NOT open to the\npublic during the meeting.\n1. Roll Call\nPresent: Chair Soules, Commissioners Kohlstrand, Nachtigall, Hans, Johnson, Yuen,\nWeitze.\nAbsent: None.\n2. Agenda Changes - none\n3. Staff Communications as shown in the web link here:\n  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4672973&GUID=F417595E-294D-4A7A-81A9-\n930246FOCDD5&Options=&Search=&FullText=1\n4.\nAnnouncements/ Public Comments - none\n5.\nConsent Calendar - none\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Recommendation to Review and Provide Input on City Staff's Draft Support Letter for the\nOakland Alameda Access Project (OAAP) and to Provide Comments on the Project's Draft\nEnvironmental Document\nChair Soules recused herself from this item, and Vice Chair Nachtigall led this item.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Director, gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4672974&GUID=E0OCAC43-48BD-4066-8468-\nE7ED82F902BF&Options=&Search=\nStaff Thomas also introduced:\nRodney Pimentel of HNTB\nSusan Chang of Alameda County Transportation Commission\nSpeakers on #6A\nGary Knecht: He stated that it is Jack London District and not Jack London Square, which is concerned\nwith connection to Chinatown. He does not want more frontage roads, and will tolerate them. The\nhorseshoe does create a frontage road of concern. Getting to Alameda will not be improved with this\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-10-28", "page": 2, "text": "project, unless one is coming from San Leandro. If coming from San Francisco, this problem has not been\nsolved from Broadway by this project.\nPaul Ashby: He encouraged the City of Alameda to support inclusion of the Webster Tube walkway for\nbicyclists. He has concerns about traffic off the island, for bicyclists and for pedestrians. This $100 million\nproject is not yet funded and he is concerned about how to fund the $200 million bike/pedestrian bridge and\nwhen it could be funded. Pedestrian improvements will be valuable. Bicycling is difficult in the tubes, and\nthe Webster Tube bike improvements are not satisfactory; however, a four-foot wide path (in Webster Tube)\nwould be better than the three-foot wide path (in Posey Tube).\nSugiarto Loni, representing Oakland Chinatown Chamber. He stated that Chinatown receives the brunt\nof\nthe traffic problem. He was involved in the previous Broadway-Jackson Study; however, Alameda was\nopposed so the study was delayed for ten years, is his understanding. The OAAP project is a good project\nfor the Chinatown community. The project would open up the Chinatown community making it better for\npedestrians. He thinks the horseshoe will work, and he does not want to lose time with a $200 million\nbike/pedestrian bridge, especially with the planned development of Alameda Point. He hopes that Alameda\nwill support OAAP and not derail it.\nSerena Chen: She has lived in Alameda for 23 years, and also lived in Oakland and helped build the social\ncommunities in Oakland. The freeway cut off Chinatown, and this project is a serious social justice issue.\nInstitutional decisions destroyed the Oakland Chinatown area. She does not want to hold up the opportunity\nto bring Chinatown together and reduce pollution from Alamedans who drive. She wants to move forward,\nand she also supports the bike/pedestrian bridge.\nJohn Han: He was born in Alameda, and he lives and works in Alameda. The progress of this project is\nnecessary. Alameda will grow yet there is no other ingress or egress. The collisions continue in Oakland.\nOakland Chinatown has been disproportionately impacted by the current design, and it is systemic injustice\nto keep it here. It appears that Alameda City leaders and bike advocates are holding this project hostage\nand the optics are horrible.\nDoris Gee: She is an active community member in both Alameda and Oakland Chinatown. She appreciates\nthe changes to be built with this project. She has tried to cross 7th and Harrison in Oakland with her family,\nand motorists would not stop for them. The project will create more tourist opportunities and an Alameda-\nonly exit out of Alameda.\nLena Tam: Former Councilmember and she does not want to delay this project. She uses this route to\ncommute to Oakland and support the OAAP because it reduces the crash rate between motorists and\npedestrians. She is worried about the long-term sustainability of Oakland Chinatown. She witnessed a\npedestrian being hit on Webster Street who later died. She appreciates the time everyone has spent\nreviewing the plan.\nDenyse Trepanier: The existing path through the tube is filthy and dangerous. It does not meet Caltrans\nsafety standards for a path. The Webster Street walkway also would be substandard. She agrees with most\nof the speakers tonight that the OAAP has nice improvements for Oakland. Only one percent would use\nthis new Webster Street path and monies should be redirected to the bike/pedestrian bridge. The voters\nwanted a multimodal solution, and this project is not it.\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-10-28", "page": 3, "text": "Michael Sullivan: He bikes through the tubes on a daily basis. It would be unfortunate to spend monies on\nanother path in Webster Tube. It is not a multimodal project. He strongly supports investing in the\nbike/pedestrian bridge.\nEd Manasse, Deputy Director of Planning with the City of Oakland. He has been working with the Alameda\nCTC project staff and consultants. He appreciates the comments heard tonight, and the City of Oakland\nwill be drafting a letter of support for this project. He also supports the bike/pedestrian bridge project,\nwhich will be positive for both cities.\nJim Strehlow: He is a bicyclist and motorist. The 2009 Estuary Crossing Study stated that the number one\npriority would be the water taxi program, and he wants to know the status of this project. The OAAP project\nis multimodal. The bike/pedestrian bridge is too far north for his needs so he would not use it. Sixth Street\nis six lanes, and will become a traffic jam. He supports this project.\nCyndy Johnson: She is with Bike Walk Alameda, and highlighted the portion of their submitted letter about\nthe bike/pedestrian bridge. The project path does not meet best practice standards. The bike/pedestrian\nbridge should have been included in this project, and could accommodate up to 13 percent of the estuary\ntrips. Alameda CTC should identify funds for the bike/pedestrian bridge. This bridge has been ten years\nin the making.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussion for #6A\nCommissioner Kohlstrand: She stated that this project is a long time in coming, and it is an important\nproject, particularly for the City of Oakland. It seems to be a reasonable solution, and we should support\nthe project as recommended by City staff. She has used the bus more than the car in this corridor, and is\nconcerned that no transit improvements are listed as part of the project. She would like to have transit\npriority on both sides of the tube, and would like to hear why it was not included in the project. She would\nrather see the Webster Street path improvements than shift the monies to a bike/pedestrian bridge, which is\nworth looking at along with water taxis in the longer term. She would like clarification from the video\nabout the Jackson Street ramp. In general, she supports the OAAP project, and feels it is time to alleviate\nthe traffic congestion in Oakland Chinatown.\nRodney Pimentel clarified that the bus times will improve along with motorists. The left lane in the Webster\nTube will be reserved only for Oakland traffic including buses to Oakland. Regarding the four-foot wide\npath, Caltrans did approve the design exception and wants to open it up for one-way travel for bicyclists\nand pedestrians. It is considered an incremental solution with the long-term solution as the bike/pedestrian\nbridge. As for the Jackson Street ramp, motorists could take it from I-580 and I-980.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand: She would like the project to consider HOV lanes on Fifth Street in Oakland,\nand to include transit in the mix so it needs to give transit vehicles priority.\nCommissioner Yuen: She supports the project, and appreciates the comments about the current impacts to\nOakland Chinatown. It is important for Chinatown to fully use the community assets, like Garden Park.\nShe would like clarification that the support of this project does not preclude the bike/pedestrian bridge.\nShe would like to see the incremental progress for bicyclists that this project brings. She would use the\nbike/pedestrian bridge but she does not want to delay this project.\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-10-28", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Weitze: He supports the bike/pedestrian bridge, though he recommends that it be designed\nas a bike/pedestrian/transit bridge, since transit will help individuals who do not bike or walk. He is\ndisappointed that the conversation is focused on a one-foot wider bike path, and instead would like to see a\npath protected from traffic and air pollution. He would like other path options, and not to have a path that\nexposes people to the air in the Tube. He is hesitant to support the project as is. It is not multimodal. The\nbike/pedestrian bridge is the long-term solution.\nVice Chair Nachtigall: She supports the project, and the current experience is dangerous for pedestrians.\nShe is concerned about the potential for delay, and the bike/pedestrian bridge should not preclude this\nproject. It is not the most multimodal solution but incremental improvements are needed and this project\nhas been in the works for a long time.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand: She requests that it needs to be clear what the Commissioners are being asked\nto do for any agenda item. She is open to adding language to enhance pedestrian and transit access as a\nmotion.\nVice Chair Nachtigall: She asked for clarification on if it an action item.\nStaff Thomas: Staff would like to pass comments to the City Council. Can be either consensus-based or an\naction.\nCommissioner Weitze: It is not a multimodal project so it does not feel like Alameda should give up on the\nWebster Tube path improvements.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to support the staff letter with two modifications:\nRemove statement that the City would not oppose the removal of the proposed Webster Tube\nwalkway if it could help fund the next phases of the Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge.\nRequest that Caltrans and Alameda CTC enhance transit access to and from the Tubes both\nin Oakland and Alameda, which would improve multi-modal access of the project.\nCommissioner Yuen: She seconded the motion by Commissioner Kohlstrand.\nThe motion passed 6-0.\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-10-28", "page": 5, "text": "6B. General Plan Update (Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment)\nAndrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Director, gave a presentation and introduced\nconsultant Sheffield. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\n  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4672975&GUID=66886312-9FOE-4C9E-9485-\n317F282E7D8E&Options=&Search=\nChair Soules requested to take community comments and to set up a process for future commissioner\ncomments as a sub-committee. She would like a high level of engagement. The General Plan sets a baseline\nfor projects moving forward. It is an opportunity to have community members' voices heard.\nThere were no community comments on Item #6B at this time.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussion for #6B\nCommissioner Yuen: She had the following comments:\nIt is a great start of this General Plan and she commends staff for all the hard work on it.\nThe pandemic has changed city planning and how we are dealing with commercial and slow streets,\nand it impacts fiscal budget of the City. The General Plan needs to mention the pandemic.\nStaff Thomas agreed about the pandemic and released this draft just as the pandemic began, and will add\nlessons from the pandemic in the second draft.\nCommissioner Yuen continued her comments:\nThe actions within policies should be enumerated.\nSome actions are specific and others are broad, and would like the actions to be as specific as\npossible to be able to check them off the list if completed.\nSome actions are global across several chapters such as complete streets, climate and mobility\nelement, and would like to see if it is possible to see mapping by element and action.\nStaff Thomas said that the update needs to be restated to better understand progress to inform budget\ndecisions, and staff/consultants are working on cross indexing.\nVice Chair Nachtigall agreed about the need to include mention of the pandemic. It is well designed and\npretty, and yet the photos and the design graphics need to better visually convey diversity to show\nAlameda's racial and ethnic diversity as well as diversity of businesses. The graphics need to match the\ntext to show that all people are visually represented.\nStaff Thomas expressed appreciation for this comment and said that he would fix it.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand commended staff and consultants on the work done to date, and said that it is a\ngood draft. She would like the survey results to be synthesized, and would like to understand what\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-10-28", "page": 6, "text": "Alamedans think of density and land use. She would like to see a special workshop meeting or sub-\ncommittee to capture all the different perspectives of the commissioner members. She would like more\nemphasis on transit in that a higher percentage of trips are on transit compared to bicycling and walking,\nespecially getting on/off the island. She is unsure how to proceed with housing obligations until we know\nwhat happens with Measure Z.\nStaff Thomas: He said that Measure Z will impact how the City can proceed with residential density. The\nCity needs to meet the state's housing obligations.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand: She stated that she would like to consider doing sketch planning with Measure\nA or with something more rational.\nChair Soules: She agreed, and would like to have more comments on the General Plan with a sub-committee\nprocess.\nCommissioner Weitze: He would like measurable actions agreeing with Commissioner Yuen. He would\nlike to set an actual goal for the percent of trips going on and off the island such as car-free to help with\nfunding projects.\nChair Soules: She stated that the surveys need more quantification. For example, the survey responses are\nheavily skewed towards white. The report does mention the groups that are underrepresented, and it needs\nto report back on how the gap would be reduced. She would like to have more prioritization of projects as\nwell as timing. It is important to have rigor in the objectives and metrics. Transit moves the most amount\nof people, and transit needs to come back strong. She would like to see another Planning Board and\nTransportation Commission joint meeting to better understand zoning and development agreement\nrequirements and to ensure coordination.\nCommissioner Yuen: She likes the idea of the joint meeting with the Planning Board, and supports the\ntransit first idea, and would like to lift it up in the update. The survey results are lacking, and the charts are\nconfusing. She would like an expert to look at it who knows qualitative research. There needs more\noutreach effort to harder to reach demographics such as the Active Transportation Plan's statistically\nsignificant survey as well as other opportunities, which is difficult during a pandemic. She agrees about\nthe importance to set targets and to have performance measures and metrics. Micromobility could be better\nhighlighted to provide greater access to transit. She is pleased to see more consideration of equity.\nChair Soules: She wants to better assess if the projects can accommodate given the projected population\nand density on the west end such as Central Avenue.\nStaff Thomas: He said that the City does not have the rigor for prioritizing how public funds are used. It\nends up being a mix of politics, planning and cost/benefit analysis. We have multiple problems - a housing\ncrisis and inadequate transportation.\nChair Soules: She stated that we do not want to quantify and study what is not helpful. We will have more\ntraffic volumes so she is unsure if these projects will work for bicycling once Site A is developed.\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-10-28", "page": 7, "text": "Staff Thomas: He stated that it would be a worthwhile conversation, and could help guide the priorities.\nIt\nis difficult to prioritize bicycling, walking, greenhouse gas reductions because these projects are trying to\nsolve multiple problems.\nChair Soules: She said that having rigor costs money. We need to base the traffic numbers on an updated\nanalysis to serve as a backdrop and for context on how to prioritize projects.\nStaff Thomas: He would like to have a sub-committee with the specific policies in front of the group. We\nare unsure how the future will be for transportation and if the entire travel pattern will shift due to COVID\nand telecommuting in the future. For example, WETA is expecting midday boats to be more crowded.\nChair Soules: She agreed that it is difficult and we are trying to think long term, and she will follow up with\nthe study team on how to follow up for more details on the sub-committee.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand: She would like to have a viable transit system even if we have less congestion\nby making it more attractive.\nCommissioner Weitze: He asked how does Alameda promote working from home. There is talk about\nincentives for local businesses such as financial incentives. Alameda should try to do it.\nChair Soules: She said that regionally, telecommuting is being mandated.\nPublic Comment for #6B\nChristy Cannon: She said that she is on the Community Action for Sustainable Alameda, and she attends\nPlanning Board meeting, and thinks it would be wonderful to have regular joint meetings with the Planning\nBoard. It is tightly related, and is complicated. There are no easy ways to get people to talk about these\nissues. Making a City plan forces us to think 20 years ahead. She worked on promoting AC Transit bus\nline 19, and is excited to emphasize transit. It is a great conversation, and she appreciates the time taken by\ncommissioners and staff.\n6C. Public Works 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan Draft Recommendations\nScott Wikstrom, City Engineer and Robert Vance, Supervising Civil Engineer gave a presentation. The\nstaff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4672976&GUID=A2011A80-1F87-401F-9C00-\n73E3A5007B64&Options=&Search=\nCommissioner Comments and Discussion for #6C\nCommissioner Kohlstrand: She asked for clarification on the numbers for the funded projects between $56\nmillion and $39 million.\nStaff Vance: The $56 million is the maintenance and the $39 million are the funded new infrastructure.\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-10-28", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Kohlstrand: She said that it is difficult to understand the funding and the process, and she\nrequested more input earlier than next Spring such as briefings on how it is coming along would be helpful.\nThe discussion on metrics is pertinent with limited funding, and is needed to have the most effective and\nefficient use of public funds.\nChair Soules: She asked Commissioner Kohlstrand if it is a topic to fold into the General Plan subcommittee\nstudy sessions.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand: Yes, it would be helpful.\nChair Soules: She stated that Alameda has been extremely competitive with grants compared to the rest of\nthe region. It is a commendable track record. These projects have done the greatest good with the least\nassets. We need to closely consider our regional partners, and how the projects impact the region. The\nprojects need to state the benefits such as showing the mode split quantitatively, and staff needs to factor\nthis analysis into the entire cost of the project. For equity, it is important to reduce barriers such as credit\ncard issues, language issues, etc. She appreciates that lens in Alameda, and would like for staff to do this\noutreach to educate ourselves and transit users. Administratively, the commissioners will provide input to\nstaff through the subcommittee. More voices and louder voices are great at this stage.\nPublic Comment for #6C - none\n7. Announcements / Public Comments\nJim Strehlow: Before COVID, the Bay Area was seeing increased use for water shuttles. Water taxis were\nthe 2009 solution, and he would like to know the status of the water shuttle program, especially the status\nof the Alameda Landing payment for it. It should have been a yearly commitment. The General Plan\ndiscussion needs to address the main problems similar to what the discussion stated.\n8. Adjournment\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf"}