{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nTransportation Commission\nSpecial Meeting\nWednesday, October 27, 2021\nTime:\nChair Samantha Soules convened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.\nLocation:\nPursuant to Assembly Bill 361 codified at Government Code Section 54953,\nTransportation Commissioners can attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allows public\nparticipation via Zoom.\nLegistar Link:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=898688&GUID=FAAC6994-94BA-4EED-\n96B5-18C9183B36BD&Options=info/&Search=\n1. Roll Call\nPresent: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Yuen and Commissioners Nachtigall, Kohlstrand, Hans and\nWeitze.\nAbsent: Commissioner Randy Rentschler\n2. Agenda Changes\nNone.\n3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:\n ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182984&GUID=3D056E3F-2689-\n40BE-8934-A82B73813818&FullText=1.\n4. Announcements / Public Comments\nYahav Kimel Green, a 9-year-old Alameda resident, expressed the need for more crosswalks or\nslow signs on Wood or Chapin Street to make it easier and safer for children walking to school.\nJill Staten brought up issues with the Slow Streets and did not feel that they were any safer.\n5.\nConsent Calendar\n5A. Approve Draft Meeting Minutes - September 22, 2021 (Action Item)", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 2, "text": " https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182985&GUID=6CFE355D-9085-\n46A7-84A4-6FB800501F57&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Scott Weitze clarified his comments for Agenda item 6-C, his concern was for the\nscheduling, he felt the scheduling could be better.\nCommissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand clarified her comments for Agenda item 6-B.\nCommissioner Weitze made a motion to approve the minutes with these edits and Vice-Chair Tina\nYuen seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 4-0,\nCommissioners Nachtigall and Hans abstained due to their absence at this meeting.\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of the Vision Zero Action Plan (Lisa Foster, Senior\nTransportation Coordinator) (Action Item)\nLisa Foster, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The\nstaff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182986&GUID=2C8EE9A4-BCB9-\n4772-AAFD-3E9D1F4C119C&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A\nCommissioner Weitze asked about the socially vulnerable area around Webster and the Webster\nTube since there was not much of a population there and asked if another analysis has been done\nsince the map updates.\nStaff Member Foster said they had not done another analysis since removing certain areas but they\nwere planning on updating the Socially Vulnerable Map.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked about the High-Injury Corridor Map and wanted to know why\nthe number differed online from what was in the plan.\nStaff Member Foster said she would double-check that information and make sure they had the\nmost recent map.\nPublic Comments for #6A", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 3, "text": "Jay Garfinkle was concerned that the 2035 goal was too far away and that this plan removed\npersonal responsibility and put too much emphasis on system changes. He wanted the staff and\nPublic Works to look into the effect construction has on collisions.\nCyndy Johnsen, Bike Walk Alameda, expressed her support for the Vision Zero Plan. She\ndiscussed how for too long the emphasis had been on cars and thought this plan was a good move\naway from being a car-centric culture.\nCarmen Reid brought attention to streets that needed repair, specifically on Lafayette between\nClinton and Encinal, also portions of Encinal Avenue between Grand Street and Park Street. She\nsuggested additional signage and lights to help with speeding. She also suggested a robust\nrepainting campaign to make crosswalks more visible.\nKaren Bey from the Fifth Street Neighborhood group was concerned that the plan did not address\nthe car racing that was happening on the West End and Fifth Street. She discussed safety requests\nthat would help tackle illegal racing.\nJim Strehlow believed that system changes would never be able to eliminate drunk\ndriver/pedestrian/cyclist collisions. He also questioned and had issues about how they captured the\ndata, he did not think it was the fault of the corridors but the people who used them instead.\nMarilyn Alwan supported Karen Bey's comments and asked for proactive actions for Fifth Street.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A\nVice Chair Yuen pointed out that the High Injury Corridor Map from the plan was different than\nwhat was on the website. She asked that it be reconciled before the plan was finalized.\nStaff Member Foster said that she would follow up to make sure which one was the correct one\nand would get that fixed.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand thought the plan was a great effort and supported moving the goal to\n2035 and cautioned the need for adequate budgeting. She also wanted staff to look into car racing\non slow streets, design changes cannot change bad behavior but there were things they could do.\nShe also discussed the High Injury Corridor Map, had questions about certain areas and wanted\nclarification on the findings and designations. She gave suggestions on areas that needed more\nattention and changes in designations. She felt strongly about these designations and wanted to\nmake sure they got the appropriate attention.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Member Foster addressed the car racing concerns, and said that the commission could direct\nthem to add actions specific to car racing. She discussed that it was a data-based map and that she\nwould double check the data.\nChair Soules discussed how the data had been collected and that it was dependent on the public\ninput. She wanted to know if that was a fair assessment.\nStaff Member Foster said that along with police reports for data they also were using See Click\nFix. Since some people did not file police reports, they looked at other ways of collecting data.\nVice Chair Yuen recommended double-checking the data and how the high injury corridors were\nidentified. She also wanted to see a separate map of the near misses.\nCommissioner Alysha Nachtigall discussed her experience of living on Buena Vista and which\nareas needed attention.\nCommissioner Weitze discussed improvements planned for city vehicles and felt that would\nrequire a lot of money with not much gain. He also felt that \"alcohol adjacent areas\" should also\nbe included in the section about collisions. He wanted to see Alameda Police be on board and\nsupportive of automatic speed readers and felt that staff had done a great job with outreach.\nCommissioner Nachtigall thanked staff and everyone involved for their hard work on this plan.\nShe was happy to see that equity had been included when discussing traffic safety and supported\nthe time frame being reduced by five years. She looked forward to seeing the emphasis on\neducation and the potential Infrastructure Rapid Response Program.\nChair Soules supported this bold and aggressive target to try to reach. She believed that design\nleveled the playing field and technology was a worthwhile investment, which would have long-\nterm impacts. She also believed that data integrity was important because of environmental justice\nand would skew against disadvantaged communities.\nVice Chair Yuen thanked staff for their leadership on this great plan. She was excited to see the\nplan's implementation to make Alameda safer.\nVice Chair Yuen made a motion to endorse the Vision Zero Plan for City Council to adopt with\nthe amendments stated for speeding/racing, for focusing on enforcement near establishments that\nserve alcohol, and the recommendation that the High-Injury Corridor Map be checked for\naccuracy. Commissioner Weitze seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and\nthe motion passed 6-0.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 5, "text": "6B. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of the Slow Streets Recommendations (Rochelle\nWheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator) (Action Item)\nRochelle Wheeler, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the item and gave a\npresentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182987&GUID=6B504F66-005A-\n 46C2-BEF4-BAA9D3A49881&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6B\nCommissioner Weitze asked about the stats on the reduction of collisions. He also asked that staff\nclarify why Versailles was chosen and maintained as a Slow Street.\nStaff Member Wheeler discussed the reduction in collision numbers. She then explained the\ncriteria and reasons why Versailles was chosen as a Slow Street.\nChair Soules asked if the staff's recommendation was an all-or-nothing endorsement. She\nreminded the commission that amendments could come after public comments.\nStaff Member Wheeler said this was just the staff's recommendation. The commission could\nmodify this in any way, remove a street or change a street segment.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to know if Pearl Street could be an alternative choice to Versailles.\nStaff Member Wheeler explained why Versailles was a better choice over Pearl Street.\nCommissioner Michael Hans wanted to know why Orion had such negative feedback and what\ncriteria would have to be met for a Slow Street to be removed.\nStaff Member Wheeler discussed that given how short the Orion Slow Street is, few people are\nusing it, and therefore there is not so much negative feedback as a lack of strong support to\nmaintain it. For criteria, staff looked at the traffic statistics, plus public comment to make a\ndetermination.\nPublic Comments for #6B", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 6, "text": "Jay Garfinkle thought this study was scientifically unsound, the data was biased, the whole effort\nwas misleading, and that the public was being manipulated.\nCyndy Johnson, Bike Walk Alameda, expressed her support for the staff's recommendation to\nextend and enhance the Slow Streets Program. She discussed all the ways this program had\nbenefited Alameda and wanted the expansion of the program to include connections to Jean\nSweeney Park (JSOSP).\nMichael Sullivan was excited to hear that the program might expand. He suggested adding more\nbarricades and wanted to see the slow streets connected to form a network.\nCameron Holland, Bike Walk Alameda, discussed what an asset this program had been for\nAlameda. She thought this program was a great way to combat speeding and wanted to see better\nsignage on the Slow Streets. She urged the board to approve the staff's recommendation.\nCarmen Reid expressed concern about San Jose, especially by Chestnut and Willow, and thought\nthat the slow street should be removed.\nJill Staten wanted to see Versailles Street removed from the program. She cited that on the survey\nover 50 percent of residents on this street wanted it removed.\nDenyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda, thanked the staff and thought the program had been a\nsuccess. She discussed how this program was in line with fighting climate change.\nJeanne Lahaie voiced her support for the Slow Streets Program. She also voiced her concern for\nthe intersections at Bayview, Shoreline, and Broadway and wanted to see more barricades for the\nbike lanes.\nJim Strehlow thought this was a failed experiment and that the program encouraged bad habits on\nnon-slow streets.\nJen Whatley doubted and had concerns about the survey results. She also felt that the barricades\nwere a distraction and that there was more of an impact on side streets than acknowledged. She\nfelt like the citizens of Alameda were being tricked.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Kohlstrand said she supported this program and thought that it fit in with the city's\noverall objective of reducing greenhouse gases. She did have concerns about Versailles and San\nJose after hearing the comments. She stated that since Versailles and Gibbons were used as\ncollectors they needed to be evaluated as part of the street classifications in the General Plan\nupdate. She wanted staff to do more exploration in the neighborhoods around San Jose and\nVersailles, and to see if Pearl could be a better alternative to Versailles.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to see how this program would work in a post-COVID world for at\nleast a year. He pointed out that it was confusing at the intersections where Slow Streets end and\nwanted to see better signage here.\nCommissioner Nachtigall was in support of the Slow Streets Program. She also wanted to see\nsignage that clarified where the slow streets began/ended and for them to connect to the Cross\nAlameda Trail in JSOSP.\nVice Chair Yuen supported the staff's recommendations and thanked everyone for their comments.\nShe recommended that staff keep the survey open to gather additional comments for the remainder\nof the year.\nCommissioner Weitze expressed concern for fatigue if people felt that a street was being cut off\nfor them, and that frustrated drivers were not safe drivers.\nChair Soules supported the original concept but struggled with the extension due to the skewed\ndata and issues with inequities. She wanted the parallel streets to be considered and wanted to\nfollow established processes with more community outreach.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted Pearl to be studied but did not want to remove Versailles.\nVice Chair Yuen wanted to see more data collected through the Active Transportation Plan (ATP)\nprocess to leverage the existing planning process and use the more traditional approach to outreach.\nShe wanted to study Versailles as part of the ATP process.\nChair Soules made a motion to approve the staff's recommendation with the amendments to\nevaluate Pearl St as an alternative to Versailles and to have more community input specifically\nfrom parallel streets along with the ATP. Commissioner Weitze seconded the motion. A vote was\ntaken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 6-0.\n*Commissioner Weitze had to excuse himself. There was still a quorum to continue the meeting.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 8, "text": "6C. Review and Comment on the Draft Climate Adaptation and Hazard Mitigation Plan\n(Danielle Mieler, Sustainability, and Resilience Manager) (Discussion Item)\nDanielle Mieler, Sustainability and Resilience Manager, introduced the item and gave a\npresentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182988&GUID=446D7CFB-1B78-\n4177-819F-50203E0C9CA4&FullText=1.\nPublic Comments for #6C\nJim Strehlow discussed the issues around tsunami evacuation planning for the island.\nChair Soules pointed out emergency planning tools and education that were available on the city's\nwebsite.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussion for #6C\nCommissioner Kohlstrand wanted to know if currently there were no lifelines designated to get off\nthe island.\nStaff Member Mieler said as of now that was correct.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand agreed with establishing lifelines as a high priority. She encouraged\nmore planning for natural disasters and having different alternatives for getting off the island.\nStaff Member Mieler discussed different scenarios and what had been planned.\nStaff Member Payne noted that the state has modeled the ability to evacuate for a tsunami and\nshowed it is possible within the timeframe needed.\nChair Soules was concerned about tsunamis and wanted more coordination with AC Transit,\nespecially at Alameda Point. She also wants more outreach, especially to seniors.\n6D. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of Parking Program and Fund Reorganization and\nMoving Parking Enforcement from Police to Public Works (Lisa Foster, Senior\nTransportation Coordinator) (Action Item)", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 9, "text": "Staff Member Foster introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments\ncan be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182989&GUID=FBA40E71-EB91-\n45E6-B7B4-1F790A336070&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6D\nChair Soules asked about parking enforcement at Harbor Bay Ferry and wanted to know if this\nwould relieve APD and be more cost effective.\nStaff Member Foster answered yes and that more staffing would help. Enforcing parking time\nlimits by hand was difficult.\nPublic Comment for #6D\nCarmen Reid was concerned about having paid parking at Seaplane Lagoon and wanted it to be\nfree to address equity issues.\nCarol Gottstein expressed concern for how ALPRs (Automated License Plate Readers) would look\nat the plates of cars that didn't have handicap plates but instead had a handicap placard in the\nwindow.\nChristy Cannon promoted the new bus line, #78, that would serve the Seaplane Lagoon. It would\ngo from Fruitvale BART through Alameda to the Seaplane Lagoon. She also pointed out that\nhaving paid parking would be a major motivation to use that bus.\nJim Strehlow felt that parking places were being reduced too much all over the island. He was also\n100 percent against the use of ALPRs and wanted the police to continue to enforce parking rules.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussion for #6D\nVice Chair Yuen endorsed the staff recommendation. She did want to focus on and tie in equity to\nmake sure that low-income groups would not be disproportionally affected by parking fees or fines.\nShe added that police focus should be on crime and that parking enforcement would not be the\nbest use of their time.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 10, "text": "Commissioner Kohlstrand discussed charging for parking at Seaplane Lagoon and wanted to make\nsure it was equal at the other ferries as well. She also agreed with separating parking enforcement\nfrom police duties and was ready to endorse this recommendation.\nStaff Member Foster addressed the public comment about ALPRs reading window placards, this\nissue would not be a problem.\nChair Soules provided input on considerations for lower operations and maintenance costs, and to\nconsider electrification and equity issues, especially with curb management. She wanted to see a\nprivacy policy that reflected the city's values to not introduce risk and to offer a cost-effective\nparking payment program. She also wanted vendors to meet PII compliance and to look at San\nFrancisco and BART for their privacy policy.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to endorse the City Council's Adoption of the Parking\nProgram and Fund Reorganization and Moving Parking Enforcement from Police to Public Works.\nChair Soules seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 5-\n0.\n7. Announcements / Public Comments\nChair Soules reminded everyone to watch out for Trick or Treaters this Halloween and that APD\nwould do a free car seat assessment.\n8. Adjournment\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 10:22 p.m.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}