{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2014-07-30", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission\nNovember 19, 2014\nItem 4A\nAction\nTransportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, July 30, 2014\nCommissioner Jesus Vargas called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nJesus Vargas (Chair)\nChristopher Miley (Vice Chair)\nMichele Bellows\nEric Schatmeier\nGregory Morgado\nThomas G. Bertken\nStaff Present:\nAlex Nguyen, Assistant City Manager\nVirendra Patel, Transportation Engineer\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\n3.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\nCommissioner Vargas announced that he recently visited Chicago and was able to easily traverse\nthe city on a number of different transit modes.\nStaff Payne stated that Assemblyman Rob Bonta will hold a Town Hall Meeting Tuesday,\nAugust 12 at the Alameda Free Library.\nPage 1 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2014-07-30", "page": 2, "text": "4.\nConsent Calendar\n4A.\nMeeting Minutes - Special Meeting - December 11, 2013\n4B.\nMeeting Minutes - March 26, 2014\n4C.\nMeeting Minutes - Special Meeting - April 23, 2014\n4D.\nMeeting Minutes - May 28, 2014\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve Items 4.A., 4.B., 4.C. and 4.D. of the Consent Calendar.\nCommissioner Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n5.\nNew Business\n5A.\nApprove Installation of a Bulb-out at Park/Lincoln Northwest Corner\nStaff Patel said the plan was originally presented to the Commission on March 26 and the\nproject's consultant would present the report.\nJoy Bhattacharya, Traffic Senior Project Manager, Stantec Consulting, presented the report.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.\nJohn Knox White, Alameda Resident, said he supported staff's recommendations.\nCommission Schatmeier said he was glad that a review of the intersection took place and he was\nglad staff was able to make improvements.\nCommissioner Vargas moved to approve staff recommendations for Item 5A. Commissioner\nSchatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n5B. Review and Provide Comments on Ferry Terminal Access Issues and Potential Solutions\nStaff Payne presented the report and introduced Kevin Connolly, Water Emergency\nTransportation Authority (WETA) and Becca Homa, AC Transit.\nKevin Connolly, WETA Planning and Development Manager, presented the Alameda Terminal\nAccess Plan results to date.\nBecca Homa, AC Transit Service Planner, presented AC Transit's a potential change to Line 31\nroute to allow for it to serve the Main Street ferry terminal.\nStaff Payne presented the next steps found on page 4 of the staff report and she requested\nrecommendations from the Commission.\nPage 2 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2014-07-30", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner Miley referred to page 3 of the staff report, where the last point made was for the\nWETA Board to adopt the plan. Thus, he wanted to know when the board would adopt the plan.\nKevin Connolly replied the board would adopt the plan sometime in the fall between October and\nNovember.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked Kevin Connolly to compare the Harbor Bay Ferry's ridership\noriginating from Oakland and Alameda.\nKevin Connolly replied the total breakdown of Alameda-Oakland ridership is 51 percent of riders\nare from Alameda and 49 percent of riders are from Oakland. He went on to say that 70 percent\nof Alameda passengers board during the AM peak commute and 70 percent of Oakland riders\nboard during the midday to late evening hours.\nCommissioner Schatmeier wanted to know how many Harbor Bay Alamedans ride. He assumed\nthat if there are 2,800 riders a day and roughly 1,400 a day are from Alameda, then roughly 70\npercent or 900-1,000 riders are boarding during the AM peak commute.\nKevin Connolly replied roughly, there are 992 riders from Harbor Bay.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.\nLucy Gigli, President and Co-founder Bike Walk Alameda, explained that there are a number of\nissues that should be addressed within the plan. Firstly, she said creating a crosswalk from the\nD'Club to the west of the dog park would allow pedestrians to get from their vehicles to the\nterminal safely. Secondly, she said reducing the speed limit to 25 mph along Main Street would\nincrease pedestrian and bicycle safety. Thirdly, she noted that improving bicycle access along\nMain Street could be done by constructing a cycle track on the west side of the street. However,\nshe explained the only issue would be that cyclists would ride down Main Street, cross over and\nthen go up the cycle track and then cross over again. Also, she mentioned the option of including\nbuffered bike lanes within 0.2 miles of the stretch on the east side between Singleton Avenue and\nthe ferry terminal. Lastly, she felt asphalt paving dominated Alameda Point and converting the\nlast unpaved lot into a parking lot was not environmentally sound.\nJohn Knox White explained that AC Transit Line 63 was eliminated due to low ridership because\nthe bus could not make the scheduled route. He pointed out that the intended Line 31 re-route\nwould inconvenience the Alameda Point Collaborative, which is a 214-unit transit dependent\nresidence. Thus, he felt turning the existing service into a loop was detrimental. He requested\nthe Commission to ask staff to conduct a ridership study to see the origin of Harbor Bay ferry\nriders.\nCommissioner Bellows asked about enforcing parking restrictions on Adelphian Way.\nSpecifically, she mentioned the solution of working with WETA and the San Francisco Bay\nConservation and Development Commission (BCDC) staff to enforce the two-hour parking on\nthe landside of Adelphian Way. She wanted to know how BCDC could dictate how the City\nregulates parking.\nPage 3 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2014-07-30", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Payne replied the City was obligated to comply with the BCDC permit found under page 2\nof the staff report. The BCDC prohibits parking on the Bay side, but short-term parking is\nallowed on the land side.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff how willing would BCDC be to let the parking requirement\ngo.\nStaff Payne replied that staff needs to work with BCDC to amend the permit.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff if the parking restrictions were enforced, where would ferry\nriders park.\nStaff Payne noted that the landward side provides about 50 parking spaces.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff if the neighbors around Adelphian Way were notified about\npotential changes to the parking regulations.\nStaff Payne said residents have not been notified and all conversations are informal. Staff is\ndisregarding the two-hour restriction for the time being.\nCommissioner Morgado said he drove by the area around 4:45 pm and there was one parking\nspace in the parking lot and no parking spaces along Adelphian Way. He asked why a two-hour\nlimit would be implemented.\nStaff Payne stated that BCDC works with the City anytime development is within 100 feet from\nthe Bay. Their mission involves public access and making sure the view shed is visible, which\nmay have triggered the parking restrictions.\nSergeant Simmons, Alameda Police Traffic Division, explained that in the last 6-9 months they\nhave received a number of calls from residents about the landward parking side. Community\nmembers at the end of Creedon Circle asked them to lift the parking enforcement because of\nincreased ridership and the number of cars encroaching within their neighborhoods.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said enforcing the two-hour restriction on Adelphian Way would\nspark drivers to park in the surrounding neighborhoods. He mentioned that other cities have\nresidential parking permits and that could be a solution for the area. He was also concerned that\nremoving parking on Adelphian Way would lower ferry ridership. He noted that the curb\ncoming out of Sweet Road onto Adelphian Way should be painted red since it is a fire hydrant.\nHe does not think that BCDC would want ferry riders to decrease.\nCommissioner Miley asked WETA about the ability to purchase the vacant lot adjacent to the\nferry terminal to increase surface parking lot spaces. He wondered if WETA or the City\napproached the landowner about potential development.\nKevin Connolly said the vacant land was privately owned by the Lehman Brothers and the asking\nprice was beyond their budget. They have talked to the owners and the solution may be to\npotentially lease parking spaces.\nPage 4 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2014-07-30", "page": 5, "text": "Commissioner Bellows asked WETA if they ever considered implementing a parking fee.\nKevin Connolly replied they discussed the idea and are willing to consider it.\nCommissioner Miley stated that there are other lots along Harbor Bay Parkway and he\nrecommended WETA review those sites. He suggested reaching out to the existing shuttle at the\nnearby business park to see if they could expand their service to reach the ferry terminal.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that he paid more for parking in Chicago than San Francisco and in\nthe densest areas motorists required a sticker. He asked WETA if there are sites where that\nscheme has been implemented.\nKevin Connolly stated that the city of Vallejo owns a number of open surface lots around the\nBaylink Ferry Terminal and they now charge for parking.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff if they looked at allowing for parking along McCartney Road.\nStaff Patel replied no.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if there was a way to accommodate parking along the road.\nStaff Patel replied they could investigate to see if parking would be possible.\nCommissioner Vargas mentioned that there was a park and ride on Island Drive near Doolittle.\nHe then asked if the AC Transit bus that picks up at the park and ride could stop near the ferry\nterminal to accommodate additional ferry riders.\nBecca Homa replied that Line #21 does stop at the park and ride and near the terminal. However,\nshe felt few people were taking advantage of the service, but she could investigate further.\nStaff Payne replied that the park and ride spaces were at capacity.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked staff who parked there and where were they going.\nStaff Payne said the lot was owned by the City and charter buses utilized the lot.\nKevin Connolly replied Google runs five buses a day at the park and ride and Apple runs three.\nStaff Payne replied that the Golf Parking Lot was a potential alternative; however, staff once\nexecuted the shuttle approach and only a handful used the service.\nCommissioner Miley replied that all agencies involved should take notes and come back to the\nCommission with feedback and follow up to explore solutions. He would like to see the\ncrosswalk idea reviewed to allow safe access when crossing Main Street.\nCommissioner Vargas felt the Homeowner Associations from the adjacent communities should\nPage 5 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2014-07-30", "page": 6, "text": "also be contacted.\nCommissioner Bellows needed clarification on the plan to acquire additional parking and how\nthat would tie into the Seaplane Lagoon improvements and future service at Seaplane Lagoon.\nKevin Connolly replied that they are engaged with Alameda staff to look at the whole range of\npotential outcomes and variations. However, WETA's improvements are based on the short-\nterm access study because they are not looking at making 20-year investments until they know\nthe outcome of the Seaplane Lagoon Project.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that he wanted to speak about transit access issues. When he\nworked in Marin County, he traveled using the Alameda-Oakland and Golden Gate Ferries. He\nexplained that Golden Gate Transit had a long history of feeder shuttles to the Larkspur Ferry\nTerminal and no one used the service. Regarding AC Transit, he was disturbed with the 66\npercent on-time performance rating and he was doubtful that eliminating the last trip on Line #\n21 to serve the morning ferry riders was helpful. Moreover, he said staff should review the\nridership gain if they are going to re-route Line #31.\nCommissioner Morgado asked staff how far away was the O'Club lot from the ferry terminal.\nStaff Payne replied that there are 138 spaces at the O'Club parking lot and noted that the staff\nreport displayed the parking lot as the blue rectangle.\nCommissioner Morgado stated that motorists usually park on the unregulated part of Main Street\nin the morning.\nStaff Payne replied that was correct.\nCommissioner Morgado asked staff how many people actually park there.\nStaff Payne replied they saw the total number of cars parking on Main Street come from all over\nthe presented map from West Midway to the west gate/Navy Way, and they were willing to walk\nto the terminal.\nCommissioner Morgado asked staff if the City allowed people to park at the O'Club lot, would a\ncrosswalk be present.\nStaff Payne replied a crosswalk was not present and that was one of the requests presented by\nLucy Gigli of BikeWalk Alameda. She said that the O'Club lot was used by the Park and\nRecreation Department.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied that his son had a wedding party at Rosenblum Cellars and\nthey recently moved to Jack London. He does not know if the site has been replaced by a new\ntenant, but if not could the vacant parking spaces be utilized.\nKevin Connolly said that Bay Ship and Yacht is interested in leasing the space.\nPage 6 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2014-07-30", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Vargas referred to Spirits Alley and wondered if the AC Transit Line #31\nextension could cover that area.\nBecca Homa said during the last Commission meeting a few people requested service for the\narea. However, peak ridership occurs during the evening and weekend timeframe and service\nduring that timeframe was expensive and long. She said that this was not a high priority service\narea.\nCommissioner Miley asked AC Transit if they are looking at any specialty transit service to\naccompany regular service.\nBecca Homa replied that AC Transit's Board approved the purchase of smaller vehicles SO that\nmay be a possibility.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if there could be a modification of the loop if someone pushed a\nbutton near Spirits Alley.\nBecca Homa replied the action was called flexible service and staff was looking into the option,\nbut staff would have to address union and driver training issues.\nCommissioner Schatmeier explained in the past WETA and AC Transit representatives talked\nabout implementing bus service to and from San Francisco when the ferries turned people away.\nHe also wanted to know if WETA used a contractor for the bus service. Alternatively, ferry\nriders could board AC Transit Line OX at the Temporary Transbay Terminal. He wondered if\nthe 5:40 pm or 5:50 pm Line OX run could originate at the San Francisco Ferry Building then\nproceed to the Temporary Transbay Terminal.\nBecca Homa replied that would be difficult because layover, restrooms and tour bus spaces\nwould be an ongoing issue. Therefore, they would like to concentrate their operations at the\nTemporary Transbay Terminal.\nKevin Connolly said they contract out the backup buses. Regarding AC Transit and ferry\nservice, WETA had conversations about a partnership between the two agencies and that was\nsomething they would like to see. Moreover, he mentioned that a regionwide Transbay corridor\nplan was enacted between AC Transit, BART and WETA for better integration between the\nentire system and establishing a partnership was an ongoing conversation.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff about the ability to change the dog park to a parking facility.\nStaff Payne said a new dog park was in construction and overseen by Amy Wooldridge,\nRecreation and Parks Director. The dog park would be located in the new Estuary Park just\nnorth of Mosley Avenue.\nCommissioner Miley commented on the fact that the City was responsible for the ferry\ninfrastructure maintenance on the landward side. He wondered if that was standard practice or\nunique to Alameda.\nPage 7 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2014-07-30", "page": 8, "text": "Staff Payne replied that is unique to the City.\nCommissioner Miley asked how much the maintenance work costs the City.\nStaff Payne replied WETA reimburses the City for all maintenance work.\nCommissioner Bertken asked WETA why the improvement of the pedestrian crossing at Main\nStreet was not the responsibility of WETA.\nKevin Connolly replied that they raised the issue since the beginning of the effort and that it was\nnot embraced by the City's Public Works Department.\nCommissioner Vargas said the project looked like a candidate for a joint public partnership.\nAlex Nguyen, Alameda City Manager, said he would like the Commission to come back in the\nfall to discuss the specific studies and present refined recommendations.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that a special committee should be put into place to review the plan.\nCommissioner Schatmeier offered to volunteer for the subcommittee and he stated that the\nCommission should express their requirements for the plan without committing them to a single\nsolution.\nAlex Nguyen recommended that Bike Walk Alameda be part of the subcommittee and requested\nthat staff look into the number of people who could be part of the subcommittee.\nStaff Payne felt that the subcommittee should sit down and include additions and deletions using\nthe next steps part of the staff report as a starting point.\nCommissioner Miley said regarding the potential solution portion, he would like staff to explore\navailable surface lots around the area, include additional bicycle parking under WETA's\nresponsibility and study the effects of re-routing Line #31.\nCommissioner Bellows amended Commissioner Miley's statement to include staff to explore\navailable on-street parking as well.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied that the solution should also exclude enforcing parking\nrestrictions on Adelphian Way. He also supported reviewing the effects of re-routing Line #31.\nCommissioner Bellows felt they should remove the signage that restricts parking on the landward\nside. She would also like the curb at Adelphian Way and Sweet Road painted red to prevent\nparking. Additionally, she would like to see the first elements of the BCDC parking issue\ncombined because the parking agreement should be released.\nCommissioner Morgado said he agreed with not citing motorists for parking and the City should\nwork with WETA and BCDC to make that happen. He does not completely agree with removing\nthe existing dog park, but if there was an alternative being built then it was not a big problem.\nPage 8 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2014-07-30", "page": 9, "text": "Also, he would like to make sure pedestrians and cyclists travel safely along Main Street.\nCommissioner Vargas asked Sergeant Simmons for the speed limit along Main Street.\nSergeant Simmons replied 35 mph.\nCommissioner Vargas felt that safety was an important issue. The Main Street pedestrian and\ncyclist crossing was high priority. Secondly, he said the Commission should work with the\ncontract BCDC laid out since modifying the contract would be difficult. Moreover, he felt that\nparking restrictions were a revenue generator and if the City needed money then start giving\ntickets.\nCommissioner Miley replied WETA should look into implementing parking charges within their\nparking lot.\n6.\nStaff Communications\n6A.\nPotential Future Meeting Agenda Items\nThe next Commission meeting will be Wednesday, September 24th. and potential items\ncould include:\nFerry Terminal Access Recommendations and Updates\nNorthern Waterfront Development Projects\nPedestrian Safety Program Update\nI-880/29th Avenue/23rd Avenue Interchange Improvement Project\nProposed I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation and Circulation\nImprovements\n7.\nAnnouncements/ Public Comments\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident, said two months ago he spoke about the I-880/Fruitvale Avenue\nconstruction and how the left turn lane onto Elmwood Drive had an unnecessary 20-second\ndelay. Yet, he found that two months ago the City striped Fruitvale Avenue with an extra lane\nand that alleviated some of the traffic. However, he said a 20-second delay continued to plague\nElmwood Drive and he would like the Commission to talk to City about this issue. In addition,\nhe was upset that he spent the last several meetings asking for a survey of traffic conditions and\nrecently found out that the City conducted a study for Alameda Point. Thus, he wanted better\ncommunication between departments and the Commission. Also, before attending the\nCommission meeting, he attended the Del Monte Warehouse Project meeting at City Hall West.\nHe said a number of transportation issues were brought up, yet the issues are not being\ncommunicated with the Commission.\nCommissioner Vargas asked the Commission if the Del Monte Warehouse Project should be\nincluded as a future agenda item.\nStaff Payne replied the Del Monte Warehouse Project was located within the Northern\nWaterfront and that there are several developments in progress. She advised the Commission to\nPage 9 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2014-07-30", "page": 10, "text": "call this upcoming agenda item as \"Northern Waterfront Development.\"\nCommissioner Schatmeier made the motion to include the topic within the existing future agenda\nitems. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n8.\nAdjournment\n8:55 pm\nPage 10 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-11-18", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes\nWednesday November 18, 2015\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\nMichael Hans\nGregory Morgado\nMembers Absent:\nThomas G. Bertken\nStaff Present:\nStaff Patel, Transportation Engineer\nStaff Payne, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\n3.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\n3.A. Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 7 pm\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that AC Transit has been actively compiling a service\nenhancement plan that impacts the City. Commissioner Schatmeier provided a memo\nsummarizing the items that were discussed. He explained three priorities came about from the\ndiscussion: 1. funding should stay local; 2. maintain existing AC Transit Line O on Santa Clara\nAvenue and if they shorten the route as originally proposed by AC Transit then savings should\nstay local; and 3. in the absence of transfers, AC Transit should maintain direct service to\nFruitvale BART Station on the current lines despite the additional cost of doing SO. He\nrecommended that the topic be agendized for the January 2016 meeting so the Commission can\ndiscuss the priorities.\nStaff Payne stated that the City has been working with AC Transit and the City supports their\nexpansion plan. She further explained that the biggest priority is the restoration of the Line 19,\nPage 1 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-11-18", "page": 2, "text": "which is in the northern waterfront area and a new development will be built in the area. She said\nlast week she went to an AC Transit hearing and summarized the need for restoration of the Line\n19.\n4.\nConsent Calendar\n4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - May 27, 2015\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated he had a change to Item 5b discussion of the Central Avenue\nComplete Streets proposal. He said that the minutes state Webster Street and Central Avenue\neastbound traffic on Central Avenue has a large amount of vehicles turning right onto Webster\nStreet. He explained that he meant to say was westbound traffic on Central Avenue has a large\nnumber of vehicles turning right onto Webster Street and he was concerned about how that\nwould be treated.\n4.B. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - July 22, 2015\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve the minutes of May 27, 2015 with the corrections\nprovided by Commissioner Schatmeier and approve the minutes of July 22, 2015. Commissioner\nSchatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n5.\nNew Business\n5.A. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans\nStaff Patel presented the quarterly report and introduced Rochelle Wheeler, Alameda Public\nWorks, to present an update on the Cross Alameda Trail.\n5.B. Recommend City Council Approval of the Central Avenue Concept Including Safety and\nOther Street Improvements\nJennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer for Alameda Point, presented the report and introduced\nStaff Payne to discuss the public outreach, staff recommendations and next steps. Jennifer Ott\nalso presented Jean Finney, Deputy District Director of Caltrans District 4, who spoke at the end\nof the presentation.\nCommissioner Vargas said having worked with Caltrans there are design manuals and guidelines\nand there are design exceptions for similar facilities that Caltrans has granted with lane widths of\n10.5 feet.\nJean Finney replied yes and the standard width for this type of roadway is 11 feet, so there will\nbe a design exception for the 10.5 feet lane widths. She also reiterated the fact that traffic\nengineers looked at the conceptual plans and gave conceptual approval for the 10.5 feet width.\nSean McPhetridge, Superintendent of Alameda Unified School District (AUSD), stated that he\nwas glad that the City and staff worked with the District. He explained that school leaders\nPage 2 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-11-18", "page": 3, "text": "support a walk and roll event every year to show and emphasize the need to be healthy and safe.\nHe also said the City of Alameda has worked hard to partner with them on numerous fronts and\nhe along with his colleagues support the plan.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that he thought staff did a good job on outreach and the\npresentation was conducted well. He said Jennifer Ott talked about safety improvements and the\ndisproportionate number of collisions the corridor is responsible for and he felt that was an\ninteresting case. He wanted to know if there will be a report on the before and after statistics as a\nresult of the project.\nStaff Payne replied she would like to report back about the impacts after construction.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that the presentation commented on the delays in traffic in the\nyear 2035 and he wondered how much of the delays and growth attribute to traffic growth that\nwould take place if the City did nothing. He wondered if that would be a similar level of delay\nand growth. He also wanted to know if staff attributes the delay growth to the project or the fact\nthat the City will get bigger and there will be more traffic in the year 2035.\nStaff Payne replied the numbers for the year 2035 do assume that all the planned development is\nwithin the estimate including no mode shift and the project is built.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied the data reflects the assumption that the project is built, but\ndoes the data also assume growth delays in the corridor if the project was not built so there\nwould be no net impact on delays.\nLaurence Lewis, Associate Planner Kittelson and Associates, said the comparison that Staff\nPayne mentioned was in addition to the growth that would happen from upcoming development.\nHe explained there was a comparison with the same level of traffic in the year 2035 meaning\nexisting conditions and with what was proposed without mode shifts.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said the benefits listed included the improvements to bus access and\nhe wanted more detail regarding this.\nStaff Payne replied the west end of the island where there is the two-way bikeway on the west\nside of the street would have bus islands on the west end of the street to accommodate the\nexisting bus stop and staff would move the island a little bit north to the far side of that\nintersection. She also mentioned that on 8th Street there would be a bus bulb-out for the\nwestbound bus stop with benches and shelters and that type of improvement along the corridor.\nCommissioner Miley stated that looking at the Encinal High School side, he was happy to see\nstaff partnering with the school. He confirmed with staff that the reconfiguration of the school's\nparking lot, which is the staff parking lot, will have no loss to parking spaces.\nStaff Payne replied there is no parking loss.\nCommissioner Miley replied since the parking lot is the staff's parking lot, where would the rest\nof the encroachment of the existing school's facilities take place.\nPage 3 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-11-18", "page": 17, "text": "Commissioner Miley said to follow up on Commissioner Schatmeier's comments about 8th Street\nand Central Avenue the intersection is tricky and he lived on 8th Street growing up. Overall, he\nfelt the project improves safety throughout the corridor, but staff could look to do more. He\nwondered if staff could look at having the bike lane encroach into the park because it is\nconcerning what driver behavior would be like at the intersection, especially making that right or\nleft turn onto 8th Street going northwest.\nStaff Payne replied staff looked at this option. She said the advantage is a more protected space,\nbut the disadvantages are conflicts with bicyclists getting into the park because there is a park\nfacility with a preschool and after care with a lot of parking activity at that intersection.\nCommissioner Bellows replied staff could move the right turn lane over further and keep the\norientation the way it is and that could provide more room for the westbound traffic to not\nmerge.\nStaff Payne replied there is also a concern when you get to the 8th Street intersection as a cyclist\nhow would you get across since you would not be orientated to go eastbound again.\nCommissioner Miley said the lineup would not be ideal.\nCommissioner Miley made a motion to accept staff recommendations with additional requests\nand move the plan to City Council for review. He requested that staff conduct additional analysis\nat the 8th Street intersection and to further review the short merge or if there is any way to extend\nthat. He also requested that staff provide the City Council with some analysis that shows what\nencroaching into the park would look like, so they have some options in front of them.\nAdditionally, he asked that when the project is eventually implemented staff would present an\nannual review to the Commission. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion.\nCommissioner Vargas made an amendment to the motion that included having the engineering\ndepartment review the concept as it evolves, so they are officially in the loop. The motion was\napproved 6-0.\n6.\nStaff Communications\n6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items\n-\nCross Alameda Trail - Atlantic Segment\n-\nMain Street Ferry Terminal Improvements\n7.\nAnnouncements/Public Comments\nNone.\n8.\nAdjournment\n10:21 pm\nPage 17 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-11-18", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Payne replied that would be the lawn space and they would be moving to the two kiosks\nfurther south out of the path of the bikeway.\nCommissioner Miley asked about the Webster and 8th Street intersection. He explained the\nintersection is where the highest pedestrian incidents were observed. He wondered if there were\nany treatments or improvements made within the 10 years.\nStaff Payne replied there were four pedestrian injuries at Webster Street and Central Avenue over\nthe past 10 years and since that time staff has improved that intersection. She said staff created a\nnew marked crosswalk on the east side and they felt that would improve the intersection moving\nforward. She went on to say that half of the injuries occurred before the intersection\nimprovement and half occurred afterwards, but she felt that did not occur on the eastern side.\nCommissioner Miley inquired about Washington Park from Page Street to 8th Street, where the\nbike lane would discontinue. He wondered if staff looked at going into the park to accommodate\na lane there.\nStaff Payne replied staff reviewed the option and decided not to pursue that because park space is\nvery limited and they weighed that as a higher concern.\nCommissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comments.\nKyle Long, Alameda west end student and east end resident, said he took a bicycle safety class\nand obeys all traffic laws. He said he feels unsafe when bicycling and feels safer when there is a\ndedicated bike lane.\nJay Katter, Alameda Community Learning Center (ACLC) student, said his friend who also\nbicycles was hit by a car when riding to school. He felt having bike lanes on Encinal Avenue\nwould be very nice.\nJay Lucy stated that he does not support the project. He felt the elimination of the parking spots\nand road access at the intersection of Central Avenue and Webster Street will be a business\nnegative and poor use of City funds. He asked for a loading and unloading study to be conducted\nand he said West Alameda Business Association (WABA) does not support this project. He\npointed out that at the public meeting when the new cross walks were installed at the intersection\nof Central Avenue and Webster Street staff stated that over 20,000 vehicles were crossing daily\nand now the numbers have mysteriously dropped due to a different agenda even with the growth\npattern being 2.9 percent from 2009. He said with population density growing, limiting a major\narterial makes no sense when a back path exists on Santa Clara Avenue. He requested that an\nEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR) be considered on such a significant proposal. He also\nrequested that a Shore Line Drive usage survey be considered to see how the people living along\nShore Line Drive feel about the change. Having been to every meeting on this topic, he felt\ndisappointed by the changes that were made since the last meeting. He heard that the schools are\ndrawing from outside the area like the city of Oakland. He asked that the bulb-outs not be used\nbecause they are a hazard and are not maintained.\nPage 4 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-11-18", "page": 5, "text": "Kathy Neilson, Central Avenue resident and parent to an Encinal High School student, said she\nwas surprised by the low collision incidents reported at the corner of Encinal Avenue and St.\nCharles Street because she felt there are more collisions that took place than was actually\nreported. She was happy to hear about the inclusion of curb extensions and crosswalks because\nthey will be effective. She felt that the loss of one parking spot in front of her home makes up for\nincreasing community safety. She was also happy to see the Sycamore trees would stay and\nbeautify the street. She wondered if the plan includes redirecting activity to go from Santa Clara\nto Central Avenue. She also wondered if the school district considered changing the school\nhours. She thought potentially staggering school start hours would reduce the traffic.\nColin Wainmain, Academy of Alameda student, said he rides his bike to school 3.5 miles each\nway. He said he likes to ride in the bike lanes because they do not honk at him and the bike lanes\nallow him to focus on riding safely and follow the laws. He explained that after school, he often\nrides down to Webster Street to get a snack and then rides over to soccer practice at Alameda\nPoint. He said he would ride along Shore Line Drive after soccer practice, but his coach would\nnot let him ride in the dark because it is too dangerous.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident, stated that plans have changed from initial presentation from\nworkshop to workshop to tonight. He said what was shown tonight was new material not\npreviously shown to the public so #1, 2, 3 and 4 became 1, 2a, 2b and 3 from sections A-K. He\nfelt there should be more meetings on the project now that there are new revisions and the\ncommunity should review and have the opportunity to present questions and receive answers. He\nasked staff how many citizens along sections A-F have stated that they want a cycle track in\nfront of their house or business, especially since it will be more difficult for them to enter and\nexit their home or business. He also said, the parking widths on sections F, G, H, I, and K are 7\nfeet wide, not 8 feet wide and he wondered if staff would move the disabled off the street. He\nnoted that Section J, slide 48 on the presentation packet is something the community has not seen\nbefore and public input was not received. He believed that was a bait and switch. He asked the\nCommission about Commissioner Schatmeier's ideas and why they were not included in the plan\nother than 8th Street. He said he bikes along 19th Avenue near Stern Grove in San Francisco and\nSan Francisco would never suggest taking away one traffic lane because that would make it\ndifficult for vehicles and emergency access vehicles to maneuver. Overall, he said some portions\nof the plan he agreed with, but he did not approve this vastly changed project.\nTodd Waimain, Central Avenue resident on the east end, said he and his children bicycle to the\nwest side of the island. He felt the City needs to have a safe way to get across the island and his\nchildren have told him about unsafe drivers and how they are following the rules of the road. He\nwent on to say that he lives on a portion of Central Avenue that contains sharrows and the drivers\ndo not understand exactly what they are. He asked that staff construct dedicated bike lanes\nbecause most drivers understand what that is and it is safer for cyclists. He explained that he\nwould cycle more frequently to the west end to Alameda Point for soccer games and Spirits\nAlley if there were safer options to do SO. He noted that when coming out of Crab Cove cyclists\nare spit out on a sidewalk and there is signage saying \"Do not bike on the sidewalk.\" He also\npointed out that the plan has no loss of parking, so he does not understand why this plan cannot\nbe approved as it stands because the presentation was quite thorough.\nPage 5 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-11-18", "page": 6, "text": "Susan Sperry, Alameda resident, asked the Commission to reconsider the plan and carefully look\nat the issues of the street. She came before the Commission because she was devastated to see\nwhat happened to Shore Line Drive. She carefully gathered newspaper editorials about Shore\nLine Drive and she is a property owner on Shore Line Drive as well. She said in the past she was\nable to see the ocean from her window and now there is parking lot.\nBruce Kibbe, Santa Clara Avenue resident, felt the plan is excellent and to go ahead with it\nbecause this plan is looking towards the future. He said every bicycle equals one less car and one\nless parking space that needs to be provided by merchants.\nCommissioner Miley said it was great to see so many young kids out tonight to speak and attend\nthe meeting and he said they were brave to bike to school.\nCommissioner Bellows replied it was great to see the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD)\nproduce such articulate children.\nMatt Winn, Central Avenue resident, said one of his kids attends Franklin Elementary School and\nhe does not see the school on the study. He went on to say that there is a whole subset of parents\nwho live on the north side and have kids who attend Franklin Elementary School. He stated that\nthere are four traffic lanes and when crossing the intersection you have to wait 30 seconds or so\nuntil one of the lanes notice and stop. However, by that time motorists start getting impatient\nbecause there are three other lanes that need to stop and you must wait for all four lanes to stop\nin order to go. He explained that he uses Central Avenue to get across the City as a motorist and\nhe would gladly give up a lane to see this plan go through, so he recommended the plan.\nScott Mace, Central Avenue resident between Webster Street and 8th Street, said he bicycles a lot\nthroughout the island. He felt bikes belong on the street because they are traffic too and motorists\nneed to respect that and most motorists do. He explained that some of the proposed bike lanes are\ntoo narrow on Santa Clara Avenue because there is a 7 foot parking lane and a 6 foot bike lane\nand this gives cyclists a foot or more to avoid the door zone. He pointed out that on Central\nAvenue staff proposed a 7 foot parking lane and a 5 foot bike lane and that is a legal engineering\nminimum. However, the bike lane is a door zone bike lane. He requested that staff either widen\nthe bike lane or revert to sharrows. He noted that some statistics are lacking in this presentation\nsuch as staff say conflicts occur at intersections, but separated facilities do not make it safer. He\nstated that they do not know what the cyclists were doing when they were injured. He felt road\ndiets are good for pedestrians, but signage must state that cyclists are not mandatory, and then\nperhaps sharrows could be painted next to the separated bike lanes. He wanted to see new\nresources devoted to pedestrian, cyclist and driver education. Ultimately, he was not in favor of\nthe plan as currently proposed because of door zone issue.\nGerald Bryan, Alameda resident, stated that the concerns are at the intersection of 6th Street and\nCentral Avenue because it is a choke point across the entire island. He said if you have an\naccident at the intersection, you will stop traffic going in each direction and that was proven last\nweek at the busiest time of the day. He felt if you cut off that line 6th Street does not go around\nthe corner except for Palace Court and that does not go anywhere. He said realistically staff\nshould look at the area a little differently such as reviewing the crosswalks on the corner and the\nlack of proper driving and poor riding on the part of cyclists. He recommended erecting\nPage 6 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-11-18", "page": 7, "text": "stoplights especially by the school to regulate traffic. He said currently, there are two poles with\nbright orange flags and that is the only way to get across the street safely. He exclaimed that\nsafety is the most important thing.\nCommissioner Bellows asked that the speakers with children line up so she can pull their speaker\nslips in light of the current time.\nCosma Hatragi, Maya Lin School student, said he bikes to school every day. He said he\nsometimes ride his bike after school to Franklin Park Pool to his sister's swim lessons. He\nexplained during his ride there are many fast moving cars and he rides on the sidewalk, which is\nnot safe for pedestrians. He thinks there should be bike lanes on Central Avenue.\nDeena Hatragin, mother, cyclist and Alameda resident, said she moved to Alameda because it is\na bike able town and she uses her bicycle for everyday transportation. She felt very strongly to\nhave her children ride bicycles as well and she hopes that more people will get out of their cars\nand onto bicycles. She heard over and over again that the City needs to make the island safe\nenough for everyone to ride, SO she approved the plan.\nMarissa Wood, Alameda Community Learning Center student, said she regularly shops at the\nfarmer's market and Webster Street businesses. She explained when coming from the west end\nand approaching onto Webster Street she attempts to bike onto Santa Clara Avenue, but the part\nof Santa Clara Avenue west of Webster Street has many stop signs and the road is hard to share\nwith cars. So, she stated that when she does not bike down Santa Clara Avenue, she will bike\ndown Central Avenue which is very dangerous. She felt the project would help all members of\nthe community because there will be parking spaces for motorists and the plan will reduce speed\nlimits benefitting pedestrians.\nJerry Cevente, 5th Street resident, thanked the Commission and staff for embarking on the study.\nHe said he and his wife have been to all of the public workshops and he has lived on 5th Street\nfor 25 years. He went on to say that he drives, walks, and bicycles on Central Avenue and it is\nharder to walk across and along Central Avenue. He said he likes seeing the amount of cyclists\nincreasing, but on Central Avenue the cyclists end up on the sidewalk. He noticed the vehicle\nspeeds along Central Avenue are a lot faster than the speed limit sign. He believed the bulb-outs\nand the flashing beacons at the crosswalks will create an advantage for pedestrians and make\ntraffic flow better. He noted that the traffic signal installed at 3rd street is good, but that will\nbend the end of Taylor Avenue and eliminate the right turn lane with the ability to turn right onto\n3rd Street. He explained that the report stated that a traffic signal on 5th Street may be erected\nand he felt it would be advantageous to have the signal sooner than later and possibly not run it\nas a true traffic signal all day, but during peak hours and then have it as a flashing red the rest of\nthe day. He brought up the fact that Webster Street and the way that you see the traffic signals\nwork on Central Avenue one light is available and then there is a turn coming up Webster Street\ngoing south has its own signal and coming up Webster north it has its own signal. Thus, each\ndirection should have its own signal. He requested that the City work with the merchants on the\nnorthwest corner of Webster Street and Central Avenue about the impact to deliveries in the\nmorning. Overall, he felt the plan is a real benefit because of the bicycle lane and narrow streets\nto have complete streets.\nPage 7 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-11-18", "page": 8, "text": "impacts on traffic going into the tube even with the development of the adjacent housing project.\nHe wondered how the planners figured there would not be a problem going into the tube. He\nrecommended that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be conducted in order to look at the\nnumber of items that have not been pushed here. He also said that a study of the changes to\nShore Line Drive has not been published.\nJerry Harrison, Alameda resident, stated that he supports the proposal. He also explained that he\nhas cycled from coast to coast and the one place that makes him uncomfortable is riding on\nCentral Avenue between Sherman and Webster Streets.\nDiane Brock, west end resident, said she is concerned about recommending the plan without the\nresearch data. She explained that staff at the last public workshop said the Planning Department\nwould conduct a traffic study on what is happening at Southshore. She asked that the study be\ndone before moving forward with this plan because the public does not need vague statistics. She\nalso felt a project of this size should have an EIS and she needed data before any\nrecommendation should be considered.\nDave Maxi, Bay Street resident, said he is not against cyclists, but he is wary of the narrow\ntraffic lanes and the behavior of cyclists. He went on to say that cyclists would arrive at the\nChestnut Street and Central Avenue stop sign and not stop. The cyclists would then go off to the\nsidewalk or crosswalk and then back onto the bicycle lane. He questioned whether the narrow\nlanes would create congestion for truck, delivery and vehicular traffic because many delivery\ntrucks double park. He also stated that it is illegal to enter the center lane to pass cars and the\nextra street trees will take up the car space and create more maintenance issues.\nDan Wood, Alameda resident, said he is in favor of the project and he heard a lot of people who\nare in support of the project. He also heard the community speak about issues which are relevant\nas well. However, he felt that the City should start with what they have proposed and they can\ntweak it to make it even better.\nGriff Neal, Alameda resident, stated that 450 homeowners who live on the south side of Central\nAvenue between Burbank and Sherman Streets are fiercely opposed to the plan. He said he does\nnot drive much, but he has to leave the island for work and family obligations. He went on to say\nthat during rush hour it will be difficult to get onto Central Avenue and the plan does not\nconsider the south side residents. He brought up the fact that there is little support from people\nattending Franklin Elementary and Saint Joseph Elementary Schools; many of whom ride their\nbicycles on San Antonio Avenue and go over to Grand Street.\nKlose Slidernagers, Shore Line Drive resident, stated that tonight's meeting addressed similar\nissues made during the Shore Line Drive proposal. He stated that the Shore Line Drive project\nwas a godsend for people bicycling or walking to the beach. He explained that before the project\nwas implemented pedestrians had to cross four traffic lanes and now speeds are much lower and\ncars are not overtaking an already stopped car. He said the outcome of the project created a huge\nimpact on bicycle and pedestrian safety. However, he was surprised by the number of cyclists\nPage 8 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-11-18", "page": 9, "text": "riding on Fernside Boulevard after including the cycle track there and he felt Central Avenue\nwill have the same outcome.\nBernie Matthews, west end resident, gave a shout out to Jennifer Ott because she's a true\nprofessional. However, he felt there are many similar issues to Shore Line Drive where parts of\nthe community, especially renters, feel the plan is ugly and inefficient. He felt Appazatto Way is\na freight train coming down the track and the project is like my way or the highway. He said he\nhas been a resident of the west end for 18 years and cycles often. He encouraged the Commission\nand staff to take a look at the traffic on Central Avenue because he does not trust the data. He\nalso pointed out that the bike group must have partnered with this project, which felt like a\nconflict of interest.\nKelly Jackson, Central Avenue and 8th Street resident, stated that she generally supports the\nproject, but she has a problem with the plan along the Central Avenue and 8th Street segment.\nLast year, she wrote the City about the intersection and she was surprised with the relatively low\nnumber of reported accidents. She felt it was a step backward for this intersection and people\nwill speed to jockey past each other to get ahead because there is a quick merge ahead of the\nintersection. She also felt this is an effort to compromise, but this is putting everyone at risk\nincluding residents and visitors.\nJulie Connor, Bay Street resident, said she understood the variety of interests and circumstances\nthat come into play. Were it not for the road diet proposed at 4th and Sherman Streets, she would\nbe in support and she felt the Commission should have more information about this intersection.\nShe referred to slide 7 of the presentation and noted there were three injuries on Sherman Street\nwithin a 10 year span and one accident within the 10 year span. She said only Lincoln and\nCentral are thoroughfares and to cross Central Avenue is already difficult. She brought up the\nsurvey data and noted that 25 percent of 4th and Sherman residents were not in favor. Also, she\nstated that the streets along San Antonio Avenue and Sherman Street will have unintended\nconsequences of extra traffic.\nBonnie Waimain, bike safety instructor, thanked staff for their work and explained that the\nbenefits of bike riding connects to better health and reduces the need for parking spaces. She\nexplained that more people would bike if they felt safe. She said the separated bike lane creates\nvisibility and predictability for cyclists and motorists. Overall, she supported the plan.\nScott Milston, Bay and San Antonio resident, said he is pro bike, pedestrian and kids on bikes,\nbut he opposed the plan because he needs good data. When he read the literature he was\ndisheartened by what he saw was one minute increases to traffic time and that memo did not\nsupport the statistic at all. He also explained that the memo readily admitted that no study was\ndone on the spillover affects to the side streets. He pointed out that the majority of tonight's\nmeeting was very pro and at the November meeting there were plenty of dissenters in the crowd.\nHe felt it was the responsibility of the Commission and staff to think of the macro effects of the\npro-growth initiative occurring within the island. Yet, the City is restricting one of the main\narteries on the island.\nRein Clostenter, Bay Street and Central resident, said he rides his bicycle to work daily to go to\nwork and supports the road diet. He explained that his mother-in-law lives on Shore Line Drive\nPage 9 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-11-18", "page": 10, "text": "and he can now ride his bicycle with his family. He stated that his children will start Franklin\nElementary and crossing Central Avenue is a barrier to get to the school. He also explained that\nhe would patronize the businesses on Webster Street more, but he does not want to take the car.\nOverall, he supported the plan.\nKaren Ratto, Caroline Street near Central Avenue resident, said she rides her bike around and\nfelt the grant money could cover the EIS. She also feared that San Antonio Avenue will take on\nmore traffic and she didn't hear much about the viability of using Santa Clara Avenue as a\nbicycle route.\nDave Kimball, Advocacy Director for Bike East Bay, said safety is a huge reason to support this\nproject and the community receives a net gain of parking which is a first. He explained if the\nCity received an endorsement from Caltrans then that says something, so they need more\npartnerships like that including working with the schools. He said his organization conducted\nshopper intercept surveys to see how modes of travel relate to consumer spending when\nconsumers walk, bike or take public transit. There were two studies conducted locally in\ndowntown Berkeley and Oakland's Temescal neighborhood in order to have local shopper data\nwhich support projects like this.\nJeffrey Berneford stated that two lanes in both directions offer a lot of flexibility for garbage and\ndelivery trucks to move around vehicles. He felt once the project is in place, a 1.6 minute delay\nwill produce a domino effect because there are three 20-second traffic signal cycles. He\nsuspected that the plan will be very unusable and he did not support the plan.\nBenty Peterson, Burbank Street resident, said she has two children and she enjoys living in\nAlameda because they can bicycle. Therefore, she supported the plan, but she had concerns with\nthe gap.\nCarol Gottstein, disabled Alameda resident, said she was struck by staff's lack of outreach\ntowards the disabled community. She explained that the disabled rely heavily on vehicles and\nshe had concerns about the 7 foot wide parking strips. She wondered what the City would do if a\ndisabled resident requests a blue curb in front of their residence. She explained the City would\nhave to construct a bulb-out of their parking space into the bicycle lane because that is what the\nresident is legally entitled to have. She also agreed with the other speakers who said the data and\nreference to the data were vague.\nMichele Elson, Bike Walk Alameda Board Member and south side of Central Avenue resident,\nsaid she is the parent of Franklin Elementary and Academy of Alameda students. She said she\nsupports the plan and felt staff did the work to show the plan is needed. She felt the plan should\nbe focused on safety because where Central Avenue comes into Sherman Street she observed\nmotorists flying through the traffic signal as soon as the light turns green. She stated if motorists\ncould slow down and drive the speed limit that may be easier to get off Bay Street or St. Charles\nand get on to Central Avenue or Sherman Street. Also, the plan will help young and older\npedestrians cross the street easier. Additionally, she said having dedicated bike lanes will provide\na continuous route on an arterial that is best equipped to handle it. Overall, she supported the\nplan.\nPage 10 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-11-18", "page": 11, "text": "Lisa Foster stated that she does not live far from tonight's meeting location and she bikes with\nher 1 and 5 year olds frequently. She said she regularly goes west towards Washington Park, the\nlibrary and other establishments. However, when she hits Sherman Street they have to go over to\nSanta Clara Avenue, a busy street with buses, so she would love to stay on Central Avenue. She\nalso said when going past Webster Street and staying on Central Avenue she is okay with that,\nbut the cars that are stuck behind her are probably not okay because they have to negotiate\naround her. Overall, she felt the proposal is a step in the right direction.\nJohn Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated that he\nrides his bicycle, drives, walks and takes public transit. He explained that he lived on San\nAntonio and Encinal Avenues so he understood the different perspectives. He said Monday\nthrough Friday from 6-7 am and 6:53 pm he has been stuck in the tube going to the Capital\nCorridor Station in Oakland. He said the intersection of 8th Street and Central Avenue is the\nchokepoint, but if they can save 16 people from being killed or injured over the next few years,\nthen 96 seconds is not a big price to pay. He was disheartened to hear former chief of police\nBernie Matthews say that traffic was more important to him because he was sure his heart bled\nevery time someone was in a collision or victim of a crime. He felt there are too many\npreventable collisions and injuries and he supported the project. Yet, if the plan had to be revised\nand there are no bikes lanes created the safest thing is to take the curb side lane, which is the\nsame thing as having a bike lane.\nLucy Gigli, Director of Advocacy for Bike Walk Alameda, stated that Central Avenue is not\nAlameda's main highway it is a neighborhood because the corridor contains housing, schools,\nparks and businesses. She said currently it is a four lane roadway with an average of seven\ncollisions per year. Staff has done an incredible job composing a detailed packet addressing the\ndiverse community and their needs. She felt it was an iterative process with many people\ninvolved. She pointed out that the result and package seen before the Commission does not\nmatch Shore Line Drive, but instead matches Atlantic Avenue, Broadway and Fernside\nBoulevard. As the report showed, the middle turn lane will make it easier for people to turn onto\nCentral Avenue from San Antonio Avenue and Bay Street. She explained that the Commission\nreceived over 200 letters and postcards of support and 72 people came that night from Franklin\nElementary and other schools, so let's support this project.\nJohn Knox White stated that a previous resident spoke about how the flags were put up on the\ncorner of Central Avenue and if that intersection is broken and not working than there it is. He\nexclaimed the question that should be asked is how many people are acceptable to hit on this\nstreet because if the answer is greater than 0 feel free to shoot it down. He said the City must\ncreate a safe environment and this is a best compromise plan. He went on to say that the City has\na 20-year experiment happening, which is Broadway. The corridor carries more vehicular traffic\nand has neighborhood streets that cross into it including driveways that enter on to the street. He\nsaid they don't have to wait for Shore Line Drive to be evaluated when they know there have not\nbeen major accidents or backups. He brought up the fact that this will be the first bike lanes west\nof Webster Street and if that is not a call for equity on the west end then that is it. He asked the\nCommission to please move forward with the project.\nBrian McGuire stated that there was a well-publicized article within the last couple of weeks\nabout two kids walking in the San Francisco Marina District with an almost identical road setup\nPage 11 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-11-18", "page": 12, "text": "(four lanes of traffic and uncontrolled crosswalks) as the area around Maya Lin School. He said\nkids think it is safe to go and someone driving 35 mph can take them out. He felt two lanes with\na center turn lane is a big difference than a two lane road. He explained that he use to live south\nof Central Avenue and motorists only have to go across one lane to get into the center lane and\nmerge. He went on to say if Caltrans approved a project it is not a takeover of the bicycle groups.\nUltimately, he supported the project.\nKaren Bay, 5th Street and Taylor Avenue resident, said she is a 15-year ferry rider. She explained\nthat she attended a transportation meeting on November 16 and was told that the ferry\nexperienced a 30 percent increase in the last two years and she has seen it. She has also seen a lot\nof people riding their bikes to the ferry and a lot of children riding their bikes to school. She said\nthe problem with Santa Clara Avenue is that it is not safe infrastructure for cyclists. So, she\napproved the project because it is important for students and commuters going to the ferry and\nfor Alameda Point as whole.\nPeter Baron stated that he organized the first bicycle symposium in Cambridge Massachusetts in\nthe 1970s and he spent his career doing waterfront redevelopment and restoration. He said he has\nnever seen a town with more bikeway and pedestrian potential unrealized than Alameda. He felt\nthe potential for the Alameda Point circumference trail is extraordinary and people will be\ncoming across the island and around the state to go there.\nLee Huo, Bay Trail Project Planner, said he supports completing the trail along Central Avenue.\nHe explained that the idea of the trail is to get along the shoreline on a Class I separated trail as\noften as possible. He pointed out that you do see alignments such as Central Avenue where the\nproject essentially completes the trail between Pacific Avenue and Crown Drive. He thanked\nCity staff and the consultants who worked diligently with the concept. Furthermore, he said the\ntrail is a regional recreation trail and significant commute alignment adopted in the Metropolitan\nTransportation Commission (MTC) regional bicycle plan and Alameda County Transportation\nCommission (ACTC) bicycle and pedestrian plan.\nJohn McKeenan stated that the Commission studiously paid attention to all the speakers and he\ndoes not see that often. He said Indianapolis, Indiana known for motor cars and racing has put\ntogether a tremendous complete street program in the last five years and has gone from\ncompletely no infrastructure to trend setting infrastructure. He cited cities such as Copenhagen in\nDenmark having 55 percent of its commuters bicycling and the rest commuting by public transit\nor private vehicles. He felt bicycling and public transit is the way the community can survive on\nthis planet. He ultimately supported the project.\nCommissioner Miley stated that he would like staff to respond to a few statements made by the\nspeakers. He explained that the last speaker hit the nail on the head about the fact that\nmultimodal communities are the future. He said he heard the concerns about loading zones\nwithin the business district and the loss of travel lanes on Central Avenue. He understood that\npeople may double park on Webster Street more often when loading, SO he asked staff to address\nand explain the plan moving forward.\nStaff Payne replied the area of concern is along Webster and Page Streets and the northwest\ncorner, which was mentioned. She referred to page 4, cross-section I, which is right next to the\nPage 12 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-11-18", "page": 13, "text": "establishment that needs the loading zone or has a lot of loading. She explained that the merchant\nis not interested in having a loading zone because that would restrict parking. So, she said double\nparking occurs and that can still happen with this cross-section. She went on to say that\nloading/unloading would occur in the bike lane in the painted buffer and motorists could go\naround. She understood that this configuration is not ideal, but it happens all the time and staff\nfelt having the bike lane blocked every now and then to load and unload was the tradeoff for\nhaving a bike lane. She also mentioned that this is a corner establishment so they could still have\nloading and unloading occur southbound on Webster Street.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff if the bulb-outs at the corner of Webster Street and Central\nAvenue will impact delivery vehicles from being able to turn whether they are going north or\nsouth on Central Avenue from Webster Street.\nStaff Payne replied staff does not believe SO and the plan was designed to accommodate trucks.\nCommissioner Miley recommended that staff work with the business district in order for the\nstreetscape to be designed appropriately for that intersection.\nStaff Payne replied staff can do that, but they are not at that level of design. Additionally, from\nwhat she has heard the area was designed a little tight so it is hard to get in and out when trying\nto park on Webster Street.\nCommissioner Miley said people shop online a lot and as a result FedEx and UPS double park\nand take the travel lane. He asked Alameda Police Department if a car double parked is in the\ntravel lane is it against the law to go around using the center lane.\nCommissioner Bellows repeated the police officer's answer and said a vehicle cannot drive into\nthe center lane just to pass a double parked vehicle, the vehicle must wait.\nCommissioner Miley asked Staff Payne what is the cost of conducting an EIR for the project. He\nalso explained that this plan is talking about paint and curb extensions. So, he wondered if an\nEIR was required and has an EIR been done for other projects similar to this plan.\nFarima Brown, Alameda Attorney's office, stated that there will not be an EIR for this project\nbecause after a lot of due diligence by staff including City Planner Andrew Thomas and herself\nthe plan is the poster child for a CEQA exempt bicycle project. She explained there are several\ngrounds for its exemption outlined in the staff report, but the strongest one is public resources\ncode 21080.20.5, which was specifically designed for this type of project in urbanized areas. She\nwent on to say the plan is statutorily exempt, which is a contrast to projects that are categorically\nexempt. Furthermore, the project is also exempt from a variety of categorical exemptions, which\nare outlined in page 15 of the staff report under Environmental Review, 15301C and section\n15304H.\nCommissioner Miley stated that other speakers compared Central Avenue to other roads such as\nShore Line Drive and Broadway. However, he felt this project is similar to Fernside Boulevard\nand Broadway, which he drives on every day. He asked staff to talk about the door zone within\nthe bicycle lanes and how they reviewed that and came up with the width.\nPage 13 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-11-18", "page": 14, "text": "Staff Payne replied they are under constrained situations and curb to curb it is 56 feet in width for\nmost of the corridor. She explained that was the best they could do and this is not a best practice\nbike way due to the door zone. Therefore, staff will have to implement public education around\nthis issue. Additionally, she felt having a separate bike space is much better than what is\navailable today.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff about the 7 foot parking spaces and the Americans with\nDisabilities Act (ADA) concern raised by Carol Gottstein. He said when he viewed the map he\nsaw some blocks with 7 foot and 8 foot spaces and he understood that some portions along\nCentral Avenue are constrained. He wondered if there will be ADA parking spaces added to the\nplan.\nStaff Payne replied there would be six ADA parking spaces added and staff has looked at the\ncorridor and they believe six would be most appropriate. The parking spaces would be located\nwest to east in front of Encinal High School, Patton Elementary, two parking spaces near the\nWebster Business District, one parking space by Washington Park and one by the Weber\nCommercial District.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff how many ADA parking spaces are currently present within the\ncorridor.\nStaff Payne replied none.\nCommissioner Miley replied so this is an addition and they would be 8 feet.\nStaff Payne replied when the area is 7 feet they would encroach into the landscape strip.\nCommissioner Miley replied so staff would not encroach into the bike lane or into traffic it would\nbe into the landscaping.\nStaff Payne said she met with WABA and they liked the two ADA parking spaces at the foot of\nWebster Street on the east and west sides. She explained that would be accommodated without\nany change and staff has not produced an exact placement, but that is the direction and their\nhighest priority is to place the spaces at the foot of Webster Street.\nCommissioner Bellows made a motion to continue the meeting since the time was now 10 pm.\nCommissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked staff if the disabled parking space issue was done in\nconsultation with disabled advocacy groups.\nStaff Payne replied no.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that the comments raised by Jean Finney (Deputy District Director\nof Caltrans District 4) as part of her comments explained the need for additional traffic analysis\nthat was also brought up by a few community members. He asked staff if it is possible to find out\nPage 14 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-11-18", "page": 15, "text": "what studies are needed and he wanted to hear from Staff Patel about his perspective on some of\nthe technical issues that are involved.\nJennifer Ott replied that they hired Kittelson and Associates who performed the traffic analysis.\nSo, Staff Patel could talk about what Caltrans might inquire about, but she would like Kittelson\nand Associates to talk about what analysis was performed.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that Caltrans was looking for additional traffic studies in order to\ngrant the City design exceptions. He explained they only cover the part between Webster and\nSherman Streets, which is a state route, and the rest does not need approval but falls on the City.\nHowever, for continuity sake he asked staff to talk about the studies Caltrans is inquiring about\nand the studies that have been done so far, including what are the challenges this project has\nfrom an engineer's perspective.\nStaff Patel replied since this project is only a study they have not done detailed traffic operation\nanalysis. However, from Caltrans' or the City's standpoint staff is conducting analysis on each\nand every traffic signal along the route and the proposed signals along the route. Yet, that level\nof detail Kittelson and Associates may have done as an overview. He explained that design\nexceptions usually go to the headquarters, which is why staff ended up having this route under\nthe City because they were asking for a standard shoulder width and the City did not have the\nstandard width.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff if the traffic and operational analysis include a review of shifts\nin vehicle traffic or only show the Central Avenue traffic or also movements to other streets.\nStaff Patel replied that staff would look into the shifts in vehicle traffic.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff when the plan would go over to engineering for detail design.\nStaff Patel replied staff reviewed the conceptual plan and made comments, but the plan is turned\nover to engineering for detail design when the final plan is approved by the Transportation\nCommission and City Council.\nCommissioner Bellows said what was happening tonight was reviewing and making a motion for\nthe conceptual plan and that was all that was funded. She said until additional funding is\nidentified they are not going forward with the design.\nJennifer Ott stated that staff has reviewed the conceptual plan with City and Coastal engineers,\nStantec Engineering, Staff Patel, Kittelson and Associates and Caltrans engineers. She also said\nthere will be additional analysis and engineering when they get into the design phase.\nLaurence Lewis, Kittelson and Associates, stated that an overview of the analysis looked at seven\nkey intersections on Central Avenue and one limitation that would be addressed is looking at the\nminor intersections as well. He said they looked at locations that have traffic signals with the\nhighest traffic volumes going west to east and during the design phase all the side streets would\nbe analyzed. Additionally, they looked at AM and PM peak hours to understand the existing\ntraffic volumes level of service and existing conditions to understand the impact. Overall, they\nPage 15 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-11-18", "page": 16, "text": "discovered there was a 1.2 minute increase in travel time going 25 mph from one end of the\ncorridor to the other stopping at all the traffic signals and experiencing delays there. He pointed\nout that the limitations did not account for people shifting to cycling or walking or account for\npeople diverting to other routes. He heard several comments about the 8th and Webster Street\nintersection and some of the compromises made for the bike lanes were for vehicular operations\nand level of service. When he met with the Commission earlier in the year there was a level of\nservice identified at the location. He said they reviewed the intersection in consultation with the\ncommunity and the City and revised the concept so the intersection could operate at the level of\nservice.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that several intersections were called out as needing attention.\nHe wondered how staff analyzed those intersections, specifically whether traffic signals or new\ntreatments were necessary. He said one speaker stated there should be a light at 6th Street and\nCentral Avenue another speaker stated a traffic signal is needed at 5th Street and yet another", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-11-12", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT\nNovember 12, 2008\nChair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.\nMembers Present:\nJohn Knox White\nMichael Krueger\nJane Lee\nKathy Moehring\nMembers Absent:\nRobert McFarland\nEric Schatmeier\nSrikant Subramaniam\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\nLt. David Boersma, Alameda Police Department\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nOctober 22, 2008\nThese minutes will be considered at the December 10, 2009, meeting.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nThere were none.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Knox White wished to discuss the traffic light at Park and Blanding at 8 a.m. on\nFriday morning. He noted that it was red in all directions for three to five seconds, and\nchanged from green on Park to green on Blanding. He added that at the light at Santa\nClara and High the City had previously had added one second to the red, but that it was\nnot there now.\nChair Knox White inquired about the establishment of a transit plan subcommittee. Staff\nKhan replied that staff was concerned about the resources needed to implement that\nrequest, and suggested revisiting the request in December.\nChair Knox White requested that on future agendas, items brought for content be\nagendized for action as well. Staff Khan noted that staff would look into that request.\nChair Knox White noted that the question was raised at the Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority (ARRA) meeting whether comments represented consensus or\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-11-12.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-11-12", "page": 2, "text": "the opinions of individuals.\na.\nPedestrian Plan Task Force\nThere was no report.\nb.\nBicycle Plan Update Group\nThere was no report.\nc.\nAlameda Point Advisory Task Force\nThere was no report.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS\nThere were none.\n6.\nOLD BUSINESS\na.\nMonitoring of Oak Street and Central Avenue Intersection\nStaff Khan summarized the extensive staff report and detailed the background and scope\nof this item. He described the monitoring plan, and added that Public Works and\nAlameda Police Department (APD) coordinated the work with the community groups,\naddressing their concerns. In response to a request by APD, City Council approved the\nchange to the Municipal Code on June 17, 2008 regarding the use of the garage by\nskaters and skateboarders.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Moehring about additional bike racks in the\narea, Staff Bergman replied that there was not a current proposal for anything on the north\nside of Central near the theater. Staff Khan added that staff would continue to examine\nthat issue, and that racks would be installed in Lot C.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that page 4 stated that there was a pedestrian crossing time\nof 4 to 7 seconds, and inquired why there was a maximum walk time. As a pedestrian, he\nexpected that the flashing hand time should be equal to the crossing distance divided by\nthe average walking speed, and that the green signal should last through the crossing\ntime. He would like to see the crossing time maximized.\nStaff Khan replied that based upon the studies, 7 seconds at a signalized intersection was\nthe maximum to coordinate with the cycle.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether it would be possible to have a white hand and\ncountdown that changed to an orange flashing countdown as the crossing time ran out.\nStaff Khan stated that a $50 parking permit was being considered for Monday through\nFriday parking. Staff would consider the PSBA request to increase the parking time from\nfour to eight hours.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether the truck that hit the\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-11-12.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-11-12", "page": 3, "text": "marquee would affect the bulbout design, Staff Khan replied it would, but that the bulbout\ncould not be extended to the alley because of the need for the commercial loading zone.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether peak commute hour traffic was\nmeasured, as opposed to peak use of the theater, Staff Khan replied that commute traffic\nwas higher than traffic associated with the theater.\nChair Knox White stated that the intersection of Oak and Central was identified as a\nproblem in the negative declaration for the theater project. Staff Khan responded that\nchanges were made to the signal timing at that location in conjunction with the opening\nof the theater to address those concerns.\nChair Knox White requested that the staff report be clarified, as it appears to state that\nright turns from Central onto Oak were excluded from the analysis.\nChair Knox White expressed concern about the bike and pedestrian right-of-way\nviolations, and noted they were not mentioned in the report. He noted that he witnessed\nthe violations frequently, and that many people double-parked in the bike lane.\nLt. Boersma noted that double-parking data was collected by the Finance Department,\nand that the data could not be obtained.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox-White whether the tree that was removed would\nbe installed on the bulbout, Staff Khan replied that staff would look into that, and added\nthat it may also be installed in Lot C.\nOpen public hearing.\nLucy Gigli noted that she was disappointed when she saw the flier that the City\ndistributed regarding bicyclist and pedestrian safety. She noted that when this item went\nto the City Council, the Transportation Commission wrote a letter regarding its concerns\nwith the right turn lane, and she was disappointed that she did not see any analysis of how\nit all worked. She noted that with respect to the bulbouts, which she generally favored,\nshe did not completely understand the argument for having them, as the number of\njaywalkers did not appear to be very high. She asked if any reports were available\nregarding use of the parking structure. She noted that if bike parking were installed in Lot\nC, the bulbout would help bring it closer and link it to the theater.\nStaff Khan replied that the parking structure was underutilized at this time, and staff was\nexploring the possibility of reducing the parking requirements for area businesses.\nMs. Gigli inquired whether the study would look at removing on-street parking to reclaim\nthe space instead of increasing prices. Staff Khan replied that this would not be feasible as\nthere was free parking in the residential neighborhoods.\nClose public comment.\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-11-12.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-11-12", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Krueger expressed concern about the traffic backup on the intersection at\nPark Street, which he assumed was based on the traffic predictions. He inquired whether\nthe traffic volume was sufficient to justify the queuing.\nStaff Khan replied that staff did not see the traffic buildup when looking at the numbers.\nCommissioner Moehring noted that she would like to see bike parking in front of the\ntheater.\nChair Knox White agreed with that suggestion. He noted that bike parking in the garage\nwas relocated without any input. The volumes were lower, and the long dropoff wasn't\nneeded. He would like to see something in the City Council report about illegal use of the\nbike lanes for passing. He would also like to see bike parking in front of the theater.\nStaff Khan noted that the bulbout also helped by providing spaces for patron queuing at\nthe theater.\nCommissioner Lee expressed concern about the $150,000 cost, and commended staff on\nthe brochure, which could be modified and used for schools.\nStaff Khan said that staff could email her a copy of the file if the schools were interested\nin reproducing and distributing additional copies.\nCommissioner Moehring suggested sending it out through the Alameda Educational\nFoundation.\nCommissioner Krueger suggested that the City Council report mention how the bulbout\nwill help with patron queuing and protection of the marquee. He believed the bike\nparking should be as close as possible to the theater entrance.\nNo action was taken.\nb.\nTransportation Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and requested comments on the analysis, as well as\nthe content of the Transportation Element. He noted that with respect to the flexibility of\nthe Transportation Element, the guiding policies would go to the decision-makers who\nwould make the final decisions based on specific conditions. He noted that the\nTransportation Element was a policy document, and was a program level analysis.\nProject level Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) would address more specific issues,\nand the staff recommendations attempted to provide the City Council with some\ndiscretion in dealing with them. He noted that secondary impacts could result from the\nincreased traffic congestion resulting from the proposed policies, such as increased cut-\nthrough traffic and negatively affecting the City's ability to implement transportation\nsystem management strategies. With respect to the concerns about CMA funding, staff\nrecommended changes to the proposed language in policies EIR-1, EIR-2, and EIR-6.\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-11-12.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-11-12", "page": 5, "text": "Commissioner Krueger inquired whether trip reduction related to transportation demand\nmanagement (TDM) was considered in the analysis, or whether it did not reduce the trips\nsufficiently. Staff Khan replied that the anticipated reductions were not sufficient to\nmitigate the congestion resulting from the proposed policies, and that this analysis was\nconducted in response to the comments that had been received.\nCommissioner Krueger suggested that that language be clarified.\nWith respect to flexibility, Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the policy as written\ncould be overridden. Staff Khan replied that the General Plan would have to be changed.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether a Specific Plan could override the General Plan.\nStaff Khan replied that a Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan.\nChair Knox White noted that the City Council has already accepted the EIR policies, and\nthat the EIR does not approve or deny a project, it just describes the impacts. He believed\nthat the proposed language for EIR-1 and EIR-2 essentially made their intent\nmeaningless. He added that the CMA had never withheld gas taxes for deficiency issues.\nHe noted AC Transit's comment C-4 about bikes and transit mixing relatively well. He\nsuggested adding clarification that the primary and secondary transit street classification\ndid not have to do with current or anticipated service levels, but how the streets were\ntreated. He noted that the EIR policy allows a queue jump on secondary streets.\nOpen public comment.\nChair Knox White responded to a letter submitted from Ani Dimusheva. The letter\nexpressed concern that the City would be instituting measures to force traffic toward\nparticular streets. Chair Knox White noted that other than transitional streets, the\nTransportation Element does not propose change in the use of the streets. The letter also\ndescribed the treatments employed on Fernside Blvd. and compared conditions to Grand\nStreet. Chair Knox White noted that the speeds on Fernside and Grand were found to be\nsimilar.\nClose public comment.\nChair Knox White requested that two clarifications be added to the draft Transportation\nElement:\n1.\nA description of how the overlay maps for the functional classification\nsystem should be used regarding:\nClassification layer - should describe the expected overall use of the\nstreet\nLand use layer - should describe the interaction between the roadway\nand the surrounding area\nModal layer - should indicate the priority of specific modes\n2.\nThe EIR policies should be renumbered and listed under the\nimplementation strategies in section 4.4.2.\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-11-12.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-11-12", "page": 6, "text": "Transportation demand management (TDM) does not have to focus solely on trips\ngenerated by the project. For example, the bus rapid transit (BRT) proposed by SunCal\nfor Alameda Point will largely serve other sections of the island.\nThe TC had recommended that Mariner Square Drive include only two traffic lanes, not\nfour.\nChair Knox-White noted that he liked staff's proposed change to policy EIR-7 .\nCommissioner Krueger noted that he was concerned about the proposed changes, as\ncompleted projects do not always uphold what was stated in the General Plan.\nStaff Khan noted that if these policies had been in place previously, that elements from\nsome project that the TC has object to could not have been constructed. For example,\nAtlantic would have a 25 mph speed limit, and there would be no soundwall.\nCommissioner Krueger moved to accept the three clarifications. Commissioner\nMoehring seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.\nCommissioner Krueger moved to accept staff's recommendation regarding the\nproposed modifications of selected street classifications. Commissioner Moehring\nseconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.\nCommissioner Krueger moved to accept staff's proposed changes regarding policy\nEIR-7. Commissioner Moehring seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.\nCommissioner Moehring moved to accept staff's changes regarding policies EIR-1, EIR-\n2 and EIR-6. There was no second.\nCommissioner Moehring moved to accept policy EIR-1 as written, and policy EIR-2\nwith the addition of exceptions for the addition of transit-exclusive or nonmotorized\nvehicle lanes. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.\nChair Knox-White invited a motion to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m.\nCommissioner Krueger moved to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m. Commissioner\nMoehring seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.\nCommissioner Krueger moved to recommend adoption of the Transportation Element\nwith the previously stated changes. Commissioner Moehring seconded the motion.\nMotion passed 4-0.\nCommissioner Krueger expressed concern about induced traffic, and wished to clarify the\nmeaning of \"environmentally superior\" in the language of the EIR.\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-11-12.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-11-12", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Krueger moved to recommend approval of the EIR, with comments,\nwith the provision that the environmentally superior alternative does not include the\nphenomenon of induced traffic, and does not include analysis of all the environmental\neffects, particularly emissions in reaching the conclusion of \"environmentally\nsuperior,\" and only looks at the City's adopted significant criteria. Commissioner\nMoehring seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.\nc.\nThresholds of Significance Scope of Work and Schedule\nOpen public comment.\nThere was none.\nClose public comment.\nChair Knox-White noted that Phase I should be completed by March 2009, and would\nlike it to become a priority.\nNo action was taken.\n7.\nNEW BUSINESS\nThere was none.\n8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\na.\nEstuary Crossing Feasibility Study\nStaff Khan noted the study was expected to be completed in early 2009, and that the draft\nof the study would be presented to the Transportation Commission first.\nb.\nBroadway/Jacksor Update\nStaff Khan noted that the project study report (PSR) was submitted to Caltrans, and added\nthat they did not have the funds available to review it. He noted that ACTIA was hiring a\nconsultant for the study report.\nStaff Khan noted that the Pedestrian Plan would go to City Council in January 2009, and\nthat ACTIA had indicated that it would regard the City as meeting its project deadline if\nthe Planning Board approves the Transportation Element in November.\nc.\nMonitoring of Oak Street/Central Avenue intersection\nStaff Khan noted that there was no report.\nd.\nUpcoming development-related traffic studies and plans\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-11-12.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-11-12", "page": 8, "text": "Staff Khan noted that there was no report.\ne.\nFuture meeting agenda items\nADJOURN: 10:50 p.m.\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\\TC\\2008\\121008\\111208minutes-draft.doc\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-11-12.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nApril 23, 2008\nChair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.\nMembers Present:\nJohn Knox White\nMichael Krueger\nRobert McFarland\nRobb Ratto\nEric Schatmeier (arrived at 8:00 p.m.)\nSrikant Subramaniam\nNielsen Tam\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\nBarbara Hawkins, City Engineer\nMichael Fisher, Division Chief, Fire Department\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nJanuary 23, 2008\nCommissioner Ratto moved approval of the minutes for the January 23, 2008, meeting\nand minutes as presented. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion\npassed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Krueger abstained). Absent: Commissioner Schatmeier.\nb.\nMarch 26, 2008\nCommissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the March 26, 2008,\nmeeting and minutes as presented. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion.\nMotion passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Ratto abstained). Absent: Commissioner\nSchatmeier.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nThere were none.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Knox White noted that the Bicycle Plan Subcommittee had met briefly, during\nwhich the process for moving forward was discussed.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 1 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Knox White noted that the Pedestrian Task Force had met, which will be discussed\nlater in the meeting.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nOpen public comment.\nCouncilmember Doug DeHaan provided an informational update regarding the\nEsplanade project approved by the City Council within Harbor Bay and concerns\nexpressed by some community members. Public concern had been expressed about the\nferry service, and that the parking lot at the terminal was at 90 to 100% capacity every\nday, which limited the City's ability to add ridership to the ferry.\nThe Council expressed an interest in looking at alternatives for improving ferry ridership.\nHe noted that the commercial portion of the Harbor Bay Association had run a very\nsuccessful shuttle service from BART and within the development itself. He added that it\nwas a private effort, and in doing so, it had served their population well. The developer\nwho sat on the Harbor Bay Board noted that he could not commit them to extend that, but\nthat he would work with the rest of the community to look at extending a shuttle service\ninto Harbor Bay. Councilmember DeHaan stated that another option that was suggested\nwas developing a staging area near the beginning of Ron Cowan Parkway where people\ncould park and take a shuttle to the ferry terminal. A third alternative would be to\nrestripe the existing parking lot, which, he estimated, could create perhaps ten additional\nparking spaces. He encouraged the Commission look at the alternatives.\nCouncilmember DeHaan discussed the farebox recovery ratio history for the service and\nnoted that the Council wants the ferry to be successful. He noted that the additional\nactivity from new development would be helpful to the ferry. He encouraged the\nTransportation Commission and Public Works to move forward on this issue and to\nprovide an update. He noted that a shuttle service would benefit not only Alameda\nresidents, but also people from other areas via the Ron Cowan Parkway.\nBill Smith wished to discuss the fourth bore and fourth platform for BART, and stated\nthat he had been instrumental in getting bicycles onto BART and the buses. He believed a\nshuttle would be able to connect the different neighborhoods to Alameda Point. He was\nglad that there were no overhead elevated tracks and steel wheels on the rapid transit\ntrains. He discussed SunCal and the TOD.\nClose public comment.\n6A. Resident Appeal of Parking Restrictions on to Provide Emergency Access on\nPalace Court (Continued from March 26, 2008 meeting).\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report. He summarized the history of the project, and\ndisplayed and described the appellant's concerns. The Alameda Municipal Code\nauthorized the Public Works Director to remove parking based on safety considerations.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 2 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 3, "text": "Staff solicited input from residents, and received some comments in favor, some in\nopposition, as well as some suggested alternatives, such as allowing people to park on the\nsidewalks, as was done previously. The Fire Code required a 20-foot clearance for\nemergency vehicle access. The Fire Department indicated that they had some vehicles\nthat were 9.5 feet wide, which so removing parking on one side of the street would be\nsufficient, as it would provide 16 feet of clearance. To mitigate the impacts, parking was\nremoved on the even side of the street, as fewer spaces were impacted. He noted that the\ntwo-hour parking restriction on the other side of the street was removed to provide full-\ntime on-street parking for four additional spaces.\nStaff Bergman noted that the decision was appealed, and that the appellant made several\npoints. The appellant believed that there were alternative methods of providing access,\nsuch as sidewalk parking, that would allow the on-street parking to be retained.\nStaff noted that this recommendation was not made because it was prohibited by Section\n22500(f) of the California Vehicle Code, which stated that \"no person shall stop, park, or\nleave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to\navoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or\nofficial traffic control device on any portion of a sidewalk, or with the body of the vehicle\nextending over any portion of a sidewalk.\" In addition, the sidewalks are not constructed\nto support the weight of the vehicles, and there was concern about the impact that parking\non the sidewalk would have on pedestrian traffic. The appellant submitted a letter\nsubsequent to his initial appeal, raising additional points. One suggestion was to relocate\nthe curb to widen the street, in order to provide emergency access. The Alameda\nMunicipal Code required that public sidewalks be at least five feet in width; by removing\nthe 18 inches from each side of the street, that would provide an additional three feet,\ngiving 27 feet. Since the parking lane was typically eight feet wide, that would leave only\n11 feet of clear space available, which would be insufficient for emergency access.\nThe appellant further suggested that a parking permit program, which had been discussed\nby the City as a number of neighborhoods in the City are dealing with similar problems.\nWhen staff researched the costs and other requirements to implement such a program, it\nwas found that it was typically funded through the General Fund. At this time, the City\nhad difficulty in finding resources at this time. He noted that may be viable in the future,\nbut would not be practical at this time.\nStaff Bergman noted that the appellant's second basis for appeal noted that a request had\nbeen made for a hearing regarding this matter, and the Municipal Code authorized the\nPublic Works Director to implement parking prohibitions based on safety considerations\nprior to the appeal being held. This TC meeting provided the appellant, as well as other\nmembers of the public, with the opportunity to request that the decision be overturned.\nStaff Bergman noted that the third basis for appeal was a request for documentation\nestablishing the need to eliminate the on-street parking. This information was\ncommunicated to the appellant and other affected resident in the notification sent out on\nJanuary 23, a copy of that letter was included in the packet. Also included were the\nTransportation Commission\nPage 3 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 4, "text": "initial appeal, the subsequent letter from the appellant, and comments from residents.\nGiven that the 18 spaces has been removed from one side of the street, and full-time\nparking has been restored at four additional spaces, there was a net loss of 14 full-time\non-street parking spaces. Staff recommended that the Transportation Commission support\nthe Public Works Director's decision to eliminate the parking on the odd side of the\nstreet.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that there appeared to be a pickup truck and a large boat\ntrailer, and inquired whether staff had observed that on the site. Staff Khan replied that he\nhad not seen it on the site. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether it was legal to park\nthose large vehicles on the street, given the existing parking problem. Staff Khan replied\nthat there was a restriction of commercial vehicles to be parked in residential areas, and\nthere were some time limits as well.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether 10 feet would be enough\nwidth to fit the 9.5-foot-wide vehicle through, Michael Fisher, Fire Department, replied\nthat it would be very impractical, and that the Fire Code required a minimum of 20 feet in\nwidth. An allowance was being made by bringing the width down to 16 feet.\nOpen public comment\nMarc Voisenat, appellant, noted that the street was 24 feet wide, and noted that taking\nparking from one side of the street only created 16 feet. He believed that if 20 feet was\nneeded, that the neighborhood should not settle for 16 feet. He had not realized that the\nFire Department had made an allowance to 14 feet, and did not know how they came to\nthat determination. He believed that if the Fire Department took the position that the\nCode should be followed, then it should be adhered to. He displayed a photo of the street,\nand noted that two vehicles were allowed to park on the sidewalk in a special parking\ndesignation. He believed that if they were allowed to make those accommodations there,\nand the Fire Department allowed accommodations to shorten the width of the lane, then\nhe believed his suggestions should be considered. He noted that some of his ideas\noriginated from the City, such as parking on the street curb. He suggested that trimming\n1.5 feet from each side of the street, and making the width of the parking seven feet\nwould yield 14 feet with parking on both sides of the street. He suggested that the City at\nleast mark the parking spots, and added that people generally parked as close to the other\nvehicles as safely possible in order to create more parking spots. He noted that church\nparkers generally were not aware of that, and sometimes parked where they could take up\ntwo to three spots with one car. He believed that painting the parking spaces would not\nhave a big fiscal impact for the City. He did not understand the difficulty in implementing\nand supervising permit parking, and did not believe it would be more difficult than\nsupervising a no-parking zone. He believed that the fees for the parking permits would\nhelp supplement the cost of supervising the program, and added that it would also give\nthe appearance that parking was restricted on Palace Court. He believed that 14 feet\nwould be sufficient for the fire vehicles to pass.\nEdith Brady, 529 Palace Court, noted that the boat and truck had been moved to their\nTransportation Commission\nPage 4 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 5, "text": "believed that people should use alternative modes of transportation.\nKaren Goddin, 527F Palace Court, inquired where the closest fire hydrant was located.\nStaff Fisher replied that it was on Central Avenue. She further inquired why an\nemergency response could not be made with a smaller vehicle than a fire truck. Mr.\nFisher replied that the typical response to an emergency medical service call in Alameda\nrequired one engine company with three personnel (captain, driver and a paramedic), as\nwell as a paramedic ambulance with two paramedics on it, for a total of five people. He\nnoted that was the minimum County-required response within the City of Alameda.\nMatthew McHenry, 534 Palace Court, believed the permit parking should be examined,\nand that it would be the best and easiest solution. He would like to know why it was such\nan expensive and difficult solution.\nClose public comment.\nChair Knox White reminded the Commission that this was an appeal hearing, rather than\ntrying to solve the problem. The Commission may make recommendations to staff\nfollowing the Commission's decision.\nCommissioner Krueger believed that more time should be given to the alternatives, and\nrequested that staff answer the question about the parking permit, specifically about the\nbreak-even cost for the system itself.\nStaff Khan replied that Staff Bergman's research regarding cities such as Berkeley and\nWalnut Creek found that the cities had created a neighborhood parking program, which\nwas subsidized by the General Fund. He understood that the question was whether the\npermit program could be fully paid by the residents. In order to make the program viable,\nthe permits must be issued and tracked, and guest permits must be issued, fees must be\ncollected and enforcement must take place. He noted the resources would be extensive\nTransportation Commission\nPage 5 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 6, "text": "for a smaller program, and that this was viable on a larger scale; in that case, police\nofficers and other personnel could be hired just for the permit program.\nCommissioner Ratto thanked the Fire Department for living in the real world and\naccepting the 16-foot-wide fire lane, rather than the 20-foot width required by Code. He\nnoted that if that were not the case, the neighborhood would not have any parking on\neither side of the street. He noted that because the Commission was only dealing with the\nappeal, he would bring the public comment brought forth by Mr. McDowell regarding\nother streets to staff and request that they look into it. He noted that he had grown up in\nAlameda, and was aware of two different instances where houses had burned to the\nground because the Fire Department did not have access to them. In those cases, parking\nhad been changed to allow parking on only one side of the street. He was sensitive to\npublic safety, and added that he would vote to deny the appeal.\nChair Knox White echoed Commissioner Ratto's comments, and shared his concern about\nselective enforcement on other streets. He understood that some allowances could be\nmade to the 20-foot lane widths, and believed the selective enforcement stemmed more\nfrom a desire to avoid this problem on other streets, rather than ill will. He believed this\nissue should be addressed on a policy level by the City. He noted that the Transportation\nCommission has generally supported parking permits, and that they were cited in the\nTransportation Master Plan currently in circulation. He noted that the permit program\nshould be made in a cost-neutral way when 10% budget cuts were being made to every\nprogram. He noted that the program would become cost prohibitive almost immediately.\nHe noted that the Public Works Director identified this as a safety hazard, and that was\nthe primary concern of the City. He believed the Fire Department had provided\ndocumentation establishing the need to eliminate on-street parking, as identified in\nCondition 3.\nCommissioner Ratto moved to approve the staff recommendation to deny the appeal.\nCommissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0.\nChair Knox White believed the City needed to address the permit parking issue, which\ncontinued to come up before the Commission. He understood staff's concern about\nsetting the parking program up, and that because it was a benefit to the neighborhood, it\nshould pay for itself. He would like staff to cost the proposed program out, in order to\ncreate a cost-neutral program.\nCommissioner Krueger expressed concern about the photo of the handicapped spaces on\nthe sidewalk, which seemed to contradict the Vehicle Code.\nStaff Khan noted that the City had been trying to create allowances on that street, as well\nas the need for handicapped parking. Staff considered that it was located at the end of the\nstreet, with minimal fire access and through traffic issues. However, if the neighborhood\nwas unhappy with that allowance and wanted those spaces removed, staff would take that\ninto consideration.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 6 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 7, "text": "7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n7A.\nReview and Provide Recommendations on the Proposed Capital\nImprovement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010.\nStaff Hawkins presented the staff report, and reviewed the process for and projects in the\nCapital Improvement Program in detail. She noted that there was additional detail on the\nwebsite at www.ci.alameda.ca.us. She noted that the CIP will go to City Council in June.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether the carryover projects used\npreviously allocated funds, Staff Hawkins replied that the money will have been\nearmarked and would not come out of the new budget. She added that there had been\ninsufficient staff for approximately four years to address the carryover projects.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the website contained more details on the\nprojects than what was available in the packet, Staff Hawkins replied that the data sheet\nfor every project was available on the website. She added that there was generally a more\ndetailed description of the proposed project, but that design plans were usually not\nincluded. She noted that further details could be obtained by calling the Lori Kozisek\nPublic Works Department at 510/749-5840.\nStaff Khan wished to point out the annual projects described in the packet, and noted that\npage 204 listed the Bicycle Program and the Safe Routes to School improvements. Under\nthe Bicycle Program, the bulk of the money in 2008/2009 will be spending in preparation\nof the Bike Plan; the City anticipated that some of the projects will be implemented in\n2009/2010. The Safe Routes to School improvements will be continued, and the maps\nwill be developed throughout the City. This program also funded any requests from the\nAlameda Unified School District for analysis and review of drop-off zones and parking.\nHe noted that the Congestion Management Plan funded streets in the Congestion\nManagement Program, and the staff wished to avoid a situation where a deficiency plan\nmust be created. The City may conduct studies addressing signal coordination and signal\ntiming. On-call striping and signing work was performed upon Commissioner request,\nand the City was attempting to upgrade the signals to meet current requirements. He\nnoted that the Transit Pass program issued all City employees an EcoPass or universal\npass; he anticipated that the program would be in place in June or July of this year.\nChair Knox White inquired whether the $110,000 in Measure B funds for the Bicycle\nProgram was all for staff time. Staff Khan replied that most of the funds were earmarked\nfor staff time to perform any studies. He added that most of the annual programs were for\nstaff time, except for striping and signing. Staff Hawkins replied that all of the Bike and\nPed funding was applied towards the Sidewalk Program. She noted that ACTIA requires\nthat all projects funded through the bicycle and pedestrian portion of Measure B must be\non an approved list, while projects funded through the streets and roads portion do not.\nBy funding bicycle and pedestrian projects through the streets and roads funding it\nprevents the City from having to continually update the project list.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 7 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Schatmeier inquired whether the City had joined the Alameda County\nprogram Safe Route to School program. He inquired whether that would come out of the\nCIP. Staff Khan replied that if funding were to be provided to the County, it would not\ncome out of this program, and that it provided salaries for employees.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the Tree Plan, Staff Hawkins\nreplied that when a tree was removed, one was generally planted. She noted that staff\nintended to wait for the Master Tree Plan, and implement it as proposed.\nWith respect to the unfunded projects, Chair Knox White inquired whether the long-range\ntransit plan update would start in Fall 2008. Staff Khan replied that the City applied for\ngrant funding for this project, and that it was unfunded because the City had not heard\nback from the funding agency yet.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the disposition of the program if\nthe City did not receive the grant, Staff Khan replied that Public Works would need to\nremove the project.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that there was a great deal of need, with few resources.\nHe expressed concern about government priorities in general, and was glad to see there\nwas a list of unfunded projects, which highlighted the need. He noted that bus shelters,\nwhich the Transportation Commission had expressed an interest in, were listed under\n\"Other,\" without a proposed funding source. He was curious about the allocation. Staff\nHawkins replied that went towards the Citywide Development Fee, and that a study\nidentified specific projects. She noted that 27% would be paid for by development, and\n73% to be paid for by the City; the General Fund would offset it.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that the Long-Range Transit Plan update was listed in\nthe unfunded category, and included language reading, \"Pending approval of Caltrans\nCommunity-Based Transportation Planning. Staff Khan replied that was a grant that the\nCity had applied for.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the $157 million figure for curb ramps and $86\nmillion in sidewalk repairs on page 5 in the Unfunded Projects was correct, and not a\ntypo. Staff Hawkins noted that they were correct, and that the sewer repair work was also\nin that range. She noted that the figure covered a complete replacement over 20 years.\nShe noted that truncated domes at the intersections were required to comply with the\nADA, which was a huge new cost.\nOpen public comment\nBill Smith noted that he would make his comments would be available on web video, and\nnoted that he would like the Coast Guard housing to be converted into disabled veterans.\nHe would like the infrastructure to be improved with a mini transit system that would be\nmonitored with a collaborative public/private joint venture to be shared with the\ncommunity at large.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 8 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 9, "text": "Close public comment\nChair Knox White noted that $250,000 had been identified in the two-year plan for the\ncross-estuary environmental project, which he believed was very good. However, he\nbelieved that the proposed project could become so large that it would not be able to\nmove forward in three or four years. He suggested that with the tight City finances, that\nthe money may be better used in other bike and pedestrian programs. He believed that the\nenvironmental study was very important, and that it should be done when possible.\nStaff Hawkins noted that was included because the projects that received capital funding\nhad feasibility studies, environmental studies and often, designs completed. She\nsuggested that as the Transportation Commission consider going forward with the City\nBicycle Plan update, that some of the other projects that would be funded be prioritized.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that on page 7 in Unfunded Projects, the study for the Otis\nReconfiguration caught his attention. He noted that the issue came up several times with\nthe neighbors' concern about safety on Otis. Staff Khan noted that he was trying to get it\nfunded through the TMP process, and that it was listed because it was presently\nunfunded. If the contingency money from the TMP is not used, these funds could\npossibly be used for the Otis Drive study.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that the bus shelters were listed on the unfunded list, and he\nrecalled that the City would go forward with the bus shelter program. He had hoped to\nget some grants, which had fallen through. He inquired whether it would be taken back to\nCouncil.\nCommissioner Krueger moved to recommend that the City Council approve the CIP\nprogram, as well as the following: 1) bus shelter procurement and maintenance be\nbrought back to City Council for direction on finding funding; 2) bicycle, pedestrian\nand transit projects be prioritized in the CIP; 3) if it appears unlikely that capital\nfunding will be available for the cross-estuary bicycle/pedestrian crossing\nimprovements, the funding reserved for the environmental work for the project be\nreallocated toward other projects in the bicycle plan; and 4) funding be made available\nto study the potential reconfiguration of Otis Drive. Commissioner Ratto seconded the\nmotion. Motion passed 7-0.\nChair Knox White suggested that the monetary figures in the reports be consistent so that\nthey are reflected either in dollars or thousands of dollars. He noted that the score column\nwas not explained, and suggested that it be eliminated if it is not clarified.\nStaff Hawkins noted that it examined the environment, cost-effectiveness, available\nfunding, and that it was an attempt to prioritize things.\n7B.\nProposed Implementation of Parking Restrictions on Central Avenue in\nFront of the New Theater and Cineplex to Improve Traffic Circulation and\nTransportation Commission\nPage 9 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 10, "text": "Access.\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and summarized the background and details of this\nitem. He noted that representatives of the Police Department were available to answer\nquestions. He noted that their goal was to provide a clear access for the Police and Fire\nDepartments in front of the theater, particularly with the number of people accessing it.\nHe noted that other cities provided loading/unloading zones in front of the theater with no\nparking allowed to ensure that the environment was safe.\nCommissioner Krueger recalled that there had been parallel parking and bike lanes prior\nto the construction project. Staff Khan confirmed that both were present in the\nrecommended design. Commissioner Krueger inquired what would happen to the bike\nlanes if the parking was removed on one side. Staff Khan replied that the proposed\ndesign includes an eight-foot parking lane, a five-foot bike lane, and then the travel lane\nof 11-12 feet. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether traffic would have to pull into\nthe parking area across the bike lane. Staff Khan replied that was in line with the\nstandards, and was common in commercial zones. He noted that the speeds should not\nincrease. The speeds would be controlled by the pedestrian and other activity near the\nstreet.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that right-turning traffic onto Oak would create a de facto\nright-turn lane. Staff Khan replied that staff considered a right-turn lane, but there was not\nenough space or justification. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether a bulbout could\nbe considered to prevent that situation. Staff Khan replied that was not considered as part\nof this item, and that the request came after the construction was nearly complete. He\nadded that it could be considered in the future.\nOpen public comment.\nBill Smith noted that it was important to protect the safety of the children, and that\ncameras were important to monitor safety. He suggested that volunteers with police-\nquality cameras would help maintain decorum when large numbers of children attended a\nmovie. He suggested that signage also be used to maintain control of the situation, and\nthat a crosswalk be placed in the middle of the street as well.\nClose public comment.\nCommissioner Ratto inquired whether the yellow zone would be a \"no parking\" zone in\nnon-loading hours. Staff Khan replied that the City would work with the Business\nAssociation in terms of the time, and that allowing parking had been considered for non-\npeak hours. The zone could be signed appropriately after consultation with the Business\nAssociation. Commissioner Ratto believed there should be no parking there, with the\nexception of commercial vehicles during certain times. He believed that the desire was to\nhave no parking from that driveway up to Oak Street, and did not want to see people\nfighting over the parking spaces during off-hours. He noted that he supported this\nTransportation Commission\nPage 10 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 11, "text": "concept, and that it would be considered by the Park Street Business Association (PSBA)\nBoard of Directors at its next meeting.\nChair Knox White inquired where the 35 required bike parking spaces had gone. Staff\nBergman replied that there were 40 spaces in the garage, including bike lockers and\nracks.\nChair Knox White noted that this plan was similar to the Jack London Cinema - a big\ntheater with no parking in front of it, and across the street from a parking lot with no way\nto cross the street. He did not believe this was a pedestrian-friendly area. He believed it\nwas unfortunate that this plan was coming forward at this time, after years of planning in\nthis area. He noted that the traffic and parking plan came to the Transportation\nCommission two years ago, which he believed was the time to make these\nrecommendations. He agreed with Commissioner Krueger that the red curb would\nbecome a de facto right turn lane, which would be more dangerous for pedestrians and\nbike riders trying to navigate the intersection. He did not see how 270 feet of no-parking\nzone could be created without a bulbout. He noted that he was not against the dropoff\nzone, but questioned whether that much space was needed either for dropoff or\nemergency access. He believed there should be bike parking in front of the theater, that\nbicyclists would be more likely to use this than the parking in the garage. He noted that\nother cities provided bike parking in front of the theater, and believed that those spaces\nwould be full of bikes on a summer evening. He was concerned that the City was trying\nto solve this problem quickly and cheaply, and did not believe this added to the area. He\nhad not heard anyone justify the need to park four or five fire trucks in front of the theater\nat any given moment, and believed this created a very unfriendly environment for\npedestrians.\nLt. Dave Boersma, APD Traffic Division, noted that this was a compromise, and that\nfrom a public safety standpoint, he preferred a red zone in front of the entire area, without\nallowing any parking. He noted that 187 feet of white zone was a lot of space, and that at\n20 feet per parking space, this would allow a lot of cars to park. He noted that an\nalternative to the red zone was to leave it as a metered parking zone, which created\ndouble parking problems in front of the building, and would not allow for emergency\nvehicle access. He noted that they were primarily concerned about the vehicular traffic\nflow through the area. He added that he hoped that drivers did use the red curb zone as a\nde facto right-turn lane, as this would keep the traffic flow moving. He was concerned\nthat there would be a lot of traffic stuck at the red light on westbound Central Avenue at\nOak Street, which would then back up and impact Park Street. APD proposed a right-turn\nlane at the intersection, but that there was not enough space where the street narrowed to\nput an actual right-turn only lane. They believed that having the red zone would be a\ngood compromise.\nCommissioner Krueger would like to see a mid-block crosswalk, as suggested by Mr.\nSmith. He noted that there will be a lot of pedestrians wanting to cross over to the theater\nentrance, and believed the City should acknowledge people's actual behaviors and design\nthe crosswalk to suit.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 11 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 12, "text": "Staff Khan noted that when crosswalks are designed, staff look at pedestrian visibility and\nsafety; staff did not want the pedestrians to be a place where motorists did not expect\nthem. By putting white lines on the street, a safe environment would not be provided,\nespecially at night. He believed that a crosswalk at this location may create more\nconcerns.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the alleyway met the standard to constitute an\nunmarked crosswalk. Staff Khan replied that the alleyway was an access point. He noted\nthat between two signalized intersections, crossing would be considered jaywalking.\nLt. Boersma understood that an unmarked crosswalk must be a prolongation of the\nsidewalk; that there was no sidewalk, only a driveway onto private property. Therefore,\nthere was no unmarked crosswalk.\nCommissioner Ratto noted that a PSBA member who owned a restaurant across the street\nfrom the theater would request the PSBA Board to request that the City install a mid-\nblock crosswalk with in-pavement crosswalk lights. He noted that as executive director of\nPSBA, he would work for this recommendation. However, as a Transportation\nCommissioner, he would vote against that recommendation. He noted that this could give\na false sense of security to people crossing the street, and he did not believe that it was\nneeded between two controlled lights. He understood the concern about the de facto right\nlane, and noted that PSBA would be against the bulbout at that corner, as it would\nnegatively impact traffic flow. He inquired whether vehicles could turn left from Oak into\nthe garage. Staff Khan replied that they could.\nCommissioner Ratto believed that while 40 bike parking spaces in front of the theater was\nexcessive, he suggested that some bike racks be put in proximity to the theater. Staff\nKhan replied that this could be done, and added that the City could used some grant\nmoney for that purpose. They also considered putting some bike parking in the alleyway.\nCommissioner Krueger believed the priority should be putting the bikes in front of the\ntheater, and that there would be security concerns with alleyway parking. He suggested\nthat the real issues be acknowledged, that the proposal is more about maintaining traffic\nflow than meeting the needs of pedestrians. He believed that congested traffic would be\nbetter for pedestrians, and that smoothly flowing traffic would be more dangerous for the\npedestrians.\nLt. Boersma noted that both traffic and pedestrian issues were relevant, and that drivers\nwould still double park; there would also be a risk to passengers. He believed this would\nproposal would eliminate the ability to do that, and there would be an impact. He noted\nthat there would be queues in front of the theater, especially for the blockbuster movies.\nHe would discourage people crossing in between the two corners, and believed that a\nmid-block crosswalk would make things worse. He believed it would impede the traffic\nflow and give people a false sense of security. He believed the proposed plan addressed\nthe pedestrian safety, traffic flow and emergency access issues.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 12 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 13, "text": "Commissioner Ratto noted that this would not be set in stone, and that if there were\nproblems, changes could be made.\nChair Knox White responded that it would be better to get the plan right the first time.\nChair Knox White noted that he would move against this, but did support removing the\nparking. He supported the creation of a dropoff zone, the commercial loading zone and\nthe a red curb for sight lines. He opposed the creation of 270-foot-long de facto new lane\nalong Central Avenue. He understood the sight line issue as described by the lieutenant,\nbut was very concerned about drivers making right turns at the corner while pedestrians\nwaited to cross. He would rather see a bulbout that would prohibit the quick right turn.\nHe believed the proposed plan would not lead to good traffic flow and a vibrant\ndowntown, but that the proposal could be changed to achieve that goal.\nCommissioner Ratto moved to approve the staff recommendation to approve Proposed\nImplementation of Parking Restrictions on Central Avenue in Front of the New Theater\nand Cineplex to Improve Traffic Circulation and Access. Commissioner McFarland\nseconded the motion. Motion failed 2-5 (Knox-White, Krueger, Schatmeier,\nSubramaniam, Tam opposed).\nCommissioner McFarland left the meeting at 10:00 p.m.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Commissioner\nSubramaniam seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-1 (Ratto opposed).\n7C.\nReview of Draft Pedestrian Plan\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and acknowledged the hard work of Gail Payne in\nthe preparation of the Draft Pedestrian Plan. This item will be brought back for action in\nthe May meeting. He described the pedestrian plan in detail, and displayed the\nPowerPoint presentation on the overhead screen. He noted that it provided guidelines\nabove and beyond the ADA guidelines. He noted that goals were recommended by the\nTransportation Commission as part of the TMP policies: circulation, livability,\ntransportation choice and implementation. He noted that several public meetings were\nscheduled to discuss this plan, and described the progress of the plan. He described the\npoints assigned to the project for reaching the project goals, totaling 100 points; a project\ntotaling 70-80 points would trigger its implementation. He noted that high priority\nprojects included those considered over the next 10 years; the high priority projects\nwould cost approximately $10 million over that time, and these included accessible\nsignals, countdown signals, and intersection enhancements.\nStaff Khan described the medium priority projects, which were planned over five-plus\nyears, to be pursued after the high priority projects were funded. Staff expected $2\nmillion from Measure B sources, $3 million from Safe Routes to School and competitive\ngrants. He noted that public hearings would be conducted in April and May, and expected\nTransportation Commission\nPage 13 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 14, "text": "that the Transportation Commission would hear this item for action in May. The final\ndraft of the Pedestrian Plan will be created in May and June, and then taken to City\nCouncil for acceptance. Staff would like this plan to be adopted as part of the\nTransportation Element of the General Plan.\nOpen public comment.\nAdrienne Langley-Cook noticed that the draft plan identified a walkway through her back\nyard, and requested that it be corrected to reflect that there was no such pathway.\nChair Knox White noted that this comment was passed to staff, and that it would be\nremoved from the plan.\nTony Daysog complimented the Transportation Commission on its work, and wished to\nsee Alameda become even more pedestrian friendly. He recalled past major pedestrian\naccidents. He noted that this was not only a quality of life issue, but also a safety issue.\nBill Smith echoed Mr. Daysog's comments, described a recent serious pedestrian accident\nand re-emphasized the need for pedestrian safety.\nClose public comment.\nChair Knox White commended Gail Payne on the quality of this plan.\nNo action was taken.\n8.\nStaff Communications.\nStaff Khan noted that a meeting was held earlier in the day on the Broadway-Jackson\nStudy update. The project is moving forward as scheduled, and staff hoped to meet with\nthe Chinatown community in May. He anticipated bringing it to the Transportation\nCommission for its June 25 meeting. The goal is that the project study report will be\ncompleted and submitted to Caltrans by the end of July. He noted that good feedback had\nbeen received from the Oakland and Alameda communities, and believed that consensus\nhas been building towards the alternative in terms of providing access through Sixth\nStreet, as well as providing new ramps as discussed.\nChair Knox White believed that it would be good to have a public hearing in Alameda to\nmake it more convenient to Alamedans, particularly since the City was paying for part of\nthe project.\nStaff Khan noted that the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study was moving forward, and\ndistributed a handout to the Commissioners. The study would look into alternatives that\nwill address several user requirements, as identified by Gail Payne. Several meetings will\nbe held, and the study schedule was listed on page 4. Two meetings have been held on\nTransportation Commission\nPage 14 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-04-23", "page": 15, "text": "April 10 and April 12, one in Oakland and one in Alameda. More meetings will be held\nin May, at the Jack London Aquatic Center and at City Hall West. The Draft Report will\nbe presented in the fall of 2008, and staff hoped to complete the project with a\nrecommendation to City Council in early 2009.\nChair Knox White inquired whether the Transportation Commission was involved in the\nprocess. Staff Khan replied that this item would be brought to the Transportation\nCommission one or two times.\nStaff Bergman noted that future agenda items included a presentation on AC Transit's\nLine 51 Task Force in either the June or July meeting. He noted that AC Transit was in\nthe process of making staffing changes so that potential service changes on Line O are\nstill being studied. Staff Khan noted that preliminary data from AC Transit indicate that\nfew local riders were using Line O, so the elimination of local service on the transbay\nroute that had initially been discussed may not be appropriate.\nStaff Khan noted that the universal transit pass program was being discussed for use by\nall City employees, which may be implemented by June. He noted that the passes would\ninclude the bearer's photo.\nStaff Khan noted that staff had been directed to work with AC Transit staff regarding the\npotential implementation of shuttle service between Alameda and BART.\nChair Knox White wished to ensure that there would be sufficient notification for future\nappeals. He believed there should be a written procedure requiring noticing when a\ntentative agenda was set. Residents would be informed at least 20 days in advance if\npossible, and a staff report and additional information would be available a week in\nadvance.\nStaff Khan noted that he had a video from Paden Elementary School that he had\noriginally planned to show this evening, but would show at a later time.\n9.\nAdjournment:\n10:30 p.m.\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\\TC/2008\\052808\\042308minutes-draft-rev.doc\nTransportation Commission\nPage 15 of 15\n04/23/08 Minutes", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, January 25, 2011\nCommissioner Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:01 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nKathy Moehring (Chair)\nJesus Vargas\nThomas G. Bertken\nChristopher Miley\nMichele Bellows\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\nAdrienne Heim, Administrative Assistant\n2.\nMinutes\nCommissioner Vargas moved approval of the minutes for the December 14, 2011 meeting if\n\"tree\" in 4B were to be made plural. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. Motion passed\n4-0.\n3.\nOral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments\nCommissioner Vargas commented on Tom Remas, Bay Area Civil Engineer, who passed away\nrecently. He called for a moment of silence.\nCommissioner Moehring welcomed two new commissioners, Michele Bellows and Christopher\nMiley.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, wrote a letter to the editor of the Alameda\nSun at the end of 2011 regarding the I-880 project along 23rd and 29th Avenue bridges. He had\nnot heard of project updates. Apparently, others saw problems concerning the bridges, especially\nconstruction, and most issues have been resolved. The website, I-880 corridor.com at Caltrans,\nshows the status of the projects including the 23rd and 29th Avenue bridge status. Citizens\nshould know what is happening with the status and how it affects them.\nPage 1 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Moehring stated that she took the I-880 project issue to staff and staff took the\nissue to Alameda City Council.\nStaff Khan responded that the project is funded by Regional Measure 2, and has other funding\nsources, totaling $100 million. Caltrans addresses some concerns regarding traffic that goes\nthrough residential areas to and from the freeway. The project raises 29th Avenue northbound off\nramp, and creates better connections into Alameda by creating dual left turns and a signal.\nStaff's main concern was directed towards the 23rd Avenue interchange. Northbound drivers\nwill be able to enter I-880 by driving on a combined on-ramp with a signal near the ramp. Staff\nnegotiated the final design and brought their recommendations to the City Council, Alameda\nTransportation Commission and Alameda Planning Board. Staff and Caltrans addressed signal\nimpacts at Clement and Park Streets intersection. Staff recommended that Alameda CTC provide\nor help find funding to create bus queue jump lanes on Park Street, which will allow transit\npriority from Buena Vista to the bridge, and will link the signals between Oakland and Alameda\nto the bridge. The queue build up may increase on Park Street, but only for a short period. Also,\nstaff is working with Caltrans to fund signal priorities off the on-ramp at 23rd Avenue. All issues\nthat were raised with the City Council have been looked at and been negotiated to minimize any\nimpacts. If the Transportation Commissioners would like the Alameda CTC to come present\nabout construction impacts, that would be good.\nCommissioner Moehring stated that she would love to have the Alameda CTC present and to\ninclude the presentation on the next agenda. Also, she requested to have this item on a semi-\nregular basis to keep the TC and public up to date.\nStaff Khan - There are two lanes coming into Alameda on 23rd and 29th Avenues. Therefore, it\nwould be a great opportunity to have regular construction updates from the Alameda CTC and\nstaff will add this to the March agenda.\n4.\nNew Business\n4A.\nTSM/TDM Recommended Strategies\nStaff Khan summarized the staff report.\nCliff Chambers, consultant from Mobility Planners, provided further details on key findings and\nrecommendations from the staff report.\nCommissioner Vargas asked what cities have Transportation Management Associations (TMA),\nhow the TMA director would work with city staff, and what are the fiscal impacts of supporting\nimplementation. Commissioner Vargas also mentioned that staff's presentation and document\nlisting the components and subsequent strategies make sense.\nCliff Chambers responded that TMAs are like Baskin Robbins, meaning they have many flavors.\nPage 2 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 3, "text": "Some are based on a citywide level; most are developed at a very large development, like Bishop\nRanch in San Ramon, and the TMA in San Francisco's downtown. There are different levels of\nfunding so it is difficult to pinpoint an exact funding source. It makes sense to develop a TMA\nwith individual employers like Harbor Bay Landing and Alameda Point since the City does not\nhave adequate staff resources.\nStaff Khan stated there is a concern for funding a citywide TMA. Staff is looking at ways to\ngather revenues and the best approach is under the MX zone developments that require a master\nplan, and that would be the catalyst to start a TMA. For example, Alameda Landing may need to\nstart a shuttle program. Since there is already a shuttle program running, including Alameda\nLanding could be a potential funding source. The Estuary Crossing Shuttle currently operates to\nWind River and College of Alameda. Now the City needs to provide revenues to sustain staff\ntime to provide the shuttle service.\nCommissioner Moehring responded to Staff Kahn regarding targeting Webster and Park Streets,\nHarbor Bay Business Park and Harbor Bay Landing to partner and seek membership in a future\nTMA. She asked if staff contacted these groups to help expand the program or create a program\nthat benefits everyone, understanding staff time.\nStaff Khan stated this is a good idea, but the City cannot impose this plan upon any existing\nbussinesss. The key for us is to bring the employers together with a potential localized grouping\n(South Shore, Webster and Park Streets, and Harbor Landing). The main goal is to create a\nprogram to help employers encourage employees to use mass transit and other shared commute\noptions.\nCliff Chambers - Staff pulled a meeting together to see how Alameda businesses felt about such\nTDM strategies. Around 12 employers participated and gave input; however, staff needs time\nand resources to pull it together, and to create a catalyst.\nCommissioner Miley asked whether carshare programs are part of the TDM strategy.\nCliff Chambers responded that carshare is one element that is explained in the document, and the\nCity has carshare, but the carshare program is not fully utilized.\nCommissioner Vargas stated having attended a meeting at the California Transportation Forum\nrecently, he asked a question and the resulting answer was government should not add another\nlayer or commission to transportation issues. Having said that, a TMA would create another\nlayer. There should be an option where an organization resembles a public-private partnership.\nTherefore, staff should look into the TDM recommendations that benefit the City's goals, and\nonce a big funding opportunity occurs, a separate institutional entity could take on this task.\nCliff Chambers stated that many TMAs are non-profits, such as the San Luis Obispo Ride-On\nTransportation. Many TMAs have elected officials on their private non-profit boards.\nFurthermore, many TMAs are private non-profits that are member based. One commonality is\nTMAs have a champion who supports trip reduction to enhance quality of life and improve the\nenvironment.\nPage 3 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Bertken asked about the staff report's findings regarding Alameda Point. The\nreport mentioned transit availability is an important part of combating congestion, but in\nconnection to Alameda Point the ferry service should be mentioned and service is important to\nfuture development. With regards to the report's findings, there is a similarity between Alameda\nPoint and Treasure Island due to traffic congestion from drivers entering the tube heading\ntowards Alameda Point and congestion when drivers exit the Bay Bridge towards Treasure\nIsland. Therefore, that case should be looked into for similarities. Also, in regards to modeling\nthe traffic congestion for Alameda Point, he questioned what staff used to obtain the congestion\nrates.\nCliff Chambers explained that his colleagues at Dowling Associates are working with the\ncongestion modeling.\nStaff Khan stated that the data was provided by the 2000 General Plan, under the Land Use\nElement and is still current. The Land Use Section includes household and employment data for\nAlameda Point.\nCommissioner Bertken announced the new ferry service in May 2012 between South San\nFrancisco and Alameda, and staff should include this information in their report.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, stated that a TMA is wonderful idea,\nespecially given his inside view of a national transit commuter program, where an employee\ncould submit a voucher for an alternative travel subsidy of up to $220. He mentioned the\nprogram to his employer and it created a struggle for his employer to take on the plan and read\nthrough the red tape. Therefore, having a TMA to facilitate the program would be great.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated the TMA\nconcept is great; however, he questioned whether it is possible to require businesses to join a\nTMA when they seek a business license in order for the City to legally gain momentum on a\nprogram. TSM/TDM depends on external funding through state and federal appropriations and\nthey cut back the commuter benefits specifically for bicycle trips. Consequently, AC Transit\ncannot provide the initial service it once had due to lack of funds. Furthermore, transportation as\nit relates to land use policy needs to include land density and reform parking requirements.\nCommissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments to the TSM/TDM Strategies. For\nthis month's meeting, the commissioners are only required to provide comments.\nStaff Khan - This plan needs to be completed, reviewed and approved in February so we can\nreceive payment from Caltrans. Therefore, staff would like the commissioners to make the final\nrecommendations in February.\nCommissioner Moehring acknowledged the deadline.\nCommissioner Bertken questioned the strategies regarding how vehicle trips are estimated for\nnew development. He also asked about the parameters that go into the strategies such as the\nPage 4 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 5, "text": "minimum number of employees needed to begin the TDM program.\nStaff Kahn - Staff would run a model using computer software to incorporate land use density,\npeak time trips, trip generation rates based on type of land use to estimate traffic generation and\nuse TDM strategies to reduce the congestion.\nCommissioner Bertken asked how staff determines what goes into the model.\nStaff Khan explained that Institute Of Transportation Engineers trip generation rates are used in\nthe model.\nStaff Bertken responded so mitigation is based on environmental significance.\nCommissioner Moehring agreed to the deadline again and acknowledged that the next meeting\nwill be held on Wednesday, February 22.\n4B.\nBicycle Facility Design Guidelines - Summary of Comments\nStaff Khan summarized the staff report with a power point presentation and stated that he would\nlike to present the final draft to the TC in March for final recommendations.\nCommissioner Bertken stated in the staff report, specifically in Appendix A and D, there is no\ncase studies of where bicycle parking requirements and bicycle shower facilities are being\nimplemented.\nBarry Bergman stated that there are general examples of bicycle parking policies and they are\nincluded in the report. Specific Appendix D thresholds can be included in the revised report.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if an extended time of input would be helpful.\nStaff Khan stated middle of February is the deadline to make final recommendations.\nStaff Moehring commented towards a financial burden upon employers to construct bicycle\nshowers and lockers.\nBarry Bergman stated in the report, regarding Appendix D, if there is only one shower provided,\nthe shower must be marked as unisex and for persons of disabilities.\nStaff Moehring asked about national safety guidelines that the City must follow for right turn\nlanes accommodating bicycles and automobiles.\nStaff Khan - Staff has worked on such an issue for example if you were to ride on Fernside\ntoday and cross High Street going west you will see that staff did not have the space to create a\nbike lane, so they dropped a lane and included sharrows. The cities of Oakland and Berkeley\nhave made similar treatments.\nPage 5 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 6, "text": "Barry Bergman stated that it is not advisable to have bicycle lanes to the right of the turning car\nlane.\nCommissioner Moehring called for public comments or questions.\nLucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda, started off by saying thank you to staff for being so\ndiligent in answering questions and calls that have come to draft the guidelines. Since there are\nnew commissioners, it is important to re-iterate the need to implement these guidelines to make\nAlameda's streets safer and help more cyclists riding on the streets. According to well\ndocumented research reports, cycling activity increases when the city accommodates all types of\ncycling skills and creates separate facilities such as cycle tracks (Fernside Street by Lincoln\nMiddle School), Class I bike paths and buffered bike lanes. Again, she appreciates staff's efforts\nto get the best facilities for the City.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, he has been a\nbicycle advocate since 1970. This month he took a bicycle tour on a Sunday afternoon in\nOakland where he saw the bicycle lane within the right turn lane. Protection of the door zone is\nimportant, but it is not feasible to expand streets to accommodate cyclists without angering\ndrivers. Regarding Figure 13, on page 24 of 46, if you were driving a car into that intersection\nyou would not go straight through the intersection by driving through the right turn lane.\nTherefore, you should not ride your bike that way. I recommend in that intersection always take\nthe thru traffic lane. Figure 11, page 22 of 46, should be the preferred design alternative. Mr.\nSpangler commends the City of Alameda on the positioning of sharrows on the road and the City\nshould continue the tradition of positioning the point of arrow of sharrows safely outside of the\ndoor zone. Also, the City should include \"Share the Road\" signage for cyclists and drivers.\nFurthermore, the city should erect informational signs stating Alameda is a \"Bike Friendly\" city\nand educational signs for cyclists to \" Stay out of the Door Zone.\" He would also like to see a\nreduced defacto parking strip for automobile parking from 8 to 7 feet ultimately creating a\npsychological road diet for drivers to park closer to the curb. Finally, he would like the City to\ninclude a bicycle buffer (see Figure 7) next to the door zone rather than to the left side of the\ncyclist.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, would like to see signage appear once\nfunding is available. Signage is good for people who are not familiar with the bicycle landscape,\nso lets prioritize this item.\nCommissioner Bellows stated that the guidelines are incredibly comprehensive and public input\nwas great.\nCommissioner Miley also appreciated the public process, and reserved comments until the item is\nbrought back in March.\nCommissioner Moehring would like to see more signage to educate the public to share the road\nand important for everyone to be more considerate. She also recommended that Mr. Spangler\npresent a bicycle safety tip at each meeting going forward, such as bicyclists should share the\nPage 6 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 7, "text": "street with drivers and not ride on the sidewalk.\nStaff Khan clarified one item within the presentation, when he said 6 inches versus 4 inches, he\ndid not mean to reduce the bicycle lane width on the traffic side. He was thinking on the parking\nlane side. There is a requirement from Caltrans, which states that the bike lane stripe should be 6\ninches. Also, including the T's at 7 feet instead of 8 feet is intriguing and he will look into it.\nCommissioner Moehring liked the T's in the bike lane from the door zone.\nCommissioner Bertken discussed his interest in the T's within the bicycle lane and how it\nencourages better parking.\nStaff Khan will come back for a final recommendation from the TC in March.\n4C.\nTransportation Commission Bylaw Revisions\nStaff Payne summarized the staff report to revise the commission bylaws.\nCommissioner Bertken stated regarding the minutes to break the one paragraph that presents\nthree different concepts into three paragraphs.\nCommissioner Moehring called for public comments or questions.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, objected to\nremoving the monthly meetings to every other month and to the quorum definition for the rules\nof order section C, subsection M. To abandon the initial rule and to not define the quorum is\nunacceptable. In Section A, under meeting minutes, Mr. Spangler mentioned that the TC is as\nimportant as the Planning Board and this body should make its case with the City Council to\nmeet every month depending on staff and commissioners' workload.\nCommissioner Moehring stated that for a long period Alameda TC would meet every month, but\nwould cancel meetings because there was not enough on the agenda. It is stated in the bylaws\nthat the TC must define the meeting periods. The TC can schedule special meetings when\nnecessary and then publicize the meetings in a sufficient timeframe.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, did not have an objection of when meetings\noccur, but there must be list of dates publicized so the public is aware of these meetings.\nCommissioner Bertken stated the reason to meet every other month is due to staff time to prepare\nfor each meeting and should be considered the most. If there are enough items then TC members\nshould schedule a special meeting.\nCommissioner Vargas responded by suggesting on a trial basis to conduct a meeting every other\nmonth depending on the workload, and when necessary to schedule a meeting earlier to finish by\n11 p.m.\nPage 7 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 8, "text": "Staff Khan stated that all City body meetings have an end time of 11 p.m. and to create\nconsistency the bylaws included that end time. Commissioners can direct staff to look over the\nbylaws and revise as necessary.\nCommissioner Bertken asked to define the quorum.\nCommissioner Moehring stated the quorum is self-descriptive, and means four.\nCommissioner Bertken called upon the commissioners to approve the motion to have the\nAlameda TC meet bi-monthly based upon staff recommendations and considering staff time.\nSecondly, he called upon the commissioners and staff to publically advertise the exact meeting\nmonths on the City's website. Finally, he stated that the 11 p.m. end time should be set as is and\nif necessary, the meeting could be moved to an earlier start time.\nCommissioner Miley moved approval of the bylaw revisions with the revised minutes paragraph\nbroken into three sections and explicitly stating \"odd months\" for the meeting times.\nCommissioner Bertken seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.\n4D.\nAlameda Paratransit Program Modification\nStaff Payne summarized the staff report.\nCommissioner Miley asked about the total number of survey respondents.\nStaff Payne replied that 584 surveys were sent out and 142 surveys were completed.\nCommissioner Miley asked whether the $2.50 travel voucher cost, would curtail the budget\nproblems for the next fiscal year.\nStaff Payne stated most likely not.\nCommissioner Miley asked about Measure B reauthorization and increased funding to keep the\nrate flat.\nStaff Khan stated 10 percent of service revenue comes out of Measure B for the paratransit\nprogram, but the reauthorized Measure B looks to double the revenue stream. If approved in\nNovember then staff would see increased funding. To clarify the first question, in the beginning\n(before the start of the shuttle service), the Alameda CTC stated that they would take the City of\nAlameda's Paratransit surplus away if the City did not use it. So, staff asked the City Council to\napprove the initiation of a city shuttle. The shuttle is very successful, but in three to four years,\nthe service cannot be sustained financially without more funding or cuts to other services.\nCommissioner Bellows asked about the survey question regarding the $3.00 and $2.50 voucher\nfee.\nPage 8 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 9, "text": "Staff Payne stated both the Recreation and Park Commission and Commission on Disability\nIssues voted to increase the price up to $3.00. Also, the survey response option was changed to\n$2.50 because the premium travel voucher costs $2.50 for a $5.00 voucher.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff if the amount of revenue received from the voucher increase\nwould offset financial burdens.\nCommissioner Vargas commented on the fact that 7,000 residents are 70 years old, but only 60\nout of 584 participants are currently active. He then questioned whether the program could\nsustain fiscally if more participants were to join the program.\nStaff Payne responded that we pay operators the same amount every month so it is easy to\nbudget. For the taxi program, if participation increases, the City would have to turn them away,\nwhich is our budgetary challenge. We hope that the program remains stable.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff to explain the difference between premium taxi service and\nMRTIP service and whether staff can re-direct services from MRTIP to premium taxi service.\nStaff Payne responded that the Premium Taxi Service is a much broader service and you would\nhave to pay more because it allows for a 50 percent subsidy of taxi rides whereas MRTIP allows\nthe elderly and disabled to return home from medical appointments for free.\nStaff Payne and Khan stated that staff limited the number of taxi vouchers and the distance taxis\ncould travel to because they want to make slow changes to the service rather than eliminating it.\nUltimately, staff does not want to drop the program so staff will review the budget and will\nreport back next fiscal year on its progress.\nCommissioner Moehring explained that the next agenda item would propose a price change for\nthe Premium Taxi Service.\nCommissioner Bellows moved to charge $3.00 per MRTIP travel voucher. Commissioner Vargas\nseconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.\n4E.\nDraft Prioritized Transportation Project List\nStaff Khan summarized the staff report.\nCommissioner Bellows stated there should be a banner across the top of the project list that states\nnot sequentially prioritized, but ranked based upon upcoming grant applications. Also, staff\nshould distinguish the ranking list between bicycle, pedestrian and mass transit projects.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff about their use of the ranking system and whether that would\ninterfere with their current workload.\nPage 9 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 10, "text": "Staff Khan responded that the ranking of projects does not change current workload priorities,\nbut helps define what grant applications staff should pursue.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff whether they have a rule of priority when conducting\npreliminary research within the list of projects.\nStaff Khan gave an example of a feasibility study conducted by staff in 2008 for the Estuary\nCrossing; the next step is to create the project study report, which is the next level of planning.\nMany grants have short deadlines, such as one that came across his desk that was due in four\ndays.\nCommissioner Vargas stated there should be a cost estimated for the feasibility study and costs\nshould be included within the list, especially when staff decides to apply for a grant.\nStaff Khan - Regarding the cost issue, it is a good point. Staff purposely did not include costs\nbecause sometimes we can receive earmarks. This list is a general plan policy, but staff needs to\nwork with the community to see where the work is needed. As you look at the different funding\npots, the cost issue is where we crunch the numbers and find funding revenues. Other projects\nhave specific requirements and grants have specific criteria to dispense funds.\nCommissioner Miley explained that he is appreciative of the explanation of the ranking system,\nbut would like a more detailed report. He also stated that projects that are not already funded\ncould be leveraged by other projects being funded.\nStaff Khan - The ranking is a great start and if staff revises it ten different ways at end of the\nday staff can be flexible to go after a grant where a project fits the grant requirement.\nCommissioner Miley asked if staff adheres to a main objective when multiple projects are up for\na grant at the same.\nCommissioner Bellows stated that you could apply several projects for the same grant, which\nusually has evaluation criteria. She stated that Commissioner Miley's point is valid.\nStaff Khan stated that considerable legwork must be done if staff decides to pursue a grant for a\nspecific project to show that it is important.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff if the City Council or City Manager were looking for specific\noutcomes from the project ranking.\nStaff Khan - They are not interested in what staff is working on, they are concerned with\nprojects that should be pursued for grant funding. Leveraging funding would be important.\nStaff Khan - Staff must submit the final project list to City Council in March.\nCommissioner Bellows replied that staff should bring back the list to Alameda TC with revisions.\nPage 10 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 11, "text": "Staff Khan read a comment made by email from Lucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda,\nregarding project ranking and when paraphrased she stated there are many ranges of transit\nbenefits per project type and each project may be regionally significant or important to economic\ndevelopment. Since the City now has so many plans, this kind of a list is critical so that\neveryone can agree on how all the places and projects should be prioritized to align our plan\ngoals.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, the precedent has\nalways been in regards to categorizing projects based on opportunistic grant applications and\nstaff should take advantage of the applications whenever they become available. One project in\nparticular is the Estuary Crossing project. The list should show a project once with a\nsubcategory of two action items within the projects to simplify the list. The City Council\nunderstands this is a laundry list, but the list should also show transit benefits, or combination of\npedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit benefits, plus showing regional importance.\nCommissioner Miley made the motion to approve the list; Commissioner Bertken seconds\nmotion.\n4F.\nSafe Routes to School Draft Project Submittal - Grand Street at Wood Middle School\nStaff Payne summarized the staff report.\nCommissioner Moehring responded by asking whether staff spoke with residents surrounding the\nmid-block crossing.\nStaff Payne - Outreach was conducted to residents within a 300 feet radius of the mid-block\ncrossing, and there is an overall positive outlook to the project.\nCommissioner Bellows commented on the fact that Grand Street is a confusing area and the plan\nis heading in the right direction. She also wanted to get a total cost estimate for the project.\nStaff Payne - The total grant fund from Caltrans is a maximum of $450K and the total project\ncost is a maximum of $500K.\nCommissioner Bellows explained that she would like to see additional landscaping for the area to\nlook more attractive and to create a better pedestrian refuge area.\nStaff Payne spoke with the Alameda Park and Recreation Department and adding four trees\nwould be the biggest landscaping. Also, she talked to Wood Middle School vice principal to see\nif they would like additional landscaping adjacent to their property and the mid-block crossing.\nCommissioner Bellows suggested landscaping within the median strip, similar to Lincoln Street\nnear the nursery, and she asked about pedestrian lighting.\nStaff Payne - Since the grant is a Safe Routes to School grant and most of the students are home\nPage 11 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 12, "text": "before nightfall, staff decided to not include lighting.\nCommissioner Miley - Staff should solicit letters of support for the project to help with the grant\napplication. Staff also should encourage solicitation from Senator Hancock and Alameda County\nSupervisor, Wilma Chan.\nCommissioner Bertken - Getting rid of the left turn is a great idea, but removing the left turn\nmay cause uproar from Wood School drivers.\nStaff Payne - It is a good point. Staff conducted a survey of turning movements. Within the\nmorning peak hour, the removal of the left turn would only affect about 5 or 6 drivers.\nCommissioner Bellows stated that the school could arrange for parents to pick up their children\nfurther south on Grand Street near the staff parking lot.\nStaff Payne - In terms of landscaping, Caltrans usually limits funding for landscape\nimprovements up to ten percent of construction costs.\nCommissioner Vargas - Several of Caltrans projects are advanced and funded when there are\nsafety issues.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated he was a\nsafe routes to school volunteer at Franklin Elementary School. He suggested limiting or\nprohibiting cars from making left turns and prohibiting the faculty area from becoming an ad hoc\ndrop off zone. He also asked if the crosswalk would be lit. There should be lighting at the\ncrosswalk, the median crossing should be extended to control turns and implement a road diet for\nthe entire length of Grand Street.\n5.\nStaff Communications\nStaff Payne provided a summary of the Alameda CTC's update to the Countywide Bicycle and\nPedestrian Plans.\nStaff Payne discussed future meeting agenda items, which will include the TSM/TDM draft plan\nand the paratransit program discussion about premium taxi service costs.\nStaff Khan called on commissioners to vote to call a special meeting in February.\nCommissioner Bellows made the motion to schedule a special meeting for February.\nCommissioner Vargas seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.\nCommissioner Miley also called to have a presentation scheduled for the near future regarding I-\n880 updates.\nPage 12 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 13, "text": "Staff Payne stated she does have this down for the March meeting.\n6.\nAnnouncements\nNone\n7.\nAdjournment\n10:46 PM\nPage 13 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-02-27", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nFebruary 27, 2008\nChair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m. He noted that a\nquorum was not yet present, so the Commission would address several discussion items that did\nnot require action.\n1.\nROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.\nMembers Present:\nJohn Knox White\nMichael Krueger\nRobert McFarland\nEric Schatmeier (arrived at 7:50 PM)\nMembers Absent:\nRobb Ratto\nSrikant Subramaniam\nNielsen Tam\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nJanuary 23, 2008\nChair Knox White noted that a full quorum was not present to consider the minutes, and that they\nwould be addressed at the next meeting if a quorum was present.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nChair Knox White suggested that the agenda be taken in order until a quorum has been reached,\nif Item 7A comes up before that occurs, Item 7B would be heard.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Knox White noted that the State Senate had a new bill number assigned to address the\nclean-up language for the establishment of the Water Emergency Transportation Authority\n(WETA), but no actual language was associated with it. He noted that the TC had requested that\nSen. Perata's staff be on hand for a public meeting regarding this matter.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-02-27", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Knox White inquired what the City's policy was regarding parking in red zones and across\nsidewalks. He believed the City should investigate an education campaign regarding the new\ncrosswalk lights. He has seen almost no change in driver behavior regarding the lighted\ncrosswalks.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nOpen public hearing.\nThere were no speakers.\nClose public hearing.\n6.\nOLD BUSINESS\n6A.\nUpdate on I-880/Broadway/Jackson Project Study Report.\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and updated the I-880/Broadway/Jackson project. He\nsummarized the history of the project, and displayed and described the proposed arterial changes\nand signals in detail. Staff was concerned that any change to the historical structures would cause\nstructural and environmental issues. The speed required for the right turn would have to be no\nmore than 25 mph. Caltrans did not support traffic slowing down abruptly coming out of the\nPosey Tube, which led to further options being studied for traffic coming out of the Tube in\nOakland. A left turn onto the existing one-way Sixth Street was suggested, with further\nimprovements intended for Sixth Street; he noted that option showed great promise. The\nfeasibility study suggested that for northbound traffic on I-880, the Broadway off-ramp be\neliminated and a new ramp be installed at Webster Street, which would improve access to\nAlameda by allowing people to make a left turn into the Webster Tube entrance. He noted that\nthe final report was due to be completed in Summer 2008.\nCommissioner Schatmeier joined the Commission on the dais. He inquired what specific\nproblem the project was intended to solve, and noted that while he used it during off-peak hours,\nhe understood that it was cramped and awkward.\nStaff Khan replied that the northbound Jackson Street on ramp has a weave as it comes onto the\nI-880 freeway; and reduction in any traffic trying to use Jackson Street will improve the safety\non the freeway. He added that the City was looking into further improvements to provide better\ncirculation along the corridor near Sixth Street. He noted that by 2030, congestion in the Tubes\nwould be substantially increased. With respect to Chinatown, the traffic would be moved away\nfrom the pedestrian concentration at Seventh and Harrison. He noted that there was a fatality at\nSeventh and Harrison, and that this was a serious concern for the Chinatown community.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether this plan would help traffic moving southbound, as\nwell as at the weave. He further inquired whether there had been any investigation into shifting\nthe traffic by the Senior Center onto arterials without having to cut the corner.\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-02-27", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Khan replied that the hook ramp created the benefit of creating an arterial in front of the\nPulte building. The City was interested in the alternative because of the importance of the\nsouthbound access. There were constraints with respect to the entrance to the Pulte building.\nNo action was taken.\n7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n7A.\nResidents' appeal to Proposed Changes to Central Avenue\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and detailed the background of this matter. He noted that\nparents and school officials had submitted concerns regarding circulation and drop-off zones in\nfront of the school. Parents had been concerned about double-parking during the school drop-off\ntime, people blocking entrances and children's safety. Staff's major concern was separating the\nvehicular traffic from the children exiting the cars. He noted that one goal was to remove parking\non the west of the school driveway; he displayed the loading zone area at the school on the\noverhead screen. He noted that if the white zone were to be moved onto school property, the cars\nwould also be moved. The double-parked cars would be addressed by removing the parking\naltogether west of the school entrance. The third action was to create a one-hour parking zone in\nfront of the zone where an unrestricted zone had previously existed. He noted that cars could not\nremain in a white zone unattended. He added that it aided children with special needs and their\nparents.\nStaff Khan noted that his discussions with the school indicate that they have seen substantial\nimprovements in this area as a result of the changes implemented to date. They also wanted to\ncreate a program at the school that would allow teachers or volunteers to receive the children,\nopen the door and get them out of the cars, which would improve the traffic flow. Staff\nencouraged the principal and the parents to implement this. Staff conducted a survey of the\nparking supply as compared to demand. Christina Hanson, a resident, sent a survey to staff that\nshe conducted at approximately 30 minute intervals, and staff conducted another survey between\n8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Staff found that if one-hour parking was installed, the smallest number of\navailable parking spaces at 9 a.m. was five spaces; there were 16 spaces available at 3 p.m. He\nnoted that staff's intention was to improve traffic circulation, address children's safety, take the\nvehicular traffic away from access of children getting into the school, address access for special\nneeds children by providing some parking for parents to enter the school, and to improve parking\nconditions by removing several red curbs to provide additional parking spaces. The striping\nwould be redesigned to allow the parking at that location.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether any of the red curbs were in place\nto provide visibility, or whether it was due to the striping, Staff Khan replied that the existing red\ncurb at Fifth and Central would be removed because it had been installed for visibility reasons\nwhen there was no stop sign. They wanted to maintain some visibility at the signalized\nintersection of Ballena and Central, but there was a substantial amount of red curb that could be\naddressed to accommodate the parking configuration.\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-02-27", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Khan noted that the City had coordinated with local Eagle Scouts to perform some of the\nstriping. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner McFarland whether the curb would be\npainted, Staff Khan replied that it would not be painted and because it was time-limited, there\nwould be signs placed at those locations.\nA discussion of the details of the various parking zones ensued.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired which of the safe routes to school had been addressed. Staff\nKhan replied that the school did not yet have a safe routes to school map, and that Public Works\nbegan creating those maps last year. This year, the plan was to work on the West End for this\nschool, Chipman, Encinal High and Ruby Bridges. He noted that it generally took time to engage\nthe community and the parents, and staff felt that the drop-off zone would enable to parents to\nunderstand what was going on. Staff felt that the parents would be encouraged to continue their\nsupport to create a robust program to allow the drop-off zone, and then a walking school bus or a\nbicycle train.\nOpen public hearing.\nMs. Chris Hanson, 461 Central, appellant, noted that this had been a frustrating situation for\nherself and her neighbors. She felt the City had mishandled this process, and added that she had\nbeen a municipal employee for over 15 years, including for Alameda, and that she understood\nthe public process and rationale. She noted that the length of the curb in front of the school was\nsupposed to be a green curb with seven spaces for one-hour parking at 7 a.m. She noted that the\nsituation was very stressful, and had tried to get information from Alan Ta, junior engineer with\nPublic Works; she had been told it would be done. She was later told by Public Works Director\nMatt Naclerio that the notifications would be re-sent. She did not believe the City should cater to\na specific interest group without considering the concerns of all the neighbors. She appreciated\nthe marked improvement with the traffic flow, and noted that the week the school had monitors\non duty, there was also improvement. She noted that the speed of the through traffic was\nexcessive. She noted that there were already spaces available at the peak usage hour, and did not\nunderstand why there must be time-limited parking spaces if a minimum of five spaces were\navailable at all times.\nMs. Hanson displayed photos showing that seven spaces were available. She noted that the\nneighboring houses were built in 1910, and did not generally have garages; in addition, there was\nlimited driveway and off-street parking. She added that most of the neighbors had to park on the\nstreet, and that many neighbors took public transportation. She did not believe that the neighbors\nshould have to move their cars before going to work in the morning. She noted that many people\ndrove compact cars, and suggested that the curb be repainted for compact spaces. She suggested\nthat if the school wanted to add three spaces of private staff parking, they could add three more\nspaces in that location because the concrete at the back of the school was already being utilized.\nShe suggested that some of the staff members park further down so three spaces could be made\ngreen.\nMs. Hanson distributed three letters from her neighbors to the Commission.\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-02-27", "page": 5, "text": "Ms. Robin Hewitt echoed Ms. Hanson's comments and frustration. She expressed concern that\nabout growing congestion in the Tube, and noted that Alameda was losing parking spaces as it\ncontinues to grow. She noted that apartment buildings have fewer vacancies and more cars as the\nhousing market crisis continues. She believed the parking enforcement at schools should have\nstronger enforcement. She has observed illegal U-turns, double parking and no place for children\nto cross the street except at the intersections of Central at Fourth and Fifth Streets.\nClose public hearing.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that Ms. Hanson's letter, parking counts and photos showed many\nempty spaces. He inquired why it would create a hardship if the other spaces were taken away in\nthat case. Ms. Hanson replied that from the hours of 8 to 3, she demonstrated that there was\nample parking. She inquired why there would be limited parking spaces during a time there was\nample parking. She noted that in the event she did not have to leave her house until 9 a.m., she\nwould have to get up earlier to move her car during the school drop-off hours before it was 8\na.m., when the limited parking started. She did not believe the neighbors should be subjected to\nthat inconvenience.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired about the issue of special needs children, and whether it was a\ndifferent scenario from a handicapped parking zone. He further inquired whether those children\nmust be escorted to school, and whether the staff parking lot could be used for that purpose. Staff\nKhan replied that the handicapped parking inside the parking lot could be used. The school\npreviously had two disabled parking spaces (blue and green lots on the overhead map), and they\nallow the children to be escorted to school without leaving the car unattended on the street. Staff\nbelieved this addressed the needs of the parents and the school.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired about the appellant's suggestion of creating more space within\nthe off-street parking lot in order to create temporary parking for people going into the school\nwithout taking street parking spaces. Staff Khan noted that the parking lot was configured for\nemployees or people who would be there a long time.\nChair Knox White indicated that he understood the concern about having the drop-off zone just\nprior to the entrance to the school, and asked if the spaces could be converted to on-street\nparking. Staff Khan replied if the spaces were not occupied, that this area would continue to\nfunction as a drop-off zone, and could lead to double-parking in that area.\nChair Knox White stated that did not make sense to him, and was concerned that the Police\nDepartment enforces parking restrictions inconsistently, including near schools, and that having\nspecific designations for each section of curb may lead to further problems if it can't be\nenforced. Since both the staff report and Ms. Hanson's survey seem to indicate that there is\nsufficient parking in the area, he did not believe it was necessary in this case to carve out so\nmany specific uses for each part of the right of way, and believed that the need for parents\naccessing the school should not be prioritized over residents accessing their houses. He was\nsurprised that so much staff time was available to address parking issues outside of schools, but\nnot for walking and biking issues around schools, and that a majority of the students live within\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-02-27", "page": 6, "text": "walking or biking distance of the school. He noted that a lot of time has been spent on school\ndrop-off zones. He suggested enacting an ordinance to enforce double fines in school zones, as is\nallowed by the state. He understood that staff had a difficult job in balancing many wants and\ndesires in the City. He did not see any need to remove the parking at Paden school, and\nsuggested adding a crosswalk in front of the school across Central Ave. He suggested\nencouraging walking to school, and strongly encouraged the neighboring residents to be notified\nof actions such as this near their neighboring school. He would like the personnel manual to\ninclude a requirement to inform the public of changes happening near their homes. He noted that\nresidents should realize that it was not always possible to park directly in front of their house or\nschool.\nStaff Khan noted that it was important for staff to work with the school principal, parents, school\ndistrict and police. He noted that additional Police staff had been hired to increase enforcement\nin front of the schools, primarily for the children's safety. He noted that the intention was to\nremove the children from the path of traffic. He noted that they were working with the school to\ndevelop a safe routes to school map.\nCommissioner Schatmeier echoed Chair Knox White's comments, and did not see any\ncompelling reason for the one-hour parking zone in front of the school. He noted that when his\ndisabled child was school-age, she often took AC Transit when she was old enough. He noted\nthat he had to fight for parking places like everyone else for parent-teacher conferences. He did\nnot see a reason to grant a parking space for someone who would be at the school for an hour or\nless. He noted that people should be able to find some other place to park, or use the off-street\nlot, and did not agree with the staff report in that regard.\nCommissioner Krueger did not see a compelling need for the time-limited parking, but was\nconcerned about the traffic flow and safety. He inquired about other safety and circulation issues\napart from double parking. He believed that parking should be designated in the correct way,\nwhether or not the restrictions were enforced.\nStaff Khan displayed the circulation map, and replied that in the morning, parents used the white\nzone to drop off, and other cars would stop in the middle of the street. He noted that the access\nwas changed to eliminate other cars impeding the access.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether compact spaces would be possible,\nStaff Khan replied that the City did not have any ordinance for compact spaces. He added that the\nCommission could recommend to the City Council that an ordinance for compact spaces be\ndeveloped.\nChair Knox White noted that if there did not seem to be a need for a restriction which was not\nbeing enforced anyway, he did not believe it made sense to have such a restriction. He believed\nthe City's roadways should interact with the land uses.\nCommissioner Krueger moved to accept the staff recommendations, with the modification to\nremove time-limited parking, and retaining the no-stopping zone during school hours. Motion\ndies for lack of a second.\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-02-27", "page": 7, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding double fines in school zones, Staff\nKhan replied that that law would sunset this year. Chair Knox White suggested that double fines\nin school zones be considered.\nCommissioner Krueger suggested that the road diet issue be examined by staff.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to accept the staff recommendations to uphold the appeal,\nwith the modification to remove time-limited parking. Two of the three white parking spaces\nwould be preserved, and no stopping would be allowed in one space closest to the driveway\nfrom 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-\n0.\n7B.\nConceptual Design of Mariner Square Drive Realignment and Park and Ride\nLot/Transit Hub\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and displayed and described a conceptual design of a\nproposed realignment of existing Mariner Square Drive to a former railroad right-of-way, and\nconstruction of a transit hub in the vicinity of the Posey Tube entrance. The existing Mariner\nSquare Drive would be used to provide buses with direct access to the Posey Tube. The project\nincludes a Class I separate bicycle/pedestrian path that would provide connectivity to the Bay\nTrail and the Posey Tube, a future estuary crossing for transit, bicyclists and pedestrians that is\ncurrently under study, and the proposed Cross Alameda Trail. He noted that there is the potential\nto explore shared parking opportunities with adjacent businesses and property owners. He noted\nthat electronic bike lockers were being considered, and that bus line modifications could be\nconsidered to bring the W and 19 buses to access this site. Staff requested the Commissioners'\ncomments about pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation. In addition, there has been\npreliminary interest expressed in constructing a hotel on an adjacent City-owned site, so staff\nalso invited comments from the Commissioners on the potential for the transit hub and potential\nhotel to share parking, given the needs of these types of uses. He discussed that proposed costs\nfor each part of the proposal, and noted that the City is including this in the analysis for the TMP,\nsince if the project is included in the General Plan it will facilitate getting access to funding.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether the amenities include bus shelters\nand seating, Staff Khan replied that shelters would be part of this, and the City may also look into\nincluding electronic Next Bus signs to provide real-time information about transit vehicles\narrival times.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether the intersection of Atlantic Ave.\nand Webster Street would be served, Staff Bergman replied that one option that could be\nconsidered is rerouting the W to serve the transit hub, but maintaining the existing Line O route,\nwhich is heavily used at Atlantic and Webster.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether there was a way to serve this area, as well as Atlantic\nand Webster, Staff Khan replied that there could be a shuttle service to BART offered by AC\nTransit. Staff intended to address the issues regarding the congestion pressure on the Tubes, and\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-02-27", "page": 8, "text": "City Council has shown strong interest in discussing shuttle service.\nChair Knox White inquired how well the characteristics of this location match up with best\npractices for a Park and Ride lot, Staff Khan replied that staff was looking into that issue.\nAvailability of land and access to the Posey Tube are very attractive features of this site, but that\nother consideration must be evaluated as well.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that in the Long Range Transit Plan, the College of Alameda was\nidentified as a location for a transit hub. He asked if this project would be pursued as one of\nseveral transit hubs, or if it would preclude hubs at other sites. Staff Khan responded that this\nsite could potentially enhance access to the college, and there may even be an opportunity to\npursue funding jointly with the college. He estimated that the distance from the college to the\ntransit hub is less than 1500 feet.\nOpen public hearing.\nHussein Khomani noted that he ran a daycare at 2100 Mariner Square Drive with 125 children,\nand he was very concerned about the safety of the children if this proposal were to be\nimplemented. He was opposed to the proposal, and believed that general pedestrian safety would\nbe impacted as well, especially in the morning and afternoon when 125 parents dropped off and\npicked up their children. He noted that the first dropoff was at 6:30 a.m., and children were\npicked up at 6:00 p.m., and believed the pollution and noise would affect the children. He was\nconcerned about the elevation of the area, which was almost five feet above his property. He did\nnot believe $12 million was sufficient to resolve the elevation. Staff Khan responded that as part\nof the proposal, new pipes would address the drainage issues.\nPhilip Thorn noted that he lived in the Heritage Bay complex, that his children attended the\nnearby daycare center, and that his office location would also be impacted. He would like the\nTransportation Commission to be aware that the daycare center was a dedicated facility for the\nchildren, with an outdoor area facing the proposed road. He was very concerned about the noise\nand pollution impacts on the children, and noted that there were regular accidents on that road.\nHe believed it would be very dangerous to have the road with a thin fence that close to the\nplayground. He added that there were regular accidents at the Tube, and that cars would not be\nable to evade the accidents with the new plan. He suggested that more money be allocated to\nmitigate flooding. He did not believe a four-lane road would be appropriate next to the daycare\ncenter. He inquired about the timeframe of this proposed project, Staff Khan replied that funding\nwould not occur earlier than 2012.\nBill Smith noted that he had ridden his bicycle in the area for 15 years, and expressed concern\nabout the speed in the Tubes. He inquired where the 1,500 cars coming from the Base were. Staff\nBergman noted that was from Marina Village Parkway. Mr. Smith noted that he generally saw\nbuses, not cars. Staff Khan described the route he had inquired about. Mr. Smith expressed\nconcern about the truck traffic near the daycare center.\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-02-27", "page": 9, "text": "Close public hearing.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that this kind of proposal concerns him as a transit user. He\nbelieved this project was an example of the best of intentions yielding the worst of results. He\nnoted that it took 2\u00b9/\u00b2 to 3 hours for a transit bus to get from Santa Rosa to San Francisco because\nthe bus must exit the freeway and wait for local transit. He added that it took twice as long for a\ntransit user to make the trip than a driver in a car. He believed that routing the San Francisco\nbuses to the transit hub site would be a significant diversion of a normally rapid route. He\nbelieved it would only benefit users of the park and ride lot, at the expense users further down\nthe line. He inquired why shuttles were discussed when the AC Transit service was good. He\nbelieved that both directions must be served without delay, and that this would be a deterrence to\ntransit ridership. He believed this would work only if it can be served efficiently without serious\nsacrifices in running time.\nCommissioner Krueger echoed Commissioner Schatmeier's concerns. He noted that while the\nidea seemed to be good, the location was not a hub of any kind. While it may be easy for the City\nto build on this site, he did not believe it was the right thing to do. He noted that he liked the\nqueue jump concept for lines that we know are successful, not necessarily with reconfigured\nroutes.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether Mariner Square Drive was on a map,\nsimilar to Mitchell Moseley, Staff Khan replied that it was currently included in the Draft\nTransportation Element.\nChair Knox White shared the Commissioners' concerns. He believed the number of riders served\nwould have minimal impact on Tube traffic. He was concerned that the City may need to reroute\nseveral bus lines, which would add run time even if funds were obtained. He believed this\nproposal would be a mistake to implement.\nStaff Khan noted that there would be funding from developers from Alameda Landing and\nAlameda Point, and that those developments triggered the need for this proposal.\nChair Knox White believed the bus routes should be planned before the transit hub was located,\nnot the other way around, and was concerned that multiple bus lines might be reconfigured to\nserve the project. He believed that four lanes for Mariner Square Drive seemed excessive, and\nwould be apprehensive about adopting this plan into the Transportation Element. He would like\nto see the Alameda Landing EIR numbers in order to comment further. He noted that because the\ndaycare center is located so close to the Posey Tube entrance, it is already heavily impacted by\ntraffic. He also questioned the location of the project in terms of adjacent land uses, as there are\nno easy pedestrian connections to Marina Village or Alameda Landing. While he supported the\ninclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, he expressed concern that if the road is constructed\nto be four lanes that people would want to use it for biking and walking. While this plan was\n9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-02-27", "page": 10, "text": "very conceptual, he believed it would be important to stay in contact with the daycare owner,\nsince they owned the building. He stated that this may not be the right location for a transit hub,\nand it is not the right time to be pursuing it, that there are many existing pressing needs for transit\nin the City.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that regarding the realigned road, he would like to see more detail,\nand added that shortening the route from Alameda Landing to the Tube made sense. He also\nbelieved that this use of the railroad right of way made sense. He did not believe that a four-lane\nroute may be necessary.\nChair Knox White did not see a transit hub with commercial spaces being a good match for\nshared parking. He would like to see this proposal again when the traffic model was done, with\nmore specific numbers.\nStaff Khan noted that he would add the speakers to the email list for this proposal.\nCommission Communications (cont.)\nChair Knox White noted that the federal grant for bus shelters that the City had applied for was\ndenied.\nStaff Bergman noted that those funds were generally earmarked and were competitively awarded.\nStaff would continue to track that issue.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that the bike path near Mount Trashmore was overgrown with\nhedges, and would like it to be trimmed back.\nChair Knox White noted that the bus route map at the southwest corner of Santa Clara and High\nwas covered with graffiti.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that he had complained about it, and was told that all complaints\nabout graffiti must be routed through AC Transit. Staff Bergman indicated that the City is\nresponsible for graffiti on shelters, but that AC Transit is responsible for other bus route maps\nposted at bus stops.\nChair Knox White noted that there was broken glass at the shelter at Webster and Santa Clara, as\nwell as Willow and Santa Clara.\n8.\nStaff Communications\nStaff Bergman provided an update on the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study, funded by a\n$100,000 grant from ACTIA. ARUP was hired as the consultant, and Caltrans District 4 would\nprovide access to its on-call outreach consultant. Oakland has also contributed to the project as\nwell. Several community meetings had been scheduled in Chinatown (April 10) and in Alameda\n(April 12).\n10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-02-27", "page": 11, "text": "Staff Bergman noted that the March ILC would be rescheduled.\nStaff Bergman noted that the City received a grant to install bike lockers and racks at the Harbor\nBay Ferry Terminal, as well as near key commercial areas.\nStaff Bergman noted that paratransit program enrollment had increased by 25% during the past\nyear, and that enhanced marketing was being undertaken.\nStaff Khan noted that the Ecopass program was being finalized with AC Transit for all City\nemployees. The program is anticipated to be in place by early summer.\nStaff Bergman updated the bus stop improvements which would be implemented in conjunction\nwith AC Transit.\nStaff Khan noted that a Park Street redevelopment project was being initiated, and a charrette\nwould be presented at the Alameda Library.\nMeeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEESITC\\2008\\032608\\packet\\022708minutes-draft.d\n11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-07-26", "page": 1, "text": "DRAFT MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\nWEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 2017\nCommissioner Vargas convened the meeting at 7:05pm.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Commissioners Vargas, Bertken, Soules, and Palmer.\nAbsent: Chair Bellows, Vice-Chair Miley, Commissioner Hans.\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\nCommissioner Soules made a motion to continue item 5-A to a future meeting.\nCommissioner Vargas seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.\n3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT\n3A\nLaura Palmer - New Commissioner Introduction\nCommissioner Vargas welcomed the new member of the Transportation Commission,\nLaura Palmer.\nCommissioner Palmer introduced herself. She said she is a long-time resident, has three\nkids at different schools, commutes to work and wants to keep Alameda the great place\nthat it is. She said she works at Google, and has been in technology for most of her\ncareer.\n3B\nTransportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, September 27 at 7:00\np.m.\nStaff Member Payne announced that there would be a meeting on September 27th. She\nsaid the November meeting would be on Wednesday November 15th, due to the\nThanksgiving holiday.\n4. CONSENT CALENDAR\n4A 2017-4538\nApprove Meeting Minutes - April 26, 2017 (Action)\nThe staff report can be found at:\nittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3097452&GUID=47F0E7\nED-DBEE-4D83-B289-C1FBFC7672B9&Options=&Search=\nCommissioner Soules made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner\nBertken seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-07-26", "page": 2, "text": "5. NEW BUSINESS\n5A 2017-4539\nElect Chair and Vice Chair (Action)\nContinued (see Item 2: Agenda Changes) ***\n5B 2017-4540\nUphold Public Works' Decision to Not Install an All-Way Stop Control at the\nIntersection of Sixth Street and Haight Avenue and Approve the Removal of Four\nParking Spaces on Sixth Street at Haight Avenue (Action)\nStaff Member Aghamir, City Engineer, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The\nstaff report and attachments can be found at:\n ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3097454&GUID=4F47F3B3-\n28D0-48AD-9D28-C592568C504F&FullText=1\nCommissioner Soules noted that the original request to the city was to improve visibility\nfor vehicles at the intersection and was not related to pedestrian activity.\nCommissioner Vargas asked what the level of impact in injury and dollar value of the two\ncollisions that occurred at the intersection in the previous five years.\nStaff Member Aghamir said he did not believe the injuries were severe, and that they\nwere broadside collisions in 2011 and 2016.\nCommissioner Vargas suggested voting on the stop sign first and the having the parking\ndiscussion separately.\n*There were no speakers for public comment.*\nCommissioner Bertken said there was a similar issue at an intersection on Bay Farm. He\nsaid the police sergeant at the meeting explained that the driver has a right to pull\nforward into the parking lane at an intersection to improve visibility before entering an\nintersection. He said there should be more education of this fact due to the number of\nintersections in Alameda with this issue.\nCommissioner Bertken made a motion to NOT install a stop sign at the\nintersection. Commissioner Soules seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.\nCommissioner Soules asked if there were a viable no action alternative to removing\nparking spaces at the intersection.\nStaff Member Aghamir said there was not. He said there is poor visibility at the\nintersection that merits some action.\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-07-26", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner Bertken said he does not recommend the staff proposal of removing\nparking spaces at all four corners of the intersection.\nCommissioner Soules asked staff to restate the details of the 2nd alternative\nrecommendation.\nStaff Member Aghamir said it would result in the loss of three parking spaces and a sign\nlimiting parking at one corner to vehicles under six feet tall.\nCommissioner Soules said much of the public correspondence was concerned that\nallowing vehicles under six feet tall to park at the corner would compromise pedestrian\nsafety.\nCommissioner Soules made a motion to implement the staff recommendation that\nwould remove four parking spaces.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if there were any plans for development in the area.\nStaff Member Aghamir said there was nothing in the immediate area.\nCommissioner Bertken seconded Commissioner Soules' motion. The vote was 3-\n0-1 (Palmer abstained).\nCommissioner Vargas asked if a 3-0-1 vote constituted passage.\nStaff Member Payne's response was inaudible, but appeared to be shaking her head in\nthe negative.\nCommissioner Palmer said she would therefore change her vote to aye. The\nmotion passed 4-0.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n6-A 2017-4541\nReview Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and\nPlans (Information)\nStaff Member Ott updated the commission on upcoming projects and ongoing plans. The\nstaff report and attachment can be found at:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3097455&GUID=59058475-\n5992-48F4-BB1D-EF75AB020C63&FullText=1\nCommissioner Vargas asked how much the parking tickets would be for ferry riders\nparking in the Bay Farm neighborhoods with permit parking.\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-07-26", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Member Ott said the ticket would be the standard rate for parking violations around\nthe city.\nCommissioner Bertken asked what the relation was between the Transportation\nCommission and the Citywide TMA Board.\nStaff Member Ott explained the role of the Transportation Commission as a citywide\nadvisory body. She said the TMA will be an independent board that decides how to use\ntheir accumulated funds to reduce drive alone trips and meet our transportation goals.\nShe said the TMA would report annually and be accountable to the city.\nCommissioner Vargas said that we should remember to plan for carpool, carshare, and\nautonomous vehicles.\nCommissioner Soules asked if the TMA has specific goals for seniors and the disabled.\nStaff Member Ott said that they do not specifically address that and are focused\nprimarily on peak hour congestion issues, but will look at other areas as well.\nCommissioner Palmer asked if the TMA would be focusing at all on the car trips\ngenerated by the new development.\nStaff Member Ott said the TMA is focused on how to get people out of their cars, but the\ncity considers vehicle capacity and congestion when planning new developments or\nchanges in street designs.\nCommissioner Vargas suggested that the Transportation Commission agendas be\nshared with the TMA Board and that they be invited to listen and participate in meetings\ndealing with large projects in order to hear the dialogue from the community.\nCommissioner Soules asked what outreach channels have been used to get the word\nout about the Harbor Bay parking changes. She asked if the bus would be synched up\nwith the elementary school dropoffs and still be able to make the 830am ferry.\nStaff Member Payne said the bus arrives at the ferry terminal at about 822am, which\nmeans the timing for school drop off is very tight.\nStaff Member Ott said they would continue to monitor the fine details and continue to\nreport back on the results.\nStaff Member Payne explained the outreach that included press releases, flyers and\nperson to person contact with ferry riders in recent months.\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-07-26", "page": 5, "text": "6-B Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items\n1. Approve Draft Transportation Choices Plan\n2. Update on 2014 Parking Occupancy Goal and Recommended Parking\nImprovements\n3. Accept the Annual Report on the Alameda Landing and Marina Shores\nTransportation Demand Management Program and Progress on the Citywide\nTransportation Management Association\nStaff Member Payne listed the above items that will be coming up in future meetings.\n7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT\nJim Strehlow, resident, said he does not like what he hears related to driverless cars\nbecause it will mean less jobs for people. He said he would prefer to pay people, not\ntechnology. He said he thinks that if there are votes on driverless vehicle policies that\npeople who work for Google should recuse themselves. He said he thinks security will\nbe an issue for driverless vehicles. He said he was worried about the delay created for\nright hand turning vehicles at Atlantic and Constitution with the proposed changes. He\nsaid he would like to see the traffic models that support the statistics that were quoted.\nCommissioner Soules asked if there was a bifurcation in the data for peak hours and off\npeak hours in the traffic study.\nStaff Member Ott said they will provide any information they have and ask the consultant\nfor further information if necessary.\nCommissioner Vargas asked Mr. Strehlow if he was looking for an answer for just this\none build alternative, or something more broad.\nMr. Strehlow said he was looking for more details of how the model is conducted, not\njust what the final data is.\nCommissioner Palmer said these questions are prevalent in the community and putting\nout more information about this issue could be beneficial for the community.\n8. ADJOURNMENT\nCommissioner Vargas adjourned the meeting at 8:15pm.\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-11-18", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nTransportation Commission Meeting\nWednesday, November 18, 2020\nTime:\n6:30 p.m.\nLocation:\nDue to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners was able to attend\nthe meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom. City Hall was NOT open to\nthe public during the meeting.\n1. Roll Call\nPresent: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Nachtigall and Commissioners Hans, Yuen and Weitze.\nAbsent: Commissioner Kohlstrand.\n2.\nAgenda Changes - none\n3. Staff Communications as shown in the web link here:\n  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4692141&GUID=8D171B30-7FE5-4F69-9740-\nAC133A1D805E&Options=&Search=&FullText=1\n3A. Vacancy on Transportation Commission - To apply, please complete online form:\nwww.alamedaca.gov/GOVERNMENT/Boards-Commissions/Online-Application\n3B. Willie Stargell Complete Street Survey - www.Alamedaca.gov/stargel\n3C. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items\n1. Annual Report on Transportation\n2. General Plan Update\n3. 10-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)\n4. Active Transportation Plan Update\n5. Intersection Access Equity - Traffic Signal Policy\n6. Citywide Roundabouts Analysis\n3D. Update on the Subcommittee for the General Plan Update and 10-Year CIP\n3E. Future Meeting Dates for 2021 - Meetings start at 6:30 p.m.\n1. Wednesday, January 27\n2. Wednesday, March 24\n3. Wednesday, May 26\n4. Wednesday, July 28\n5. Wednesday, September 22\n6. Wednesday, November 17\n3F. Alameda Active Transportation Plan: Latest info at www.ActiveAlameda.org\n3G. Alameda County Safe Routes to Schools online resources, activities and webinars during\ncoronavirus pandemic: http://www.alamedacountysr2s.org/covid-19\n3H. Alameda Slow Streets program web page: http://www.slowstreetsalameda.org/\n3I. Alameda Commercial Streets program web page:www.alamedaca.gov/commercialstreets\n3J. COVID 19 Get Around Safe Pledge: www.alamedaca.gov/AlamedaPledge\n3K. Vision Zero Program: www.alamedaca.gov/VisionZero\n3L. Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) 2020 Trainings:\nittps://www.alamedaca.gov/Departments/Fire-Department/Alameda-CERT\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-11-18", "page": 2, "text": "3M. Emergency Alerts for Alameda - Subscribe at AC Alert web page:\nhttps://www.acgov.org/emergencysite/\n3N. Regional Emergency Transportation Alerts - Subscribe:\nhttps://511.org/alerts/emergencies/511Alert\n30. Clipper Card (adults) - order on line or at Walgreens or set up Autoload to add value\nautomatically: https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/getTranslink.do\n3P. Clipper Card Discounts for youth, seniors and people with disabilities\n-\nittps://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/discounts/index.do\n3Q. FasTrak or new toll tag for upcoming I-880 Express Lanes scheduled to open late summer 2020:\non line or at Walgreens (except not Park Street location) and then register on line:\nhttps://www.bayareafastrak.org/en/signup/signUp.shtm\n3R. City Adaptation Project - web links\nwww.alamedaca.gov/ShorelineWebsterPoseyTubes\nwww.alamedaca.gov/ShorelineDoolittleDr\nwww.alamedaca.gov/ShorelineVeteransCt\n4. Announcements / Public Comments\nNo public comment.\n4A. Transportation Commissioner Appreciation of Service Resolution for Commissioner David Johnson\n(Information Item)\nChair Soules recognized former Commissioner David Johnson's work on the Transportation Commission\nby reading the Appreciation Resolution as shown here:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4692142&GUID=6E20E869-87B5-4AAA-9151-\nCF52B01073CF\n5. Consent Calendar\n5A. Approve Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020 (Action Item) as shown here:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4692143&GUID=6C38C6E2-F113-44B3-B7A\nOFBC34881B33&FullText=1\nNo changes proposed. Commissioner Nachtigall moved to approve as is. Commission Yuen seconded. The\nmotion passed 5-0.\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Recommendation to Approve the Central Avenue Safety Improvement Project Final Concept (Action\nItem)\nGail Payne, Senior Transportation Coordinator and Stefan Schuster of CDM Smith, gave a presentation.\nThe staff report and attachments can be found at:\n  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4692144&GUID=26A3562E-9A47-432D-9624-\n973193AAOBFO&FullText=1\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-11-18", "page": 3, "text": "Stefan Schuster also introduced:\nJennifer Cheung of CDM Smith\nMichael Bjork of CDM Smith\nSzu-han Chen of CDM Smith\nJake Gunther of CDM Smith\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A\nCommissioner Weitze asked questions about the plan overall.\nChair Soules asked staff to clarify the current stage of the plan and what comes next.\nStaff Payne responded that the 35 percent drawings are complete. Staff is looking to obtain overall project\napproval before spending effort on developing detailed designs.\nMr. Schuster added that more details will be developed for roundabouts with all stakeholders. At this time,\nthe City is looking for approval of the corridor-wide concept with the roundabouts.\nCommissioner Weitze stated that there are points of friction that are not totally addressed such as in front\nof Encinal High School and at the transitions from two-way bike path to single-sided paths, and he is not\nsure why these choices were made.\nStaff Payne responded that Encinal School area is confusing today because drop off/pick up is under\nconstruction and there will no longer be a parking lot there. This project will create room for a center turn\nlane, and a bus pull-out for a bus to wait out of the traffic lane, just west of the jet and so we expect it to\nfunction better than it does now. The City team is coordinating with the school on the design. As for why\nthere is a change from a two-way to bike lanes at Eighth Street, this was analyzed in 2015, and there are too\nmany driveways east of Eighth St, which creates a visibility issue and takes away a lot of parking. The\nnumber of driveways also means the center turn lane is more valuable here. Also, this is Caltrans right of\nway, so the City needed to be more conservative.\nMr. Schuster added that the width is constrained and there are large heritage trees that need to be protected.\nCommissioner Weitze clarified that he was talking about the change at Central/Pacific from two-way\nprotected bike lanes to standard bike lanes.\nStaff Payne stated that on Main Street, one can use bike lanes or the multi-use pathway on the west side of\nthe street.\nStaff Wikstrom added that the two-way cycle track does merge into a multi-use path. The longer-term plans\nare for the cycle track to continue north of Pacific Avenue along Main Street.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-11-18", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Hans asked what the estimated construction period is.\nMr. Schuster stated that he estimates six to eight months, depending on weather, time of year and other\nchanges.\nChair Soules stated that she has heard that traffic circles can be problematic for the visually impaired and\nwanted to clarifications on the accommodations. She questions whether the lower operations and\nmaintenance costs include the landscaping maintenance and irrigation systems.\nMr. Schuster responded that accessibility measures are included for people with visual impairments,\nincluding tactile domes, refuges within the splitter islands, and shorter, high visibility crossings. He agreed\nthat landscaping and irrigation would include operations and maintenance costs but less than signals.\nLandscape costs would be mitigated with carefully selected native plants and water efficient irrigation\ndesign. but any plants will still have an establishment period when watering is needed of up to the first three\nyears.\nStaff Wikstrom added that while there are long term costs of roundabouts, the traffic signals have many\nmore regular maintenance and replacement costs, like traffic signal bulbs.\nCommissioner Weitze asked why we are keeping some of the all-way stop intersections given the benefits\nof roundabouts.\nStaff Payne and Mr. Schuster responded that the roundabouts take up more space, so the City cannot install\nthem in more constrained locations such as Fifth Street, Webster Street and Eighth Street. The City is\nconsidering one at Fourth Street but the budget needs to be considered.\nCommissioner Yuen asked what the planned treatment of trees is along the corridor, about the school\ncoordination and concerns and about the selection of intersections for pedestrian-activated beacons.\nMr. Schuster responded on the trees that it is a priority to save and protect the existing trees. Contractors\nwill be required to protect the trees to avoid damage. The team is in the middle of a tree study, which is an\ninventory of every tree, including species, condition and protection needed. Limited tree removal is\nanticipated, and primarily will be on the western end of the project because of the cycle track. The project\nwill replace these trees, it is anticipated to have a net gain of trees in the corridor.\nStaff Payne responded about the school interactions, which have been positive with the schools, district and\nprincipals. For Maya Lin School, students cross at Ninth Street, so the project will install a flashing beacon\nat this intersection. At Paden, the principal participated in a bike tour of the project area, and is in favor of\nthe concept. Originally, the project had included a flashing beacon in front of the school, but the team\nbelieves it is safer for kids to cross at the signalized intersections at Fourth Street and Fifth Street. For\nEncinal School, the team was concerned about a roundabout in front of the high school, but found examples\nof successful roundabouts in similar locations. Also, the west end has charter schools and ASTI whose\nstudents may use these new facilities.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-11-18", "page": 5, "text": "Commissioner Yuen asked why there are no beacons at Fourth and Fifth Streets.\nStaff Payne responded that the project is hoping to include a roundabout at Fourth Street and that it is\ncurrently signalized. The Fifth Street intersection will be simplified and will include new curb extensions,\nhigh visibility cross-walks and refuge islands. At Ninth Street, the new beacon, as explained, is for Maya\nLin students. St. Charles has been selected to have a flashing beacon since it is a future bike boulevard.\nPage Street will have a flashing beacon at the consolidation bus stop location. Lincoln Avenue by Encinal\nSchool will have one to give students a safer crossing.\nVice Chair Nachtigall asked if the City is planning any pedestrian crossing improvements along Lincoln\nAvenue since the project is showing that traffic will divert to this street.\nStaff Payne responded that the City is having Kittelson Associates do a citywide review of roundabouts,\nand may add roundabouts to Lincoln Avenue since it is a wide street. In the Transportation Choices Plan,\nthere is a corridor-long improvement project planned for Lincoln Avenue.\nStaff Wikstrom added that Lincoln Avenue is identified for short-term improvements since it is a high injury\nnetwork corridor, which includes daylighting intersections, and possibly high visibility crossings.\nMr. Schuster added that a flashing beacon and a high visibility crosswalk will be added where Lincoln\nAvenue and Central Avenue intersect.\nChair Soules had a general question about diversion and what has been studied and how will that study\ncontinue during the design phase particularly for Webster Street given the planned limited turn options at\nCentral Avenue/Webster Street intersection.\nMr. Schuster stated that the diversion is covered in detail in the TOAR exhibit of the staff report, and it\nshows some diversion maps. Webster St. and Eighth St. to Constitution Way are the most preferred routes\nin the morning for those motorists trying to leave the island. The project may cause additional motorists to\nre-route from Central Avenue to Eighth Street, rather than using Webster Street. No significant impacts to\nthe intersections along that corridor are expected. On other potential diversion routes, there would be fairly\nlimited amounts of diversion such as on slower parallel residential streets, which have less time savings.\nThe team is looking at traffic calming measures at the cross streets to deter cut-through traffic.\nPublic Comments for #6A\nDenyse Trepanier thanked staff for their work, which has come a long way, and has taken a lot to work with\nall stakeholders. She stated that she is on the Board of Bike Walk Alameda, and expressed her gratitude\nthat this project prioritizes what we as a community have said we want to prioritize: safety and climate.\nShe is heartened that tonight's dialogue is not centered on traffic and parking. It is easy to say that we want\nsafety and climate, but often it devolves to discussing parking and having it become a chief criterion. She\nis thrilled about roundabouts and the cycle track.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-11-18", "page": 6, "text": "Ruth Abbe stated that she is with Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda, and is active on CASA's\ntransportation committee. She is very supportive of this project both for its safety and climate benefits. She\nreally thinks the emphasis on increased safety for walking and biking, and on reducing this as a corridor for\ntraffic is great. She wants to commend staff and to provide full support.\nChristopher Buckley stated that he is a City planner and a tree advocate. He wants to go to bat for preserving\nthe maximum number of trees and for adding more trees. He understands that trees will be planted, and\ndiscussed options for adding trees even at narrow sidewalk locations with Staff Payne. He wants to ask the\nCommission to support these efforts that staff and consultants are doing for tree preservation and to\nmaximum tree plantings, and to recommend them to Council.\nAmos White stated that he is the Founder of 100,000 Trees for Humanity. He is committed to planting this\nmany trees in Alameda, and to help Alameda meet its 2030 climate goals. He commends the work that the\nCommission is doing on this project. He stated that there is no indication in the concept plans of where\ntrees will be located, but there is talk in the staff report of removing trees, which is concerning. He asks the\nCommission to emphasize maximizing tree planting, such as at roundabouts and landscaped areas, and to\nminimize any tree removal. He asked the Commission to avoid or minimize as much as possible the\nremoval of trees and to maximize planting of new trees to support CARP.\nJohn McCabe thanked staff and the consultants. He thinks that this will be a great project. He runs and\nbikes in the area. The bike lanes will help him drive less, and the students will be able to bike to school\ninstead of being driven. The increase in visibility is a big issue for turning on and off Central Avenue. He\nis looking forward to the project. The roundabouts are new, and he lives close to a proposed one. These\nintersections proposed for roundabouts are really messed up right now, and are really confusing for\nmotorists, and worse for pedestrians. Roundabouts will make traffic flow better, and will make businesses\nmore accessible to pedestrians. His only concern is the timing of the project, and he wants to see this get\ndone faster.\nCynthia Cooper stated that she lives at the corner of Encinal Avenue and Sherman Street. She is pro bike\nand trees; however, she is a renter. She expressed that it is very challenging to park. When the economy\nwas doing well, parking is more difficult. Eight people live in the building, and there are many apartments\nand condos in this vicinity. She loves the idea of bicycling but she works in Livermore so she needs to\ndrive. The project is very concerning. She has lived here since 1994, and has had to sometimes park 2-3\nblocks away, which is hard with groceries and at night. It makes for a difficult lifestyle. She requested to\nplease consider this more. The project is eating up too much parking, and she wanted to know if there is a\nway to do this without losing so much parking.\nTrish Spencer thanked the Commissioners for comments about the visually impaired people using\nroundabouts and does not think it was adequately answered. Regarding impacts on Webster Street and\nCentral Avenue, she is interested in changes here due to COVID. She is not sure if any changes were made\nin the bike/pedestrian/transit/car projections for the project because of COVID. She would like to know\nmore about the assumptions. She would like to see the increases in bike and pedestrian use and the decreases\nin transit be considered and is wondering about changes in driving due to people working at home now.\nJeannine Gravem stated that she is a resident on Sherman Street. She is extremely concerned about the\nroundabout at this intersection and is unclear why the project is reducing traffic on Sherman Street with\na\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-11-18", "page": 7, "text": "cul de sac or right turn only. The project will cause confusion and congestion in that there is a lot of traffic\ncoming through here. Compressing to one lane in each direction will slow people down and she does not\nthink a roundabout will work. She is very concerned about parking, too. There are many apartment\nbuildings in this area, and some do not have garages or driveways. Some households have multiple cars.\nShe thinks decreasing parking by 23 percent is pretty extreme.\nCyndy Johnsen stated that it is a fantastic project and can't be built soon enough. It has safety for all, more\nefficient traffic and less engine idling. It is a win for everyone. She is glad the project is prioritizing safety\nand climate over parking. She commends staff on the virtual open house and hope to see more of these in\nthe future.\nJim Strehlow stated that earlier AC Transit said Webster Street and Central Avenue intersection would not\nwork for them and asked why there is not more public input on it. Sherman Street looks horrible. He stated\nthat motorists will become trapped in the middle of the roundabout with pedestrian crossings. He asked if\nall the residents have been notified, if the Fire Department has approved, and if the side streets been notified.\nThe PDF on page 9 lists lost parking spaces as 70, but the PowerPoint shows 122. The numbers are\nmisleading. The scanned text cannot be searched, and one font is not supported. He wants more public\nworkshops. There is no participation panel during this meeting so it is unclear how many people are\nparticipating tonight.\nChristy Cannon stated that she supports roundabouts in that there would be less idling and less pollution.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A\nChair Soules stated that Staff should take steps to increase transparency and watch the fonts and to confirm\ncommunity engagement. She asked if AC Transit and WABA have worked on this project in that they were\nnot talked about in the presentation, and should be looped back in. She wants to see data on traffic\ndiversions and the impacts of parking loss. She wants to hear about the Webster Street traffic impacts.\nCommissioner Weitze stated that roundabouts are an opportunity to do public art and not just landscaping,\nand wants to know what the City has learned from the Shoreline project.\nStaff Payne replied that the project could either include art or work it into the design as a future phase. She\nstated that the project includes eight-foot wide parking and travel lanes that accommodate trucks so that it\nis less cramped than Shoreline. AC Transit supports the project because the lanes are wider than initially\nplanned, and is fine with consolidating bus stops, which helps them make the turn at Webster Street. WABA\nwanted and got a left-turn lane into the foot of Webster Street.\nMr. Shuster added that the project provides space for future potential bus service from the Alameda Point\narea near the Pacific Avenue/Main Street roundabout and the Fifth Street intersection. AC Transit also\nprovided design input on bus stops on the eastern part of the corridor, which have been incorporated. He\nfeels the project has satisfied AC Transit's requests.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-11-18", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Hans stated that he is proud of City staff in that they have worked hard on this project,\nincluding community engagement, working with WABA and considering schools' needs. He fully supports\nthe project.\nCommissioner Yuen stated that she is a big supporter of this project, and appreciates the focus on multiple\ngoals: safety, Vision Zero, High Injury Corridors, climate, stormwater management, pedestrian and\nbicycling. She supports the roundabouts. The issues of parking and diversions should not slow down this\nproject. She would like a chance to comment on the tree survey in the final concept.\nStaff Payne clarified that this is the final concept for approval, but staff will come back during next steps to\ntalk about trees. About outreach, staff has done notifications to properties within 300 feet three times since\n2015, and there are over 500 people on the Central Avenue email list serv. For parking, the project opens\nup some street parking west of Sherman Street where none currently exists. The 2045 projections are worst-\ncase scenario, pre-covid, SO they probably are accounting for more traffic and they include cumulative\nimpacts from new development expected in 2045.\nChair Soules stated that if any Commissioners have concerns like parking, trees, diversions, we can request\nCouncil to address them. She requested a friendly amendment to have the tree survey come back to the\nTransportation Commission. She asked how many other east-west corridors are planned for a road diet.\nStaff Payne replied that there is a proposed project on Lincoln Avenue.\nChair Soules expressed concerns about Lincoln Avenue also getting a road diet in that having road diets in\nmultiple places could increase commute times, and we need to maintain service levels for transit. She\nrequested before/after data to show that safer routes allow people to shift modes.\nStaff Payne stated that the cycle tracks on both Fernside Blvd. by Lincoln Middle School and on Shoreline\nincreased bicycling.\nChair Soules stated that high schoolers should be encouraged not to drive.\nStaff Payne stated that Encinal School is removing the student parking lot making it more difficult for\nstudents to drive. The countywide Safe Routes to School program is increasing outreach to high schoolers,\nas well as free bus passes and Island High School currently receives them.\nChair Soules is concerned about public engagement because the project has been going on for so long that\nsome people have moved away, and new people have moved in. She asked if there has been outreach over\nthe last few years.\nStaff Payne stated that there have been five public workshops since 2013 with the last two in the past few\nyears: one in December 2018 and another one was one month ago in October as a virtual open house for\nmultiple weeks, which still exists on the Central Avenue web page. The City has done notifications to\nadjacent properties three times, and provided postcards to Webster Street all the way to Santa Clara Avenue\nand to the block of Sherman Street south of the roundabout for the recent virtual workshop.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-11-18", "page": 9, "text": "Vice Chair Nachtigall thanked City staff for a comprehensive staff report. She supports the project's safety\nimprovements for pedestrians and bicyclists, the roundabout recommendations and minimizing tree\nremovals.\nChair Soules stated that Commissioner Kohlstrand expressed a concern about increased traffic on Eighth\nStreet, which would get heavy traffic diverted from Webster Street. Chair Soules also stated that the public\nstreet is not there for private parking storage. She expressed concerns about diversions and outreach to\nrenters.\nStaff Payne replied that all residents along the corridor including renters received notifications as well as\nproperty owners.\nPublic Comments for #6A\nJeanine Gravem stated that the notification was not done well for Sherman Street in that she first heard of\nthe project when she received the postcard for the recent workshop.\nDonna Gravem stated that the City should take into consideration the age of the Sherman Street area. Many\nof the houses were built before cars were common, so there is not a lot of off-street parking. Please take\nthat into consideration.\nCynthia Cooper appreciates that Chair Soules heard the parking concerns and she supports a parking permit\nidea. She agrees that Eighth Street can be challenging, and it can be tough to get off the island.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussion for #6A\nVice Chair Nachtigall made a motion to support the final concept\nChair Soules added the following friendly amendments: to minimize tree removals and maximize tree\nplantings, to look at ways to mitigate parking loss, to ensure that the outreach is sufficient, to mitigate traffic\ndiversion and transit performance issues and to bring back traffic diversions, parking and the landscaping\nplan to the TC.\nCommissioner Hans seconded the motion.\nThe motion passed 5-0.\n7. Announcements / Public Comments\nJim Strehlow stated that the current Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way light timing is bad and need to\nwait a long time as a pedestrian and a bicyclist so the loop detectors need to work better.\n8. Adjournment\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020\n9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission Minutes: Wednesday, July 24, 2013\nCommissioner Jesus Vargas called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nJesus Vargas (Chair)\nChristopher Miley (Vice Chair)\nMichele Bellows\nThomas G. Bertken\nSandy Wong\nEric Schatmeier\nStaff Present:\nStaff Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\nStaff Alan Ta, Public Works Assistant Engineer\nStaff Heba El Guendy, Public Works Supervising Civil Engineer\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\n3.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\nCommissioner Vargas attended the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and\nAssociated Bay Area Governments (ABAG) meeting on July 19th regarding the One Bay Area\nPlan and the adoption of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Ultimately, he was glad to see\nland use and transportation planning coming together.\nAlex Nguyen, Alameda City Manager, introduced Heba El Guendy, Supervising Civil Engineer,\nwho is in charge of the City's transportation unit.\nStaff El Guendy said that she joined the City's Public Works Department a month ago and her\n24-years of experience centers on traffic engineering, roadway design and transportation\nplanning. She explained that she has experience as a consultant and has worked for several years\nin the public sector. Additionally, she said she is passionate about the implementation of\ncomplete streets.\n4.\nConsent Calendar\n4A.\nMeeting Minutes - June 26, 2013\nPage 1 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Bellows seconded\nthe motion. The motion was approved 5-0; 1 abstention.\n5.\nNew Business\n5A. Resident Appeal of Public Works Staff's Decision to Not Install the No Parking Street\nSweeping Signs on the 2600 Block of La Jolla Drive\nStaff Ta gave an overview of the item.\nCommissioner Schatmeier clarified with staff that their recommendation was to not recommend\nthe signs.\nStaff Ta replied staff is recommending the signs not be installed.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if the installation of the signs have any influence on the number\nof times the streets are swept.\nStaff Ta explained that the residential streets have a set schedule and they are swept on a weekly\nbasis.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if the signs are not installed, then occasionally cars will be in\nthe way.\nStaff Ta replied yes.\nCommissioner Vargas said he spoke with a City sergeant about the fact that his street was swept\nacross the street where there are signs and later into the day they swept the other side without\nsigns. He then asked about the safety implications if the signs are not added.\nStaff Ta replied he is not aware of any safety impacts with the signs being present or not.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.\nAnn Leonardo, resident of La Jolla Drive, created the petition because the street cleaner comes\nup Broadway, enters into the La Jolla and attempts to get into the cul-de-sac, which is 125 feet\nlong, and cannot because of the parked cars. Consequently, the street cleaner continues up\nBroadway. She apologized to the staff and Commission for the amount of time that it has taken\nto review the issue. When she decided to execute the petition, she attempted to notify her\nneighbors by knocking on their doors. She felt the street around the cul-de-sac is used as a kind\nof catch all for parking.\nRobert Erdmann, resident of La Jolla Drive, reviewed the staff report, public comments and\nappeal. He stated that all opposing comments were address in Staff Ta's notes during his field\nPage 2 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 3, "text": "visit on October 22nd. He sent an email the next day and thanked Staff Ta for coming out and\nmade it clear that he was against the no parking street sweeping signs and parking restrictions on\nthe 2600 La Jolla Drive block.\nCommissioner Miley asked the residents if the gutters and curbs are generally clean on their\nblock.\nAnn Leonardo replied that she hired a gardener to clean the 80-foot strip in front of her house.\nThe gardener clears the gutter and he blows underneath cars. However, she felt the residents\nshould not have to do it if there is a street cleaning vehicle going up and down the streets.\nRobert Erdmann replied that he grew up on the block and his continued duty is to pick up some\noccasional leaves and soda cans. He stated tall trees are not present on their block and the wind\nblows some leaves from the other block, but he sweeps them up because it is not a huge issue.\nPeriodically, on Thursdays, there are not many cars on the street so they could get into the street.\nCommissioner Schatmeier confirmed with Robert Erdmann that at times the street sweeper is\nunable to clean the gutter area.\nRobert Erdmann said he is usually at work, but his wife does occasionally see the street sweeper\nunable to get into the gutter area.\nCommissioner Wong referred to page 5 of the staff report where there are two pictures of a\ntypical Thursday street cleaning morning compared to a non-street sweeping morning. Overall,\nthe snap shots look like there are more cars. So, she asked if staff could look into moving the\nstreet sweeping day to a time when it is not as heavily used.\nStaff Ta replied staff has spoken to the maintenance department and asked if they could move the\ntime, but the City's street sweeping schedule is a complicated matrix and to change it for a 125-\nfoot cul-de-sac is not a reasonable use of staff time.\nCommissioner Wong asked staff what are the scheduled street sweeping dates for Broadway.\nStaff Ta replied the days are Monday and Thursday.\nCommissioner Wong explained since the opposite side of Broadway is on Monday then the street\nsweeper could go down the cul-de-sac since it is a non-street sweeping day. Additionally, based\non the photo from the presentation the cul-de-sac would be less impacted by cars.\nStaff Ta replied that there would still be an impact of parked cars regardless of the day.\nCommissioner Miley asked if the City is required to sweep 100 percent of City streets.\nStaff Ta replied that the City has a schedule to sweep all the public streets, but he is not certain of\nCity policy.\nCommissioner Bellows said her street contained signs on one side because it was needed to\nPage 3 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 4, "text": "maintain the overflow and water quality of the Bay from the affluent running off during storms.\nShe went on to say residents could request the signs, but 50 percent or more residents must agree\nwith the need to erect signs and restrict parking. Ultimately, the City is meeting and exceeding\nthe requirement to sweep the streets and the City does not have to sweep every street because the\noutflow to the Bay is far less.\nCommissioner Miley replied that the City has a broader standard and not just a block-by-block\npolicy.\nCommissioner Miley moved to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Bellows seconded\nthe motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n5B. Encinal High School Improvements - Phase II\nStaff Ta presented the report.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if Taylor Avenue would still be two-way.\nStaff Ta replied yes.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff based on the improvements initially there were 20 movements\nand in Phase II would there be far fewer movements.\nStaff Ta replied yes.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff if there are warrants to be checked regarding the stop signs.\nStaff Ta replied that there are, but they are reviewing them qualitatively. Also, based on the\ngeometry and the layout of the five-way intersection, if three cars appear it is hard to see which\ncar goes first. Consequently, the intersection would not be a great candidate for an all-way stop\nsign.\nCommissioner Miley asked about the peak-hour traffic volumes and how many cars are coming\nfrom Central Avenue or Third Street and turning onto Taylor Avenue.\nStaff Ta said that the counts are found in the presentation.\nCommissioner Wong said that she understood the bus stop relocation, which makes sense.\nHowever, on the opposite side found on Figure 15, \"Passenger Loading Zone\", there is\nsignificant congestion in the morning compared to the afternoon. So, if they put the Passenger\nLoading Zone 4 right there, then that block or create congestion even though cars are pulling to\nthe side. She felt one of the main issues are drivers who are coming from Central Avenue\ntowards the high school stop in the middle of the intersection when students are entering the\ncrosswalk from Third Street across Central Avenue instead of stopping by Central Avenue and\nTaylor Avenue. She went on to explain that all motorists should stop where they are supposed to\nstop because cars on Central Avenue would line up until they almost touched the kids. Third\nStreet becomes backed up and drivers going down Central Avenue cannot pass the traffic and\nPage 4 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 5, "text": "make sweeping turns onto Taylor Avenue.\nStaff Ta replied that they reviewed it and were thinking of a few other options, but their priorities\nwere to improve pedestrian and bicycle access.\nCommissioner Wong asked staff to move the drop off point down to the corner near the student\nparking driveway and access to the bay because it is less congested. She emphasized not at the\nfive-way intersection but nearby so only one crosswalk would be moved.\nStaff Ta replied that staff could review the benefits of relocating the passenger-loading zone to\npossibly two locations. Also, he noted they have been working with Encinal High School and\nAlameda Unified School District on the improvements.\nStaff Payne referred to Exhibit 3 in the staff report and asked Staff Ta if they were still working\nwith the school district or is it on hold. She just wanted clarification because that passenger\nloading zone is east of the driveway.\nStaff Ta replied that it is still a recommendation.\nCommissioner Wong stated she understood that, but on the opposite side there are near misses\nwhen cars approach on Central Avenue going westbound from Taylor Avenue and Third Street.\nCommissioner Bellows stated that she supported Commissioner Wong's comments and asked\nstaff with the projected future growth and warrant for the flashing beacon are these proposed\nimprovements compatible with this structure.\nStaff Ta replied that he does not see them as being incompatible.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff based on the illustration presented if the street narrows down\nas it approaches the other crosswalk at Lincoln Avenue.\nStaff Ta replied that the street opens at the crosswalk.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.\nJerry Juhala said for part of last year he helped Officer Yakas conduct crosswalk duties at the\nschool in the mornings. He fully supported the Public Work proposal. He urged the Commission\nto do at least some of the items proposed before the school year begins. He recommended that\nthey erect the portable signage that says \"No left turn from Central onto Third Street\" and \"No\nleft turn from Taylor Avenue onto Third Street.\" The signs would make it significantly safer for\nstudents to cross going to school and the signage has limited cost. He felt any change would\nrequire an educational period for the students and parents. Furthermore, he thought that the\nloading zones are a good idea, and would help stop parents dropping kids in the middle of the\nintersection.\nKaren Greaves, Taylor Avenue resident, said her biggest issue is the restriction of turning onto\nTaylor Avenue from Central Avenue and Third Street. She felt Taylor Avenue is not the issue,\nPage 5 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 6, "text": "but it is the parents that are in a hurry and want to drop their children off at the most convenient\nplace. This recommendation is not the right solution.\nKurt Peterson, Block Captain of 200 Santa Clara Avenue, said they had two community\nmeetings and he attended the last meeting. He noted that the congestion problem is one hour of\nevery weekday and the overwhelming issue is speeding cars headed towards Third Street. He\nfound over 90 percent of the residents did not want to see Taylor Avenue closed, but the staff\nwants to recommend partially closing Taylor Avenue. Police presence of one hour of every day\nwould help. He complained that the City did not provide an email with the community\ncomments after the meeting.\nDebbie Jennings, Taylor Avenue resident, created the petition and obtained the signatures to\nobject to the change. She said that the intersection does not meet the qualification for traffic\nsignals, but does that mean that the state of California would not allow the City to install the\nlights or does that mean if the City installed the lights then the City must pay the bill. She\nrecommended having a no left turn at anytime during the AM and PM school rush, but closing\nTaylor Avenue is not going to solve the problem.\nWendell Stewart, Santa Clara Avenue resident, said he supported Kurt Peterson's comments, and\nthat only one hour each day is a problem.\nSonja Christianson considered herself an expert because she has lived in the area for over 18\nyears and walked across that crosswalk to take her child to Paden Elementary every morning.\nShe felt that the traffic speed is one of the biggest issues and it is not addressed in the\npresentation. Also, occasionally she crossed the intersection going on a walk, and they have not\naddressed the most dangerous intersection is Lincoln Avenue and Central Avenue due to the\ncurves and the speeding. She requested a traffic signal.\nHarold Jennings, disagreed with blocking entry onto Taylor Avenue and during the school\nhours, he supported a crossing guard or a police presence. Overall, he recommended that the City\nspend more time looking at the intersection.\nSusan Hodges said she does not live in Alameda, but her grandson goes to Encinal High School,\nand she attended all of the public meetings. The majority of the attendees wanted an on-demand\nstop light. She supported moving the bus stop, the crosswalk, but the stop light would help.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, explained that he\nhas ridden through this intersection before and he is glad that the intersection is getting attention.\nThe previous speaker mentioned an on-demand stop light, and he suggested that there be an on\ndemand, all direction stop pedestrian signal. The action would demonstrate the Commission and\nCity's belief in a pedestrian friendly City. Also, a uniform no left turn during the peak periods\nsimilar to San Francisco's policy would help.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff if other warrants besides traffic counts could help erect the\ntraffic signal.\nStaff El Guendy replied that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provide\nPage 6 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 7, "text": "for eight warrants that are needed to erect a traffic signal. However, even if all eight warrants are\nmet, the final approval is subject to engineering judgment. She stated that staff provided\nsignificant information in the report with two alternatives to address the communities' concerns.\nShe also explained the cost for a full signal at the five-legged intersection would equal to\n$500,000 or more, and the City would be responsible for the bill. Also, if they were to install\nsignals that are not warranted that would subject the City to liability if a collision were to occur.\nUnwarranted stop signals increase certain types of collisions such as car rear and right angle\ncollisions.\nCommissioner Schatmeier referred to Jon Spangler's comments about restricting left turn\nmovements during peak hours and that is already done on Park Street. He asked staff if it could\nbe considered an alternative rather than closing Taylor Avenue.\nStaff Ta replied that some of the signage already has been addressed, and staff wanted to\nmaintain the westbound Central Avenue left turn for people who live east of the school to access\nthe back of the school. Also, staff wanted to allow motorists coming down Third Street to bypass\ncongestion at the crosswalk on Central Avenue.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said he was sympathetic to the sweeping turns that were presented in\nthe report. However, he understood the residents' concerns of closing off the street. Ultimately,\nhe was looking to find an alternative to address both issues and restricting access during peak\nperiods on Central Avenue coming from the base onto Taylor Avenue might help.\nStaff Ta explained that the improvement provided a refuge and visibility to the motorist and\nallowed them to creep out without concerns of the sweeping movements. Staff addressed Taylor\nAvenue residents' concerns in the alternative proposal.\nAlex Nguyen asked Staff Ta to go over the alternative proposal with the Commission.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff to go over the public's response of the alternative proposal.\nStaff Ta explained that based on the community's input with a permanent limitation onto Taylor\nAvenue staff developed this alternative, which is very similar in design, but maintains the\nmovement inbound so during off peak hours there is no change to the intersection, but peak\nhours they could not turn from Central onto Taylor Avenues. However, motorists would be able\nto enter onto Taylor Avenue from Third Street and there would be signage located within the\nvicinity of Encinal High School to restrict left turns.\nCommissioner Vargas asked Debbie Jennings if her group reviewed staff's alternative proposal\nDebbie Jennings replied that there is some support from the residents.\nKurt Peterson stated that you need a raised barrier in the red area illustrated in the presentation.\nAlso, the unsafe turn from Central Avenue onto Third Street is needed to be addressed.\nCommissioner Miley wondered if the Safe Routes to School program could provide funding\nopportunities.\nPage 7 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 8, "text": "Staff El Guendy replied that high schools are eligible for federal Safe Routes to School grants.\nAlso, there might be some regional funds available.\nStaff Payne stated that Measure B does not have a competitive grant program.\nCommissioner Miley felt that the best thing was to have physical presence to oversee activity, but\nthat requires funding. He supported the alternative to the recommendation and staff should\nidentify grant opportunities.\nCommissioner Bertken stated that if they are forming the motion that they should include\nrecommendation two.\nCommissioner Wong asked staff how long would they study affects after implementation and\nwould the study look at the population increases.\nStaff El Guendy replied that the study would be dictated by the school season and staff could\nconduct additional observations for the stop control.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said the concern is the left hand turn from eastbound Central Avenue\nonto Taylor Avenue and staff presented it as a sweeping turn that caused safety concerns. So,\nsigns limiting the turn during peak hours would be erected, but he did not hear about a stop sign\nbeing installed in that direction.\nStaff El Guendy replied installing a stop sign for Central Avenue would require both directions.\nThus, warrants would have to be evaluated for the overall intersection for all approaches.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if staff was proposing a stop sign on Central Avenue.\nStaff El Guendy said no.\nAlex Nguyen asked for clarification before the Commission made a motion. He asked the\nCommission if staff should not go ahead with the big loading zone until they studied the\npossibility of moving it down across the other loading zone.\nCommissioner Wong recommended the alternative to staff's recommendation with further study\nof moving the loading zone.\nCommissioner Bertken said Donald Lum Elementary School has yield markings located before\nthe crosswalk where motorists are supposed to stop and wondered if that could be included in\nthis proposal.\nStaff Ta replied they are \"Yield here for pedestrian\" markings with triangles across the street like\nshark teeth and they could review adding them to the proposal.\nCommissioner Miley made a motion to accept the alternative to the recommendation one with\nstaff to review Commissioner Wong's recommendation to shift the loading zone # 4 from its\nPage 8 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 9, "text": "current location further down to Lincoln and Central Avenue. He also added that staff should\nreview Commissioner Bertken's comment to add \"Yield to pedestrian\" markings painted on\nCentral Avenue.\nCommissioner Schatmeier commented that staff should study the traffic volumes for the\nsweeping turn, which was one of the differences between staff's recommendation and the\nalternate.\nCommissioner Vargas asked Sergeant Simmons his opinion about staff's recommendation one\nand the alternate based on a safety perspective.\nSergeant Ron Simmons, Alameda Police Traffic Section Supervisor, felt the first\nrecommendation was the safest recommendation based on pedestrian and bicycle movements,\nand he appreciated alternative two, but he would like to see \"No stopping anytime\" signs on the\ncurve of the sweeping turn from westbound Central Avenue to eastbound Taylor Avenue\nbecause he noticed when painted red the parents stop at that intersection to drop-off their kids.\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve the alternative to staff's recommendation and review\nCommissioners Wong, Bertken, and Shatmeier's comments as well as exploring future funding.\nCommissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n5C. Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans\nStaff Payne presented the report.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff about the conclusion of Neptune Park pathway after they\napproved the IN and Out Burger development.\nStaff Payne stated that is under Alameda Landing Remnant Parcel Updates under item #6.\n6.\nStaff Communications\nChanged Date for Next Regular Transportation Commission Meeting\n- Tuesday, September 24 at 7 p.m., City Council Chambers\nSpecial Transportation Commission Meeting with the Planning Board on Monday,\nSeptember 30 at 7 p.m., City Council Chambers (Main Item of Discussion - Revised\nDraft Regional Transit Access Study)\nAlameda Landing Remnant Parcel Updates\n-\nWent to the Planning Board on Monday, July 22. The use permit for the Chase Bank,\nIn and Out Burger driver thru aisle, and Safeway Gas station with exception with\nwine and beer was approved. On August 12, the project is headed for the site design\nand landscaping. Approval is subject to the provision of the crosswalk on Stargell\nAvenue and Webster Street, which is in the state right-of-way. Now, staff is\ncommunicating with Caltrans to get approval of the crosswalk. There will be a\nmeeting with Caltrans next week to get feedback on the alternatives to the design.\nAdditionally, staff will apply for an encroachment permit for the installation of a\nPage 9 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-07-24", "page": 10, "text": "pedestrian signal at that leg and the establishment of the crosswalk. Overall, the site\nplan has been revised and a fence in the center median on Stargell Avenue was\nincluded to prevent jaywalking and mid-block crossing.\nAC Transit Line OX - Opening to Local Riders\nBART Strike Updates and Lessons Learned\n-\nThere may be a BART Strike on Monday, August 5.\n-\nCommissioner Bellows said she received positive comments on how the City handled\nthe BART strike because residents said it went smoothly.\n-\nCommissioner Shatmeier said that two days ago, he was catching the bus towards the\ncoliseum and usually he takes the Harbor Bay Ferry. He saw a sign that says City of\nAlameda shuttle to the ferry and he was not aware of it. He would like to know how\nthe City is getting the word out about the service.\n-\nStaff Payne replied that she sent out an announcement to the Commission email list\nserv about the shuttle and staff set up a City webpage about the BART strike, which\nincluded information about the shuttle. Moreover, she linked the shuttle to the\n511.org website.\nPosey and Webster Tube Rehabilitation Project - Next Steps\nPotential Future Meeting Agenda Items\n-\nRevised Draft Regional Transit Access Study\n-\nAC Transit Line 51A Performance Initiative Grant\n-\nAlameda Point Planning Document\n-\nAC Transit Comprehensive Operations Analysis\n-\nAlameda Ferry Terminal Station Access Plan\n-\nCity of Alameda Transit Disruption Plan\n-\nPort of Oakland's Ron Cowan Parkway Proposed Class I Path\n-\nTraffic Control and Contingency Plan during Construction for I-880/29th Ave./23rd\nAve. Interchange Improvement Plan in Oakland: Public Information Program and\nTransit Impacts\n7.\nAnnouncements/ Public Comments\nJon Spangler wanted to say the BART Pilot project looks good, but the July BART strike did\nslow things down because it took away their first 5-days. Yet, they are working on getting the\nbikes through and the BART Board is scheduled to evaluate the outcome in October.\n8.\nAdjournment\n9:04 pm\nPage 10 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2018-01-24", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\nWEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2018\nChair Bellows convened the meeting at 7:00pm.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Bellows, Vice-Chair Vargas, Commissioners Bertken, Soules.\nAbsent: Commissioners Hans, Miley, Palmer.\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\n*None*\n3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT\nJim Strehlow thanked Public Works for keeping on top of the leaves in the streets. He\nasked what the detour signs near Otis and Fernside were for. He said a flashing\ncrosswalk is needed at Harvard and Fernside.\nStaff Member Payne said there would be some night time closures of the Bay Farm\nBridge to do maintenance work and the announcements are on the website. She said\nresidents could use SeeClickFix to request traffic calming efforts. She said the city hired\na new engineer, Robert Vance, to work on the city's traffic calming and capital\nimprovement plans.\nStaff Member Vance introduced himself to the commission.\n3A\nTransportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 7:00 p.m.\n3B\n2018-5117\nUpcoming Grant-Funded Bicycle Safety Education Classes: February 12 and\nFebruary 28, 2018\nThe flyers can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3309108&GUID=6599A16A-\nCAAF-4DAC-8696-E1A464857057\n4. CONSENT CALENDAR\n4A 2018-5118\nApprove Meeting Minutes - November 15, 2017 (Action)\nVice-Chair Vargas noted that he was absent from the November meeting.\nChair Bellows said that we did not have a quorum to approve the minutes and would\nhave to wait until the next meeting to approve them.\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2018-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2018-01-24", "page": 2, "text": "5. NEW BUSINESS\n5A 2018-5123\nApprove the City of Alameda Transportation Program Plan for Seniors and\nPeople with Disabilities for Fiscal Year 2018/2019 (Action)\nVictoria Williams, Paratransit Coordinator, gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachment can be found at:\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3312459&GUID=A99E4217-\n6663-4E87-B5F6-D4FD2OFD2A63&FullText=\nChair Bellows asked if the Measure BB funding will continue and be able to sustain the\nprogram into the future.\nStaff Member Williams said she thinks they will be able to continue to provide their\nservices, noting that the large capital expenditures would not be necessary in the future.\nCommissioner Soules asked how many stops are co-located with AC Transit stops.\nStaff Member Williams said about ten stops were co-located.\nCommissioner Soules suggested getting the service added to the transit feature of\nGoogle Maps, which could help ridership.\nChair Bellows opened the public hearing.\nPat Potter, CASA and Bike Walk Alameda, asked if tricycles had been considered by the\nprogram to provide for seniors who would like to get outdoors.\nCommissioner Vargas asked how the Cross Alameda Trail would help the program.\nStaff Member Williams said it would help provide options for seniors to safely get places\nand get exercise, and said it connects some shuttle stops.\nStaff Member Payne said the separate trails and mid-block crossing near Independence\nPlaza would be assisted by this funding.\nCommissioner Vargas said that the connection may need a little more explanation to\njustify that connection. He asked why there was a planned drop in the outreach cost.\nStaff Member Payne said that they are doing the big push for outreach now and that by\nnext year will be able to reduce that number.\nCommissioner Bertken asked if the vouchers were still available.\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2018-01-24.pdf"}