{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2022-01-26", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Nachtigall discussed the different barriers they had to remove to be successful.\nChair Soules discussed the possibility of another joint meeting with the Planning Board.\nPublic Comments for #6B\nJim Strehlow spoke against multi-family housing. He also expressed his concerns about safe\nevacuations off the island.\n7. Announcements / Public Comments\nJim Strehlow pointed out that in-person meetings were better because you could see who was\nattending them. He also wanted to hear more about the plans for water taxis.\nAlex Spehr asked about the bike barge idea instead of a bridge. She also suggested bollards for\nprotected bike lanes.\nChair Soules discussed items that should come back such as Estuary Crossing options.\n8. Adjournment\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.\nTC Draft Minutes\n8\n1/26/22", "path": "TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2022-01-26", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to endorse the Transportation Annual Report.\nCommissioner Nachtigall seconded the motion. Chair Soules made an amendment to consider the\npriority and the low feasibility of the Bike/Ped Oakland Bridge (West End Bike Bridge) with the\ncomments made by Commissioner Rentschler. Commissioner Rentschler seconded the\namendment. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed\n6B. A Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update to\naccommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Period 2023-2031 in\nCompliance with State Law\nDirector Thomas introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can\nbe found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385300&GUID=E42261C5-E282-\n4236-BC4A-145AB6AEF4CD&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions and Comments for #6B\nChair Soules asked for clarification on State requirements.\nDirector Thomas discussed and explained what State Law required and that part of these\nworkshops was showing citizens what the city had to do. This was a State requirement and the city\nhad to do this.\nCommissioner Rentschler discussed the difficulties around this challenge, such as SB-10.\nCommissioner Kolhstrand wanted clarification on where SROs (single room occupancy) were\nallowed. She wanted to ensure there was a mix of housing types. She also discussed the Gold Coast\nand High Street and where multi-family housing could work.\nDirector Thomas went into the details around SROs and what other changes were coming to Park\nand Webster.\nCommissioner Weitze believed that SROs were good and worked. He discussed why they were\nbeneficial. He also discussed Linear Park and why it should be rezoned. He thought it would be\ngreat for more housing.\nChair Soules went into detail about the importance of equity.\nTC Draft Minutes\n7\n1/26/22", "path": "TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2022-01-26", "page": 6, "text": "Staff Member Wheeler said the fencing should be down from the Cross Alameda Trail on the\nfollowing Monday.\nCommissioner Nachtigall asked about the Grand resurfacing project. She discussed other sections\nthat should be included. She also discussed priorities and that completing the Cross Alameda Trail\nshould be high on the list.\nStaff Member Vance explained that sections for resurfacing were chosen based on paving needs.\nCommissioner Weitze discussed the Cross Alameda Trail and how to safely get people to the\nAlameda Landing Waterfront. He also wanted an update on the Alameda Point Adaptive Reuse\nProject and about the EV (electric vehicle) plan for the parking lot at Seaplane Lagoon.\nStaff Member Wheeler answered that Fifth Street was the best option. She also pointed out other\nplaces to find information on the connected network.\nStaff Member Vance gave an update on the Adaptive Reuse Project.\nStaff Member Foster answered that EV chargers should be put in by spring, it was currently only\na small percentage.\nChair Soules expressed the need for equity with having EV charging spots, especially with\nreducing overall parking. She then discussed goals in the Vision Zero Plan and that you have to\nlook at more than one plan to get the full picture.\nVice-Chair Yuen gave her thoughts on the West End Bike Bridge and the feasibility of it\nhappening. She believed that regardless of whether the bridge happened or not it was imperative\nthat the city looked at alternative ways to get on and off the island.\nChair Soules agreed and discussed other potential ideas.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to endorse the Transportation Annual Report,\nCommissioner Nachtigall seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands, all were in\nfavor except for Commissioner Rentschler.\nCommissioner Rentschler discussed his issues with the ambitious bike/ped bridge. He believed the\ncost was too high, was not feasible and he could not support it.\nTC Draft Minutes\n6\n1/26/22", "path": "TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2022-01-26", "page": 5, "text": "Staff Member Payne then introduced Lisa Foster, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, who gave\na presentation on the Annual Report on Transportation. Robert Vance and Areli Vazquez of Public\nWorks and Rochelle Wheeler of Transportation and Director Thomas also presented. The staff\nreport and attachments can be found at\n  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385389&GUID=CD117554-40EC-\n4D67-9B54-5D65F51F339B&FullText=1.\nPublic Comments for #6A Transportation Annual Report\nDenyse Trepanier expressed her appreciation to the staff for their work and commented on the\nClement St bike path. She also discussed improvement ideas for Willow to make cycling safer.\nJim Strehlow believed that the Traffic Fatality goals were faulty, he believed that traffic fatalities\nwere usually committed by drunks and bad drivers. He thought the goals penalized good citizens\nwith infrastructure changes. He discussed how roundabouts would not decrease greenhouse gases.\nHe also gave suggestions on how Agendas for meetings should be worded.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions and Comments #6A Transportation Annual Report\nCommissioner Rentschler discussed roadway striping on Alameda Ave and the paid parking at\nSeaplane Lagoon. He discussed that fares should really benefit the rider and he urged everyone to\nthink twice about charging for parking right now. He also discussed the bike/ped Oakland Bridge\nand the likeness of it happening.\nChair Soules discussed the best way to get updates with PowerPoint and what data needed to be\nseen by the public and the Commissioners.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand agreed with Chair Soules about the mid-year updates through\nPowerPoint. She also discussed parts of the Cross Alameda Trail that said they were completed\nbut were still fenced off. She also wanted the Sub-Committee to get information on the Street\nClassifications before it came back to the Commission. She also discussed and agreed with some\nof the points made by Commissioner Rentschler about the bike/ped Oakland Bridge.\nDirector Thomas discussed the timeline for the Street Classification and agreed it should go to the\nSub-Committee first.\nChair Soules discussed that a subcommittee could help with the prioritization of goals.\nTC Draft Minutes\n5\n1/26/22", "path": "TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2022-01-26", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Weitze asked about the Easy Pass Programs and free bus tickets. He was concerned\nthey were not targeting the right \"carbon-intense\" groups. He liked the program but wanted to\nmake sure they were targeting people who would otherwise drive.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning Buildings and Transportation, discussed Alameda's role\nwith AC Transit and how they were looking at the E-Z Pass Program.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand noted that the E-Z Pass Program was not on target and wanted to know\nmetrics that were being discussed to get in back on target.\nVice-Chair Yuen wanted to see a dashboard with performance metrics to see where they were on\ntrack. She also wanted to see Greenhouse Gas measurements.\nStaff Member Meiler answered that a dashboard was in the works and explained other metrics that\nwere in the works. She also discussed potential regional greenhouse gas emission measurements\nthat locals could use.\nCommissioner Yuen then asked about existing housing for electrification.\nDirector Thomas discussed existing incentive programs and potential requirements to encourage\nelectrification. He added that this is something that would take time.\nCommissioner Alysha Nachtigall asked about data availability for car, electric vs. non-electric\nownership.\nStaff Member Meiler answered that 2020 was all that was available at the moment.\nVice-Chair Yuen asked about Congestion Pricing.\nDirector Thomas said it was still in the plans and that it needed State Legislation to make it\nsuccessful. They would have to work with the regional partners.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to support the endorsement of the Climate Action Plan\nto the City Council. Also to urge the City Council to not only prioritize Climate Actions for funding\nin the city but also to strongly consider new local funding sources to facilitate concrete action\ntowards meeting these goals. Commissioner Rentschler seconded the motion. A vote was taken by\na raise of hands and the motion passed 6-0.\nTC Draft Minutes\n4\n1/26/22", "path": "TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2022-01-26", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Member Payne introduced Danielle Mieler, Sustainability & Resilience Manager, who gave\nthe presentation on the Annual Report on Climate Action & Resiliency 2022 Work Plan. The staff\nreport and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385389&GUID=CD117554-40EC-\n4D67-9B54-5D65F51F339B&FullText=1\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A CARP\nThere were no questions.)\nPublic Comments for #6A CARP\nJim Strehlow discussed how many recent council actions (roundabouts) were already slowing\ndown traffic, he felt that these actions would increase carbon emissions as cars wait longer for\nnon-existent pedestrians. He also discussed how the city was not preparing for electrical\nbrownouts, and that too much demand was being put on electricity, especially with plans to get rid\nof PG&E gas lines to homes. He felt that these plans were leading Alameda's citizens and\nbusinesses to chaos.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A CARP\nCommissioner Scott Weitze questioned the goal for commuters and if it was on track.\nStaff Member Meiler discussed current traffic demands and telecommuting. She acknowledged\nthat people were returning to work but that emphasis was on public transit.\nCommissioner Rentschler discussed that FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) had\nrecognized that roundabouts reduced greenhouse gases and decreased travel times. He then\ndiscussed how the pandemic had affected the data but it looked like people were going back to\ndriving. He did believe though that the city's goals were on target even if they feel aspirational.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand believed Alameda had done a good job developing the policy\nframework for CARP. She noted this was a critical time to take action against climate change. She\nnoted the importance of funding to take concrete actions.\nChair Soules also discussed the stretch goals and goals that were not on track due to lack of\nfunding. She wholeheartedly would recommend to Council to have revenue priorities.\nTC Draft Minutes\n3\n1/26/22", "path": "TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2022-01-26", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Samantha Soules congratulated Commissioner Randy Rentschler who had recently retired\nfrom MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission).\n5. Consent Calendar\n5A. Approve Special Meeting Minutes - October 27, 2021 (Action Item)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385386&GUID=7761655A-3E7F-\n4669-9501-35A0E865E689&FullText=1.\n5B. Approve Meeting Minutes - November 17, 2021 (Action Item)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385387&GUID=9067248C-DC24-\n40D2-9BED-5F5A482C4702&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the minutes from October 27th and\nNovember 17th, Commissioner Natchtigall seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of\nhands and the motion passed 5-0, Commissioner Rentschler abstained since he had been absent at\nthe meetings.\n5C. Approve Meeting Calendar for 2022 (Action Item)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385388&GUID=3A8E20A9-B5DF-\n4B06-B387-8CC10BC3F5BA.\nGail Payne, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, explained the changes in the calendar for July.\nChair Soules opened public comment.\nJim Strehlow thought that the changes complicated things but he understood and would make sure\npeople knew about the schedule changes.\nChair Soules closed public comment.\nCommissioner Rentschler moved approval of the 2022 Meeting Calendar and Vice-Chair Tina\nYuen seconded the motion. A vote was taken by raise of hands and the motion passed 6-0.\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Discuss and Endorse the Annual Report on Transportation and the Annual Report on\nthe Climate Action and Resiliency Plan for the 2022 Work Plan (Multiple City staff) (Action\nItem)\nTC Draft Minutes\n2\n1/26/22", "path": "TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2022-01-26", "page": 1, "text": "Draft Minutes\nTransportation Commission Meeting\nWednesday, January 26, 2022\nTime:\n6:30 p.m.\nLocation:\nPursuant to Assembly Bill 361 codified at Government Code Section 54953,\nTransportation Commissioners can attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allows public\nparticipation via Zoom.\nLegistar Link:\nhttps://alamedaca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_RdDnLxBeQjuXZhWV-OEQNA\n1. Roll Call\nPresent: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Yuen and Commissioners Kohlstrand, Weitze, Rentschler and\nNachtigall.\nAbsent: Commissioner Michael Hans.\n2. Agenda Changes\nNone.\n3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385385&GUID=0524F134-2FC5-\n 47DB-8D47-125D50782A68&FullText=1.\n4. Announcements / Public Comments\nJim Strehlow questioned why July 27, 2022, had been recommended for cancelation. He also had\nissues with recent City Council decisions about slow streets and beg buttons. He noted there was\nno public opportunity to question why the City Council had not followed the staff's\nrecommendation. He felt that the public had been left out of the process. He also discussed a recent\ntrip to Orlando Florida where he felt they had very bad bike/pedestrian facilities.\nRobert Vance, Public Work Senior Engineer, introduced Tawfic Halaby who had recently joined\nPublic Works as a Supervising Civil Engineer. He would be working on the Capital Improvement\nProgram.\nTC Draft Minutes\n1\n1/26/22", "path": "TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-11-17", "page": 6, "text": "Mr. Huynh added that the plan for all the fiber optic cables was to put them underground.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand wanted to see a policy that showed they were working toward\nundergrounding all wires in the city.\nChair Soules also wanted to see a more documented policy on undergrounding all utilities in\nAlameda. She believed for the unhoused, cell phones were lifelines and cell phone dependence\nskews towards less education levels and equity priority communities so it is important to have\npublic wifi, especially due to lack of an address. Data plans also are expensive so it is important.\nShe discussed the importance of establishing the relationship between the ISP (Internet Service\nProvider) - owning the asset and leasing it out is better so as to leverage the investment for the\nlong term. She did not want to turn over to the private sector and wanted the city to retain those\nrights. She then discussed how deliberate policies could help with cyber security with how this\ndata was used. She did not want to see a misuse of data.\n7.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\nChair Soules reminded everyone to be safe out there with the sun setting earlier and encouraged\neveryone to check out a reflective vest. She also wished everyone Happy Holidays since this was\nthe last Transportation Commission Meeting of the year.\n8. Adjournment\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-11-17", "page": 5, "text": "Vice-Chair Yuen asked if the new Infrastructure Bill could help with funding for this project.\nStaff Member Vance explained what was budgeted for this project and what projects could be\nsupplemented.\n6B. Review and Comment on the Draft Smart City Master Plan Recommendations\n(Discussion Item)\nGail Payne, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The\nstaff report and attachments can be found at\nps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5198417&GUID=0D6FDA4C-7B68-\n)FA-898A-D30B6EOOD7B4&FullText=1\nDavid Huynh and Monique Fuhrman from Iteris also presented and made themselves available for\nquestions.\nPublic Comments for #6B\nThere were no public comments.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions, Discussion, and Comments for #6B\nCommissioner Weitze asked for clarification on the Deploy Public WiFi Map. He also wanted to\nknow more about Traffic Signal Priority and how that would work in school areas.\nStaff Member Payne explained the thought process and criteria behind the map. She also explained\nhow the priority worked for the traffic signals.\nMr. Huynh added that pedestrian safety was always the top priority with traffic signal timing.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked about equity for internet access and wanted to know how the\nhomeless would be included. She also wanted to know how this new system would be integrated\nwith all the overhead wires, and if there was a plan to move more underground. She thought this\nwas a really good job and important to think about these things for the future.\nStaff Member Payne discussed the facilities that would have resources available, and those\nfacilities would have access to public wifi. She then discussed the undergrounding project lists that\nAlameda Municipal Power was working on.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-11-17", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Kohlstrand thanked the school staff who had participated in this work and linked\nimportant items back to the Vision Zero Plan. She discussed her concerns about Fernside Blvd.,\nespecially between Blanding and High Street, as well as her concerns about Buena Vista Avenue.\nShe wanted to see more opportunities for the public to have input and not just use a systematic\napproach.\nCommissioner Nachtigall discussed the pickup and drop-off rules at Nea Charter School.\nChair Soules expressed her concerns about Earhart School pick up and drop off; not just drivers\nwho need to behave properly. She also expressed her concerns about road diets and diversions to\nadjacent parallel streets. She believed they needed to look into it and get a grander sense of where\ntraffic was being pushed.\nCommissioner Weitze added that Third Street by NEA was a good example of how preserving\nparking was part of the problem. If the parking were removed then there would be more places to\npick up and drop off.\nCommissioner Hans asked if there was a plan to bring back Crossing Guards for Secondary\nSchools. Funding now only allowed for Crossing Guards at elementary schools.\nStaff Member Wheeler had heard more interest and conversation about having crossing guards at\nsecondary schools but had not heard about funding. She discussed the growing costs of having\nCrossing Guards.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand discussed protocols of pick up and drop off at San Francisco Schools\nand expressed interest in bringing those protocols to Alameda.\nStaff Member Wheeler discussed the 17 schools that had signed up and what grant funding they\nhad received.\nCommissioner Weitze asked about the School Route Map. He pointed out that Nea had many roads\nmarked as routes but he preferred funneling kids into fewer streets.\nStaff Member Wheeler explained that this map had not been updated yet and then discussed what\nthat process entailed.\nChair Soules praised city staff for their work and said she would take on a personal role to get the\nword out about this program.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-11-17", "page": 3, "text": "Rochelle Wheeler, a Senior Transportation Manager, added other information about the Safe\nRoutes to School Program and the importance of having schools that engage and advocate for this\nprogram.\nCommissioner Nachtigall asked about bicycle education for 5th Graders and wanted to know if\nthat included private and charter schools as well. She then thanked the staff for doing this important\nwork. She also discussed Maya Lin since some students had reached out about having more\ncrosswalks on Buena Vista, she thought some of those improvements could be integrated into this\neffort.\nStaff Member Wheeler clarified that the goal was to include all 5th Graders but they did not have\nenough funding at this point, but it was for both public and private schools.\nStaff Member Foster discussed what this report included and Buena Vista was outside of the area\nof the study. She did note that it was an important route to Maya Lin and they were still looking to\nadd a crosswalk on Ninth Street when it would be resurfaced next year.\nCommissioner Scott Weitze asked for clarification on what a High Visibility Crosswalk was. He\nalso wanted to know why some crosswalks got push-buttons for flashing beacons. He also wanted\nto know more about the plan to make school drop off and pick-ups better, he was stunned that this\nwas something that schools could decide or not decide to opt into.\nRobert Vance, a Senior Engineer with Public Works, described what a high-visibility crosswalk\nwas, wide bars through the center and painted with light-reflective paint. He added that they would\nbe installing more Rapid Flashing Beacons at intersections near schools and those were evaluated\non a case by case basis.\nStaff Member Foster said that under the Vision Zero Plan, the action is to have City Transportation\nEngineers support schools in developing their own pickup and drop-off policies. It will be done\non a school-by-school basis.\nStaff Member Wheeler added that the city had also worked with the County-Wide Safe Route to\nSchool Programs on improving school pickup and drop-offs.\nCommissioner Michael Hans was disappointed to hear that only a few schools were participating\nso far. He also discussed his role as a School Administrator at Lincoln Middle School and\napplauded APD for their continued efforts to keep everyone safe.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-11-17", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand expressed her condolences and also asked that everyone be\naware as you move about the city.\nCommissioner Alysha Nachtigall also expressed her condolences and asked that everyone be safe.\nMichael Sullivan discussed the pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the estuary and wanted a status\nupdate as well as what the bridge landing options were in Oakland. He hoped there would be\nfunding for this project in the Infrastructure Bill that had just passed.\nDenyse Trepanier, Board President for Bike Walk Alameda, discussed the sad tragic passing of\nAlameda County Supervisor Wilma Chan and how she was now one of the too many people who\nhave died in traffic collisions. She also discussed the Memorial Ride that was planned.\n5. Consent Calendar\nNone\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Review and Comment on School Street Safety (Discussion Item)\nLisa Foster, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The\nstaff report and attachments can be found at:\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5210434&GUID=DABCODOF-3768-\nB1E-9039-4D56689524B8&FullText=1.\nPublic Comments for #6A\nThere were no public comments.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions, Discussion, and Comments for #6A\nChair Soules asked where was the best place the public could engage on this topic.\nStaff Member Foster discussed reaching out to the principal of your school or your child's school\nand saying you want to see the Safe Routes to School Program at your or your child's school.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-11-17", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nTransportation Commission Meeting\nWednesday, November 17, 2021\nTime:\nChair Samantha Soules convened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.\nLocation:\nPursuant to Assembly Bill 361 codified at Government Code Section 54953,\nTransportation Commissioners can attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allows public\nparticipation via Zoom.\nLegistar Link:\n ttps://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811337&GUID=55BD7254-0A79-471E-\n9760-3COE243F3935&Options=info/&Search=\n1. Roll Call\nPresent: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Yuen and Commissioners Nachtigall, Hans, Kohlstrand and\nWeitze.\nAbsent: Commissioner Randy Rentschler\n2. Agenda Changes\nNone.\n3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5210433&GUID=7ABD3D66-2823-\n-496F-8237-1570FE110518&FullText=1.\n4. Announcements/ Public Comments\nChair Soules expressed her sadness and sympathy for the recent death of Alameda County\nSupervisor Wilma Chan who was killed in a vehicle-pedestrian collision. She spoke on the\nimportant work and accomplishments done by Supervisor Chan and of the urgency of the Vision\nZero Plan.\nVice-Chair Tina Yuen also discussed the travesty of Wilma Chan's death and made a call for safety\non Alameda streets.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 10, "text": "Commissioner Kohlstrand discussed charging for parking at Seaplane Lagoon and wanted to make\nsure it was equal at the other ferries as well. She also agreed with separating parking enforcement\nfrom police duties and was ready to endorse this recommendation.\nStaff Member Foster addressed the public comment about ALPRs reading window placards, this\nissue would not be a problem.\nChair Soules provided input on considerations for lower operations and maintenance costs, and to\nconsider electrification and equity issues, especially with curb management. She wanted to see a\nprivacy policy that reflected the city's values to not introduce risk and to offer a cost-effective\nparking payment program. She also wanted vendors to meet PII compliance and to look at San\nFrancisco and BART for their privacy policy.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to endorse the City Council's Adoption of the Parking\nProgram and Fund Reorganization and Moving Parking Enforcement from Police to Public Works.\nChair Soules seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 5-\n0.\n7. Announcements / Public Comments\nChair Soules reminded everyone to watch out for Trick or Treaters this Halloween and that APD\nwould do a free car seat assessment.\n8. Adjournment\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 10:22 p.m.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 9, "text": "Staff Member Foster introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments\ncan be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182989&GUID=FBA40E71-EB91-\n45E6-B7B4-1F790A336070&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6D\nChair Soules asked about parking enforcement at Harbor Bay Ferry and wanted to know if this\nwould relieve APD and be more cost effective.\nStaff Member Foster answered yes and that more staffing would help. Enforcing parking time\nlimits by hand was difficult.\nPublic Comment for #6D\nCarmen Reid was concerned about having paid parking at Seaplane Lagoon and wanted it to be\nfree to address equity issues.\nCarol Gottstein expressed concern for how ALPRs (Automated License Plate Readers) would look\nat the plates of cars that didn't have handicap plates but instead had a handicap placard in the\nwindow.\nChristy Cannon promoted the new bus line, #78, that would serve the Seaplane Lagoon. It would\ngo from Fruitvale BART through Alameda to the Seaplane Lagoon. She also pointed out that\nhaving paid parking would be a major motivation to use that bus.\nJim Strehlow felt that parking places were being reduced too much all over the island. He was also\n100 percent against the use of ALPRs and wanted the police to continue to enforce parking rules.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussion for #6D\nVice Chair Yuen endorsed the staff recommendation. She did want to focus on and tie in equity to\nmake sure that low-income groups would not be disproportionally affected by parking fees or fines.\nShe added that police focus should be on crime and that parking enforcement would not be the\nbest use of their time.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 8, "text": "6C. Review and Comment on the Draft Climate Adaptation and Hazard Mitigation Plan\n(Danielle Mieler, Sustainability, and Resilience Manager) (Discussion Item)\nDanielle Mieler, Sustainability and Resilience Manager, introduced the item and gave a\npresentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182988&GUID=446D7CFB-1B78-\n4177-819F-50203E0C9CA4&FullText=1.\nPublic Comments for #6C\nJim Strehlow discussed the issues around tsunami evacuation planning for the island.\nChair Soules pointed out emergency planning tools and education that were available on the city's\nwebsite.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussion for #6C\nCommissioner Kohlstrand wanted to know if currently there were no lifelines designated to get off\nthe island.\nStaff Member Mieler said as of now that was correct.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand agreed with establishing lifelines as a high priority. She encouraged\nmore planning for natural disasters and having different alternatives for getting off the island.\nStaff Member Mieler discussed different scenarios and what had been planned.\nStaff Member Payne noted that the state has modeled the ability to evacuate for a tsunami and\nshowed it is possible within the timeframe needed.\nChair Soules was concerned about tsunamis and wanted more coordination with AC Transit,\nespecially at Alameda Point. She also wants more outreach, especially to seniors.\n6D. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of Parking Program and Fund Reorganization and\nMoving Parking Enforcement from Police to Public Works (Lisa Foster, Senior\nTransportation Coordinator) (Action Item)", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Kohlstrand said she supported this program and thought that it fit in with the city's\noverall objective of reducing greenhouse gases. She did have concerns about Versailles and San\nJose after hearing the comments. She stated that since Versailles and Gibbons were used as\ncollectors they needed to be evaluated as part of the street classifications in the General Plan\nupdate. She wanted staff to do more exploration in the neighborhoods around San Jose and\nVersailles, and to see if Pearl could be a better alternative to Versailles.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to see how this program would work in a post-COVID world for at\nleast a year. He pointed out that it was confusing at the intersections where Slow Streets end and\nwanted to see better signage here.\nCommissioner Nachtigall was in support of the Slow Streets Program. She also wanted to see\nsignage that clarified where the slow streets began/ended and for them to connect to the Cross\nAlameda Trail in JSOSP.\nVice Chair Yuen supported the staff's recommendations and thanked everyone for their comments.\nShe recommended that staff keep the survey open to gather additional comments for the remainder\nof the year.\nCommissioner Weitze expressed concern for fatigue if people felt that a street was being cut off\nfor them, and that frustrated drivers were not safe drivers.\nChair Soules supported the original concept but struggled with the extension due to the skewed\ndata and issues with inequities. She wanted the parallel streets to be considered and wanted to\nfollow established processes with more community outreach.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted Pearl to be studied but did not want to remove Versailles.\nVice Chair Yuen wanted to see more data collected through the Active Transportation Plan (ATP)\nprocess to leverage the existing planning process and use the more traditional approach to outreach.\nShe wanted to study Versailles as part of the ATP process.\nChair Soules made a motion to approve the staff's recommendation with the amendments to\nevaluate Pearl St as an alternative to Versailles and to have more community input specifically\nfrom parallel streets along with the ATP. Commissioner Weitze seconded the motion. A vote was\ntaken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 6-0.\n*Commissioner Weitze had to excuse himself. There was still a quorum to continue the meeting.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 6, "text": "Jay Garfinkle thought this study was scientifically unsound, the data was biased, the whole effort\nwas misleading, and that the public was being manipulated.\nCyndy Johnson, Bike Walk Alameda, expressed her support for the staff's recommendation to\nextend and enhance the Slow Streets Program. She discussed all the ways this program had\nbenefited Alameda and wanted the expansion of the program to include connections to Jean\nSweeney Park (JSOSP).\nMichael Sullivan was excited to hear that the program might expand. He suggested adding more\nbarricades and wanted to see the slow streets connected to form a network.\nCameron Holland, Bike Walk Alameda, discussed what an asset this program had been for\nAlameda. She thought this program was a great way to combat speeding and wanted to see better\nsignage on the Slow Streets. She urged the board to approve the staff's recommendation.\nCarmen Reid expressed concern about San Jose, especially by Chestnut and Willow, and thought\nthat the slow street should be removed.\nJill Staten wanted to see Versailles Street removed from the program. She cited that on the survey\nover 50 percent of residents on this street wanted it removed.\nDenyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda, thanked the staff and thought the program had been a\nsuccess. She discussed how this program was in line with fighting climate change.\nJeanne Lahaie voiced her support for the Slow Streets Program. She also voiced her concern for\nthe intersections at Bayview, Shoreline, and Broadway and wanted to see more barricades for the\nbike lanes.\nJim Strehlow thought this was a failed experiment and that the program encouraged bad habits on\nnon-slow streets.\nJen Whatley doubted and had concerns about the survey results. She also felt that the barricades\nwere a distraction and that there was more of an impact on side streets than acknowledged. She\nfelt like the citizens of Alameda were being tricked.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 5, "text": "6B. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of the Slow Streets Recommendations (Rochelle\nWheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator) (Action Item)\nRochelle Wheeler, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the item and gave a\npresentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182987&GUID=6B504F66-005A-\n 46C2-BEF4-BAA9D3A49881&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6B\nCommissioner Weitze asked about the stats on the reduction of collisions. He also asked that staff\nclarify why Versailles was chosen and maintained as a Slow Street.\nStaff Member Wheeler discussed the reduction in collision numbers. She then explained the\ncriteria and reasons why Versailles was chosen as a Slow Street.\nChair Soules asked if the staff's recommendation was an all-or-nothing endorsement. She\nreminded the commission that amendments could come after public comments.\nStaff Member Wheeler said this was just the staff's recommendation. The commission could\nmodify this in any way, remove a street or change a street segment.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to know if Pearl Street could be an alternative choice to Versailles.\nStaff Member Wheeler explained why Versailles was a better choice over Pearl Street.\nCommissioner Michael Hans wanted to know why Orion had such negative feedback and what\ncriteria would have to be met for a Slow Street to be removed.\nStaff Member Wheeler discussed that given how short the Orion Slow Street is, few people are\nusing it, and therefore there is not so much negative feedback as a lack of strong support to\nmaintain it. For criteria, staff looked at the traffic statistics, plus public comment to make a\ndetermination.\nPublic Comments for #6B", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Member Foster addressed the car racing concerns, and said that the commission could direct\nthem to add actions specific to car racing. She discussed that it was a data-based map and that she\nwould double check the data.\nChair Soules discussed how the data had been collected and that it was dependent on the public\ninput. She wanted to know if that was a fair assessment.\nStaff Member Foster said that along with police reports for data they also were using See Click\nFix. Since some people did not file police reports, they looked at other ways of collecting data.\nVice Chair Yuen recommended double-checking the data and how the high injury corridors were\nidentified. She also wanted to see a separate map of the near misses.\nCommissioner Alysha Nachtigall discussed her experience of living on Buena Vista and which\nareas needed attention.\nCommissioner Weitze discussed improvements planned for city vehicles and felt that would\nrequire a lot of money with not much gain. He also felt that \"alcohol adjacent areas\" should also\nbe included in the section about collisions. He wanted to see Alameda Police be on board and\nsupportive of automatic speed readers and felt that staff had done a great job with outreach.\nCommissioner Nachtigall thanked staff and everyone involved for their hard work on this plan.\nShe was happy to see that equity had been included when discussing traffic safety and supported\nthe time frame being reduced by five years. She looked forward to seeing the emphasis on\neducation and the potential Infrastructure Rapid Response Program.\nChair Soules supported this bold and aggressive target to try to reach. She believed that design\nleveled the playing field and technology was a worthwhile investment, which would have long-\nterm impacts. She also believed that data integrity was important because of environmental justice\nand would skew against disadvantaged communities.\nVice Chair Yuen thanked staff for their leadership on this great plan. She was excited to see the\nplan's implementation to make Alameda safer.\nVice Chair Yuen made a motion to endorse the Vision Zero Plan for City Council to adopt with\nthe amendments stated for speeding/racing, for focusing on enforcement near establishments that\nserve alcohol, and the recommendation that the High-Injury Corridor Map be checked for\naccuracy. Commissioner Weitze seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and\nthe motion passed 6-0.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 3, "text": "Jay Garfinkle was concerned that the 2035 goal was too far away and that this plan removed\npersonal responsibility and put too much emphasis on system changes. He wanted the staff and\nPublic Works to look into the effect construction has on collisions.\nCyndy Johnsen, Bike Walk Alameda, expressed her support for the Vision Zero Plan. She\ndiscussed how for too long the emphasis had been on cars and thought this plan was a good move\naway from being a car-centric culture.\nCarmen Reid brought attention to streets that needed repair, specifically on Lafayette between\nClinton and Encinal, also portions of Encinal Avenue between Grand Street and Park Street. She\nsuggested additional signage and lights to help with speeding. She also suggested a robust\nrepainting campaign to make crosswalks more visible.\nKaren Bey from the Fifth Street Neighborhood group was concerned that the plan did not address\nthe car racing that was happening on the West End and Fifth Street. She discussed safety requests\nthat would help tackle illegal racing.\nJim Strehlow believed that system changes would never be able to eliminate drunk\ndriver/pedestrian/cyclist collisions. He also questioned and had issues about how they captured the\ndata, he did not think it was the fault of the corridors but the people who used them instead.\nMarilyn Alwan supported Karen Bey's comments and asked for proactive actions for Fifth Street.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A\nVice Chair Yuen pointed out that the High Injury Corridor Map from the plan was different than\nwhat was on the website. She asked that it be reconciled before the plan was finalized.\nStaff Member Foster said that she would follow up to make sure which one was the correct one\nand would get that fixed.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand thought the plan was a great effort and supported moving the goal to\n2035 and cautioned the need for adequate budgeting. She also wanted staff to look into car racing\non slow streets, design changes cannot change bad behavior but there were things they could do.\nShe also discussed the High Injury Corridor Map, had questions about certain areas and wanted\nclarification on the findings and designations. She gave suggestions on areas that needed more\nattention and changes in designations. She felt strongly about these designations and wanted to\nmake sure they got the appropriate attention.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 2, "text": " https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182985&GUID=6CFE355D-9085-\n46A7-84A4-6FB800501F57&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Scott Weitze clarified his comments for Agenda item 6-C, his concern was for the\nscheduling, he felt the scheduling could be better.\nCommissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand clarified her comments for Agenda item 6-B.\nCommissioner Weitze made a motion to approve the minutes with these edits and Vice-Chair Tina\nYuen seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 4-0,\nCommissioners Nachtigall and Hans abstained due to their absence at this meeting.\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of the Vision Zero Action Plan (Lisa Foster, Senior\nTransportation Coordinator) (Action Item)\nLisa Foster, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The\nstaff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182986&GUID=2C8EE9A4-BCB9-\n4772-AAFD-3E9D1F4C119C&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A\nCommissioner Weitze asked about the socially vulnerable area around Webster and the Webster\nTube since there was not much of a population there and asked if another analysis has been done\nsince the map updates.\nStaff Member Foster said they had not done another analysis since removing certain areas but they\nwere planning on updating the Socially Vulnerable Map.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked about the High-Injury Corridor Map and wanted to know why\nthe number differed online from what was in the plan.\nStaff Member Foster said she would double-check that information and make sure they had the\nmost recent map.\nPublic Comments for #6A", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nTransportation Commission\nSpecial Meeting\nWednesday, October 27, 2021\nTime:\nChair Samantha Soules convened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.\nLocation:\nPursuant to Assembly Bill 361 codified at Government Code Section 54953,\nTransportation Commissioners can attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allows public\nparticipation via Zoom.\nLegistar Link:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=898688&GUID=FAAC6994-94BA-4EED-\n96B5-18C9183B36BD&Options=info/&Search=\n1. Roll Call\nPresent: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Yuen and Commissioners Nachtigall, Kohlstrand, Hans and\nWeitze.\nAbsent: Commissioner Randy Rentschler\n2. Agenda Changes\nNone.\n3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:\n ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182984&GUID=3D056E3F-2689-\n40BE-8934-A82B73813818&FullText=1.\n4. Announcements / Public Comments\nYahav Kimel Green, a 9-year-old Alameda resident, expressed the need for more crosswalks or\nslow signs on Wood or Chapin Street to make it easier and safer for children walking to school.\nJill Staten brought up issues with the Slow Streets and did not feel that they were any safer.\n5.\nConsent Calendar\n5A. Approve Draft Meeting Minutes - September 22, 2021 (Action Item)", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 10, "text": "8. Adjournment\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.\n10\nTC Minutes\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 9, "text": "Staff Member Payne pointed out where the update for the Oakland/Alameda Access Project was\nlocated, page 23, and then discussed that project and timeline. She also clarified that the before\nand after data for Otis was based on quantitative analysis.\nChair Soules added that she would follow up with Staff Member Payne about Orion St.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6C\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to know what success for Line 78 would be. He felt that it was a\ndifficult time to be starting a bus line during a pandemic, and he expressed concerned that people\nwere hesitating to get on a bus right now.\nStaff Member Payne answered that she had not seen any of the parameters on what was needed\nfor that bus line to be successful. She added that there is a good faith effort to keep it beyond the\nfirst year.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to further discuss the Slow Streets map from the presentation. He\ndiscussed what he had observed about slow streets near where he lived, Woodstock, and felt that\nat the end of slow streets they did not create safe pedestrian behavior. He wanted to know if staff\nhad looked at what happens when slow streets end and what people do.\nStaff Member Wheeler said that was something that could be incorporated into their work. She\nadded that a common response they had received on the survey was that people wanted a network\nof slow streets created. She discussed how that could address the issue of slow street endpoints.\n7. Announcements / Public Comments\nCommissioner Kohlstrand wanted to know if there was a date set up to initiate the sub-committee\ndiscussions on the technical report for the Mobility Element.\nStaff Payne stated that was being delayed until next year until after the AC Transit Recovery Plan\nand the Active Transportation Plan approval. She explained what other input was needed since it\nall would build on each other.\nStaff Member Payne pointed out that it was National Roundabout Week.\nChair Soules pointed out that it was Walk and Roll to school on 10/6 and reminded everyone that\nthe Special Commission Meeting was 10/27.\nTC Minutes\n9\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 8, "text": "outreach. Public outreach would start late this year or early next year and she then laid out the\nphases and what that entailed. This was a major effort and they would be applying for grant funding\nto complete and construct. She also explained what information they look for and gather during\nthe evaluation.\nChair Soules asked with the investment in bike infrastructure, were they collecting data on bike\ncounts. Had they been doing surveys, travel diaries, or counts in mode shift?\nStaff Member Wheeler answered that they had done a statistically significant survey asking about\nmode choice. She did acknowledge that a travel diary would be the best survey and they could do\nthose in the future. She also pointed out the bike counter on the Cross Alameda Trail but due to\nthe pandemic, those numbers aren't a true reflection. She discussed other surveys and numbers\nthey had been looking at for future comparisons.\nStaff Member Payne added that working on better data collection with new technologies was\nsomething they would be working on as part of the Smart City Master Plan effort.\nChair Soules discussed how data collected intersected with their equity issues. She wanted to see\nif there was actual uptake in what they were offering as the transportation options to a larger\npopulation.\nStaff Member Wheeler discussed how the statistically significant surveys would consider the\npopulation diversity. She also added that after projects were done they collected data as well.\nPublic Comments for #6C\nJill Staten discussed how important before and after data was, you needed to have good baseline\ndata. She did not believe that survey data was good data, what really mattered was the\nobservational data. She encouraged more observational data and fewer survey data.\nJim Strehlow wanted more clarification on where the work on Orion Street would take place. He\nalso had concerns about safety on the new bike lane on Clement. He also wanted an update on\nwhen the Oakland/Alameda Access Project would begin. He also agreed with the previous speaker\nabout having fewer survey data, he considered them hearsay and could be easily manipulated. He\nalso pointed out that there was no chat window available for the meeting.\nTC Minutes\n8\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Weitze stated that he would vote against this resolution strictly on the idea that he\ndid not believe that an on/off again pedestrian recall was safer. He saw Vision Zero as important\nand believed this resolution was the opposite of that.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to approve/endorse the staff's recommendation with the\namendment that the wording change to \"community mixed-use/Commercial\" to be consistent with\nthe staff report. Chair Soules seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the\nmotion passed 3-1 with Commissioner Weitze voting against and Commissioner Rentschler being\nabsent.\n6C. Status Report on Transportation - September 2021 (Discussion Item)\nStaff Member Payne gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137023&GUID=F0B7864D-20DE-\n402B-AC24-FFFFC8AF4048.\nRochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator, Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, and\nStaff Member Vance also gave updates on projects.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6C\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked about the repaving and repainting along Buena Vista and if it\nwould include restriping near Maya Lin School. Would they be establishing crosswalks near that\nlocation? She also wanted to know the timeframe for that project.\nStaff Member Vance said the project that just wrapped up was not a resurfacing project so they\ndid not add crosswalks at that time. The next phase would include a designer who would evaluate\naccessible curb ramps, pavement markings, and that is when they would look at that intersection.\nThis will take place sometime next year, in the fall and the winter.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked staff to respond to the public comment who was concerned for\nthat intersection and give them an update on the timing of that project.\nCommissioner Weitze asked for a completion date for the evaluation (bike lane, road diet) of the\nLincoln/Pacific corridor.\nStaff Member Payne discussed how the project had been expanded and that a more comprehensive\nlook had been planned for the corridor. It would now include a larger area and it needed more\nTC Minutes\n7\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B\nCommissioner Rentschler wanted to know if this was something that should be revisited. He did\nnot want to create friction between modes and have people angry needlessly. He also wanted to\nknow if this didn't work, what was the plan.\nDirector Smith explained how recall was already implemented on Park and Webster currently and\nthat this policy would allow for the implementation of the time of day component, which is the\nfunctional change of this policy. They would only revisit it if they were directed to do so.\nCommissioner Weitze first endorsed Bike Walk Alameda's statement and letter about signal\nimprovements for bikes on Appezzato Parkway; he thought that was way overdue. He explained\nhis concerns with the \"sometimes this and sometimes that\" signals, especially in locations where\nthey are teaching walking signals to children. He thought it should be, you push a button, and then\nit's safe to walk. He worried that having recall different at different times could be confusing and\npossibly dangerous. He was against the time of day recall.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand agreed with Commissioner Weitze's observations and was also\nstruggling with the time of day concept. She thought that having recall all the time along Park and\nWebster would be good. She also wanted to know why the intersection of Park and Otis was left\noff the pedestrian map, she pointed out what a busy pedestrian intersection that was. Other than\nthat she was supportive of the staff recommendation.\nDirector Smith explained what decisions and criteria had gone into the pedestrian map.\n*Commissioner Rentschler had to leave the meeting. He had originally made a motion to approve\nthis resolution but since he had to leave Commissioner Kohlstrand made the motion instead.\nChair Soules appreciated the red-line and she liked the time of day technology. She discussed how\nif the lights were not timed right, you would see drivers trying to \"beat the light\". She also believed\nthis would allow balance for the different modes better. She also pointed out that the data would\nallow them to make adjustments to make this work better. She also agreed with and endorsed\nCommissioner Kohlstrand's clarification.\nVice Chair Yuen endorsed this policy and felt that she better understood it after the revisions. She\nagreed that the policy was nuanced, adaptive, and could balance everyone's needs. She discussed\nwhy some people were hesitant to support push buttons.\nTC Minutes\n6\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 5, "text": "Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6B\nCommissioner Rentschler wanted staff to be able to maximize use of available tools for optimizing\nsignal timing. He also made note that despite the City's goal for mode shift, most people currently\ndrive. He understood there was pressure on Public Works to reach the mode shift goals but he was\nopposed to creating needless wait time for drivers as a means to get there. He believed that actuated\npedestrian signal use was most efficient. He discussed other ways they could improve the system\nas it was now.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand generally agreed with the revisions that had been made. She then asked\nfor a clarification on the wording in the redline resolution.\nDirector Smith clarified that the staff report and the presentation were correct, and that the intent\nis to use land use designation for community/commercial She apologized for the mistake and\nnoted that the resolution would be updated for Council's consideration.\nPublic Comments for #6B\nAlexis Kreig strongly opposed prioritizing cars' convenience over allowing pedestrians to be able\nto cross when the light is green. She thought that since it was car emissions that were causing the\nclimate crisis it was unconscionable to be prioritizing driver convenience over pedestrian safety\nand access.\nJim Strehlow highly commended the rewording of this resolution and thought it was very\nworkable. He also endorsed Commissioner Rentschler's words as well and appreciated the work\ndone by Russ Thompson.\nDenyse Trepanier, Board President for Bike Walk Alameda, wanted to have a larger conversation\nabout how they would want their intersections to behave since there were so many competing\nvoices. She thought that they had already established in the Vision Zero plan that they would not\nprioritize driver convenience so she was surprised to see that as a priority in this policy. She was\nnot opposed to this policy but believed it did not get to the conversation they should be having.\nTC Minutes\n5\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 4, "text": "Crossing that the rest of the project would not fizzle. What planning and forethought had been\ngiven to funding and future support.\nMr. Evans wasn't sure if there was a great answer other than planning for the years ahead and\nraising expectations, which they were doing. He discussed the other agencies that were involved\nand believed this was a Golden Age in rail improvement. Each improvement would inspire people\nand groups to want the next one.\nCommissioner Randy Rentschler wanted to know if there was any other city that had the same\npotential as Alameda to get another potential station.\nMr. Evans stated the reasons why Alameda was a good choice.\nPublic Comments for #6A\nJim Strehlow discussed how he liked the studies that showed the differences between East and\nWest Bay. He then discussed his history of living and working in the Bay Area and how\ntransportation and commuting around was difficult and that sometimes a personal vehicle was the\nbest option.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A\nCommissioner Kohlstrand discussed some of the limitations for high-speed rail in the area, the\nmain one being no dedicated funding source. For this project, she believed everyone in Northern\nCalifornia needed to come together to identify how to get these things done. Also, they would need\nto work with the federal government for potential funding.\n6B. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Signalized\nIntersection Equity Policy (Action Item)\nErin Smith, Public Works Director, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report\nand attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137022&GUID=61E66B31-15AE-\n49F5-A8F2-793575E7CCDE&FullText=1.\nDirector Smith introduced Russ Thompson, Interim City Engineer, Robert Vance, Public Works\nSenior Engineer, and Ryan Dole, a Transportation Engineer with Kimley Horn who were available\nfor questions and input.\nTC Minutes\n4\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner Weitze wanted to know how this project would be different from the High-Speed\nRail project that California had been developing, which in his opinion had been a disaster. He\nwanted to know what lessons they had learned from that project. He also wanted to know how\nmuch faster this would be if they just focused on one thing and then worried about the connections.\nMr. Evans said they had learned a lot from that situation. He explained how and why this project\nwas different. He saw their analysis as using existing highly functional systems and making\nimprovements to these existing systems. He then explained what their findings had discovered, to\nserve the megaregion this project would likely start in the inner Bay Area but it would still serve\nthe larger area.\nVice Chair Yuen wanted to know more about potential impacts to the City of Alameda, such as\npotential service stops. She also wanted to know what information they should be gathering about\npotential stops and the best way to share that information.\nMr. Evans said they would rely on the involvement of city staff and this commission to know\nwhere they thought service stops should be. Then they could match that up with their findings.\nStaff Member Payne discussed the work and research staff had done to best locate and decide on\npotential service stops. She discussed other ways they could gather information and was open to\nother suggestions.\nMs. Franklin discussed the community engagement that BART had done to better understand\nservice needs and aspirations. She would alert staff about their next survey and would share those\nfindings.\nChair Soules brought up the RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) and the changing\npopulation that would be happening and wanted to make sure those demographic changes were\ncaptured.\nMr. Evans discussed how the Transbay Crossing was the centerpiece of this project and how this\nproject would enable so much more. It was not just a way to get to and from San Francisco and he\nfurther discussed how this would serve different needs.\nChair Soules appreciated the big bold vision and was happy to see the outer communities\nconsidered. She wanted to know what assurances they had that once they had the Transbay\nTC Minutes\n3\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 2, "text": "Wood, 9th, and Buena Vista. She added that it was hard to cross there and that cars drove by\nwithout stopping and at high speeds.\nJill Staten discussed the slow street on Versailles and thought that this street was not well chosen\nfor the program. She explained the many issues with the traffic that she had noted and that drivers\nwould become frustrated.\n5. Consent Calendar\n5A. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, July 28, 2021\n(Action Item)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137020&GUID=EE3E1FEB-85D0-\n3AF-985C-5744F51CD6B4&FullText=1.\nGail Payne, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, corrected that Commissioner Hans had been\npresent at the meeting.\nCommissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the minutes with the correction and\nChair Soules seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 4-\n0, Vice-Chair Yuen abstained since she had been absent at the meeting.\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Discuss Link21: New Regional Rail/Transbay Rail Crossing Project Update\n(Discussion Item)\nStaff Member Payne introduced Nicole Franklin with BART and Alex Evans of HNTB who gave\nthe presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137021&GUID=8186601E-EB9D-\n4ED2-8402-B67366E4B6C5&FullText=1\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A\nCommissioner Kohlstrand wanted more information on the vehicle types that would be used. She\nwanted to know how the technology would link together and what would need to be electrified.\nMr. Evans explained about the new generation electric vehicles they were working on and how\nCaltrans would adopt that technology. He explained what was being electrified and what systems\ncould use both diesel and electricity.\nTC Minutes\n2\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes\nTransportation Commission Meeting\nWednesday, September 22, 2021\nTime:\n6:30 p.m.\nLocation:\nDue to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners were\nable to attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom.\nCity Hall was NOT open to the public during the meeting.\nLegistar Link:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811336&GUID=3E8F230B-9CBC-47B0-\n8633-082B444CD1D6&Options=info/&Search=.\n1. Roll Call\nPresent: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Yuen and Commissioners Kohlstrand*, Weitze*, Rentschler.\nAbsent: Commissioner Michael Hans and Alysha Nachtigall.\n*Kohlstrand and Weitze arrived after the initial roll call.\n2. Agenda Changes\nChair Samantha Soules said they would delay item 5 until they had a quorum.\n3.\nStaff Communications are as shown in the web link here:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137019&GUID=B567D985-136F-\n4FC9-B85D-073F5DCFEFDC&FullText=1.\n4. Announcements / Public Comments\nChair Soules thanked Vice Chair Tina Yuen for stepping into the role of Vice Chair. She then\nexpressed her deepest condolences to the family of the man who was killed recently in a traffic\nfatality on Fernside. She discussed the important work that staff was doing with the Vision Zero\nPlan.\nHannah Green expressed her safety concerns about crossing the street on Buena Vista with her\nchildren near Chapin Street. She asked that crosswalks be painted at the intersection of Chapin,\nTC Minutes\n1\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-07-28", "page": 11, "text": "with AC Transit on this issue. He also wanted the city to create educational materials on how\npedestrians should dress when walking around at night.\nChair Soules reminded everyone that school started on August 6 and that meant many people\nfiguring out new morning commutes. She encouraged everyone to reach out to bring awareness\nin the community to help everyone stay safe. She then thanked Vice Chair Nachtigall for her\nhard work as Vice Chair.\nVice Chair Nachtigall thanked everyone and said it had been an honor. She concurred with\neveryone being aware of children going to and from school and parents figuring out school pick\nup and drop offs.\n8. Adjournment\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:38 p.m.\nTC Meeting Minutes\n11\nJuly 28, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-07-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-07-28", "page": 10, "text": "6D. Discuss the Alameda General Plan Update, including the Mobility Element and\nTransportation Element Appendix (Discussion Item)\nDirector Thomas introduced this item. The staff report and attachments can be found at\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5037422&GUID=7BF1A807-4CFB-\n4402-94F3-DE5D4BAA1B1A&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions and Discussions and Comments for #6D\nChair Soules discussed what she would want to see at a subcommittee meeting and she wanted to\nsee the timeline for the street categorization.\nDirector Thomas explained more about the appendix maps they had sent AC Transit. He also\ndiscussed the public comments they had received as well as comments from other boards and\ncommissions. He then explained the next steps.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand discussed a few wording changes she wanted to see. She wanted to have\nanother subcommittee meeting on the Mobility Element appendix. She was not comfortable\nincorporating these maps, she had many concerns about Clement Avenue.\nChair Soules and Commissioner Weitze concurred about having another subcommittee meeting.\nDirector Thomas discussed what would be helpful.\nPublic Comments for item #6D\nJim Strehlow took issue with the language around converting gas to electricity for new\nconstruction as well as existing buildings.\nDirector Thomas said they were still taking public comments on these policies. He pointed out the\nnext public hearing for the Planning Board would be September 14. He explained more about the\nElectrification Ordinance and how Climate Change was impacting everything including our use of\nnatural gas.\n7. Announcements / Public Comments\nJim Strehlow discussed how confusing bike only and bus only lanes were on Webster Street at\nWillie Stargell Avenue. He wanted to allow bicycles in the bus lane and wanted a discussion\nTC Meeting Minutes\n10\nJuly 28, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-07-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-07-28", "page": 9, "text": "Public Comments for #6C\nBill Chapin, an Alameda resident, gave his support of these amendments. He also discussed his\nbackground with a Master's Degree in Urban Planning and that his master's project was on\nminimum parking requirements.\nJim Strehlow discussed his concerns with the electric vehicle charging program with the state\nhaving brownout warnings. He did not understand the move to more electrical and wanted to know\nhow the bureau of electricity was going to generate more electricity.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6C\nCommissioner Weitze asked about User Permits and how would those interact with the required\ndisabled access parking spaces. So if a place wanted to turn their parking lot into outdoor sitting.\nHow would that work?\nStaff Member McGuire explained how the code was written and that in the Use Permit review is\nwhen they could make requirements for accessible parking. Each situation would be different.\nDirector Thomas explained more about what a Use Permit allowed and what impacts the staff\nwould consider. The staff has to make findings and they have the authority to make conditions of\napproval.\nStaff Member McGuire added that they have a pending Use Permit right now that brought up this\nissue. The conditions are where they could add that accessible parking was required or a rideshare\ndrop-off space.\nDirector Thomas discussed how informative and helpful the meeting with the Commission of\nDisabled People had been.\nChair Soules was happy to see the electrification element and agreed that it was important that\nthey find a way to keep up with the need for more electricity.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the Draft Recommendation to the City\nCouncil and Commissioner Weitze seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a show of hands\nand the motion passed 5-0, Commissioner Rentschler had to leave the meeting before the vote.\nTC Meeting Minutes\n9\nJuly 28, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-07-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-07-28", "page": 8, "text": "Chair Soules asked for clarification on what would happen over the proposed two years.\nStaff Member Wheeler explained that over the next year the staff would monitor and make tweaks\non parking and work on design guidelines for the parklets. Then over the next year, they would\nfinish out the Active Transportation Plan, Vision Zero Plan, and their planning.\nAndrew Thomas, Director of Planning Building and Transportation, added that the two years\nwould allow the staff and the community to better understand the final design that Park and\nWebster St should be. He discussed the items that had come up during this meeting only that\nneeded to be addressed sooner rather than later.\nChair Soules appreciated his comments but her concerns were based on the people who wanted\nthe four lanes back. She wanted to acknowledge and recognize the voices who did not like the\nchanges. The planning process that is traditionally used would allow more public outreach. She\ndid not want to just serve half of the community. She also wanted to know the demographics of\nthe survey results to make sure a group of people was not being left out, and thought that would\nbe fairer.\nDirector Thomas agreed.\nChair Soules made a motion to accept and approve all staff's recommendations for the Commercial\nStreets Program and Commissioner Weitze seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of\nhands and the motion passed 6-0.\n6C. Recommend Approval of Draft Amendments to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-7\nOff-Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations to improve environmental quality in\nAlameda and implement the City of Alameda Climate Action and Resiliency Plan and\nTransportation Choices Plan (Action Item).\nBrian McGuire, Planner with Planning Building and Transportation, introduced the item and gave\nthe presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at\n  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5037421&GUID=AC653E42-7C7E-\n4DFD-A744-96A04E1573D6&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6C\nNo commissioners had questions at this time.\nTC Meeting Minutes\n8\nJuly 28, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-07-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-07-28", "page": 7, "text": "Staff Member Wheeler explained the work that DABA had done to control late-night activities on\nAlameda Avenue.\nChair Soules said the two-year timeframe concerned her. She said she would be more supportive\nof one year versus two years. She discussed the survey results and that parking enforcement should\nbe monitored more as well as safety and design guidelines. She discussed the importance of really\nlooking at who was being inconvenienced by these changes and not discount how they had\ntraditionally done things.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand said if they wanted to put something permanent in place then they\nwould need to monitor the temporary situation for another year. The second-year could be a more\npublic process of moving into a more permanent process. She also had concerns about trying to\nput a bike lane on Park Street.\nTC Meeting Minutes\n7\nJuly 28, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-07-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-07-28", "page": 6, "text": "Joan Stebbins, the owner of Honey Salon and DABA member, discussed how much businesses\nstill needed the Commercial Streets Program to stay in place. She implored the commission to\nkeep it. She also discussed all the benefits of the program she enjoyed. She agreed that with more\ntime they could make it look more cohesive. She was in full support of staff's recommendations.\nSabrina Cazarez, the owner of Twirl, said she was in full support of the parklets. The parklets\nallowed businesses to survive as well as created a sense of community and helped with safety\nconcerns.\nDenyse Trepanier, Board President for Bike Walk Alameda, discussed the importance of being\nable to reimagine and redesign our public spaces. She added that with all the changes that had\nhappened and the changes that were in the works it would be too disruptive to go back to the way\nthings were. She thanked the staff for their thoughtfulness and hoped they were given the chance\nto continue this work.\nLinda Asbury, Executive Director of the West End Business Association (WABA), said the board\nof directors and members of WABA were in favor of extending the program to December 2022.\nShe discussed the benefits for the many businesses on the West End and thanked the staff for all\ntheir hard work.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to know how many short-term parking spots would be lost on\nWebster St. He cautioned that those spots would be treated as permanent spots and he thought the\nshort-term spots were nice to have.\nStaff Member Wheeler did not have an exact number but after talking with businesses they were\ninterested in keeping 4-5 spots along Webster. The staff would still want to consider loading zones\nand green zones.\nChair Soules asked for clarification on the program timeframe of the recommendation.\nStaff Member Wheeler clarified that the recommendation was for two years from this October,\nwhich would then be until October 2023.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand thanked the staff for all their hard work on this program and for getting\nit going so quickly. She supported the staff's recommendations. She echoed the concerns about\nTC Meeting Minutes\n6\nJuly 28, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-07-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-07-28", "page": 5, "text": "6B.\nRecommendations for Commercial Streets (Action Item)\nStaff Member Wheeler introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5037420&GUID=2B5A74EA-642E-\n4F2F-994C-30CE45C3454E&FullText=1.\nPublic Comments for #6B\nCyndy Johnsen, an Alameda resident, gave her support for the continuation and improvement of\nthe Commercial Street Program. She also encouraged that protected bike lanes be incorporated\ninto the program. She discussed her own experiences as a cyclist.\nKathy Weber, Executive Director to the Downtown Area Business Association (DABA), discussed\nthe many benefits of the Commercial Street Program, that City Staff had worked so hard on for\nthe businesses during this difficult time. She thought that continuing the program was vital to\nbusinesses as they continued to navigate through the pandemic. She was in full support of staff's\nrecommendations.\nJim Strehlow thought the parklet structures blocked some businesses' storefronts. He also did not\nthink dining near busy streets was enjoyable. He discussed his other concerns such as backed-up\ntraffic and wanted someone to measure how many people no longer come to Alameda because of\nthe closed streets. He knew many people who no longer visited Alameda.\nJohn Frangoulis, owner of Park Street Tavern and member of DABA, thanked the city for all the\nsupport they had given restaurants and bars. He supported the continued use of the program and\nbelieved that if they made this permanent then more bike lanes would come which would allow\npeople to feel safer. He hoped they would approve all the proposed projects.\nCurtis Azevedo, an Alameda resident, thought the parklets were a spark of joy during a dark time.\nHe thought instead of dedicated bike lanes they should consider more slow streets and traffic\ncircles. He discussed how much he had enjoyed the slow streets as a cyclist.\nRon Mooney, the owner of Daisy's, fully supported the Commercial Street concept and process.\nHe wanted to see more encouragement in changing the mindset of what streets were for, he\nbelieved they should first be for pedestrians than cars. He also wanted to see the two-lane change\non Park St become permanent and to see the speed limit dropped to 20 mph. He discussed all the\npositive changes the parklets had done. He wanted to see a permanent parklet feature in Alameda.\nTC Meeting Minutes\n5\nJuly 28, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-07-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-07-28", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. Alston discussed the difference between modern roundabouts and traffic circles. He went into\nthe details and the geometric space needed for each to work. He said the main difference with\ntraffic circles is that they are more appropriate for low volume, local streets.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand discussed her experiences with traffic circles. She felt that they would\nnot have that kind of space in Alameda but that should not keep them from improving safety. She\nasked if a smaller version could work in those higher volume intersections that have 25 mph speed\nlimits.\nMr. Alston discussed the emerging trend of using mini-roundabouts. He explained how they\naddress the space constraint issue, the center aisle is completely traversable and can work in spaces\nwith low-speed limits. He did add that they are usually used in places that have an established\nhistory of roundabouts, so people know how they work.\nStaff Member Payne clarified that the 85 percentile speed was more like 32-35 mph, which was\nmuch higher than the actual speed limit.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to know what was the typical minimum/maximum for a traffic circle\nor a mini-roundabout.\nMr. Alston explained the physical attributes that mark the difference between traffic circles and\nroundabouts.\nChair Soules said she appreciated the criteria to apply some sort of guidance for future funding.\nShe encouraged the staff to focus on education and outreach to help people understand.\nStaff Payne confirmed that the commission wanted them to continue this research and work on the\nremaining arterials and collectors in town.\nChair Nachtigall very much wanted them to continue this work. She agreed with Commissioner\nKohlstrand about being able to implement them in other ways. She had an appetite for exploring\nintersections where any sort of circular intersection could work.\nRochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator, discussed the work she had been doing with\nthe Slow Streets Program and how temporary traffic circles had been discussed. The idea was to\ntest out some of these on the streets of Alameda.\nTC Meeting Minutes\n4\nJuly 28, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-07-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-07-28", "page": 3, "text": "Gail Payne, Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced this item and gave a presentation. She\nalso introduced Mike Alston, a consultant with Kittelson & Associates, Inc. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5037423&GUID=1BE1750D-6EA2-\n 4133-A912-638485701722&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6E\nChair Soules asked about the Social Vulnerability Index and its update status.\nStaff Member Payne shared that the update is being covered as part of the Hazard Mitigation Plan\nupdate effort.\nPublic Comments for #6E\nJim Strehlow was pleased that there was not enough space for roundabouts everywhere. He\ndiscussed what his concerns were and called out Pearl Street by Tilden Way as an example of what\nmight get overlooked. He also pointed out that at Otis Drive and Grand Street it was difficult for\nFire Engine 1 to make a turn.\nStaff Member Payne addressed his concerns about roundabouts and this was an initial scan to see\nwhat was possible. For the intersection discussed (Tilden/Blanding/Fernside) they would of course\ntake Pearl Street under consideration. Then for Otis and Grand, they did consider that issue, the\nconsultants did make sure it could fit.\nMr. Alston discussed all the elements they look at when they evaluated an intersection. He\nexplained what they had studied and looked at for the intersection analysis.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6E\nCommissioner Kohlstrand wanted to know if smaller traffic circles could work in locations that\nhad been deemed too unsuitable for roundabouts. Instead of focusing on those intersections, she\nwanted to focus on intersections that could still use a traffic circle.\nStaff Member Payne answered that this study had been focused on the modern roundabout, our\nfatal and severe injury collisions, and where those took place. They happened on the busier and\nwider streets. She explained more about why they had focused on the modern roundabouts.\nTC Meeting Minutes\n3\nJuly 28, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-07-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-07-28", "page": 2, "text": " ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5037417&GUID=C108F591-B9D7-\n4FAF-9DF2-2CC39C5426ED&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Weitze moved to approve as is and Vice-Chair Nachtigall seconded. A vote was\ntaken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 5-0 with Commissioner Hans abstained since he\nhad been absent.\n5B. Approve Meeting Minutes - May 26, 2021 (Action Item)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5037418&GUID=E1EF96FE-5C3C-\n4C78-BEF2-DA7C32B4F47D&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes as is and Vice-Chair Nachtigall\nseconded. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 6-0.\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Elect Chair and Vice-Chair of the Transportation Commission (Action Item)\nThe staff report can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5037419&GUID=EFD295E3-0188-\n4D90-820E-A52EB8BC601D&Options=&Search=\nPublic Comments for #6A\nThere were no public speakers.\nChair Samantha Soules opened the floor for nominations.\nVice-Chair Nachtigall nominated Chair Soules as Chair for the next term and Commissioner\nWeitze seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the nomination passed 6-0.\nChair Soules thanked everyone for their confidence in her leadership.\nChair Soules nominated Commissioner Yuen for Vice-Chair, she had discussed this with her\nbefore the meeting and could confirm her interest in the role. Commissioner Rentschler seconded\nthe motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the nomination passed 6-0.\n6E. Discuss Citywide Roundabout Analysis Results (Discussion Item)\nTC Meeting Minutes\n2\nJuly 28, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-07-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-07-28", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nTransportation Commission Meeting\nWednesday, July 28, 2021\nTime:\n6:30 p.m.\nLocation:\nDue to Governor Executive Order N-08-21, Transportation Commissioners can\nattend the meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom.\nLegistar Link:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811335&GUID=54809A56-6AF9-435D-\n311A-81073DAB8EB1&Options=info/&Search=\n1. Roll Call\nPresent: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Nachtigall and Commissioners Rentschler, Hans, Kohlstrand\nand Weitze.\nAbsent: Commissioner Yuen.\n2. Agenda Changes\nChair Soules requested to move item 6E to after item 6A to accommodate the consultant's time.\nNo one objected.\n3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5037416&GUID=9CD69079-4C3B-\n  4F7D-833A-9428E0160AD5&FullText=1.\n4. Announcements/ Public Comments\nCommissioner Rentschler discussed a deal that Congress was working on that had many benefits\nfor the Bay Area.\nCommissioner Weitze praised Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) for the system they had set up\nto reimburse businesses for setting up Electrical Vehicle (EV) charging stations.\n5.\nConsent Calendar\n5A. Approve Meeting Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Board and\nTransportation Commission - May 10, 2021 (Action Item)\nTC Meeting Minutes\n1\nJuly 28, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-07-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 13, "text": "Commissioner Yuen had also thought about the VMT returning to almost 100 percent in parts of\nthe Bay Area. She wondered what that meant for the future VMT for Alameda and how to keep it\nlow. She saw transit as a way to do that and a way to alleviate fears with Covid measures.\nPublic Comments for #6D\nJim Strehlow said they completely ignored the Alameda Oakland Access project. This was a major\nproject over the last 6-8 years. It will highly affect the multimodal travel patterns. He asked that\nthey also identity Orion Street's endpoints.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussion #6D\nThere were no other comments on this item.\n7. Announcements / Public Comments\nCommissioner Kohlstrand discussed a recent story she heard on NPR about the potential removal\nof the I-980 Freeway in Downtown Oakland and that it was gaining some interest in moving that\nproject ahead. She wanted to know if Alameda had been involved in that discussion, she believed\nit would be wise to do SO.\nStaff Member Wheeler said she had not heard that story but they could reach out to Oakland City\nStaff.\nStaff Member Payne agreed they could and should look into that.\nJim Strehlow also discussed the potential closure of the I-980 Freeway in Oakland. He could not\nbelieve that was a good idea and was going backward.\nChair Soules discussed the morning's tragedy at the Santa Clara VTA rail yard in San Jose. She\nsent her thoughts to the victim's families and everyone in the industry.\n8. Adjournment\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n13\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 12, "text": "Commissioner Kohlstrand asked if it was based on Census Data or some other data.\nStaff Member Payne said that it was mainly based on Census Data and a combination of various\nfactors.\n6D. Status Report on Transportation - May 2021 (Discussion)\nStaff Member Payne introduced the item and gave a brief presentation with Staff Member Wheeler.\nThe staff report and presentation can be found at\nhttp://alameda.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=792bf795-7f1d-41b8-a994-\n14e7b34ce277.pdf and\nhttp://alameda.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=e03c16e4-945d-47c1-bf9d-\n07656ad6a5a7.pdf.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6D\nChair Soules said the graphics and the layout had come a long way. She commended the extra\neffort the staff did to make this more readable.\nVice-Chair Nachtigall asked if they were going to be charging for parking right away at the Sea\nPlane Lagoon ferry terminal.\nStaff Member Foster said they would not have paid parking in place for when the ferry started but\nthey would be getting it implemented soon. Pay stations will be installed in the coming months.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to know what the staff thought about traffic being bad and backed\nup everywhere except getting on and off the island on the West End. How could they keep that\ngoing forward?\nStaff Member Payne said much of that had to do with the demographics of Alameda, people tend\nto have jobs where they can telecommute, and schools were not in session.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if city staff was projecting that to continue since demographics were\ngoing in the direction of telecommuting.\nStaff Member Payne said that was hard to predict but it did present an opportunity to help with\ncongestion on and off the island.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n12\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 11, "text": "Commissioner Yuen thanked Staff Member Foster and city staff for all their work on the Vision\nZero Plan and was really pleased with the progress. She asked what city staff had learned from a\nrecent fatality and two severe injuries that happened in the first quarter of 2021.\nStaff Member Foster said the fatality had been a cyclist and they had done a Post-Collison Site\nVisit. She discussed the ways they were planning on making the intersection safer and the entire\ncorridor was slated for improvements. The other two collisions still needed to have their Post-\nCollison Site Visit.\nCommissioner Yuen said since the data went until 2018 was there any plan to continue to update\nthe crash data and high injury corridors.\nStaff Member Foster said the plan was to do a full high injury corridor every 5 years. She also\ndiscussed other information that would improve and help her studies.\nVice-Chair Nachtigall appreciated the data-driven analysis and commended Staff Member Foster,\nstaff, and the consultant team. She found the information easy to read and understand. She stated\nas the parent of a third-grader the findings in the study were very challenging and unfortunate. She\nappreciated the new high visibility crosswalks and safety measures, and she was looking forward\nto seeing the full Vision Zero Action Plan.\nCommissioner Weitze asked about the crash data in the report and wanted to know specifics about\nthe 33 percent of drivers hitting pedestrians in crosswalks. He wanted to know if that included\nstraight-on collisions and right turns.\nStaff Member Foster said that was drivers traveling straight, not turning.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if they had the information about crashes where drivers were turning.\nStaff Member Foster said she could get that information for him.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand echoed her fellow commissioners in that this was great work so far. She\nasked when the Socially Vulnerable Map would be updated.\nStaff Member Payne said it was happening with the Hazard Mitigation Plan update that was\nbeginning now.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n11\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 10, "text": "Vice-Chair Nachtigall believed this was very notable especially with the research that showed that\nover 40,000 fewer auto trips per week were possible. She was in full support.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the staff recommendation that the City\nCouncil Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Documents Necessary to Accept\nand Allocate $1,555,000 in Grant Funds from the Alameda County Transportation Commission to\nComplete a Project Initiation Document for the Alameda-Oakland Bicycle-Pedestriar Bridge\nProject. Commissioner Michael Hans seconded the motion, a vote was taken by a raise of hands\nand the motion passed 5-0 with Chair Soules having recused herself.\n6C. Update on Vision Zero Action Plan Development and Crash Data Analysis (Discussion)\nLisa Foster, Transportation Planner, introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report\nand attachments can be found at\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957784&GUID=CC342571-9648-\n4854-9EF6-C939AA16557F&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6C\nCommissioner Weitze asked if the recent work done at Alameda Point had conformed to all the\nVision Zero recommendations.\nStaff Member Wheeler said they were focusing on as much state-of-the-art infrastructure as they\ncould.\nPublic Comments for #6C\nJim Strehlow said that this study did not publish counts of who was at fault, such as poor lighting\nor someone distracted by their phone. He said with all the different cultures on the island, he\nwanted to know in what different languages they had created safety information for.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6C\nChair Soules said this was a lot of data but thought it had been put forward in a great graphic way.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n10\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 9, "text": "Staff Member Wheeler. She believed that this should not be a city lead project but a regional\nproject and felt that Staff Member Wheeler had done the lion's share of this project. She\nacknowledged that getting a new transit service up and running was really hard and time-\nconsuming. She discussed all the difficulties in getting the water shuttle services up and running\nand it was the short-term solution. She thought they were in a really good place to move forward\nwith this project.\nSusie Hufstader echoed what Ms. Trepanier had said about Staff Member Wheeler and her team\nfor all the work she had done shepherding this project forward. This project was overwhelming\nand it took a lot of work from the city staff. She discussed the importance of really thinking\ndifferently about infrastructure and what other cities were doing. She believed this project would\nbe transformative for Alameda. She encouraged the commissioners to speak up about this project\nto make it a high priority.\nCyndy Johnsen also thanked Staff Member Wheeler and staff for working on this gigantic project.\nShe wanted everyone to think about how big and impossible it seemed at one time to have\nhighways across America, and now it's just part of life. The price might seem high but there was\nno bike infrastructure or the West End that connected to Oakland. She gave other ideas on how to\nthink about bike equity and discussed all the different requirements this bridge had to meet. She\nhoped there were ways they could work with the Coast Guard and look at design elements to bring\nthe cost down. She was very excited about this project.\nJim Strehlow wanted to discuss the Feasibility Study from 2009 that had been a priority for 7 years.\nHe had asked repeatedly for a year now for a project status update from Staff Member Wheeler.\nHe wanted to know how much income had been brought in since Alameda Landing was supposed\nto contribute $175,000 and he wasn't sure if that was yearly or not. He thought that going from the\nMain Street ferry terminal to Webster Street was too far, Alameda Landing was a better option.\nHe liked that WETA was involved. He wanted to know what lies had been put into the Travel\nDemand Model estimate of the daily bike trips. He talked about past bridges in the area that boats\nhad crashed into and the plan had no disaster backup plan.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B\nCommissioner Yuen said she was very much in support of moving this forward. She did not see\nthis as an either-or situation, bridge vs. other modes of access across the estuary. She mentioned\nshe lived on the West End and she was excited for the water shuttle and this bridge. She saw this\nas an important critical next step in moving this project forward and fully supported it.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n9\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 8, "text": "Staff Member Payne said it was during commute time at this point and it was part of the Sea Plane\nShift.\nCommissioner Weitze said that was helpful information but it did not answer his question. He did\nnot understand how the boat cost $1 million and $2 million a year to operate but the bridge cost\n$200 million in 25 years when they build it. He did not understand why there wasn't a new boat\nout of Alameda Landing 6 months from now and they just don't run it.\nStaff Member Wheeler said the medium term option was the water shuttle. She discussed all the\neffort going into getting a water shuttle and getting a boat in the first place. She also discussed all\nthe ways they had looked into bringing the cost down.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if this project were to be funded, what kind of population\nrequirements were there for the island.\nStaff Member Wheeler said they had looked at the projected population based on current zoning\nand planned projects. She believed they would be looking at the number of people who use the\nboat, which is also based on employment. She did not anticipate that Alameda had to grow by a\ncertain amount.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked about the first forecast for the Pedestrian and Bicycle Demand\nfrom 2009 and wanted to know if they would look at that again when it came in for environmental\nreview.\nStaff Member Wheeler said they had done the Traffic Demand Model with the study they had\npublished this year.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked if the bridge was high enough that it would not have to be raised\nfor the sailboats but just the Coast Guard Cutters.\nStaff Member Wheeler said when the bridge would be down, the height would be about 65-70 feet\nabove the water and that would allow about 90 percent of sailboats to go underneath it.\nPublic Comments for #6B\nDenyse Trepanier, with Bike Walk Alameda, gave her support for the staff recommendation that\nthey accept $1.5 million from the county. She also wanted to acknowledge all the work done by\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n8\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Kohlstrand asked that there be more explanation around the term intersection\naccess equity. Even with all her experience in the transportation field, she had never heard that\nterm.\nChair Soules made a motion to bring this agenda item back at the July meeting or according to the\nschedule that the city staff set with the time needed for revisions before it went to Council, and\nwanted to reference \"signalized\" intersection access equity. Commissioner Weitze seconded and\na vote was taken by a raise of hands, the motion passed 6-0.\n6B. Recommend that the City Council Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute\nDocuments Necessary to Accept and Allocate $1,555,000 in Grant Funds from the Alameda\nCounty Transportation Commission to Complete a Project Initiation Document for the\nAlameda-Oakland Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge Project (Action)\nChair Soules recused herself from this agenda item.\nStaff Member Wheeler introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957783&GUID=809FF584-BBD0-\n49BD-8E4C-6F4A45F057E2&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6B\nCommissioner Weitze asked for clarification on the initial and annual costs of the water taxi.\nStaff Member Wheeler pointed out that was part of the feasibility study page. She added that it\nwould depend on how frequently the boats were used, who owned the boats, and many other factors\nthat the study did not go into. In general, the potential cost would be around $1 million to initiate\nthe water services and $2 million to operate and maintain it annually.\nCommissioner Weitze said that he was baffled by the numbers, and he did not understand why\nthose numbers were what they were. Why not just buy the boat tomorrow?\nStaff Member Payne explained they would have the boat in July, WETA would be starting water\nshuttle services from the Alameda Main Street ferry terminal for commuters going to Oakland.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if that was the short hop that was part of the regular route or was it\njust a short hop frequently.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n7\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 6, "text": "Director Smith clarified that intersection access equity was not an industry term, and it came out\nof the Council's referrals. She thought of ways they could broaden that term or clear up the\nlanguage. She also thought about not defining it and just moving forward with the Council's\nreferrals.\nCommissioner Yuen said she was challenged by what the goal of the policy was trying to achieve.\nShe wondered if there needed to be some articulation of principals around what was guiding the\neffort.\nDirector Smith clarified the crux of what they had been going for was to serve the needed time to\nthe users when they were there. This was about detection and actuation in setting signal timing.\nThey did not want to put an undue burden on the people who were actually at the intersection.\nCommissioner Weitze said he read this document as an allocation of time document as opposed to\na safety document. He thought it did a good job of balancing multiple needs as well as\nacknowledging the requirements for changes. While he did normally agree with Bike Walk\nAlameda and Oakland on a lot of issues he did, however, not agree with them on the evils of beg\nbuttons. He thought they were good, solved many problems, and were not an undue burden in the\nmajority of cases for pedestrians and bikes who use them.\nCommissioner Kolhstrand said she tried to understand the Council's specific questions about\nsignal timing and tried to reconcile that with the staff report and the statement that intersection\nequitable access had to do with signal timing. She thought if they cleaned that up, it would be\nbetter.\nDirector Smith asked if it would help if they renamed it or coined a different term. She discussed\nthe different programs they had that did address safety to various other intersections.\nRochelle Wheeler, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, believed that changing the title of that\ndefinition would have it go in the right direction since they have many policies and documents that\nhad looked at intersections of all types. She added that staff should and did look at existing policies\nwhen they implement new ones.\nVice-Chair Nachtigall understood how hard this was to frame. She too would appreciate the\ndefinition being clarified. She echoed Commissioner Weitze's comment about the benefits of beg\nbuttons, and it is better when they work consistently, however.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n6\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 5, "text": "asked about Transit Priorities and when the Mobility Element Technical Appendix would come\nback for a review. She believed it was important that they review that appendix since the\nTransportation Element itself did not address transit or bicycle priority, that information was in\nthe appendix.\nStaff Member Payne did not believe the status on the Transit Priorities Streets would change much\nbecause it tended to be where AC Transit was operating. She saw that as a stable situation.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand said she disagreed with that. She had looked at it again and she did not\nbelieve it reflected where AC Transit services are. She gave the example of how Clement Ave was\nlisted and it was not up to date.\nChair Soules recalled that they were going to get an updated version of the appendix because they\nknew it needed a revision. Going forward they were going to want that to serve as a baseline as\nother projects came forward for approval. She offered to follow up with Staff Member Payne to\nsee what the status was. She added that when she read the resolution, if and when there was a\ntraffic signal this is how they would operate. She felt that this captured that one piece where it\ndidn't need to contemplate everything else because it was only where it applied to an operation of\ntraffic signals.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand said she appreciated what Chair Soules said and as it related to the\nmanagement of traffic signals she did not have an issue with what staff recommended. It was that\nthe definition of intersection equitable access was focused solely on signalized intersections and\nthat was where they had made a misstep, it should not just be focused on that.\nDirector Smith appreciated the comments and said it had been a difficult one to frame. She agreed\nwith Chair Soules that this was more of a traffic signal operation policy but perhaps there should\nbe better framing around that. She also agreed that when they defined intersection access equity\nthey had been thinking about how it would apply to signalized intersections in response to this\nreferral. She added that there needs to be a definition to happen for all intersections regardless of\nwhat the control was.\nChair Soules was fine with it since it was trying to answer this one specific issue with traffic signals\non the recall. Her biggest issue was for transit corridors to have that reliability.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand said she understood that this was very focused on signalized\nintersections but still had issues with the definition of intersection access equity in the staff report.\nThis was a new term to her and brought up ways they should broaden that definition.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n5\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 4, "text": "Public Comments for #6A\nDenyse Trepanier, from Bike Walk Alameda, thanked staff for putting this policy out for the public\nto respond to. She thought it was very important they discussed how much of a burden they wanted\nto put on people who move around public spaces not in a car. However, Bike Walk Alameda was\nhoping that this policy would address the inequities there were in the burden right now in terms of\nhow they move about. She discussed all the inequities around the city and felt that this policy\ndidn't deal with the inequity of burden.\nCyndy Johnsen appreciated the effort so far on this important issue but she thought that the\nresolution still needed work. She believed it fell short of the Council's direction and she hoped\nthat it could be improved. She called out the Council's first request about how if access is given to\nthe car then the pedestrian way should be granted too, and in the policy, it had been watered down\nto only happen in certain circumstances. She brought up cities like Berkeley and Seattle that were\nmaking bolder commitments to pedestrian safety and equity. She hoped they could work a little\nharder to get it right.\nJim Strehlow said he agreed with the staff's recommendations that were against the Council's\nreferrals. He was happy to see a Civil Engineer finally providing input into these much-needed\ndiscussions since without one it had lead to bad decisions historically. He agreed long and\nunnecessary wait times lead to delays in transit and adds to greenhouse emissions and gave the\nexample of Sixth Street and Pacific Avenue and others. He agreed with Commissioner Weitze that\ndangerous intersections exist that do not need crosswalks and gave the example of High Street and\nMarina Drive.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussion for #6A\nCommissioner Kohlstrand agreed with many of what the public speakers had said and commended\nthe staff for moving this issue forward. She was also pleased to see many new crosswalks painted\naround the city at intersections that had pedestrian safety issues. She generally agreed with the\nstaff recommendations as they related to signalized intersections but in response to the first two\nspeakers thought they should take things further, she gave examples of intersections and advised\nto get rid of the beg buttons if they were not doing anything. She was concerned that this policy\nexclusively focused on signalized intersections as a means of addressing intersection equitable\naccess for the city. She also addressed there was virtually no discussion about roundabouts and\nhow they treat stop-controlled intersections. She felt that they should be moving away from\nsignalized intersections and felt that was a primary way this resolution fell short. She thought that\nthe staff should take more time to really delve into this and get creative. She wanted to see that\nhappen before they took any action on this resolution and then refer it to the City Council. She also\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n4\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Member Thompson said he didn't want to give the impression that there was a rush to do it.\nThe overarching goal was to make intersections have crosswalks on all sides. That's assuming\nthere was Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) money available to extend sidewalks to create the\ninfrastructure that was needed. He discussed the expenses that would go into making intersections\nfully functional on all legs.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if there were any intersections where it didn't make sense to put a\ncrosswalk.\nStaff Member Thompson said each intersection had to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.\nCertainly, if it would cost $300,000 to do all the improvements, it would have to compete with\nother intersections. Some things were cost prohibitive and if no real traffic or pedestrian safety\nwas being solved that would be a factor as well.\nRyan Dole, Traffic Engineer with Kimley Horn, added that the photo in the staff presentation was\nat Packet Landing on Bay Farm Island. It was a good example of where sometimes barricades were\nused to funnel people to a specific crosswalk, sometimes done for efficiency and not just safety.\nHe also explained the reasoning behind another intersection and why barricades could still be\nwarranted and useful in some intersections.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if there was actual data that backed up faster cycle times at\nintersections. He felt that drivers would get more frustrated if only a few cars made it through the\nintersection at a time.\nStaff Member Thompson said the thought was they were trying to avoid allocating time to a\nmovement in an intersection when nobody needed it. The frustration comes in when the cars are\nstacked up North/South and no pedestrians crossing East/West. That was a simplified version of\nwhat they were trying to do, to allocate time to those most in need.\nChair Soules asked about when the commission makes these endorsements and the council adopts\nthese resolutions she wanted to know more about how they were used. She wanted to know how\nthe resolution would be used going forward and what is established.\nDirector Smith acknowledged there had been inconsistency in how pedestrian detection had been\nused in the city and this policy intended to provide that consistency. She pointed out areas on the\nmap that would be impacted and also discussed what projects would be started depending on the\nbudget.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n3\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 2, "text": "5. Consent Calendar\n5A. Draft Minutes - Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, September 23,\n2020 (Action Item)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957780&GUID=A3EDAE6D-7EAB-\n53E-8949-A3C1522365AD&FullText=1.\n5B. Draft Minutes - Transportation Commission Meeting from March 24, 2021 (Action Item)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957781&GUID=0F801557-03F6-\n4328-9695-12B963C5E801&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand made a motion to approve both sets of minutes and\nCommissioner Tina Yuen seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the\nmotion passed.\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Policies on\nIntersection Access Equity and Pedestrian Timing and Detection to Improve Safety at\nIntersections (Action)\nRuss Thompson, Interim City Engineer, introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff\nreport and attachments can be found at:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957782&GUID=45694D62-1596-\n4907-982E-A627F75C67DA&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked if there was a specific deadline that this needed to go back to City\nCouncil.\nStaff Member Thompson said it was currently scheduled for the second week of July.\nErin Smith, Director of Public Works, said there was no specific deadline but that the referral was\nfrom September 2019. There was some pressure to be responsive.\nCommissioner Scott Weitze wanted to know the thinking behind the removal of the pedestrian\nbarriers and what the data had shown.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n2\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nTransportation Commission Meeting\nWednesday, May 26, 2021\nTime:\n6:30 p.m.\nLocation:\nDue to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners were\nable to attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom.\nCity Hall was NOT open to the public during the meeting.\nLegistar Link:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811334&GUID=929D18C0-4EF7-433D-\n83B3-574DE7818372&Options=info/&Search=\n1. Roll Call\nPresent: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Nachtigall and Commissioners Yuen, Kohlstrand, Hans and\nWeitze.\nAbsent: Commissioner Randy Rentschler\n2. Agenda Changes\nNone.\n3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957779&GUID=CF0A5B93-1B33\n4C37-B39B-6855036CD070&FullText=1\nVice-Chair Alysha Nachtigall addressed the upcoming election for Chair and Vice-Chair. While\nshe had valued and appreciated her time as Vice-Chair she would not be throwing her hat in the\nring and would be stepping back for the next year.\n4. Announcements / Public Comments\nNone.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n1\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 12, "text": "has different demographics, North was residential and South was commercial, when changes for\nOrion Street were discussed he wanted this difference noted. Lastly, he wanted the commission to\npromote \"Bike to Wherever Day,\" which would be on May 21st.\nChair Soules promoted the website alameda2040.org to get people excited and involved with the\nGeneral Plan.\n8. Adjournment\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 11, "text": "Staff Member Payne said she could look into when someone from Iteris could come. She added\nthat fiber would be the backbone part of the infrastructure and this would be the expensive part\nand it won't be completed overnight.\nChair Soules compared this to the electrical on your home, which is the heaviest investment but\nyou are better off in the long run. She saw this as helping the community to embrace new\ntechnology. She also seconded getting an information item on the agenda for a future meeting to\nlearn more about what the fiber cables will do for Alameda.\nStaff Member Amiri added that with the CIP that they discussed earlier the fiber cables will tie\ninto that as well.\nPublic Comments for #6C.\nJim Strehlow said that with technology improvements in the city there is also an increase in remote\ncomputer hacking opportunities into the city's services. He wanted to see security reviews on all\nsuch projects. He also discouraged putting everything into electrical cabinets due to accidents. He\nbelieved that roundabouts would slow down police, fire, and ambulance services. He wanted to\nhear from those parties on their opinion on roundabouts. He believed that the solution was to better\neducate people and not waste money on roundabouts.\n6D. Review and Comment on the General Plan Schedule of Planning Board Public Hearings\n(Discussion Item).\nStaff Member Payne introduced this item on behalf of Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning\nBuilding and Transportation. The staff report can be found at\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855390&GUID=6F196672-B114-\n463B-9E5D-7984C3E15500&FullText=1.\nChair Soules thanked everyone for their time on this.\nThere was no discussion or comments on the schedule.\n7. Announcements / Public Comments\nJim Strehlow had three issues. First, he wanted a residential loading zone for each street so that\nAmazon and other delivery trucks don't block traffic as they do every day. Secondly, Orion Street\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 10, "text": "Board Clarifying questions and comments #6C.\nCommissioner Weitz asked if the theory behind this was that the structure would get put in but\nthen private companies would then run the actual access. He wondered how that would work for\nequitable internet access since private companies could charge whatever they wanted.\nStaff Member Payne said that was correct, the city does not plan on being a service provider. The\nasset as a city would be the infrastructure and to be able to put this super-fast fiber into the ground\nthe city could then leverage that asset to lower rates or public wifi access.\nCommissioner Yuen wanted to know more about the impact on transportation infrastructure. She\nwanted to hear about changes and benefits that could be seen as part of this.\nStaff Member Payne said that they could have a better emergency response for the Fire Department\nand with the same technology AC Transit could use their signal detection, all of this would be\nwrapped into what the fiber could provide. She also noted that driverless cars were just around the\ncorner and they would also use this type of technology.\nStaff Member Amiri also discussed how this would all tie together and the process of updating the\nconduits.\nChair Soules discussed the frustration and expense of trying to deploy new technology on old\ninfrastructure. She was excited that Alameda was doing this and saw it as a public agency function\nto invest in this type of infrastructure.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand thanked Chair Soules for her insight and wanted to make sure they\ncaptured the equity part of this. She asked about overhead wires that are currently going through\nbackyards and wanted to know if there were opportunities for undergrounding utilities at the same\ntime as they were installing this fiber.\nStaff Member Payne said that was a project for Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) and they were\ncurrently in the process of undergrounding different corridors. They would be working with AMP\nbecause it is all related.\nCommissioner Yuen brought up the comment about the lack of knowledge around Smart Cites and\nnew mobility options and how in the future this could be an educational item for the commission.\nShe said she would love to learn more about this and the importance of new technologies.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 9, "text": "Commissioner Kohlstrand said she was prepared to make a motion to endorse the program with a\ncaveat that there would be a greater investment in roundabouts. She wanted the commission to\nexpress its interest in a different way of thinking without completely disrupting the improvement\nprocess.\nCommissioner Rentschler said he would second that with the knowledge that his fellow\ncommissioners had already put a lot of work into this. He wanted to support something that\nacknowledged the situation they were in but also to have a citizen's voice be heard on this subject.\nChair Soules said the last meeting was very educational on roundabouts and not public review on\nany particular intersection. She asked Staff Member Payne if this was one path forward, in the 10-\nyear CIP to revisit mobility elements and goals related to specific intersections to identify where\nroundabouts or traffic signals would be most beneficial.\nStaff Member Payne said that was something they were already in the process of doing. They were\ndoing a city-wide roundabout analysis. She then discussed the last meeting where roundabouts had\nbeen heavily discussed to inform Commissioner Rentschler and explained the next step in the\nprocess.\nStaff Member Vance said this information helps as they start refining the 10-year CIP and to see\nwhat is important.\nChair Soules wanted to know if this would lead to an assessment of whether or not a signal vs a\nroundabout would be more appropriate. She did not want to take on each roundabout separately or\nproject by project. She discussed how the study would help them with that decision.\nCommissioner Kohlstand made a motion to endorse the 2-year CIP with the caveat that the\nTransportation Commission recommends greater investment in roundabouts compared to\ntraffic signals. Commissioner Rentschler seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and\nthe motion passed 6-0.\n6C. Discuss Smart City Master Plan Overview (Discussion Item).\nStaff Member Payne introduced this item and gave a presentation, Staff Member Amiri also\npresented. Attachments and staff report can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855389&GUID=C2EE96F5-1065-\n42FC-891B-2D68855AC1E6&FullText=1.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 8, "text": "She wondered if the scoring was discerning enough and suggested having a 1-5 scoring instead.\nShe thought the table was very clear but wanted more clarity for scoring and the recommendations.\nStaff Member Vance said that version was included in the staff report.\nChair Soules suggested having a few slides where it clearly shows what the process will look like\nsince it will morph over time, which would help the city understand it more.\nCommissioner Rentschler acknowledged the great work by Public Works and how they were\nconstantly being asked to do more with money they don't have, there would always be tradeoffs.\nHe saw policies like safety and complete streets with the same projects. He discussed all the\nbenefits of roundabouts and how that can be beneficial for different policies. He encouraged how\ngood design was important and didn't want to see the same cookie-cutter mistakes made.\nChair Soules said that the staff had come a long way in developing these tools and they were not\nperfect or easy and continual feedback was expected.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand gave a thought on the tradeoff of roundabouts and traffic signals. She\nclarified that the staff was not recommending putting anything about roundabouts in the capital\nbudget, it got a no recommendation, and traffic signal systems got a yes. She wondered if there\nwas any room for modification so that in the traffic system they could find the ability to introduce\nroundabouts. She wanted to see a study to learn where the roundabouts would be most appropriate.\nStaff Member Vance said roundabouts were being considered within funded capital projects so\nthey don't have to wait for everything else. He said the roundabout study was continuing and as\nthat developed it was something that could be funded later under future capital budgets. For traffic\nsignals there were two categories, one was rehabilitation and maintenance and the other is for\ntraffic signal modifications/modernization. Roundabouts would be more equivalent to\nmodernization and part of the study is to help coordinate those future investments.\nCommissioner Rentschler said solving a problem with a problem is the problem, the traffic signals\nwere the problem. He discussed how traffic signals have always caused these issues and how the\nrest of the state and the country were moving towards roundabouts. He urged creative thinking on\nthe part of Public Works to stop chasing high maintenance, high-cost signals. He pointed out that\nCaltrans's website had a page dedicated to education about the benefits of roundabouts.\nChair Soules checked if there were any other public comments and asked if anyone was ready to\nmake a motion.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 7, "text": "Chair Soules recommended a past Transportation Commission meeting to Commissioner Weitze\nwhere pavement funding was further discussed. She agreed that looking at this through an equity\nlens was important but the timing and conditions of when pavement needs to be replaced was a\nbig deal for the Capital Budget.\nCommissioner Weitze said what he was worried about the new Main Street neighborhood, on the\nestuary side of Site A, would be overlooked since developers keep backing out.\nCommissioner Kolhstrand asked about the dedicated grant funding column and that it didn't fit\nwith the \"123\" criteria. She pointed out where he had stepped out of the form.\nStaff Member Vance said she was correct and that he would have to take a look at that.\nChair Soules explained what they had been trying to achieve and explain the rating system.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand believed they had come a long way in terms of a more rigorous system\nof evaluation. She wanted to see feasibility included, really thinking about is this something that\ncould be implemented right now. She also observed that with Urban Forest and Landscape\nMaintenance and other maintenance projects and wondered if there should be some sort of split of\nfunds. She saw that there was not a lot of differentiation among the scores and wondered if they\nwere capturing all the right goals. She noted that the recommendations for moving ahead do not\nalign with the scores and thought that needed to be rethought. She pointed out ways they could\nimprove transit services, she felt that it was being pushed to the bottom of the list.\nStaff Member Payne described how the ranking process worked and how they had had this problem\nbefore. She pointed out an oversight that paratransit money funds benches and bus shelters and\nbus stops in general.\nStaff Member Vance said some of the planning projects are and aren't included in the Capital\nBudget. He explained the criteria for the different categories.\nChair Soules said that tweaking the actual criteria to make them more appropriate for capital VS\nmaintenance would be worth looking at. She explained how these criteria worked great but many\nother factors need to be recognized. It was a very nuanced system that could always be refined.\nCommissioner Yuen agreed with what Commissioner Kohlstrand had said in terms of considering\nthe feasibility and that some of the scorings do not align with projects that were moving ahead.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 6, "text": "Public Comments for #6B.\nJim Strehlow said in regards to Vision Zero he described what he saw daily as he rides his bike\naround. He saw people ignorant of the laws and people crossing in front of him even though he\nhad the right away. He also described people crossing when he had the green light. He wanted to\nsee more education included in Vision Zero for pedestrians for their damn safety and his safety.\nChair Soules thanked Mr. Strehlow and clarified that Vision Zero did have a good outreach\ncomponent.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions, Comments, and Discussions for #6B.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted clarification on why Urban Forest and Landscape Maintenance was\nrecommended even though it had a low score.\nStaff Member Payne reminded everyone that the map was out of date, this had been mentioned in\nthe Staff Report.\nStaff Member Vance described why Urban Forest and Landscape Maintenance was included, it\nwas because it does share funding with some of the Transportation projects. It has to be funded\nsomehow, there are street trees that need to be maintained for safety and aesthetic reasons.\nCommissioner Weitze was curious about the equity of paving management. This was a very broad\ncategory and with equity in mind, certain parts of Alameda were in desperate need of being\nrepaved, and certain parts of Alameda were doing well.\nStaff Member Vance discussed the equity score of the projects and how they could use similar\ncriteria that Oakland used to put more of an equity focus on how they spend pavement funds. It\nwas something that could be incorporated into these projects since they were citywide.\nCommissioner Weitze said he hoped they would be more focused on parts that had not been paved\nin a while.\nStaff Member Vance said these projects had traditionally been condition-based, the pavement\nmanagement in the past had typically followed the sewer replacement program. The funding\navailable for pavement was almost a 1:1 with sewer, the city would rehab 3 miles of sewer per\nyear and then pave 3 miles of sewer per year. That limited the choice for pavement, but if there\nwere more funding for pavement there would be more choices where it could go.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 5, "text": "Staff Member Payne discussed the funds (Measure BB) for improving bus services, and one of the\nprojects was improving Appezzato Parkway for buses. They were waiting to see what AC Transit\ndoes first before starting on that project. That intersection had also been noted as a potentially good\nlocation for a roundabout.\nDonya Amiri, Principal Engineer with Public Works, discussed how they would be improving\nsignal timing and what adjustments they had already done to that intersection and others. They\nwould also be revisiting the intersections along Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway (RAMP) to\nimprove signal timing and for bicycle operations.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand was supportive of the proposed reintroduction of the ferry service that\nwas proposed here. She wanted to see a mid-year review to see what the ridership was like and\nencouraged to have someone from AC Transit present. She believed they needed to take a\ncomprehensive look at how they would provide transit services on the island. She agreed with\nCommissioner Rentschler's point about it being a \"zero-sum game\" if they gain something in one\narea and lose it in another. She continued to be concerned about having limited parking and thought\nthat should be monitored.\nChair Soules talked about her own experiences with being a Bay Farm Ferry user and why driving\nis easier and more appealing She was glad they were adding a midday service. She thought a\nquarterly review would be beneficial to see how the stimulus was being used and she was curious\nto see the uptake on the Clipper START. Often equity programs are offered but rarely used. She\nalso found the Hop Through App to be very convenient.\nMr. Connolly thanked the commission and also shared that he had skepticism about the bus transfer\nto the ferry. He believed that now was the time to test it and was happy to come back and share\nwhatever data they needed. They were open to experimenting and trying new things to see what\nworked best. He also clarified to Ms. Johnson (public speaker) about the service start, they\nproposed to start in July for Harbor Bay and deferring the start for Seaplane and Main Street until\nAugust to line up with AC Transit. For South San Francisco they were looking to start in October.\n6B. Endorse the 10-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the Two-year CIP\nBudget (Action Item)\nRobert Vance, Supervising Civil Engineer with Public Works, introduced this item and gave a\npresentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855388&GUID=BB1D41D2-D58B-\n488F-88F3-CBBB28D144FE&FullText=1.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Member Payne said that was the trade-off, these types of Federal Stimulus Packages can't\nprovide operations money long term into the future. She discussed how the services have to equal\nout with the other local jurisdictions serviced by AC Transit.\nChari Soules said that could have discussions at other meetings about how that stimulus money\nwould be used.\nPublic Comments #6A\nCyndy Johnson, with Bike Walk Alameda, believed the proposed Alameda Main Street to Oakland\nShort Hop Ferry Service would be a fantastic option for Central and Western Alameda Commuters.\nShe thought this would greatly benefit cyclists who wouldn't have to run the risk of getting bumped\noff the bus due to lack of bike racks and would encourage more bike commuters. She saw this plan\nas a win, win, win. She did share some concerns from fares to what services would be offered at\ncertain times. She ended by saying all of Bike Walk Alameda was excited by this proposed plan.\nJim Strehlow discussed a few issues. First, he thought it was a hike to get from Webster Street to\nthe ferry to get to Oakland, therefore riding the ferry would not be an option for him. Secondly, he\ntold about 150 people how he rode the Alameda to San Francisco Ferry to get to the Moscone\nCenter to get his vaccine and he found it to be a very pleasant and fun trip. Thirdly, he was\nconcerned about how WETA tied into the water taxi program of Alameda. He had asked many\ntimes for a status report of the water taxi program from Rochelle Wheeler.\nStaff Member Payne gave a reminder about the water taxis that the Alameda Landing Waterfront\nProject was currently in construction and they were required to build the infrastructure for it. That's\nwhy it hadn't happened, that project is still in construction.\nRochelle Wheeler, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, said she was able to share more\ninformation with Mr. Strehlow. City staff is constantly discussing water taxi options and other\nmatters around water taxis, mainly operating costs.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A\nCommissioner Weitze asked if the city had any plans to look at the intersection of Main Street and\nAppezzato due to a potential increase in traffic. He also urged WETA, in the interest of going big,\nto initially drop the short hop fare to just a dollar and advertise the hell out of it. He believed it\nwould be a good campaign to \"get off the island for just a buck\".\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 3, "text": "wanted to make sure they were not hampering people using the ferry either because there weren't\nenough public transit options or parking places.\nMr. Connolly said WETA has had an effective partnership with the City of Alameda and a good\npartnership with AC Transit. AC Transit was working on a proposal to serve the new Main Street\nTerminal. He spoke on the drawbacks of the 96 Bus and that the option AC Transit was developing\nwould be better. He did not want to go into much detail, he did not want to \"steal their thunder\"\nHe was very optimistic and grateful for the work done by AC Transit.\nStaff Member Payne discussed how AC Transit was \"moving mountains\" to make this happen,\nand they had been under a lot of pressure due to the Pandemic. There is an upcoming meeting\nwhere it would be discussed further. For parking, she discussed the new parking lot at Seaplane\nLagoon has 400 spaces and that there was more work to do.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if the plan was to charge for parking or had it been pushed off.\nLisa Foster, Transportation Planner, said she didn't have a timeline to share. There were plans for\npaid parking at Alameda Point but as for now, there was no parking fee. It had been put on hold\nwith the Pandemic, but they would move forward with that in the future.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if it was unlikely that they would start charging for parking in August.\nStaff Member Foster said that would be fair to say.\nCommissioner Rentschler thanked Mr. Connolly for his presentation and commended WETA for\nembracing change since now with the Pandemic it was a great time to do it. He urged WETA and\nthe commission to keep an open mind on what the possibilities could be. He thought the bike\naccess at Seaplane Lagoon was better and safer and encouraged the same bike structure that was\nat the Main Street Ferry terminal. He was not optimistic about the bus but was happy they were\ntrying it. He did not want to see an experiment that doesn't work to become permanent.\nCommissioner Yuen discussed the decision to potentially cut AC Transit services and wondered\nif the influx of Federal dollars from the new stimulus bill earmarked for local transit would\ntranslate into support for this new route.\nChair Soules said that was a great question and reminded everyone that AC Transit was not on the\ncall and she did not want to get too far off the agenda topic of WETA service.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 2, "text": "5. Consent Calendar\n5A. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, July 22, 2020\n(Action Item)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855385&GUID=AF4ED835-78EE-\n40E7-AAEA-EOF5814FD2F8&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Yuen\nseconded. A hand raise vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.\n5B. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, January 27,\n2021 (Action Item)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855386&GUID=A5B2B626-D69B-\n43BE-AC28-53D36B14D68E&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Yuen\nseconded. A hand raise vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Discuss Water Emergency Transportation Authority's Pandemic Recovery Program\n(Discussion Item)\nKevin Connolly, from WETA (Water Emergency Transportation Authority), introduced this item\nand gave a presentation. The report and attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855387&GUID=ABA17FD9-653F-\n4496-88DF-C941A16FDBD8&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions #6A.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to know what kind of hop through ridership was normal, the short\nhop from Alameda to Oakland.\nMr. Connolly said it was less than 10 per day. That's also because the only option was Oakland to\nAlameda, not the reverse.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand had concerns about the connecting transit service and making sure there\nwere enough parking facilities. She also wanted to know what was the status of the 96 Bus. She\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-03-24", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nTransportation Commission Meeting\nWednesday, March 24, 2021\nTime:\n6:30 p.m.\nLocation:\nDue to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners were\nable to attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom.\nCity Hall was NOT open to the public during the meeting.\nLegistar Link:\n  https://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811333&GUID=861FEF9A-1D51-4AD8-\n8E6C-EB2F878B1A64&Options=info/&Search=.\n1. Roll Call\nPresent: Chair Soules and Commissioners Yuen, Kohlstrand, Hans, Rentschler and Weitze.\nAbsent: Vice Chair Nachtigall\nThis was Commissioner Rentschler's first meeting and everyone welcomed him.\n2. Agenda Changes\nNone.\n3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855384&GUID=13BD4EBF-0DC4-\n 4FD9-B3A1-B123E9507062&FullText=1.\nGail Payne, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, discussed the tentative upcoming joint meeting\nwith the Planning Board on May 10 and other scheduled meetings.\n4. Announcements / Public Comments\nNo public comments.\nChair Soules congratulated Commissioner Kohlstrand for her Lifetime Achievement Award with\nWTS, they had honored her for all her hard work in the Transportation field.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nMarch 24, 2021\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-01-27", "page": 13, "text": "7. Announcements/ Public Comments\nJim Strehlow stated that double parked delivery vehicles block the street with the most courteous drivers\nbeing from the U.S. Postal Service. He suggested creating a new class of parking spaces for delivery during\nthe day in residential streets if residents request it.\n8. Adjournment\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021\n13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-01-27", "page": 12, "text": "Transportation Department on a traffic analysis policy for new developments. She also is working on a\ntraffic signal operations policy to look at prioritization including transit. Installing the right equipment at\nintersections to service transit will require investment.\nChair Soules said she hopes that the Bay Area can receive federal funding to bring transit back post-\npandemic. We need to continue showing the relationship between land use and transportation, which is\nimportant for sustainability. She encouraged Gerry Beaudin to come back and talk about metrics.\nCommissioner Weitze moved to endorse the Annual Report on the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan and\nthe Annual Report on Transportation. Commissioner Yuen seconded. The motion passes 5-0.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021\n12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-01-27", "page": 11, "text": "Staff McGuire responded that the public can access the park at Eighth Street.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if the City looked to open gates without the pathways.\nStaff McGuire stated that it needs to be accessible if the gates are opened.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked about St. Charles Street in that the path does not go through there.\nStaff Wheeler stated that it is Housing Authority roadway so the path would connect to it.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to endorse the Jean Sweeney trail grant application, and then\nCommissioner Yuen seconded the motion. The motion passes 5-0.\nChair Soules recused herself for the vote on the bike/ped bridge grant application.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the bike/ped bridge grant application, and\nCommissioner Weitze seconded the motion. The motion passes 4-0.\n6A. Endorse the Annual Report on the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan and the Annual Report\non Transportation (Action Item)\nGerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, gave an overview of Climate Action and Resiliency Plan\n(CARP) work. The staff report and attachments regarding the Annual Report on the Climate Action and\nResiliency Plan and the Annual Report on Transportation can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4758233&GUID=ED785EAD-B7EB-4471-\nA03B-1E1375D9B441&Options=&Search=&FullText=\nCommissioner Weitze praised the report and said resilience is important. He asked how much staff time is\nput towards resilience versus mitigation.\nStaff Beaudin said that they do not quantify the breakdown but can think about that as a metric in the future.\nHe spoke about neighborhood-based resilience hubs and said that Alameda's Emergent Groundwater study\ncaught a lot of attention regionally and other cities are doing similar studies. Alameda has a new\nSustainability and Resilience Manager: Danielle Mieler.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked about the evaluation of the Commercial Streets program, which said there\nwere no significant traffic delays, but she read that there were AC Transit delays. She expressed concern\nthat the City is not putting enough focus on transit outside of ferry terminals. For instance, the\nimprovements on Encinal Avenue, which is a Caltrans project, include bike lanes, but she said Encinal\nAvenue is designated as a transit priority street, not a bicycle priority street.\nCommissioner Yuen is concerned about changes that will impact the transportation system, and the cuts\nthat AC Transit is planning to make. She asked how those cuts impact our ability to meet CARP goals.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021\n11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-01-27", "page": 10, "text": "Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6D\nCommissioner Nachtigall commented about Alameda Point, and there are a number of long-range plans for\nAlameda Point and realizes that these improvements are not helping now. She stated that the Slow Street\ninitiative is looking to expand to Alameda Point.\nCommissioner Weitze stated appreciation for the presentation by the steering committee. The infrastructure\nis neglected in Alameda Point, and it should be upsetting to all of us.\nHeather Reed responded that she is speaking about Orion Street, and would like it to be a Slow Street. It\nneeds permanent traffic calming solutions. Facial recognition is problematic in that it is racially biased.\nBeth Kenny stated that they do not want storage of personal information, and wants to move forward in a\nway that addresses these issues.\nStaff Amiri is new to Alameda, and is surprised about the condition of Alameda Point. The striping is faded\nin Alameda Point, and Public Works staff will be installing high visibility crosswalks, increased visibility\nat intersections and signage. The City is closing Oriskany Avenue at Central Avenue.\nChair Soules mentioned that there are signs/fees/penalties and partnerships with other cities that could be\ncreated. About Alameda Point, she mentioned how difficult it is to transform federal land and that it is very\ncomplex. She would be interested to understand more about temporary solutions for immediate relief such\nas to alert the police about high speeds. She wants to tackle equity and mobility, and would like to sort it\nout in the different areas with City staff.\n6C. Endorse Council Approval of Grant Applications to Alameda County Transportation\nCommission for the 2022 Comprehensive Investment Plan Call for Projects (Action Item)\nRochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments\ncan be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4758235&GUID=5EB01FE9-69E6-43D2-A061-\n6CEF2AA5BD55&Options=&Search=&FullText=1\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6C\nVice Chair Nachtigall asked about the trail submittal and potentially not submitting it.\nStaff Wheeler responded that the City would try to submit both with the bridge being the higher priority yet\nit would be difficult to cover both potentially due to the funds needed.\nCommissioner Weitze asked about the gates at Jean Sweeney Park and if they are open.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021\n10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-01-27", "page": 9, "text": "Beth Kenny stated that one of the recommendations will be for the City to advocate to allow for automated\nspeed enforcement. Police should focus on responding to crimes and not on abandoned vehicles. The\nnumber one way people interact with police is through traffic violations, and we want to reduce this\ninteraction. We want to look at taking it out of the Police Department.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand stated that San Francisco has shifted to traffic control officers and not sworn\nofficers.\nChair Soules mentioned a number of equity studies in the Bay Area to spur economic justice reform.\nCommissioner Yuen stated that she appreciates all the work from the steering committee and community\nvolunteers. She would like to see more information on the scale of the problem in Alameda such as what\nwere the violations and who was involved to better understand the gravity of the problem related to traffic\nstops. She also would like to know the scale of the fines and fees such as costs and numbers. She\nencourages more studies on the matter, especially on how to use enforcement as a strategy.\nCheryl Taylor responded that a crime analyst position could help better understand ticketing and traffic\nstops by demographics. An article was written by Rasheed Shabazz about the west end being over ticketed:\nhttps://m.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/towing-for-dollars-in-\nalameda/Content?oid=22699785&showFullText=true\nJennifer Rakowski responded that larger cities are required to count ticketing by demographics, and\nAlameda will begin with citations moving forward. Data shows that minorities are more likely to have\ntraffic stops in Alameda based on Census data such as Black community members are five to six times more\nlikely to be stopped for traffic citations compared to White community members.\nLynn Cunningham responded that automated technology will be more objective than a police officer.\nPublic Comments for #6D\nRasheed Shabazz stated that he appreciates that there is a Transportation Commission. He wants to have\nnon-police methods of police enforcement such as creative artwork for traffic calming. He questions the\nuse of technology because facial recognition is biased. He is grateful that the Alameda Police Department\nwill report this data that has been available since 1998. He mentioned about a young child who was hit by\nChipman School yet no speed humps were installed because of where it occurred. He related that he was\ntowed and his white neighbor's car was not towed at the same parking spot. He wants to see fee forgiveness\nfor people who are disproportionately impacted.\nMorgan Bellinger wants to echo Rasheed Shabazz about cameras and facial recognition. He states that free\nparking is inequitable since wealthier people park more cars on the street. Roads can be used by anyone\nincluding bus riders. A citywide parking permit program would be more equitable.\nJim Strehlow stated that the laws only allow sworn officers to see license plate information to protect\nprivacy.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021\n9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-01-27", "page": 8, "text": "6D. Community-Led Committee on Police Reform & Racial Justice Draft Recommendation to\nReview Traffic and Parking Citation Fines (Discussion Item)\nLisa Foster, Transportation Planner introduced the Steering Committee and the following individuals were\npresent:\nChristine Chilcott, Al Mance, Cheryl Taylor, and Jolene Wright as well as community volunteers Heather\nReed, Hannah Grose, Beth Kenny, Lynn Cunninghas, Melodye Montgomery and Jennifer Rakowski\nCheryl Taylor made a presentation. Lynn Cunningham also provided comments. Jolene Wright provided\nthe webpage that is listed in the staff report: :https://www.alamedaca.gov/RESIDENTS/Police-Reform-and-\nRacial-Equity\nThe staff report and attachments can be found at:\n  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4758236&GUID=985566B1-9A05-405B-BE8D-\n20B72B6989D6&Options=&Search=&FullText\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6D\nChair Soules asked about who provides the parking enforcement and about automatic license reading.\nStaff Foster responded that the parking enforcement is done by non-sworn, civilian staff.\nChair Soules asked about automatic license reading with parking.\nStaff Foster responded about the technology to automatically read license plates to see if the car has been\nthere past the time limit or if they have paid. Speed cameras are more of an equity concern and not parking\nsince people usually are not at the car when ticketed.\nHeather Reed discussed a walk through at Alameda Point. Hannah Grose reported about issues with drag\nracing, speeding, sidewalks in disrepair, lighting, lack of striping and lack of speed humps/dips. Additional\nsignage on the speed limit and enforcement would be helpful. Heather Reed is working with Madlen Saddik\nof the Chamber of Commerce and businesses on signage to make people aware of the residential business\narea. There is a drunk driving concern. It is extremely expensive to be poor.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand stated that the most equitable way to ticket is by camera and asked if they want\nto keep it in the Police Department. She also asked about neighborhood policing to ensure more positive\ninteractions with the community.\nHannah Grose said that the Alameda Point does have a great relationship with one police officer. They also\nhave said that calls have gone unanswered. They are interested in having more positive interactions with\npolice. They would prefer not to have drunk driving in their neighborhood.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-01-27", "page": 7, "text": "Ms. Ferguson stated that roundabouts may not perform as well as a traffic signal because of delays. In some\nsituations, they are a good solution, and in others they are not. There are situations that are not as\nadvantageous - like a series of signalized intersections, where roundabouts would decrease the efficiency\nof signals.\nMichelle Wan asked about statistics on the Bay farm location that can be shared.\nStaff Payne provided a link in the Zoom chat:\nPage\n10: https://www.alamedaca.gov/files/assets/public/departments/alameda/transportation/vision-\nzero/alamedavisionzerocrashreport-update.pdf\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked about the five high priority intersections and if the Commission will get a\ncomprehensive presentation on these locations and if Island/Mecartney is part of the five.\nStaff Payne stated that the five have not yet been selected. Staff are doing roundabout education first. The\ngoal is to try to select up to five, and this can be brought up as an agenda item, possibly in May.\nIsland/Mecartney is not part of this study; it is a separate process.\nStaff Amiri responded that when a development project was done, they set aside funds to address this\nintersection of Island/Mecartney. To date, staff have only done the evaluation of intersection control types.\nNo decisions have been made, and no community outreach has been done. Traffic volumes do warrant\nsome type of control.\nVice Chair Nachtigall asked if the increase in rear-end collisions is due to cars stopping for pedestrians.\nAnd, she wondered if there are increases in pedestrian collisions at roundabouts.\nMs. Ferguson stated that there have been 15 years of thorough research, but there is not great data on\nbicycle/pedestrian collisions, since there are so few collisions and the sample size is so small. This topic\ncontinues to be an area of study.\nStaff Amiri added that speed is the biggest factor in the severity of collision. Since roundabouts slow\nvehicles, it is logical that they would reduce pedestrian fatalities.\nChair Soules stated that she appreciated the presentation, and she would like elevated transparency in the\nprocess, since this is a novel treatment. Please keep the public and community informed, and provide\nforums for them to ask questions and provide input.\nChair Soules requested to change the agenda to better accommodate schedules to 6D, 6C and then 6A.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand made a motion and Yuen seconded the motion.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-01-27", "page": 6, "text": "community complaints. And, how much more property damage occurs at intersections with roundabouts,\ndue to cars hitting houses/property, as they round the turn at high speeds.\nMs. Ferguson responded that there is no data on the number of communities that have put in and then\nremoved roundabouts. Conversations with the public are important, and a thoughtful process on where,\nand how they are designed is essential. As for property damage, the data shows that rear-end crashes, which\nare lower severity, are the most common at all roundabouts, and also side swipes, at multiple lane\nroundabouts. With signage and the right geometry, they do not see overly aggressive and fast driving\nthrough intersections. It is just not feasible.\nDenyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda Board member, appreciates staff bringing this item up. She strongly\nencourages everyone to view the NHTSA website, which has great case studies and some write ups from\nconservative places, where roundabouts have been installed with opposition and then later were embraced\nby the community. In the Bay Area, there are mini-roundabouts implemented inconsistently, which makes\nit difficult for the community. In Berkeley, some have no stops, others have two-way stops and others have\nfour-way stops. It is unclear how to use them. She hopes that Alameda will have consistency with their\nimplementation and that stop signs would be pulled out where mini-roundabouts are installed. Combining\nthe two devices is confusing.\nSteven Jones appreciates the education from the consultants. A roundabout at Central/Encinal/Sherman\nmakes sense since there have been bad accidents there, which he knows as a past Fire Department employee.\nAt Island/Mecartney, however, conflicts are extremely low. If it ain't broke then don't fix it.\nChair Soules, based on the Zoom chat, asked for staff to respond to a question about roundabouts and stop\nsigns.\nMs. Ferguson stated that stop signs should not be used at roundabouts. Either stops signs or roundabouts\nare installed, not both.\nMr. Alston stated that there are many types of circular intersections. In Berkeley and Oakland, these are\nnot modern roundabouts.\nMichelle Wan, via the Zoom chat, asked three questions: (1) In the presentation, there was a slide for Safety\nPerformance. I would like a clarification on what is the set up that is compared to, and whether the set up\nis similar to the spots (including Bay Farm) that we are considering putting roundabouts.\nMs. Ferguson stated that statistics are from studies of roundabouts from the United States. They compared\nintersections that were converted from signalized to roundabouts at intersections, and looked at before and\nafter data, usually with 3-5 years of data for both. There were many locations and they were urban or\nsuburban.\nMichelle Wan asked what the cons are of roundabouts.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-01-27", "page": 5, "text": "Jennifer Rakowski asked: (1) how roundabouts impact emergency response vehicles and response times,\nand (2) if there is any data on the number of police stops at roundabouts versus a traffic signal.\nFor (1), Ms. Ferguson replied that the roundabout design always accounts for emergency vehicles to be able\nto maneuver through the intersection. The slowing through a roundabout would be similar to the slowing\nemergency vehicles do as they pass through a signalized intersection to check for cross traffic.\nStaff Amiri added that typically the Fire Department is one of the loudest voices in the design of\nroundabouts.\nFor (2), Ms. Ferguson stated there is only anecdotal information, and no research, regarding police stops.\nIn Bend, the City found they could shift their enforcement focus to other parts of the city, since roundabouts\nhave a natural traffic calming benefit. So, there was less enforcement needed at roundabouts than at\nsignalized intersections.\nAnthony Lewis thanked the City for the presentation and appreciated Staff Payne for following through on\nthe tactile maps. There are 20 blind people who want to be able to understand how roundabouts work. It\nwould be helpful if blind people and people with disabilities could do a \"walk through\" of a typical\nroundabout to understand it further, and asks that staff set this up. Also, they wondered how people in a\nwheelchair, who are lower to the ground, would be visible if there is landscaping at the roundabout.\nStaff Payne stated that she likes the idea of doing a field visit to Lafayette, which has a modern roundabout,\nand will try to set up a field trip, post-COVID.\nGeoffrey Burnaford, who lives on Central Avenue at McKay Street, asked if there is a roundabout proposed\nat Encinal High School. They can imagine traffic gridlock as students walk across the street, which would\nhappen at any high pedestrian intersection. Recently, they saw some very heavy large vehicles on Central\nAvenue, and he hopes the concrete of a roundabout can accommodate this weight at the Sherman\nStreet/Encinal Avenue proposed roundabout.\nStaff Payne stated that City staff is proposing, and the Transportation Commission approved, roundabouts\nalong Central Ave at these two intersections. Central Avenue is a truck route so the roundabouts are being\ndesigned to accommodate large trucks with the biggest being 100 feet long and 15 feet. Today, the high\nschool students take over the intersection, and this condition still would be expected for ten minutes before\nschool starts. The consultant did some research and found that roundabouts work quite well in front of\nschools.\nMs. Ferguson stated that at schools, with their peak periods of student crossings, there will be delays, but\nthe benefit is that as soon as that peak is past, traffic can flow steadily through the intersection. At a\nsignalized or stop sign controlled intersection, it would take much longer for the traffic to clear, through\nseveral signal cycles or many cars stopping.\nJim Strehlow commented that there were no diagrams in the presentation that show the closure of Sherman\nStreet for the Central Avenue project. He also asked if the cost of installing and then removing roundabouts,\nafter complaints are made, has been considered. Pleasanton is now removing some roundabouts due to\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-01-27", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Payne responded that these are not modern roundabouts, and that staff would have to look up what\ndata we have.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked if the City would use traffic circles to meet some traffic management\nneeds, where there is less space for a full roundabout.\nMs. Ferguson said that mini-roundabouts are another option when right-of-way is constrained, particularly\nto remove two- or four-way stops. The key is that there needs to be enough space to manage vehicle speeds\nand the direction of travel. Mini-roundabouts still use central islands and splitter islands, but they are\ntraversable by larger vehicles.\nChair Soules asked staff to clarify the process on determining the locations for roundabouts, and the\nlanguage in the slides. The City should not be trying to find out where they could work. This is just one\npossible option for intersections, part of the tool box. She would like staff to solve issues, rather than just\nrespond and analyze the community's specific request for a specific device, like a stop sign.\nStaff Payne clarified that this roundabout effort is part of City's Vision Zero effort. This analysis with\nKittelson is being used to determine the top five intersections for roundabouts in the City, based on safety,\nlooking at the High Injury Network.\nChair Soules encouraged community involvement in these types of decisions with new treatments.\nPublic Comments for #6B\nMichael Robles-Wong stated that they learned to use roundabouts in the United Kingdom, and knows they\nare safer, especially for very wide intersections. His primary concern is for pedestrians and children. They\nnotice that the crosswalks are further from each other. They encouraged the City to talk to the Police\nDepartment, since they pay the crossing guards. They wondered if the Island/Mecartney intersection would\nneed four crossing guards, instead of the one or two it has now if a roundabout were installed due to the\nspacing of the crosswalks and the lack of visibility between them. Thank you for the great informational\npresentation.\nWilliam Pai, Board President of Harbor Bay Isle, sees advantages of roundabouts. He is curious about the\nIsland/Mecartney intersection and if it were to be done how long would it take to implement. He has\nconcerns about the construction period.\nStaff Amiri, City Traffic Engineer, clarified that Public Works hired a consultant in 2019 to perform an\nIntersection Control Evaluation, which compared three options (existing, traffic signal and roundabout),\nand recommended a roundabout as the best for traffic control. She offered to present it at a future meeting.\nA typical construction period could be as long as a year.\nChair Soules asked staff to explore the construction period needed, and the neighborhood disruption, and\nbring to future meeting.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-01-27", "page": 3, "text": "as using Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons. Research has found that the yielding rate is good for single\nlane roundabouts. The rates do go down with multiple lane roundabouts.\nVice Chair Nachtigall asked if landscaping of roundabouts and the splitter islands might reduce the visibility\nof pedestrians.\nMs. Ferguson responded that, as part of the roundabout design process, sight distances are measured to\ndetermine a landscaping plan including planting heights, or if no landscaping should be installed, to retain\nvisibility.\nCommissioner Yuen asked if traffic circles have the same benefits as roundabouts, particularly since many\nAlameda intersections could not accommodate a modern roundabout.\nMs. Ferguson responded that mini-roundabouts are encouraged by the Federal Highway Administration for\nsafety. And, they can be safer than other intersection controls. The important design considerations are to\nslow vehicle speeds, and to make clear how bicyclists and pedestrians will navigate the mini-roundabout.\nThe reduced number of conflict points still are realized with mini-roundabouts.\nCommissioner Weitze asked for information on the different types of accidents that occur at one lane, versus\ntwo lane roundabouts.\nMs. Ferguson responded that both eliminate fatal and severe collisions. However, more side swipe\ncollisions occur with multi-lane roundabouts as drivers change lanes in the roundabout.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if this increase in minor accidents is this more or less than one would see at\nan intersection with a traffic signal.\nMs. Ferguson stated that it varies depending upon context and the design of the roundabout such as which\nlane the vehicles are in as they enter the intersection.\nCommissioner Weitze stated that he has heard people say that because roundabouts are unfamiliar to the\npublic, they will be dangerous. He asked if this is true, and if the collisions reduce over time, as the\ncommunity gets used to them.\nMs. Ferguson stated that single-lane roundabouts are consistently safe over time, even if the road users are\nunfamiliar with them. Multi-lane roundabouts perform better when drivers are familiar with them. For\nexample, in Bend, Oregon, they used many single-lane roundabouts successfully for many years. Then,\nwith growth, they planned multi-lane roundabouts, and for this they did an extensive outreach and education\neffort. There is no research on changing collision rates as familiarity increases, however, anecdotally, if\ncollisions start out higher, they reduce with familiarity.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if the City has accident history for the Bayport roundabouts.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-01-27", "page": 2, "text": "Morgan Bellinger stated that he hopes that everyone listens to the educational presentation on roundabouts, and\nrespects science and then will make decisions based on science.\nSteve Barrett stated that he is a resident of Park Street, and cars speed on this street. He is thrilled to see that\nCouncil is considering roundabouts because drivers will be forced to drive more safely.\nChair Soules read an email from Cheryl Chi, who was unable to come to the meeting, requesting that City staff\nlook into the trees that were planted along the Cross Alameda Trail because of the round balls that are dropped\nby one of the species.\nSteven Jones stated that he is a lifelong resident. About the Island/Mecartney intersection, he feels it runs\nsmoothly and people are courteous. He worked for the City of Alameda Fire Department for 30 years, and he\ndoes not recall ever responding to a collision at that intersection. He worked with a former Public Works\nDepartment Director who concluded that a traffic signal is not needed. He thinks the intersection works fine.\n5. Consent Calendar\n5A. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, November 18, 2020 (Action\nItem)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4758232&GUID=9172809E-8E90-4634-8A56-\n238C4C3B26CC&Options=&Search=&FullText=1\nNo changes proposed. Vice Chair Nachtigall moved to approve as is. Commission Yuen seconded. The\nmotion passed 4-0 and Commissioner Kohlstrand abstained since she was not at the meeting.\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6B. Review Educational Presentation on Roundabouts (Discussion Item)\nGail Payne, Senior Transportation Coordinator introduced Kittelson staff - Erin Ferguson, Lawrence Lewis\nand Mike Alston, who gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4758234&GUID=2345B774-9EAA-4A94-9A51-\nBFC236809F5E&Options=&Search=&FullText=1\nAt the end of the presentation, Staff Payne added that the City had presented the roundabouts topic to a\ngroup of people with visual impairments, and are preparing tactile maps of a typical roundabout, which will\nbe shared with the blind community.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6B\nVice Chair Nachtigall asked in relation to pedestrian safety and the Central Avenue project, if a traffic\nsignal provides priority for pedestrians so that vehicles stop when they get a green, how roundabouts are\nsafer for pedestrians and if vehicles stop.\nMs. Ferguson responded that drivers can easily see pedestrians and yield to them at roundabouts.\nPedestrians look for a gap in traffic and proceed. There are ways to encourage auto yielding behavior, such\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-01-27", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nTransportation Commission Meeting\nWednesday, January 27, 2021\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.\nLegistar Link:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811332&GUID=173EF9EF-7A08-48E9-AD93-\n5B2FOBD42357&Options=info/&Search=\n1. Roll Call\nPresent: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Nachtigall and Commissioners Yuen, Kohlstrand and Weitze.\nAbsent: Commissioner Hans\n2. Agenda Changes\nChair Soules requested to switch 6A and 6B to accommodate schedules.\n3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4758231&GUID=BE96F602-9092-4789-A529-\n8D29AA900855&Options=&Search=&FullText=1\n4. Announcements/ Public Comments\nWalter Jacobs in Harbor Bay stated that he has a problem with a roundabout or a traffic signal at Island Drive\nand Mecartney Road. He prefers a flashing beacon. He has not seen a car crash here. He has a concern about\nthis proposal.\nJim Strehlow stated that he wants a status on the water taxi. The Fernside area HOA feels that Moreland Drive\nhas more speeding due to the Slow Streets program on Versailles Street, and other adjacent streets to Slow\nStreets program has similar speeding problems.\nMichael Robles-Wong stated that he had served on the board of Harbor Bay but is speaking as a 25-year resident\nof Bay Farm Island. He agrees with Mr. Jacobs. A traffic guard was hit a few years ago at this Island/Mecartney\nintersection. There is a concern about how pedestrians will cross this street.\nAnthony Lewis stated that he is blind. Gail Payne had a meeting about a roundabout with the blind community\nbecause it is something new for the blind community. He recommended that a tactile map be created, and to\nhave a mobility specialist assist with educating blind people how to use roundabouts. The Sherman/Encinal\nintersection is complicated even for people who can see. There are approximately 20 people in Alameda who\nare blind.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.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": "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": 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": 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": 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": 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": 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": 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": 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": "2020-10-28", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Kohlstrand: She said that it is difficult to understand the funding and the process, and she\nrequested more input earlier than next Spring such as briefings on how it is coming along would be helpful.\nThe discussion on metrics is pertinent with limited funding, and is needed to have the most effective and\nefficient use of public funds.\nChair Soules: She asked Commissioner Kohlstrand if it is a topic to fold into the General Plan subcommittee\nstudy sessions.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand: Yes, it would be helpful.\nChair Soules: She stated that Alameda has been extremely competitive with grants compared to the rest of\nthe region. It is a commendable track record. These projects have done the greatest good with the least\nassets. We need to closely consider our regional partners, and how the projects impact the region. The\nprojects need to state the benefits such as showing the mode split quantitatively, and staff needs to factor\nthis analysis into the entire cost of the project. For equity, it is important to reduce barriers such as credit\ncard issues, language issues, etc. She appreciates that lens in Alameda, and would like for staff to do this\noutreach to educate ourselves and transit users. Administratively, the commissioners will provide input to\nstaff through the subcommittee. More voices and louder voices are great at this stage.\nPublic Comment for #6C - none\n7. Announcements / Public Comments\nJim Strehlow: Before COVID, the Bay Area was seeing increased use for water shuttles. Water taxis were\nthe 2009 solution, and he would like to know the status of the water shuttle program, especially the status\nof the Alameda Landing payment for it. It should have been a yearly commitment. The General Plan\ndiscussion needs to address the main problems similar to what the discussion stated.\n8. Adjournment\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-10-28", "page": 7, "text": "Staff Thomas: He stated that it would be a worthwhile conversation, and could help guide the priorities.\nIt\nis difficult to prioritize bicycling, walking, greenhouse gas reductions because these projects are trying to\nsolve multiple problems.\nChair Soules: She said that having rigor costs money. We need to base the traffic numbers on an updated\nanalysis to serve as a backdrop and for context on how to prioritize projects.\nStaff Thomas: He would like to have a sub-committee with the specific policies in front of the group. We\nare unsure how the future will be for transportation and if the entire travel pattern will shift due to COVID\nand telecommuting in the future. For example, WETA is expecting midday boats to be more crowded.\nChair Soules: She agreed that it is difficult and we are trying to think long term, and she will follow up with\nthe study team on how to follow up for more details on the sub-committee.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand: She would like to have a viable transit system even if we have less congestion\nby making it more attractive.\nCommissioner Weitze: He asked how does Alameda promote working from home. There is talk about\nincentives for local businesses such as financial incentives. Alameda should try to do it.\nChair Soules: She said that regionally, telecommuting is being mandated.\nPublic Comment for #6B\nChristy Cannon: She said that she is on the Community Action for Sustainable Alameda, and she attends\nPlanning Board meeting, and thinks it would be wonderful to have regular joint meetings with the Planning\nBoard. It is tightly related, and is complicated. There are no easy ways to get people to talk about these\nissues. Making a City plan forces us to think 20 years ahead. She worked on promoting AC Transit bus\nline 19, and is excited to emphasize transit. It is a great conversation, and she appreciates the time taken by\ncommissioners and staff.\n6C. Public Works 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan Draft Recommendations\nScott Wikstrom, City Engineer and Robert Vance, Supervising Civil Engineer gave a presentation. The\nstaff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4672976&GUID=A2011A80-1F87-401F-9C00-\n73E3A5007B64&Options=&Search=\nCommissioner Comments and Discussion for #6C\nCommissioner Kohlstrand: She asked for clarification on the numbers for the funded projects between $56\nmillion and $39 million.\nStaff Vance: The $56 million is the maintenance and the $39 million are the funded new infrastructure.\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-10-28", "page": 6, "text": "Alamedans think of density and land use. She would like to see a special workshop meeting or sub-\ncommittee to capture all the different perspectives of the commissioner members. She would like more\nemphasis on transit in that a higher percentage of trips are on transit compared to bicycling and walking,\nespecially getting on/off the island. She is unsure how to proceed with housing obligations until we know\nwhat happens with Measure Z.\nStaff Thomas: He said that Measure Z will impact how the City can proceed with residential density. The\nCity needs to meet the state's housing obligations.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand: She stated that she would like to consider doing sketch planning with Measure\nA or with something more rational.\nChair Soules: She agreed, and would like to have more comments on the General Plan with a sub-committee\nprocess.\nCommissioner Weitze: He would like measurable actions agreeing with Commissioner Yuen. He would\nlike to set an actual goal for the percent of trips going on and off the island such as car-free to help with\nfunding projects.\nChair Soules: She stated that the surveys need more quantification. For example, the survey responses are\nheavily skewed towards white. The report does mention the groups that are underrepresented, and it needs\nto report back on how the gap would be reduced. She would like to have more prioritization of projects as\nwell as timing. It is important to have rigor in the objectives and metrics. Transit moves the most amount\nof people, and transit needs to come back strong. She would like to see another Planning Board and\nTransportation Commission joint meeting to better understand zoning and development agreement\nrequirements and to ensure coordination.\nCommissioner Yuen: She likes the idea of the joint meeting with the Planning Board, and supports the\ntransit first idea, and would like to lift it up in the update. The survey results are lacking, and the charts are\nconfusing. She would like an expert to look at it who knows qualitative research. There needs more\noutreach effort to harder to reach demographics such as the Active Transportation Plan's statistically\nsignificant survey as well as other opportunities, which is difficult during a pandemic. She agrees about\nthe importance to set targets and to have performance measures and metrics. Micromobility could be better\nhighlighted to provide greater access to transit. She is pleased to see more consideration of equity.\nChair Soules: She wants to better assess if the projects can accommodate given the projected population\nand density on the west end such as Central Avenue.\nStaff Thomas: He said that the City does not have the rigor for prioritizing how public funds are used. It\nends up being a mix of politics, planning and cost/benefit analysis. We have multiple problems - a housing\ncrisis and inadequate transportation.\nChair Soules: She stated that we do not want to quantify and study what is not helpful. We will have more\ntraffic volumes so she is unsure if these projects will work for bicycling once Site A is developed.\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-10-28", "page": 5, "text": "6B. General Plan Update (Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment)\nAndrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Director, gave a presentation and introduced\nconsultant Sheffield. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\n  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4672975&GUID=66886312-9FOE-4C9E-9485-\n317F282E7D8E&Options=&Search=\nChair Soules requested to take community comments and to set up a process for future commissioner\ncomments as a sub-committee. She would like a high level of engagement. The General Plan sets a baseline\nfor projects moving forward. It is an opportunity to have community members' voices heard.\nThere were no community comments on Item #6B at this time.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussion for #6B\nCommissioner Yuen: She had the following comments:\nIt is a great start of this General Plan and she commends staff for all the hard work on it.\nThe pandemic has changed city planning and how we are dealing with commercial and slow streets,\nand it impacts fiscal budget of the City. The General Plan needs to mention the pandemic.\nStaff Thomas agreed about the pandemic and released this draft just as the pandemic began, and will add\nlessons from the pandemic in the second draft.\nCommissioner Yuen continued her comments:\nThe actions within policies should be enumerated.\nSome actions are specific and others are broad, and would like the actions to be as specific as\npossible to be able to check them off the list if completed.\nSome actions are global across several chapters such as complete streets, climate and mobility\nelement, and would like to see if it is possible to see mapping by element and action.\nStaff Thomas said that the update needs to be restated to better understand progress to inform budget\ndecisions, and staff/consultants are working on cross indexing.\nVice Chair Nachtigall agreed about the need to include mention of the pandemic. It is well designed and\npretty, and yet the photos and the design graphics need to better visually convey diversity to show\nAlameda's racial and ethnic diversity as well as diversity of businesses. The graphics need to match the\ntext to show that all people are visually represented.\nStaff Thomas expressed appreciation for this comment and said that he would fix it.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand commended staff and consultants on the work done to date, and said that it is a\ngood draft. She would like the survey results to be synthesized, and would like to understand what\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-10-28", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Weitze: He supports the bike/pedestrian bridge, though he recommends that it be designed\nas a bike/pedestrian/transit bridge, since transit will help individuals who do not bike or walk. He is\ndisappointed that the conversation is focused on a one-foot wider bike path, and instead would like to see a\npath protected from traffic and air pollution. He would like other path options, and not to have a path that\nexposes people to the air in the Tube. He is hesitant to support the project as is. It is not multimodal. The\nbike/pedestrian bridge is the long-term solution.\nVice Chair Nachtigall: She supports the project, and the current experience is dangerous for pedestrians.\nShe is concerned about the potential for delay, and the bike/pedestrian bridge should not preclude this\nproject. It is not the most multimodal solution but incremental improvements are needed and this project\nhas been in the works for a long time.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand: She requests that it needs to be clear what the Commissioners are being asked\nto do for any agenda item. She is open to adding language to enhance pedestrian and transit access as a\nmotion.\nVice Chair Nachtigall: She asked for clarification on if it an action item.\nStaff Thomas: Staff would like to pass comments to the City Council. Can be either consensus-based or an\naction.\nCommissioner Weitze: It is not a multimodal project so it does not feel like Alameda should give up on the\nWebster Tube path improvements.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to support the staff letter with two modifications:\nRemove statement that the City would not oppose the removal of the proposed Webster Tube\nwalkway if it could help fund the next phases of the Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge.\nRequest that Caltrans and Alameda CTC enhance transit access to and from the Tubes both\nin Oakland and Alameda, which would improve multi-modal access of the project.\nCommissioner Yuen: She seconded the motion by Commissioner Kohlstrand.\nThe motion passed 6-0.\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-10-28", "page": 3, "text": "Michael Sullivan: He bikes through the tubes on a daily basis. It would be unfortunate to spend monies on\nanother path in Webster Tube. It is not a multimodal project. He strongly supports investing in the\nbike/pedestrian bridge.\nEd Manasse, Deputy Director of Planning with the City of Oakland. He has been working with the Alameda\nCTC project staff and consultants. He appreciates the comments heard tonight, and the City of Oakland\nwill be drafting a letter of support for this project. He also supports the bike/pedestrian bridge project,\nwhich will be positive for both cities.\nJim Strehlow: He is a bicyclist and motorist. The 2009 Estuary Crossing Study stated that the number one\npriority would be the water taxi program, and he wants to know the status of this project. The OAAP project\nis multimodal. The bike/pedestrian bridge is too far north for his needs so he would not use it. Sixth Street\nis six lanes, and will become a traffic jam. He supports this project.\nCyndy Johnson: She is with Bike Walk Alameda, and highlighted the portion of their submitted letter about\nthe bike/pedestrian bridge. The project path does not meet best practice standards. The bike/pedestrian\nbridge should have been included in this project, and could accommodate up to 13 percent of the estuary\ntrips. Alameda CTC should identify funds for the bike/pedestrian bridge. This bridge has been ten years\nin the making.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussion for #6A\nCommissioner Kohlstrand: She stated that this project is a long time in coming, and it is an important\nproject, particularly for the City of Oakland. It seems to be a reasonable solution, and we should support\nthe project as recommended by City staff. She has used the bus more than the car in this corridor, and is\nconcerned that no transit improvements are listed as part of the project. She would like to have transit\npriority on both sides of the tube, and would like to hear why it was not included in the project. She would\nrather see the Webster Street path improvements than shift the monies to a bike/pedestrian bridge, which is\nworth looking at along with water taxis in the longer term. She would like clarification from the video\nabout the Jackson Street ramp. In general, she supports the OAAP project, and feels it is time to alleviate\nthe traffic congestion in Oakland Chinatown.\nRodney Pimentel clarified that the bus times will improve along with motorists. The left lane in the Webster\nTube will be reserved only for Oakland traffic including buses to Oakland. Regarding the four-foot wide\npath, Caltrans did approve the design exception and wants to open it up for one-way travel for bicyclists\nand pedestrians. It is considered an incremental solution with the long-term solution as the bike/pedestrian\nbridge. As for the Jackson Street ramp, motorists could take it from I-580 and I-980.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand: She would like the project to consider HOV lanes on Fifth Street in Oakland,\nand to include transit in the mix so it needs to give transit vehicles priority.\nCommissioner Yuen: She supports the project, and appreciates the comments about the current impacts to\nOakland Chinatown. It is important for Chinatown to fully use the community assets, like Garden Park.\nShe would like clarification that the support of this project does not preclude the bike/pedestrian bridge.\nShe would like to see the incremental progress for bicyclists that this project brings. She would use the\nbike/pedestrian bridge but she does not want to delay this project.\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-10-28", "page": 2, "text": "project, unless one is coming from San Leandro. If coming from San Francisco, this problem has not been\nsolved from Broadway by this project.\nPaul Ashby: He encouraged the City of Alameda to support inclusion of the Webster Tube walkway for\nbicyclists. He has concerns about traffic off the island, for bicyclists and for pedestrians. This $100 million\nproject is not yet funded and he is concerned about how to fund the $200 million bike/pedestrian bridge and\nwhen it could be funded. Pedestrian improvements will be valuable. Bicycling is difficult in the tubes, and\nthe Webster Tube bike improvements are not satisfactory; however, a four-foot wide path (in Webster Tube)\nwould be better than the three-foot wide path (in Posey Tube).\nSugiarto Loni, representing Oakland Chinatown Chamber. He stated that Chinatown receives the brunt\nof\nthe traffic problem. He was involved in the previous Broadway-Jackson Study; however, Alameda was\nopposed so the study was delayed for ten years, is his understanding. The OAAP project is a good project\nfor the Chinatown community. The project would open up the Chinatown community making it better for\npedestrians. He thinks the horseshoe will work, and he does not want to lose time with a $200 million\nbike/pedestrian bridge, especially with the planned development of Alameda Point. He hopes that Alameda\nwill support OAAP and not derail it.\nSerena Chen: She has lived in Alameda for 23 years, and also lived in Oakland and helped build the social\ncommunities in Oakland. The freeway cut off Chinatown, and this project is a serious social justice issue.\nInstitutional decisions destroyed the Oakland Chinatown area. She does not want to hold up the opportunity\nto bring Chinatown together and reduce pollution from Alamedans who drive. She wants to move forward,\nand she also supports the bike/pedestrian bridge.\nJohn Han: He was born in Alameda, and he lives and works in Alameda. The progress of this project is\nnecessary. Alameda will grow yet there is no other ingress or egress. The collisions continue in Oakland.\nOakland Chinatown has been disproportionately impacted by the current design, and it is systemic injustice\nto keep it here. It appears that Alameda City leaders and bike advocates are holding this project hostage\nand the optics are horrible.\nDoris Gee: She is an active community member in both Alameda and Oakland Chinatown. She appreciates\nthe changes to be built with this project. She has tried to cross 7th and Harrison in Oakland with her family,\nand motorists would not stop for them. The project will create more tourist opportunities and an Alameda-\nonly exit out of Alameda.\nLena Tam: Former Councilmember and she does not want to delay this project. She uses this route to\ncommute to Oakland and support the OAAP because it reduces the crash rate between motorists and\npedestrians. She is worried about the long-term sustainability of Oakland Chinatown. She witnessed a\npedestrian being hit on Webster Street who later died. She appreciates the time everyone has spent\nreviewing the plan.\nDenyse Trepanier: The existing path through the tube is filthy and dangerous. It does not meet Caltrans\nsafety standards for a path. The Webster Street walkway also would be substandard. She agrees with most\nof the speakers tonight that the OAAP has nice improvements for Oakland. Only one percent would use\nthis new Webster Street path and monies should be redirected to the bike/pedestrian bridge. The voters\nwanted a multimodal solution, and this project is not it.\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-10-28", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting\nWednesday, October 28, 2020\nTime:\n6:30 p.m.\nLocation:\nDue to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners can attend the\nmeeting via teleconference. The City allows public participation via Zoom. City Hall was NOT open to the\npublic during the meeting.\n1. Roll Call\nPresent: Chair Soules, Commissioners Kohlstrand, Nachtigall, Hans, Johnson, Yuen,\nWeitze.\nAbsent: None.\n2. Agenda Changes - none\n3. Staff Communications as shown in the web link here:\n  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4672973&GUID=F417595E-294D-4A7A-81A9-\n930246FOCDD5&Options=&Search=&FullText=1\n4.\nAnnouncements/ Public Comments - none\n5.\nConsent Calendar - none\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Recommendation to Review and Provide Input on City Staff's Draft Support Letter for the\nOakland Alameda Access Project (OAAP) and to Provide Comments on the Project's Draft\nEnvironmental Document\nChair Soules recused herself from this item, and Vice Chair Nachtigall led this item.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Director, gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4672974&GUID=E0OCAC43-48BD-4066-8468-\nE7ED82F902BF&Options=&Search=\nStaff Thomas also introduced:\nRodney Pimentel of HNTB\nSusan Chang of Alameda County Transportation Commission\nSpeakers on #6A\nGary Knecht: He stated that it is Jack London District and not Jack London Square, which is concerned\nwith connection to Chinatown. He does not want more frontage roads, and will tolerate them. The\nhorseshoe does create a frontage road of concern. Getting to Alameda will not be improved with this\nTransportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf"}