pages: TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2008-04-23 | 3 | Staff solicited input from residents, and received some comments in favor, some in opposition, as well as some suggested alternatives, such as allowing people to park on the sidewalks, as was done previously. The Fire Code required a 20-foot clearance for emergency vehicle access. The Fire Department indicated that they had some vehicles that were 9.5 feet wide, which so removing parking on one side of the street would be sufficient, as it would provide 16 feet of clearance. To mitigate the impacts, parking was removed on the even side of the street, as fewer spaces were impacted. He noted that the two-hour parking restriction on the other side of the street was removed to provide full- time on-street parking for four additional spaces. Staff Bergman noted that the decision was appealed, and that the appellant made several points. The appellant believed that there were alternative methods of providing access, such as sidewalk parking, that would allow the on-street parking to be retained. Staff noted that this recommendation was not made because it was prohibited by Section 22500(f) of the California Vehicle Code, which stated that "no person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or official traffic control device on any portion of a sidewalk, or with the body of the vehicle extending over any portion of a sidewalk." In addition, the sidewalks are not constructed to support the weight of the vehicles, and there was concern about the impact that parking on the sidewalk would have on pedestrian traffic. The appellant submitted a letter subsequent to his initial appeal, raising additional points. One suggestion was to relocate the curb to widen the street, in order to provide emergency access. The Alameda Municipal Code required that public sidewalks be at least five feet in width; by removing the 18 inches from each side of the street, that would provide an additional three feet, giving 27 feet. Since the parking lane was typically eight feet wide, that would leave only 11 feet of clear space available, which would be insufficient for emergency access. The appellant further suggested that a parking permit program, which had been discussed by the City as a number of neighborhoods in the City are dealing with similar problems. When staff researched the costs and other requirements to implement such a program, it was found that it was typically funded through the General Fund. At this time, the City had difficulty in finding resources at this time. He noted that may be viable in the future, but would not be practical at this time. Staff Bergman noted that the appellant's second basis for appeal noted that a request had been made for a hearing regarding this matter, and the Municipal Code authorized the Public Works Director to implement parking prohibitions based on safety considerations prior to the appeal being held. This TC meeting provided the appellant, as well as other members of the public, with the opportunity to request that the decision be overturned. Staff Bergman noted that the third basis for appeal was a request for documentation establishing the need to eliminate the on-street parking. This information was communicated to the appellant and other affected resident in the notification sent out on January 23, a copy of that letter was included in the packet. Also included were the Transportation Commission Page 3 of 15 04/23/08 Minutes | TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf |