pages: TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2008-04-23 | 6 | for a smaller program, and that this was viable on a larger scale; in that case, police officers and other personnel could be hired just for the permit program. Commissioner Ratto thanked the Fire Department for living in the real world and accepting the 16-foot-wide fire lane, rather than the 20-foot width required by Code. He noted that if that were not the case, the neighborhood would not have any parking on either side of the street. He noted that because the Commission was only dealing with the appeal, he would bring the public comment brought forth by Mr. McDowell regarding other streets to staff and request that they look into it. He noted that he had grown up in Alameda, and was aware of two different instances where houses had burned to the ground because the Fire Department did not have access to them. In those cases, parking had been changed to allow parking on only one side of the street. He was sensitive to public safety, and added that he would vote to deny the appeal. Chair Knox White echoed Commissioner Ratto's comments, and shared his concern about selective enforcement on other streets. He understood that some allowances could be made to the 20-foot lane widths, and believed the selective enforcement stemmed more from a desire to avoid this problem on other streets, rather than ill will. He believed this issue should be addressed on a policy level by the City. He noted that the Transportation Commission has generally supported parking permits, and that they were cited in the Transportation Master Plan currently in circulation. He noted that the permit program should be made in a cost-neutral way when 10% budget cuts were being made to every program. He noted that the program would become cost prohibitive almost immediately. He noted that the Public Works Director identified this as a safety hazard, and that was the primary concern of the City. He believed the Fire Department had provided documentation establishing the need to eliminate on-street parking, as identified in Condition 3. Commissioner Ratto moved to approve the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. Chair Knox White believed the City needed to address the permit parking issue, which continued to come up before the Commission. He understood staff's concern about setting the parking program up, and that because it was a benefit to the neighborhood, it should pay for itself. He would like staff to cost the proposed program out, in order to create a cost-neutral program. Commissioner Krueger expressed concern about the photo of the handicapped spaces on the sidewalk, which seemed to contradict the Vehicle Code. Staff Khan noted that the City had been trying to create allowances on that street, as well as the need for handicapped parking. Staff considered that it was located at the end of the street, with minimal fire access and through traffic issues. However, if the neighborhood was unhappy with that allowance and wanted those spaces removed, staff would take that into consideration. Transportation Commission Page 6 of 15 04/23/08 Minutes | TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf |