pages: TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2008-06-25 | 6 | with the City's obligation under the Municipal Storm Water permit, and through the Clean Water Program to control the runoff into the Bay. Staff recommended that the no- parking street sweeping signs be installed on this block in accordance with City policy, and to comply with the requirements of the Federal EPA Clean Water Act. Commissioner Schatmeier noted that both the appellants and the letter mentioned casual car poolers, as well as Transbay bus riders. He inquired how many of the current parkers were in that category. Staff Bergman replied that was anecdotal, and that hard numbers were not available at this time. Staff did have boarding and alighting data from the Trans- Bay bus at that location. The morning boardings were slightly over 100 per day, and about 200 in the evening. Commissioner Ratto inquired whether the 1200 block of Regent Street was signed for street sweeping. Staff Bergman replied that it was, as was the 100 block. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger regarding the duration of daytime parking, Staff Khan replied that the parking occupancy survey was conducted at the time the sweepers would go through. Commissioner Krueger suggested it would be useful to know how many cars were there for the entire four hours. Commissioner Krueger requested further information on the amount of debris in the gutter. Staff Khan noted that the City was trying to determine parking impacts where street sweeping was installed, and based on that, staff recommends the restrictions, and identifies the conditions of the affected streets. Staff found that there was no scientific way to determine the condition, but qualitative analysis observed an accumulation of debris in the storm drain inlets. He noted that the mechanical broom was much stronger than by hand. He noted that removal of debris by hand also increased the suspension of particles into the air, as compared to the sweeper, which vacuums the debris into the containment chamber. Open public comment. Mr. Rabin, appellant, noted that the area was used by carpoolers all day. When he arrives home from his night shift at the hospital, he frequently had no place to park, and that cars parked on his corner all day long. He noted that he had to move his car to a spot two blocks away, and added that this was an ongoing problem for him. He understood that street sweeping was a necessity, but believed that manual sweeping would be better than the street sweeper. He noted that the vehicle emits hydrocarbons, stirred debris around, and left a trail behind it. Some residents have complained that their cars have been sideswiped, and others believed that it was a revenue-enhancing practice through the Page 6 of 11 | TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf |