Title
Approve Meeting Minutes - May 27, 2015
Body
Transportation Commission
November 18, 2015
Item 4A
Action
Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes
Wednesday May 27, 2015
Commissioner Michele Bellows called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
1. Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Michele Bellows (Chair)
Eric Schatmeier (Vice Chair)
Jesus Vargas
Christopher Miley
Thomas G. Bertken
Commissioner Hans
Members Absent:
Gregory Morgado
Staff Present:
Staff Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Bob Haun, Public Works Director and Interim Assistant City Manager
Virendra Patel, Transportation Engineer
2. Agenda Changes
None.
3. Announcements / Public Comments
Staff Payne outlined the upcoming activities below:
3. A. Bike Safety Week for Elementary School Children will take place with two different events Saturday May 30 and Sunday June 7 sponsored by the Elks Lodge.
3. B. Central Avenue Complete Street Concept Proposal Workshop #2 occurring Thursday, June 4.
3. C. Transportation Commission Meeting: July 22 at 7 p.m.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comments.
David Foot, Alameda resident, urged the Commission to become more actively involved in an important transportation issue. The next 10 to 20 years BART will be forced to build a second Transbay tube and the City of Alameda will be the optimal Eastbay touchdown point. He said there have been many articles that have appeared in the last 6 months and the Commission could play an important role. He explained that he would like early stage preliminary public workshops setup so people can start talking about the BART expansion.
Commissioner Miley replied that he acknowledged and agreed with David Foot’s comments and he has been communicating with staff. Also, he expressed similar opinions and was keeping an eye on it as a regional effort.
Bob Haun, Public Works Director and Interim Assistant City Manager, stated that he has a seat at the table with BART and he is on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the 2-year Core Capacity Study, which is funded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). He explained that the last meeting was last week and he will provide continuous updates to the Commission as the study moves along. He said at this time there is no designation of a tube route until the study is finished.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he seconded Commissioner Miley’s comments. He was glad that Bob Haun was on top of the issue, but he suggested that progress reports of the study be part of the meeting agenda going forward.
Carol Gottstein, Alameda Resident, stated that her comments are directed to all five agenda items under New Business. She said all three projects involve the narrowing of the parking lanes to 7 feet. She felt the narrowing of Shoreline Drive in order to accommodate a cycle track necessitated the removal of disabled on street parking because the parking lane was too narrow in width. She did not see the issue addressed by any of the consultants and she brought this up to the Commission because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal issued a ruling in September of last year that cities must provide on street parking to the disabled. She explained that this issue must be addressed in the City’s Complete Streets projects because the streets are used by everyone.
Commissioner Bertken asked Bob Haun if there was a way to spread the information about the study and progress to the public without interfering with the discussions that he was having as a member of the advisory committee.
Bob Haun replied there are a number of different variables in the Core Capacity Study. He explained that they will eventually get to BART, but in the meantime he will give updates to the Commission about the process.
Commissioner Bertken asked Bob Haun if there were consultants involved with looking at the study.
Bob Haun replied yes consultants are involved, but the study reviews a broad range of transportation modalities of which BART is just one part of the system.
Commissioner Miley stated that for a future meeting it would be useful to have a general overview of what they are looking at.
Bob Haun replied he will give the Commission regular updates and if there comes a time where a presentation or discussion is warranted he will bring that up with staff.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if there is a provision in the Complete Streets policy that covers disabled parking.
Bob Haun replied on the Shoreline Drive project they relocated parking spaces around the corner from Shoreline Drive. So, disabled parking is located within the general area, but there was no specific discussion. However, he was attempting to acquire parking spaces in front of the new fire station. He said he is currently working with Bike Walk Alameda to review this potential on Park Street as well. He also noted that a disabled vehicle could park in a regular parking space without having to feed the meter.
4. Consent Calendar
4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - March 25, 2015
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, stated that he was upset to see the minutes misquote the Commissioners with words that were never said and omit important parts of the minutes. He went on to say that Commissioners Miley, Bellows and Morgado’s statements were omitted which was an important part of the motion.
Commissioner Miley replied he appreciated Jim Strehlow’s diligence in looking into the minutes. However, he believes the corrected minutes show the intent of the discussion and overall motion.
Jim Strehlow asked the Commission how the mistakes occurred.
Commissioner Bellows replied staff does a good job and the Commission has been talking a lot about the meeting minutes and the revised minutes capture the discussion.
Commissioner Vargas stated that he appreciated the corrections made to the minutes. He felt quality control should happen continuously. Additionally, he asked to hold the March 25 meeting minutes for further review. Furthermore, he stated that he would not be able to vote on the April 25 meeting minutes.
Commissioner Schatemeier said the meeting minutes were not direct transcripts, but were intended to convey a sense of the discussion. He went on to say that the Commission reviews the minutes to determine if the sense of the discussion is correct. The Commission then has the opportunity to judge this at the meeting. However, he said it was good that Jim Strehlow pointed out parts that may be important and could be included within the discussion.
Commissioner Miley moved to hold the minutes of March 25, 2015. The motion was approved 6-0.
4.B. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - April
5, 2015
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the minutes for April 25, 2015. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0; 1 abstention from Commissioner Vargas.
5. New Business
5.A. Provide Final Comments on the Draft Transportation Demand Management Plan Compliance Strategy for Site A
Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer - Alameda point, presented the report.
Commissioner Bertken asked Jennifer Ott specifics about the plan.
Jennifer Ott replied the Alameda Point Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan was approved on May 20 of last year for all of Alameda Point. She explained that there was a compliance strategy attached to the project website that was the TDM compliant strategy and that was part of the public noticing.
Commissioner Bellows asked Jennifer Ott about annual monitoring and she wondered how often staff would take measurements.
Jennifer Ott replied there would be annual monitoring over a number of days similar to traffic counts for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). She said staff would conduct survey work during certain months to control for anomalies.
Commissioner Bellows replied she would like to see the monitoring done at least for the first year more frequently such as quarterly.
Jennifer Ott replied the first year will have very few units and not all of the services will be in place. So, a transition will have to take place.
Commissioner Vargas said he would like the monitoring to be conducted by an independent contractor. He pointed out that a public comment about disabled parking was mentioned earlier in the meeting and he wanted to know if there was a policy in place for Site A that considered disabled parking. He also noted that within the staff report the matrix of the various items required are “x’s” in a couple of rows that match and he believed there should not be a couple of “x’s” on the same row. Overall, he was excited to see the Transportation Management Association (TMA) looking to solve a lot of things, but he wondered when this plan would start.
Jennifer Ott replied the plan will be triggered within the first round of building permits and first sub phases. She said the trigger would be the occupancy of around the first 100 units or the first 100,000 square feet of commercial space.
Commissioner Vargas commended Jennifer Ott for partnering with AC Transit to obtain discounts and he wondered if there was a similar partnership with BART in the works.
Jennifer Ott replied staff coordinates with BART on grants and they are in contact with them along with the Public Works Director, so they are always looking for opportunities to coordinate.
Commissioner Vargas replied that he went to a lunch earlier that day funded by the Alameda County Transportation Commission and the organization said they would have grant opportunities starting June 1 for planning projects.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comments.
Jim Strehlow stated that the City published some strange EIR traffic study numbers showing that there would be no effects whether Alameda Point was developed or not developed over its 30 year plan. He said the general public must wonder about the rationale behind the assumptions used within the EIR traffic study. Regarding employment, he said the City cannot guarantee that an employer will stay and/or employees will be fired or quit. He pointed out that with all these wonderful programs you still do not know if the employer and employees will stay. So he asked Jennifer Ott what are the City’s plans if the new tenants do no comply and choose to drive. He was also interested in the City’s plans or restrictions for temporary home rentals such as Airbnb especially for the upcoming Super Bowl.
Jennifer Ott replied there was a Draft EIR that was published in 2013 with extensive appendices and was circulated for public viewing for 6 months. She said that there will be significant and unavoidable traffic impacts to Alameda Point. She pointed out that 52 intersections were studied and 32 intersections were in Alameda. The report shows the impacts with existing projects plus cumulative and disclosed impacts. She stated that the EIR has been on their website and available for the public for about18 months now and the plan is to mitigate those impacts. Furthermore, she said there are no punitive measures in place if employers or employees leave and residents ignore the TDM plan. However, the objective of the plan is to create a package of strategies that incentivize alternative modes of transportation. She felt if the outcome of the plan does not measure up to the objectives, monitoring the plan and tweaking it if necessary is possible. Finally, she was unable to speak about the Airbnb policies.
Leslie Cameron, Co-owner of Bay Shipping Yacht Company, said she recently celebrated 21 years in Alameda and is negotiating a new 66-year lease. She stated that she serves on the Alameda Chamber of Commerce and she supports the approval of Site A and the TDM plan. She also said she supports the developer and the development and applauded Alameda for the wonderful work.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated that he has followed the Alameda Point issue for most of the time he has been in Alameda. He liked the thoroughness of the plan but there are two issues. Firstly, he said the peak period service for AC Transit and all transit service at Alameda Point should be between 8-12 minute headways. Secondly, he also heard that a low number of shared bicycles would be made available, but the City Bike Share Program staff must consider the number of bikes per square mile to make the program successful. So, he felt hundreds of bikes per density of area not dozens will be most effective. He also, recommended that the program become part of the City Bike Share Program.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he was happy to see the unbundled parking discussion because it seemed to him that it was unfair for people attracted to a development to have to automatically pay for a parking space. He said unbundling allows and possibly attracts people who do not want to use a car or own a car and that should be one of the important goals for efforts such as this. He explained that using the word Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and having the number one TDM goal be reducing peak hour vehicular trips deemphasizes the idea that the City is trying to divert people to alternative modes for all kinds of trips throughout the day, not just the peak hour. He assumed the TDM plan is attempting to attract a certain segment of people who want to live here without an automobile and the City should place the infrastructure so that is possible. Consequently, he would like to see an explicit goal in the plan that puts the wording behind TOD and backs up the meaning of TOD.
Commissioner Bertken asked Jennifer Ott why she did not provide financial information at this presentation.
Jennifer Ott replied she attached a financial memo to the staff report.
Commissioner Bertken asked Jennifer Ott to not only include shuttles to BART, but also mention AC Transit Transbay service.
Jennifer Ott said she would incorporate this service especially since there have been discussions of building an additional bus stop outside of Alameda Point.
Commissioner Miley felt the bus headways were important and getting below 15 minutes to the 8-10 minute window was critical. However, he said Jennifer Ott hit the key points.
Commissioner Vargas stated that he was excited to see the items such as a TDM Compliance Strategy and he has a lot of thoughts. He asked Jennifer Ott what is the walking and appropriate time to get from Site A to the ferry terminal at Seaplane Lagoon. He especially wanted to know what kinds of accessibility highlights are being promoted and he wondered if a cycle track was considered.
Jennifer Ott replied they have had discussions with Bike Walk Alameda and City employers. She said there are pretty extensive cycle tracks (e.g. Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, Main Street and Ferry Point) and employers have asked if there will be cycle tracks. She explained that all residential units on Site A will be within a one block walk or less from the Bus Rapid Transit line on Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, protected bike lanes and public open space. She also said the ferry terminal is within a quarter to half mile depending on where you reside in the development. Regarding transit headways, she would love to have more frequency if funding became available.
Commissioner Bertken asked Jennifer Ott to include ferry subsidies similar to the proposed ones from AC Transit.
Jennifer Ott replied the Clipper Card can be used for the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) ferry services. So, if employees applied for this program they would receive $50 per month from this development and that is in addition to the AC Transit free bus pass.
Commissioner Hans asked Jennifer Ott if there has been any thought about where the children will attend school once the residences are built and what routes such as bicycle routes would they take.
Jennifer Ott replied all the streets would have either protected bikeways or bike facilities. She also stated that the Central Avenue plan would have protected bike and pedestrian trails. Additionally, she said that her team will apply for a TIGER grant within the next week or so in order to fund routes to Encinal High School. Moreover, she mentioned that a proposed site that is owned by the school district could potentially become a school.
5.B. Discuss Central Avenue Complete Street Concept Proposal
Staff Payne presented the report and introduced Lawrence Lewis of Kittelson & Associates who presented the traffic analysis.
Commissioner Bellows asked Lawrence Lewis if the traffic analysis included mode shifts.
Lawrence Lewis replied it does not.
Commissioner Miley asked staff as the process moves forward if any of the options that do move forward and require parking removal would the number of parking spaces be identified.
Staff Payne replied staff would start detailing and defining the concept as they move forward.
Commissioner Miley said the Lawrence Lewis identified some of the intersections that would have the biggest impacts and he wondered when the information would be brought forth to the community.
Staff Payne replied the information would not be presented at next week’s community meeting since they are making the same presentation that they presented to the Commission. She estimated that over the summer they would review the various strategies in order to minimize the expected delays.
Commissioner Miley said 8th Street at Central Avenue from east or west seems a little wider than 56 feet.
Staff Payne replied Commissioner Miley was correct and specifically between Page and 8th Street, it is 65 feet. Yet, going eastbound there is a significant right turning movement. So, she explained that the street widens out because there is a right turning lane.
Commissioner Miley asked staff when the analysis was done how did that factor into the different modeling and did staff consider leaving in the right turn lane including the middle left turn lane.
Lawrence Lewis replied the analysis assumed the right turn lane would stay in place.
Commissioner Vargas said the road diet would have to deal with a lot of competing needs for multiple travel modes. He explained that making the road safe for all modes is very important and staff should keep that in mind moving forward. He also noted that he would like to see who collected the data referenced in the reports and analysis because there is a credibility question. He asked staff if a registered individual meaning a traffic engineer or civil engineer was required for some of the analysis. Regarding the three key intersections, he felt seeing some time delays double and almost triple was a big concern and he wondered if staff was putting too much of a road diet there, especially when extra traffic may come out Site A.
Commissioner Schatmeier referred to the road diet at the three key intersections and he asked Lawrence Lewis if there was a different treatment for those intersections.
Lawrence Lewis replied the treatment would be to have a left hand turn at the intersection that is just one-way so it would not be a two-way left turn. So, when going eastbound motorists would have a two-way left turn lane at the block and when you get to a key intersection the left turn lane only allows motorists to go eastbound due to safety reasons.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied at Webster Street and Central Avenue eastbound traffic on Central Avenue has a large amount of vehciles turning right onto Webster Street. He also said there are a number of vehicles going straight onto Central Avenue. So, he felt it may be good to have more vehicles go through the intersection at that point and he has seen intersections that have widen out to four lanes.
Lawrence Lewis replied they have not reviewed the options yet, but those suggestions will be reviewed. He went on to say there are two left turn lanes heading south on Webster Street to turn left onto Central Avenue heading east. So, if you have only one through lane on Central Avenue then you only have one lane to receive them.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that Staff Payne presented alternatives A-G in the staff report and she said only alternatives A-C are feasible. So, he wanted to know if the Commission should assume that alternatives D-G are dead or could the other alternative be reconsidered given community input.
Staff Payne replied the other alternatives could absolutely be considered that is why staff is looking to the Commission and community for input.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied the reason he asked was the options of “do nothing” or paint a sharrow in the middle of the street or paint a conventional bike lane, which does not seem like an array of choices.
Staff Payne replied that Commissioner Schatmeier was referring to the idea that if the study area contains a 56 foot wide street, which is east of 4th Street that is the majority. She explained that for the majority of the study area staff is looking at option C, which is similar to the mid-section of Broadway and provides the safety benefits that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) desires to see. She said that is the preferred option and if they cannot get there, they could do nothing or paint a bike sharrow.
Commissioner Belows stated that if there are suggested options different than what was being presented by staff then they should be discussed by segment.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.
Carol Lucy, building owner at the corner of Webster Street and Central Avenue, stated that she is very concerned for tenants losing their parking spaces in front of their business and for vendors having issues delivering merchandise.
Pam Galong, owner of Dave’s Liquor at the corner of Webster Street and Central Avenue, said she was concerned about the parking loss. She also mentioned that she personally buys merchandise for the store and carries them in so she needs a parking spot close to the store. Overall, she feels business will suffer because of the parking loss.
Jason Lusane, Alameda resident, said the road diet will adversely affect his building and tenants. He said Central Avenue is a major street that connects the west end to the rest of Alameda. He said when he was at the Walk Alameda Bike Alameda (WABA) meeting he was told that parking would not be taken away and even tonight the information is moving left and right. He stated that eliminating parking would place limitations on deliveries and will be difficult for vendors. He felt police enforcement might solve some of the problems around Webster Street and Central Avenue. Additionally, he noted that the project would be a detriment to the business districts, emergency response vehicles and reduce property values along Central Avenue and potentially Webster Street. He heard from others that the Shoreline Drive project was a mistake and staff quickly leaped from Shoreline Drive to Central Avenue. So, he urged the Commission and staff to digest the results of the Shoreline Drive project before moving forward on Central Avenue.
Bonnie Waiman, Bike Walk Alameda member and mother of school-aged children, said she was representing 40 people who could not be at the meeting. She explained that the point of the Central Bike Project was not to reduce the ability of vehicles to travel smoothly during the morning commute. She found that there are more vehicles on Broadway than on Central Avenue and it is proven that two traffic lanes move vehicles through just fine. She said the point of using a lane for protected bicycle travel is to address the needs of everyone and she discovered that the largest demographic of students in her bicycle class are women between the ages of 50-70 years old who want to ride their bicycles, but do not feel safe. She pointed out that the roads should accommodate all modes of travel. She also noted that the data presented earlier about a delay did not take into account the number of people who would use the bike lanes and opt out of driving nor did the data show the vehicles per day on Broadway and Central Avenue. She explained that currently, bicyclists ride on the sidewalk and cars have to interact and yield to them either way. She also met with Sergeant Despirini who told her they have had no issues or incidents with the Shoreline Drive cycle track.
Jim Strehlow said the Bay Trail goes along Shoreline Drive through Crown Beach and up to McKay Avenue to Central Avenue. So, he does not see why there should be special needs to satisfy the Bay Trail portion. He stated that at the last workshop, he asked parents what was the safest way to cross Alameda and they replied using Santa Clara Avenue since it is located two blocks away. He explained that the City is already bike friendly and when there is an vehicle accident in the Posey Tube it backs up first along Buena Vista Avenue then Lincoln Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue. He felt it was important to have the two-lane street crossing such as the existing Central Avenue and Encinal Avenue combination for disaster needs. He also thanked Commission Vargas in his assisting to have a civil engineer place his name on the plans because the engineer is licensed to look for more cause and effects. Furthermore, he thanked Commissioner Schatmeier’s suggestion of placing four lanes at intersections. Ultimately, he preferred no change at all, but if a change is to be mandated he would maybe select Option C.
Isaac Curgell, Alameda cyclist, stated that he currently rides his bicycle to the ferry terminal to commute and that is one less car on the road. He explained to the Commission that he is a young male adult so he does not take into consideration the safety concerns that other populations have. However, he felt that creating safe infrastructure for alternative modes is the best method to reducing traffic concerns. Also, he pointed out that to his knowledge there is no literature anywhere that states that increasing traffic lanes decreases traffic.
Dave Campbell, Advocacy Director for Bike East Bay, said he lives in Oakland, but Bike East Bay conducts advocacy work in 33 cities in the East Bay. He explained that his organization advocates for more protected facilities for safety. He presented the new FHWA publication Separated Bike Lanes Planning and Design Guide found at: <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/page00.cfm> to the commission and the report analyzed safety without facilities and protected bike facilities and then they do their own independent analysis on over 35 protected facilities projects. He said the safety data showed that protected facilities are safer. He also mentioned that protected bicycle facilities and redesign guides are good for business because people who walk, bike and take public transit bring more money to businesses.
Donna Eyestone, Alameda resident, stated that most drivers would prefer her to ride on the sidewalk then take the traffic lane, especially when she is bicycling 10 mph down Central Avenue and the pedestrians do not want her to be on the sidewalk blowing past them. She mentioned that with all of this new development there are too many cars on the roads. She went on to say that there is a daily decision on whether to take her bicycle or drive, but she urged the Commission to be forward thinking and create safer streets for all road users.
Jerry Cervente, Alameda resident, stated that he was here on behalf of friends and neighbors. He said he was appreciative of the work staff has done on the Complete Street Concept Plan and he wanted to see this plan and options be further analyzed. He said as a pedestrian it is difficult to cross Central Avenue and he was almost struck by a vehicle while walking his dog across the street.
Don Gibson, resident of Crown Harbor condominium complex, said safety was the number one priority and the residents support that, but his residence contains 76 units and around 150 cars. He stated that there are 12 public parking spaces to give people access to the shoreline and the cars coming out of his residence have to be careful when coming onto Central Avenue especially during the peak hours. He felt the road diet will double the traffic in those places and that means waiting longer to get onto the roadway. He urged staff and the Commission to develop a plan that allows the residents at Crown Harbor to safely get onto Central Avenue.
Jacqueline Young, Shoreline Drive resident, urged the Commission to delay or postpone the work planned on Central Avenue. She said her experience with the cycle track has been stressful both as a motorist and pedestrian. She explained that she was a bicycle commuter for 10 years and now she is an AC Transit rider. She pointed out that Shoreline Drive is stressful to drive under the road diet because Fed Ex drivers use the cycle track to make deliveries and people waiting for parking and use the cycle track as a waiting space and it is harder for residents to find parking. She also mentioned that as a pedestrian she has been struck by bicyclists who do not want to yield to pedestrians using the cross walk. She advocated for more funds to support public transportation and for bike organizations to conduct outreach to show cyclists how to use the cycle track properly.
Bernie Matthews, 17-year resident of the west end, said when he first heard of this he was shocked and then he learned that this was something that was being considered and he applauded staff for presenting options that could be analyzed. He was concerned about the traffic flow on Central Avenue because he travels the street three to six times a day and he took issue with the numbers that were being thrown out. However, he applauded Commissioner Vargas for recommending an independent collection of data on traffic flow. Yet, he could not fathom traffic being condensed into one lane including buses and delivery trucks. He wondered if timing the traffic lights would help clear out traffic. He also urged the Commission to come down to the west end and view the traffic at various times of the day in the summer and when school begins. He also recommended that research be conducted on the other alternatives.
Dan Wood, Alameda resident, said in the staff presentation there were two slides devoted to traffic delay issues and that painted a dooms day scenario. He pointed out that there are a few spots with issues, but staff could come up with good solutions. He noted that the plan involves paint on the roadway and the placement of a few paddles, so if the plan does not work it could be changed back. He mentioned that on the west side Staff Payne talked about option F, the protected two-way bike lanes on the south side for Segments 1-2, he recommended that the option also continue to Segment 3. He felt there will not be separate paradigms for cyclists traveling down the corridor and the intersection at 4th Street would be a safe place to transition between a one on each side bike lane and a two-way both on the same side bike lane. Furthermore, he proposed that option F be considered for Segments 1-3. He found that Segment 4 seemed to be roughly the same dimensions, but there are different segments here and it was worthwhile for staff to look at protected bike lanes for a segment where there’s not as much vehicle traffic. Overall, he said there is not a one size fits approach to everything and staff should tweak the individual segments.
David Burton, Head of Community Action for Sustainable Alameda (CASA), stated that CASA’s mission is to help the City achieve its goal at the local action plan for climate protection to reduce carbon emission to 25% below 2005 levels by 2020. He explained that transportation activity is the biggest carbon emitters, so encouraging alternative modes is important. He said improvements to Central Avenue would be one of the most important improvements the City could make because the corridor is a major cross-island connection. He said he travels on Broadway Avenue frequently and the three-lane option works fine with a greater level of traffic than Central Avenue. He pointed out that a cycle track on the south side of the street from Main Street to 8th Street is the ideal solution to maximizing cycling on Central Avenue. He urged the Commission to keep this option on the table until further study can be done and the minimum that should be done is Class II bike lanes.
Kevin Kinese, Alameda resident, said visitors could point out a healthy community by viewing how many bicycles are on the roads.
Caitlyn Swartzman, Alameda resident, stated that she walks, bikes and drives and she said the primary reasons she gets into her car is to transport her children to school from central Alameda to west end. She use to transport them by bike when they were little and attach on the trailer bikes but they don’t have the judgment as “tweens” to navigate the roads as they are. She explained that since her children are “tweens” and they don’t have developed judgment to navigate the roads it is a shame that she cannot send her children by bicycle to school. However, she was excited for the improvements planned and she encouraged the Commission and staff to create the greatest separation between bicycles and vehicles that is feasible.
Rachel Davidman, a representative of Alameda County Safe Routes to School Program, stated that they are in eight Alameda schools and she has new Alameda schools that are signed up for next year. She mentioned that several schools are located in high traffic volume area, so infrastructure improvements are crucial.
John Mikian, Alameda resident, said he is a cyclist, driver and pedestrian and he would love all these modes to be better coordinated. He told the Commission that the response petition that specifically addresses the car only group and supports other transportation modes received 528 signatures with 442 of which were Alameda signatures. He went on to say that Alameda is an island city with a growing population that has alternative modes and more butts on bikes will create fewer cars on the roads. He also said that the people he talked to say that kids do not ride to school because it is not safe to ride on Central Avenue.
Lucy Gigli, representing Bike Walk Alameda, commended staff for keeping the process going and listening and recording public comment. She said she took a video of a couple of the protected bike lanes. She presented the footage to the Commission and she said Island Drive has a bike path that is heavily used by students going to Amelia Earhart and Lincoln Middle School and functions like a two-way protected bike lane. She urged staff and the Commission to keep all options on the table.
Doctor Cindy Acker, Principal of the Child Unique Montessori School and The Montessori School of Alameda, stated that her family is from the Netherlands and she is afraid to ride her bike in Alameda. She explained that in the Netherlands, bicycle safety is the top priority, so cars recognize that and she would like to see that happen in Alameda. She also pointed out that thirty-five percent of her staff rides bicycles to school and there are two-year-old students that travel to school by bike behind their parents and she is concerned about their safety. She also mentioned that she has a son that was hit by a car and has a brain injury and she has a particular concern about safety. So, she urged the Commission to keep all options on the table
Scott Mace, resident of Central Avenue and Webster Street and cycle enthusiast, said he does not own a car. He explained that the mayor of Copenhagen recently visited the City and he asked the mayor why he banned bicyclists from riding outside of the cycle track. The mayor said segregation is necessary to creating perception of safety, but the ordinance is not enforced because people do not ride outside of the cycle track. Therefore, he felt existing law says I have a right to ride outside of the door zone and in the second lane on Central Avenue. He felt intersections should be safe and wants conventional bike lane treatments with a road diet even if there is no panacea because Alameda is not a dangerous traffic town.
Paul Mercelin, Alameda resident and former public school teacher, said he worked at Encinal High School and Lincoln Middle School and significant portions of students ride bicycles. He stated that providing safety for cyclists and pedestrians and balancing their needs is important. He pointed out that the school population is drawn from all over the island and he was glad traffic data was produced. He suggested that staff divide Segment 4 into 4a and 4b between 4-5th Streets and 8th Street between 8th Street and Sherman Street. He thought the road diet plan should be simple because there is already a road diet occurring east of 8th Street near Sherman Street where a single traffic lane in each direction can be found. He also mentioned that the city of Oakland is considering using left turn lanes for delivery trucks.
Jon Spangler stated that he used to drive, walk and bicycle across Central Avenue at least once a day by one mode or the other. He urged staff and the Commission to take the first parking space out to create decent sight lines because the project envisions this. He said he would like to see Class II lanes throughout the project, but he does not see how the center turn lanes could be taken out and still maintain the safety and integrity of this project with two traffic lanes in each direction. He also said that he bicycles from Encinal Avenue to the farmers market and back twice a week and rides close to the turn lane dividing the two lanes so motorists are not tempted to do a half pass at the lane split and pass him.
Commissioner Bellows said the next group of public speakers would speak on behalf of item 5.B. and 5.C.
Bruce Kibbe, Alameda resident, said the process is good and he would like staff and the Commission to continue.
Heather Little, Alameda resident, stated that she represents her family and the Plan Alameda group that addresses the Del Monte development. She explained that safe, reliable travel alternatives are important, but she said parking and traffic concerns were brought up at the previous Planning Board meeting. She felt active ongoing discussion to work towards an agreeable solution towards the Central Avenue bike lane, which will encourage bicycling to effectively deal with traffic is essential. She also pointed out that she has not seen issues with the Shoreline Drive cycle track and traffic has really slowed down.
Deena Haundrogen, representing her family and Maya Lin School, said she is starting a bike chair program like a bike library with the school. She explained that the school is located one block from Central Avenue proposal. She also said that she has children who regularly use Pacific Avenue to travel to school, which is a bicycle route to go to Maya Lin and it is important to create a safe route to school for children. She also spoke with many parents who support the protected bike lanes and she felt strongly about traffic calming between 8th Street and Central Avenue and Webster Street and Central Avenue and creating protected bike lanes. She also suggested placing a protected bicycle lane on the side of Washington Park because there are not many driveways.
Mary Hymen said she enjoyed the presentation of all of the different choices and she supported more alternative modes, safety for children and fewer cars on the road.
Vanessa Laymen, owner of Pedal Beach Bike Rentals at South Shore Center, urged to keep the bike options open especially Segment 4 to reduce traffic and create safer streets. She observed the calm environment at Shoreline Drive and there is available parking. She also has two children who attend Lincoln Middle School, so she is concerned about their safety. Therefore, she supported protected bike lanes.
Commissioner Miley thanked the public for commenting. He said he grew up on the west end and walked to Washington Elementary and Encinal High School so he saw the need for safety on Central Avenue. He felt staff was going in the right direction by prioritizing safety and he thought it was important to view the data on how existing facilities are functioning before and after installation. Overall, he believed that continuing this type of process with community engagement leads to a better project.
Commissioner Hans stated that it was great to see the public turn out and comment. He wanted staff to keep all options open and continue the process because the community is engaged.
Commissioner Vargas asked Staff Payne if there is a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) setup for the project.
Staff Payne replied the group consists of a representative from Caltrans, San Francisco Bay Trail and two principals from William G. Paden Elementary School and Encinal High School. She went on to say that a representative from Bike Walk Alameda, AC Transit and West Alameda Business Association are part of the group and they have so far met twice.
Commissioner Vargas replied the representatives sound more like a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) rather than a TAC and he asked Staff Payne to look to see if the representatives meet the intent of a TAC.
Commissioner Miley moved to extend the meeting. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1.
5.C. Review Parking Removal on the North/Estuary Side of Clement Avenue
Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.
Jim Strehlow said for 50 years he has safely traveled along Clement Avenue and the accident rates are low, so the road does not warrant a mandatory design change. He stated that Clement Avenue is for truck traffic and children between the ages of 7-12 should travel down Pacific Avenue, which is the City’s designated cross Alameda Street from Park to Webster Streets. He explained that businesses exist along Clement Avenue and their livelihoods and income depend on the street. He felt the parking information presented at the Alameda Library workshop was hastily put together and initially presented to the public as if an extensive survey was conducted. He also stated that he was extremely unhappy that Staff Payne made a statement that the Commission authorized the removal of parking on the north side of Clement Avenue when that never happened.
Commissioner Miley replied that from watching the meeting video the Commission did not authorize parking removal, but the intent was that there was not enough information and the Commission wanted staff to look at that.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he voted against Commissioner Miley’s motion, however he expected staff to come back and give an update on what the impact of parking removal would be and that is what staff has done with this presentation.
Bonnie Waiman felt the parking demand data was not accurate because the parking survey was conducted on one day only and did not include any side streets. Furthermore, she said plenty of people are willing to walk on the side street to get somewhere. She requested that the Commission not make a decision based on this data, but take into account the entire area. She signed the petition for safe streets because she drives, walk and bicycles and she felt it was time to give bicycle projects a chance because they are working in other cities.
Donna Eyestone stated that Clement Avenue is a critical connector piece for the cross Alameda Trail. She shared a story about having to push a stroller around town many years ago and while walking from Park Street to Shoreline Drive to get to the shopping mall she found the sidewalk would become very narrow. Then she said while walking along the beach she could hear bicyclists say “on your left” while they zoomed past her. She said something that changes the status quo that makes people feel safe will get people out walking or bicycling. She urged the Commission to stand by their commitment to the Cross Alameda Trail and do what is necessary to create a network of protected bike lanes and improved sidewalks along Clement Avenue. Moreover, she noted that the Alameda Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan envisioned an integrated network of bikeways and walkways.
Leslie Cameron stated that she was representing the Alameda Maritime Advocacy Group and the City’s maritime sector is the largest sector. She went on to say that the organization love bikes and the green philosophy. She urged the Commission and staff to conduct smart planning and consider the bike paths and truck routes because along Clement Avenue a number of maritime businesses do not open until after 10 am.
Pamela Corgell, Alameda Marina tenant and bicycle rider, stated that her business is within the project area, so she is directly affected by the project. She also said she uses Clement Avenue as a thoroughfare to get to Park Street and visit the businesses. She wanted to make sure that others feel like they can get out of their vehicles and Clement Avenue could do this while meeting the needs of the existing businesses and maritime community.
David Burton stated that through his involvement with the City’s planning projects such as Alameda Point, Ralph Appezzato Parkway, Jean Sweeny open space and Northern Waterfront he has become very familiar with the need to transform Clement Avenue to include a safe bike route as part of the Cross Alameda Trail. Additionally, he explained that the creation of a safe place for people to bike and walk is essential especially since it is a designated truck route. He recommended the best way to safely move people by bicycle is to implement buffered bike lanes and that would be only possible with the removal of parking on one side of the street. He encouraged the Commission to have staff perform an extensive parking demand survey, which includes the side streets that intersect Clement Avenue.
Kevin Kinsese stated that he was impressed to see the due diligence and best practices being exhibited in the overall plan. He said the causes and conditions are the primary factors that allow cyclists to get on the roads or not.
Martin Garese, resident within Marina Cove, said he uses Clement Avenue everyday as a biker, walker and driver. He stated that his favorite thing to do is to commute to work through Clement Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue and then parking the bicycle in valet parking. He urged the Commission to think about the impact in their decision when talking about bicycling because bicycle riders do not just travel within Alameda. He also encouraged the Commission to take the safe and healthy route because Americans are obese like never before and we rely on cars to do everything.
Dan Wood spoke on behalf of Bike Walk Alameda and he followed up on Bonnie Waiman’s comments. He said Bonnie Waiman conducted a number of informal counts over on the Clement Avenue corridor. Bonnie Waiman took eight samples on different days and if the City were to remove parking on the north side the percentage occupied on the side streets from Union to Morton Streets would be 77% in afternoon and 55% in the evening. He also concluded that a lot of these places have huge off street parking spaces on the north side. Thus, he asked for better data to be compiled with a comprehensive study taking place on multiple days and times and take into account off street parking spaces.
Commissioner Bellows moved to continue the meeting. Commissioner Miley seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Dorothy Freeman, Eagle Avenue resident, said there is no parking within her neighborhood so removing parking will increase traffic and the parking needs. She stated that from Sherman to Park Streets the City is adding 2,000 units not counting the density bonus and off street parking. She asked for the traffic counts to be restudied and that all of the development has been factored in. Additionally, she pointed out that a lot of people commute to south Alameda and all of that traffic will go down Clement Avenue to Park Street. Moreover, she asked if you take traffic off of Central Avenue and motorists cannot go down Clement Avenue then what will happen to Santa Clara and Buena Vista Avenues because they are major streets.
Commissioner Vargas asked Staff Payne if the developments are being looked at by the City with regard to parking.
Staff Payne replied one of the reasons this is a discussion item was because the consulting work was not scoped out to do this type of analysis. Therefore, given the limited data she asked the Commission if they want to move forward.
Commissioner Vargas replied it was premature to talk about this because a lot of data is missing.
Paul Marceline, Alameda resident and bicyclist, stated that he never owned a car while living in California, he works in tech and he does not need inducements from the TDM plan. However, he said he does need safe streets and quick ways to get across the island. He felt the north side of Clement Avenue is ideal for a cycle track because they have very few driveways and the new developments will have off street parking. He recommended if the City could not build cycle tracks then he preferred bike lanes that are wide enough to stay clear of the door zone. He suggested that if north side parking was not removed and the side streets are not sufficient let’s try to remove some parking because it is already removed near the Navy facility and the sky has not fallen in.
Carol Gottstein said Clement Avenue has always been a truck route and she felt children should avoid that street. She commended staff for acknowledging the lack of room for cycle tracks on Central Avenue and for not recommending parking removal on the north side of Clement Avenue. She said she loves bicycles, but there is a limit of existing road that cyclists can grab and legal accessibility is not determined by whether you have to pay for a parking space but by the width of the space. She explained that disabled motorists need accessibility to the place they are visiting and that is based on distance.
Sam Hensley, Alameda Resident, referred to the first public speaker’s comments about how the study should not have been done. He believed the study was not done in the best way, but he also believed it is unfair that the businesses in the area were given a heads up that maybe they could require their staff to park on the street. He went on to say that in certain areas there are 24 minute limits with no parking enforcement and that was an unfair advantage. Overall, he felt the area is a great place to do this project and he urged the Commission to allow Staff Payne to acquire funds through the grant process to conduct a study.
Commissioner Bellows replied the grant was submitted and parking was not addressed.
Sam Hensley replied the compromise was the ability to allow a wide enough street and allow for bicyclists to be safe. He explained that the idea to take parking away was brought up by several people and that should be done.
Jon Spangler stated that he shared Bonnie Waiman’s concerns with the door zone and buffered bike lanes would be ideal. He concluded that from Dorothy Freeman’s data we still have more work to do. He estimated that the parking situation will not get better once the 2,000 additional residential units are built along the corridor. He also concluded that in the long run if Staff Payne’s data was correct then the City can go with unprotected bike lanes for the two blocks between Union and Grand Streets. He did not want to assume that all the residential developments being built will be well accommodated if the parking were kept off limits in order to provide room for bicyclists. However, he pointed out that buffered bike lanes allow for wide loads to marine businesses. Also, he recommended that staff find a way to take all of the Class II lanes’ directional signs (paint markings) that are on the pavement and shift them from the centerline of the lane to the left hand paint edge.
Jenny Dofflermeie, Eagle Avenue resident, stated that he wanted to reiterate other public commenters about looking at the bigger picture. He explained that the 2100 Clement Avenue project will allow for a two car garage for every unit, but there will only be 15 guest parking spaces including handicap for all 52 units. She said her neighborhood across from the complex has no available on street parking. She suggested that when staff conducts a parking study use the times that reflect the parking that is actually used. She noted that eliminating parking from Willow Street (no parking on Willow Street in the evenings) would not disturb the businesses on Clement Avenue, but once the developments are built she does not know what will happen. Therefore, she asked staff to look at the impacts to the parallel streets.
Commissioner Vargas thanked the gentlemen who brought the FHWA report to the meeting. He then read the following excerpt from the report: “In Chicago City officials have strived to remove as little parking as possible due to the public’s general opposition to such practices and the city’s preservation of metered parking. Losses of parking spots would result in the losses of their operator.” Consequently, he felt the Commission should not talk about potentially removing parking at this point.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he was mindful of the analysis that Bike Alameda conducted and he wondered how much confidence staff had in its data since it was done during a limited time and day. Yet, he did not know if there were enough resources to conduct a parking survey in depth.
Commissioner Bellows stated that she was mindful of everyone’s opinions on this, but she felt going forward there should be a full complement of information including cumulative impacts with future development accommodating parking and a more detailed parking study. She explained that the grant has not been awarded and the City may only receive a small amount of funds. Therefore, the City may only have funds to remove the railroad tracks and not create the bike lane. So, she suggested tabling the discussion until staff finds out how much funding was granted and if it is possible to start a detailed parking study.
Staff Payne replied staff did conduct a 10 pm analysis and that tends to get dropped because there is such little demand. So, staff focused more on the peak hours.
Commissioner Bellows said the key is cumulative development, which is a really big issue and that may open everyone’s eyes. However, she felt for now put this discussion on the low burner until we obtain more money.
Commissioner Bellows moved to table the item until staff finds out how much funding they are awarded. Commissioner Miley seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5.D. Approve the Grant Submittal for Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Monies
Staff Patel presented the report.
Commissioner Miley moved to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5.E. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Payne presented the report.
6. Staff Communications
6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
Commissioner Vargas recommended a future item for the Commission to see a comprehensive representation of the staff that is associated with the Transportation Commission not necessarily where they went to school, but their experience, registration and who is assigned to what roles. He ultimately believed that they were understaffed and he wanted to know how the City could re-staff up positions.
Commissioner Bellows replied there has been a lot of discussion of staff not being qualified to do certain things and she did not believe that to be the case. She explained that planning studies do not require a registered engineer and the City hires plenty of engineers to help them with decisions.
Commissioner Vargas asked Staff Payne to present the data at a future meeting and the Commission could discuss the issue.
Commissioner Bellows replied competitive bid plans have to be stamped by a registered engineer and that has not been violated in any shape or form. She also felt they do have qualified staff present.
Staff Payne reiterated Commissioner Vargas’ request to report back on the details of the transportation staff in Public Works including their roles and the number of projects per person.
Commissioner Bellows said she will work with Staff Payne on this.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that the BART Core Capacity Study will also be a future agenda item.
7. Announcements/Public Comments
None.
8. Adjournment
11:27 p.m.