The URL can be used to link to this page

2007-03-06 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY -- - - MARCH 6, 2007 - - - 5 :45 p.m. Time: Tuesday, March 6, 2007 5:45 p.m. Place: Ci t Council Chimers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call --- City Council 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3-A. WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM (54956.95) Claimant: Jeremiah Harrison Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda 3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (54953.9) Name of Case: Codino v. City of Alameda 3 -0. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations: All City Bargaining Units. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any 5. Adjournment -- City Council CITYOFALAMEDA.CALIFORNJA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Council meetings. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY MARCH 6, 2007 - - - - 7:30 P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall, Council Chimers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St] The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements 4. Consent Calendar 5. Agenda Items 6. Oral Communications, Non- Agenda (Public Comment) 7. Council Communications (Communications from Council) 8. Adjournment Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address the City Council SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 5 :45 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Proclamation declaring the week of March 18 -24, 2007 as Friends of the Alameda Free Library Appreciation. (Library) 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public 4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on February 20, 2007. (City Clerk) 4-B. Bills for ratification. (Finance) 4 -C. Recommendation to accept the work of AJW Construction for Installation of Rubberized Sidewalk, No. P.W. 02- 06 -05. (Public Works) 4 -D. Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of a Portion of a Power and Public Utility Easement and a Power, Public Utility and East Bay Municipal Utility District Easement within Parcels 5 and 6 of Parcel Map 4013, Filed Map Book 138, at Page 5 and 6, Alameda County Official Records. (Public Works) 4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Approving Final Map, Authorizing Execution of Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Accepting Easements for Tract 7846 (62 6 Buena Vista Avenue) . (Public Works) 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5-A. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Bill R. Delaney as a Member of the Golf Commission. 5 -B. Consideration of the Establishment of a Youth Advisory Commission. (Recreation and Parks) [Mayor Johnson] 5 -C. Consideration of an Appeal of the Transportation Commission's decision to install new bus stops on Otis Drive at Pond Isle, and approve staff's recommendation to install bus stops at Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way, and Otis Drive and Willow Street. (Public Works) Continued from February 6, 2007. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment) Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda 7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any Conferences or meetings attended 8. ADJOURNMENT - City Council • For use in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk at the meeting or e -mail to: lweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter. • Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available. • Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print. • Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request. • Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. [ PROCLAMATION Whereas, in 1974, a small group of concerned Alameda residents met to discuss ways in which they could help the needs of the Alameda Free Library; and on March 25, 1975, the "Friends of the Alameda Free Library" organization was officially formed; and Whereas, this small but dedicated group of "Friends" began organizing an annual used book sale to raise funds to build a new Library by sorting book donations every Monday for the past 32 years which translates to over 50,000 volunteer hours in addition to the over 64,000 hours working the 3 -day book sales; the annual sale has blossomed into two semi - annual book sales, an on -going book sale in the Library Cafe and occasional specialty sales; and Whereas, the Friends of the Library helped to fund the construction of the Bay Farm Island Library and the renovation of the West End Library; and Whereas, the Friends of the Library generously donate the funding and their time for numerous special programs such as the summer reading program for children, the teen book discussion group, author programs, programs for Alameda Reads, seed money to start the original audio book collection and most recently, the purchase of two Microfilm Reader/Scanners, simply at the request of library staff; and Whereas, the Friends of the Library have always played an activist role in support of the Library by volunteering countless hours in sponsoring city -wide opinion surveys, holding public meetings to raise awareness, staffing phone banks, and speaking at City Council meetings; and Whereas, in 2000, the Friends of the Library assisted in the successful Measure 0 campaign, which passed with a 78% affirmative vote, to help fund the construction of the new Main Library and provide funding for Branch Library improvements; and Whereas, the Friends of the Library have contributed a significant portion of the funding for public art in the new Main Library; and Whereas, the generosity and hard work of the Friends of the Library extends to the operation of the new Cafe in the Main Library, which requires 24 volunteers a week in two -hour shifts & a dedicated steering committee, and everyone is invited to volunteer; and Whereas, the commitment by the Friends of the Library to organize and host the book sales, and now the Cafe, as their primary sources of income, have funded over $700,000 in programs, equipment and "ideas" for Alameda Free Library for over 30 years; and Whereas, on March 24, 2007, the Friends of the Library will be hosting family - friendly activities at the Main Library to celebrate their dedication to quality library activities with our community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, hereby proclaim March 18 - 24, 2007 as Friends of the Alameda Free Library Appreciation Week in the City of Alameda and join the ' . ary Boar . in urging all citizens to support the Friends of the Library, by joining their organization, volunteering your tim • : nd participating in its celebration. 10 ev. ' J oh Agenda Item #3-A yor 03-06-07 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 20, 2007- -6:45 p.m. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (07- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations: All City Bargaining Units. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing from Labor Negotiators on the status of negotiations with various City bargaining units; no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council February 20, 2007 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -FEBRUARY 20, 2007- -7 :30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council meeting at 8:30 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES (07- ) Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Appointing Walter Schlueter [paragraph no. 07- ] would be heard before the Consent Calendar items removed for discussion. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (07- ) Proclamation declaring the period of January 30, 2007 to April 4, 2007 as A Season for Nonviolence. Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Audrey Lord - Hausman with the Development Services Department. Ms. Lord- Hausman thanked Council for the proclamation; stated it is important to ensure that children live in a safe community; a youth speech contest has been initiated in partnership with the School District. (07- ) Presentation of City Map Project. The Development Services Director gave a brief report. Mayor Johnson thanked Jeanette Copperwaite with Copperwaite Digital Media for the City Map design. Ms. Copperwaite stated it was a pleasure to work on the City Map. Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), thanked the City for providing the City Map. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report [paragraph no. 07- ], the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 20, 2007 1 recommendation to amend Contracts [paragraph no. 07- ], and Resolutions Amending City of Alameda Resolution No. 13937 and Resolution No. 13907 [paragraph no. 07- and 07- A] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *07- ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on February 6, 2007. Approved. ( *07_ ) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,803,536.53. ( *07- ) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the period ending September 30, 2006. (07- ) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending December 31, 2006.] Vice Mayor Tam stated the County Auditor - Controller offered to review the City's investment portfolio and facilitate a meeting with the County Treasurer to review investment opportunities. The City Treasurer gave a briefing on the City's Investment Report. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the two manager's performances differ. The City Treasurer responded the difference is very small; stated one manager manages longer term bonds, which gives a little higher return over time. Mayor Johnson requested that the City Treasurer review the City's Investment Policy when meeting with the County Auditor - Controller or that he conduct his own review. The City Treasurer stated the Finance Director is very bright and continues to investigate the investment arena. Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation with direction that the City Treasurer meet with the County Auditor - Controller and County Treasurer to review the City's investment portfolio and policy and to report back to Council in the next Quarterly Report or sooner. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 20, 2007 2 Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07- ) Recommendation to amend Contracts with Lamphier- Gregory and Omni Means for environmental and traffic evaluations of the proposed expansion of the Alameda Towne Centre and amend Contract with Harsch Investment Realty for payment of consultant and staff costs. The Supervising Planner provided a brief presentation. Eugenie Thomson, Alameda (submitted handout), urged Council to send the scope back to the Planning Board for further discussion. Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated she is concerned with the scope; accurate traffic numbers are needed to make a real decision. Claire Risley, Alameda (submitted handout), urged Council not to approve the requested Contract revisions; the scope of work fails to analyze the environmental impacts of the entire Target building; the project is piece mealed; the California courts make it very clear that a public agency may not divide a single project into smaller sub-projects to avoid the responsibility of considering the •environmental impact of the project as a whole. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember deHaan stated the proposed additional work is a direct outgrowth of the Planning Board, Transportation Commission and general public; inquired whether the additional scope of work is covered adequately. The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the $12,000 referenced by Ms. Thomson is included in the existing traffic study and the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR); the work was performed outside the original scope of work; staff has reviewed all comments received after the draft EIR; piece mealing comments have been submitted into the record; responses will be included in the final EIR. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff would be provided with the Planning Board, Transportation Commission and public comments. The Supervising Planner responded comments would be addressed in the future; stated the Traffic Engineer, Public Works and Planning staff, City Attorney's office, and environmental consultant had Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 20, 2007 3 extensive discussions on how to respond to comments received; there were concerns about additional intersections on Park Street and Otis Drive and unanticipated consequences from existing traffic signal improvements. Councilmember deHaan inquired how the study would dovetail with the Transportation Commission's concerns regarding looking beyond the focused area. The Supervising Planner responded staff is looking at intersections as far away as Park Street and Lincoln Avenue; stated staff is following up with the Transportation Commission's bicycle interconnection, transit and pedestrian concerns; an on -sight workshop is scheduled with the Planning Board on March 12. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Safeway fueling station and Alameda Landing entitlement changes would be discussed. The Supervising Planner responded that he received comments on the Safeway fueling station from John Knox White with the Transportation Commission; stated comments would be discussed at the March 12 Planning Board meeting; staff is not looking at how Alameda Landing relates to the project. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 2005 was the baseline date for determining tax and traffic data. The Supervising Planner responded real data was gathered in 2002- 2003 for the previous shopping center expansion proposal; stated Omni -Means collected new data for the 2005 proposal; traffic levels were lower because of vacancies; the higher number was used in the traffic study. Councilmember deHaan stated not all retail is equal; inquired whether a different retailer would have a different requirement. The Supervising Planner responded the project is treated as a shopping center with a variety of retail uses; stated retailers are treated the same. Councilmember deHaan provided a handout; stated tax data was used as a base to make traffic determinations. The Supervising Planner stated that the traffic study was based on trip generation factors; the information was consolidated into standard numbers that apply to a broad range of shopping centers. Councilmember Gilmore stated the Bayfair Mall Target has the same Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 20, 2007 4 retail square footage as the proposed Target; the Bayfair Mall Target is near BART, bus lines, and Interstates 880 and 580; inquired why traffic impacts would not be assumed when transportation access is not good. The Supervising Planner inquired whether Councilmember Gilmore was referring to the total size of the store. Councilmember Gilmore responded Target needs to generate sale numbers to make the store work; stated the Bayfair Target is a regional shopping center that would draw more consumers because of the better transportation corridor; the proposed Target has the same size retail space and worse transportation access; inquired why a same size store would be built if retail sales would not be the same. The Supervising Planner responded the traffic study is based on the total square footage of the shopping center, including Target; stated measurements are made by either counting cars or calculating standard trip generation factors for different types of businesses. Councilmember Matarrese stated impacts are not being debated; questions need to be answered on whether the draft EIR has deficiencies; he does not believe the proposed Target would have no traffic impact. The Supervising Planner stated the draft EIR identifies significant traffic impacts and includes mitigation measures. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is some flexibility for when the work should be done or for adjustments to data collection methods. The Supervising Planner responded the project has been in the City's hands for two years; stated the process should have been completed a year ago under the Permit Streamlining Act; he would not recommend waiting to update the traffic study; the existing draft EIR includes some mitigation monitors. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the final EIR would describe methods used to do the additional work, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated there are unanswered questions; the Contract needs to be approved to get the work done; inquired whether Ms. Risley's issue would be addressed in the final EIR. The Supervising Planner responded the piece mealing comments have Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 20, 2007 5 been submitted and would be addressed in the final EIR. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the additional work is the result of the Planning Board, Transportation Commission, and community input, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Tam stated additional traffic analysis is recommended by the Planning Board, Transportation Commission, and public; inquired what is not being addressed in the current scope. The Supervising Planner responded that he did not know; stated no specifics were offered; staff is responding to any written comments received; the City's EIR guidelines require written response to any comments. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the additional analysis would address timing, Target size, and tenant issues. The Supervising Planner responded said issues would be covered in the additional analysis or in staff's professional judgment. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board had the opportunity to review the scope of work. The Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated staff consolidated all comments received, which was two inches thick. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether going back to the Planning Board would be more prudent. The Supervising Planner responded a special meeting is scheduled for March 12 to walk the site. Councilmember Matarrese stated the scope is sufficiently broad to allow interaction between the Planning Board and staff to move forward and make adjustments as information is gathered from the March 12 meeting. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is the comment and discussion period once the final EIR is prepared. The Supervising Planner responded there is a mandatory fifteen day comment period once the final EIR is provided; stated that he anticipates more than a fifteen day comment period because the Planning Board wants opportunities to discuss the final EIR before the public hearing. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 20, 2007 6 Councilmember Gilmore stated there would be a full - noticed hearing; the Planning Board would take action on the final EIR; inquired what would happen if the Planning Board approved the final EIR. The Supervising Planner responded the Planning Board would have the option of certifying the EIR and approving or Bening the project; stated a workshop could be scheduled to discuss responses. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Board decision could be appealed to Council, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there would be opportunities for the public and Planning Board to comment on the final EIR, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember deHaan - 1. Councilmember deHaan stated the scope should have gone to the Planning Board; that he cannot support the staff recommendation. ( *07- ) Recommendation to allocate $347,000 in Measure B Funds and award a Contract for Design and Construction Administration Services in the amount of $102,695, including contingencies, to Baseline Engineering for Grand Street Bridge and Ballena Boulevard Bridge Repair and Resurfacing, No P. W. 11- 06 -24. ( *07- ) Recommendation to authorize installation of Stops Signs to replace Yield Signs at the intersections of Adams Street and Peach Street; Post Street and Washington Street; Calhoun Street and Peach Street, Fairview Avenue and Cornell Drive; Bayo Vista Avenue and Cornell Drive; Harvard Drive and Windsor Drive; Cambridge Drive and Windsor Drive. (*07- ) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for installation of Countdown Pedestrian Signal Heads and Audible Pedestrian Signals, No. P.W. 01- 07 -01. (_ *07- ) Resolution No. 14068, "Authorizing Open Market Purchase Pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the Alameda City Charter for Repair of the Main Street Ferry Terminal Pier, and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Such an Agreement." Adopted. ( *07- ) Resolution No. 14069, "Approving the Application for California Cultural and Historical Endowment (OCHE) Grant Funds Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 20, 2007 7 Under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002." Adopted. . (07- ) Resolution No. 14070, "Amending City of Alameda Resolution No. 13937 to Change the Timing of Compliance for the Final Lighting and Signage Plan Condition of Approval for Design Review DR -5 -0041, the Proposed Cineplex at 2305 Central Avenue, from "Prior to Issuance of Building Permit" to "Prior to the Issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy", and to Change the Timing of Compliance for the Final Lighting, Signage, and Landscaping Plan Condition of Approval for Design Review DR05 -0028, the Proposed Parking Garage at 1416 Oak Street, from "Prior to Issuance of Building Permit" to "Prior to the Issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy." Adopted; and (07- A) Resolution No. 14071, "Resolution Amending City of Alameda Resolution No. 13907 to Change the Timing of Compliance for the Queuing Plan Condition of Approval for Use Permit UPOS -0018 from "Prior to Issuance of Building Permit" to "Prior to the Issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy." Adopted. Councilmember Gilmore stated she would like the Planning Board to have a full discussion on trees; she likes the idea of continuing the sycamore trees along Central Avenue; tree spacing issues can be worked out. Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Gilmore; stated planting a different type tree would be contrary to the Master Tree Plan; major streets should have the same type tree. Councilmember Gilmore requested staff to review the Oak Street tree treatment. Councilmember Matarrese stated aphid infested trees are messy. Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolutions with direction that the Planning Board address tree selection. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other developers have been given the opportunity to postpone discussions in order not to delay design approval. The Development Services Director responded it is very unusual to have sign and landscaping designs done so early in the project. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 February 20, 2007 vote - 5. ( *07- ) ordinance No. 2963, "Repeal the Existing Time Limit for Incurring Debt in the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project." Finally passed. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (07- ) Resolution No. 14072, "Appointing Walter Schlueter as a member of the Housing Commission." Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of appointment to Mr. Walter Schlueter. Mr. Schlueter stated that he looks forward to serving on the Housing Commission. (07- ) Public Hearing to consider Parcel Map No. 9286, (1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1950, 1960, and 1980 North Loop Road) to merge six existing parcels into five parcels with each parcel accommodating new flexible use building (warehouse, distribution, light manufacturing and administrative office). The site is located within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C -M -PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District; and (07- A) Resolution No. 14073, "Approving Parcel Map 9286 (TM 06--- 0005) for the Purpose of Establishing Five Commercial Lots Located at 1900 -1980 North Loop Road." Adopted. The Planning and Building Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated good progress has been made; he looks forward to having commercial, non - retail development since the Quarterly Sales Tax report shows a decrease in business-to-business taxes. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the area is parceled out. The Planning and Building Director responded the Ferry Terminal Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 20, 2007 9 area is still undeveloped. on the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (07- ) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Golf Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Bill R. Delaney. (07- ) Vice Mayor Tam stated she attended the League of California Cities East Bay Division February 15, 2007 dinner meeting; bond funding allocation principles and term limits were discussed. 7- Councilmember Matarrese requested a report on the new Library operations, staffing and long range plans, including library branch improvements. (07- ) Councilmember Matarrese requested that staff provide a picture and an Off Agenda Report on how Long's will look after construction is complete; requested that staff inquire whether Long's would consider landscaping the corner across from City Hall. (07- ) Councilmember deHaan requested that vegetation options be considered for Long's north side. (07- ) Councilmember deHaan stated Caltrans plans to replace the Webster Street Tube lighting similar to the Caldecot Tunnel lighting; there is garbage in the Webster Street Tube entryway; the fence is damaged; Alameda's gateway looks scraggly. (07- ) Mayor Johnson stated she spoke to Oakland Councilmember Quan regarding the City of Oakland's styrofoam ordinance which has been in effect since January 1, 2007; San Francisco's ordinance will become effective July, 2007; Berkeley has an ordinance; requested that the Climate Protection Campaign Task Force review the matter. (07- ) Councilmember deHaan thanked staff for efforts made to eliminate the clothing collection bins on public areas. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 20, 2007 10 The City Manager stated Code Enforcement was responsible for the removal of the bins. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 20, 2007 11 March 1, 2007 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register and shown below have been approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon. Check Numbers 156989 - 157365 EFT 317 EFT 318 EFT 319 EFT 320 EFT321 EFT 322 EFT 323 EFT 324 EFT 325 Void Checks: 143286 GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, Pamela J. Sible Council Warrants 03/06/07 Amount $2,187,776.85 $51,487.41 $463,386.71 $12,943.50 $280,153.79 $333,113.20 $36,548.79 $380,066.10 $793,233.75 $996,685.38 ($14.35) $5,535,381.13 BILLS #4 -B 3/6/2007 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: March 6, 2007 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Accept the Work of AJW Construction for Installation of Rubberized Sidewalk, No. P.W. 02-06 -05 BACKGROUND On March 21, 2006, the City Council adopted plans and specifications, called for bids and authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute all agreements for award of the construction contract for the Installation of Rubberized Sidewalks, No. P.W. 02- 06 -05. On May 16, 2006, the City awarded a contract in the amount of $72,582, including contingencies, to AJW Construction. DISCUSSION The project has been completed in accordance with the Plans and Specifications and is acceptable to the Public Works Department. A total of 3,982 square feet of rubberized sidewalk was installed at 27 locations throughout the City. Extra work orders were issued for extra breakout of concrete, additional square footage ofrubberized sidewalks, and truncated domes. The final project cost, including extra work orders, is $71,650. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT Funding for the project is budgeted under CIP# 82 -02 and Curbside Recycling Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(c) - Repair of existing facilities. Agenda Item #4 -C CC 03 -06 -07 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 March 6, 2007 RECOMMENDATION Accept the work of AJW Construction for installation of rubberized sidewalk, No. P.W. 02- 06 -05. Respect v y ubmitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Prepared by: V Associate Civi Engin eer CWChung CW Chung MTN:CWC:gc CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: March 6, 2007 To: Honorable Mayor and Counci lmemb ers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Ordering Vacation of a Portion of a Power and Public Utility Easement and a Power, Public Utility and EBMUD Easement within Parcels 5 and 6 of Parcel Map 4013, Filed Map Book 138, at Page 5 and 6, Alameda County Official Records BACKGROUND On April 12, 1983, Harbor Bay Isle Associates granted a power and public utility easement for Alameda Power and Telecom (AP &T) and a power, public utility and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMTJD) easement to the City of Alameda. Proposed improvements at the storage facilities located at 500 Maitland Drive require the removal of existing electrical utilities and the installation of new AP &T electrical distribution lines. Harbor Bay Storage, LLC has provided a new AP &T easement as requested by the City. The two existing easements will no longer be necessary. Harbor Bay Storage, LLC has also requested that EBMUD vacate their existing easement for a water storage facility which is no longer needed. EBMUD has agreed to the requested vacation and a new easement is not required. DISCUSSION Bellecci and Associates, Inc. of Concord prepared the legal description (Exhibit A) and easement plat (Exhibit B) for the portions of the easements to be vacated for Harbor Bay Storage, LLC. AP &T and Public Works Department staff reviewed the proposed vacation of easements and the new easement. New AP &T distribution lines are to be installed within the proposed easement. During the construction of the self - storage facility, the electrical distribution lines and other utilities within the easements to be vacated will be removed. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact to the City as a result of vacating portions of the subject easements. The developer will pay all costs associated with the installation of the AP &T distribution lines. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. Agenda Item #4 -D CC 03 -06 -07 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION Page 2 March 6, 2007 Adopt a Resolution ordering vacation of a portion of a power and public utility easement and a power, public utility and EBMUD easement within Parcels 5 and 6 of Parcel Map 4013, filed Map Book 138, at Page 5 and 6, Alameda County Official Records. Respectfully submitted, ew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Prepared by: 06imiL Robert Claire b./ Associate Civil Engineer MTN:RC:gc Exhibits EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that real property situate in the City of Alameda, County of .Alameda, State of California being portions of Parcels 5 and 6 of Parcel Map 4013, filed April 12, 1983 in Book 138 of Parcel Maps at Pages 5 -6, Alameda County Records, described as follows: A portion of those certain areas lying within said Parcels 5 and 6 designated as P.E. & P.U.E. and P. U.E., P.E. & E B.M. U.D. EASEMENT, further described as follows: Commencing at the most southerly corner of Parcel 5 as said Parcel is shown upon said Parcel Map 4013 (138 PM 5); thence from said southerly corner of Parcel 5 South 17°37'47" East 18.00 feet along the westerly boundary line of Parcel 6; thence North 72 °22' 13" East 25.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of this description; thence North 72 °22' 13" East 130.00 feet; thence South 17 °37'47" East 25.00 feet; thence North 72°22'13" East 10.00 feet; thence North 17 °37'47" West 25.00 feet; thence North 72°22'13" East 60.62 feet; thence South 17 °37'47" East 19.87 feet; thence South 3996'37" East 41.69 feet to a point on the northwest line of an Electrical and Sewer Easement as described in a document recorded November 25, 2003 under recorders series number 2003 - 694299 said point being the beginning of a non- tangent curve concave to the northwest and having a radius of 1141.00 feet, a radial line to the beginning of said curve bears South 56°35'38" East; thence northeasterly 15.75 feet along said curve through a central angle of 0 °47'27 "; thence leaving last said northwest line North 39 °16'37" West 34.04 feet; thence North 17 °37'47" West 53.30 feet to a point on the southerly boundary line of said Parcel 5; thence along last said line the following three courses: South 72 °22' 13" West 25.00 feet, South 17 °37'47" East 18.30 feet, and South 72 °22' 13" West 50.62 feet; thence leaving last said souutherly boundary line North 17 °37'47" West 18.00 feet; thence South 72 °22' 13" West 140.00 feet; thence South 17°37'47" East 36.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing and area of 7,953 Square Feet (0.18 Acres) more or less. Attached hereto is a plat labeled "EXHIBIT B" hereby referred to and made a part hereof. K:1Pro j eots120061061031Docu m ents\Leg a l s\Rel i n q u is hment. DO C W ro k`-). ua c7 "c51 -y) -23 rcx rcx M.C.S19:9_7:\O Kp \G� P.O.B. F��`�1 4)) i/e4/4% 4S1' U 41-0-4? vv 44, `4vo"� . 4, (9l(6° Q '�•Pp �O G f CURVE TABLE CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH C1 0'47'27" , 1141.00' , 15.75' BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES, INC. DATE: November 2006 CIVIL ENGINEERING•LAND PLANNING•LAND SURVEYING PHONE: (925) 685 -4569 FAX: (925) 685 -4838 2290 DIAMOND BLVD., SUITE 100, CONCORD, CA 94520 PROJECT NO.: 06103 SCALE: 1"=50' SHEET 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT B LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 ._ S1 737'47"E 18.00' L2 N72`22' 13 "E 25.00' L3 Si 7s37'47"E 25.00' L4 - N72`22' 13 "E 1 0.00' L5 N 1737'47" W 25.00' L6 N72'22'13 "E 60.62' L7 S1 7137'47"E 19.87' L8 : 539'16'37 "E 41.69' L9 517'37'47"E 1 8.30' L10 N 17°37'47" W 18.00' Li 1 51 737'47"E , 36.00' DATE: November 2006 CIVIL ENGINEERING•LAND PLANNING•LAND SURVEYING PHONE: (925) 685 -4569 FAX: (925) 685 -4838 2290 DIAMOND BLVD., SUITE 100, CONCORD, CA 94520 PROJECT NO.: 06103 SCALE: 1"=50' SHEET 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT B Approved as to Form _ CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING VACATION OF A PORTION OF A POWER AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AND A POWER, PUBLIC UTILITY AND E.B.M.U.D. EASEMENT WITHIN PARCELS 5 AND 6 OF PARCEL MAP 4013, FILED MAP BOOK 138, AT PAGE 5 AND 6, ALAMEDA COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS WHEREAS, on April 12, 1983, a Power and Public Utility Easement and a Power, Public Utilities and E.B.M.U.D. Easement within Parcels 5 and 6 of Parcel Map 4013 were granted to the City of Alameda by Harbor Bay Isle Associates and was filed in the Office of the County of Alameda Recorder in Book 138, at Pages 5 and 6; and WHEREAS, a portion of the existing Power and Public Utility Easement and a Power, Public Utilities and E.B.M.U.D. Easement are no longer necessary for infrastructure or access purposes and can be vacated; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that portions of the public utility and power easements be vacated pursuant to the provisions of Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 4, Article 8333(c) of the Streets and Highways Code. A legal description and plat of the subject easement vacations are hereby attached as Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall cause certified copies of this Resolution, attested under seal, to be recorded in the County Recorder's Office and from and after the date this Resolution is recorded, portions said easements as recorded on April 12, 1983, Series #83- 059327; no longer shall constitute a public service easement. Resolution #4 -D CC 03 -06 -07 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that real property situate in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California being portions of Parcels 5 and 6 ofParcel Map 4013, filed April 12, 1 983 in p Book 138 of Parcel Maps at Pages 5 -6, Alameda County Records, described as follows: A portion of those certain areas lying within said Parcels 5 and 6 designated as P.E. & P. UE.. and P. UE., P.E. & E.B.M. U.D. EASEMENT, further described as follows: Commencing at the most southerly comer ofParcel 5 as said Parcel is shown upon said Parcel Map 4013 (138 PM 5); thence from said southerly corner ofParcel 5 South 17 °37'47" East 1 8.00 feet along the westerly boundary line ofParcel 6; thence North 72 °22' 13" East 25.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of this description; thence North 72°22'13" East 130.00 feet; thence South 17°37'47" East 25.00 feet; thence North 72'22'13" East 10.00 feet; thence North 17 °37'47" West 25.00 feet; thence North 72°22'13" East 60.62 feet; thence South 17 °37'47" East 19.87 feet; thence South 39°16'37" East 41.69 feet to a point on the northwest line of an Electrical and Sewer Easement as described in a document recorded November 25, 2003 under recorders series number 2003 - 694299 said point being the beginning of a non - tangent curve concave to the northwest and having a radius of 1141.00 feet, a radial line to the beginning of said curve bears South 56°35'38" East; thence northeasterly 15.75 feet along said curve through a central angle of 0 °47'27 "; thence leaving last said northwest line North 39'16'37" West 34.04 feet; thence North 17 °37'47" West 53.30 feet to a point on th e p southerly boundary line of said Parcel 5; thence along last said line the following three courses: South 72'22'13" West 25.00 feet, South 17 °37'47" East 18.30 feet, and South 72°22'13" West 50.62 feet; thence leaving last said southerly boundary line North 17°37'47" West 1 8.00 feet; thence South 72 °22' 13" West 140.00 feet; thence South 17°3 7'47" East 36.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing and area of 7,953 Square Feet (0.18 Acres) more or less. Attached hereto is a plat labeled "EXHIBIT B" hereby referred to and made a part hereof. K:\Projects120061061031Documentslegals1Relinquishment.DOC iz '2D0� CURVE TABLE R 8 Rod 0YeivNG LINE TABLE 11111MMEMEM S 17'37'47"E MEM ME= L4 L6 MEM L8 r . L9. L10 N17'37'47 "W IMMINAU 517`37'47 "E S39'1 6'37"E S 1 7'37'47 "E N17'37'47 "W S17'37'47"E 25.00' 10.00 25.00' 60.62 19.87 41.69 18.30 18.00 36.00 ELLECCI &ASSOCIATES, INC.. 'IL ENGINEERhNG•LAND pLANNING•LAND SURVEYING PHONE: (925) 685-4569 FAX: (925) 685 -4838 a0 DIAMOND BLVD., SUITE 100, CONCORD, CA 94520 DATE: November 2006 PROJECT NO.: 06103 EXHIBIT B 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 6th day of March 2007, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 6th day of March 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: March 6, 2007 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Approving Final Map, Authorizing Execution of Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Accepting Easements for Tract 7846 (626 Buena Vista Avenue) BACKGROUND On January 16, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 14060, approving Tentative Parcel Map 7846, a subdivision of an 18,900 square -foot vacant site into eight residential lots, known as the Buena Vista Commons. The property is located at 626 Buena Vista Avenue. DISCUSSION The Final Map has been reviewed and determined to be technically correct and in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map and Conditions of Approval. The residential development will be built in four duet structures through a partnership of Alameda Development Corporation and Habitat for Humanity East Bay. The eight lots and residential units will be sold to very low, low and moderate - income households. The Final Map includes a public utilities easement as well as a general easement for ingress, egress, pedestrian access, private storm drains and sanitary sewers, and surface drainage runoff. All infrastructure within the subdivision, including sanitary sewer, storm drains, and landscaping, will be maintained by the property owners. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, a City- approved operation and maintenance agreement for these infrastructure is required. In accordance with Section 30 -85 of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), the subdivider has entered into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Agreement) with the City that requires the subdivider to construct, or cause to be constructed, all necessary subdivision improvements. The Agreement also obligates the subdivider to obtain insurance and to file security to ensure the completion of the improvements and warranty those improvements for a period of one year, in accordance with the minimum requirement of the AMC. These improvements include storm drains, sanitary sewers, pavement, utilities, landscaping, irrigation, grading, and joint utility trench. The Agreement specifies that the improvement security maybe in the form of cash retention of funds equal to fifty percent of the subdivision improvements. The engineer's estimate for the required infrastructure improvements, including 20% contingency, is $514,000; so the City would retain Agenda Item #4 -E CC 03 -06 -07 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 March 6, 2007 $257,000. This would be withheld by the City of Alameda from the $1.7 million previously approved for this project, and released to the developer once the work had been inspected and accepted by the City. Security will also be provided to warranty the work for one year following completion against defective work, labor or materials. The form of security has been submitted to the City and has been deemed acceptable by the Risk Manager. The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement, which is on file in the City Clerk's Office. The Final Map is also on file in the City Clerk's Office. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT The Community Improvement Commission (CIC) has approved $1.7 million in dedicated housing funds for the development of these units. No General Fund monies will be used to implement this project. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(a -e) - Infill Development Project. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving Final Map, authorizing execution of Subdivision Improvement Agreement and accepting easements for Tract 7846 (626 Buena Vista Avenue). Respectfully submitted, Prepared by, -56-)T1i)91fi4.ex atthew T. Naclerio Ed Sommerauer Public Works Director MTN:ES :gc Associate Civil Engineer Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION No. APPROVING FINAL MAP, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTING EASEMENTS FOR TRACT 7846 (626 BUENA VISTA AVENUE) WHEREAS, on August 14, 2006, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda ( "City ") approved the Development Plan and Design Review for Buena Vista Commons (PDO6 -0001 and DRO6- 0054); and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2006, by Resolution No. PB -06 -52 the Planning Board of the City recommended approval of Tentative Ma p Tract 7846 (TMO6- 0006); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 14060, the City Council approved Tentative Map 7846 for eight lots on January 16, 2007; and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda, CIC and Alameda Development Corporation ( "Subdivider ") have entered into funding agreements to address the development of eight new ownership units affordable to very low, low and moderate income households, which is in furtherance of and consistent with the City of Alameda General Plan and the Community Improvement Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 30, Article VI, Title 30 -81, Final Map, of the Alameda Municipal Code ( "AMC "), the Subdivider has prepared and presented to this Council the Final Map of the Subdivision known as Tract 7846; and WHEREAS, said Final Map delineates thereon for dedication to the public easements for public utilities; and WHEREAS, Subdivider desires to enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement ( "Agreement ") to construct and complete the improvements in said subdivision, and has filed the Final Map therefore for approval at this time, and has filed security guaranteeing full and faithful performance of said work which has been approved by City, all in accordance with AMC Section 30 -85; and WHEREAS, it will be to the advantage and benefit of the City to have said work performed in accordance with said Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that the Final Map of Tract 7846 be, and hereby is, approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said easements offered for dedication to the public have been accepted on behalf of the public for use in conformity with the terms of the offers of dedication. Resolution #4 -E CC 03-06-07 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the agreement for construction and completion of the public improvements in said subdivision pursuant to the Agreement and all its terms and conditions be, and hereby are, approved and the City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized and directed to execute and attest to, respectively, said Agreement on behalf of the City of Alameda; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Security guaranteeing full and faithful performance of said public improvements, labor and materials are hereby approved as sufficient in amount. 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted, and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2007, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ANSETENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEROF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said City this day of , 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Approved as to Form_ CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING BILL R. DELANEY AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY GOLF COMMISSION BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Sections 2 -9.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, BILL R. DELANEY is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Golf Commission of the City of the City of Alameda, for a term commencing March 6, 2007 and expiring on June 30, 2010 and to serve until his successor is appointed and qualified. 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2007, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Resolution #5 -A 03 -06 -07 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum February 28, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Debra Kurita City Manager RE: Consideration of the Establishment of a Youth Advisory Commission BACKGROUND on February 21, 2006, Council requested that the possibility of creating a Youth Advisory Commission be agendized for discussion. Staff has surveyed 14 cities to provide data regarding the creation and operation of Youth Advisory Commissions. The various cities contacted are located throughout Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara Counties. A copy of the survey results is attached. DISCUSSION While there are minor variations such as the total number of members, the age of the members, and the governing body to whom they report, the vast majority of youth advisory mechanisms are similar in structure and operation. The most common duties and responsibilities of the entities include: • Serving as an advocate of Youth Programs, Policies, and Services, • Promotion of a greater involvement by youth in municipal and civic affairs, • Review issues referred by the City Council and make recommendations, and initiate and conduct programs and services in cooperation with other agencies. Five of the 14 youth groups report to the Recreation Departments and 9 to City Council. Each of the agencies assigns staff to provide support to the group, but none provide for any type of adult representation to serve on the commission or council. There are currently a number of Alameda agencies who have youth advisory groups to assist in developing and implementing programs and policies. The Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) created the Alameda Youth Committee in the late 1990's to assist in developing relevant programs and services for youth. A number of local non-profit and religious organizations have similar advisory groups. Agenda Item #5 -B 03-06-07 Honorable Mayor and Page -2- Councilmembers Staff has conducted a series of meetings with representatives from local youth - serving agencies about the creation of a Youth Advisory Commission /Council. Included in these discussions was staff representing the Home Project, Alameda Collaborative for Children Youth and Families, and Alameda Family Services. As a result of these discussions, a possible scenario was developed. Under this alternative, one representative from groups such as the Home Project, Red Cross Youth, Girls Inc., Alameda Family Services, and Alameda Youth Committee would be selected to serve as representatives to develop the structure and operation of the group. Adding additional members from organizations such as the Alameda Unified School District or the general public was also reviewed. The various agencies who already have such a group recommended that the total number of representatives should not exceed 7 and should meet every other month, with the option to meet more frequently while working on specific issues or projects. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The implementation of a Youth Advisory Council /Commission would be absorbed in the ARPD budget, substituting for the Alameda Youth Committee. RECOMMENDATION Council may consider the establishment of a Youth Advisory Commission to supercede the current Alameda Youth Committee. Respectfully submitted, Dale Lillard Alameda Recreation and Park Director DK:DL:bf Attachment Attachment Alameda Recreation and Parks Youth Committee /Commission Survey W 0 L 0 C7 [I) 0 co Cn 0) c 2 c c 0 a U n Q 0 0 0. CC a) 6th -12th gr. 8-25 yrs . ) N r co . a) N r co . .. . ) r Co . a) N co . a) N r F. • o) co , co . a) N r N o N r co m co a a) N r N a 0) N r co of a V — C a ° g r a o g r CD C9 CO r N N r r -. r r . r r r r co N N r - r r r N r r r r r r N r r et i Andy Wong Phillip Cotton 2 `` E _ L i CO °� 'I0 a) ccoo N c ca n c ? `° 'V} li CO c U -E if E ti.. -E g E CD 13 'a 8 ii, N A, ccv E a� U) ]�- -� 2 ° 0 `� --7 >, c ° � m c c 6 -1,-- s �' E < (510) 747 -7529 (510) 981 -6670 0 N M 1'. 1. 1,- °D 0 0 O ' cb 1S) LC) u[) N 0) 0) N d) 0) f` o r LC) N Cr) N OD N to N o 0 r CD CJ) 0 0) O L() CD 0 ❑) N d) N [r) o I) CD 0 0) N d) N C�) 0 I) CD N C0 0) tt N i- 0 r CO 0) N P o CO 1` 0 It) CD Co r C O °Q N o LC) CD to W 4 N a °0 O LC) CD 4 N r 1� N °0 0 1` 12 t'] 1- r to o r LC) c0 Co C' �] 1� 0 in N 0) Every Wed., 4 -5pm 1st Mon., 6pm -8pm g c6 - Q N r E a C0 1► . 't E O 41: Cy) -p r E_ c0 2 E c M p 4 M E 41 a7 y E . c r E °Q 0 Cr} LD V r E F. N E .ci a F. °. C) [D 0 0. co C 6 N E 0? Cr) ea v) Cr) , Rec. Dept. Council 'c3 = 8e; a cc 'c3 > 8 'v > 8 a°) ❑ g re '0 > 88 'v > 'c3 z 8 (9 ❑ (di oC (1) a°) Cl g ce aa)) ❑ 0 ix 'c3 c 8 I — '0 c 8 'c3 > 8 Alameda Youth Committee (AYC) Berkeley Youth Commission c .a 'N E E 8 c , , Q � p E E e' N Q . 0 ›- , 7 U .0 ra a) c . 'N E � n _ 0 )- L � . 0. U N '› _ 0 m < 2 � m N H ,c = ^ Q b m N ~ c .Q N E E mQ � ► �-v B CO N . Q o ^ 03 b ca o 03 Cl) 7 Q ~ r r 0 < � _ N Q ]o- c .o 'N E E V ' 0 t - 8 o § Q c 0 C 3, a) ' City of Alameda City of Berkeley c c e 0 o .'1 U c :TD. a ❑ 0 ., U a L o = v Z_' 0 3 o C] a i j . c o v z. U v o io d o Z, U o o co a o I- U � c a v z, c3 zi. U 3 re 5 z. U U it o z. U § c o U a) co o _ 0 2 -s c N c U c 0 c ,�. ° 2 U CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: March 6, 2007 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Consideration of Appeal of Transportation Commission's Decision to Install New Bus Stops on Otis Drive at Pond Isle and Approve Staffs Recommendation to Install Bus Stops at Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way and Otis Drive and Willow Street BACKGROUND The City's Long Range Transit Plan, accepted by City Council in 2001, recommends that the distance between bus stops be approximately 1,000 feet. AC Transit's policy for local bus route spacing recommends a distance of approximately 800 - 1,300 feet between stops. The existing bus stops along Otis Drive do not meet these recommended distances. Originally, bus stops were located at the intersection of Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way, in front of and across from Lum Elementary School. However, due to concerns that vehicles double - parked in front of Lum School and buses stopped to load and unload passengers were limiting the ability of motorists to see school children in the crosswalk, the Alameda Police Department (APD) contacted AC Transit and requested that the bus stops be removed. Based on this request, AC Transit halted service at this location in 2005. When the Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way stops were in place, the maximum distance between stops was 1,900 feet, the distance between the Sandcreek Way stop and the Whitehall Place stop to the southeast. The spacing between the remaining stops along Otis Drive ranges from 750 -1200 feet (Attachment 1) . Elimination of the Sandcreek Way bus stops increased this spacing to 2,950 feet, the distance between Grand Street and Whitehall Place, greatly exceeding the recommended bus stop spacing guidelines. Since the recommended distance was exceeded, the Transportation Commission considered a corridor -wide analysis for determining bus stop spacing along Otis Drive, with the objective of more closely meeting the recommended distances in AC Transit's guidelines. Four locations were evaluated: Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way, Otis Drive at Sandalwood Isle, Otis Drive at Pond Isle and Otis Drive at Willow Street. Because of the concerns regarding pedestrian visibility, as well as noise and fumes created by the buses, the Transportation Commission eliminated the Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way location from further consideration. Based on an evaluation of the remaining stops, the Transportation Commission approved installing new bus stops at Otis Drive at Pond Isle. This location would be approximately 1,500 feet from the Otis Drive at Grand Street stops and 1,450 feet from the Willow Street at Whitehall Road stops, approximately halfway between the existing stops. Agenda Item #5 -C 03 -06 -07 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 March 6, 2007 On November 22, 2006, Mr. Geoffrey Kline submitted to the City Clerk a Petition for Appeal of the Transportation Commission's decision to install new bus stops at the intersection of Otis Drive at Pond Isle. Subsequent to filing his appeal, Mr. Kline submitted a supplemental letter detailing his concerns with the proposed bus stop locations (Attachment 2). In addition, several nearby residents sent comments to staff or spoke in opposition to the installation of the new bus stops at the November Transportation Commission meeting (Attachment 3). DISCUSSION The correspondence from Mr. Kline and other residents cited several reasons for appealing the decision to install new bus stops at the intersection of Otis Drive at Pond Isle. This report briefly summarizes the primary bases for appeal and provides a staff response to those issues. Basis for Appeal 1- Insufficient Ridership Demand for a New Bus Stop • There is no need for a bus stop at this location because residents living in the area are not transit users. • There are no attractions in the vicinity that transit riders would access via this stop. • The Transportation Commission's contention that the proximity of the new stops to Ivy Walk, a pedestrian walkway that accesses the residences south of Sandcreek Way, would improve transit access for these households is overstated. The existing stop on Willow Street is closer than the proposed Pond Isle stop and provides virtually the same transit accessibility for these residences. Staff Response: The City's "Transit First" policy and Long Range Transit Plan commit to ensuring that transit is a viable option for Alameda residents and seek to provide a sufficient number of bus stops to enhance the convenience and accessibility of transit. While the proposed stops may not serve a local attraction, they would enhance transit access for nearby residents who might choose to use this form of transit. Further, in selecting the Pond Isle location, the City's and AC Transit's guidelines for bus stop spacing were applied. Staff also reviewed the area that would be served by installing new bus stops at Pond Isle and determined that there is significant overlap with the area currently served by the bus stops on Whitehall Place at Willow Street and Otis Drive at Grand Street. With the exception of those residences along portions of Sandcreek Way and Otis Drive, many of the residents potentially served by the new Pond Isle stop are located closer to the existing stops. Basis for Appeal 2 - Conditions for Pedestrians • Installing a new crosswalk at the uncontrolled intersection of Otis Drive at Pond Isle would encourage school children walking to Lum Elementary School or Wood Middle School to cross at this location rather than using the existing crosswalk on Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way, where there are crossing guards and other traffic enhancements in place. Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 3 March 6, 2007 • There is limited nighttime visibility at the proposed eastbound Pond Isle stop and the walkway at Ivy Walk, due to low lighting levels. Staff Response: The Public Works Department together with the APD have been working with the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) to consolidate student - crossing locations, identify recommended walking routes to schools and provide traffic enhancements at these crossings, as part of our informal Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program. In fact, the in- pavement crosswalk lights at Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way were funded through the state's SR2S pro gram. In addition to the in- pavement lights, the Sandcreek Way crosswalk includes other pedestrian enhancements such as pedestrian bollards, pole - mounted radar signs and crossing guards that make this the preferred location to channelize student pedestrian crossings. Installing another crosswalk on Otis Drive does not appear to be consistent with the City's and AUSD's joint efforts. If a crosswalk was installed at this location, staff would also install a "Yield to Pedestrian" paddle sign to assist pedestrian crossings. The lighting level along Otis Drive is consistent with levels on other streets throughout the City. Basis for Appeal 3 - Neighborhood Impacts ■ The removal of on- street parking at the proposed bus stops would create a hardship for residents. ■ The establishment of the bus stops at this location will require the removal of a tree. This is not appropriate, especially since there is a limited number of trees in this corridor already. ■ New bus stops would create additional air pollution and noise, especially to the houses fronting the bus stops. Staff Response: The establishment of bus stops at this location will require the removal of a total of seven parking spaces, three on the north side of the street and four on the south side of the street, to install handicapped ramps and provide the required curbside access. While parking will need to be removed, there appears to be sufficient available off - street parking along Otis Drive. While a tree would typically have to be removed to install a ramp at this location, staff has determined that an alternative ramp design could be used here, and this would eliminate the need to remove the tree. Regarding residents' concerns about noise and pollution, this is a concern echoed by many residents throughout AC Transit's service area. To address these concerns, AC Transit has purchased lower emission and quieter buses to reduce these impacts. In addition, one of the City's goals for promoting transit and increasing its availability is to enhance air quality by reducing the number of motor vehicles on the street. Basis for Appeal 4 - Increased Costs to City • The cost of installing the bus stop was estimated to be $1 0,000. ■ In the future, there may be interest in installing a crosswalk with in- pavement lights at this location, which could cost $75,000 - $1 00,000. ■ The bus traffic would result in increased maintenance costs for the City. Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 4 March 6, 2007 Staff Response Funding to install the bus stops and associated improvements is available in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Currently, this location does not meet the State's established guidelines for in- pavement lights. Regarding the issue of street maintenance, no new bus service is being recommended for this route, and the City has an ongoing pavement management program to address maintenance needs. Locations are resurfaced once they have reached a pavement condition threshold. Additional Comments • The Transportation Commission recommended that the bus stops be removed after one year if it were determined that there was insufficient ridership. • Transit riders would be better served by rerouting the 63 Line to its former route on Shoreline Drive. Staff Response: While this possibility was suggested by one Commissioner and discussed by the Commission, it was not included in the approval. AC Transit revised the 63 Route to improve service operations and establish a less circuitous route. A comparison of ridership shows that the current 63 route on Otis Drive carries more passengers than when it was on Shoreline Drive. Appeal Allows Opportunity to Consider Corridor Analysis In reviewing this appeal, Council has the opportunity to reassess the corridor -level analysis provided to the Transportation Commission for Otis Drive. While the Transportation Commission removed the Sandcreek Way location from consideration, Council may want to include the location in its analysis since APD's initial concerns regarding this location have been addressed and the department now supports providing a stop at this location (Attachment 4). Based on discussions with APD staff, their primary objection to a bus stop at the Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way intersection was the potential for conflicts between pedestrians using the crosswalk and motorists due to visibility limitations. APD was concerned that vehicles double- parked in front of Lum School and buses stopped to load and unload passengers limited the ability of motorists to see school children in the crosswalk. Further review determined that the source of the double - parking was congestion in the student drop -off zone in front of Lum School. The drop -off zone has since been modified to address the congestion. In addition, as an operations improvement, the crossing guard has been directed to keep students on the sidewalk while a bus is at the stop. Since these changes have addressed APD's concerns, they support re- establishing the bus stop at the Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way intersection and they would not recommend installing another crosswalk along Otis Drive as it would not support the City's SR2S program. AC Transit has indicated that it also regards the Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way intersection as the preferred location for bus stops in this corridor due to the other traffic related treatments that the City has provided at this location (Attachment 5). Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 5 March 6, 2007 Evaluation of alternatives Staff has identified two options for Council's consideration. The advantages and disadvantages of both options are summarized below: Option 1: Install bus stops at Pond Isle --- Transportation Commission approved location Advantages • Spacing — If only a single bus stop is to be added to this corridor, this location would be located about half way between the existing stops on Otis Drive at Grand Street and Willow Street at Whitehall Road. Disadvantages • Would require removal of seven on- street parking spaces, three on the north side of the street and four on the south side of the street; however, off - street parking appears to be adequate. ■ Would establish a second uncontrolled crosswalk between Grand Street and Willow Street, which is not supported by APD because it is inconsistent with the City's SR2S objectives and could send a confusing message to school children at Lum and Wood schools. • While this location is acceptable to AC Transit, it is not their preferred location. ■ Residents do not support this location due to their assessment of noise, pollution, and on- street parking supply impacts. ■ The proposed stop location in the eastbound direction is adjacent to a sanitary lift station. The bus stop would not interfere with monthly maintenance activities. However, on the infrequent occasions that equipment needs to be replaced, curbside access is required for maintenance vehicles. At such times, the bus stop would have to be temporarily relocated. AC Transit has indicated that this would not significantly impact operations. Option 2: Install bus stops on Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way and Otis Drive at Willow Street — City staff and AC Transit preferred location. Advantages ■ Providing these bus stops to the Otis Drive corridor would result in bus stop spacing that more closely meets the recommendations from the City's Long Range Transit Plan and AC Transit's recommended guidelines. ■ Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way: Crosswalk has multiple traffic related treatments, such as in- pavement lights, pedestrian bollards, pole - mounted radar signs on either side of the crosswalk, and crossing guards before and after school, to enhance the pedestrian environment. ■ Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way: Would improve transit access slightly better than the proposed alternative at Pond Isle, due to the pedestrian walkway and connection through the Lum School parking lot. ■ Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way: No impact to on- street parking. There is already sufficient red curb to provide for bus stops on both sides of the street. Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 6 March 6, 2007 ■ Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way: Consistent with City's SR2S program. Helps to direct students who cross Otis Drive to use this crosswalk rather than another uncontrolled crossing further east on Otis Drive. ■ Otis Drive at Willow Street: Located near a number of potential generators of transit trips, including Alameda Hospital and other medical facilities. ■ Otis Drive at Willow Street: Located near several multi -unit housing complexes. ■ Otis Drive at Willow Street: Stops would be adjacent to an existing traffic signal controlled intersection with marked crosswalks. ■ Otis Drive at Willow Street: Impact to on- street parking is limited to the north side of the street only. There is sufficient red curb on the south side of Otis Drive to establish a bus stop. Disadvantages • Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way: Residents have appeared before the Transportation Technical Team and the Transportation Commission in opposition to this location. Minutes from these meetings are included as Attachment 6 and are summarized below. • Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way: Residents do not support this location due to their assessment of noise and pollution impacts. ■ Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way: While APD has determined that this location is acceptable, residents have expressed concern with this location because of the potential conflicts between the buses and pedestrians using the crosswalk, and concern about the visibility of pedestrians to drivers at this intersection. ■ Otis Drive at Willow Street: Would require removal of two on- street parking spaces on the north side of the street; however, an evening parking demand analysis indicated that on- street parking is available within a one -block radius of the site. ■ Otis Drive at Willow Street: Distance to existing stop on Willow Street at Whitehall Road is only 675 feet, less than the recommended distance in the Long Range Transit Plan and AC Transit's guidelines. • Otis Drive at Willow Street: Neighborhood opposition due to their assessment of noise, pollution, and on- street parking supply impacts. Conclusion: While both options are acceptable, staff considers Option 2, which reestablishes the bus stop at Sandcreek Way and provides new stops at Willow Street, as the superior option because it improves transit access for this corridor by locating stops closer to potential transit attractors, has the support of APD and AC Transit, meets the objectives of the SR2S program, and supports the bus stop spacing recommendations from the City's Long -Range Transit Plan. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The cost for each option is approximately $10,000. Funds are available in the Bus Accessibility project of the CIP. Required improvements include: Option 1 - Otis Drive at Pond Isle — a new crosswalk, two new handicap ramps, removal of one tree, two pedestrian crossing signs, and painting Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 7 March 6, 2007 of red curb; Option 2 - Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way and Otis Drive at Willow Street -- two new handicap ramps and construction of bus landing areas at both locations. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The proposed installation of bus stops is in support of the City's Long Range Transit Plan and adopted "Transit First" Policy. RECOMMENDATION Grant the appeal of the Transportation Commission's decision to install new bus stops on Otis Drive at Pond Isle, and approve staff's recommendation to install bus stops at Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way and Otis Drive and Willow Street. Respectfully submitted, eeer- Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Prepared by: Ba Bergman Program Specialist II MTN:BB :gc Attachments cc: Jeff Kline Katie Lyons, Lum School Principal Diane Voss Otis Drive Corridor — Existing and Proposed Bus Stops on AC Transit Line 63 { }achmevrL-- .� mwaN■■■.■ ia.0 ■C ir■■■■■■ m ■ ■ ■■■.LA1■u■■ ■� ■gym u U C ...m 10 December 2006 City Council City of Alameda Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Council Members: My name is Geoffrey Kline, and I am a homeowner on Otis Drive in the City of Alameda. At one time during the 1990's, I was the Traffic Engineer for San Mateo County, California. This letter provides information, which you should consider, regarding the decision of the Transportation Commission, on 15 November 2006, to establish an AC Transit bus stop and a crosswalk at the intersection of Otis Drive and Pond Isle. Representing a number of homeowners in the neighborhood, I have made application to appeal the decision to your City Council. Decision of Transportation Commission In a five (5) to one (1) decision, the Transportation Commission decided that an AC Transit bus stop, both eastbound and westbound, should be established on Otis Drive in the vicinity of the intersection with Pond Isle. In addition, a crosswalk with wheelchair ramps would be installed across Otis Drive at the same location. The bus stop (eastbound) would require the removal of parking by establishing a red curb and the removal of a tree or trees as necessary. It was also decided that the bus stop would be removed if after a year it was determined that the ridership at the location did not support establishment of the bus stop. Basis of Anneal 1. Residents in the vicinity were never notified of the Transportation Commission (TC) meeting until four (4) or. five (5) days before the 15 November 2006 meeting date. However, that is not the ral issue, which is that there was no notification of .piny discussion regarding establishment of the bus stop in the first place. I believe that it is 'only fair that input an an initial discussion of a O for such bus stop should have been made. At the TC meeting on 15 November 2006, there seemed to be confusion on the part of the TC on whether the meeting was to decide the location of a bus stop or whether a ruling was to be made regarding the need for a bus stop at all. 2. A number of speakers at the TC meeting stated that there is no need for a bus stop for the "63 bus ", hereafter referred to as the "63 ", because no one would use it. The neighborhood is composed of retired people, and the few who do -still work drive their cars to their places of employment. There have been no requests to the City of Alameda to establish a. bus stop. 3. I fully understand the policy of AC Transit to establish crosswalks at bus stops based on legal considerations. However, a crosswalk at Pond Isle would make little sense because school children going back and forth to Lum Elementary and Wood Middle School might tend to use the new crosswalk instead of the controlled crosswalk - crossing guards and lighted pavement with signage - which is at Sandcreek Way, only one (1) block distant. Many cities are removing striped crossways because cities assume liability when accidents occur at these "striped crosswalks ". An uncontrolled crosswalk so 'close to the above schools represents an accident waiting to happen. 4. The estimated cost of the bus stop /crosswalk is $10,000. This is not a priority when it comes to the finances of the City of Alameda. Also, please consider that when, and not if, an )429 Ffachryieri4- o`Z accident occurs with a school student, there will undoubtedly be a cry for some type of lighted crosswalk, which costs from S75,000 to $100,000 in today's dollars. 5. The eastbound location is extremely dark in periods of low visibility. The nearest streetlight would not provide proper illumination even after removal of nearby trees. When I walk in the area after dark, I must be careful of where I step, and I know the area. The proposed westbound "63" bus stop on the north side of Otis Drive is poorly lit also. 6.,, The proposed "63" bus stops do not serve any local attraction. No one would use these stops to come and go to and from Alameda Towne Centre or the schools previously mentioned. There is an existing "63" bus stop at Grand Street and Otis Drive to serve the 'schools. Who will follow up in future to determine if the "63" bus stop is efficient and being used? I submit nothing will realistically be done in this regard. 7. There are not enough trees along Otis Drive at the present time. Why remove a tree to serve a bus stop that no one will use? If the bus stop is eventually removed, replacement trees will take many years to grow to maturity. $. Parking is at a premium on the south side of Otis Drive in the Pond Isle area. Taking away parking will adversely affect the five (5) residences from 1932 to 1948 Otis Drive, and eliminate possibly three (3) of the seven (7) parking spots currently available. 9. A number of speakers at the 15 November 2006 TC meeting, who do not live in the vicinity, stated that Ivy Walk would be a perfect walkway to attract "63" riders to come to the Otis Drive/Pond Isle stop. This is not true as Ivy Walk is not lighted and very dark and inhospitable in periods of low visibility. The distance to the proposed stop might attract a few people from Sandcreek Way, but would not attract any people from more southerly streets because the distances are greater than walking to the established bus stops on Willow Street. 10. Otis Drive is extremely busy and is currently breaking up in numerous places. Running heavy buses along Otis Drive will exacerbate this deterioration and increase City of Alameda maintenance costs. I and my neighbors do not want either the bus stops or crosswalk. I know there are more attractive alternatives regarding this issue. The currentproposal can be summarized as providing a solution to a problem that does not exist. Alternatives priority order 1. Dave the "63" bus resume its previous route: Otis Drive/Grand Street to Shoreline Drive to Willow/Whitehall Place and return. There are both established bus stops for the AC Transit "W" bus along this route and established crosswalks. The only thing that would have to be modified would be the bus stop signs themselves. The "63" and "W" buses could certainly share stops. Also, there is lots more potential ridership from the many apartments along this route rather than Otis Drive which has few apartments. 2. Survey the neighborhoods to see if there is any potential interest in riding the "63" bus. This should have been done before the TC decision. Transit routes are established in consideration of who might make use of the service. It is not customary to establish a bus stop and then hope people will use it. ;1ccq P-tictavngird- 3. - Hold a public meeting to discuss the need or necessity of establishing the proposed "63" stop. This was not done - see Basis of Appeal #1. 4. A better place for a stop, if it must be established, is at Glenwood Isle to the east of Pond Isle. It is well lighted, has better sight distance, and could serve the apartment complex in the 2000 block of Otis Drive on the north side of the street. Its location is much more "friendly" to riders and also closer to Ivy Walk where it joins Otis Drive. 5. $jIpuld the Pond Isle bus stop "have to be" established, do not remove trees or paint the red,.` ± A Mlag" stop could be established for the few times it would ever be used. Such a stop op Oe south side of Otis Drive just east of Willow Street. The curb is not painted. Conclusion I am a proponent of transit when it makes sense from both a ridership and humanistic standpoint. In this case, neither condition exists. I and my neighbors do not want the bus stop or the crosswalk for all the reasons previously listed. We feel we were not heard on the issue, and the decision makers have made the bus stop decision based on form - a plan for bus stops in Alameda - rather than substance - the concerns of the residents affected. Thank you for your time regarding this issue. I am confident you will see the validity and reasonableness of the arguments presented. Respectfully, L''. ' of e C. 'ne Tel: 5 69- 624 ,3oC- /41--Jachatizab [Z I NOV CEWED 2 7 zoos PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF ALAMEDA 22 November 2006 To Whom It May Concern: GEOFFREY E+ KLINE 1940 OTIS DRIVE ALAMEDA, (A 94501 510- 769.0624 L E N0V122006 CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Please tre advised that I, representing a number of homeowners residing in the vicinity of Otis Drive and Pond Isle, ann officially appealing the decision of the Alameda Transportation Commission on Wednesday, 15 November 2006, in which said group authorized the establishment of bus stop and crosswalk at the Pond Isle /Otis Drive location. Both my neighbors and I will be providing additional information regarding the basis of an appeal to the Alameda City Council. Enclosed is a check for $100.00 which 1 understand is the fee for such appeal. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully, Geoffre C. , Homeowner 1940 Otis Drive Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone (510) 769 -0624 . Note his appeal also covers the proposed bus stop on Otis Drive at Willow Street which was part of the Transportation Commission proceedings. flic(clinvirt 2 50P 9 yq Hockyyt&A-- (. +AacrxrkQxr-- (c2 o- 9 a g-o-adymnt \ e h ffu2 n a phacho-u2,1+- Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer City of Alameda, California 950 West Mali Square Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Ms. Hawkins, We are writing in regards to the proposed bus stop of AC Transit's 63 line you are considering of installing in front of our house. We oppose this bus stop installation proposal for the following reasons: • We, the residents of Otis Drive have never been surveyed or asked about the proposal to install a bus stop in our residential area. A needs survey should be mandatory before even considering such a proposal. It is questionable that the majority of residents of this section of Otis Drive need or request an additional bus stop. • The new route of the AC Transit 63 line passing our house on Otis Drive — rerouted from Shoreline Drive one or two years ago. has increased the noise level and air pollution already. Installing a bus stop, resulting in the stopping, idling, and restarting of the bus, would further increase the noise and fumes in front of our house which is a significant health hazard. • Our tax dollars would be wasted on installing new bus stops when there are existing bus stops on Shoreline Drive. The recommended 1000 feet distance between bus stops could be easily achieved if the AC Transit 63 line would be rerouted to an area where a higher number of people live and more people would be able to use the bus. • We only received your letter informing us about the proposed bus stop installation on Friday November 10t, five days prior to the Transportation Commission meeting. This late notification suggests that this proposal might not be known to the affected residents. We are requesting your reconsideration of this mat -der. 1 -�3 (sue 1 o-F F( PTbcI1mM+3 Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer City of Alameda, California 950 West Mali Square Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Ms. Hawkins, We are writing in regards to the proposed bus stop of AC Transit's 63 line you are considering of installing in front of our house. We oppose this bus stop installation proposal for the following reasons: • We, the residents of Otis Drive have never been surveyed or asked about the proposal to install a bus stop in our residential area. A needs survey should be mandatory before even considering such a proposal. It is questionable that the majority of residents of this section of Otis Drive need or request an additional bus stop. • The new route of the AC Transit 63 line passing our house on Otis Drive — rerouted from Shoreline Drive one or two years ago - has increased the noise level and air pollution already. Installing a bus stop, resulting in the stopping, idling, and restarting of the bus, would further increase the noise and fumes in front of our house which is a significant health hazard. • Our tax dollars would be wasted on installing new bus stops when there are existing bus stops on Shoreline Drive. The recommended 1000 feet distance between bus stops could be easily achieved if the AC Transit 63 line would be rerouted to an area where a higher number of people live and more people would be able to use the bus. • We only received your letter informing us about the proposed bus stop installation on Friday November 10111, five days prior to the Transportation Commission meeting. This late notification suggests that this proposal might not be known to the affected residents. We are requesting your reconsideration of this matter. Sincerely, (9 of El I-Jac/Irmo-I- 3 Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer City of Alameda, California 950 West Mali Square Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Ms. Hawkins, We are writing in regards to the proposed bus stop of AC Transit's 63 line you are considering of installing in front of our house. We oppose this bus stop installation proposal for the following reasons: • We, the residents of Otis Drive have never been surveyed or asked about the proposal to install a bus stop in our residential area. A needs survey should be mandatory before even considering such a proposal. It is questionable that the majority of residents of this section of Otis Drive need or request an additional bus stop. • The new route of the AC Transit 63 line passing our house on Otis Drive — rerouted from Shoreline Drive one or two years ago- has increased the noise level and air pollution already. Installing a bus stop, resulting in the stopping, idlin idling, and restarting of the bus, would further increase the noise and fumes in front of our house which is a significant health hazard. • Our tax dollars would be wasted on installing new bus stops when there are existing bus stops on Shoreline Drive. The recommended 1000 feet distance between bus stops could be easily achieved if the AC Transit 63 line would be rerouted to an area where a higher number of people live and more people would be able to use the bus. • We only received your letter informing us about the proposed bus stop installation p on Friday November 10th, five days prior to the Transportation Commission meeting. This late notification suggests that this proposal might not be known to the affected residents. We are requesting your reconsideration of this matter. Sincerely, 30-C-8' ai--Jachnlanf 3 Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer City of Alameda, California 950 West Mali Square Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Ms. Hawkins, We are writing in regards to the proposed bus stop of AC Transit's 63 line you are considering of installing in front of our house. We oppose this bus stop installation proposal for the following reasons: • We, the residents of Otis Drive have never been surveyed or asked about the proposal to install a bus stop in our residential area. A needs survey should be mandatory before even considering such a proposal. It is questionable that the majority of residents of this section of Otis Drive need or request an additional bus stop. • The new route of the AC Transit 63 line passing our house on Otis Drive — rerouted from Shoreline Drive one or two years ago- has increased the noise level and air pollution already. Installing a bus stop, resulting in the stopping, idling, and restarting of the bus, would further increase the noise and fumes in front of our house which is a significant health hazard. • Our tax dollars would be wasted on installing new bus stops when there are existing bus stops on Shoreline Drive. The recommended 1000 feet distance between bus stops could be easily achieved if the AC Transit 63 line would be rerouted to an area where a higher number of people live and more people would be able to use the bus. • We only received your letter informing us about the proposed bus stop installation on Friday November 10th, five days prior to the Transportation Commission meeting. This late notification suggests that this proposal might not be known to the affected residents. We are requesting your reconsideration of this matter. —, tianv,s wyrotA ci 0 1-1 s � vP 8 �4l- r�chmeni- 3 Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer City of Alameda, California 950 West Mali Square Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Ms. Hawkins, We are writing in regards to the proposed bus stop of AC Transit's 63 line you are considering of installing in front of our house. We oppose this bus stop installation proposal for the following reasons: • We, the residents of Otis Drive have never been surveyed or asked about the proposal to install a bus stop in our residential area. A needs survey should be mandatory before even considering such a proposal. It is questionable that the majority of residents of this section of Otis Drive need or request an additional bus stop. • The new route of the AC Transit 63 line passing our house on Otis Drive — rerouted from Shoreline Drive one or two years ago- has increased the noise level and air pollution already. Installing a bus stop, resulting in the stopping, idling, and restarting of the bus, would further increase the noise and fumes in front of our house which is a significant health hazard. • Our tax dollars would be wasted on installing new bus stops when there are existing bus stops on Shoreline Drive. The recommended 1000 feet distance between bus stops could be easily achieved if the AC Transit 63 line would be rerouted to an area where a higher number of people live and more people would be able to use the bus. • We only received your letter informing us about the proposed bus stop installation on Friday November 10th, five days prior to the Transportation Commission meeting. This late notification suggests that this proposal might not be known to the affected residents. We are requesting your reconsideration of this matter. Sincerely, _,AtP-1\Q ?"K 5 o-C8 A{--hchnt.errl- 3 Eva & Tamas Csoboth 1932 Otis Dr. Alameda, CA 94501 Tel: 510- 521- 5045 November 13th, 2006 Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer City of Alameda, California 950 West Mali Square Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Ms. Hawkins, We are writing in regards to the proposed bus stop of AC Transit's 63 line you are considering of installing in front of our house located at 1932 Otis Dr. We oppose this bus stop installation proposal for the following reasons: • We, the residents of Otis Drive have never been surveyed or asked about the proposal to install a bus stop in our residential area. A needs survey should be mandatory before even considering such a proposal. It is questionable that the majority of residents of this section of Otis Drive need or request an additional bus stop. • The new route of the AC Transit 63 line passing our house on Otis Drive — rerouted from Shoreline Drive one or two years ago- has increased the noise level and air pollution already. Installing a bus stop, resulting in the stopping, idlin ti idling, and restarting of the bus, would further increase the noise and fumes n front of our house which is a significant health hazard. Eva Csoboth has been treated for asthma and this would be a further risk factor for an exacerbation. • Our tax dollars would be wasted on installing new bus stops when there are existing bus stops on Shoreline Drive. The recommended 1000 feet distance between bus stops could be easily achieved if the AC Transit 63 line would be rerouted to an area where a higher number of people live and more people would be able to use the bus. • We only received your letter informing us about the proposed bus stop installation p on Friday November 10th, five days prior to the Transportation Commission meeting. This late notification suggests that this proposal might not be known to the affected residents. We are requesting your reconsideration of this matter. Sincerely, Eva Csoboth Tamas Csoboth H-1 jC(d')!YLfl:J- 3 Transportation Commission City of Alameda Dear Transportation Commission members: I have just recieved a letter stating that the city engineers have proposed a bus stop in the intersection of Otis Dr. and Pond Isle. 1 live at 1936 Otis Dr, and have a large family daycare licence( up to 14 children) since 1998. 1 have been serving Alameda families for at least eight years. !would oppose your proposal and fight for it. Installation /Designation of a bus stop in front of my house /business is not the right choice. As it has only a few parking spaces to drop off / pick up children from age 3 months to 10 years all day long 6:OOam to 6:OOpm). Within past ten years living here, all my nieghbours have multiple cars and DO NOT NEED public transportation. 1 remember in summer, when city engineers were out here to measure, !told them about my daycare. 1 suggest to put one bus stop in front of the Lum School front isle because this prime places are only for teachers parking all day long ( in summer this area is empty).Another possiblity is 1912 -1916 Otis Dr.,it is near Sandalwood, ‘7 school even ShorelineDr.The other option is at 2000 -2004, where there is an Alley ( Ivy Lane) connecting Otis Dr. to Sandalwood. Thit�Tiirves a der purposifor Th city residents around Otis and Sandalwood. Within past ten years of my residency at 1936 Otis, this particular area has the least traffic and the front garden is safer and more visable for a bus stop. So you do not have to put the other bus stop at the intersection of Otis Dr. and Willow,as this bus stop would be close enough to eliminate the proposed intersection bus stop. . This particular bus stop will slow down /stop the right turn traffic to willow and would be dangerous for crossing pedestrains. 7 of 7 414acithyLen-L- 3 1 hope you take my suggestions, as 1 have been living here for 10 years and have watched and paid close attention to the traffic. Sincerely, rtA doec„. Mina Katoozian 1f3‘ 07/-s DR - cc: Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer $ O-C- 8" 0-I-Jac/II-I.e./I+ 3 Fran:CITV OF ALAMEDA POICE cITY of ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: November 15, 2006 510+748 +4641 To: John Knoxwhite Chair, Transportation Commission Fm; Sergeant Ted Ho ribeck (05 Supervisor, Traffic Division 11/15/2006 16:27 Ir010 P.002/002 to ■ _ r Lum shoo[ on Otis Drive After further review of this matter while taking Into consideration the below listed Improvements, the Traffic Division does not object to re- activating the AC Transit bus stop located in front of Lurn School. The initial concern that was raised by our crossing guard assigned to this location was that having a bus stop in front of the school with parents double parking along Otis greatly reduced the visibility of drivers In oncoming vehicles which in -turn raised safety concerns on behalf of the children being crossed. Upon investigation into this matter, some associated factors were identified pertaining to double parking, and the current design of the passenger loading and unloading zones. As a result of the investigation, there have bean many improvements made at this location on behalf of the Public Works Department. Furthermore, the crossing guards have been advised to hold the children back while the buses are making a stop. In addition, we understand that moving the bus stop to another location In the vicinity would have an adverse effect on residents In the area and would require a new crosswalk be installed to facilitate usage of the new bus stop. This alternative would not be conducive with the City's Safe Route to School Program in that there would then be two locations available to assist children attending both Lum and Wood School in crossing Otis Dr. The main focus of the Safe Route to School Program is to identify /create the safest route for the children and then educate both them and their parents on the importance and benefits of utilizing this route. The existing crosswalk in front of Lum School Is staffed by two crossing guards and has been equipped with In- pavement lights, new roadway markings, and new signage, all of which was Intended to enhance the crosswalk and make it as safe as possible. Vsuateito elrence, Committed to Service c)--1 kAathYten-i- 7 s77- rraA'3S4W, AlQmeda -Conti o Costa transit District January 18. 2007 Matthew Nacleri o Public Works Director City Cit Y of Alameda Public Works Department 950 West Mall Square Alameda, CA 94501 -7552 Re: Otis Street Bus Stops Dear Mr. N acleri o. AC Transit has been working with Bally :Bergman, of your staf, regarding installation of bus stops on Otis Drive, between Willow Street and Grand Street. This letter is to communicate AC Transit's position on the bus stops coordinated with ;M.r. Bergman. At the November 15. 2006 City. of Alameda Transportation Committee meeting, three bus stop locations (previously discussed with ? r. Bergman) were presented: O AC Transit preference is for reinstallation of the bus stop at the original location on Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way. This location is preferable because of the numerous Cater installed crosswalk safer enhancements at this location: such as crosswalk in-pavement lights, radar speeds signs on both side of the crosswalk, and crossing guards are present before and after school, • AC Transit would also be acceptable with either a bus stop at Otis Drive and Sandalwood Isle or at Otis Drive and Pond Isle, with the condition that a crosswalk. is .installed at the approved location. This is AC Transit staff recommendation and City staff should make final determination if a crosswalk alone will suffice as adequate treatment for pedestrian crossing of Otis Drive. In addition to the above, we have also requested the approval of bus stops on Otis at Willow log Street, from Mir_ Bergman. We believe the adjacent land uses support installation of bus stops and we urge City approval of these stops. Thank you and you may contact me at 510 - 8914722 if you have any questions. Cesar Pujol AC Transit - Traffic Engineer Cc: Nancy S kowbo, Deputy General Manager for Service Development Sean DiestLorgion, Transportation Planner 1600 Fronklin Street Ooktand, CA 94612 TEL (5 1 0) 891-4777 www.octransit.org 1 d;\ pi-vachfyient 5 Public Comments from May 10, 2006 Transportation Technical Team Meeting Ms. Cleves stated that the intersection is extremely busy during the week and on the weekends, particularly during organized games. She claimed staff's findings of the bus stop distances to be extremely off. She said the distance from the crosswalk at Sandcreek Way to Grand Street is approximately 900 feet and the distance from the crosswalk to the east of the bus stop at Whitehall Palace on Willow Street is approximately 2100 feet. She said the City had spent $65,000.00 to ensure safety at the crosswalk by Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way and noted it did not seem logical to impair the visibility of the drivers approaching the Lum School crosswalk by re- installing a bus stop. She urged the technical team not to install a bus stop on either side of Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way. Diane Voss agreed with Ms. Cleve and asked the bus stop not be re- installed. Marilyn Teplow said her driveway is next to the crosswalk and she sees the interaction between vehicular traffic and school children on a daily basis. She noted very few people used the bus stop when it was there. Elmer Garlets said he opposes the installation of the bus stop. He claims it presents a safety problem to the crossing guards. He mentioned a vehicle operator couldn't safely stop in time for a pedestrian using the crosswalk if a bus is blocking the crosswalk.. Jim Manheimer, principal of Lum Elementary School, said he had tried to improve traffic flow but has not been able to do it. He said the proposed changes by Officer Rodrigue along with the Traffic Department could help. He highlighted expanding the school's drop -off zone to two lanes and creating a white zone on Sandcreek Way would help. He acknowledged school staff would lose, some parking but they could deal with that. Principal Manheimer said it has been nice not having the bus stop there. He said it is a bad spot for it because it impairs the visibility of drivers. Hyo Kim lives on Sandcreek Way, which is in front of Lum School. She opposes the bus stop since there is a bus stop already about a half -block away. Barbara Nemer said that there is a safety factor with the bus stop there. She urged the technical team to not install the bus stops. (� k-\cY mere l4 Public Comments from May 24, 2006 Transportation Commission Meeting Peter Muzic stated that it is 900 ft to Grand and a couple of thousand feet to the Willow bus stop. The bus stop is not in the middle of the block. He recommended putting the bus stop by the walkway, about half way between the two existing stops. Barbara Nemer stated that the proposed bus stop location is hazardous. She said that the crosswalks are not observed by drivers and the location is unsafe because of parents dropping off and picking up their children at the school. Elmer Garlets, a crossing guard at Lum School, stated that the proposed bus stop location is hazardous. He said that the bus stops right on top of the crosswalk, which blocks the view of the crossing guards of oncoming traffic and that vehicles cannot stop in time for the crosswalk. He suggested moving the stop bar approaching the crosswalk to the west side of the Waterview Isle, which would direct drivers to stop further back from the crosswalk. It would also need adequate signage for the vehicles to remain behind the line when the crosswalks are occupied. He also requested that a parking stall on the west side of Sandcreek Way be reserved for the crossing guards at Lum School during school hours. Liz Cleves reiterated what was said at the TTT meeting concerning the bus stop. She suggested locating it at Pond Isle or Glenwood Isle, instead of near Sandcreek, as this would be closer to the mid -point of the existing bus stops. She noted that the crosswalk near the school is very busy with pedestrians crossing and cars going past without stopping for the pedestrians. APachmen� 1p Public Comments from November 15, 2006 Transportation Commission Meeting Mina Katoozian, 1936 Otis Drive, noted that she had lived at her address for 10 years and added many of the residents of the single - family homes had between one and three cars. It was not her opinion that these residents needed a bus, and she had not observed anyone in the neighborhood use the bus. She noted that she operates a large family day care, and believed the presence of buses in her neighborhood would be a safety hazard. She opposed the presence of this bus stop near her house. Liz Cleves, 1815 Otis Drive, pointed out that Ivy Walk is a pedestrian path connecting Otis Drive to Sandcreek Way. She supported the Pond Isle location specifically because of its proximity to Ivy Walk. Barbara Nemer, 3202 Ravens Cove, supported the Pond Isle location, and added that the westbound side of the street was almost empty of cars during the day. She believed that the neighbors had offstreet parking for their homes. Marilyn Teplow, 1805 Otis Drive, believed that empirical, practical thinking must be used to arrive at a sound conclusion. She noted that there were three streets along the odd - numbered side of Otis (Glenwood Isle, Pond Isle and Sandalwood Isle), with three residences between Sandalwood Isle and the crosswalk to Lum School. She noted that there had been strong objections to this bus stop on safety grounds. She believed that the site between Glenwood Isle and Pond Isle was a better solution, because it was halfway between the existing bus stops. She conducted an informal 14 -day survey, which revealed that there were seven days when there were no cars parked along that corridor; three days when one car was seen; three days when two cars was seen; and only one day when three cars were seen for part of the day. She did not believe that removing parking space would interfere with a bus stop on the odd - numbered side of Otis Drive. She did not believe there would be a perfect solution, but hoped the Commission could find a solution that would do the least harm to the greatest number of people. Diane Voss, 1815 Otis Drive, believed it was important to have a bus stop on Willow and Otis, and noted that all of the measured distances would be thrown out of scale if it did not go in. She noted that after safety, ridership was the next most important criterion. She did not understand why the bus was ever rerouted from Shoreline to Otis. She noted that while she did not like to see trees removed, she would support that removal if it would allow a bus stop for the public interest. Eva Csoboth, 1932 Otis Drive, had collected signatures from her neighbors in opposition to the proposed bus stop, and read her letter into the record: "We are writing in regards to the proposed bus stop of AC Transit 63 Line you are considering installing in front of our house, located at 1932 Otis Drive. We oppose this bus stop installation proposal for the following reasons: We, the residents of Otis Drive, have never been surveyed or asked about the proposal to install the bus stop in our residential area, and these surveys should be mandatory P A4ct_ch man LQ before even considering such a proposal. It is questionable that the majority of residents of this section of Otis Drive would need or request an additional bus stop. The new route of the AC Transit 63 line passing our house on Otis Drive was routed from Shoreline Drive one or two years ago, I don't know exactly when, has increased the noise level and air pollution already. Installing a bus stop resulting in the stopping, idling and restarting of the bus would further increase the noise and the fumes in front of our house, which is a significant health hazard. I have been treated for asthma and this would be a further risk factor for an exacerbation. Our tax dollars would be wasted on installing new bus stops when there are existing bus stops on Shoreline Drive. The recommended 1,000 feet distance between bus stops could be easily achieved if the AC Transit 63 line would be rerouted to an area where a higher number of people live, and more people would be able to use the bus. We only received your letter informing us about the proposed bus stop installation on Friday, November 10, five days before this Transportation Commission meeting. This late notification suggests that this proposal might not be known to the affected residents. We are requesting your reconsideration of this matter." She noted that this letter was addressed to City Engineer Barbara Hawkins, and submitted it into the record. Geoffrey Kline, 1940 Otis Drive, believed the Commission was looking for a solution to a nonexistent problem, and did not believe there was a need for a bus stop in this location. He noted that many of the residents were retired; one worked in Benicia, and very few people took the bus. Anyone who took the bus could walk to the existing stop on Willow. He did not want the few remaining trees to be removed for a bus stop, and he did not believe many people wanted the bus stop. He noted that he recently retired from public service in San Mateo County and added that at one time he was their traffic engineer. He believed it was reasonable for people to be able to park in front of their house. He noted that the speakers who supported the bus stop did not live near it. George Wales, 2031 Otis Drive, agreed with the previous speaker, and did not believe the bus stop was needed. He noted that the nearby condo complex would lose six to ten parking spaces. He expressed concern about air pollution generated by the bus at Sand Creek. He did not believe a bus stop was needed at all. Bill Beltz, 2051 Otis Drive, noted that he and his wife were very concerned about the traffic congestion because of the buses; they did not believe another bus stop was needed. He noted that the noise level of buses and other traffic was very bad. He noted that many of the buses were running nearly empty. He was very concerned about the traffic safety, and had seen a pedestrian hit and injured. A.) oF5 P -Flachmeerrk L¢ Comments Regarding Potential Bus Stops on Otis Drive -- 11/15/06 Betty Holden, 2051 Otis, objected to the potential bus stop at Otis and Willow George Wales, 2031H Otis Drive (2nd floor) objected to the potential bus stop at Otis and Willow. He expressed concern about the additional fumes that would be generated by the buses stopping and starting. Eva Csoboth, 1932 Otis Drive, objected to the addition of any new bus stops in this area for several reasons: 1) low transit usage in the neighborhood, which is primarily residential, 2) additional pollution generated by the buses having to stop and then accelerate, and 3) the expense that would be required to add the new stops. She recommended that the bus be rerouted onto Shoreline Drive, where there are many apartments. She also recommended that a survey be conducted of residents along this portion of Otis Drive regarding the addition of new bus stops. Jean Thomas, 2027 Otis Drive, objected to the potential bus stop at Otis and Willow. She said that when temporary bus stops were set up near the Willows, that they had a significant problem with trash accumulating, and that a chain link fence had to be erected to keep people off the property, and she does not want to see something similar happen where she lives. She asked if the bus could be rerouted to use the stops on Otis that are used by the 50 and W buses. Linda Benson, 2035D Otis Drive, objected to the potential bus stop at Otis and Willow because there is an existing shortage of parking, and because the proposed location is not that far from the existing bus stop. Lyle A. Smith and Frances R. Goodwin (email): We are the owners of a condo at the South Shore Lagoon Condos. This is a 89 -unit community and each unit has one parking space. This is the main reason we object to the installation of a new bus stop (at either 2031 or 2051 Otis) and thereby losing up to 3 spaces ! This would really put a hardship on all of us. Also, we live at 601 Willow, and until the routes changed, AC Transit 50 line stopped right at our door. So, we know from experience that not only is the noise level great, but also people utilizing the bus stops litter. We already have the noise from ambulances at the hospital. Please don't add to our noise level by having a bus stop so close to our condos. Eleanor Tulloh, 1915 Otis, objected to the potential bus stop at Otis and Sandalwood Isle. Her primary concern is that a number of parents park their cars in the area so they can walk their children to school, and there will be no place for them to park if the red curb zone is added. She also asked why the bus was rerouted from Shoreline, where more people live. Maria Li Mangiapane and James A. Mangiapane, Jr., 2041 Otis Drive (email): This is to notify the Transportation Committee that we strongly oppose the proposed installation of the 63 line bus stops in front of the Southshore Lagoon Condominiums located at 2051, 2041 and 2031 Otis Drive. This is totally unacceptable for the following reasons. (1) it would adversely affect property value because all these units have bedrooms and living rooms facing Otis Drive. Many of these units have patios and decks facing Otis Drive as well. ( 2) the noise from the buses stopping and starting all day through midnight would greatly impact people's lives. (3) the pollution from the bus exhaust would create health hazards. (4) this would create a lot more foot traffic. (5) there will be more trash as is seen at any other bus stops and (6) the loss of the much needed parking which is at a premium as you can see on any given morning and evenings and all weekends that it is full. The people making these decisions obviously do not live in the area and are not affected by this. We feel the proposed intersection of Otis and either Sandalwood or Pond Isle would be more suitable since it would impact less families, property values and parking which is more needed by residences at Southshore Lagoon Condominiums. This would also serve the neighborhood and community better. Thank you for your consideration and if you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Jim McFeeley, 2041 Otis Dr. objected to the proposed bus stop at Otis and Willow. He stated that when buses turn from Willow onto Otis that they cause his building to vibrate, and that he is the second unit back from the street. He expressed concern that the addition of a bus stop, and the stopping and accelerating of the buses, will exacerbate the situation. Eugene Placencia, 2036 Otis Drive, objected to the potential bus stop location at Otis and Willow. He suggested that a better location for a bus stop in this area would be on Willow on the near side of Sandcreek Kate Lindley, resident of the South Shore Lagoon condominiums, objected to the potential bus stop at Otis and Willow. She expressed concern that the bus stop would result in additional noise, diesel fumes, and a loss of parking for the neighborhood. She suggested that a better location would be another block down, since fewer people would be impacted. 5 of 5 fhthn1+ 1p Jeanne Thomas 2027 Otis Drive #B Alameda, CA 94501 510 522 7818 Mr. Barry Bergman Program Specialist II City of Alameda Public Works Department 950 West Mali Square, Room 110 Alameda, CA 94501 Subject: Proposed New Bus Stop 2000 Block of Otis Drive Dear Mr. Bergman: RisickL v, , FEB - 7 ' S PUBLIC Wi: } , CITY OF ALA When this subject first came up, I telephoned your office to voice my disapproval of the proposed new bus stop. Your latest notice dated January 26th indicates that it is a "done deal ". Again, I would like to point out the problems with the temporary bus stop near the old Albertons store. The Willows was forced to erect a chain link fence to deter vandalism and graffiti. It is my understanding that the plan for Otis is to remove trees, expand the curb to allow the bus to "idle" ini'front of our complex. I have a feeling that the bus will not be the only thing "idling" on the street. I further wish to point out that there is already a bus stop across Widow' in the'2 100 block of Otis Drive. Why build yet another bus stop when one is already available? I als'a understand that the bus travels dawn Willow - what is wrong with the new street past Office Max? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to reroute the bus than to build yet another bus stop? The whole thing seems like a waste of taxpa rer's money which could be better spent on bus service than on bus stop amenities. . . r • Thank you for your attention to my comments. • r� Since • ely Je . ► e Thomas ,/ Re: Agenda Item #5 -C 03 -06 -07 ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED BY STAFF (email) I am writing to support the placement of a bus stop on the 63 line at Otis Drive and Pond Isle. I'm an Alameda resident and regular AC Transit rider - I do not own a car. I often visit the residential neighborhood bordered by Grand, Otis, South Shore and the Towne Center Mali, and the gap in stops between Grand and Willow is insanely long, and very inconvenient, especially after dark, or in inclement weather. I'm sorry someone objects to an occasional bus stopping for 45 seconds near their home, but they do live on an arterial. Maybe they should consider the advantages of a shuttle to Towne Center and Park Street and BART stopping so near their front doorstep instead. I hope the city will proceed with its plans to implement this stop. Morgan, 2838A Madison Street, Alameda, CA (email) I want to address the appeal slated for Feb. 6 before the City council of a proposal to put a 63 bus stop on Otis Drive between Grand and Willow. As we try to move toward a more walkable, transit - oriented city in Alameda, I think all such appeals should be viewed by the city council as a single selfish voice against the greater good. Often homeowners are afraid the bus stops will encourage loitering and burglary. I live at the corner of Buena Vista and Chestnut streets, with a bus stop in front of my house for the last 23 years and it hasn't been a major problem. I find having the stop very convenient as I take the 19 bus regularly. I further believe strongly that if the city is going to be serious about encouraging transit use, it must decide that making transit service more available to the public is the priority. I am a regular bus rider and find that Alameda is an ideal town for avoiding the use of an automobile, something that is probably in all of our futures. Sincerely, Laura Thomas, 2000 Buena Vista Ave. (email) Alameda City Council 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Re: bus line 63; Otis Drive bus stop Council members and Public Works staff, Alameda City Council 1 of 3 Comments re: proposed bus stops March 6, 2007 on Otis Drive I live adjacent to Otis Drive and ride the 63 bus occasionally. I strongly encourage the city council to install a stop along Otis Drive that meets bus stop regulations in the Long Range Transit plan. Alamedans need convenient bus stops and encourage transit use. There are already criteria in place from AC Transit and City of Alameda plans that define maximum spacing of bus use. These plans were created with public input and should be followed. Please respect the the work of Alamedans that has gone into previous input on the need for good efficient and USABLE transit in Alameda. Do not allow individuals to impose their personal view that reflect habits and unwillingness to use transit on those who rely on or choose to use transit. Many Alamedans work tirelessly to give public input on plans, such as the Long Range Transit plan, so that regulations can be fair and accommodate Alamedans living throughout Alameda. Again, I strongly encourage council members to do what is right to keep transit along this corridor convenient for the majority, not just appease the few. Thank you. Lucy Gigli (email) I am a resident of Alameda and a regular transbay bus rider, meaning 5 days a week to and from San Francisco. What will it take to make sure the City of Alameda has well- spaced stops on all routes? Public transportation is vital to every city where people commute to and from work and other activities. And this is especially so when one lives on an island. Thank you. Joyce Larrick (email) Hi. I talked with you on the phone last week re the planned bus stop for the #63 on Otis going west, after making a left on Willow onto Otis. This stop is right in front on an 89 -unit condominium complex (homeowners) and next to the primary exit/entrance to the complex that is used by garbage trucks, maintenance trucks, and about 100 cars. There is an existing bus stop in front of 2101 Otis at the east corner of Willow where the 50 and w stop . I strongly suggest using the existing stop rather than removing trees and parking spaces in front on 2031 Otis and placing a second unnecessary bus stop. This proposed bus stop was not requested by anyone -- not the public, not anyone in Alameda, not any bus riders. Alameda City Council 2 of 3 Comments re: proposed bus stops March 6, 2007 on Otis Drive The #63 could have its route changed so that it stops by Mervyns and makes a right onto Southshore Center Lane. At the light it can make a left from Southshore Center Lane onto Otis (by Burger King) and then use the existing bus stop at Otis and Willow. To make the left onto Otis from Southshore Center Lane a little easier, you can paint a white line a little further back from the light on Otis for the Otis traffic going east. This has been done in at least 2 locations in Alameda -- on Park St near the Chevron station ( at Lincoln ?), and also on Sherman at Buena Vista. In particular, if you look at the left from Buena Vista (going east) that turns onto Sherman (towards Marina Village), HUGE TRUCKS make this turn in a smaller space than what is at Otis and Southshore Center Lane. Also, if a parking garage is being planned for the Center, traffic lanes will need to be reconsidered. Obviously, the two single lanes going into and out of the Center from Otis (by the Bank, and by Burger King) is not going to be sufficient. Please reconsider either making an exception to the 1200 -ft rule and NOT having a bus stop on Otis left of Willow, or, changing the route for the 63 as outlined above. Than you, Geri Kaman (email) As a regular rider and using line 63, as a Mom w /child, please bring the stop at Otis /Sandcreek (front of Lum School)....please....thank you. rmd 2 @netzero.net (telephone) Jim McFeeley — Spoke against the installation of bus stop at the intersection of Otis Drive at Willow Street. He said that there is already one stop in this area, and that is enough. (telephone) Linda Benson, 2035 Otis Drive — Spoke against installation of bus stop at the intersection of Otis Drive at Willow Street. (telephone) Marilyn Teplow, 1805 Otis Drive — Spoke against installation of bus stop at the intersection of Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way. (telephone) Ronnie Dodson — Objected to moving the bus stop across the street at the intersection of Otis Drive and Willow Street, said the current location is fine. Alameda City Council 3 of 3 Comments re: proposed bus stops March 6, 2007 on Otis Drive Diane Voss (510) 865 -4230 1815 Otis Drive Alameda, CA 94501 February 21 2007 City Council City Hall Attn: Honorable Mayor Beverly Johnson & Cou nci l mem bers Re: Bus Stops on Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way - Agenda March 6, 2007 June 2004 Bus Stop Installed on Otis Drive & Sandcreek Way September 23, 2004 Staff Report of the Transportation Technical Team "the Alameda Police Department requested AC Transit to have the bus sign bagged." 9 January 2005 - City of Alameda Timeline from Barry Bergman -- "Alameda Police Department contacted AC Transit to discuss their concern. AC Transit attorneys recommended that if Alameda Police Department Y p rtment and crossing guards believed that the bus stop at Lum School may not be safe, AC Transit should remove the stop to avoid liability." February 2005 - Bus signs were bagged, stop removed from service. June 2005 - Bus stop signs were removed. November 2005 - Notice from Barbara Hawkins of intent of re-install bus stops on Otis Drive Way. Sandcreek Wa . p November 9, 2005 - Neighbors write to Public Works protesting the re- installation of the bus stops. November 2005 -- Barbara Hawkins, Alameda City Engineer, asked AC Transit to hold off on reinstalling the bus stop until after the Issue has been reviewed by the Transportation Technical Team. December 8, 2005 Letter --- City of Alameda -- Barbara Hawkins - Re: AC Transit's plan to re- install the bus stop on Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way. May 10, 2006 -- Transportation Technical Team Minutes - "Mr. Knopf moved to go forward with staffs recommendation, 9 at on, but to put! the installation lation of the bus stop in order for further investigation. Mr. Brighton seconded. The motion passed unanimously." P "Mr. Naclerio said the bus stop issue would be rescheduled. The Transportation Commission will likely review it since issue". ce �t may be a policy rssue . May 24, 2006 - Transportation Commission Minutes - "Office Craig Rodrigue ue (APD) 9 9 indicated that he had discussed this issue with Michael Margulies of the Public Works Dep. In the past. After the concerns were raised, the bus stop was bagged and removed. Page 2 of 3 - City Council February 21, 2006 October 25, 2006- Transportation Commission Minutes " • s -- "Commissioner Ratto moved to eliminate the possibility of putting a bus stop at Otis Drive Drive and Sandcreek Way, to agendize looking at Sandalwood Isle and Pond Isle at the November to do the appropriate meeting, instruct staff ro riate notcci eti ng, and to P p noticing. Commissioner McFarland seconded. Motion passed unanimously, [4 -0] November 15, 2006 - Transportation Commission Minutes • tes -- " Commissioner Schatmeier moved to'recommend to City staff that bus stops be installed • p lied at Otis Drive and Pond Isle. Commissioner Krueger seconded. Motion passed, 5 -1 (Commissioner Ratto opposed). Mr. Kline who lives on and Otis Drive at Pond Isle, and Public Works has jumped on appealed this decision. J p the opportunity to favor, once again, that the stop therefore, be placed on Otis and Sandcreek op for $200.00 to appeal Way. I will gladly send a check ppeal the Public Works recommendations regarding this matter. Mr. Kline never said he wanted the bus stops g 9 swell on Otis and Sandcreek Way. No one has said they want bus stops Works wants that location, p on Otis and Sandcreek. Public ton, and they are very cleverly manipulating well-settled matters to get what they want. It appears that Kline's ed bought the defense pp M r. Kl i ne s $100.00 appeal, has 9 ense of Alameda's Public Works Department. January 26, 2007 -- City of Alameda - Barbara Hawkins (signed by Barry Bergman) notice of City Council meeting on February 6, 2006, regarding bus g us stops. February 5, 2007 -- Mr. Geoffrey Kline - 1940 Otis Drive, ve, Alameda, CA - files for an appeal of the Transportation Commission's motion of November 15, 2007. It was a well- settled matter when the bus stops were e removed from Otis & Sandcreek back in 2005. It appeared red to be a well- settled matter for a second ti m meeting of the Transportation Commission on October 25 2006 eat the . On February 2, 2006, while at City Hall, I reviewed the a file regarding this issue. Obad Khan, representing the Public Works Department (DPW), was present. I was disc of Alamed Ppointed to learn that information sent to the City Alameda appeared to be missing from the file. In the letter date January 26, 2007 (mentioned above) it states, "City staff is recommending that the bus stop be installed at an alternative location, Otis Drive Sandcreek Way." When I questioned Obad Kahn "City and • who the City staff" was, he responded by it was himself, Barbara Hawkins and Matt Naclerio y e io (PWD} • When questioned if there was a meeting of this City staff regarding their recommendation, he responded in the negative. When then asked how this recommendation was reached without a me ested i sting, he responded that, most likely, one person suggested it, and the others agreed. One of the others includes Mr. N aclerio, the same Mr. Naclerio who in May Zoo matter over to the Transportation Commission, Y 5 turned the the same Transportation Commission who in October 2005 voted a ai Drive and Sa ndcree 9 nst reinstalling the bus stop at Otis k Way. This twice well - settled matter has been a source of harassment to me and other Alameda residents for almost three years. Safety issues have been brought before the Transportation Technical Team and the Transportation Commission. Today the crosswal still presents safety issues. There is a tremendous k. us amount of congestion during the loading and unloading of children at Lum School. In less than a one-block area, attention is diverted by 4 signs on the north side of the school, by side marquee that sits y more signs on the south side and by the large, q is on the same corner. In the City's attempt to 9 ' safer, more signs keep getting added, larger p make this crosswalk triangles g ger signs replace smaller signs, lights flash, are painted on the street, and drivers should see them ' all. Now, the Department of Page 3 of 3 -- City Council February 21, 2006 Public Works recommends reinstalling bus will a stop that will obstruct driver's view of pedestrians and crossing guards at the crosswalk. As early as June 2004, DPW has been pushing for Sandcreek Way. after p g the bus stops on Otis Drive and Y the Alameda Police Department had the stops in 2005, continued to insist on reinstalling s removed, the City of Alameda' g the stops that location. In reviewing the s Memorandum dated February 6, 2007 (Agenda g to see how man of th view item), it is interesting the comments from the public in opposition of the 9 eliminated or misquoted. Comments made at stops were either Commission Meeting the October 25, 2006 Transportation eeti ng are totally ignored - oversight or intentional ` It is ! omission? (See attached copies of 4 public speeches.) is my strong opinion that this Memorandum • geared to influence the City Council to vote ndu m is biased and is Drive and Sandcreek a in favor of reinstalling the bus stops Otis Way, with total disregard for the current p s when the crossing ent safety issues - safety issues g guards are present and safety issues when the present. This Memorandum s biased, and this in not fair. crossing guards are not IF current policy is not flexible enough to alto g w for no bus stops between Ili flow and Grand, then according to policy, it should go on Pond Isle, close to the closer to Ivy Way, and safer f or all. he center. closer to Will the City Council be reviewing the inform • they just accept the views g information from the incomplete file, or will P ews of the Department of Public Works? Will ' on the corner of Otis Drive and Sandcreek the City Council stand ek Way when children are being eliver picked up from Lum Elementary School? Will 9 ed and realize the hazards the City Council observe the congestion s bus stops in front of a school and park crosswalk a and City Council talk to the crossing guards p sswalk would present? Will the Council t g 9 rds who experience the dangers first hand? • talk to the neighbors who watch the daily crossing d. lltilrll the City the inattentive drivers? Will the Y ass�ng and the speeding vehicles and City Council watch the crosswalk when no • present? o crossing guard is Again, let me express my request that ou Y do not approve the installation of bus stops on Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way. Thank you for your time and attention. Ve truly yours, Diane Voss 6,3 P.S. The red curb on the north side of O Drive and Sandcreek Way was than 10 years ago tis Dri a i nted Y go for safety reasons, not for a bus stop. p red more p cc: Vice Mayor Lena Tam Councilmember Marie Gilmore Councilmember Doug deHaan Councilmember Frank Materrese Attachments: 4 1 Attachment: City Council Letter 2/5/07 Public Comments from October 25, 2006 Transportation sportation Commission Meeting Liz Cleves, If you visit the crosswalk at Otis and • . d Sandcreek, you will notice the skid marks street. In. spite of all the safety measures on the tY that the City has put in place, this is still a dangerous crosswalk. In a summary timeline attached to a Jul 25, 2006 � . in July � letter from Alameda 's City Engineer, it states January 2005, "Alameda Police Department g . � tes that p ent contacted AC Transit to discuss their concern. AC s attorneys recommended that if Al C Alameda Police Department and crossin guards believed g �' elieved that the bus stop at Lum School ma y of be safe, AC Transit should remove the stop In February 2005 the stop was p to avoid p as removed from service. Why would the City of Al give AC Transit the approval needed to tY Alameda pp even consider reinstalling a bus stop on Otis and Sandcreek Way? Does the Alameda Police Department no long have any safety concerns about a mid-block stop near Lum School? block Yes, there are crossing guards at the crosswalk during during school hours. What about the hours the crossing sand days g guards are not at the crosswalk? The Attachment 1 to the Transportation Commission's p mmission s Agenda sheet states that lacin a bu Otis and Sandalwood or Otis and Pond Isle would p g s stop on void eliminate parking spaces. There are only ' family homes on these streets. The west bound y single and side has only three houses on each black . between and more than ample on- street parking. On Otis, tween Sandalwood Isle and Pond Isle, there is on- street parking spaces for 8 to 10 cars. Almost a currently an the same amount of spaces apply to the area Isle and Glenwood Isle. Very, Pp Y ea between ry, very rarely is there ever a car even arked on those for a bus stop, p e two streets. If You take away 2 or 3 spaces op, that would still leave 5 - 7 spaces available homes on each street in that area. p e for each the Many of my neighbors and I favor a bus stop • p on the corner of Otis and Pond Isle. Pond is of Otis s across the street from Ivy Way. Residents living tis can assess the street from Ivy Way. would a mid -block bus stop. Yes, a new marked Y old NOT ed crosswalk would be required and it would residents would greatly appreciate con ' old be one • pp sidering the current distance between crosswalks to Sandcreek Way. crosswalk walks from Y swalk would help many who currently cross without of a crosswalk. y Otis without the Recently I spoke to a neighbor who lives on ' Dtis near the corner of Pond Isle The bus her home her off across the street front had dust let home. Although this is not a designated bus stop to stop there p , she said she pleaded with the driver e because she could not walk the great distance or Sandcreek Way to get to Lance from either Y g her home. Safety is always an issue when it comes to pedestrians pedestrians at a bus stop. But safety beco more of an issue when a bus blocks a drivers tY ores even vers view of small children crossing the street on their and from school, or children crossing the street eir way their • g Feet on weekends to go to the park. Please do eir safety at further risk by reinstalling this bus not put Many g s stop at Otis and Sandcreek. y Alameda residents question why AC Transit have Y sit chose to remove the bus on Shoreline Drive aye the bus run on Otis. It seems logical that rive and • g t the criteria for a bus line depends on ridership. • Drive is a low density area with single family p ership. Otis g amily houses verses Shoreline, which is medium • mostly apartments and condos. ilium density with And most important, hundreds of children • to go to school. da not cross Shoreline Drive daily g Attachment: City Council Letter 2/5/07 Public Comments from October 25, 2006 Transportation Commission Meeting Shannon Nicholson, According to AC Transit's Board Policy No. 508, the ultimate decision for placement of a bus stop is made by the jurisdiction in which ch the stop is located. It also states that bus stops must be convenient to the places where passengers wish sh to go. One must question how many passengers wish to go to the area near Otis and Sandcreek Way. We • y e know that the children attending Lum School are not the passengers. The Policy also states, (quote) Outside the downtown areas,. AC Transit generally seeks to have bus stops 1,000 feet apart (end of quote). The westboun d distance stance between Sandcreek Way stop on Grand is approximately y and the P pp imately 900 feet. The distance between Otis and Sandcreek Whitehall eek and the east bound bus stop tehall Place is approximately 2100 feet. The distance • ASSUMES that �a bus stop is going to given on your matrix P g g o be added at the intersection of Otis Drive and Willow that w Street. At this time, I feel strongly y t we need to deal with actual bus stops, not assumed stops. The policy also says that far -side stops are the . on p e preferable choice in general because they, other points, encourage pedestrian crossing at rear y' g ar of the bus. According to the AC Transit Policy, (quote) Mid -stop blocks are considered special case ase stops and are to be used only when no other alternative is available and only upon the approval of the Transit Projects Coordinator nator and the municipality where the bus stop will be located of u (end quote). A stop on Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way would be a mid -block stop. There ARE other alternatives. atives You have shown the alternatives on your own attachment sheet described as Otis Drive Potential Location ' n Evaluation. Policy No. 508 states, (quote) In the event the District receives eaves a request to remove or relocate a bus stop, District staff will first analyze the request, and, Y q � , if necessary, consult with the appropriate jurisdiction's staff' (end of quote). One can only assume � y ume that the Transportation Commission analyzed the Otis Drive and Sandcreek stop, proceeded P? P, with necessary consultations, and after doing made the decision to remove that bus stop in Feb 2�� g the P February 2005. The Alameda Police Department, e crossing guards, the Lum School al Princi , and many Alameda removal. P y arneda residents requested and approved Why are AC Transit and the City of Alameda reversing decision g their decision and considering the reinstallation of this dangerous mid -block bus stop? After rev' P sewing the AC Transit Board Policy, it appears that a mid-block . front of a crosswalk P ock bus stop, directly in sswalk used primarily by children, even when crossing guards are not present, would not be in the ,best interest of AC Transit or the City of Alamed i Alameda. It most definitely would not be in interest best nterest of the children and other crosswalk pedestrians. Attachment: City Council Letter 2/5/07 Public Comments from October 25, 2006 Transportation • p n Cvmmxssion Meeting Barbara Nemer, If you visit the crosswalk at Otis and Sandcreek, you will notice the skid marks on the street. In spite of all the safety measures that the City has as put in place, this is still a dangerous crosswalk. In a summary timeline attached to a Jul 25, 2006 letter from . in . July � m Alameda s City Engineer, it states that in January 2005 (Quote) Alameda Police Department contacted • . , P ted AC Transit to discuss their concern. AC Transit's attorneys recommended that if Alameda Police Department and crossing guards believed that the bus stop at Lum School may not be Transit .. Y safe, AC Transit should remove the stop to avoid liability (end of quote). In Feb 2005 the p City February stop was removed from service. Why would the City of Alameda give AC Transit the approval needed to • Otis Pp even consider reinstalling a bus stop on Otis And Sandcreek Way? The timeline attachment also states that in October 2005 (Quote) AC Transit Engineer requested a letter from the Alameda Police Department that the q • P crossing guards have been trained to work in conjunction with the bus stop (end of quote). What about the hours • and days that the crossing guards are not at the crosswalk? AC Transit should also be concerned about hours and days when no crossing guard is present at the bus stop. Your spreadsheet states that placing a bus stop on Otis • . p and Sandalwood or Otis and Pond Isle would eliminate parking spaces. There are only single family Y gl y homes on these streets. All have garages, all have driveways. The west bound side has only three houses on each block and more than parking. On Otis, between an ample on- street Sandalwood Isle and Pond Isle there is currently on-street . space for 8 to 10 cars. The same Y street parking amount of space applies to the area between Pond Isle and Glenwood Isle. Very, very rarely is there ever a car ark p ed on those two streets. If you take awa 2 or 3 spaces for a bus stop, that would still leave 5 - 7 y spaces available for each the three homes in that area. Let me remind you that for more than 10 years, the 3 homes • Y a es an west bound side of Otis Drive between Sandalwood Isle and Waterview Isle, have . . had only four on-street parking spaces. One is used daily by the crossing d, and two o f the p �' a other three are usually occupied by employees of Lum School, leaving only one on- street parking y This p king space for the three residents. This morning I spoke to a neighbor who lives on Otis just near the comer of Pond Isle The bus had let her off across the street from her home. Although gh this is not a designated bus stop , she said she pleaded with the driver because she could not w p walk the great distance between either Willow Way. She said that a bus stop middle the midd war e between Willow and Sandcreek would be so appreciated by residents, especially the many older residents • bus Y who live on Otis Drive. She also said us drivers have complained to her about their fears of stopping ' in n front of the Sandcreek Way Over and over again, you have heard and read the opposition of the crossing guards, the Alameda Police, and residents of Alameda to a bus stop on Otis City p ti s and Sandcreek Way. Why would the C i give AC Transit approval to reinstall a bus stop � p at a location that would further impair the safety of all pedestrians using the crosswalk on all days times? p tY y at all times . Attachment: City Council Letter 2/5/07 Public Comments from October 25, 2006 Transportation ation Oomm�ssi on Meeting Diane Voss, A front page article in the Alameda Journal dated September 5, 2006, referred to the crossing guards as the "sentinels of safety". We must not of ignore the opithon of the crvssin guards. They have stood before this comm the transportation techni ission and g technical team. They written letters to the City authorities and they Y tY ey have said the same thing over and ... a bus top at Otis and Sandcreek g over again . ek crosswalk would be unsafe. And yet, in spite of the serious safety concerns raised • �' by the Alameda Police Department, crossing guards, and residents, a spread sheet has P � ossing P been prepared still showing the location at Otis Way as a potential site s Dive and Y p to for a bus stop. This sheet uses measurements between let me etween bus stops on an ASSUMED, e emphasize ASSUMED bus stop bein g placed on Otis Drive & Willow . By using distance measurements on the ASSUMED future placement comparisons slant re P of a bus stop, the cam P reality, and they are misleading. The spread sheet states that the curb at the Otis & Sandcreek location location is currently red due to previous status as bus stop. This is so not true. This curb ' urb has been painted red for over 10 y long before a AC transit bus was Otis Drive.. The curb y running on was painted red man ears oncoming vehicles near as a safety factor, in order to have clear vision of Y y ear the crosswalk. The spreadsheet states that no additional signage This gnag is required at the Otis & Sandcreek location. This also is incorrect. A new sign would be needed . � ed far the bus stop. There are already four signs that location, plus a radar speed sign near this 2 Y �s . � location. In addition to the signage, there are large diamonds painted on the street and there ' are �n- pavement flashing lights. It would only fair to say that one more sign would, in fact, be y Visibility � t, considered sign cutter. isibillty is good on bright sunny days. But what a bout the dark rainy ny days. How would the safety of the Otis Sandcreek crosswalk be comprised p d by a bus blacking the view of pedestrians, as well as blocking the signage? The sheet does not include one most important factor. children. actor. The children. Every day hundreds of children use the crosswalk at Otis and Sandcreek. • . A bus top at either the two other locations would not have hundreds of children crossing eve ry day at their n respecti ve location. The crossing guards have been trained to protect children. p t the children. But we must remember that crossing guards will not be at the Otis and Sandcreek cross sling walk all day and night. They are there on week days for 2 hours in the morning and 3 hours in • . g the afternoon. The bus could possibly stop many every day, both day and night P Y P any y gh one side of Otis Drive or the other side. three potential locations. In comparing the When considering the number of children, citizens citizens and adults who use this crosswalk . a bus stop at this location has a far greater potential for a tragic accident in comparison to other two listed on the spreadsheet. Safety should first and foremost. allowing ost. Please do not compromise safety by g a bus stop to be reinstalled on Otis Drive & Sandcreek Way. Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer City of Alameda, CA 950 West Mali Square Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Ms. Hawkins, February 22, 2007 am writing in regards to the proposed bus stop for #63 that you are considering placing in front of the homes of the Southshore Lagoon Condominium homeowner complex. We, the homeowners oppose the bus stop on the west side of Willow on Otis Drive for the following reasons: 0 It is Unsafe for Pedestrians. The bus stop is planned to be located right next to our vehicle entrance/exit, which is the primary entrance/exit for the South Shore Lagoon Condominiums, a 89 -unit HOMEOWNER complex. This entrance/exit is used by garbage trucks, contractors, roofers, painters, landscapers, and the various maintenance trucks that keep the SSL homeowner complex in shape. It is also the primary daily entrance/exit for 100 cars belonging to the property - tax - paying homeowners who live there. Additionally, it is used by the contractors hired by the homeowners for floor installation, window installation, painting, as well as by electricians (in trucks), plumbers (in trucks), and other maintenance staff (in trucks). The crosswalk is on the other side of this entrance/exit. Bus riders will have to compete for crossing rights with the cars and trucks using this exitlentrance. The security gate has timed closing (not motion- sensitive or weight -based closing) which means that those exiting our homeowner complex must do so promptly or else the swinging gate will hit their vehicle. Adding a bus stop next to the primary exitlentrance means that the vehicle owners simultaneously must watch for bus passengers crossing in front of them, for the gate swinging shut behind them, and for traffic on Otis Drive which they are trying to enter. 0 It is Unsafe for Traffic. Homeowner vehicles entering /exiting the SSL condo complex will be making left/right turns onto Otis without adequate visual information to safely complete the turn. Also, Busses that do not pull all the way into the bus space on the street will be blocking our right -of -way. The City will be faced with lawsuits for accidents caused by this poor placement of a bus stop. 0 Opposition by Homeowners. Attached to this letter is a petition signed by 62 Alamedans who are homeowners that live at Southshore Lagoon Condominium, are residents that drive vehicles into /out of the 89 -unit complex, are homeowners that live on Otis Drive, and others who OPPOSE placing a bus stop on Otis Drive west of Willow in front of the Southshore Lagoon Condominium homeowner complex. (see attachment) 0 Conflict with Street Furniture. Otis Drive (near the exitlentrance of the 89 -unit homeowner complex) is where we place the blue recycling bins (15 -20 bins) for emptying and pickup. It would be detrimental to our community and to the city if vandals were to turn over these bins and spew the contents into the street and our entrance/exit. By placing a bus stop so close to an easy target, you are inviting abuse. 0 It Will NOT Enhance Transit Access. One reason given by the Transportation Committee for the bus stop west of Willow on Otis Drive is that it would enhance transit access to /from Alameda Hospital and nearby medical facilities or apartment complexes. Page 1 of 2 It would NOT. The proposed bus stop is 2/3 of a block down Otis and away from Willow. It would be in front of homes -- there are no apartment buildings west of Willow on Otis. Some passengers mistakenly may believe they can reach the hospital by taking a shortcut through our homeowner complex. There is no access to the hospital through our homeowner complex. The bus stop that WOULD improve transit access to the hospital and nearby medical facilities would be the pre - existing westbound bus stop on the corner of Willow. (This bus stop was not indicated on the "Otis Drive Corridor attachment #1 map in the Feb 6,2007 minutes.) The pre- existing and functional westbound bus stop on Otis at Willow is in front of an apartment building at 2101 Otis (it is on Otis on the east corner of Willow ). This bus stop is on the same side of the street as many multi -use apartment buildings. This stop is at the corner where crosswalks are in place in both directions and give the closest access to the hospital and nearby medical facilities. 0 It is Unnecessary when an Existing Bus Stop Exists. There is an existing westbound bus stop in front of 2101 Otis at the east corner of Willow where the 50 and W stop. 1 strongly suggest using the existing stop rather than removing trees and parking spaces in front of homes on Otis and placing a second unnecessary bus stop. The #63 could have its route changed so that it stops by Mervyns and makes a right onto Southshore Center Lane. if the turn is too narrow at Mervyns, then use the proposed funds to widen the lane. Or consider improved traffic lanes in the traffic planning for the Center. A bus rest stop in the Center makes more sense than in front of our homes. At the light, the bus can make a left from Southshore Center Lane onto Otis (by Burger King) and then use the existing bus stop at Otis and Willow. A white line could be painted a little further back from the light on Otis for the Otis traffic going east. This has been done in at least two locations in Alameda -- on Park St near the Chevron station ( at Lincoln ?), and also on Sherman at Buena Vista. In particular, if you look at the left from Buena Vista (going east) that turns onto the one -lane on Sherman (towards Marina Village), HUGE TRUCKS make this turn in a smaller space than what is at Otis (a four -lane street) from Southshore Center Lane. 1 also believe the #19 bus makes a left turn from Sherman onto the one lane of Buena Vista (going east). If a bus can make a left turn from one lane to another one -lane street, then it certainly seems possible that a bus could make a left turn across a four-lane street with little difficulty. We strongly urge you to either reconsider the placement of the bus stop to a more safe location, or, to make an exception to the 1200-ft guideline and to NOT place a bus stop on Otis Drive west of Willow in front of our homes. incerely, ' k'kit a444-11/1/\_■ Geri Kaman 2027 Otis Drive attachment: Petition to Oppose Bus Stop on Otis Drive west of Willow Page2of2 Co- PY Uriina -C n (jh- flare /mains, PETITION TO OPPOSE THE BUS STOP ON OTIS, WEST OF WILLOW. We, the undersigned, believe that the placement of a bus stop on Otis Drive west of willow Street which is in front of the Southshore Lagoon Condominium would be detrimental to our community. Name 1 GI Se) 1 6 C.11 kJ er z � IIi�C'G R")e''t3 3 7L- 's g /(S 4 MVJA,_ 5 J1 Mnill4 capitte._ AtFt-- 7 61„.0AA Address Date 17 20 wad gidaa)cl Dk-(5 a033 p1-LS p±t,4 ava, OTsS D 4j: �y A6-5 I (I) 3o 31 -Cr �r,s rk a7e1■7" (V5 p/1 Zdc5 0775 t-)T1 zr0 oa; c:y.:½t 0.21 / 612 A/17/6 ziroz) 2/1 7 07 PETITION TO OPPOSE THE BUS STOP ON OTIS, WEST OF WILLOW. We, the undersigned, believe that the placement of a bus stop on Otis Drive west of Willow Street which is in front of the Southshore Lagoon Condominium would be detrimental to our community. Name 21 11 r,.1,1/42 Ili 22 23 71((eA44/4/),&"�V 24 Cg,t,Ka-4 QmoLa, cs� 25(-KCt -Y1 U-S 6.J 26 30 � > 31 &,2-4) it0/1-7-11 r MC nA WO\/ 1\40V6tAiti 32 33 Address Date U ti.l—e /i9/o7 did,, )iiS DQ44� � Or/ _S 42763s Ott,) .D(;a 2l/ 6.7 ;\3, (poi 2QZ�- �s Viz. z -iX -off. goy \ -L :T/5 PR/ GD 1 LA j---1 - a�a.� 0V73 61e.4,--c. 02./807 g.t72 6 oTIC OK 2033 g OT(S 34 Srfry/40-YL-■ v.--7 0,Z.,; a. k o � 35 a-aa9 014 r F- 36 /5-1 -l?D 37 - /7-6 ki 39 JLic�..n.Z �n we, 40 61/1/W7. /V- a-t/5- 1 ‘/SW/LL o'$(T7Yf PETITION TO OPPOSE THE BUS STOP ON OTIS, WEST OF WILLOW. We, the undersigned, believe that the placement of a bus stop on Otis Drive west of Willow Street which is in front of the Southshore Lagoon Condominium would be detrimental to our community. 41 Name 42 lPET WETh&FE 43 StrNe (Ur\ (pcvt 44 �7" Nau\i/GP 45 VtmIL: 46 VI 1 6-0131 tekLi 47 48_1aLT,A_ --1- 49 50 1 ?4 a Address Date 2pq I Otis � raFryuto� eA 2Jj API-4k F 2oqL 0115 D2• RLnneon Cry o-'l cis Dv 4tcut4 t 17;z-7 0- r ALAMEM- Cfr--- 001 2-0 017 ors i ,721 l°l/4- 020019 oT� 92 � 02/020%-T peX Fe446i- if-) A ti 0-LJ rz4c)/or7z 64_c Zi); //.6fa) -.0qJ -d ,�cl wM■141) yr- a. &147 WI(In.) 51 eA gte7 ci 4 ae.t., - scP2"-ii 55 cictrc‘.o (p 11 0 "h-5 56 `-/P/ cf/Cs 6(r- -(56M7 57 ;,o 3 s- — _to 58 (4_ )af'7/.f / z!_' , (-7 59 6 17 willow 5f. -2 -g 3=25 fe)-71y //-4 /4/4 keg( 7 i5 .,-;z /.► r. ,P �� ti PETITION TO OPPOSE THE BUS STOP ON OTIS, WEST OF WILLOW. Vile, the undersigned, believe that the placement of a bus stop on Otis Drive west of Willow Street which is in front of the Southshore Lagoon Condominium would be detrimental to our community. Name Address 61 )(6 Zb3 3 07(ts 62 euzJ— (0I5-F 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 ECleves 1815 Otis Drive • Alumedq CA 94501 February 22, 2007 Mayor Beverly Johnson Vice Mayor Lena Tam Councilmembers Marie Gilmore, Doug deHaan, and Frank Materrese City Hall Re: Re- installation of Bus Stops at Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way Bus stops were originally installed at Otis and Sandcreek in June 2004. These stops are placed directly in front of the crosswalk at Lum Elementary School. (510) 517 -4142 Service was halted in September 2 the stop p 2004, after the Alameda Police Department top bagged, and in February 2005 the P rtment requested to have ry stop was permanently removed. � vVhy . Safety! In December 2005, Barbara Hawkins Transit s of the Public Works Department sent t had plans to reinstall the bus stops a letter stating that p on Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way. Y On May 24, 2006, Officer Craig Rodrique on Transportation g odnque of the Alameda Police Department ansportat�on Commission. The minutes p rtment appeared before had discussed uteS of that meeting will reflect that he ed the issue with Michael Margulies of stated that he result of safety cone 9 the Public Works Department and • ty erns, the bus stops were bagged and, as a pavement lights had already 99� and removed. On May 24, 2006, in- pavement been installed, but the APD and ,trio s safety concerns about the crosswalk. Public Works still had serious swalk. On October 25, 2006, the Trans . possibility putting Commission passed a motion ' • p ty of putting a bus stop on Otis and to eliminate the Sandcreek Way due to safety concerns. On November 15, 2006, the Trans . on Otis Drive Transportation commission passed a motion t e and Pond Isle. Mr. Kline, who lives on to install a bus stop November 15, 2006 d Otis Drive at Pond isle, appealed decision of the Transportation Comm' Ply the this opportunity to recommend the Commission and the Public Works is using a stops be re- installed Otis and Sandcreek .. eek 9 appeal the October 25, 2006 decision of Way. Mr. Kline did of putting a bus stop the commission to eliminate the possibility � top on Otis and Sandcreek Way. poss�b�i�ty Kline recommends bus s y No one has appealed that decision. be installed on Otis and Glenwood n. Mr. memorandum, Public Works i ad Isle. In the packet Snores that recommendation, without any y mention of that A November 15, 2006, a City memorandum the crossing Y morandum from Sgt. Horlbeck of the Alameda • r, ng• guards have been advised to hold the meda Palace states, stop". Crossing guards a children back while the buses are making 9 are on duty weekdays for 2 hours in making a afternoon. What about all the other the morning and 3 hours in the aft holidays her times of the day and night? What and vacation days? And what g hat about weekends, school the elderly Y hat about all pedestrians, not only • erly and the disabled? What about Y the children? What about are not and kids on bikes and skateboards? The • cannot be there all the time. The City he crvss�ng guards in an effort to make if ity has spent over $65,000.00 on thi • f safer. Now, the Public Works Department this crosswalk installation of mid -block bus stops epartment is recommending the stepping ops directly in front of a school cross pp ng onto the crosswalk directly in front walk. Pedestrians would be Y nt of the bus and out of the view of oncoming ncam�ng cars. Page2of3 AC Transit Bus Stop Folic Na. 508 (see attached) clearly Y n state " . erect special case stops and are y s Mid black stops are available" Pond to be used only when no other - nd Isle is an alternative. alternati�re is Public Works states that a crosswalk in Al sswalk would be needed at Pond Isle. stops Alameda where there is no crosswalk, Why? There are many bus Otis & Larchm alk specifically, one at Otis & Y ant, to name two very close to Pond Arlington and one at removal of a tree. This is � and Isle. They also state this requires s also very debatable. They state quires the removed in the area of Pond Isle. Why? Y e that parking space would need . There are many bus d to be is not painted red. And if some Y stops in Alameda where parking spaces need to be re ere the curb would be a problem. All of the homes moved, 1 cannot see where mes near Pond are single-family that garages, and more than ample street g iIY dwellings with two car parked on the parking every day. Very rare! i street in that area. The same rY y is there more than one car applies to Otis &Glenwood. The Memorandum item attached hed to the meeting agenda s /aria states, " ..due to cancer 9 submitted to the City Council b Na stopped to concerns that vehicles double park in by Mutt pp load and unload passengers p front of Lum School and buses in the crosswalk, 9 were limiting the ability of motorists s walk, the Alameda Police Department is to see school that the bus stop be removed." partment contacted AC Transit d. The bus stop was remove and requested September 2004. Vehicles removed. Nothing has changed since double park, and a re-installed g d since crosswalk will still limit the ability f stalled bus stop in front of the crosswalk ti tY motorists to see school children any time. The crossing guards have hiidren -- to see any pedestrian pleaded expressed their safety con Y R$ pan at p ed not to re- install the bus tY cerns over and over again. them? s stops at Otis and Sandcreek, listening t They is anyone to In reference to the Otis Drive states, " . and Pond Isle bus stops, the memorandum nearby residents sent comments emorandurn from Public Works installation of the new bus stops....." ments to staff or spoke in opposition ops " Is Public Works intentionally pp an to the and the many letters sent in opposition ovally ignoring the many Sandcreek Way to the re- installation of bus • Y speakers ay for over two years - letters stops at Otis Drive and this matter, ands a that seem to be missing from kale remarks that have been 9 m the file regarding Transportation Technical Team distorted or left out of the min a m (TTT) meeting of 5/10/06, and minutes of the meetings of 514105, and 11115/06? � nd the Transportation Commission How can the City Council ommissian information presented to the Y it make a fair decision is missing and/or omitted? Is this is when sway the decision of the Council? his an oversight or is it biased it is important to note biased to speakers have repeatedly and that those letters and Sandcreek Y consistently fought for NO bus those k Way based on safety issu stops on Otis Drive and residents ty es. Matt Naclerio states, "Otis do not support this location due Otis Drive and Sandcreek This is so wro ue to their assessment of no' Way wrong! Residents and crossing guards noise and pollution impacts. many letters to the City g g olds have attended several meetings y of Alameda expressing safe eetin9s and written best of my knowledge and belief 9 tY: safety and more safety c just another g elief they have never assessed Y ancert s. s this the nother attempt of Public Works Sect noise and pollution impacts. • Matt Nacl rks to distort the facts? p #s. Is this aria was in attendance at the TTT such an outrageous state meeting on May 1 0, 2006. How statement? It is understandable that can he now make letters or make a fair evaluation he cannot read any of - tion based on distorted and Y f the missing meetings, but he should be able and/or missing information from City read his own minutes. rn various City The west bound curb at Otis ' s Drive and Sandcreek Way , years. Why? safe � � � � . Y has been painted red for tY Over ten years ago over ten vehicle blocking Y ga the City, � n its wisdom, • Ong the view of the crosswalk a m , d rd not want any ask to oncoming traffic y g Page 3 of 3 Is the City of Alameda willing to set a precedence by allowing C Transit to place directly n 9 p ce bus stops y front of a crosswalk, in the middle of the street, in front of an elementary school of and close to a middle school, and near a public park? Is the City of Alameda willing ?Please do re-installation to accept the potential liabiii p ty not approve the re installation of the stops on Otis & Sandcreek. Respectfully yours, Attachment (3 pages) 1 AC Transit BOARD POLICY Policy No. 508 Subject Category: Service Development BUS STOP POLICY It is AC Transit's policy coordinate encourage counties, cities, and developers to ' p with the District on the location of bus stops. The District does not own or maintain the bus stop areas, and the ultimate decision for placement of the bus sto p is ma de by the jurisdiction in which the stop is located. When properly located, adequately designed, and effectively enforced, bus Y us stops can improve e service and expedite general traffic flow. Decisions regarding bus stop spacing g p s p g and location call for a careful analysis of passenger service requirements (demand, convenience, and safety), the type of bus service provided local i rapid , transbay /express, or flexible service /community circulator), and the interaction on of stopped buses with general traffic flow. Bus Stop Spacing Bus stops are the locations where bus passengers access the AC Transit system. Bus stops must therefore be convenient to the places where assen ers wish p 0 to go. Convenience and speed must be balanced in determining appropriate bus sto stop placement, as too many bus stops can slow down travel times. Outside the downtown areas, AC Transit generally seeks to have bus stops 1,000 feet apart. This target get has been set with the goal of increasing travel speed for AC Transit buses, and means that will hat some existing stops will be eliminated. Passenger usage of bus stops is an important p p t factor when considering bus stop placements or removals. Bus stops should be close enough that passengers can walk to them easily, but far enough apart to help buses move quickly. The matrix that follows `serves as a e g Hera) guideline for bus stop spacing. Some discretion may be applied when balancing D. Y pp acing the District's interest in improving service and expediting traffic flow with consideration of passengers' interests and needs, Board Policy No. 508 — Bus Stop Policy Page 1 of 3 Adopted: 12/89 Amendment(s): 10102, 09/05 Board Policy No. 508 -- Bus Stop Policy Page 2 of 3 The matrix below lists AC Transit's intended bus stop spacing for the four different Service Types. It is AC Transit's intent to use the maximum bus stop spacing unless superseded by other determining factors such as topography (hills), limited access areas (freeways, bridges, airports), surrounding attractors, and transfer points. Proposed Bus Stop Spacing Guidelines Service Type Spacing (feet) Local (trunk, feeder, etc.) Rapid Transbay/Express Flexible or Community Circulator 800 -1 300 feet 1700 -5000 feet 1000 -2600 feet TBD Explanation Stops may be located more closely than listed based on trip attractors, stop activity or demand, transfer points or other land uses that may warrant it. Stops may be located more closely than listed based on trip attractors, stop activity or demand, transfer points or other land uses that may warrant it provided that the increased stops do not cause operational delays. Service may use local stops as necessary to provide geographic coverage and to minimize delay for longer distance riders. Stops would be determined on a route by route basis and would consider trip attractors, transfer areas or other factors. * Where there is no underlying local service, the Transbay/Express Line can act as a Local Service and use spacing criteria for Local Service. Existing AC Transit routes may have stops that do not conform to the spacing criteria in this policy. Bus Stop Location Bus stops on the street are usually located along the street curb for direct safe passenger access to and from the sidewalk, waiting and walking areas. Stops may be located either in the intersection exit (far -side) the intersection approach (near- side), or at mid - block. • Far -side stops are the preferable choice for service in general because they reduce conflicts between right - turning vehicles and stopped buses, eliminate sight - distance deficiencies on approaches to an intersection, and encourage pedestrian crossing at the rear of the bus. Additionally, since Rapid Bus Lines use transit signal priority to expedite travel across an intersection, far -side stops are integral to Rapid Bus implementation. Adopted: 12/89 Amendment(s): 10/02, 09/05 Board Policy No. 508 -- Bus Stop Policy • Page 3 of 3 • Near -side stops are acceptable when a far -side stop is deemed unsafe or impractical. • Mid -block stops are considered special case stops and are to be used only when no other alternative is available and only upon approval of the Transit Projects Coordinator and the municipality where the bus stop will be located. When bus stops are initiated or relocated, bus stop locations shall be chosen such that, to the maximum extent practical, the areas where lifts or ramps are to be deployed comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). Bus Stop Enforcement Local taw enforcement agencies and AC Transit police units, of the Alameda County and Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department, shall enforce all state laws, local ordinances and regulations governing bus stops. Bus Stop Installation or Removal All bus stop locations must be approved by the appropriate local jurisdiction (City or County staff). District staff will also coordinate with appropriate local staff to consider traffic patterns, street design, traffic safety issues, and impacts to adjacent properties. Upon receipt of a Letter of Approval from the municipal Traffic Engineer, and after any improvements to the street, if required, have been completed by the municipality (Le., painting a red curb), the bus stop will be installed by AC Transit. In the event that the District receives a request to remove or relocate a bus stop, District staff will first analyze the request, and, if necessary, consult with the appropriate jurisdiction's staff. Administrative Regulation No. 509 provides more details about the specific process used to install or remove bus stops. Adopted: 12/89 Amendment(s): 10/02, 09/05 Peter Muzio 605 Sandalwood Isle. Alameda, CA 94501 Marie Gilmore, Alameda City Councilmember City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Avenue February 23, 2007 Re: Agenda Item for City Council meeting March 6, 2007 Proposal to (re)install West bound bus stop in front of 1815 Otis Dr. and East bound bus stop in front of Lum School and a second set of bus stops near Otis and Willow OR; a set of bus stops at Ivy Walk (East bound) and between Glenwood Isle and Pond Isle (West bound). After reviewing the notes posted on -line concerning this agenda item, I noted 27 people have actually taken the time to write and/or attend meetings here at City Hall. ALL of the 27 people are OPPOSED to adding any bus stops to Otis Dr. between Willow and Grand. However, the "city" is FOR either one or two additional bus stops. By reading the on-line file notes it is apparent that an unidentified person on "City Staff', for reasons unknown, really wants a bus stop at Lum school. City staff indicated initially that a bus stop at Lum school would be approximately half way between the existing bus stops at Grand and Willow. To that end the transportation committee was tasked with evaluating the situation. They determined that Lum school is not centered between Grand and Willow so they recommended a bus stop be installed near Ivy walk. This location would be approximately centered between the existing bus stops at Grand and Willow. As this did not coincide with the wishes of the "city staff', city staff has requested that two sets of bus stops be installed so they could still get the desired stop at Lurn school. So the SCORE is 1 big (city staff) vote FOR two(2) bus stops, 1 medium (transportation committee) vote FOR one (1) bus stop and 27 little (residents along Otis Dr.) votes AGAINST additional bus stops. As there are NO residents in the area desirous of any bus stops it appears to be just something that seems like a good idea on paper. I submit you could save a lot of time and money by forgetting about any new bus stops in this area until some resident actually comes forward and requests one. If you feel compelled to add a bus stop where no one in the area wants one, One would upset fewer people than two, be more than adequate, and be a lot less costly than two bus stops. I suspect you will hear from people at the Willow (East) end of the subject area who do not want an additional bus stop because (as you know) city councils do not require builders to provide sufficient off-street parking at multiple unit buildings and therefore they really need the on- street parking spaces. I am sure they will tell you they are well served by the existing bus stop at Willow and Whitehall. As you already know, There are apartment and condominium multi -units East of Glenwood Isle. West of Glenwood Isle is all single family, two car garage, suburban, low density. Otis Drive is a wide street with limited access. Between Willow and Grand, only Sandcreek Way intersects it on the South side and Sandcreek does not go South to the beach. . The "Isles" which intersect on the North side are all one block, dead end, cul-de -sacs. It is natural for people to drive faster on Otis than they would on a narrower street or a street with cross streets every block. This is why visibility is so important to pedestrians. The people near the proposed Lum school location are seriously concerned about pedestrian safety if a bus stop is placed such that it blocks the visibility of on- coming traffic. The proposed bus stop location in front of 1815 Otis is on the WRONG side of the cross walk. Ditto the proposed East bound stop. This is the reason there has been so much opposition to this bus stop. Safety Problem #1. It is safer to have bus stops located where cross streets and cross walks are located at the rear of the bus rather than in front of the bus. This allows pedestrians to see on- coming traffic and traffic to see the pedestrians. The proposed bus stops at Lum school have the megabuck crosswalk in front of the bus. This is the least safe location. People exiting the bus will be drawn to the front of bus to cross the street. Some of the correspondence on this subject suggest that the crossing guards will prevent people from crossing the street while the bus is present. They fail to consider that school is only in session 185 days out of 365 days and only from 8AM to 3PM. This is a small percentage of the bus schedule. This crosswalk is used by residents in the area as well as kids that use the playground facilities when school is not in session, as well as kids and adults who use Rittler Park on week ends and during the summer. The bus stops should be located where they are safe all day and all year. It is ridiculous to use an existing red curb for a bus stop when the red curb is specifically there to ensure visibility for the people using the cross walk. You have spent a fortune on this crosswalk. If you have gone to the trouble of preventing cars and SUVs from parking there, then you don't want a bus to park there either! You want people to cross the street behind the bus not in front of the bus. Safety Problem #2 The proposed bus stops at Lum school are in a very complex traffic area. There are 3 houses between Sandalwood Isle and Waterview Isle on the North side of Otis. This is a short block, not a long block. Sandcreek Way and the Lum school drop -off lane intersect Otis on the South side between Sandalwood and Waterview. Add in a super crosswalk which does not align with any of the four intersections and you can imagine that cars are coming from all directions at the same time. Having the crossing guards not let pedestrians cross while a bus is present is great for the pedestrians but does nothing for the autos that are coming at each other from all directions. When the children are arriving at school in the morning, and leaving in the afternoon, there are many vehicles parking on all nearby side streets as well as in every available space on Otis and every available space in the Lum school drop off lane. Cars are turning onto and back out of Sandalwood Isle and Waterview Isle, and also entering Otis from the drop off lane and Sandcreek Way. It is heavily congested. The Super crosswalk is in the middle of this very confused traffic pattern. Adding a bus to the mix only exacerbates the congestion and limits the visibility. The city of Alameda has put a great deal of effort into making pedestrian crossings as safe as possible. Do not take a step backwards! Although there are ramps located at the Super Crosswalk on Otis, there are unrecognized ADA problems with putting a bus stop at Lum school. The only reason to place a bus stop on Otis Dr. between Willow and Grand is to attract riders. There are no cross streets in this area. North of Otis are one block dead end cul -de -sacs with low density single family houses. South of Otis are 4 blocks of housing. Two blocks of single family and two blocks of medium density apartments and condos. The bulk of the potential riders reside South of Otis. To get to Otis from the south there are two routes. One is Ivy walk. The other is Snowberry walk which leads you into the back of Lum school, then along a driveway through the Lum school grounds to Sandcreek Way (approx 1 block distance) then along Sandcreek Way for 1 block to Otis. ADA problem #1 When school is not in session there is a chain (attached with a padlock) across the driveway through Lum school. I can step over the chain, but a handicapped p erson cannot. You will have to tell the principal at Lum school to stop using the chain. Whatever reason the chain serves will be eliminated. I do not know but I suspect the chain reduces the likelihood of vandalism as this driveway leads past the office entrance which is not visible from the street or from the residences in the area. ADA problem #2. There is no ADA ramp to get up onto the sidewalk on Sandcreek Way. My wife is disabled. We went to vote at Lum school last election. We used the Super crosswalk. BUT, when we got to the area near the school office where the voting booths were located, there was NO ADA RAMP to get off the sidewalk onto the driveway that leads to the office. This is the same driveway that would be used by people cutting through the school yard to get to a bus stop, should one be placed at Lum school. The "city "has indicated that adding a bus stop at Ivy walk would require painting (marking) a crosswalk. You did not paint a crosswalk at Heather Walk/Arlington Isle when you put a bus stop there. That is the very next bus stop West of Grand. By not painting a cross walk at Heather walk you do not encourage students at Lum school to cross Otis there and, by the same reasoning, by not painting a cross walk at Ivy walk you would not encourage students to cross there either. Cross walks are not normally marked in low density areas. To su nerize - No one (other than an un-named person on city staff) wants the bus stops. Shelve this proposal and revisit it someday if someone actually expresses a need for a bus stop. And, if you are absolutely compelled to put in a bus stop, put it on the SAFE side of crosswalks and intersecting streets so it does not interfere with the visibility needed by us old gray headed pedestrians crossing this heavily used street and vehicles entering traffic on Otis Drive. Sincerely, Xt- 319 poomiepues I 1 ft„1, • I: • ft* Aft 4' psi 41191 Imp an, id • ir -- nava 3 is' ALkaitAiairlyi 5; 1 1 s. Janet Dawson /615 -F Willow StreetlAlameda, C494&O 510 - 865 -3022 2001 FEB Zq q Its Beverly Johnson, Mayor, and City Council, City of Alameda � 2263 Santa. Clara Avenue, Room 320 CITY OF ALA MESA Alameda, CA 94501 e1 �Y CLERK'S ()Meg February 27, 2007 Re: Proposed Bus Stop, Otis Drive at Willow Street I am writing to express my concern and opposition to the proposed bus stop at 2031 Otis Drive. I am a homeowner at the South Shore Lagoon Condominiums, an 89 -unit complex located at the corner of Willow Street and Otis Drive. Our homeowners have also signed a petition opposing the proposed stop. There are a number of reasons why a bus stop at this location is a bad idea: loss of two parking places in an area with multiple residents and inadequate street parking, loss of a mature tree, the noise and fumes created by bus traffic. However, there are more serious problems. Our complex has a gate facing on Otis Drive, right next to the proposed bus stop. This is a primary entrance /exit for homeowners' and residents' vehicles, as well as garbage collection trucks, service personnel such as contractors, electricians, plumbers, delivery trucks, etc. This is a very busy entrance /exit, in constant use. A bus stopped at the proposed stop would certainly block the line of sight for drivers exiting the complex. There would also be potential hazards for foot traffic near the bus stop. More importantly, if a bus blocks the driveway and our right -of way, as is likely to happen, this would prevent homeowners and residents from entering or exiting the complex. In the case of those attempting to enter, those vehicles would then block the flow of traffic on Otis Drive. Given the placement of the two traffic lights at the intersection of willow Street and Otis Drive, this has the potential to create hazards for South Shore Lagoon homeowners and residents, as well as any driver who uses Otis Drive. I understand that the proposed stop is for the AC Transit bus #63. There is an existing bus stop two blocks away near the shopping center. If the intent is to locate another bus stop between this stop and the #63 stop at Otis Drive and Grand Street, it would make more sense to choose a location midway between these two existing stops. Finally, as president of the South Shore Lagoon Homeowners Association, I am concerned that our homeowners have not received adequate notice of the proposed bus stop. Our complex has numerous addresses, including 2025, 2027, 2029, 2031, 2033, 2035 Otis Drive as well as 601, 613, 615 and, 617 and 619 willow. My own mailing address is on Willow Street. I never received any notice of the proposed bus stop by mail. South Shore Lagoon homeowners with willow Street addresses use the Otis Drive gate at our complex on a daily basis and will thus be equally affected by any decisions regarding the proposed bus stop at 2031 Otis Drive. In the future I hope the city will make sure that all homeowners at the South Shore Lagoon Condominiums receive notice of changes that will affect them. Sincerely, Janet Dawson President, South Shore Lagoon Homeowners Association