Loading...
2015-04-01 Special CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY- -APRIL 1, 2015- 6:30 P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:31 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer – 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. WORKSHOP (15-202) Presentation on Recommended Approach to Citywide Transportation Plan. The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation during which Council questions which were answered by the Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point, the Transportation Engineer, Linda Morris, AC Transit, and Nate Conable, Fehr and Peers. During the presentation, Councilmember Daysog requested that Council be provided a status report on Measure BB funding and Mayor Spencer requested future reports indicate which shuttles can be used by the public and include statistics. Following the presentation, Councilmember Oddie inquired about the shelf life of the Plan, to which the Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point responded trends change; stated, for example, the Bicycle Master Plan was updated in 2010; when the Bicycle Plan was used for the Alameda Point Master Infrastructure Plan in 2013, the Plan already seemed out of date; an update is being done; elements which are very specific might be outdated faster than long term policies. In response to Councilmember Oddie’s inquiry regarding the assumption regarding development, the Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point stated the Transportation Element (TE) provides some guidance and requires new developments to have Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans which include a 30% reduction for commercial and a 10% reduction for residential; Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are different; State law bases how much analysis is required on the size of the project. Councilmember Oddie inquired about the specific number of homes assumed for various sites, to which the Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point responded assumptions will be included to make some determinations, such as pooling resources from development; stated other objectives and policies are not tied to the exact number Special Meeting Alameda City Council April 1, 2015 of units; if a goal is to minimize or have zero net new trips at crossings, tools can be created and implemented by new development. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City can do something to coordinate the shuttles, to which the Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point responded coordinating the shuttles should be part of the Transit Plan. In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry regarding centralizing certain aspects of TDM plans, the Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point stated staff has discussed exploring centralizing funds. Mr. Morris made brief comments on AC Transit’s current studies, outreach and shuttles. Urged the inter-City shuttle issue be fast tracked; expressed concern over having a designated bicycle lane on Clement Avenue, which is a truck route; suggested creating an automobile master plan to better move automobiles and using car pools; stated the City should be leery about following national trends: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association. Urged a public opinion survey be done; stated Alameda has a jobs/housing balance issue; expressed concern over TDM plans being considered a cure all: Darcy Morrison, Alameda. Stated the Plan is encouraging; expressed support for the approach of getting residents out of cars; stated goals should focus on trip times, not capacity; there should be an informed, data driven debate: William Smith, Alameda. Inquired about shuttle ridership; discussed the disabled and paratransit services: suggested outreaching to the Commission on Disability Issues regarding paratransit: Carol Gottstein, Alameda. Councilmember Daysog discussed Tube traffic; stated the City has to begin implementing a series of strategies; there is not one silver bullet; the emphasis needs to be on implementation; information has been gathered and needs to be tied together; people need to see and feel solutions; the process outlined by staff regarding reduction of Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) rates is right on; increasing High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) rates is not just about shuttles or the AC Transit system; fixed systems, which require investment, should be reviewed; however, distributed systems from new applications and technology should also be reviewed; cities are not utilizing Uber and point-to-point car share to deal with traffic; he would like to see the reduction in SOV relative to shuttle uses; implementation steps have to address how targets will be achieved and be a quasi-business plan; outlined how options should be provided; stated the pieces need to be pulled together into a implementable plan. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is a little concerned about the cost; however, he is willing to spend the funds if the Plan helps the City move towards goals and does not Special Meeting Alameda City Council April 1, 2015 expire; questioned if SOV versus HOV is a goal, solution or symptom; stated the goal should be minimizing trip time, which needs to be predictable; decisions are based on how long travel will take; transportation needs to be seamless, such as riding the bus to connect to the ferry; that he is concerned about future projects; the number of units would impact the Plan; the inter-City shuttle should be addressed sooner rather than later; discussed technological advancements, which might need to be taken into account in the Plan; stated parking has to be reviewed for ferries and neighborhood developments; the Plan should address how TDMs will be enforced, include historic information on shuttle ridership, and provide costs for achieving different standards. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred that there needs to be a series of strategies and implementation; stated drivers would appreciate fewer cars on the road; giving people alternatives results in less cars on the road; sidewalk conditions should be improved for pedestrians; that she would like to see the repair of sidewalks and streets accelerated; she endorses moving forward with the consultant; she assumes the City will start with the deliverables in mind; the goals set forth in the report and raised tonight are good, including an on-Island shuttle; the City should take credit for what has already been done, such as the Shoreline Drive cycle track; discussed how ridership of new modes starts slow; stated decisions should be data driven; the Council needs to be forward thinking; Council representatives on regional bodies which provide funding, such as the Alameda County Transportation Commission, need to ensure that the City is aggressively pursuing funding opportunities; read a quote about Oakland’s Mayor being inspired by bicycle improvements in Portland, Oregon. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated outreach needs to verify and prioritize the goals, such as commute reduction, cross Island traffic reduction or moving between schools, before being provided to the consultant; that he is not surprised by the cost; the Plan is necessary to make decisions and set policies and standards; businesses have a right to set up shuttles; noted AC Transit’s line in Emeryville was drastically reduced when the Emery Go Round was established; stated if a shuttle system is used, the City needs to review whether it is sustainable and should be contracted with AC Transit; the consultant should be given the assumptions that a 25 mile per hour speed limit should be retained and there will be no new crossing or BART station; a BART station would be 30 to 50 years down the road; the consultant should be directed to not start from scratch and should use the bicycle and pedestrian plans; not enough emphasis has been placed on economic development and job creation at the former Base; putting more people to work in Alameda would improve the crossings; the economic development plan goes hand in hand with the transportation plan; data is needed on how and why people travel, which should start soon; given the complexity, he believes the timeframe will be 18 months. Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees that the inter City shuttle needs to be fast tracked; if the City spends 12 to 18 months on the Plan, it will be 12 to 18 more months until anything is done; that she would be happy to work with AC Transit if AC Transit is selected to do the shuttle; that she has seen a reduction in AC Transit lines; the City should reach out to AC Transit to see if they would be a viable option; otherwise, the Special Meeting Alameda City Council April 1, 2015 City needs to work with other partners and look at other funding sources to make the shuttle happen; a deadline, such as one year, should be established; the shuttle service does not have to be perfect and can be modified, which is what AC Transit does when they correct routes; that she is concerned about any suggestion that the City will end up with a net increase for any bridges, especially the Tube; traffic needs to be decreased during commute hours; she is concerned about improving anything that would increase traffic in the Tube; the City has to figure out something, such as buses or shuttles, which provide an alternative to vehicles; an automobile plan should work together with the bicycle plan; the City needs to have the big picture for all modes of transportation; every street cannot accommodate all modes of transportation; expressed support for increasing car pools, utilizing technology and applications, and conducting a survey; stated someone could be hired to create applications; suggested survey questions; stated that she agrees with working on the jobs housing balance; higher paying jobs are needed; the City should have trip time data, which should be included in reports or start to be gathered; discussed disabled needs and sidewalk improvements; inquired the year of the TE attached to the staff report. The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point responded 2009. Mayor Spencer stated the year should be included; inquired whether questions in the TE have been answered. The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point responded that she does not know. Mayor Spencer stated that she is not comfortable hiring a consultant; a consultant was probably hired to complete the TE; inquired whether a baseline was established in 2009. The Transportation Engineer responded the 2009 TE includes the baseline data; stated Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) data was used. Mayor Spencer stated the TE questions should be answered; if the City is not going to utilize work done by a consultant, she would prefer to hire an employee to do the work; that she would like to hire someone who commutes and uses the system; an employee could work with regional partners and look into funding and implementation, such as the shuttle; people will not get out of cars with limited public transportation; access to the two ferries is needed; that she is not convinced a third ferry is needed; having public transportation better connect homes and stores to BART, existing ferries and Amtrak would be marvelous; if connections are made and the City focuses on shuttles or buses, the rest will take care of itself; the City cannot continue to build and have so many cars going through the Tube and across the bridges; if a survey asks how people would get out of cars, she expects the response would be by providing public transportation that connects the City, which the City should make the focus and hire an employee. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not favor hiring an employee, which has implications; stated $250,000 to $400,000 would not just pay the consultant, Special Meeting Alameda City Council April 1, 2015 it includes the cost of studies and services; inquired whether the consultant could be directed to conduct a public opinion survey at the outset to help shape the course. The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated data driven emphasis is really important; stating more shuttles would take care of the problem and a third ferry is not needed should be recognized as anecdotal; discussed Oakland. The Assistant City Manager stated the update process would provide data on whether the 2009 TE goals have been met and would provide a new baseline. In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry regarding Oakland’s Mayor hiring staff, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she was addressing Oakland’s Mayor recognizing the policy of getting people out of cars and not just riding bikes for recreation; that she does not know Oakland’s budget or what studies might have proceeded hiring staff; her point was leadership from the top. Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports hiring a consultant; the City would be hiring a firm with certain expertise; the firm has a range of individuals with different expertise to address the wide range of questions; issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a consultant firm would be a better course of action; if an individual were hired, one person could not know everything about transportation and traffic planning; regarding the 2009 TE, tracking should be done when the City generates plans and sets goals; that he hears consensus in the desire to improve traffic congestion, not just to have no net increase but to reduce SOV usage; that he sees tremendous potential with just the shuttles the City has to today; marketing, coordination and implementable strategies are needed; that he would be happy to move staff’s recommendation. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City has staff to do marketing or if someone would need to be hired, and whether a consultant would work with the business districts to start a shuttle or if that would be handled internally. The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point responded if enhancing multi-modal transportation in the City is a goal, the transit plan would look at what are the [specifics]. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated just because it has been discussed does not mean it is ready to be implemented; that she would like additional information, such as route, frequency, cost, and ridership; information could be gained from the public opinion survey; Emery Go Round is very successful; there might be differences between Emeryville and Alameda; the idea should be reviewed by the consultant team. The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point stated the study would review the inter City shuttle cost, possible funding and route; the consultant might have other distributive ideas other than a shuttle; the planning process would flush out whether it is feasible. Special Meeting Alameda City Council April 1, 2015 Mayor Spencer inquired how long it will take to hire a consultant and receive the report. The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point responded the RFP would take 4 to 6 months and the report will take 18 months. Mayor Spencer inquired how long before the City would start to work on implementing a shuttle, to which the Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point responded the business associations should be doing a grassroots effort at the same time, including identifying funding sources; stated the shuttle may not even be feasible if there is not funding. Mayor Spencer inquired how much was spent to create the 2009 TE, to which the Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point responded that she does not know. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would propose moving forward with the process being discussed tonight; the City owns a shuttle; a separate discussion could be held on using the shuttle on an interim basis. Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the City owns a vehicle, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative. The Assistant City Manager stated the Recreation and Parks Department has a van. Councilmember Daysog stated the staff recommendation could move forward and there could be a discussion on having a shuttle move forward as soon as possible to address the Mayor’s concern. Mayor Spencer stated that her concern is greater than that; the City conducted a study and hired a consultant in 2009 which has 42 pages of questions that have not been answered; the City is going to spend another 22 months to get another study; the City needs a response sooner than 2 years; that she is not sure doing another study is going to make any difference; expressed concern over not having answers to the questions raised in the previous study; stated that she is not sure the City has staff to handle marketing; hiring someone to focus on transportation makes sense. The Assistant City Manager stated the City does not have someone for marketing; marketing could be rolled into the Public Information Officer position, which will be filled shortly; the Emery Go Round shuttle was successful because it was funded by redevelopment; the shuttle is in crisis because there is not funding; Emeryville is looking at setting up a business improvement district to fund the Emery Go Round; Alameda does not have money for a shuttle. Mayor Spencer stated that is not something the consultant would provide. The Assistant City Manager stated the consultant could help staff determine different ways to fund something. Special Meeting Alameda City Council April 1, 2015 Mayor Spencer stated that is something an employee could do. The Assistant City Manager stated that is not something an employee would typically do; the City does not have said type of expertise on staff; consultants are hired to conduct analysis for all of the City’s landscaping and lighting districts. Mayor Spencer noted the Recreation and Parks Director works on grants. The Assistant City Manager stated grants are different; the funding would not be a grant; staff was not aware of Mayor Spencer’s questions about the 2009 document; staff would be happy to bring back answers. Mayor Spencer stated the questions are internal in the document itself; provided an example. The Assistant City Manager stated staff might have the data, but does not have it tonight. Mayor Spencer stated the City would be asking another consultant to create the same data. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council asking staff substantive questions ahead of the meeting is helpful; the information would have been interesting, informative material for the public, which could be provided at another time; Council’s intent is not to make staff look bad, it is to be informed and inform the public. Mayor Spencer stated the Council’s task is to not waste tax payer dollars and get the job done; the document was an attachment to the report, so she expect comments; her concern goes to trying to get the job done; the 2009 document speaks to many of the same things, which the City will be hiring another consultant to do; the City needs to figure out a way to get it done sooner rather than later; it is time to implement something. Councilmember Daysog stated one way to move forward would be to start the RFP process; the RFP should return to Council to ensure Council is happy with the deliverables, which should be implementable; the Council could exclude analytic deliverables which seem repetitive; his suggestion might be a way to move forward. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated if that is a motion he would second it. Councilmember Daysog agreed to have his suggestion be the motion. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated direction can be given in the RFP to make it a reality based scope of work that would encompass the comments tonight with the realities of the budget and no new crossings; the staff report can include the difference in cost between using a consultant and hiring an employee. Special Meeting Alameda City Council April 1, 2015 Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff to address the Mayor’s question about the questions raised in the TE when the matter returns; stated everyone wants to start to solve the problem; that she does not believe there is sufficient information to indicate that shuttles are the magic bullet that will solve everything; as Councilmember Daysog explained, consultant firms are hired due to having a wide array of expertise. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether an employee would be hired permanently or as a consultant; whether the employee would need costly software; stated that he is leery about going down the path of evaluating the option of hiring an employee; a finite contract for a finite period of time that gives a deliverable is probably a better way to spend resources; time is of the essence; people are concerned about traffic; the staff recommendation is for a consultant; he is reassured by the Vice Mayor’s comments regarding the cost; everyone likes the shuttle idea; interesting points have been raised, such as sustainability; he is concerned about having well paid shuttle drivers; questioned if that might require partnering with AC Transit; stated AC Transit has historically made cuts in Alameda; Emeryville’s shuttle is having financial difficulties without redevelopment funding; the study is looking at all of the transit goals and options; he is not quite as sold on going forward with an immediate shuttle plan after hearing concerns; questioned the comment about not being in favor of any plan which increases traffic through the Tube. Mayor Spencer stated that she has serious concerns; the Council is being told there would be another 22 months of consultants working before implementing any changes; it needs to be sooner rather than later. Councilmember Daysog stated that he interpreted Vice Mayor Matarrese’s comment as asking for analysis. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he was asking for the staff report to include the cost of a fully burdened employee versus a consultant. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether completing said analysis would lengthen the process. The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point responded staff needs clear direction; stated the motion is to come back with a RFP, which differs from the staff recommendation; the staff recommendation was to go forward with the RFP without returning to Council and return to Council with a contract; if Council would like to review the RFP, the process would be lengthened. Councilmember Oddie stated that he shares the Mayor’s concern about lengthening the process. Councilmember Daysog stated the RFP should come back to Council. Special Meeting Alameda City Council April 1, 2015 The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point stated the process would be longer and take six months rather than four. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated said issue is not critical; the Council has upcoming budget discussions, which might help inform the Council decision. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated although the process could be extended, what the Council wants to see would be clearer; there is no sense spending the money without getting it right; questioned whether the RFP and consultant versus employee could be addressed in one staff report; stated reaching a good solution takes time; questions have to be answered, including funding. The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point stated the study would provide said answers; the RFP will not address funding; it would be very difficult to find an employee with the expertise of an entire consulting firm. The Assistant City Manager stated the minimum cost would be $165,000 per year. The Assistant City Manager stated the staff person would need consultants; this is the perfect scenario to use a consultant; the City does not have the computer systems and software to do the analysis. The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point discussed firms having various levels of expertise. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated said information should be included in the report. Mayor Spencer stated that she will not support the motion; the staff report does give an alternative of hiring an employee; that she does not have a preference whether it is a City employee or a contractor; it is important to have someone from staff work with the business districts now; an employee could figure out the costs and figure out how to get the shuttle going; she is concerned the City has a report from 2009, which is sufficient. The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point inquired whether there is consensus for conducting a survey, which could cost around $30,000. Councilmember Oddie stated knowing where people are going would be good. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated it is critical. Councilmember Daysog stated the survey questions are critical; the Mayor’s questions about what would get someone out of their car could only be answered by a survey; data sets should be available about where people work; expressed support for the survey. The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point inquired whether an economic Special Meeting Alameda City Council April 1, 2015 development plan should be included, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the negative. The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda stated Point that she heard a lot of consistent comments which will be incorporated in the draft RFP; staff will also answer as many TE questions as possible and address why the staff recommendation is to use a consultant, including providing employee costs and pros and cons; addressed trip time analysis, which would also be included in the report. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the question of using trip time analysis should be addressed as part of the scope of work, not tonight. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the survey should include other questions the consultant believes are germane. On the call for question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie – 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer – 1. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council April 1, 2015