DOCSLIB.ORG

3.0 Transportation Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3.0 Transportation Analysis 3.0 Transportation Analysis This chapter describes existing transit, traffic, and parking conditions within the East Bay BRT Project corridor and discloses the transportation impacts of the No-Build Alternative and Build Alternatives. It includes the following four sections: 3.1, Transit Conditions; 3.2, Vehicular Traffic; 3.3, Non-Motorized Transportation; and 3.4 Parking. Section 3.1, Transit Conditions, describes existing and future transit facilities and services in the project corridor between Downtown Berkeley and the San Leandro BART station in San Leandro. Future conditions cover both the No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives, thereby allowing comparisons of the changes between No-Build and Build conditions. Impacts of the Build Alternatives relative to the No-Build Alternative are highlighted and focus on bus operations, including travel times, speeds, and patronage. As described in Chapter 2, Alternatives, there are two Build Alternatives under consideration. The first Build Alternative is the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) with service throughout the corridor from Downtown Berkeley to the San Leandro BART station. The second Build Alternative considers a shorter option to the LPA, designated the Downtown Oakland to San Leandro (DOSL) Alternative. It begins at the Uptown Transit Center in Downtown Oakland and continues along the same alignment as the LPA to San Leandro BART. The analysis of transit conditions and impacts of the Build Alternatives first describes the effects of the LPA, followed by effects of the DOSL Alternative. As many effects of the DOSL Alternative are the same as the LPA in the corridor segment from Downtown Oakland to San Leandro BART, the discussion of the DOSL Alternative is limited to its differences from the LPA. This approach is used throughout this document when discussing potential environmental effects. The intent is to avoid being repetitive and to make clear the differences between the Build Alternatives, in particular their impacts relative to the No-Build Alternative. Section 3.2, Vehicular Traffic, describes the existing and future roadway networks and how the future network will be changed and is expected to operate under the Build Alternatives. Operations are analyzed in terms of intersection operations as they are the key points in the roadway network with respect to traffic operations, including potential travel time delays. The non-motorized transportation discussion in Section 3.3 focuses on existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle conditions and identifies anticipated changes to future pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including access that will result from the proposed East Bay BRT project. The final Section 3.4, Parking, describes existing and future parking conditions along the project corridor and changes in parking facilities and access that are expected under each of the Build Alternatives. Time Horizons for Assessing Impacts Future conditions for all alternatives are expressed—as best they can be estimated—for 2035, the horizon year for impacts assessment in this Final EIS/EIR. Because 2015 is the projected completion date of project construction and the opening of revenue service to the public, traffic and transit conditions in 2015 are also described. This provides the reader with a perspective on project effects when it opens (near term) and after 20 years of operation (long term). Travel AC Transit East Bay BRT Project January 2012 3.0-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report forecasts of auto and transit trips have been developed based on the transportation network and land uses, the latter expressed in terms of population and employment, in both 2015 and 2035. Traffic and transit operations are similarly discussed for both years. To be consistent with the chronology, 2015 impacts are presented first and followed by 2035 impacts. Accompanying the discussion of the environmental effects of each Build Alternative is a summary of mitigation measures for eliminating or moderating adverse impacts, where warranted, in both 2015 and 2035. It is to be stressed that 2035 is the accepted time horizon under NEPA for assessing project effects and establishing mitigations that will become part of any approved project. However, in certain instances mitigations are proposed that address 2015 effects and do not address fully 2035 effects. Where this occurs it is noted along with a determination that the mitigation is not sufficient under NEPA (CEQA) to reduce the impact to below the threshold set to define adverse impact (level of significance). Information Sources The transportation analysis of existing conditions in the project corridor is based on data provided by the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro and by regional transportation planning and operating agencies, including AC Transit. The data are supplemented by surveys conducted by the Final EIS/EIR project team during preparation of this document. Future 2035 conditions are based on forecasts using a modified version of the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC)1 Alameda Countywide Travel Demand Model that was also used for the project’s 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR) and the 2008 and 2010 Small Starts submittals to the Federal Transit Administration. Land use data is obtained from the metropolitan planning agencies (Metropolitan Transportation Commission [MTC], Association of Bay Area Governments [ABAG]), supplemented by data provided by corridor cities. The modified Alameda Countywide Model includes updated future year land use based on ABAG Projections 2009 (P2009) – the latest land use data set available for the region—and land use allocations by traffic analysis zone from ABAG Projections 2007 (P2007) –also the latest allocations that were available at the time travel forecasts were begun, in late 2009. Transportation modeling approaches, assumptions, and projections are described in detail in the AC Transit East Bay BRT Transit Patronage and Forecasting Methodology Report (2010) and the AC Transit East Bay BRT Traffic Analysis Report (2011), which are available for review at the AC Transit District office. 1 Formerly called the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) AC Transit East Bay BRT Project January 2012 3.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report 3.1 Transit Conditions 3.1.1 Existing Transit Services The primary transit services in the East Bay BRT corridor are bus services provided by AC Transit and heavy rail services provided by BART. Other supportive and specialized transit services in the broader study area for this Final EIS/EIR include intercity commuter rail by the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (and managed by BART), intercity/interstate passenger rail service by Amtrak, and various dial-a-ride, student and commuter shuttle services provided by a host of other operators including University of California Berkeley Bear Transit, Emery Go Round, San Leandro Links and FLEX Shuttle paratransit, AirBART, and the East Bay Paratransit Consortium. Details on these other transit operators in the corridor are provided in Section 3.1.1.2 Other Transit Services. 3.1.1.1 Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District is the third-largest public bus system in California, serving 13 cities and adjacent unincorporated areas in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. AC Transit provides local, express, and commuter bus service in western Alameda County and western Contra Costa County on 107 bus lines, operating over 25 million bus vehicle miles annually. Average weekday boardings on fixed-bus services systemwide in fiscal year 2008/09 were approximately 236,000. This includes the District’s boardings on its Transbay services.2 Transbay services connect the AC Transit service area in Alameda and Contra Costa counties with San Francisco and other points on the San Francisco Peninsula. (Note: Transit system statistics are first reported for 2008/09 as early 2009 is the baseline relative to which future travel demand in 2015 and 2035 is estimated. Transit ridership at that time was not markedly distorted by the recent recession and the transit service cuts imposed by AC Transit and other operators. As the local economy improves it is assumed AC Transit and other operators will be able to restore service to at least 2009 levels. More current ridership numbers are nonetheless provided when helpful to establish trends.) AC Transit buses connect with nine other public and private bus systems, 21 BART stations, six Amtrak stations, and three ferry terminals. Of the 107 bus lines there are 74 local lines within the East Bay (these include arterial Rapid services, which are express in nature) and 33 Transbay lines to San Francisco and the San Francisco Peninsula. 2 Boardings refer to unlinked passenger transit trips. Bus transit data provided by AC Transit. AC Transit East Bay BRT Project January 2012 3.1-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report Table 3.1-1. AC Transit Service Characteristics 107 Bus lines (113 including “all nighter” routes Bus stops 6,500 (approx.) Annual bus miles 25.1 million Annual bus hours 2.1 million Source: AC Transit, 2010, and National Transit Database, 2009 Table 3.1-2. AC Transit Ridership—FY 2008-2009 Daily (weekday) 236,000 Annual 69 million Paratransit (annual) 689,000 Source: National Transit Database, 2009. Existing AC Transit Service Operations in East Bay BRT Corridor Nine routes offer service along identical or adjacent alignments for the East Bay BRT Project between Berkeley and San Leandro. These routes are the 1, 1R, 12, 18, 40, 51A, 51B, 800 and 801. Route descriptions are provided below and route alignments are shown in Figure 3.1-1, which also displays other routes in the study area as of summer 2011. x Route 1: Berkeley BART to BayFair BART via Telegraph Avenue, International Boulevard, and East 14th Street. This route has 15 minute headways during peak hours, 20 minutes off-peak on weekdays and weekends, from 5:00 a.m. to midnight.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Golden Gate Transit & Golden Gate Ferry
    Golden Gate Transit & Golden Gate Ferry 2013 Passenger Study Draft Methodology Report Conducted by: Redhill Group December 23, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT OVERVIEW ......................................................................................... 1 COMMUNICATIONS SUMMARY ......................................................................... 1 FIELD SURVEY OPERATIONS COMMUNICATIONS ...................................... 1 PHONE SURVEY COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................ 2 DETAILED SAMPLING PLAN ............................................................................. 3 GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT: ............................................................................... 3 GOLDEN GATE FERRY: ................................................................................. 13 SURVEY INSTRUMENTS .................................................................................. 20 FIELD SURVEY ............................................................................................... 20 TELEPHONE SURVEY ................................................................................... 21 DATA COLLECTION: FIELD SURVEYS ........................................................... 23 RECRUITMENT .............................................................................................. 23 TRAINING ....................................................................................................... 24 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Report
    TABLE OF CONTENTS OAKLAND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Page SUMMARY S-1 I. INTRODUCTION I-1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION II-1 III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS III-A-1 AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. Land Use III.A-1 B. Transportation and Circulation III.B-1 C. Population, Housing, and Employment III.C-1 D. Public Services III.D-1 E. Air Quality III.E-1 F. Visual and Aesthetic Conditions III.F-1 G. Cultural and Historic Resources III.G-1 H. Vegetation and Wildlife III.H-1 I. Hydrology and Water Quality III.I-1 J. Energy III.J-1 K. Geology and Seismicity III.K-1 L. Noise III.L-1 M. Hazardous Materials III.M-1 N. Wind III.N-1 O. Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies III.O-1 IV. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS IV-1 V. IMPACT OVERVIEW V-1 VI. REPORT PREPARERS VI-1 APPENDICES 1. Notice of Preparation and Initial Study 1-1 2. Hazardous Materials Supporting Documentation 2-1 Oakland General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element EIR ii Environmental Science Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures S-2 II-1 Households, Population, and Employment, 1995 and 2015 II-7 II-2 Household and Job Growth in the City’s Twelve Planning Areas, 1995-2015 II-8 II-3 General Plan Goals II-10 II-4 Correlation Between Proposed and Existing Land Use Categories II-16 II-5 Projects Within the Downtown Showcase District II-20 II-6 Projects Within the Coliseum Showcase District II-21 II-7 Major Land Use Diagram Change Areas II-24 II-8 Acreage in Proposed Land
    [Show full text]
  • San Leandro Kaiser Medical Center Plus Mixed-Use Retail Development
    Revised Traffic Study for: San Leandro Kaiser Medical Center plus Mixed-Use Retail Development Prepared for: PBS&J and the City of San Leandro Submitted by: 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 839-1742 x103; Fax: (510) 839-0871 April 06, 2010 www.dowlinginc.com Contact: Damian Stefanakis April 06, 2010 Post Buckley Shue & Jernigan 353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Attn: Michael Kay, Project Manager Subject: Revised Traffic Report for the San Leandro Kaiser Medical P09066 Center and Mixed-Use Retail Development Project Dear Mr. Kay, Dowling Associates is pleased to submit the revised traffic report for the San Leandro Kaiser Medical Center plus Mixed-Use Retail Development Project. The detailed calculations and volume graphics are provided in the attached Technical Appendix. Sincerely, Dowling Associates, Inc. Damian Stefanakis Debbie Chan Yueh, AICP Principal Senior Transportation Planner Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................. 7 Background and Terminology .................................................................................. 7 Study Area ................................................................................................................ 8 Existing (2007) Traffic Conditions ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Audit Summary Report, TFCA Program Manager Fund
    BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR PROGRAM MANAGER FUND AUDIT SUMMARY REPORT PROJECT PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2017 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR PROGRAM MANAGER FUND Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction…….…….…….…………………………………………………………….…….. 1 2. Project Description …….………….………….………….………………….………….……... 1 3. Audit Process…….…….…….…….…….….………….………….………………...…….…... 3 4. Program Manager Findings…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….….. 4 Appendix: A- Health and Safety Code Sections 44241 and 44242…….…….…….…….…….…………... 7 B- Listing of Audited Projects…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….……….…………. 11 i BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR PROGRAM MANAGER FUND Audit Summary Report For the Project Period Ended June 30, 2017 1 – INTRODUCTION The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District), created by the California legislature in 1955, is the state’s first regional agency dealing with air pollution. The Air District regulates stationary sources of air pollution within the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties in California. The Air District’s jurisdiction includes Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, City/County of San Francisco, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, southern Sonoma County, and south-western Solano County. The primary mission of the Air District is to achieve ambient air quality standards designed to protect the public’s health and the environment. The Air District is governed by a twenty-two-member Board of Directors who has the authority to develop and enforce regulations for the control of air pollution within its jurisdiction 2 – PROGRAM DEISCRIPTION Health and Safety Code Section 44223 and 44225 authorize a surcharge on the motor vehicle registration fee (surcharge) to be used by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) and local governments specifically for programs to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • List Service Groups 1 and 2 Addendum 3
    Request for Proposal for Zero Waste Services Service Groups 1 and 2 City Facilities ‐ List Addendum 3 Facility Name Facility Address ALLENDALE RECREATION CENTER 3711 SUTER ST ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 1101 29TH AVE ARROYO COMMUNITY GARDEN 79TH AVE CUL‐DE‐SAC AND ARROYO TENNIS COURTS 8006 PLYMOUTH ST ARROYO VIEJO RECREATION CENTER 7701 KRAUSE AVE BROOKDALE RECREATION CENTER 2535 HIGH ST BURKHALTER TENNIS COURT 3923 COLUMBIAN DR BUSHROD RECREATION CENTER 560 59TH ST CALDECOT FIELD 6900 BROADWAY CARMEN FLORES RECREATION CTR 1637 FRUITVALE AVE CARTER GILMORE FIELD 1390 66TH AVE CHABOT FIELD 6850 CHABOT RD CHABOT TENNIS COURT 6884 CHABOT RD CITY HALL 1 FRANK H OGAWA PLAZA CITY STABLES 13560 SKYLINE BLVD CLINTON PARK 655 INTERNATIONAL BLVD COLUMBIA GARDENS PARK (ENTERPRISE) 9854 KOFORD RD COMMUNITY GARDEN 876 47TH ST COMMUNITY GARDEN PROGRAM 1700 MARKET ST CONCORDIA RECREATION CENTER 2901 64TH AVE CURT FLOOD FIELD PARK 3200 BOSTON AVE DALZIEL BUILDING 250 FRANK H OGAWA PLAZA DAVIE TENNIS STADIUM 198 OAK RD, PIEDMONT DEFREMERY POOL 1269 18TH ST DEFREMERY REC CENTER 1651 ADELINE ST DEFREMERY TENNIS COURT 1239 18TH ST DIMOND PARK & REC CENTER 3860 HANLY RD DIMOND TENNIS COURT 3743 FRUITVALE AVE DOWNTOWN OAKLAND SENIOR CENTER 200 GRAND AVE DUNMUIR HOUSE 2960 PERALTA OAKS CT EAST OAKLAND SPORTS CENTER (STORED/SHARED WITH IRA JINKINS REC. C9161 EDES AVE EASTMONT POLICE SUBSTATION 2651 73RD AVE ESTUARY PARK (BOAT LAUNCH) (Park) 107 EMBARCADERO EAST F M SMITH RECREATION CTR 1969 PARK BLVD FAIRYLAND 245 GRAND AVE FAIRYLAND 699 BELLEVUE AVE FIRE ADMINISTRATION
    [Show full text]
  • City of Oakland Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage
    City of Oakland Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage Confirmation Sign Turn Sign Decision Sign City of Oakland, Department of Transportation Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Program 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 4344, Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238-3983 | [email protected] | www.oaklandbikes.info September 2017 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Standard Signs for Bicycle Wayfinding .............................................................................................. 3 Sign Assembly Types ............................................................................................................................ 3 Sign Placement Principles .................................................................................................................... 4 Sign Frequency ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Sign Layout Principles .......................................................................................................................... 5 Logos/Symbols Used on Decision & Confirmation Signs ............................................................ 7 Differences From the MUTCD Sign Layout Specifications .......................................................... 7 Sign Messaging Principles ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Uniquely Oakland San Francisco Business Times
    SPECIAL ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 Uniquely OaklandOpportunities shine in California’s most inclusive and innovative city 2 ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT UNIQUELY OAKLAND SAN FRANCISCO BUSINESS TIMES Welcome to Mandela Station MANDELA STATION @WEST OAKLAND BART A Culture-Rich Transit Oriented Development 7TH ST T2 T1 Located at the 5.5-acre West Oakland Bart Station Site T3 T4 5TH ST A Centrally Located 750 Residential Units Opportunity Zone Project (approx. 240 units below market-rate) 500,000 sq.ft. of Class A oce space Only 7 minutes from Downtown San Francisco (via BART) 75,000 sq.ft. of quality retail Over 400 parking stalls Only 4 minutes to Downtown PROJ. # 168-153 WO BART Oakland (via BART) DATE: April 30, 2019 SHEET: A Regional Community...Connected JRDV ARCHITECTS INC. COPYRIGHT C 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. We’re on the Edge - and taking transit oriented living to the next level. www.westoaklandstation.com #WOSTATION [email protected] 中国港湾工程有限 公司 Strategic Urban Development Alliance, LLC China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. suda SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 UNIQUELY OAKLAND ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT 3 ‹ A LETTER FROM THE MAYOR OF OAKLAND › Uniquely Oakland Everyone belongs in the world’s best city for smart businesses, large or small elcome to Oakland, Calif., the best place ment dollars are pouring in, driving construction on the planet to pursue prosperity. on 240,000 square feet of new retail space and W If that seems like exaggeration, 945,000 square feet of new office space with consider this: Oakland is ideally located at the openings slated for 2019, 2020 and 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Oakland Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage 7’ Minimum 10’ Typical
    City of Oakland Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage 10’ typical 7’ minimum Confirmation Sign Turn Sign Decision Sign City of Oakland, Community & Economic Development Agency Transportation Services Division, Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Program 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 4344, Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238-3983 | [email protected] | www.oaklandbikes.info July 2009 Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage Background Action 1A.4 of the City of Oakland’s Bicycle Master Plan (2007) states, “Route Signage: Develop an informative and visible signage system for the bikeway network, building on existing bikeway signage, that includes directional and distance information to major destinations.” In Section 3.3, the Plan provides a discussion of the bicycle wayfinding signs that Oakland has used in the past. The following approach applies to all new bicycle wayfinding signage in the City of Oakland. Overall Approach Destination, direction, and distance information will be included on designated bikeways. Figure 1 provides a full list of supported destinations with guidance on how distances are measured. Figure 2 is a map of these destinations showing their distribution throughout the city. The destinations are organized into a hierarchy of three categories. Primary destinations are downtown and adjoining jurisdictions and are signed at distances of up to five miles. Secondary destinations are transit stations and districts and are signed at distances of up to two miles. Tertiary destinations include parks, landmarks, colleges, hospitals, and high schools. They are generally signed at distances up to one mile. Overall, the system supports approximately 100 destinations. Standard Signs for Bicycle Wayfinding The overall approach follows the look and feel of standard highway guide signs while the detailed design is tailored for bicyclists.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Oakland
    Mapping Small Arts & Culture Organizations of Color in Oakland A benchmark project that will encourage funders to adopt intentional investment strategies to support the longterm stability of this sector. Contents 1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 4 Key Findings ...................................................................................................................... 4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 4 2. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5 Why This Project? .............................................................................................................. 5 Racial Equity in Arts Philanthropy ....................................................................................... 6 Art and Cultural Practice as Tools for Social Change ............................................................ 8 3. Methodology .................................................................................................................... 10 Data Limitations ............................................................................................................... 10 Sector Overview ............................................................................................................... 11 4. Key Findings ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cultivating the Commons an Assessment of the Potential For
    Portland State University PDXScholar Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Publications Urban Studies and Planning and Presentations 12-2010 Cultivating the Commons An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land Nathan McClintock Portland State University, [email protected] Jenny Cooper University of California - Berkeley Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/usp_fac Part of the Social Policy Commons, Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation McClintock, N., and Cooper, J. (2010). Cultivating the Commons An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land. Available at www.urbanfood.org. This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cultivating the Commons An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land by Nathan McClintock & Jenny Cooper Department of Geography University of California, Berkeley REVISED EDITION – December 2010 ! i Cultivating the Commons An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land Nathan McClintock & Jenny Cooper Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley October 2009, revised December 2010 In collaboration with: City Slicker Farms HOPE Collaborative Institute for Food & Development Policy (Food First) This project was funded in part by the HOPE Collaborative. City Slicker Farms was the fiscal sponsor. Food First published print copies of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC)
    PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION - PRAC Wednesday, September 12, 2018 Lakeside Park Garden Center – 666 Bellevue Avenue Draft Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER: 4:34p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: AIKENS, COLE, CORBIN, HA, HOWZE, KADERA-REDMOND, MOORE, NORMAN, REILLY, TORRES, WOLFSON Present: 7 – Aikens, Cole, Corbin, Kadera-Redmond, Moore, Norman, Reilly Excused: 4 – Ha, Howze, Torres, Wolfson Staff: Parks and Recreation - Director Nicholas Williams, Dana Riley, Desmona Armstrong, Zermaine Thomas (Acting Recording Secretary) 3. DISPOSITON OF MINUTES: A. June 13, 2018 Draft Minutes Motion: Commissioner Cole entertained a motion to approve the Disposition of Draft Minutes for June 13, 2018. Second by: Commissioner Corbin Vote: 7 Yes: Aikens, Cole, Corbin, Kadera-Redmond, Moore, Norman, Reilly Motion: Passed B. July 11, 2018 Draft Minutes Note: Insufficient quorum to make a motion to approve the July 11, 2018 draft meeting minutes. 4. MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA: N/A 5. OPEN FORUM: 12 Speakers spoke during Open Forum • Sean Maher: City of Oakland, Capital Improvement Program Update • Donald Bordenave: Black & Veatch for Extenet System: Small Cell Sites around Lake Merritt • Lisa Hire: Friends of the Oakland Municipal Band Update on Summer Concerts at Edoff Memorial Bandstand • Susan Pierpoint: North Oakland Village would like to incorporate a Senior Playground. • Katie Noonan & Miriam Valesco: Rotary Nature Center supporters providing updates on the process. 1 • 7 speakers for Pickleball requesting a park in Oakland that will accommodate the fast-growing sport. 6. CONSENT NEW BUSINESS: A. REQUEST APPROVAL FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION TO GRANT PERMISSION TO ALLOW THE AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR SUICIDE PREVENTION (AFSP) TO COLLECT ON SITE CHARITABLE DONATIONS AT THIER OUT OF THE DARKNESS WALK AT LAKESIDE PARK PERGOLA ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2018, FROM 6:00AM – 10:00AM.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee
    Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee February 12, 2014 Resolution Nos. 4053, Revised, 4084, Revised and 4086, Revised Subject: Federal Grants Status Update and Revisions to the Lifeline Transportation Program Third Cycle Program of Projects. Background: As reported at the Committee’s December 2013 meeting, FTA Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) funds totaling about $2.0 million lapsed on September 30, 2013 due to delays in U.S. Department of Labor certification of the grants requesting those funds from FTA. The delays were the result of a dispute over potential conflicts between the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) and federal transit labor law. MTC submitted a letter to the FTA Administrator requesting that the lapsed funds be reinstated, but this request was denied. The lapsed JARC funds were programmed for the Lifeline Transportation Program Cycle 3 program, which funds projects that improve mobility for the region’s low-income communities, and were included in grants that had been submitted to FTA by MTC, Santa Rosa CityBus and AC Transit. In order to maintain funding for Lifeline, staff has developed a proposed plan to replace all of the lapsed funds. The plan includes the following elements, which are detailed in Attachment A: A total of $1.75 million in population-based STA funds would be allocated to subrecipients in MTC’s grant to offset the loss of FTA funds. Of the total, about $692,000 would be redirected from an allocation for the regional Means-Based Fare Study that was part of the Lifeline Cycle 3 program, and $1.05 million would come off the top of the region’s FY2013-14 Lifeline program category of population-based funds.
    [Show full text]