Fill - Free fillable 2016-6-16 BPAC-Minutes - 2016-6-16

CityofOakland,Bicyclist&PedestrianAdvisoryCommission

MinutesfromJune16,2016meeting

pg1of5

CityofOakland,Bicyclist&PedestrianAdvisoryCommission

MinutesfromtheJune16,2016meeting

CityHall,HearingRoom3



Meetingagendaathttp://www2.oaklandnet.com/oak056328



Meetingcalledtoorderat6:01pmby BPACChair,RyanChan.



Item1.RollCall/DeterminationofQuorum/Introductions

Atrollcall,quorumwasestablishedwithallCommissionerspresentexceptHwang(excused).

Introductionsweremade.

• Otherattendees(whosignedin):JenniferAnderson,RyanMcClain, BrianGeiser ,MarthaEkdahl,

KitVaq,Rich

Johnson,JianhanWang,ErinBaldassian

• Staff:PeterChun,Jelani Killings,JasonPatton,Jennife r Stanley,BruceStoffmacher,Wladimir

Wlassowsky



Item2.Approvalofmeetingminutes

 AmotiontoadopttheBicyclist&PedestrianAdvisoryCom missionmeetingminutesfrom

May19,2016wasmade(Tabata),seconded(Prinz)andpassed

onvoicevote.



Adoptedminutesonlineatwww.oaklandbikes.info/BPAC.



Item3.OpenForum/PublicComment

Nocomments.



Item4.PublicHearing:ClaySt(7thStto17thSt)BikeLanes

JasonPatton,OPWBicycleFacilitiesProgram,gaveabriefoverviewoftheproject:bikelanesforthe

lengthofClayStindowntown.Ifapproved,constructionwouldbeincludedinanupcomingpreventative

maintenance(paving)project(2017).Currently,

theroadwaycrosssectiononClayStvariesblockto

block.Theprojectwouldresultinauniformcrosssection:parking,abufferedbikelane,andonetravel

laneinbothdirections.Parkingstallswillbe addedonsomeblocks.Northboundat12

St,aleftturn

pocketwillbeprovidedtoaccommodaterelativelyheavyleftturnvolumes.Therecently‐installedbike

laneson16

and17

StsconnectthenewbikelanesonTelegraph AvetoClaySt.Thealignmentmoves

toWashingtonStsinceClayStdoesn’tgounderI‐880.Thiswillbethemostcompletedowntownbicycle

connectiononthewestsideofBroadway.



ThepurposeofthisPublicHearingistocomply

withtheCEQAbikelaneexemptionauthorizedby

AssemblyBill2245whichstreamlinesenvironmentalreviewifastudyiscompletedand a dulynoticed

publichearingisheldintheaffectedneighborhood.TheprojectwillgotoCityCouncil fora p proval

pursuanttoOakland’srequireme nt forsuchapprovalwhentravellanes

areremovedtoinstallbike

lanes.



SeePublicHearingnotesinAttachmentA.



CityofOakland,Bicyclist&Pede strianAdvisoryCommission

MinutesfromJune16,2016meeting

pg2of5



Item5.IntroductiontotheCity’sGovernmentEthicsAct(GEA)

JelaniKillingswiththePublicEthicsCommissionoutlinedrequirementspertainingtopublicservants:

electedofficials,Citystaff,andCommissioners.TheOaklandGovernmentEthicsActreflectsbothstate

rulesandlocalregulations,andincludes:conflictsofinterests,Form700filing,transparent

processfor

public,revolvingdoorrestrictions.There'sahelplineforquestions.



A10‐minutevideowasshowndescribingtheGEAandtheservicesprovidedbythePublicEthics

Commission.Commissionersareencouragedtocontactthem:

pubethicscommission@oaklandnet.com

(510)238‐3593

CityHall,1

FloorOffice



CommissionerRyaninquiredaboutwhethertheCommissionersHandbook(2 013)wasstilluptodate.

Jelaniexplainedthatthegiftlimithadbeenreducedto$250,butotherwisetheinformationwas

current.



Item6.ProposedChangestoOaklandMunicipalCode(OMC)RequirementsforBikeRegistration

BruceStoffmacherwith

theOaklandPoliceDepartment(OPD)reportedthatthecurrentbikelicense

requirementhasn’thelpedOPDfindlost/stolenbik esandnotmanypeoplearechoosingtogetthem.

OPDmaintainsalistofstolenbikes,butnotastrongdigitalsystemlikethatofferedbythenon‐profit

bikeindex.com,whichis national

andhasahighersuccessrateatrecoveringbicycles.SeveralCalifornia

citieshavestoppedrequiringlicensing.



SeehandoutwithproposedrevisionstoOMCChapter12.60.Iftherevisionsareapproved,OPDwould

stopissuinglicenses.Thosethatsellusedbikes/parts,wouldstillneedtomai ntainalistofsourcesfor

purchases.OPDhopestobringthistothePublicSafetyCommitteeinOctoberorNovember2016.They 

alsowishtoidentifyfundingforasmallpublicinformationcampaignaboutalternativebicycle

registrationservicesandsafetyideas.



Summaryofdiscussion:

 Thisisbeneficialastherequirementimpedednon‐motorizedtransportation.



Considerworkingwithbikeshopssuchthattheyregisteryourbikeforyouuponsale.

 TheBPACOMCreviewcommittee(Prinz,Tabata,Wheeler)haveconcludedthatthereare

furtheropportunitiesforcodecleanup,butthatthisproposalshouldmoveforwardnow.In

particular,Section12.60.030(bikeoperationrules)is

notrelevanttothistopic,butmore

legwork/communicationisrequired.JasonPattonagreedthat therulesaboutbicyclinginparks

shouldbemovedtotheparks‐specificsectionofthecode.

 Requiringthosewhosellbikes/partstohaveanIDmaybeproblematic.

 Whataboutstatewiderepealofrequirements?

(PerhapscontactCalBiketoadvocateonthis.)

 Donatedbikes/partsarenotsubjecttothelistrequirement.

 Theincreasedfeefornotmaintainingalistonbikesalesis meanttodetertheintentional

destructionofbicycleserialnumbers.Itisnotclearwhetherthehigherfinewouldincrease

recoveryofstolenbikes.The$250finewouldprobablygototheGeneralFund.



 AmotiontoendorseremovalofthebicyclelicenserequirementinOMC12.60.010,the

changesto12.60.020(OPDwillnotissuelicensesandwillinsteadrecommendthirdparty

bicycleregistrationservices),and,inOMC12.60.040,

increasingthefeefrom$10to$250

CityofOakland,Bicyclist&Pede strianAdvisoryCommission

MinutesfromJune16,2016meeting

pg3of5

pertainingtoSections12.60.010and0.20onlywasmade(Chan),seconded(McWilliams)

andpassedunanimously.



SpeakersotherthanCommissioners:BrianGeiser,MarthaEkdahl,JianhanWang



Item7.TelegraphAveCycletrackProjectImplementationUpdate

WladimirWlassowskyandPeterChunwiththeTransportationServicesDivision(TSD)andRyanMcClain

withFehr&

Peers(transportationconsultingfirm)gaveanupdateontheTelegraphAvecycletrack

project.Wlad,TSDManager,explainedthatCityCouncilapprovedtheparkingprotectedbikelane

designin2014.InSummer2015,theprojectwasscheduledforimplementationaspartofresurfacing

project.Inlatefall/winter2015,stafffoundmorechallenges

thananticipated.Severalroundsofdesign

revisionsweremade,aswellasspotpavementrepairandutilitycoordinationnecessitatedcontract

changeordersandthusnegotiationswiththeconstructioncontractor.OnMay10,theprojectribbon

cuttingwasheld,buttherearestillalotofadjustmentsinprogress.



PeterChun,

TSDTransportationEngineer,explainedthatthereare14itemsonthe“punchlist”

remaining.TheCityistryingtogetcontractortofinishinthenexttwoweeks.Afterthat,theCitywill

restartparkingmeterenforcement.Enforcementinredcurbsnearbulboutsandinthebikelaneis

underway.

Loadingzonesandsignagewillbefixed.Neededmeterrelocationswillbegininthenext

coupleofweeks.MeterenforcementisanticipatedtostartonJuly5.



RyanMcClainsaidthattheCityisgettingfeedbackontheprojectviaanemailaddresssetupforthat

purpose(telegraphinfo@fehrandpeers.com),regular 

complaintsthatcomethroughthecallcenter,and

aviaasurveyconductedbytheCity.Themajorityofcomplaintsare:wantphysicalbarriers;stopcars

fromparkinginbikelane;stopcarsparkinginbeigeareas;concernaboutsightdistances.Anafter‐study

willbedoneafterschoolstarts.Basedonthestudyoutcome,thecitymaychange

thesignaltiming.

Also,theadditionofflexpoststokeeppeopleoutofthebei geareaswillbe considered.



Summaryofdiscussion:

 Itishardfordriverstoseepedestrians.

 Driversareactuallyseeingpedestriansandthat'swhytheyarecomplaining.

 Addmoredelineationlikemovable

bollards.TheKoreatown‐NorthgateBusinessImprovement

District(BID)mayputplantersinbeigeareas.

 Fehr&Peerswillevaluatebefore/afteryieldbehavior.

 Thebikewayiscurrentlytheminimumwidthinwhichstreetsweeperscanoperate.

 Everyonejusthastogetusedtothenewconfiguration. 

 Permanentbulb

outswillbeinstalledinthecurrently‐beigeareas.Considerinstallingsafehit

postsinareaswhereitdoesn'taffectturningsothatdriverscangetusedtoit.(Thereare

currentlyorangedelineatorsatmajorintersections.Fehr&Peersisrevisingthedelineatorplan

thatwilladdmoredelineators.

Thisworkwillbecoordinatedw/BIDtominimizeimpactonFirst

Fridays.)



SpeakersotherthanCommissioners:BrianGeiser



Item8.BPACPavingCommitteeReportback

Seehandout.Ryanaskedforsuggestionsonwhatthecommitteeshoulddo.



Summaryofdiscussion:

CityofOakland,Bicyclist&Pede strianAdvisoryCommission

MinutesfromJune16,2016meeting

pg4of5



 Accordingthecommitteefindings,theCitymakesagoodfaithefforttocoordinate,but

recordkeepingisnotideal.

 Theinformationinthehandoutdoesn'treflectprojectsbyotheragencieslikeCaltrans.

 Moreresourcesareneededtomakesureprojectsdon'tslipthroughcracks/missed

opportunities.



CompleteStreetsChecklist(Citydocument,partofhandout)shouldbeusedbyallprojectsand

allthosethatcomebeforeBPAC.CommissionerKiddwouldlikeBPACtohaveoversightduties.

 Checklistshouldbemoreexplicitaboutcoordinationwithtransit.

 InfrastructurebondwillrequireGISdata,anditshouldbe

madepublic.

 CityispursuingACELA,aGIS‐basedsystemthathelpscoordinateallprojectsinthepublic right

ofway.



SpeakersotherthanCommissioners:JenniferAnderson



 Amotiontoextendthemeetingtimeby10minuteswasmade(Chan),seconded(Prinz)and

passedonvoicevote.



Item9.Three‐monthagendalook‐ahead,suggestionsformeetingtopics,DOTUpdate,

announcements

 ApresentationonHighwaySafetyImprovementProgram(HSIP)grantapplication(s)is

scheduledforJuly.TheBPACcouldconveneaspecia lmeetingorformcommitteetoreview

beforeoraftertheJulymeeting.(TheHSIPapplication

guidelinesareat

http://dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/HSIP/2016/HSIP‐Guidelines.pdf.)



 AmotiontoformacommitteetoreviewproposedHSIPapplicationswithstaffthat

includesCommissionersPrinzandTabata,DaveCampbell,andotherstobedetermined

wasmade(Prinz),seconded(Tabata)andpassedwithallinfavor.



 ReviewofthePedestrianMasterPlanistentativelyscheduled for September.

 PleasescheduleareportfromthenewDOTinterim director(JeffTumlin)inSeptember.



Announcements:

 TheBayBridgebikepathisnowopenuntil9pm.

 ThebusstoponBroadwayat30

StisbeingrelocatedfarsidetothefrontofSummitBank.

 TheOaklandPublicLibraryopenedthebikerepairShedattheMartinLutherKingJrLibraryat

AveandInternationalBlvd.

 ThebikewayonE7

St,partoftheon‐streetBayTrail,hasbeenclosedandreportedlywould

notbeaccessiblethroughSeptemberduetoautilityprojectandnobike/peddetourwas

implemented.Citystaffisworkingtoresolvethisproblem.



Meetingadjournedat8:16pm.



Attachments(tobeappendedtoadoptedminutes)



TopTenEthicsRules

 OMC12.60strikethrough

 Pavingcommitteereport/completestreetschecklist



CityofOakland,Bicyclist&Pede strianAdvisoryCommission

MinutesfromJune16,2016meeting

pg5of5

MinutesrecordedbyJenniferStanley,CityofOaklandBicycle&PedestrianFacilitiesCoordinator,

emailedtomeetingattendeesforreviewonJuly5,2016,withcommentsrequestedby5pm,Friday,July

8,tojstanley@oaklandnet.com.RevisedminuteswereattachedtotheJune2016meetingagendaand

adoptedatthatmeeting.

Attachment A



1



Response to Comments Received on the Clay Street Bike Lane Project

On May 27, 2016, the City published notice of a public hearing on June 16, 2016 to consider the proposed

restriping of travel lanes to remove travel lanes and install bike lanes on Clay St, 7

St to 17

St. No

written comments were received in response to the May 27 notice. The public hearing on June 16 was

held in City Hall at the monthly meeting of the City of Oakland’s Bicyclist and Pedestrian Advisory

Commission (BPAC). City Hall is immediately adjacent to the project location. Staff presented the

project and received public comments. The following documents the comments received and responses

given at the meeting. 

Brian Geiser (member of the public): Why is Clay St part of the bikeway network when there are other

parallel bikeway streets downtown?

Response: The bicycle network includes bikeways on many downtown streets. The bikeway on Clay St is

an alternative to travel on Broadway. Martin Luther King Jr Wy, two blocks to the west, is also proposed

for bike lanes. A new bikeway on Oak St/Madison St, east of Broadway is pending installation later this

year. Overall the downtown bikeway network includes multiple north-south bikeways on either side of

Broadway.

Brian Geiser (member of the public): Will the lane reduction cause traffic congestion?

Response: No. The City completed an analysis of traffic operations and safety. The traffic volumes on

Clay St are very low and do not justify the current number of travel lanes. The proposed project will

continue to allow for motor vehicle circulation while improving safety for all modes by installing a more

consistent lane configuration.

Robert Prinz (BPAC Commissioner): What can the BPAC do to remove the requirement for City

Council approval of bike lane road diets?

Response: A technical assistance grant from the Alameda County Transportation Commission is enabling

staff to consider changes to how the City evaluates road diets implemented as part of bikeway projects

(other road diets do not require Council approval). The results of this grant-funded project will help

respond to the concern. The idea is to match the complexity of the study to the complexity of the street.

Low volume streets don’t need as much analysis as do more complicated streets such as those with major

AC Transit bus lines. The upcoming update to the City’s Bicycle Master Plan may provide an opportunity

to engage City Council on reforming the approval process for new bike lanes.

Robert Prinz (BPAC Commissioner): Will the project improve pedestrian crossings?

Response: The Clay St paving is a preventative maintenance treatment (vs full scale resurfacing). This

type of treatment doesn’t include concrete work, so no curb ramps will be upgraded. All uncontrolled

crossings already have ladder crossings and these will be maintained. The crossing between the State

Building and Frank Ogawa Plaza is signalized, but mid-block, so, per City policy, a ladder crossing may

2



be added. More generally, the project will improve pedestrian safety by simplifying the travel lane

configuration at crosswalks.

Kenya Wheeler (BPAC Commissioner): Northbound, approaching 17

St/San Pablo Ave, bicyclists

may make a right turn onto 17th St or a left turn onto San Pablo Ave. What is being done to address right

hook conflict here?

Response: This week, bike lanes are being installed on San Pablo Ave, changing the receiving lane

configuration. The Clay St design will reflect these changes and additional attention will be given to

providing clear guidance for bicyclists and motorists navigating the Clay St / San Pablo Ave / 17

intersection.

Kenya Wheeler (BPAC Commissioner): Where parking stalls are being added, make sure to keep red

zones at crosswalk approaches so that drivers can see for pedestrians.

Response: The design will include red zones to improve/maintain pedestrian visibility.

BPACPavingCommitteeUpdate

June2016

CommissionersChan,HwangandPrinz(withgeneroustechnicalassistancefromDave

Campbell,BikeEastBay)



Purpose:

ThePavingCommitteewasformedattheFebruary2016BPACmeetingtoreviewtheCity’s

pavingactivities,withattentiontocoordinationwithpedestrianandbicyclistfacility

improvements.



Activities:

● Compiledpavinginformationfrommultiplesources(PavingActivitiesPage,Paving

Dashboard,BikewayCoordinationSpreadsheet,PavingContracts)andexamined

projectsforpossiblemissedopportunities

● RequestedCitystafftoupdatebikeway/pavingcoordinationspreadsheet

● ReviewedtheCompleteStreetschecklistthattheCityusesforpavingcontracts(sample

attached)

● Requesteddetailonstripingplansforupcomingpavingprojects



Findings:

● Thecurrentorganizationalstructuremakesitdifficultforthevariousdepartments

responsibleforpavingdevelopmenttocoordinate

● Lackofstaffresourcesreducesthelevelanddetailofreviewofprojectsforpedestrian

andbicyclistcomponents



RemainingWork:

● ReviewtheCity’spavingcoordinationwiththecurrentandplannedpedestrianmaster

planandsafety/hazardreports

● ConsiderBPACpresentationonCompleteStreetscoordination

● FollowupwhenstripingplansarereadyinSeptember/OctoberfromtheTransportation

ServicesConsultant



OPW, BEC, Transportation Planning & Funding Division BETA version (7/8/2015)

City of Oakland Checklist for Complete Streets / Paving Project Coordination

This checklist is completed for each roadway segment proposed for paving. The section headers

specify which groups contribute information. The final checklist documents the scope for

integrating design improvements with the paving project.

1. Project Description (Pavement Management Program)

Roadway: _________________ From: _________________ To: _________________

Length (feet): ______________ Paving Treatment: _____________________________

Does the project include concrete work (curb ramps, sidewalk repair)?  Yes  No

2. Coordination with Overlapping Projects (All Divisions in Engineering & Construction)

 ITS Project: ______________________________________________________

 Other City Project: ______________________________________________________

 Other Agency Project: ______________________________________________________

3. Safety (Transportation Services): Is the street in the top 50 for crashes (weighted by severity)

in the most recent citywide crash analysis? If yes, consider an additional scope of work with

funding from other sources, including the Pedestrian Master Plan CIP project (pedestrian

countdown signal heads, rapid flash beacons, refuge islands, bulbouts).

 No  Yes. If yes, describe the additional scope of work:

4. Road Diets (Transportation Services, Transportation Planning): All multi-lane streets will be

considered for road diets. Candidate streets will be determined based on the Bicycle Master

Plan, pedestrian safety issues, speeding issues, and available data on traffic volumes.

 A road diet will be considered for inclusion. Status (feasibility, outreach, approval):

 A road diet was considered but will not be included. Rationale:

 Not applicable (the existing condition is one travel lane per direction).

OPW, BEC, Transportation Planning & Funding Division BETA version (7/8/2015)

5. Complete Streets Design Elements (Transportation Services): The project design will include

the following elements based on an evaluation of field conditions and available data (e.g.,

traffic counts, speed surveys, crash data).

• Motorist Safety (review crash history)

 Evaluate and upgrade markings and signs; identify removal of unneeded signs.

 Evaluate channelization at irregular intersections (stop/yield control, islands).

 Evaluate Hills streets for low-visibility driving (edge markings, curve warnings).

• Pedestrian Safety (applicable throughout the Flatlands, some Hills locations)

 Evaluate crosswalk locations per TSD’s crosswalk policy.

 Identify opportunities for pedestrian refuge islands.

 Update crosswalk markings and signs to best practices.

• Bikeways (per Bicycle Master Plan and other roadways with available space)

 Implement proposed bikeway: ___________________________________________

 Upgrade existing bikeway to best practices: _________________________________

 No existing/proposed bikeway

• Parking Management (applicable to bus routes, commercial districts)

 Bus stops: Evaluate bus stop lengths and locations.

 ADA parking: Evaluate quantity, placement, and condition.

 On-street parking: Evaluate feasibility of new parking stalls and/or meters.

 Loading zones: Evaluate the location and length of loading zones.

5. Notes on Scope & Schedule:

6. Project Management: This scope of work will be managed by _________________________.

7. Approval of Complete Streets Scope

_________________________________________ __________________

Supervising Engineer Date

_________________________________________ __________________

Transportation Services Division Manager Date

Download
Save PDF to desktop

Email
Email completed PDF

Send for Signing
Email for others to sign

Print
Print document

NAME

2016-6-16 BPAC-Minutes - 2016-6-16_BPAC-Minutes2

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank 2016-6-16 BPAC-Minutes - 2016-6-16_BPAC-Minutes2 Form

Related forms

Fillable 2016-6-16 BPAC-Minutes - 2016-6-16_BPAC-Minutes2

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank 2016-6-16 BPAC-Minutes - 2016-6-16_BPAC-Minutes2 Form

Related forms

First 20 documents completely FREE!