body,date,page,text,path
PublicArtCommission,2006-02-22,1,"CITT
$
MINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2006
CO.
DATE:
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
TIME:
7:00 p.m.
PLACE:
City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360
Alameda, CA 94501
1.
Roll Call:
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m.
Present:
Chair Huston, Vice Chair Lee, Commissioners Cecilia Cervantes*,
K.C. Rosenberg and Peter Wolfe*
Staff:
Andrew Thomas, Staff Member
Christina Bailey, Staff Member
*arrived after roll call
2.
Approval of Minutes
A.
Minutes of Meeting on January 25, 2006
M/S/C
Lee/Wolfe
(approved)
""That Minutes of Public Art Commission Meeting on January 25, 2006 be
approved.""
Approved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, and Wolfe
Absent (1) - Cervantes
3.
Oral Communications
- NONE
4.
Written Communications
- NONE
5.
New Business
A. Presentation by Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director
PAC Meeting
1
February 22, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-02-22.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2006-02-22,2,"Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director, introduced herself and
reported on Commission staffing. Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner,
introduced himself and explained department's role in the Public Art process.
B. Presentation by Terry Highsmith, City Attorney's Office
Assistant City Attorney Terry Highsmith provided an overview of the Ralph M.
Brown Act.
6.
Old Business
A. Draft Public Art Handout (Quick Guide)
The Commission commented on the draft document wording and content, and
directed staff to bring a revised draft to the next regular meeting.
7.
Subcommittee Reports
Commissioner Wolfe reported that he had spoken to Tad Savinar, Art Consultant
for Alameda Towne Centre. He learned that Mr. Savinar is in the process of
looking for approximately $7,500.00 in additional Public Art.
8.
Commissioner Communications
- NONE
9.
Staff Communications
Staff member Thomas distributed a Public Art Status Report. Chair Huston asked
if two items could be added: 1) estimated time frame of project, 2) single- or multi-
phased project. Staff agreed to keep the report updated for each regularly
scheduled meeting.
A. Revisions to PAC description in Boards and Commissions Handbook
Staff member Bailey reported that City Clerk's office would revise the description.
The Commission discussed revised wording for the PAC description. Staff
agreed to bring a revised draft to the next regular meeting.
B. Update on BASE High School Student Mural
Staff member Thomas reported that he had spoken to Amanda Kruger, teacher
at BASE High School about their proposed mural project. He added that the
Development Services Department might be interested in placing the mural on
the construction fencing for the Theater/Parking Structure Project.
10. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
PAC Meeting
2
February 22, 2006",PublicArtCommission/2006-02-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-02-22,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 22, 2006
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
John Knox White
Pattianne Parker
Michael Krueger
Jeff Knoth
Robert McFarland
Absent:
Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier
Staff Present:
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works
Andrew Thomas, Planning
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Parker moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Knoth seconded the
motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 4 (Abstained - McFarland).
Commissioner Parker stated that there were items discussed at the meeting that were not
reflected in the minutes, and asked if the Chair could maintain a record of items that require
responses from staff.
Chair Knox White said he would discuss this with Staff Hawkins.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
Staff Bergman suggested the Staff Communications be moved up before the Northern Waterfront
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), so that Andrew Thomas from the Planning
Department could be present.
Chair Knox White agreed.
4.
COMMISSION COMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White mentioned that the only thing not on the agenda was the Pedestrian Master
Plan Subcommittee.
1",TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-02-22,2,"Commissioner Knoth said that he and Commissioner Krueger met with Staff Bergman and
reviewed the comments from the last Task Force meeting, discussed the draft policies, and
reviewed the schedule. A set date for the next task force has not been established yet.
Chair Knox White mentioned that the ILC's next meeting is March 22nd 10:00 a.m. at AC Transit.
Commissioner Parker said that she attended a recent Catellus presentation about the proposed
Alameda Landing Development. She requested that the TC be given a brief presentation or
white paper on transportation projects related to this project, which may also affect the Northern
Waterfront project. This would help the Commission to understand what has been approved,
what phases the projects are in, and how they fit together. Specifically, she referred to the
construction of the Clement extension, Tinker Avenue, and Mitchell Mosley Avenue (note: most
recent plans have Mitchell connecting directly with Main Street, not joining with Mosley).
Chair Knox White asked when the TC is supposed to be briefed on the Alameda Landing project.
Commissioner Parker said that it is her understanding that it is scheduled for April, following the
Planning Board workshop on April 10.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Bergman presented information on the following items:
A Request for Qualifications for on-call contracts has been sent out. It covered the range
of Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering activities including the completion of
the Multimodal Circulation Plan.
A final public meeting for the Park Street Triangle project was held on February 8th in the
City of Oakland.
The City Attorney's office had forwarded AB1234 to the Commission. Staff Bergman
noted that it is not relevant to the Commission at this time, as it only pertains to
Commission members that receive compensation for Commission related activities.
The Bus Shelter Survey was posted on the City's web site the week of February 20th and
also fliers were put up at the 22 bus shelters for residents to take. About 100 responses
were received in the first week. The fliers are scheduled to remain at the bus shelters
until the end of February.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
None
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7a.
Northern Waterfront Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Staff Bergman said that Andrew Thomas from the Planning Department hopefully could stop in
and answer Commission questions following another meeting he was attending. The TC had
2",TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-02-22,3,"reviewed and provided some comments to the General Plan Amendment in 2004. A sub-
committee was formed and put together for comments. The EIR report has just been issued and
will be available thru the end of March for comments. The packet included the Transportation
and Circulation sector project description based on the General Plan Amendment that was
circulated before. None of the comments have been incorporated as to this date. Once the EIR
is finalized it will be forwarded to the Planning Board and Council. The TC members can
review the comments, which they can modify.
Chair Knox White said that the members would like to review those comments.
Commissioner Parker had a question. In the Project Description, Page 7, there is a discussion of
scattered residential properties. She expressed concern that some of these properties might block
a future transit corridor.
Chair Knox White said that it should be on the next meeting for discussion.
Commissioner Parker said that the DEIR, Transportation and Circulation deal with impact fees.
Some new developments have had their impact fees waived or reduced. Wants to make sure the
DEIR is based upon assessment of impact fees to stand firm on its policy. She also stated that
the DEIR indicates that the intersection of Clement and Park will be very congested in 2010 and
2025 whether the Northern Waterfront project is approved or not.
Chair Knox White responded that on Page IV.E-27, the baseline for 2025 with no project is Level
Of Service B. Commissioner Parker responded that the text on Page IV.E-28 is not consistent
with that. She noted that the report says ""the impact of the Clement extension on the intersection
of Park and Clement in 2025 is determined to be significant and unavoidable.""
Commissioner Krueger noted that on page 10, Line 19 runs on weekdays but also on weekends.
Regarding the transit discussion on page 18, he asked if there is sufficient right of way for a
future transit corridor.
Staff Bergman responded that cross-sections were developed as part of the Cross Alameda Trail
Feasibility Study, which illustrate how vehicles, bicycle facilities, and a rail corridor could be
accommodated. He indicated that along Clement Avenue the cross-sections located the rail
corridor within the roadway.
Chair Knox White stated that he was not aware of this, and asked that the cross-sections be
shared with the Commission for discussion at the March meeting.
Commissioner Krueger noted that there were originally three rail corridors through the Northern
Waterfront area, and that there were a number of houses located on them. He asked how the
development could have been approved when this area had been identified by the City as a future
rail corridor.
Commissioner Parker noted that it is has been recommended by several Boards and
Commissions that they reserve a continuous transit right of way.
3",TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-02-22,4,"Commissioner Krueger noted that this seems to be a pattern.
Staff Bergman said that the curb-to-curb cross-section for the section of Clement Avenue in
Marina Cove is 48 feet, the same as it is east of Grand.
Commissioner Parker noted that at previous meetings, residents of Buena Vista Avenue had
expressed their opposition to introducing rail service on the street.
Chair Knox White asked if the transit corridor would be located along the street, and Staff
Bergman responded that it would. Chair Knox White asked that the TC be given an explanation
of the right of way and how it changes along the corridor at the next meeting.
Commissioner McFarland stated that the data on page IV.E-6, Roadway Operations, include
what seem like very high vehicle capacity numbers for the Posey/Webster Tubes. He noted that
freeway lanes accommodate just over 2,000, and this is for facilities that are 12 feet wide with
shy distance.
Chair Knox White asked that at the March meeting that staff present the assumptions underlying
the peak hour capacity numbers for the Tubes.
Commissioner Parker wanted to know how ""peak hour"" is defined.
Staff Bergman said that it was not a specified hours based on what the count was but was the
highest hour on the day it was collected.
Commissioner Parker asked if the Commission could look at the trend of traffic throughout the
day instead of just the peak hour. This way the Commission could see how long the peak lasts.
Chair Knox White had a questions regarding Section 4, page 5. He noted that the Class II bike
lanes on Tilden Way exist on only some of the roadway. On page 17 the Northern Waterfront
Trip Distribution has 11% for trips coming from the south to Alameda and 7% trips going south
from Alameda. He stated that in the Transit Plan and at the Alameda Point Preliminary
Development Concept public meeting, the number used was 40%. He asked for clarification on
which number is correct.
Staff Bergman said that at least part of the discrepancy is due to the 40% being a percentage of
off-island trips, while the 11% is the percentage of all trips generated by the project. A
significant number of trips are expected to begin and end in Alameda.
Chair Knox White had a question on Page 17, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. He stated that
the TC had indicated during the discussion of the theater project that it would like to see
Negative Declarations and EIRs address bicycle and pedestrian usability and access as one of the
significance criteria.
4",TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-02-22,5,"Chair Knox White had a question on Page 19, Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. It states that
the removal of the truck route from Buena Vista will improve bicycle and pedestrian safety on
Buena Vista, but does not mention that the trucks are moving to Clement where the bicycle lanes
will be. The EIR should note this.
Chair Knox White had a question on page 22, Construction Traffic. It talks about re-routing of
automobiles, bicycles, buses and emergency vehicles. He suggested that it should read that buses
should only be rerouted as last resort to avoid confusion among riders. He asked if the items
listed on Page 24 under the TSM/TDM Plan #7 are already in a City plan, or if they are being
recommended for inclusion.
Staff Bergman responded that they are in an existing plan.
Chair Knox White stated that the DEIR should indicate that the elimination of the bike lanes on
Atlantic and redirecting the bicyclists onto a trail through the former rail yard would be a
hardship to bicyclists, as it would hinder bicycle access to, from, and within Marina Village. He
also expressed concern that the language is overly aggressive in suggesting the conversion of
Atlantic into a four-lane street. He asked staff to provide information on the level of service
along four-lane streets throughout the City during their peak hour of usage.
Staff Bergman responded that in some locations there may be excess capacity in anticipation of
future development.
Commissioner Krueger agreed with Chair Knox White: 's concern, and stated that he supported the
off-road path, but that it should not be considered a substitute for the bike lanes.
Chair Knox White asked how important the need is for additional capacity at this location. He
suggested that it may be worthwhile to allow the street to be congested for a short period of time
in order to maintain the bicycle facilities.
Commissioner Parker suggested that rather than specifying the number of lanes, that the
Commission could recommend a consistent width across the Island.
Chair Knox White expressed concern about the tendency to create more four-lane roads as part of
new projects, as this will ultimately only increase the traffic volumes.
Commissioner Krueger questioned whether it makes sense, if the Tube is the primary bottleneck,
to increase capacity along Atlantic to get to the Tube.
5",TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-02-22,6,"Commissioner Knoth moved that the TC is concerned with the consistency of the DEIR
recommendations with the wording 4.1.C of the 1990 General Plan, ""Do not increase through-
traffic capacity on the Main Island"". Commissioner Krueger seconded. Motion carried by a
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Commissioner Krueger moved that the TC would like the language clarified to point out that
although desirable pedestrian and bicycle access through the belt line is not a substitute for
pedestrian and bicycle access on Atlantic. Commissioner Parker seconded. Motion carried by
a unanimous voice vote - 5.
Commissioner Parker moved that the TC recommends that the Tilden-Clement connection is
extremely important to assure the success of the development of the Northern Waterfront under
this GPA. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5.
Commissioner Krueger noticed that there was a mentioned on page 30 of using developer fees on
Broadway/5th Street and Jackson, but no mention of using them to pay for the extension of
Clement for Tilden.
Staff Thomas said that it's not the additional traffic generated by the redevelopment of the
Northern Waterfront. The issue is that much of the traffic would be shifted from other streets, so
the development cannot be required to pay for the improvements. He noted that all new
development in Alameda pays Citywide Development Fees (CDF). The impact fees are directed
to improvements at specific locations. Public Works is doing an update of the Citywide Fees to
determine the most important projects to be funded.
Staff Thomas stated that since the funds are not currently in place yet for the Clement-to-Tilder
connection, the DEIR recommends that it be included in the General Plan.
Commissioner Krueger moved that given the importance of the Tilden/Clement
connection, the TC recommends to the City Council to direct staff to prioritize the
connection and to identify the funding to make it happen. Commissioner Parker
seconded. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5.
Chair Knox White asked for the GPA to come back to the TC in March in order to look review
their previous comments on the General Plan Amendment.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2006/0306/022206 tc minutes-FINAL.doc
6",TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf