body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2007-01-31,1,"Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Cunningham
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft,
Kohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara.
Also present were Planning & Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Planning Services Manager
Andrew Thomas and Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
Dorothy Reid proposed posting the Planning Board agenda two weeks prior to meetings. She also
requested more communication with Board members through email. She felt the amount and/or
importance of items in any given meeting should be more evenly divided to avoid long meetings and
pressure to decide on important issues. She stated staff should be able to gather information from all
interested parties without having to weigh validity of information. She felt staff should be neutral in
their decisions and not make recommendations on one side of projects going to the Planning Board.
She felt staff should serve the public.
Helen Sause expressed interest in an informational forum on Measure A at the Board's earliest
convenience. She also expressed concern over Alameda Point.
Diane Lichtenstein, HOMES, Inc. echoed Ms. Sause's interest on the forum regarding Measure A.
She noted that HOMES Inc. is in favor of modifying Measure A for Alameda Point.
Cathy Woodbury discussed roles and responsibilities for Planning Board members, staff, and others
involved.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft on why the meeting had to end at 9:00
p.m., Ms. Woodbury noted that staff would research that information and bring the findings back to
the Board.
Board member Mariani followed up on Ms. Reid's comments where it appears the City is advocating
and not taking all comments into consideration with respect to projects. She inquired why city staff
could not be designated to assist groups who may be opposed to projects as well. Ms. Woodbury
noted staff does not represent developers but presents an analysis in conjunction with the City's
codes, rules and regulations.
Board member McNamara noted that one of the roles of the Board is to communicate with staff and
make sure there is an open line of communication; she expressed concern with the communication
significant breakdown between staff and the Board. She encouraged staff and the Planning Board to
Planning Board Minutes
Page 1
January 31, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-31,2,"enhance their communication.
Board member Kohlstrand noted that she felt the role of staff should be to make recommendations to
the Board. She felt the Board should be clear on what the City's position is on projects that are
presented to the Planning Board. She noted that she also felt there was a communication breakdown
between staff and the Board. She encouraged more communication so the Board would be clear on
previous projects and she looked forward to updates on those projects.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft wanted to make sure that items that should come back to the Board
make it back and not be locked up in administrative decision-making. She also mentioned the
Safeway gas station proposal and expressed concern with the East/West sidewalk and the proposed
driveways.
Ms. Woodbury informed the Board that staff would make every effort to prevent those processes
from happening in the future. She noted that items that should come back to the Board make sure
the project is in compliance with conditions set forth in approved resolutions.
Board member McNamara mentioned that the City should provide an email so her personal email
would not be barraged with correspondence.
Ms. Woodbury noted that the City is in the process of establishing a City based e-mail service for the
Planning Board, which would be listed on the Planning & Building Department's homepage of its
website. She explained that all inquiries, comments and concerns received would then be forwarded
to the Planning Board members.
Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the AB 1234 Mandatory Ethics training stated that there are
legal reasons why Board members personal e-mails should not be used. She stated if personal e-mails
were used for Board communications, and if litigation occurred, all personal emails could be
requested by the person or entity that brought the litigation all personal e-mails could be viewed by
the person/entity that made the request.
Vice President Cook expressed concern with the apparent disconnect between Development Services
and Planning staff.
President Lynch mentioned that there should be more fundamental discussions between the City
Manager and City Council. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and there
purpose.
Ms. Woodbury responded by mentioning that when there are applications that are questionable,
public meetings with the neighborhoods are held.
President Lynch expressed concern with the budget and how it reflects the work plan. He
encouraged a better understanding of parameters of the Planning & Building Department and other
City departments. He also encouraged more communication with other department heads.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 2
January 31, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-31,3,"Ms. Woodbury responded by saying that she agrees that it would be a good discussion to talk about
the work plan.
In response to an inquiry by President Lynch on which order the work program items should be
viewed in or if the Board should follow the PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Woodbury stated that the
Board should follow the PowerPoint presentation. She also brought up the issue of meeting
management and making the meetings more efficient to accommodate all speakers and to hear
everyone voice their opinions.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Mariani on the feasibility of having a joint meeting with
the City Council, Ms. Woodbury responded in the affirmative. She noted the question of the joint
meeting focusing on a specific project was not feasible.
Board member Cunningham expressed his hesitancy on receiving e-mail on his personal e-mail
account. He inquired about the concern with individual members of the Board receiving e-mails or
having contact with prospective developers that could be viewed as ""back door deals"" on projects.
Ms. Woodbury responded the purpose of setting up this e-mail system was a means for the public to
communicate their concerns to the Planning Board. She noted that the City would provide training
on how to handle e-mail inquiries.
President Lynch expressed concern with receiving and answering emails from the public. He felt at
best this system would be a repository for public comment. He suggested that when the system is in
place, that no Board members respond to comments. He felt responses could tread in an area in
which Board members are rendering a position on something the Board may need to make a
determination on.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft responded by saying that she welcomes public comment via email and is
willing to respond to inquiries. She noted that she would not dialogue with the public but she felt she
should be accessible to the public.
Board member Mariani noted that she felt opposite about releasing her personal e-mail address to the
public. She noted as a volunteer, she felt she should be accessible to the public and did not mind the
public having her personal e-mail address.
Ms. Woodbury responded that all views on e-mail availability could be addressed with this system
provided by the City. She noted the system would be linked to the City's website as a group
specifically designated for the Planning Board.
Ms. Woodbury continued with her presentation and addressed what is expected of the Planning
Board. She noted that if a Board member missed a meeting and an item happened to be continued, it
was the member's responsibility to obtain information from the missed meeting, such as evidence,
minutes, and videos, to be prepared for the discussion at the following meeting.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested getting the packets earlier to allow more time for the Board
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
January 31, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-31,4,"to read the material and contact the Planning & Building Department with questions or concerns they
may have. She noted it would be helpful if staff continues to move toward the goal of more advanced
time for the Board to review packets and have questions addressed in a timely manner.
Ms. Woodbury mentioned being able to trust staff to enable staff member to give direction and ideas
to a project. She also mentioned adding conditions and making sure they are enforceable.
Board member Mariani requested e-mail addresses, telephone numbers and extensions for staff.
Vice President Cook noted that she has not received more than a handful of electronic e-mail
communications from the public before meetings but she has received hard copy e-mails before
meetings.
Ms. Jackson informed the Board that generally correspondence received from the public comes in the
day of their meeting and is then forwarded to the Planning Board members.
Ms. Woodbury continued with her PowerPoint presentation. She noted that when projects come
before the Board, it is important to remember that no project is perfect when it begins. She also
noted that the Board could potential approve a project in concept and give staff and the applicant
clear direction. She stated to the Board that she understood the only way the Board could do this is if
they really trusted staff. She assured the Board that staff would continue to work with the Board to
improve communication and gain their trust. She noted there is a comprehensive training schedule for
staff to improve their condition of approval writing abilities since new staff has been hired in the last
four months.
In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding what the Planning Department's
role is in policing projects to ensure projects are in compliance with conditions and what the penalties
are for noncompliance, Ms. Woodbury responded it depends on the conditions. She noted that it is
the Planning & Building Department's responsibility to monitor and enforce conditions.
Board member Kohlstrand commented on the packet deliver times and feels that packets and agendas
should be available at least a week in advance for adequate review. She also mentioned approving
projects in concept and providing direction to staff. She would like the City Attorney to take a more
proactive role in meetings. She commended the Planning Services Manager, Andrew Thomas, on his
ability to gather the Board's comments to ensure their conditions are adequately documented on
projects he brings before the Board.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Board member Kohlstrand's comment on having the
City Attorney take more of a proactive role an the meetings. She also suggested that some staff
reports be more clearly written to help everyone have a clear plan of action to approve or deny
projects based on findings.
Vice President Cook concurred with Board member Kohlstrand's comment on more assistance and
guidance from the City Attorney during the meetings. She also suggested follow-ups on projects that
have previously come before the Board to ensure that what the Board approved is what the project
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
January 31, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-31,5,"Board focus on what they have before them. She also suggested moving the communications up in
the order of the agenda.
Ms Woodbury brought up effective meeting management and how it's the President's responsibility
to maintain order and keep things moving. She also mentioned that anyone wishing to speak should
be recognized by the President to make it easier to compile the public records and connect the
speaker to the right statement. Board members must be able to clearly articulate decisions, especially
when it is different from staff's recommendations. She noted the importance for everyone to respect
one another because all their comments are valuable.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 5
January 31, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf
PlanningBoard,2007-01-31,6,"In response to an inquiry by President Lynch on if a Board member could deny a project just because
they don't like it, Ms. Woodbury responded in the negative. She stated the Board had to make a
finding on why they would deny the project based on the Code.
Board member Maiani noted that Board members not take disagreements personally. She noted it is
okay to disagree respectfully.
5.
ADJOURNMENT:
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
These minutes were approved at the Planning Board meeting of March 26, 2007. This meeting was
audio and videotaped.
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
January 31, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,1,"DRAFT
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
January 31, 2007
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
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier
Srikat Subramaniam
Absent:
Jeff Knoth
Robb Ratto
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Knox White advised that there was not a quorum to vote on the minutes of October 25,
2006, and November 15, 2006.
Chair Knox White invited a motion to approve the minutes of December 13, 2006.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Krueger seconded the
motion. Motion passed (4-0 McFarland abstained).
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
6A.
REVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON FINAL DRAFT
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONCEPTS - FINAL.",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,2,"Staff Khan presented the staff report and noted that two previous presentations had been made.
The first recommendation from the Multimodal Circulation Subcommittee was to divide the
arterials into two categories: regional arterials and island arterials. The regional arterials would
carry regionally significant traffic in and out of the City, and island arterials would carry traffic
across the City and within City limits. The second recommendation would be to examine those
roadways that would be reduced in their current classification. They are currently classified as
transitional arterials or collectors. The Subcommittee recommended that Bayview Drive be
classified as a local street, however, staff recommended that it be classified as transitional
collector, like Buena Vista Avenue or Gibbons Drive because of traffic volumes, connectivity
and land use. Staff had previously recommended that an implementation policy be developed to
examine the design guidelines development as part of the transportation master plan. It would
address some conflicts and concerns raised by the consultant, and would remove the conflicts in
the future during implementation.
Mark Spencer of DKS Consultants, displayed a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the
points covered in previous meetings. The defined objective was to meet the needs of all street
users and the surrounding community while promoting the multimodal transportation system in
Alameda. Concerns raised included how street classifications could help guide the City towards
its future goals in terms of where and how the streets would operate, as well as whether it could
be achieved in conjunction with other transportation policies. Modal priority streets, bike priority
streets and transit priority streets were discussed, as well as truck routes. He noted that the land
use and modal classification overlays needed to be balanced with the auto needs. The street types
were defined according to the types of trips served and network connectivity. The street function
would be defined by the existing uses; those design and operational needs would need to be
addressed. The terms arterial, collector and local were retained, which would provide
consistency with FHWA terminology and CalTrans definitions, and would facilitate applying for
funding and dealing with other regional programs. He described the characteristics of each type
of street and their functionality in detail, especially in relation to transit, bicycles and pedestrians.
Mr. Spencer described the implementation strategy as a firm and flexible application, and noted
that the modal priorities must be followed to ensure connectivity of the bike, transit and truck
networks. He believed it was important to be firm on what was a bike street, emphasizing the
bike amenities, and the same with the transit streets, etc. He noted that it was important to be
flexible in balancing what happens within the limited right of way. He noted that most of
Alameda has a built-out network. He noted that they recommended integrating the street
classification system and an implementation policy into the TMP. He noted that design
standards, block lengths, cross-sections, and congestion standards all affected and
counterbalanced each other.
Public Comment
Jim Strehlow complimented the consultant on the PowerPoint presentation and requested a copy.
He was satisfied with the designation of Gibbons Drive as a transitional collector. He inquired
how new development would be added to the plan in the future, and how traffic volumes would
be measured and updated.",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,3,"Bill Smith expressed concern about traffic in the Tube, and noted that as a frequent bicyclist, he
was concerned about the condition of the roads. He believed new technology would help the
efficiency and safety of auto/bicycle traffic. He would like to see new signage that would
enhance traffic safety.
Scott Brady asked the Commission to remember that every street in Alameda was residential
when considering the street designations. He noted that people backing out of their driveways
severely limited the traffic flow. He noted that traffic on those streets will not be able to go faster
because of the designation change.
Closed Public Comment
Chair Knox White noted that the specific planning issues would be dealt with during the planning
of the specific sites. He noted that with respect to traffic counts, the guiding policies of the
Transportation Master Plan, traffic counts and volume counts were part of monitoring. He
inquired whether the types of streets had been specifically stated.
Staff Khan replied that under the County Congestion Management Agency, regular traffic
volumes were collected on the streets in the system on either a two- or five-year cycle. He would
report that information to the Commission at a future date. He noted that trend counts would be
collected to show how the traffic volumes change in certain areas of the City. Staff would be
amenable to that being either a policy or guideline.
Commissioner Schatmeier objected to the characterization of the modal overlay governing transit
as a ""transit priority."" He noted that he was a member of the Subcommittee, and recalled that
they were defining candidates for transit service, not priorities. He stated that there were three
main purposes in identifying these streets: 1) to identify streets that are candidates for physical
improvements, 2) assist the policymakers, and 3) predictability about possible locations for
transit. The last two were the factors given the greatest consideration by the Subcommittee.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether it would help to add language stating whether the street
currently carries transit. He noted that if there are existing or planned transit services on any
particular street, the associated physical improvements could be included in the design of any
project.
Chair Knox White suggested replacing ""can assist in prioritizing"" with ""prioritized.""
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that they had shied away once from addressing transit streets as
anything more than candidates because of the potential uproar it would create by defining them
as priority transit streets. He noted that was something they had tried to avoid before. He
suggested that the wording be changed to acknowledge that many streets labeled as transit streets
that either don't have transit, and probably won't in the foreseeable future without changes in
budget realities. He did not believe there was a reason to create an uproar by changing what they
had intended by classifying those streets as transit streets in the first place. He suggested labeling
them as transit candidates.",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,4,"Commissioner Krueger noted that he would not want to water the language down to the point
where it downplayed the physical improvements. He indicated that it is important to say that the
modal overlay will determine the priority, not just suggest it.
Chair Knox White suggested changing the language under ""Modal Overlays"" to read, ""The
modal overlay classifications prioritize operational elements within the constraints of the right of
way."" Commission Schatmeier noted that would be acceptable.
Commissioner Krueger asked why the exclusive transit right-of-way along Clement Ave. does
not extend all the way to the Fruitvale Bridge. This would mean that there would be a shared
right-of-way at the most congested point in the corridor.
Staff Khan noted that both High Street and Park Street currently function almost at capacity, and
as a result, staff was examining Fruitvale Bridge to absorb additional capacity. Also, lower level
of transit priorities intersect at Tilden, so this could serve as a transfer point.
Commissioner Krueger noted that future plans depended on whether the City was serious about
the mode shift and emissions reductions or not. He inquired whether the language on page 27
could be strengthened, stating that the modal overlays will be used to establish the priorities, not
just that they can assist. He also asked that on page 30, the language referring to ""enhanced bus
stops"" be changed to ""enhanced bus stops/stations"" because that could go beyond a mere bus
stop, and might involve a different mode.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the reference to a commercial main street on page 20 seemed
somewhat weak in stating that bike racks might not be feasible on some streets. He noted that in
his submitted comments, he inquired about the language about sidewalks on both sides of the
street, which had been originally mentioned in the matrix beginning on page 34. It appeared that
that language was dropped, but he could not find any language addressing it. He inquired
whether it was delegated to the pedestrian plan.
Mr. Spencer noted that the pedestrian aspects had been taken out in several places, because they
anticipated it would be included in the pedestrian planning activity; there was a certain amount
of redundancy assumption built in to it. He noted that sidewalks on both sides of the street was
not necessarily a given, and there could be right of way tradeoff decisions could be made as well.
Commissioner Krueger felt that the strong emphasis on pedestrian access in the General Plan, as
related to the strong support for walkability in the community, that he believed that having
sidewalks on both sides of the streets would be very important. Chair Knox White suggested
deferring this discussion to the pedestrian plan. Commissioner Krueger agreed.
Chair Knox White also noted that on page 2, under ""Objectives of the Alameda Classification
System,"" a key issue to address is cut-through traffic. He believed the wording should be
changed to ""residential traffic impacts."" On page 7, under ""Numbers of Lanes,"" it read, ""This
should be determined through operational evaluation; it should be tied to threshold LOS, which
are being developed as part of the TMP, and should also be weighed against neighborhood",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,5,"livability issues."" He observed that throughout the text, a lot of decisions made seemed to be
based on LOS. Also, under ""Congestion Tolerance - Congestion Should Be Reduced,"" it was
also determined through threshold LOS for different modes of transportation and balanced
against livability issues.
Chair Knox White noted that with respect to Bayview, the subcommittee had suggested that it be
a local street; it is currently in the plan as a transitional collector. He invited the Commissioners'
feelings on that issue.
Commissioner Schatmeier believed that was reasonable, and believed it should be a local street.
Commissioner Krueger stated that the transitional designation seems appropriate, as it
acknowledges the street's current volumes.
Commissioner McFarland agreed with Commissioner Krueger's assessment.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether the traffic counts had been affected
by the traffic calming measures, Staff Khan believed that 30% of traffic volume on Bayview
Drive had been reduced. Staff supports the transitional designation, as it would give the City the
power to make changes in the future to reduce traffic volumes.
Chair Knox White noted that under Land Use Overlays (General section), it read, ""All unmarked
local streets are designated residential corridor streets,"" but a map indicated highlighted
residential corridor streets. He noted that the markings should be consistent. He believed it was
odd to highlight a few key streets.
Chair Knox White noted that page 19, under Residential Corridor Streets (Adequate Travel
Lanes), read, ""Provide sufficient lanes for adequate capacity to minimize queuing impacts at
residential driveways "" but this did not seem to be a residential-oriented goal. He stated that
livability issues should be more of a goal than ensuring that traffic proceeded so that there was
no queuing.
Chair Knox White invited Commission comment under Commercial, with respect to keeping
building frontages at a common setback to maintain a pedestrian-friendly environment. Also,
building entrances should face the street. Also, he suggested that would be a design feature of the
streets under Commercial Main Street. Commissioner Krueger supported that view, and
believed it was very important for the pedestrian environment.
Chair Knox White wished to add to the language, ""Marked pedestrian crosswalks are to be
frequent and should be based upon pedestrian activity and activity generators."" He noted that
sometimes there was no pedestrian activity because people were scared to cross the street. He
concurred with Commissioner Krueger about the bike racks; if operationally and physically
feasible, he believed there should be bike racks on each block, and if there was no place to fit
them, the Commission could address the issue in that event.",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,6,"Chair Knox White noted that on page 22, he was reluctant to reduce the parking requirements in
the City. He noted that the language ""if sufficient off-street parking is provided"" indicated that
on one hand, the City planned to reduce that need, and on the other hand, a plan was being put
together that requires additional parking capacity. He noted that while ""sufficient"" was not
defined there, but that it could be worded, ""off-street provided as called out in the parking plan.""
Staff Khan suggested referencing the General Plan, since the parking plan will probably modify
the General Plan. Chair Knox White agreed.
Chair Knox White made several additional comments:
that under ""Sidewalks"" under Commercial Street, wished to add the language ""can be
narrower than residential corridor, an exception for designated corridors like the Cross
Alameda Trail.'
the language under ""Regional Arterial"" read, ""Three to four lanes as determined by
capacity needs and modal constraints' or ""modal priority maps.
On page 38, ""Island Arterial Overlays"" (Bicycle, School Zone and Recreation), read,
""
.ideal for bicycle network, bike lanes, wind safety network, connectivity are provided,
provide intersection amenities pedestrian comfort and access are highest priorities
in
conjunction with other street functions, appropriate lighting and suggested route signs,
prioritize amenities against lane width and on-street parking."" He believed that the
language under the pedestrian aspect should appear under the bicycle aspects as well.
on page 40, ""Number of Lanes"" (Island Arterial), it should read, ""two to three lanes,""
removing ""typical, but may have four lanes.""
under ""Island Collector,"" the grid under Number of Lanes did not agree with the text,
which read ""two to three lanes""; the grid read ""no more than two lanes."" He was
agreeable with either one.
On page 44, under ""Local Street Overlays"" (Bicycles), read, ""Local streets will likely not
require bicycle treatments""; he believed that the bike overlay and the determination of the
bike plan should decided whether or not there were bicycle treatments.
under ""Recommendations for the City of Alameda Implementation Plan,"" there did not
appear to be an actual recommendation. He inquired whether DKS had a
recommendation for an implementation plan that they believed would be a good fit for
Alameda. Mr. Spencer noted that they tried to create a unique presentation for Alameda,
and that an individual implementation plan must be created to work for the City.
on all of the maps, particularly the bike map, the Clement Extension was drawn
incorrectly; it was drawn to indicate that it connected directly into Eagle. He noted that it
should connect further up into Atlantic. He would like to add the connection of the bike
path through the Beltline.
Chair Knox White suggested adding a path connection between the end of Portola and
Ninth Street. This may be possible in the future.
Commissioner Krueger would like to see a dedicated right of way off the Island, and believed the
Clement Extension and Fernside acted as alternate routes to the other bridges.",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,7,"Chair Knox White stated that Fernside is okay as an island arterial, but that Clement should be
classified as a regional arterial. Commissioner Krueger noted that this would be predicated on
the completion of the Clement extension.
Staff Khan stated that once the Clement extension is completed, and it becomes an arterial, that
the hope is to downgrade the classification of Blanding.
Commissioner Krueger moved that the designation for Clement from Tilden to Ohlone Street
should be Regional Arterial. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously, 5-0.
Commissioner Krueger moved that the entire length of Tilden from Park Street to the Miller-
Sweeney Bridge be classified as a potential exclusive transit right-of-way. Commissioner
McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
Chair Knox White suggested that Encinal at Sherman should be considered a commercial main
street. He also asked why Oak Street was classified as a collector, and did not understand what it
collected, as it was only two blocks long. Staff Khan noted that it collected traffic from side
streets, as represented by traffic volumes, and that provided connectivity between two arterials.
Mr. Spencer noted that it acted as a bypass for Park Street in the area.
Commissioner Krueger asked that the school and recreation map be modified to reflect the
relocation of Island High School.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to accept the consultant's report with the comments made by
the Commissioners. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously,
5-0.
Chair Knox White complimented the consultant on a job well done.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to continue the meeting after a five minute break.
Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
7A.
ALAMEDA LANDING TDM GOALS AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT - 1ST
OF 2 PRESENTATIONS.",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,8,"Bruce Knopf, of Catellus, noted that his presentation was intended to engender Commission
feedback and comments, and will be brought before the Commission again in February. Their
objective was operate a successful Transportation Demand Management program, and reduce
single-occupancy vehicle trips, as well as to produce a draft TDM plan that will go to the
Planning Board in March. The program would be operational on ""day one"" - defined as
occupation of 100,000 square feet of the commercial development, or 150 housing units. He
noted that in the project's EIR, they did not take credit for any anticipated benefits from a TDM
program. The use was intended to be pedestrian-friendly and bike-friendly, as well as transit-
oriented.
The program's financing mechanism will be permanent, with resources to be provided by the
tenants and residents of the development. He stated that the primary feature of the program
would be a supplementary ground shuttle system that, when viewed in conjunction with AC
Transit, can provide 15-minute headways, based on their hope that AC Transit will provide
service to and within the site.
Mr. Knopf noted that the program also included a water shuttle, operating for a minimum of one
year, and providing service between the project and Jack London Square. The water shuttle
feasibility study would be completed by day one. ProLogis has been working with Bike
Alameda to identify a window when that shuttle would begin operation, and they are proposing
to start no later than completion of the second phase of development.
Mr. Knopf invited Commission feedback on a process for monitoring the elements of the TDM
program, and what criteria should be used to evaluate the program. He noted that the working
draft has not been reviewed by Public Works or the Planning staff. He noted that the parking
pricing and parking cashing out options had been removed from the TDM draft, because they
would not be viable given the demand for parking in Alameda.
Mr. Knopf noted that the next steps would be to received the Commission's feedback and
comments, and return with a draft plan in late February. They planned to present that to the
Planning Board at their March 12, 2007, meeting. He introduced the TDM plan manager, John
Atkinson, who had been active in this area for almost 20 years. He had previously run the
systems in Santa Clara, Berkeley and Downtown Walnut Creek.
Staff Bergman noted that he received a communication from Nathan Landau at AC Transit
earlier in the day, and wished to present it. He believed Mr. Knopf covered the major points
involved in the program, and wished to ensure there was a clear understanding about the baseline
for measuring the trip reductions. He noted that he received the letter from AC Transit too late to
circulate to the Commission, and read it into the record:
AC Transit has concerns about the way the Draft Alameda Landing Transportation
Demand Management agreement is structured. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the
Commission meeting tonight to address the issue. AC Transit is pleased that a
commitment to TDM policies and implementation measures is being made for this
important project. We have not yet had an opportunity to discuss the proposed agreement
with City staff, or to review it fully, having seen it for the first time yesterday. The",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,9,"agreement is structured around rerouting of an AC Transit line and addition of a
supplemental shuttle. We are concerned that this combination is not necessarily the best
approach to providing transit service to the site. This divided duplicative service nay
undercut the use of AC Transit service to the site, particularly if the shuttle is free to the
passenger. Divided service does not necessarily advance the goal of encouraging the
residents and employees of Alameda Landing to use the regular transit system.
AC Transit would also appreciate the opportunity to consider routes in this area in the
context of our evolving plans for West Alameda and Alameda Point. We recognize the
importance of providing frequent service, especially in the peak hour, to encourage
ridership.
AC Transit is developing ecopass programs, which provide systemwide bus passes to
employees and residents of a given development. We would like to discuss ecopass
opportunities, which in some cases can raise funds for additional service in this context.
Therefore, we would request the opportunity to meet with Planning and Public Works
staff, and with the developer to discuss this TDM plan before it is finalized. I would
stress that AC Transit does not have a preconceived plan at this time, but instead wishes
to explore and resolve the issues involved in a timely manner.""
Mr. Knopf noted that they had not begun to consider pricing, and added that they want to work
with AC Transit as much as possible. They would entertain contracts with them, and did not wish
to duplicate service.
Commissioner Schatmeier requested further information from staff regarding dropping the two
most effective strategies. Mr. Knopf noted that one of the staff reports reported that 71% of the
Alameda residents who commuted to San Francisco took transit. He noted that reflected the cost
for parking in San Francisco, and that because that was not a reality in San Francisco, it did not
seem to be a feasible strategy to put on the table as an effective tool.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether transit passes had been considered. Mr. Knopf noted
that it was included in the conceptual plan a year before, and noted that its omission was
unintentional, and that they would explore it.
Public Comment
Bill Smith noted that Mr. Knopf had previously been a City employee, and that Don Parker had
helped develop Marina Village. He understood that Marina Village was an assessment district,
and that this property was next to Marina Village with respect to impacts. He inquired whether
there should be an assessment district on this property.
Mr. Knopf noted that there were districts for both the residential and the commercial retail that
would pay for the TDM program on an ongoing basis.
Jon Spangler noted that he had long been interested in improving the Estuary crossing, and noted
that he had served on the Estuary Water Shuttle Task Force with Mr. Knopf and other Catellus",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,10,"staff. He commended Catellus for being on the leading edge with a TDM, which he viewed as an
unfolding work in progress. He believed it was important to integrate AC Transit's views as
expressed in the memo, and that best practices should be implemented with other organizations.
He believed the City should be careful in evaluating the TDM plan and the impact of Catellus at
Alameda Landing overall, not just in terms of shoppers, workers and business owners, but also
the potential costs and benefits realized by the entire community from the TDM options that
would be funded by residents of Alameda and Oakland. He hoped that as the City evaluates the
TDM, that it will be able to examine tourism funding, funding through the Port of Oakland and
Chamber of Commerce, or other economic development sources normally used in Alameda. He
was encouraged by this progressive approach.
Jeff Cambra, Board member of Bike Alameda, spoke on behalf of the Estuary Crossing
Coalition, agreed with Mr. Spangler's comments. He noted that the Coalition's interests include:
1) Establishing criteria for the earliest possible initiation of the Estuary water shuttle
service, taking into account that there is sufficient project improvements and occupancy
to create ridership;
2) Such criteria should include
a. extra Alameda Landing west end demand, as determined by non-developer-
funded surveys and City-sponsored feasibility studies;
b. operational effectiveness as determined by the use of Estuary water shuttle
ridership surveys and other TDM surveys proposed by Catellus to determine
regional impact;
c.
any disagreement regarding initiation of the Estuary water shuttle should be
addressed as part of the TDM annual report submitted to the Council.
Mr. Cambra noted that it was the Coalition's understanding that the Coalition and Catellus agree
in principle on these interests, and that the Coalition supports this draft document as it relates to
the Estuary water shuttle. Due to the short time between the release of the draft TDM document
and this meeting, the Coalition will continue to meet with Catellus to provide additional
comments for the next TC meeting in February.
Closed Public Comment
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he was interested in the shuttle service, and that
Commission as a whole was interested in reducing single-occupant automobile trips, rather than
trips in general. He wished to echo the AC Transit comments and concerns about how a shuttle
service can be overlaid with AC Transit service. He understood that the details had not been
worked out yet. He believed that 30-minute headways are not sufficient. He added that pricing
needs to be further investigated, and that the AC Transit fare from the development into
downtown Oakland of $1.75, plus $0.25 for a transfer, when piggybacked on top of a BART fare
would be a deterrent to ridership. He stated that free shuttles such as those operated MacArthur
BART to the Kaiser facility also detracts from AC Transit ridership. He suggested subsidizing
the AC Transit fare on the 19 line in coordination with a free shuttle.
Commissioner Krueger stated that the utility of transit increases when integrated into a larger
network. For this reason, that he was not generally a fan of small, limited shuttle services, and",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,11,"that there was more benefit being part of a larger system. In lieu of a shuttle, he suggested
providing an Ecopass, or a combination of an Ecopass and contracting with AC Transit for
additional service to get people onto regular AC Transit buses.
John Atkinson, consultant to Catellus, noted that the shuttle was the cornerstone of the program,
and added that they intended to apply a systemic approach to reduce SOV traffic. He noted that
they were exploring ride-matching systems with carpools and possibly van pools. He stated that
AC Transit has indicated that not all of their buses are equipped for handling an Ecopass
program. Also, in trying to price services, AC Transit was $130-140 an hour to run shuttles,
approximately double the cost of a private operator; an economically feasible situation should be
found. Catellus' goal is to coordinate not just with AC Transit, but also with BART and the ferry,
and that they want to work with AC Transit as much as possible.
Staff Bergman noted that the Interagency Liaison Committee had addressed the possibility of
using an Ecopass. AC Transit had not been ready to implement that concept yet, and that they
had three programs that had been individually negotiated. They are currently trying to
standardize that process, and would will an update at the next ILC meeting within the next
month.
A discussion of integrating the service into the Island grid followed.
Commissioner Krueger was surprised to see that the monitoring would be done only through
surveys.
Mr. Knopf noted that Catellus has proposed taking the ITE trip generation rates that such a
development was expected to generate in the outlying and surrounding area, and to take those
numbers and examine the level of reduction in SOV trips expected to accomplish. Through direct
surveys, the level of usage would be compared against the survey results.
Commissioner Schatmeier suggested measuring at the key access points of the actual car trips,
and running the numbers from that.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Department, noted that Mr. Knopf and staff had done a good job in
introducing the major issues. He noted that the Planning Department saw this as the beginning of
a much larger West End TDM program. He believed that although he was very happy that
Catellus had stepped forward in committing the $425,000 per year at buildout, it would take a lot
more money to run an effective transportation program. The Planning Department believed that
Catellus should create an organization so that future projects may be built in the West End. He
noted that Alameda Point could have 1400-1500 market-rate units, which could potentially
provide a major financial contribution to this program. The Planning Department believed that a
major source of annual operating funding should be generated which should be turned over to
AC Transit when it became big enough so they could provide the levels of services needed in the
West End. If an Ecopass program is initiated, everyone who pays the annual fee may participate.
He believed it was important to get this organization started now. He noted that they needed to
be able to adjust to changing system requirements.",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,12,"Commissioner Krueger believed the most significant goal was the reduction of the total number
of SOV trips generated by the project. He noted that while emissions were important, the trips
had the most impact on the neighborhoods.
Chair Knox White believed there could be benefits of a TDM program that reduced West End
trips that did not come out of carbon trading for commute trading, and there could be a benefit
for the rides that the project could get credit for. He felt he did not have enough information to
make a determination about whether an 8-10% trip reduction is appropriate. He noted that the
goal was to mitigate traffic, and that the Commission's EIR policy is not to expand roadways to
mitigate the traffic, and to mitigate traffic aggressively through TDM. He stated that the TDM
program should be as aggressive as possible within the project budget, and that the TDM
program should not take credit for ridership on AC Transit's 19 bus line. He suggested using a
biennial survey of the HOAs to get trip information. He noted that he supports the development
of a TMA, but he believes it should be connected to the City, rather than be an independent
agency. He believed the TMA should focus on the West End, not just the project participants. He
would like the use of AC Transit to be the preferred agency when possible, but understood that
AC Transit recognized the use of private shuttles when needed.
Chair Knox White noted that
the first bullet point under Administration (Key Administration Goals, page 9), read
""represent Alameda Landing""; he believed the TMA should represent a broader scope
and should represent the City.
He was surprised to see costs associated with a guaranteed ride home and ride matching,
since those were both regional project programs that were free to appropriately sized
businesses.
Under ""Evaluation of Success,"" the language talked about ""participation rate of Alameda
Landing employees in the program.' He was concerned that a private shuttle and AC
Transit, it would be beneficial to the TDM program to draw riders away from some other
form so they could get credit for success. For that reason, he believed it was important to
count cars and use surveys, as opposed to asking whether they were using the services.
Page 12 discussed ""During Phase A, trip reduction target is 2 to 3 percent""; the original
memo said ""5%."" He understood there would be a ramp-up, but 2 to 3% seemed very low
to him. He believed that if there would be a lower percentage goal for the first five years,
he believed the project should be re-evaluated when the real goal was met.
He recommended evaluating the TDM program based on cost per rider, and nothing else,
due to the limited funding for this program.
He noted that RIDES no longer exists, and that the program is currently called 511
Rideshare.
He said that he would email his comments on the surveys.
Staff Bergman noted that traffic congestion in the tubes is primarily an issue heading out of
Alameda during the AM peak hour, and heading into Alameda during the PM peak hour.
However, TDM programs are generally more successful when applied to employment sites, so
the potential for the TDM program proposed by ProLogis to reduce traffic congestion is greater
in the direction opposite that of the major congestion problems. He requested feedback from the
Commission regarding how this issue should relate to the program's goals.",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,13,"Chair Knox White suggested that those trips causing the congestion should be targeted, such as
the City-outbound trips. He noted that while the specific percentage could not be determined
now, both an overall trip reduction goal and a peak-hour trans-Island trip reduction goal should
be identified.
Staff Khan noted that the Congestion Management Agencies created goals for the County, and
assigned trips in a mode split, which could be looked as a base trip generation.
Chair Knox White did not wish to penalize the developer with a baseline, but believed they
should be aggressive in their goals to mitigate the traffic to as high a level as possible.
Commissioner Krueger wished to raise the issue of parking fees and parking cashout, and there
may be a fear that would reduce the attractiveness of the development to businesses.
Chair Knox White noted that most of Alameda had free parking, compared to San Francisco, and
that companies may decide to locate across the Estuary where there would be free parking.
Mr. Knopf noted that they wished to be treated equally as compared to other property owners.
No action was taken.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 PM.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2007/022807\January 31 TC Minutes - Final-rev.doc",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf