body,date,page,text,path
PublicArtCommission,2007-03-28,1,"Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Conference Room A, Alameda Free Library
1.
CONVENE:
7:04 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Cervantes
Commissioner Wolfe arrived at 7:18 p.m.
Commissioner Rosenberg was absent.
STAFF PRESENT:
Cathy Woodbury, Planning and Building Director; Douglas Vu,
Planner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary
3.
MINUTES:
Minutes for the Regular Meeting of November 29, 2006
Commissioner Cervantes motioned to approve the minutes for the meeting of November
29, 2006, as amended.
Vice-Chair Lee seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 3
[Abstain: Commissioner Wolfe - 1; Absent: Commissioner Rosenberg - 1]
Minutes for the Regular Meeting of February 28, 2007
Chair Huston motioned to continue the minutes of February 28, 2007 to the Public Art
Commission meeting of April 25, 2007.
Vice-Chair Lee seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 4
[Absent: Commissioner Rosenberg ]
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
5.
REGULAR AGENDA:
a.
Approve Meeting Calendar for 2007
Chair Huston identified scheduling issues and proposed checking with the
Commissioners for availability.
Chair Huston motioned to continue item to meeting of April 25, 2007
Vice-Chair Lee seconded the motion
Motion carries
b.
Program to Promote Public Art in Alameda
Cathy Woodbury explained the goals and mission of the Public Art Program and then
asked everyone in the audience to introduce themselves. Ms. Woodbury then discussed
the Program's requirements and informed the Commission it is their responsibility to",PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-03-28,2,"create a Public Art Plan that is to be submitted to the City Council on an annual basis.
She also identified the Public Art Fund and described how those funds could be used to
promote art in Alameda.
Ms. Woodbury stated that she is working with staff to create a more comprehensive work
program, known as the Public Art Plan. She proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation.
Some of the highlights included:
Developing an Artist Resource brochure
Creating a Public Art Map
Assembling a Public Art Catalogue
Establishing a public art review process
Preparing an Alameda Public Art web page
Explore the possibility of increasing the cap on public art fees
Chair Huston thanked Ms. Woodbury for her presentation. Members of the public in
attendance then commented on the Plan and made the following suggestions:
Have the PAC require or encourage developers to have a ""general call"" for art
proposals to fulfill their art requirement on new projects
Encourage City officials to attend art and cultural events
Provide more gallery space in Alameda, especially City-owned buildings
Provide local artists and arts organizations more exposure
Provide grant funding for arts programs or to improve facilities
Reduce or eliminate fees for event space for art shows and cultural events
Create an Arts Council
Chair Huston then clarified the roles and responsibilities of the Public Art Commission.
She stated that although desirable, some of the suggestions made by the audience were
outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission.
Commissioner Wolfe proposed amending the statute.
Commissioner Cervantes proposed that the Public Art Commission expand their role in
the community since they are now a Commission and not a committee.
Ms. Woodbury talked about the revenues for the Commission and what they are to be
used for.
Ms. Carol Burnett mentioned that she is working with the City of Walnut Creek about
some of the projects they are working on and she mentioned changing the ordinance.
Chair Huston concurred with the point that Ms. Burnett made regarding the cap and how
it affects the type and quality of public art projects.
Commissioner Wolfe pointed out that the percentage of public art money within a project
is relative to the budget as a whole and smaller projects pay more. The cap is
disproportionate in larger projects. He also mentioned that the developer can choose
whether or not they provide public art or pay the in lieu fee.",PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-03-28,3,"Chair Huston clarified that the Commission is the filter by which the city acquires art and
they do not get to select the art. They make sure the art is in public view.
Ms. Woodbury suggested that people who are interested in public art take a look at the
projects that are going to the Planning Board, go to the meetings and get involved in the
developments.
Chair Huston suggested creating a proposal for curatorial management and the in lieu
fund could pay for this.
Ms. Woodbury responded by clarifying that the in lieu fund could not be used for a
curator but rather for hardware to hang pictures, etc.
Ms. Burnett asked if the Commission gives developers a list of artists to choose from.
Chair Huston responded by clarifying that the Commission cannot give specific names to
avoid a conflict of interest.
The amphitheater at the Bridgeside Shopping Center was mentioned. The general
consensus was that the finished project was not what was proposed and that it is not
suitable for most of the events that were proposed such as musical acts and literary
readings.
Ms. Woodbury clarified the role of the planning department and that they make sure the
art for a project is feasible and they make sure the project is built according to the plans
that were approved.
Commissioner Wolfe clarified that the Commission only approves concepts and not
plans.
Mr. Vu stated that the developers at Bridgeside are required to submit an annual
programming plan and when finished, an on-site manager will oversee the programming
plan for three years. This must be submitted to and approved by Ms. Woodbury.
Chair Huston replied by saying that the developer was required to provide a useful
community performance space and an audience. She expressed concern as to who will
oversee the programming for the space to make sure they fulfill their obligations.
It was asked if the in lieu fund could be used for existing projects. A response was given
that the in lieu fund cannot be used for existing projects, only new projects.
Ms. Burnett offered her services and experience as an art consultant and developer for
future projects.
The Carnegie building was mentioned. Ms. Woodbury responded by saying that
consultants are being recruited to submit ideas for its usage.
General consensus was reached that the conversation needs to be expanded to include
more people, ideas and proposals in the community.",PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-03-28,4,"Ms. Burnett suggested creating a cultural arts center to attract more artists and attention
to the art and culture of Alameda. The Commission concurred that it would be a good
idea to create such a place. It was suggested by a citizen who attended the meeting
that several art locations in addition to a cultural arts center would make it easier for the
community to access the public art.
Commissioner Lee likes the idea of a cultural arts center in that it brings artists and
people of the community together allowing them to meet, network and get to know each
other.
It was suggested that in addition to being prestigious and supportive, having a cultural
arts center would provide valuable gallery space for visual arts such as paintings and
photography.
It was suggested that gallery and meeting space be provided in several City-owned
buildings such as the Veteran's Hall and City Hall. It was asked if along with its use as a
permit center, the Carnegie building could be used for gallery space. Ms. Woodbury
responded by saying a portion of the building could be used as gallery space. General
consensus was that this would be very beneficial to the artists and community.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned at 8:52 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Vu, Secretary
Public Art Commission",PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
March 28, 2007
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Jeff Knoth
Michael Krueger
Eric Schatmeier
Absent:
Robert McFarland
Robb Ratto
Srikat Subramaniam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Schatmeier requested a change in the February minutes. He is quoted as saying
that if the shuttle loop were bidirectional that the headways would be cut in half, when it should
be doubled. The same error is in the support material for the shuttle item and should be changed.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved approval of the minutes with the requested change.
Commissioner Knoth seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
Chair Knox White suggested that the Alameda Landing TDM item be heard before the shuttle
study.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Claire Yeaden Risley noted that on March 12 and March 13, she had requested in writing the
Transportation Commission minutes from Alameda Access and the City Clerk, and she had not
yet received a response to either request. She noted that she had previously requested them in
person starting in the Spring of 2006. She added that the City Clerk had referred her to Public
Works, which was not fruitful. She noted that they should be available to the public, and
Page 1 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,2,"requested that the Transportation Commission minutes for the last two years be available to the
public.
Chair Knox White noted that the minutes that have been approved are now available on the
City's website.
Commissioner Krueger believed that hard copies of the minutes should also be available.
Chair Knox White agreed with the Commissioners that the minutes should be available to the
public, and apologized to Ms. Risley for her request not being fulfilled.
Liz Cleves noted that at the City Council meeting of March 6, 2007, Councilmember Doug
DeHaan addressed an AC Transit engineer and said, ""At this point, Shoreline is strictly for the
express, the W to San Francisco. At any point in time did we have bus stop service going down
there, and I believe we did, and why would that be the area that you would most likely have a
higher likelihood of ridership? Because that's where you placed the W Knowing that this route
is known for high usage and high ridership when you go that route."" She noted that AC Transit
engineer was unable to answer the question, and turned the question over to an AC Transit
transportation planner, who stated, ""There used to be a bus that used to go down Shoreline. I
believe in 2003, December, due to service cuts, I believe it was sent down Otis Drive to save
running time. Currently, the bus schedule is about 50 minutes of running time, and I guess, in our
business, the more running time, the more, the higher the cost. Taking it down Grand to
Shoreline would add running time to the route.""
Ms. Cleves noted that Mr. DeHaan then asked, ""What is more important, running time or
ridership?"" The AC Transit planner replied, ""I know there was limited resource for the City of
Alameda."" Mr. DeHaan interjected, ""The reason I ask, and I think anyone in the audience
understands, that Shoreline itself is adjacent to the heavier density of residents, and that's why
you route the W there. I just can't see that run time becomes more important than ridership, but
I'm a taxpayer, and I would like to preferably have the 63 bus line on Shoreline."" The AC Transit
planner responded, ""We could cut a different part of the route, and reroute it via Shoreline, if that
would be something that the City would want to do."" She noted that in the past, she understood
that the City must do what AC Transit wants, but noted that AC Transit had made it very clear
that they would do what the City wants. She noted that as a taxpayer, she would prefer that the
63 line be back on Shoreline, where there was greater density and no schools. She believed that
route would be more profitable for AC Transit, and safer for the children, the crossing guards and
other pedestrians in Alameda. She noted that Councilmember DeHaan's question about the
relative importance of running time versus ridership was very important, and further asked
whether running time or the safety and peace of mind of Alameda taxpayers was more important.
Diane Voss noted that she had also attended the March 6, 2007, City Council meeting, and
concurred with Ms. Cleves' statements. She noted that the issue of AC Transit Line 63 on Otis
Drive has been a source of disagreement since 2003, taking considerable time of Public Works,
City Council, the Transportation Commission and the Transportation Technical Team. She
believed it had pitted neighbor against neighbor, angered many parents of Lum School students,
caused problems for the crossing guards, been a taxpayer burden, and harassed many residents
Page 2 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,3,"that live on Otis Drive. She noted that Councilmember DeHaan's suggestion for putting the 63
back on Shoreline was correct, where the residents of apartments and condominiums could use it.
She added that the Hall of Justice was also on the route, which would serve those who have lost
their drivers licenses.
6A.
SHUTTLE SERVICES AND OPERATIONS ANALYSIS - FINAL
PRESENTATION.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and detailed the background of this item, including
comments made at the last meeting. The consultant has tried to address those concerns in the
report, and requested feedback. One point was that the incremental costs of increasing AC
Transit service was in the context of Alameda Landing, and the cost of serving the new site may
not be comparable to the introduction of a new route. Staff conducted discussions with AC
Transit to analyze potential modifications of their existing routes to serve that site. AC Transit
indicated that in terms of Alameda Landing, that there is enough time available in the existing
Line 19 schedule to reroute it through the site at no additional cost. The 63 could be routed
through the Alameda Landing site, although that would require an additional bus. He described
and demonstrated the proposed changes.
John Atkinson noted that he was in continual discussion with AC Transit, and received an email
from one of their planners regarding the 63 and the 19 lines. He noted that the end goal was to
have the public transit provider of Alameda County be the primary transit provider at Alameda
Landing. He noted that it may be a two-pronged approach, where shuttles come in the initial
phases, since such as service could be implemented quickly, and they may not meet the
minimium ridership thresholds AC Transit would need. He noted that they could get ridership
built up, and then look at AC Transit as a solution for the long-term.
Public Comment.
There were no speakers.
Close public comment.
Chair Knox White complimented staff on its report, and noted that it answered most of their
concerns. He noted that they could add the 19 line at no additional cost, and while it was not a
short-term cost, it would not answer the short-term run.
Staff Bergman described the cost factors.
Chair Knox White noted that he would feel comfortable forwarding this to City Council, but
wanted to clarify any issues with respect to costs that were not reflective of what was proposed
according to the staff report.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he was studying the costs on page 14, and requested further
clarification on the map. He noted that the costs did not work out, and that there seemed to be a
Page 3 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,4,"discrepancy between the calculation above which talked about 16 hours for two buses, but the
mileage was the same at 120.
Mr. Atkinson replied that was with respect to route miles, and that it may not have been changed
in the report when the language regarding two buses was added.
Commissioner Krueger wanted to make sure that the report contained apples-to-apples
comparisons.
Mr. Atkinson responded that he would fine-tune the numbers.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the Shuttle Services and Operations Analysis, to
include the adjustment of the AC Transit operational cost analysis to conform with the AC
Transit proposed routing of one bus; to include Commissioner Krueger's comment regarding
the map on page 14. Commissioner Krueger seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
6B.
ALAMEDA LANDING TDM GOALS AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT -
FINAL PRESENTATION.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report and noted that Catellus has revised the plan submitted
previously based on the Commission's comments. Staff's additional comments were that the
program relied exclusively on surveys, and recommended that some traffic counts be performed
to bolster the survey data. Second, the trip reduction for the commercial retail portion was
discussed only in terms of employees, and that trips associated with retail customers that
contribute to congestion should be included. Staff agreed that the ITE trip generation rates should
be used at the baseline to measure the reduction, but that some traffic counts should be conducted
to help verify that those rates are valid for this particular site. The draft report indicates that the
shuttle be provided at 30-minute headways, and staff would like to see a proposed route, with the
possibility of providing more frequent service. Assuming that transit service is provided by AC
Transit for the site, the TMA should consider reallocating all shuttle related expenses toward
other TDM-related program elements, such as an Eco-Pass or other programs. There was also the
discussion of the difficulty of ensuring the high resident response, and staff suggested that
participation might be encouraged and enhanced by offering incentives such as completing the
survey to receive the Eco-Pass. The cost of the AC Transit service was also discussed, given the
available time in the route, which made the cost more competitive with a shuttle. AC Transit
discussed examining the 19 line, as well as peak hour service-only on the 63.
Staff Bergman noted that the TDM discussed what would be provided on ""Day One"", and staff
had inquired how the number of bike racks based on demand would work. Staff also inquired
about the phasing beyond day one. Staff suggested that the shuttle not be limited to Alameda
Landing, and that the West End and Northern Waterfront be considered as well. Under Section
4.2 (Monitoring), the program endeavored to reach a 40% response rate, which was considered
to be statistically significant, and inquired what confidence level that referred to. Under Section
4.3, staff requested clarification on the number of trips reduced.
Page 4 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,5,"Bruce Knopf, Catellus Development Group, noted that they were pleased with the latest draft,
which they believed was cleaner and simpler. He thanked staff for their comments, and noted that
trip counts was one of the mitigations that they were obligated to address in the most effective
way. They intended to operate a shuttle as successful as the Emeryville Shuttle, and would
service shopper needs as well. With respect to reducing trips under the project approvals, he
noted that the budget could potentially be increased by 15% if specified conditions are met. He
noted that ITE trip rates would be the basis for trip reduction estimates, and noted that it was
important to use the surveys to understand the actual trip reductions so they would be consistent.
He noted that Bay Area Air Quality Management District and MTC use surveys in order to
evaluate success and ridership, and he believed that was appropriate to use the same measure.
Regarding the Route 19 proposal, he wondered how long it took for a rider to actually get to
BART; they continued to discuss this matter with AC Transit. They expect Eco-Pass to become a
program component over the next few months, and for AC Transit to be a provider that serves the
site; he noted that there was a lot of work to be done over the next few months.
Public comment.
There were no speakers.
Close public comment.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the Eco-Pass would be available for residents of
Alameda Point through homeowners dues.
Mr. Knopf noted that AC Transit had been candid in stating the Alameda Landing posed
challenges to them with respect to the Eco-Pass, and that they hoped to enact it for residents. He
noted that a residential EcoPass program had never been implemented by AC Transit.
Commissioner Krueger noted that they were trying to make it more consistent with a citywide
approach, although they were not asking Alameda Landing to support the rest of the City.
Commissioner Krueger noted that staff's comments on page 2 referred to relocating shuttle
resources if AC Transit picked up the slack, and inquired whether that was an either/or situation.
He envisioned that they may be in a situation where AC Transit provides some baseline level of
service, the TDM program provides some additional funding that would allow them to put some
additional service hours out there in lieu of a privately operated shuttle.
Staff Khan noted that the Transportation Commission had previously discussed not compensating
AC Transit for providing baseline service.
Mr. Knopf noted that during his meetings with AC Transit, he gleaned that the Eco-Pass was their
way of providing a convenience and a benefit to a rider, but it did not necessarily result in
enhanced levels of service.
Page 5 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,6,"Commissioner Krueger noted that on page 9, in the budget section, there was a discussion of the
water shuttle. He recalled discussing whether the water shuttle should be funded as an amenity,
rather than as a TDM item.
Mr. Knopf responded that the water shuttle was mandated by the DDA between the City and the
developer as part of the TDM program.
Commissioner Krueger referenced page 10, Section 4.1 (Annual Report), and added that on page
15, the only parking management options listed were division of specially assigned, optimally
located spaces reserved for carpools and ride share vehicles. He was concerned that that was a
short list considering the language on page 10 seemed to rule out anything not explicitly
mentioned.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he would not vote for anything that prohibited City Council
from doing anything, unless it was specifically stated in the DDA.
Mr. Knopf noted the language was so boldly worded was to have clarity, and added that if it is
approved by the Planning Board, it could still be overruled by the City Council. He described the
procedures going forward if that were to occur. He was inclined to remove the optional section at
the end, which he did not believe accomplished anything. He noted that the development
agreement for the Alameda Landing project specifically stated that there would not be any
financial penalties to property owners, tenants or the operation of the program for failure to meet
any numerical thresholds or criteria, except for the 15% as specifically stated. He understood the
Commissioners' reaction to the language, and noted that it was important for the language to be
clear. He suggested that the Transportation Commission approach City Council about additional
language in the TDM.
Margo Bradish, Counsel for ProLogis on the project, noted that the development agreement
contained very specific language that was approved by City Council, which provided funding for
monitoring equipment that was recommended by Public Works staff. The DDA also contained
specific language regarding the Year 5 15% adjustment. She noted that the language in the
development agreement was very clear in saying that other than the 15% adjustment, there are no
consequences to the project, financially or otherwise, if it does not meet any goals. She noted
that was intended to give certainty to the developer with respect to their financial obligations.
She noted that the cashout can be encouraged, but not mandated.
Commissioner Krueger noted that his specific concern was with respect to the cashout. He did
not have any problems with the statement made by Ms. Bradish. However, he noted that if the
money was used to provide the money for the parking cashout, that seemed like a TDM measure.
Chair Knox White suggested removing the language, and did not believe it needed to be in the
policy. He added that the policy would not override the plan.
Commissioner Krueger agreed with staff with respect to page 3 regarding the bike racks. He
suggested clarifying that language that there would be enough to meet demand.
Page 6 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,7,"Mr. Knopf noted that their intent was to have enough bike racks to meet demand. He noted that
their intent was to serve their obligations to Bike Alameda as much as possible, including the
water shuttle.
Chair Knox White noted that with respect to page 8, he was concerned that about the TMA
should state that at the end of the day, the Alameda City Council would have ultimate say; the
TMA was a mitigation plan rather than an amenity plan for the site. He wanted to clarify where
the TMA fit into the larger picture.
Mr. Knopf noted that they could not make any financial changes over a certain dollar threshold
without Council approval.
Chair Knox White requested clarity with respect to the possibility of the TDM not working. He
believed there should be provisions for the possibility of City Council being able to say that
changes should be made as part of the working budget.
Staff Khan suggested that could occur in the annual report that goes to City Council.
Chair Knox White would like the TMA to be directly answerable to the City Council, for
definitive accountability.
Mr. Knopf noted that presentation of an annual report to City Council had been negotiated with
Council. Their intent was to run the best possible TDM program, ground shuttle and water
shuttle, as they do in Mission Bay and Emeryville.
Chair Knox White asked for an explanation of the difference between the provisions regarding
the success of the project and the internal rate of return (IRR).
Ms. Bradish noted that (iii) was the result of comments from a particular Councilmember stating
that if a lot of money is made on the project, the City wants some of it back. The IRR was a rate
of return on the land. The 18% is a benchmark for City participation in land profits. The other
two criteria came out of concerns expressed by other Councilmembers that if the project was
building out very quickly, and therefore there were more cars on the road than anticipated, there
was a need to do more TDM; (ii) and (iii) came out of that discussion.
A discussion of funding details ensued.
Chair Knox White was believed that the trip counts would not ever happen. He did not want to
recommend to City Council how they would be paid for, and he would like to remove that
sentence so City Council made that decision.
Staff Khan agreed with Chair Knox White's comments, and that the referenced sentence on page
12 should come out.
Chair Knox White suggested the following language: ""City Council has the option to request the
collection of peak hour traffic count data to validate the survey.""
Page 7 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,8,"Chair Knox White supported private shuttles, but believed that the language on page 14 reading
""shuttle service to transit providers"" clearly said that the overall plan is not to prioritize AC
Transit. He noted that occurred on page 8 referred to a ""BART commuter shuttle"", which is more
of a point-to-point service rather than one which would pick up additional passengers along the
way. He suggested inserting the language ""implement and administer any shuttle services""
rather than ""BART commuter shuttle"", and that it should state that the service should connect to
the existing public transit systems.
Chair Knox White noted that part of his thinking in making his comments is that this document
will be used as a template for Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront, and that it was
important to release as accurate and solid a document as possible in order to best protect the
City's interests.
Mr. Knopf suggested using ""intermodal shuttle"" instead of BART commuter shuttle. Chair Knox
White and Commissioner Krueger supported this language.
Commissioner Knoth moved to accept the Alameda Landing TDM Goals and Program
Development with the following changes:
Adding residences or HOAs to the Eco-Pass language (in two places);
The TMA should fit into the Citywide strategy of the TDM policies on pages 3 and 8;
Page 10: remove the last half of the sentence referring to the City Council
Page 3: Rephrase (iii) to reflect that there will be sufficient bike racks;
Clarifying in 4.3 that the target numbers for Year 5 will use the same statistical methods so as
to correlate with the ITE methodology of the EIR;
On the same page, remove ""at City cost to require Public Works staff"" and replace it with ""to
request the collection of actual peak hour""; and
Under the section about the annual report (p. 8), add: ""Present to the City of Alameda
Transportation Commission and send with Commission recommendations to the Alameda City
Council for approval.""
Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously, 4-0.
Chair Knox White believed this kind of document should be part of any development before it is
approved. He noted that this was the first time the City had undertaken something like this, and
this could be a learning opportunity. He suggested perhaps communicating the Commission's
recommendations regarding future agreement to the Council.
Staff Khan noted that when the TSM/TDM plan is in place, that should address some of the
Commission's concerns. He noted that it would be helpful for developers to have an
understanding up front of what would be expected of them.
Staff Bergman responded that he could draft something based on the discussion at tonight's
meeting and prepare it in a form for Chair Knox White to sign.
Page 8 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,9,"recommended approval of this item.
Chair Knox White believed the draft Transportation Element generally looked good, and inquired
why the document needs to go back to all the Boards and Commissions. Staff Khan replied that
while the Multimodal Circulation Plan policies have been to the other boards and commissions,
the pedestrian policies, street functional classification system, and TSM/TDM policies have not
yet been circulated.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that there was a segment in the City that was opposed to bus
service. However, he stated that the General Plan should state that transit was an asset to the
community, rather than a perceived liability. He believed there should be more bus service, not
less.
Chair Knox White suggested adding a new policy, 4.3.1.c, with the following language:
""Actively encourage increases in public transit, including frequency and geographic coverage.
Chair Knox White also suggested including support for a biking or walking estuary crossing. He
also recommended that serious study be given to adding transit to bike and pedestrian bridges;
since they are required to support maximum loads, there would not be a great increase in cost.
Commissioner Krueger stated that the policy should note that this should not be an automobile
crossing, but would accommodate transit, walking and bicycling only.
Chair Knox White also asked that language be inserted to indicate support for the Cross Alameda
Trail and for implementation for enhanced transit service, including but not limited to bus rapid
transit and an exclusive transit right-of-way.
Commissioner Krueger stated that unless specified in an existing plan, the route for the transit
service shouldn't be specified, as this might preclude looking at alternatives, although there
should be language referencing the use of the bridge. He believed that Lincoln may have been
referenced in the transit plan as a potential route for future rail service, and asked that staff check
this.
Commissioner Schatmeier suggested citing support for the Cross Alameda Trail, and support for
implementation, as well as enhanced transit service without exclusive right of way, including but
not limited to bus rapid transit and right of way rail.
Page 9 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,10,"Commissioner Krueger suggested mentioning the Lincoln Avenue corridor on page 35, with
respect to the transit plan, as an alternate route.
Commissioner Krueger suggested leaving the bridge in the document, but not to set the route in
stone in the General Plan.
Chair Knox White requested that staff work with Commissioner Krueger to fine tune the
wording.
Chair Knox White noted that in the TSM/TDM, B-3.3 should be changed to read: ""Support the
use of alternative fuel vehicles for all or alternative-transportatio modes.""
Chair Knox White supported Objective D-8, and noted that D-8.1 reads, ""Explore funding
possibilities to provide new revenues to AUSD to implement a school bus program for
elementary and middle school students."" He noted that they could look into it, but was unsure
how much demand there was for an elementary school bus, which had previously been cut for
lack of ridership. He noted that with the neighborhood school system, not many people live that
far away from their schools. He noted that a middle school bus program may be more open to
examination.
Commissioner Knoth opposed referring to modifications in the curriculum, and requested that the
language be modified.
A discussion about bicycle and transportation use classes in schools ensued.
Staff Khan summarized the suggested revision: ""Work with the AUSD to include transportation
choice awareness in education in the schools.'
Regarding support for school buses, Chair Knox White believed that ""provide new revenues""
sounded as if the City might be providing monies to the school district to fund buses.
Commissioner Knoth stated that the issue of providing school buses has not been raised as a
concern.
It was agreed to remove the recommended policy D-8.1, regarding the City working with AUSD
to pursue funding for school buses.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he was totally opposed to casual carpooling in any form.
He used to live in Oakland near the biggest casual carpooling stop, and that most carpoolers were
taken off high-occupancy vehicles such as buses to low-occupancy vehicles (cars) at a
tremendous economic impact, costing AC Transit and BART over $1 million annually.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the draft Transportation Element, incorporating
the comments provided. Commissioner Knoth seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously, 4-0.
Page 10 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,11,"The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
i:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2007/052307/032807minutes-final.doc
Page 11 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf