body,date,page,text,path
PublicArtCommission,2007-05-23,1,"Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Conference Room 360, City Hall
1.
CONVENE:
7:05 p.m.
2.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioners Cervantes,
Rosenberg and Wolfe
STAFF PRESENT:
Douglas Vu, Planner III
3.
MINUTES:
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
5.
REGULAR AGENDA:
Approval of 2007 Meeting Calendar
Motion to approve Calendar (Huston) Second (Rosenberg)
Motion passes with unanimous vote 4-0
Commissioner Wolfe Abstained
Rhythmix Cultural Center Public Art Proposal
Commissioner Rosenberg talked about the guidelines regarding the fulfillment of the
public art requirement. It was clarified that programming could fulfill the requirement.
Chair Huston asked how much of the public art proposal was for Rhythmix Cultural
Center and how much was for the general public. She wondered if the 14-month
proposal was 14 shows.
Ms. Koike clarified that the proposal was for 14 months of rent and that Cal Vita is
providing to Rhythmix Cultural Works, the space for public art.
Chair Huston asked if for the 14 months, the shows would be free. She also asked if
they are 14 consecutive months. She was also concerned with staffing the gallery and
thought it may be excessive to have the gallery staffed as proposed and suggested
possibly amending the schedule after a two-month period.
Mr. Doug Vu and Chair Huston want to adjust the language in the resolution to include
the suggested amendment to the public art proposal, which includes the hours of
operation for the gallery space, a minimum amount of hours to be open and a time span
of 24 months within which the gallery will be open for 14 months.
Commissioner Rosenberg motioned to adopt the resolution as amended.",PublicArtCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2007-05-23,2,"Commissioner Lee seconded the motion.
Motion passes with unanimous vote. 5-0
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Vu, Secretary
Public Art Commission",PublicArtCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
May 23, 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
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier
Srikant Subramaniam
Absent:
Jeff Knoth
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
April 25, 2007
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that his intent was to ask if the garage could be used as a park
and ride lot.
Commissioner Krueger noted that on page 12, his intent was for staff to contact the appellant to
make better use of existing off-street parking.
b.
March 28, 2007
Staff Khan noted that staff would review the tapes, and if there was a difference between the
tapes and the stated intent of the Commissioners, they would bring the minutes back to the
Commission.
Commissioner Ratto advised that the unanimous vote was indicated to be 4-0, and that it should
be 5-0.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved approval of the minutes for the March and April meeting
minutes. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0 with Commissioner
McFarland abstaining.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 1 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,2,"4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
a. Multimodal Circulation Plan
b. Pedestrian Plan
c. TSM/TDM Plan
Chair Knox White requested that CalTrans report on the I-880 projects.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
There were none.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Review and Provide Comment on Harbor Bay Village VI Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) Outcome: Review DEIR and provide comments to be
forwarded to Planning Board.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report and summarized the scope and layout of this project.
Staff developed a list of concerns regarding the project:
1. Page 3.12-17: The DEIR notes that the City's adopted Bicycle Master Plan includes a
proposed trail connection from Catalina Avenue to North Loop Road at the end of
Island Drive. This connection is not being recommended for inclusion in the project.
2. Impacts on transit service are addressed by the EIR only in terms of whether the
existing transit service could accommodate the anticipated riders from the project.
They did not consider what kind of demand could be generated from whether the
transit service should be modified to directly serve the project, with over 100 units
there. The nearest existing bus stops to the transit service would be approximately
2000 feet from the development.
3. Page 2-8: The DEIR incorrectly refers to the lines that are serving the area.
4. Page 3.12-18: Discusses impacts on traffic capacity, and the DEIR states that there
would not be significant traffic capacity impacts based on the data presented in the
DEIR.
5. The report was not accurate with regard to the intersection of Harbor Bay Parkway
and South Loop Road. The intersection is currently at Level of Service F during the
AM and PM peaks. The City's threshold of significance at intersections operating at
LOS E or F in the baseline scenario is an increase in delay of four or more seconds.
6. The DEIR indicates that to mitigate the impacts, the proposed project would
contribute toward the Harbor Bay Business Park Traffic Impact Fund, which in turn
would fund the signals when they are determined to be needed. However, the TIF
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 2 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,3,"monies would not cover the developer's pro rata share for any new signals. This
would be funded separately and independently as project impact mitigations.
7. Table 3.12-6: There is a projected increase in delay from 280.9 seconds to 328.2
seconds during the AM peak, although there is no increase expected during the PM
peak. According to 3.1207, delay during the AM peak is projected to increase from
648.3 seconds to 747.6 seconds. Delay during the PM peak is projected to increase
from 431.5 seconds to 912.1 seconds, which exceeds the City's threshold of
significance.
8. Page 3.12-16 (TR-2): The DEIR indicates that if the intersections of Harbor Bay
Parkway at North Loop Road and South Loop Road, and at Harbor Bay Parkway at
South Loop Road and B Street, it is expected that traffic signals would eventually be
required should further development occur. The DEIR states that the project would
pay towards these signals as part of the TIF, but it should be more specific that this
will be a pro rata share based on the project impacts. The TIF monies would not
cover the developer's pro rata share for any new signals, and they would need to be
funded independently as project impact mitigations.
9.
Mitigation Measure TR-2.1: This discusses only the signal at the intersection of
Harbor Bay Parkway and North Loop and South Loop.
10. Table S-1: Summarizes the mitigation measures also does not mention the signal at
Harbor Bay Parkway and South Loop and B.
11. The developer must pay the Citywide Developer Fee to mitigate for cumulative
impacts associated with the project.
Staff recommends that the Transportation Commission review the DEIR for the Harbor Bay
Village VI, and provide comments, which will be forwarded to the Planning Board. Staff
Bergman projected the project map on the overhead screen.
Chair Knox White invited comment from the AC Transit representatives. They had no comment.
Chair Knox White recommended that because this change would require a General Plan
Amendment, from commercial-business to residential, and that as such it represented a
significant change in policy, which is the purview of the Transportation Commission to make
recommendations on. Before the DEIR moves forward, he requested that policy change for the
General Plan be brought to the Transportation Commission for comments on the transportation
issues.
Commissioner Krueger noted that would presuppose a change to the General Plan.
Commissioner Ratto requested that because Item 7A would entail a lengthy discussion, that the
Transportation Commission hear Item 7B first, and then return to Item 7A.
Chair Knox White agreed with Commissioner Ratto's suggestion, and postponed the discussion
until Item 7A has been heard.
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 3 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,4,"7B.
AC Transit Line 51 Task Force. Outcome: Review Line 51 data and provide
comments to staff.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and noted that bus bunching along the 51 Line is being
addressed by the task force assembled by AC Transit. He described the route of Line 51 and
noted that it had the highest patronage in the AC Transit system, with approximately 22,000
boardings daily. Headways were generally eight to 10 minutes, and running time changes would
be implemented in June, which would add nine minutes of running time during the afternoon
peak period in the southbound direction, and eight minutes in the northbound direction. The
operating speed would be approximately nine miles per hour, which is 25% slower than the
district system average. The additional running time would require an additional two vehicles to
meet the scheduled service frequency. He described the makeup of the task force, and noted that
several variables were examined, including running time, boardings, service deployment
policies, AC Transit service policies, using the TRB Transit Capacity and Quality of Service
Manual. The staff report indicated what tasks had been completed to date, as well as the future
items to be examined. The statistical baseline would be developed; service delivery options
would be identified; and service design options would be examined. He detailed the attachments
distributed to the Commission.
Tony Bruzzone, AC Transit, noted that their Board requested that they look into this problem,
and added that it was not a new problem. He noted that they were engaged in new data
collection. They intended to have AC Transit staff ride the buses with a laptop, inputting every
delay that occurs to identify the specific causes. He noted that was an intensive effort that would
take about two months, and that they will collect the data after Labor Day. This will allow the
new schedule to be implemented, and avoid data collection during the summer when ridership is
lower.
Chair Knox White noted that the Task Force was a staff body, not a public body. He noticed that
the plan did not identify a deliverable, which was the identification of existing problems.
Mr. Bruzzone confirmed that was part of the statistical baseline, and noted that the formal work
plan included deliverables that were not included in the summary.
Commissioner Krueger noted that since 1998, there had been a brief improvement before it slid
back. He believed there should be some permanent monitoring, and inquired about AC Transit's
commitment to ongoing monitoring.
Mr. Bruzzone replied that the section on service delivery addressed that issue, and noted that the
Board was very interested in getting good data on a consistent basis. He added that there was an
ongoing discussion about what the benchmarks should be.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the discussion about running time under ""Measurable
Objectives"" read, ""While in motion, the average speed of the bus is 9.9 miles an hour."" He
inquired whether it discounted dwell time. He inquired what the average speed was, including
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 4 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,5,"stops. Mr. Bruzzone noted that the average speed does not include dwell time, but does include
stops for traffic signals and other stops not associated with loading and unloading passengers.
Commissioner Krueger noted that Exhibit 1 discussed magnetic stripe payment systems, and
inquired about the comparison between Translink reader systems and the magnetic stripes. Mr.
Bruzzone noted that when they work, the Translink reader systems were faster, and added that
magnetic stripes were extremely slow. He noted that on Spare the Air Day, when fares were not
collected, an MCI bus took 3.2 seconds per passenger to board; paying passengers increased the
time to 8 seconds per passenger.
Chair Knox White inquired about the percent of on-time performance (OTP) under ""Line 51 Best
Practices."" He was surprised at how well the 51 seemed to be doing at 67.8%, and noted that as a
regular rider of the line, he did not perceive that to be the case. Mr. Bruzzone noted that on-time
performance consisted of being within five minutes of the scheduled time. Chair Knox White
inquired whether OTP included stops at the early part of the route.
Puja Sarna of AC Transit replied that it was for the full day. He inquired whether OTP was
measured at some key spots such as 12th and Broadway during certain times of the day. He did
not perceive that OTP figure as being representative of the performance at the key spots. He
noted that he frequently hears complaining about the route in downtown Oakland. Ms. Sarna
noted the OTP averaged the data from the entire day. She noted that they could make a range of
OTP at the same points, and noted that during the next data collection effort, they would have
traffic checkers at certain points along the route, checking to see how far apart the headways
would be, as well as what the lead times would be. They could match the OTP to those same
points during different times of the day. She noted that the data was skewed with the 6 - 8 a.m.
data, and 10 p.m. to midnight data, which would be much more on-time than peak times.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that when he used the 51, he would ride into Oakland in mid-
morning, and return to Alameda about 7:30-8:00 p.m. and found the service to be reliable at that
time. He acknowledged that the traffic congestion at that time was not as bad, and crush loads
were not being carried.
Mr. Bruzzone noted that the measure of on-time performance was minus 1/plus 5, and that a bus
on a 10-minute headway drops back five minutes, that would create a big gap. If the follower bus
was up one minute, there would be only four minutes between buses, leading to bunching. They
would also examine headway adherence, as well as running times.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the fact that the line was being observed would have an
impact on the on-time performance. Mr. Bruzzone noted that was a good point, but they did not
observe that. He noted that performance does change with manual traffic checkers, but not with
an APC unit. He noted that some traffic checkers board with tickets so they would not be
apparent to the driver as a traffic checker.
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 5 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,6,"Public Comment
Kathi Young noted that she has ridden transit in locations such as Seattle, Florida, New Orleans
and Hawaii, and with the exception of Orange County, she had not seen a route as bad as the 51.
She noted that she had recently seen four 51 buses sitting at the Berkeley Amtrak station, which
all left together. She would like to know what AC Transit planned to do to change the situation.
Closed Public Comment
Chair Knox White believed the plan would be effective in identifying the problems and creating
a plan to mitigate them. He complimented those involved in creating the plan. He believed the
data should clearly illustrate the extent of the problem. He inquired whether the satcomm data
could be used to calculate on-time performance in a meaningful way. He suggested that UC
Berkeley be contacted to see whether students could perform that work.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the data did not tell the Commission why the problems
exist.
Mr. Bruzzone acknowledged that both were needed, and that understanding the problem and
having a way to collect the data in the present and in the future were both very important
components. He noted that after problems are resolved or eased, they often backslide because of
a lack of monitoring in the future.
In response to an inquiry by Staff Khan whether AC Transit was examining a correlation with
congestion, Mr. Bruzzone confirmed that was the case. In the last five years, they had added five
vehicles to the afternoon peak to meet schedule and to reduce headway.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier whether a Rapid bus could be added, Mr.
Bruzzone replied that there were several options:
1.
Rapid, which would be difficult to run on College and Broadway. The City of
Berkeley has told them they would be interested in implementing a peak period
towaway lane in the right lane, which would be similar to the diamond lanes used on
San Francisco city streets. He believed that would make a big difference on
University Avenue.
2. Limited, for which the bus would stop at a reduced number of locations, and
3. A/B stop buses, for which some buses would be designated ""A"" or ""B"", and stops
would be designated, for A buses, B buses, or both.
Chair Knox White inquired whether it would make sense to extend the 51 to Fruitvale. Mr.
Bruzzone noted that the line is currently very long, and they were originally going to cut it at
Berkeley Amtrak and combine it with the Shattuck bus. They also considered cutting it off at
other points.
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 6 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,7,"Commissioner Krueger noted that he would like to see the ridership potential to Fruitvale
examined.
Mr. Bruzzone noted that there was concern about the impact of the opening and closing of the
bridges on operations.
No action was taken.
Public Comment
There were no speakers.
Close public comment.
Item 7A (continued)
Chair Knox White noted that the Transportation Commission was limited in its comments as to
the adequacy of this DEIR.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the Commission would be able to comment on the
transportation design and impacts of this project.
Chair Knox White noted that the DEIR addressed the impacts. He added that the future plan and
the design of the project were not part of this item, and inquired whether the TC will be able to
comment on the improvement plans once they are prepared.
Staff Khan noted that was not usually done, but if the Commission requested it, he would be
amenable to providing that.
A discussion of the baselines and their time horizons ensued.
Commissioner Ratto inquired why the proposed bike connection described in the Bicycle Master
Plan would not be implemented. He strongly supported the bike connection. Staff Khan replied
that was also a major comment made by staff, and that they would like to push for it as well.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto whether any appeals had been filed by
neighbors, Staff Khan replied that staff submitted the comments in September/October 2006,
they received the administrative draft, made comments and found that those comments were not
incorporated in the revised DEIR. He noted that staff is working with the consultant to resolve
these concerns; they should be addressed by early June.
With respect to level of service, Commissioner Ratto noted that the second paragraph of TR-1
(page 3.12-16) stated, ""Because the proposed project would not affect existing level of service at
any of the 13 intersections in the study area, the impact to intersection level of service would be
less than significant."" He noted that when an intersection has an existing level of service of F,
and it was slightly changed, he supposed that would be somewhat true. He believed that a 15-
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 7 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,8,"minute wait, more than double the existing wait time, at an intersection was definitely a
significant impact even though the starting point is LOS F; he believed that kind of analysis did
not make sense.
Chair Knox White noted that he was very pleased with the staff comments.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he found it difficult to believe that the intersection of South
Loop Road and Harbor Bay Parkway could be LOS F. He had spoken at the City Council
meeting about the peak hour traffic congestion as a result of Amelia Earhart School, which
impacted intersections 9, 10, 11 and 12. He noted that those intersections were close to gridlock
during peak hours, sometimes taking 15 minutes to clear.
Commissioner Ratto noted that he questioned the validity of all the tables, and did not know
where all the numbers came from. He referred to the baseline chart, which stated that intersection
#10 (Island Drive/Maitland Drive) would not be affected by the project. He found that very
difficult to believe, and inquired how the drivers would get to the main island.
Staff Khan noted that Table 3.12-5 defined the trip distribution, and that staff would ask the
applicants to include a map or sketch showing trip distribution by location instead of just a list.
Commissioner Ratto remarked that he was very concerned about the data, as well as the bicycle
issue and not having any access to Island Drive. He cited the paragraph under TR-4 (3-12.17),
which read, ""The proposed project would not have a significant adverse effect on pedestrian,
bicycle or transit facilities.
However, due to the sensitive nature of this proposal, this
connection has not been included in this analysis and would not be required as mitigation."" He
was very concerned about that language, and did not believe it was meaningful; he requested
staff to address that issue as a primary concern.
Commissioner Krueger noted the section on transit, bicycle and pedestrian impacts read, ""A
project would result in a significant transit, bicycle and/or pedestrian impact if its
implementation would conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs."" It continued to say in
TR-4 that they would knowingly conflict with the Bicycle Master Plan. He believed they were
producing a significant impact by blatantly conflicting with an existing policy, and stressed that
it was not consistent.
Chair Knox White noted that he was surprised that there was only a 30.9 second wait in the
morning peak. In response to his inquiry regarding the peak hours, Commissioner McFarland
stated that the data were collected in June 2006, which was after the school year had concluded.
Chair Knox White believed that was a significant methodological flaw, and added that data from
the school year should be included. He suggested that 9 through 12 were not correct.
Commissioner Ratto believed the methodology should be examined, and believed that an average
of school times and nonschool times would be misleading.
Commissioner Subramaniam noted that 3.12-5 stated ""when school was in session.""
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 8 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,9,"Chair Knox White believed the numbers were incorrect.
Staff Khan noted that the city had no intersection counts, and that it will be collecting that data as
part of the TMP project.
Chair Knox White believed the motion should include all staff comments. Commissioner Ratto
concurred with that statement.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the report referred to long-discontinued lines 43 and 69. He
added that there was also a passage on 3.12-17 that stated, ""AC Transit is planning additional bus
service along North Loop Road."" He did not believe that was accurate, and that the report should
be modified to reflect this.
Staff Khan noted that the reason for the staff comment was related to pedestrian access to transit,
and that staff wanted connectivity to the bus stop.
With respect to the cumulative level of service in the AM peak hours of 13.8 seconds, and the
cumulative plus the project was 13.7, Commissioner Ratto inquired how the project would
decrease the delay at that intersection.
Commissioner Ratto noted that with respect to TR-5 regarding parking, it appeared that there
would be 208 covered spaces for the units. He inquired whether there would be any garages.
Staff Khan replied that the project would provide off-street parking, which would include garages
or other parking schemes off the street. Each house would have two parking spaces, which was
the genesis of the 208 number.
Commissioner Ratto noted that the City had requested 0.5 guest spaces per unit to be provided.
He believed that adequate guest parking was very important, and that if it was not provided,
guests would park in areas that could impede emergency vehicle response times. He believed
that was a reprehensible recommendation.
Chair Knox White suggested that comment be included in its own motion.
Chair Knox White noted that with respect to trip distribution, he was surprised that Ron Cowan
Parkway was assumed to be the key road, given that it currently is so lightly used.
Chair Knox White noted that 3.12-17 read, ""Also, any proposed sound walls would need to be
properly designed so as not to restrict visibility."" He believed that discussion about sound walls
should be removed, and added that the Planning Board and City Council had determined that
sound walls would not be utilized. He recommended that the discussion of sound walls be
removed from the document.
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 9 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,10,"Chair Knox White discussed the project in terms of the seven EIR policies recommended by the
TC and accepted by City Council. He noted that the project did not conflict with first three EIR
policies (no extra lanes, no widening of intersections, and speed limits not above 25 mph). Policy
4 stated that all EIRs need to analyze bike, ped and transit. He noted that this DEIR did not do
that, and it specifically stated that the effects on levels of service and the ability to use would
conflict with adopted policies. He noted that there was no analysis, and that it was completely
inadequate on that level. Regarding Policy 5, he noted that the only place the mitigations could
get in the way is transit, but that cutting down the level of service problems at some of the
intersections would benefit transit in this case.
Chair Knox White noted that EIR Policy 6 addressed the use of TDM to mitigate, and that there
was no discussion of TDM in this proposal whatsoever. He believed that if this project were to
move forward it must include, as part of the mitigation to the actual traffic it would create, some
kind of ferry passes or transit accommodations. He noted that the bike/pedestrian connection
between North Loop Road and Catalina was not included despite it being part of an adopted City
plan. He believed the project should also be required to include a transit connection between the
two streets. He believed the recommendation should include some mitigation looking at the
buses between Catalina and North Loop, along with bikes and pedestrians. He noted that any
road built for emergency vehicle access should be able accommodate transit as well.
Commissioner Ratto noted that the return trips at Intersection 5 indicated that the people using
the inbound route would not be returning. He did not believe those numbers made sense, and
wondered if the rest of the numbers should be questioned as well.
Chair Knox White believed from a transportation perspective, and in particular from
a
pedestrian/bike/transit perspective, this was about the worst project that could have been
developed. He was concerned that if the project was built, everyone would drive because the
alternative modes of transportation would not be feasible to use.
Staff Khan believed that number was the result of a Synchro software that analyzed the
intersection LOS, and believed if they subtracted the volume for #5 instead of adding them.
Commissioner Krueger believed that if the project were to go forward, the only way it would
make sense would be to completely reorient it so that everything was connected to Catalina. He
believed they should try to integrate it into the existing neighborhood of residential homes, as
well as improve the connectivity. He had serious concerns about the project design.
Chair Knox White called the question.
Commissioner Krueger believed it could be stated that the Transportation Commission had
serious concerns about the project design, and requests that since it requires a General Plan
Amendment to exist, that the Master Plan be brought before the Transportation Commission for
full comment.
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 10 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,11,"Staff Khan noted that the Master Plan had not been developed yet, which would be completed at
that time.
Commissioner Ratto moved that the Transportation Commission recommend that the
transportation portion of the project EIR is wholly inadequate, would drive residents to using
automobiles, and did not deal with the reality of trying to encourage people to use alternate
forms of transportation. The project EIR should be significantly rethought and rewritten. He
added that all comments from staff report and all Transportation Commission comments from
this discussion should be included, minus the parking issue. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded
the motion. Motion passed 6-0.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that Bay Farm Island was never designed for public
transportation, and noted that most of the housing was too far from transit. He noted that the Bay
Farm Island development had many cul de sacs and paths. He did not disagree that this
development would be contrary to Alameda's plans, but believed it seemed unfair to single out
this particular project among others on Bay Farm Island.
Staff Khan noted that staff would create a memo that could be brought before the Planning Board
stating the Transportation Commission's concerns about this document.
Chair Knox White stated that if the parking were to be restricted, it would not substantively
increase usage of the bus line.
Commissioner Krueger believed the number one driver of automobile usage was the availability
of parking. He believed the requirement of 2.5 spaces per unit was over and above what was
required by other houses in Alameda.
Commissioner Ratto noted that while the business associations were trying to eliminate the
parking requirement for the individual developers, because it was not up to the developers to
provide parking; it was up to the City and Business Association to provide parking. He believed
the needs of residential parking versus business parking were completely different.
Commissioner Krueger believed the addition of 2.5 spaces per unit was counter to the City's goal
of reducing automobile traffic and increasing use of alternative transportation. He believed the
developer should be required to not build more parking.
Staff Khan noted that the City's concern was to avoid impacts on City infrastructure when
residents and guests may have to park on City streets that did not have parking.
Commissioner Krueger moved that the Transportation Commission recommend that the City
drop the additional guest parking requirement because the houses already met the two parking
spaces per dwelling unit requirement, as it is contrary to the General Plan's goal of de-
emphasizing the automobile. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-1
(Commissioner Ratto opposing).
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 11 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,12,"8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Khan noted that a special meeting was held between City Council and the Transportation
Commission. The City Council members requested that the Transportation Commission examine
several projects related to the Bay Farm Island Bridge and the Posey and Webster Tube
locations. They wished to address single occupant vehicles using these access points, and how
the SOVs could be reduced. Chair Knox White had requested introduction of delay numbers.
Staff Khan brought the Alameda Landing EIR that had been approved in 2006, as well as LOS
and delay numbers for that study. Staff suggested working on that by using the MMC
Subcommittee to chart out an action plan to bring back to a full Commission in order to tackle
both projects. Staff was somewhat concerned about the impact on staff resources. Staff would
also bring back the pedestrian plan implementation policies and goals being developed at this
time. Completion of the TSM/TDM plan would be the next goal to complete by the end of 2007.
Commissioner Ratto requested a daily volume count for the Tubes, currently, and when the Base
was open. Chair Knox White noted that Staff Khan had provided that information, and that it was
17% less than when the Base was open.
Staff Khan noted that the peak traffic hours were different for Base operations than current work
travel patterns.
Staff Bergman noted that staff received an email from a resident, who requested that their
comments be forwarded to the Transportation Commission dealing with the proposed parking
restrictions on Central Avenue and Fifth. The resident expressed concern, and the email was
distributed amongst the Commissioners.
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC/2007/072507/052307minutes-draft.doc
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 12 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf