body,date,page,text,path
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-08-25,1,"APPROVED
COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES
MEETING MINUTES OF
August 25, 2008
TIME
The meeting convened at 6:38 p.m.
PRESENT
Chair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Berger, Longley-Cook, Kirola, Kreitz and
Krongold.
ABSENT
Vice-Chair Moore and Commissioners Robinson and Fort.
MINUTES
The July 28, 2008 minutes were approved with corrections to Agenda item number two under New
Business.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Secretary Akil distributed information regarding a memo from the Mayor concerning the September
17, 2008 kick-off meeting at the O'Club for Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda, which
will address climate protection.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Bike Plan Task Force Committee (Commissioner Kreitz):
Commissioner Kreitz stated that there has been no meeting due to scheduling conflicts.
2.
Alameda Buena Vista Commons and Opening (Commissioner Longley-Cook)
Commissioner Longley-Cook attended the grand opening event and reported that the units
turned out nice. There are solar panels on the roofs and PG& E offers rebates to families who
use alternative energy.
Chair Lord-Hausman asked Commissioner Longley-Cool if she viewed the accessible units to
which she replied yes, although the stairs were not as wide but the other rooms were very
accessible. Chair Lord-Hausman asked if the upstairs bathroom was accessible to which
Commissioner Longley-Cook replied that it is not. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she would
follow up with staff regarding this issue.
Chair Lord-Hausman reiterated that any new construction activity in the City should include
input from the CDI.",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-08-25.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-08-25,2,"Commission on Disability Issues
August 25, 2008
Minutes
Page 2 of 5
Commissioner Krongold stated that she would be willing to coordinate a presentation by
Universal Design Associates to assist the CDI in its review of accessibility items under new
construction activity. Chair Lord-Hausman agreed and asked that Commissioner Krongold
facilitate that presentation.
Commissioner Berger indicated that she knows Dan Lachtman, ADC Executive Director and
will call him regarding the upstairs bathroom not being accessible. Commissioner Berger also
suggested that Center for Independent Living (CIL) be on the checklist for future building
construction activity within the City.
Chair Lord-Hausman suggested that the CDI write a letter to the City Council to address these
issues and thanked Commissioner Longley-Cook for attending the grand opening.
3. Commission Disability Internet Webpage (Chair Lord-Hausman/Secretary Akil):
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she and Secretary Akil met with the City's IT Manager
regarding the webpage. The page will happen, although it will be basic to start.
Commissioner Krongold asked how much it cost to which Secretary Akil responded up to
$3,000. Commissioner Krongold offered her services to assist in the design and
implementation of the page to which Secretary Akil responded that in order for the page to be
connected to the City's website, it must be done through the City's current web provider.
Further, the ADA Plan Update and information is an official document of the City and must
located within the City's website.
Commissioner Kreitz asked why couldn't the Commission apply grants on behalf of the City to
which Secretary Akil responded that the Commission is not a non-profit with 501(k) status and
would not be permitted on that basis.
4. Discussion Regarding the Start Time of Board Meetings (Commissioner Berger):
Commissioner Kreitz stated that she commutes from Dublin and it is difficult for her to get to
the meeting with a start time of 6:30 p.m.
Commissioner Berger stated that her commute does not allow her enough time to get to the
meeting on time and requested that the meeting be pushed back 30 minutes.
Commissioner Longley Cook stated she likes the earlier start time, thereby ending the meeting
earlier in the evening rather than leaving later at night.
Commissioner Krongold stated that she likes the earlier start time.
Commissioner Kirola stated she likes the earlier start time.
Secretary Akil stated that the reason the meeting was changed to an earlier start time was to
 G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes(2008\Minutes_Aug 25 2008.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-08-25.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-08-25,3,"Commission on Disability Issues
August 25, 2008
Minutes
Page 3 of 5
accommodate individuals who used public transportation, including Paratranist, as well as an
effort to promote greater public participation by engaging the community and bringing greater
visibility and awareness of issues regarding disabled services and resources within the City.
The 6:30 p.m. start time also secures sufficient staff coverage for the duration of the meetings.
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she liked the earlier start but also recognizes the importance of
having all of the Commissioners present for the start of the meeting. The Chair asked for an
informal vote to change the meeting time to 7:00 p.m. to which there were five yes; zero no's;
and one abstention. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she would confirm with the
Commissioners not present, as to whether or not they want to the change the start time from
6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Secretary Akil stated that should the Commission decide to change the start time, the CDI
Bylaws would have to be amended and adopted by a majority (2/3) vote during the September
22, 2008 meeting.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
There was no staff communications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS
1. Commissioner Longley-Cook asked what was the status of the Commission Calendar to which
Commissioner Kreitz responded that it was not here and not completed. Chair Lord-Hausman
stated that she made changes and asked that the updated version be distributed at the September
22 meeting.
Commissioner Krongold stated that she would provide information about other events over the
next six months that may be of interest to the Commission, which could be added to the
calendar.
2.
Commissioner Longley-Cook requested that the proclamation for Disability Awareness Month
be agendized for the first City Council meeting in October and emphasized the importance of
sticking with that date, since last year's proclamation was pushed to the end of October.
Commissioner Kreitz asked what is the status of the tree planting during Disability Awareness
Month to which Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she would call Vice-Chair Moore for a status
on her progress.
3. Commissioner Berger stated that she and Commissioner Kreitz attended the Crab Cove event in
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes(2008\Minutes_Aug 25 2008.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-08-25.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-08-25,4,"Commission on Disability Issues
August 25, 2008
Minutes
Page 4 of 5
August and no one showed up and suggested that the Commission should redirect its energy into
other events, such as job fairs. This issue should be revised in Spring 2009 before commitments
are made for CDI representation. Chair Lord-Hausman responded that the other Crab Cove
dates were successful with good turn out and response to the CDI table.
Chair Lord-Hausman stated that the CDI can discuss other choices, however the focus should
remain on City events such as Earth Day, Park Street Festival, as an example.
Secretary Akil stated that since the adoption of the ADA Transition Plan update, there has been
an increase in visiting the current webpage for reference. Once the ADA/CDI webpage is up
and running, there will be more exposure for the CDI.
4. Chair Lord-Hausman distributed copies of highlights of the Federal Disability Programs
provided by the GAO office. It provides information on how coordination could facilitate better
data collection to assess the status of people with disabilities.
Commissioner Berger asked that with the national elections coming up, what could the CDI do
to ensure total accessibility for those with disabilities, to which Chair Lord-Hausman responded
that she could check with Mastick Senior Center. Commissioner Kreitz suggessted to check
with the Registrar of Voters.
Commissioner Longley-Cook stated that because this is an important election year, there would
be a more active response by people, in general.
5. Chair Lord-Hausman read a travel article which advised that when individuals with disabilities
reserve hotel rooms, they should use the word ""blocked,"" instead of ""guarantee"" as often times
rooms for the disabled are not honored when requested.
6.
Chair Lord-Hausman distributed copies of the local Disaster Registry form to approximately 12
individuals that she knows, who have all submitted their completed forms to the Fire Department
without hesitation.
Commissioner Krongold confirmed that the CERT program manages the Disaster Registry.
Commissioner Berger suggested distributing the form to people who receive Meals on Wheels.
ADJOURNMENT
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes(2008\Minutes_Aug 25 2008.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-08-25.pdf
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2008-08-25,5,"Commission on Disability Issues
August 25, 2008
Minutes
Page 5 of 5
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, September 22, 2008 at
6:30 p.m. in Room 360 at City Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia A. Akil
Commission Secretary
G:\Lucretia)CommDisability\Minutes(2008\Minutes_Aug 25 52008.doc",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-08-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-25,1,"Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the
Planning Board and Transportation Commission
Monday, August 25, 2008
President Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Chair Knox-White
3.
ROLL CALL:
Planning Board: President Kohlstrand, Vice President Ezzy
Ashcraft and Board members Autorino, Cunningham and Lynch
were present.
Board members Cook and McNamara were absent.
Transportation Commission: Chair Knox-White, Commissioners
Krueger, Lee McFarland, Moehring, and Schatmeier were present.
Commissioner Subramaniam was absent.
4.
MINUTES:
(None)
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Kohlstrand proposed moving Staff Communications to the end of the agenda in
consideration of the Transportation Commission.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Anyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by
submitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.
NONE.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted
by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from
the Planning Board or a member of the public by submitting a speaker slip for that item.
NONE.
Page 1 of 9",PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-25,2,"9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A. Draft Transportation Element General Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental
Impact Report. A public hearing to take public comment on a Draft Environmental
Impact Report and draft amendments to the City of Alameda General Plan. No final
action or decision will be made at this meeting by either body.
Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report and noted that at this time, staff would record comments
on the adequacy of the EIR, and the appropriateness of the Draft Transportation Element. He noted
that the Transportation Commission played a critical role in producing this draft Element.
Mr. Obaid Khan, Public Works, displayed a PowerPoint presentation describing the Draft
Transportation Element in detail.
President Kohlstrand suggested that the public hearing be opened, and noted that five speaker slips
had been received. She suggested that the speakers' time not be limited in this matter.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Bill Smith noted that land use and transportation issues were closely connected. As a bicycle
commuter, he supported additional bicycle capacity along Fruitvale Bridge. He believed that
bicycle lanes worked well as a traffic calming measure because they narrowed the street
available to cars; they also made room for bicycles. He was encouraged by the direction taken by
the Draft Transportation Element.
Ms. Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, stated that she believed the analysis of the
impact considering alternative modes like bicycles, pedestrians and transit were very important.
She noted that some mitigation was good for public transit, such as widening roads, were not
good for pedestrians and bicyclists to gain access to the buses. She inquired about the effect the
current parking requirements might have on the amount of traffic generated by a project, as well
as other environmental impacts. She inquired about the effect that decisions like street
classifications and possible interruptions of the existing grid might have on people's access to
public transit.
Mr. Richard Bangert noted that he had read Transportation Commission Chair John Knox-
White's comments in the newspaper. He wished to discuss some unintended consequences on
traffic flow near his home, near Calhoun and Broadway close to Otis. He noted that change to
the traffic flow on Broadway between Otis and Encinal, and that there was no strong language in
the new Transportation Element that could lead to it being corrected. He believed that most of
the focus was on addressing problems that might arise with a new development, and that
unintended consequences should be corrected. He noted that signal priority should be given to
pedestrians, but that was complicated in instances where there are no signals. He believed that
language requiring that a signal or stop sign be installed should be included. He expressed
concern about the school-age children in the area.
Page 2 of 9",PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-25,3,"Mr. Eric Scheuerman stated that he believed that Alameda's current major and minor street
classifications were uncomplicated, and that the new Transportation Element was essentially
redevelopment of Alameda's street system. He cited the recent reworking of Webster and Park
Streets as a good example of refinement. He would like to see a study on the potential of
excessive street striping, and how it affects neighborhoods. He believed that there were examples
of both good and bad striping in Alameda, and added that more double yellow lines were being
added to Alameda, creating a more congested, crowded and stressful environment. He believed
the new Transportation Element would be a major change for Alameda, and urged the City to see
the excellence of Alameda's existing hardscape street design, as well as the downsides. He urged
the City to consider a policy of refinement.
Mr. Bert Libby noted that he was pleased to see the EIR statements and the livability goals in the
TMP. He believed there was too little attention given to quality of life impacts and increased
traffic in development issues. Major Johnson had stated that the TMP would accommodate future
growth, maintain Alameda's unique character, and protect the current quality of life. He believed
the TMP was missing two important sections, and that it was geared towards Alameda residents
and their vehicle usage, but did not address non-Alameda traffic originating from off-island. He
addressed the State and federal emission goals, and noted that Major Johnson had signed the U.S.
Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. He believed strongly that mitigations for
future development should be solely directed at reducing traffic in order to reduce the negative
environmental effects of development. He noted SB 375, which implemented AB 32, promoting
smart growth development and required that new developments be located near transit corridors
and centers in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled and emissions.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva expressed concern about the street classification system. She believed that
Alameda had a very residential character, and was concerned that the street classification system
defined some streets as more residential than others. She suggested a trial period to determine
whether the solutions cause any unintended consequences elsewhere. She would like to see more
transit in town. She would like to see more solutions for bike safety, and believed that every
street should be a bike street. She suggested implementing ""bicycle preferred lanes"" on streets
like Park, and would like to see less regimentation of transportation modes on streets.
Ms. Corinne Lamden expressed concern about pedestrians trying to cross two-lane roads safely,
particularly when the drivers did not look for pedestrians carefully.
The public hearing was closed for Board and Commission discussion.
President Kohlstrand suggested taking comments on the plan first, followed by the environmental
document.
Board member Lynch believed there were a number of overlaps because one document was
technical in nature, while the other was more qualitative in nature. He did not have any
arguments with the technical document. He suggested a discussion addressing the present street
uses versus traditional past uses of streets, and to share that information with the public. He
believed there would be a heightened sense of comfort, and did not believe the methodology of
the EIR could be argued. He believed the EIR was very sound and thorough, and appreciated
staff's work in that regard. He noted that the plan was very comprehensive.
Page 3 of 9",PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-25,4,"President Kohlstrand noted that the Transportation Commissioners' intent was trying to draft these
documents so they would be more in sync regarding the movement of vehicles, as well as
recognizing the need for buses circulating in the City and the need for every street to be pedestrian-
and bicycle-friendly.
Board member Lynch noted that on his street, parking was allowed right up to the intersection. He
noted that children walked across the street from Lydecker Park are not visible because of that
parking arrangement, and that it was a quality of life issue. He inquired whether such issues should
be included in the plan.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft commended the authors of this report, as well as the public for their
comments. She noted that Alameda was growing like every other Bay Area city, and that it cannot
remain frozen in time, but she did not believe the small-town character and quality of life should be
sacrificed. She noted that the roads did not belong to one particular transportation mode. She had
some concerns about significant decreasing levels of service at some intersections. She noted that
when an accident occurred in the Tube heading out of town, traffic throughout Alameda backed up.
She noted that on page 4 of the Transportation Element Update, Objective 4.1.4 addressed proactive
citizen involvement, particularly maintaining a public forum such as the Transportation
Commission to facilitate public involvement. She suggested creating a citizen input website so they
would not have to wait for the next public meeting. She noted that more off-street bicycle parking
was needed, and parking lots should be striped to allow that.
Commissioner Krueger expressed concern with page 2.0-3 of the EIR summary, regarding Impact
4.2.1, which discussed traffic delay and the level of service. It stated that there was no feasible
mitigation available, thus the resulting level of significance was significant and unavoidable. He
was very surprised by that statement, and that the Transportation Commission discussed using
transportation systems management and transportation demand management to reduce the number
of trips generated and mitigated in that way. He was surprised that was not considered as a
mitigation, and would like that to be addressed in the EIR. Similarly, page 2.0-4, for Impact 4.2.5,
the claim was that it was significant and unavoidable because there was no mitigation available for
the intersection impacts in a cumulative sense. He did not see why Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)/Transportation Systems Management (TSM) was considered, which he could
understand if it concluded the mitigation was not sufficient; however, it seemed to him that it was
not considered at all. He noted that pages 4.2-20 through 4.2-22 indicated mitigation measures
TDM/TSM were mentioned, but the conclusion was that the impact would be significant and
unavoidable. He did not see how it could be known in advance that the mitigation would fail, and
that it could be potentially significant. He inquired what would happen if the traffic on Park Street
were given priority, which would preserve the level of service for traffic on Park Street and using
the Park Street Bridge, which he believed was the primary objective. He believed that at peak times,
there would be a backup on Clement, and people would take alternate routes. He believed that
would preserve the Island access, and while people may need to take alternate routes several times
during the day. He noted that when the intersection was not at overflow capacity, there would still
be there benefits of the Clement Extension. He believed that some of the analysis was somewhat
simplistic in examining the Level of Service (LOS) for the entire intersection, rather than
prioritizing one direction over another.
Page 4 of 9",PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-25,5,"reduced delay in the intersection, yet the conclusion was that it was significant. He noted that also
happened on High and Fernside on page 4.2-29, and for High Street and Otis on page 4.2-29-4.2-30.
He would like to see further explanation of that, so the effects of implementing the TMP to the
baseline.
President Kohlstrand noted that she had the same questions, and added Island Drive and Doolittle,
Park Street and Blanding, and Broadway and Tilden and Eagle. She noted that it was not clear what
was analyzed, and that if the delays were less, why it was a significant impact. She believed
confusion had been created over what was being analyzed, and that it changed the picture from
dealing with traffic and travel in Alameda that was not solely focused on the auto, and that the
project should be given its due credit.
Commissioner Krueger noted that it was important to get a quantitative number out, as well as to
obtain a qualitative look as well. He would like the TDM to be taken into account.
Board member Cunningham noted that one of the fundamental issues addressing the need was
based on the supply or demand for transportation within the community. Under the assumptions in
the EIR, there was an assumed growth of jobs in the community from 31,000 to 49,000, which
represented a 65% increase in jobs on the Island, relative to an increase in housing from 31,000 to
36,000, a 17% increase. He noted that it would be important to identify where the supply and
demand would be. He anticipated that there more growth in the Alameda Point area. He believed
that mitigation should address getting people from areas where the housing was concentrated to
where the jobs are. He would like to see other plans within the Transportation Element such as
water taxis that would mitigate people not using roads; he suggested that a water taxi from Harbor
Bay to Alameda Point may be workable.
Board member Cunningham noted that he had raised the definition of LOS in the Town Centre
matters, and would like to add further clarification. He noted that a delay over 60 seconds at
Santa Clara would be a LOS level ""F"", and intersections such as Constitution and Atlantic at 53
seconds would qualify for LOS level ""E"". Board member Cunningham believed that study
should be done before adoption of the plan. He inquired whether alternate LOSs would be
considered based on the classification of the route. Mr. Thomas replied that would be a
possibility, and noted that in Oakland, they had changed the threshold of what was significant.
Board member Cunningham inquired whether a safety factor was linked into the LOS, and noted
that most of what they had seen was based on timing.
President Kohlstrand noted that it was based on average seconds of delay.
Page 5 of 9",PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-25,6,"Commissioner Krueger wished to clarify that he did not want two different definitions of LOS,
and that they should stick to the standard definitions. He added that the City should determine
what they were willing to accept on certain circumstances, given the standards. He inquired
whether it would be possible to analyze the levels of service of two different legs of an
intersection, or whether CEQA required treating the whole intersection as one.
Staff stated that information about each leg of the intersection could be provided.
President Kohlstrand added that information was included in the tables in the background
information.
Commissioner McFarland had no comment.
Commissioner Lee had no comment.
Commissioner Moehring thanked the public for their comments. She wanted to concentrate on
safety issues. She noted that safety in crossing intersections was a major issue, and recommended
that drivers use both hand and directional signals when driving. She appreciated the comment on
the ability to correct things that did not work as well as anticipated. She agreed with the concept
of starting simply and moving forward in smaller steps. She would like to see a little more traffic
on Webster Street to patronize the businesses, and did not want the alternate routes to be so fast
that they completely avoid Webster Street.
Chair Knox-White noted that he did not have a comment on the plan itself, and that while page
4.2-2 of the EIR discussed a light rail corridor, the TMP did not mention a light rail corridor. The
TMP did mention an exclusive transit street. He believed that bike parking could be highlighted,
and noted that the design factor of the retail streets should receive more focus. He noted that the
Pedestrian Plan had been approved by the Planning Board. He complimented Mr. Bergmann on
the effectiveness of public transit surveys. He agreed with Commissioner Moehring regarding
the street classification, and added that a random survey to up to 2,000 homes had been mailed as
an insert in AP&T bills. As a result of that survey, people believed that all streets should be used
equitably, but there should also be streets that would take people across the Island. He noted that
the City tried its best to balance those needs. He noted that the EIR mentioned that there would
be less than significant impact on air quality (4.3-8). Commissioner Knox-White noted that with
respect to levels of service at intersections, he would like to take the long view and be sure that
pedestrian and bicycle levels of service were addressed. With respect to the EIR, he noted that it
was odd that there were two or three intersections that were found to be significant and
unavoidable in the document that had already been declared significant and unavoidable for the
traffic generated. He noted that the Alameda Landing EIR stated the traffic was significant and
unavoidable, and he believed that every following project was identified as the source of the
traffic being significant and unavoidable. He believed that it should be stipulated that it was
significant and unavoidable, and that it may not make it worse, or may make it better.
Commissioner Knox-White expressed frustration that proposed mitigations were identified, but
that the effects of those mitigations were not examined, positive or negative.
Page 6 of 9",PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-25,7,"Chair Knox White added that the City Council has already accepted the idea of reducing trips
instead of accommodating them, but that the EIR did not address that option at all. He believed
that while flexibility was good, cities should be able to identify their priorities. He noted that
Mariner Square Drive was listed as a four-lane road, even though it was supposed to be reduced
when it came to the Transportation Commission. He cautioned against the unintended
consequences of mitigation. He expressed concern about the ability of residents on Fernside to
get out of their driveways because the platoon of cars released from traffic lights travel down the
street at intervals that do not break. He suggested that the City become more aware of those types
of consequences. He would like the FEIR to discuss the length of the LOS-D at intersections.
Chair Knox White noted that Eighth Street has more traffic under the Project than under the No
Project use of Eighth Street, even though the project was meant to decrease its use. Under the
Environmentally Superior Alternative, he suggested removing EIR policies 1, 2 and 6. He would
like further clarification of the purpose of 500 pages of turn diagrams, which he believed puts off
the average citizen. He added that there was a lot of technical data that would have been useful
but was not included in the document. Chair Knox White echoed Board member Cunningham's
comment regarding the price of gas, and believed the City was moving in the right direction
regarding a mode shift; he added that the City would have the appropriate infrastructure and the
accompanying planning process in place for the time when that shift occurs.
Commissioner Krueger requested that the technical appendices be separated into another
document. He emphasized that it should be available, but believed that it would be more
convenient and less intimidating for the residents if it were contained in a separate document.
President Kohlstrand believed that the direction of the Transportation Element was very positive,
and that it tried to reflect the values of the residents of Alameda. She did not believe Alameda
wanted to have seven-lane intersections such as those found in Pleasanton or Livermore, and did
not believe they enhanced the pedestrian atmosphere of those cities. She believed that everyone
was a potential pedestrian, and that they should be respected. She believed the essence of the
plan did not appear in the document, such as the goal of restricting the future amount of roadway
capacity. President Kohlstrand believed the thresholds of significance will be very critical, and
that the City was in the awkward position of analyzing the Transportation Element using old
significance criteria. She believed it was a goal worth pursuing, and that there was public support
for changing the focus of transportation within the City. She believed the design standards for the
streets and pedestrian improvements were also critical. She believed it was very important for the
public to have an opportunity to provide input into that process. She believed it was important
for runoff and drainage to be improved, and for them to be more friendly to people who live and
work in those areas.
Board member Ezzy-Ashcraft noted that she had supported green landscaping ordinances to
accompany the green building ordinances. She noted that staff had stated that the time was not
yet right for that, and that the positive aspect was that the Board would be able to work with
Planning staff to incorporate these recommendations into a future green landscaping ordinance to
meet legal requirements. She added that it was more economical as well.
Page 7 of 9",PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-25,8,"President Kohlstrand emphasized that Planning and Public Works must work together on this
issue, and that the standards should respect both safety issues and improving upon current
standards. Regarding the environmental document, she was surprised to find that no intersections
in Alameda Point were listed as problematic.
Commissioner Krueger wished to discuss Section 6 with the No Project Alternative and the
Environmentally Superior Alternatives, which were meant to distinguish them from the proposed
TMP. He could not see any evidence that the phenomenon of induced traffic was taken into
effect. He added that occurred when capacity was added in an attempt to mitigate congestion, an
increase in traffic may also be caused because of new trips or shifted modes. He believed the
impacts in 4.1.1, which stated that road widening can divide communities, and 4.2.2, Alternative
Transportation, which documented negative outcomes of a mode shift, should be verified. He
added that 4.1.2 should be checked as well, regarding land use and the increase of auto-oriented
land use. He noted that 4.2.3 (page 6.0-10) should be checked with respect to safety, and that
widening roads would allow for more free-flowing traffic, and that the speed limits may be
compromised. He requested that 4.3.2-5 regarding air quality be checked, as well as 4.4.2 and
4.4.3, regarding increasing noise impacts and induced traffic. He believed that some of the
analysis was too simplistic, allowing people to believe that road widening was environmentally
superior. He believed there was considerable evidence to suggest that was not the case.
President Kohlstrand noted that a one-page summary of proposed thresholds of significance had
been distributed. She recalled an experiment in New York City where several streets were closed
to all traffic on a Saturday morning, and noted that would be tested in San Francisco by early
September.
Chair Knox White discussed the summary, and explained the issue of multiple levels of service
and their impacts on all modes of transportation. He noted that solutions to the impacts must be
prioritized, and added that the Transportation Commission will continue to have conversations
about those issues.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
6-A.
Future Agendas
Staff presented a report on upcoming agenda items.
6-B. Zoning Administrator Report - Meeting of August 19, 2008
Staff presented a report on the Zoning Administrator meeting of August 19, 2008. Two use
permits were granted. One for 1712 Everett Avenue and one for 473-475 Central Avenue.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
10-A
Transmittal of August 2008 Public Review Draft of the Gateway District Strategic Plan
for consideration at the September 8, 2008 Planning Board regularly scheduled Meeting.
Page 8 of 9",PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-08-25,9,"11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or make
a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral to
staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at
a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to place
a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.
Board member Lynch requested staff look into options that limit skateboarding in front of
the theatre as it can be hazardous to pedestrians.
Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft suggested signage stating ""No skateboarding on
sidewalk"" be placed near the theatre to address Board member Lynch's concern. She
asked staff to provide clarification to the Board on the public misconceptions regarding
the Boards action on the Grand Marina housing project.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 9 of 9",PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf