body,date,page,text,path
LibraryBoard,2008-12-10,1,"Chy
OF
the
6
TERRA
Minutes of the
ALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING
December 10, 2008
The regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Ruth Belikove, President
Mike Hartigan, Vice President
Karen Butter, Board Member
Alan Mitchell, Board Member
Absent:
Gail Wetzork, Board Member
Staff:
Jane Chisaki, Library Director
Marsha Merrick, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
An asterisk indicates items so enacted or adopted on the Consent Calendar.
A.
*Report from Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Month of December 2008.
Accepted.
B.
*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of November 12, 2008. Approved.
C.
*Library Services Report for the Month of October 2008. Accepted.
D.
*Financial Report Reflecting FY 2008-09 Expenditures by Fund through November 2008.
Accepted.
E.
*Bills for Ratification for the Month of November 2008. Approved.
Vice President Hartigan asked why the telephone account is in the negative on the Expenditure Status
Report. Director Chisaki explained that each department pays a monthly chargeback to IT (the Library's
share is $2,200) for debt still owed on the phone system. Being unaware of this charge, additional
money was not budgeted. Hartigan also asked why there is only $15,000 left for electricity this year.
Chisaki said a large chunk of money is already encumbered on a purchase order for Alameda Power &
Telecom, and the $15,000 is what is left after that, so we are still in very good shape. Chisaki went on to
say that if funds become available, there is already a request in to install solar panels on the Library.
President Belikove asked for a motion to accept the Consent Calendar as presented. Member Butter so
moved; Member Mitchell seconded the motion which carried by a 4-0 vote.",LibraryBoard/2008-12-10.pdf
LibraryBoard,2008-12-10,2,"Page 2 of 3
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
December 10, 2008
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
There were no communications from the public members in attendance.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.
Neighborhood Library Improvement Project (G. Wetzork)
In Member Wetzork's absence, Director Chisaki reported that the NLIP team met and came
up
with 4 firms to interview on 12/16/08. Contractor selection will be made that day; all firms
received our boilerplate contract with the proposal package, so the City Attorney's office has
promised to push this through quickly. The contract award is expected to go through at the
January 6 City Council meeting.
B.
Consideration of Art Donation (R. Belikove)
Space was found to hang the Gary Bukovnik painting on the first floor Lincoln Street side of the
building; it can be broken up and mounted separately. President Belikove and Supervising
Librarian Hall went to San Francisco to view the piece which looked to be in good condition.
Member Butter asked what the circumstances of the donation were, i.e., will we be able to
dispose of the piece later, or are we to keep it for perpetuity. Butter was quite concerned about
acceptance without a policy in place. Member Hartigan also pointed out this piece would take
display space away from the rotating exhibits the Library hosts. Director Chisaki asked Belikove
to tell the artist that we need to have our policy in place before taking the art. Chisaki has given
Hall some art policies from other libraries to get started on putting ours together.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Art Exhibit Committee (R. Belikove)
President Belikove said Peggie Williams moved so is no longer on the art exhibit committee.
They need to recruit a new member, as they have only 4 now. A newspaper advertisement needs
to be placed, asking people to submit letters of interest as they did upon the committee's initial
formation. Belikove had a few possible leads, so she will make some calls first; if these people
are interested, she will ask that they submit a letter. The next exhibit coming to the Library in
January will be Chinese Brush Painting by artist Dolly Fong.
B.
Alameda Free Library Foundation (A. Mitchell)
The Foundation approved their investment policy, and the Executive Board will meet later in the
month. Instead of giving money to the Library piecemeal for individual requests, the Foundation
has decided on an annual distribution instead. This will vary on what interest has been earned,
and half of the amount that was raised throughout the year on special programs. This year's
distribution amount will be around $7,500, plus $5,000 from the Michael Pollan event.",LibraryBoard/2008-12-10.pdf
LibraryBoard,2008-12-10,3,"Page 3 of 3
Minutes of the Alameda
Free Library Board Meeting
December 10, 2008
C.
Friends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Lambert)
Marc Lambert reported that the newsletter had come out that day, with a new feature on the
address label showing membership status. The Friends have adopted their 2009 budget; they
expect to raise $49,500 this year. The next Friends meeting will be on January 26.
D.
Patron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.
A request was made for signage around the Circulation Desk instructing patrons to wait until the
previous person is done with their transaction before stepping up to the counter for assistance.
This has been a challenging area to control. With the elevator, staircase and express check-out
stations right there, it is difficult to clearly form a line. Some new signage alternatives will be
given a try. A request was made that I.D. be required along with your library card to check out
books. That way, if someone steals your card, they would not be able to use it. It is important to
keep your library card as secure as you would a credit card, and report its loss immediately.
LIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Butter mentioned watching the City Council meeting, and how confusing it had been
when discussion was held on how much bond money proceeds were available for Library construction.
The Interim Finance Director had been talking about a special fund that pays the debt service for the
Library. Finance will send a report to Council with a full explanation, and better numbers will be
available for Director Chisaki after her meeting with Finance staff on the following day.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Chisaki reminded Board members to do their AB1234 ethics training so the certificates can be turned in
to the City Clerk's office. ""The Buzz"" - a newsletter from the Harbor Bay Athletic Club - is out and it
lists the Library's upcoming programs and events, The Art Exhibit Calendar will be included in Board
packets starting in January. On January 20th, the League of Women Voters, the Friends of the Alameda
Free Library and the Alameda Free Library will co-host an inauguration viewing event, starting at 7:30
a.m. in the Regina K. Stafford Community Meeting Rooms.
ADJOURNMENT
President Belikove asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Vice President Hartigan so
moved; Member Mitchell seconded the motion which carried by a 4-0 vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Chisaki, Library Director and
Secretary to the Library Board",LibraryBoard/2008-12-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-12-10,1,"MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2008
CONFERENCE ROOM 360, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: Acting Chair Lee called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Vice Chair Lee, Commissioners Ibsen and Leal
ABSENT:
Commissioner Candelario
STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to
Public Art Commission; Maria Luisa Flores, Intermediate
Clerk, Planning & Building
MINUTES:
Minutes from the meeting of November 12, 2008
Motion (lbsen)/Second (Lee) to approve minutes with modifications
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent 1. Motion passed.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
REGULAR AGENDA:
(4A.) Adoption of Resolutions Acknowledging the Service of Former Public Art
Commission Members to the Citizens of Alameda
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent 1. Motion passed.
(4B.) Public Art Proposal for Perforce Software at 2320 Blanding Avenue
Motion (Ibsen)/Second (Leal) to adopt the resolution approving Application No.
PLN08-0606 for the public art at the Perforce Software building, based on the
findings suggested by staff and subject to the following special condition in
addition to the conditions recommended by staff:",PublicArtCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
PublicArtCommission,2008-12-10,2,"The tiles depicting the wisp of breath from the figure on one panel towards
the bubble wand on the adjacent panel shall be extended so the relationship
between the panels is more direct. A drawing depicting this modification is
subject to approval of a subcommittee of the Public Art Commission, who
shall report their decision at the next regular meeting. Subcommittee
Members - Ibsen and Lee.
Ayes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent 1. Motion passed.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff reported.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:
Eric Ibsen and Andrea Leal have drafted a press release regarding locating public art in
Alameda which they would like to have agendized for discussion at a future meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary
Public Art Commission
G:\PLANNING\PAC\Agendas_Minutes\Minutes_08/12-10-08 draft minutes.doc
2",PublicArtCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
December 10, 2008
Acting Chair Krueger called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier
Kathy Moehring (arrived after Item 4)
Jane Lee
Members Absent:
John Knox White
Srikant Subramaniam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
Eric Fonstein, Development Services Department
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
October 22, 2008
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that with respect to page 7 (Future Agenda Items), he did not
recall raising the issue of High Street and I-880, and believed that another Commissioner made
those comments. Staff Khan believed the comments were made by Commissioner McFarland.
Commissioner Lee noted that with respect to school budgeting on page 5, the language should be
changed to:
""
school budgeting, which can cause
""
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the minutes of October 22, 2008, as amended.
Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
b.
November 12, 2008
There was not a quorum to consider these minutes, which will be considered during the January
28, 2009, meeting.
1",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,2,"3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
No task forces met since the last meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
There were none.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A.
Parking Management Strategy for the Park Street and West Alameda Business
Districts.
Eric Fonstein, Development Services Department, summarized the staff report and detailed the
background and scope of this item. He noted that West Alameda Business Association and the
Park Street Business Association expressed concerns that the Alameda Municipal Code did not
reasonably take into consideration the type or size of the business, or its location, when applying
the minimum parking requirements. The members also believed that the City's in lieu fees were
burdensome and expensive, especially for small businesses. The third concern was raised by
residents in the neighborhoods regarding lack of adequate on-street parking. He noted that in
response to those concerns, the City hired Wilbur Smith & Associates to conduct a parking
study, which measured occupancy, turnover and duration of both on-and off-street parking in the
two districts. He noted that the study was completed before the completion of the new Civic
Center parking structure and Movie Theater, although those facilities were included in the future
parking demand calculations.
Mr. Fonstein advised that the study found high on-street occupancy levels several times during
the day; City-owned parking lots A and C were also highly used, and that many of the private
lots were highly underused; and there were high occupancies in the residential areas near the
downtown area. Similar findings were found in the West Alameda district. He noted that the
goals of the parking strategy were:
1. Management of the existing supply should be enhanced, and that the bargain hunters and
employees should be moved from the on-street parking spaces and into the private and
public lots through pricing mechanisms, and to open up the on-street parking for the
shoppers, which benefit the district; and
2. Lower the barriers to private investment and business expansion in the districts.
Staff Fonstein noted that the infrastructure and supply were in place, but that the resource
management tools must be sharpened. He noted that on-street parking was an underpriced, finite
resource, which was capable of being exploited or sold out. He noted that an appropriate price
point for on-street parking should be found, so that merchants and employees did not monopolize
the on-street parking; parking structures and off-street lots would be preferable. He noted that by
appropriately pricing the on-street parking, the turnover rate would be optimized. He noted that
2",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,3,"short-term parkers were less sensitive to the price, and preferred the convenience. He noted that
Professor Donald Shoup of UCLA discovered that appropriately priced parking actually reduced
traffic congestion by up to 30%, which was the percentage of drivers cruising around the block
looking for a parking space. He noted that the goal was to have 15% vacancy of meter space
available at any one time, or approximately one empty space per block. He noted that in the Park
Street district, the on-street meter rates were increased from 50 cents to $1 per hour. The off-
street public lots were kept at 50 cents. Staff recommended monitoring the parking conditions on
Park Street.
Staff Fonstein noted that on certain areas of Webster Street at certain times, there was high
occupancy, but that there was not enough to consider raising the on-street meter rates. Both
districts would continue to be monitored. He noted that an ordinance may be considered to
establish a target occupancy rate of 85%, and create a threshold of meter rates which could be
adjusted up or down at 25% intervals. He noted that this plan needed neighborhood support,
active enforcement and should be self-funded to avoid impacting the City's General Fund.
Staff Fonstein noted that staff's recommendations were to establish a cost-neutral program,
which would be borne by the permit holders, estimated at approximately $75 annually. It would
also establish two-hour parking for non-residents in a permitted area; active enforcement would
be very important, and that violators would receive a ticket. The program should be located
within three blocks of the commercial area; 75% of the on-street occupancy in any given two-
hour area should demonstrate an impact on those streets; and one-third of the neighborhood
should sign a petition to bring it forward to the City. After a study, the City should present the
measure to the residents for a vote, with a majority approval by the property owners.
Staff Fonstein noted that the third management strategy was to use employee parking permits,
allowing employees to park in off-street lots and parking structures, freeing the on-street parking
for customers. He described the prices of the various parking permits. Staff recommended that an
RFP be prepared and issued for a trial project for both districts, as funding becomes available.
Staff Fonstein noted that the second goal was to encourage private investment, infill development
and business expansion in the business districts. He noted that there were some concerns by
members of the business associations about the parking requirements. He noted that the goal was
to find the right size of parking requirements for uses. He noted that there were comments that
the requirements did not take the realities of on-street business locations into account, and that
motorists may park once for many destinations. He noted that another concern was that
restrictive requirements would increase the cost for infill development. He noted that staff would
like the flexibility to go below the stipulated requirements, using either a demand waiver, a
historic waiver, or a shared parking waiver. Staff would like to look at shared parking, and that a
City employee parking lot at Lincoln and Walnut may be opened to the public on weekends, and
for special events. They would also like to create a shared parking database for people to use.
Staff would like to re-examine the shared parking code, to ensure that it would be easy to enter
into the agreement.
3",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,4,"Staff Fonstein noted that the third goal was program management, with periodic monitoring,
depending on the availability of funding. He noted that issues such as satellite parking programs,
park & ride, casual carpool, loading zones, the possibility of extending enforcement to Saturdays
or evenings, valet parking, the needs of disabled patrons, and to develop a long-range financing
plan for future parking in both districts. He noted that WABA endorsed this plan the previous
week, and it was presented to PSBA for consideration in January. He noted that the EDC did not
have a quorum on November 20, 2008, and that it would be re-presented on January 15, 2009.
This plan would be brought before the Planning Board at their January 12, 2009, meeting. They
hoped to bring it to the City Council in February 2009.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired about the impact of casual car pooling on surrounding
neighborhoods. Staff Khan noted that it was not defined fully at this time, but that there would be
some impact. He noted that Encinal/Park and Santa Clara/Webster are currently being used
informally for this purpose.
Commissioner Moehring inquired about the payment machines, and would like to confirm that
they would accept cash in addition to credit cards. Staff Fonstein confirmed that they would
accept cash. Commissioner Mehoring ask when funding for these machines would become
available, Staff Fonstein for the initial pilot project, and that the cost was $48,000 for two
machines. There would be one machine per block. Commissioner Moring noted that it would be
nice to try a machine, and inquired whether they could be solar-powered.
Staff Khan noted that some machines can be loaded via cell phone.
Open public hearing.
There were no speakers.
Acting Chair Krueger suggested this might be a good time to read Chair Knox White's written
comments into the record.
Staff Bergman noted that Chair Knox White stated that ""in-lieu fees should be used for
accommodation of transportation, but an emphasis on transportation options that reduce the need
to build more parking. Bus shelters, benches, bike racks, etc., not just parking for bikes or for
cars."" After receiving the comment, staff examined the Municipal Code, and it appeared to allow
considerable flexibility, and should accommodate Chair Knox White's concerns, although it was
not explicit. The Code stated that ""fees should be allowed where the City can identify
appropriate uses for funds reasonably related to the project. Appropriate uses shall include, but
not be limited to, acquisition
4",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,5,"Close public comment.
Commissioner Schatmeier agreed with Chair Knox White's comments, and was concerned about
the portion of the study that recommended lowering the cost of commuter parking in off-street
parking to address the balance between on-street and off-street parking. He believed the lower
parking cost would serve as a deterrent to using transit in areas where transit service was dense.
Acting Commissioner Krueger requested that the possibility of the TransLink card be
investigated, because the program was moving very slowly. He agreed with Chair Knox White's
suggestion about broadening the usage of the in lieu fees for transportation improvements, with
an emphasis on parking demand reduction. He believed that the minimum and maximum long-
term fee adjustments should include adjustments for inflation. He noted that the criterion for the
15-minute transit service was good except the requirement that it also be 15 minutes on
weekends during peak business hours, which he believed was met only by the 51. He believed
that was too strict.
Staff Khan agreed and stated that it should be changed to weekdays only for the criterion.
Acting Chairperson Krueger suggested using 15 minutes during the week, and 30 minutes during
the weekend, which would apply to both the minimum and maximum. He suggested lowering the
price of garage parking would encourage people to park there, or to increase the cost of street
and residential parking.
Staff Khan wished to confirm that Commissioner Schatmeier suggested that before changing on-
street pricing, that the impacts should be evaluated, and if the residential permit parking could
address the on-street parking issues. Commissioner Schatmeier confirmed that was correct.
Staff Khan noted that he understood the other comment to examine casual carpool analysis more
comprehensively, consider TransLink card use for payment of parking meters; broaden the use of
in lieu fees that could be used not just for bicycle or parking supply facilities, but also for transit,
transit shelter and parking demand management strategies. He understood that inflation be
included for maximum parking meter charges, as well as examining making a change to a waiver
that changes weekday 15-minute and weekend 15-minute headway to weekday 15-minute and
weekend service being available.
Staff Khan summarized the Commission's desire that shared parking would be available for all
parking and would apply to all waivers if a facility acquired a new waiver. He added that for the
maximum waiver, shared parking could also satisfy as part of the waiver.
Acting Chairperson Krueger noted that was not his comment, and that having looked for shared
parking should be part of the conditions in order to obtain the waiver. He noted that in order to
get the waiver, you must show that you cannot satisfy it through shared parking.
5",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,6,"Commissioner Moehring moved to recommend approval of the plan with Commissioner
comments forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
6B.
Proposed Method for Identifying Preferred Transportation Modes on Street
Segments Where Multiple Priorities Have Been Identified.
Staff Bergman summarized the staff report, and provided the background on this item. He
displayed a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the staff report.
Commissioner Moehring noted that segment 68 (Central to Atlantic) gave preference to autos
and pedestrians, but that it was also a major transit route, which should be addressed as well.
Staff Khan agreed.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the segment 15 listed transit and bicycles on Challenger at
Marina Village Parkway, which was not a primary transit or an exclusive right of way transit, yet
transit was listed as the preferred mode. He inquired whether that was correct. Staff Khan noted
that staff would re-examine that item.
Open public hearing.
There were no speakers.
Staff Bergman noted that Chair Knox-White submitted comments in writing, which he distributed
and read into the record:
The current report/proposal does not address the goals that the TC and the TMP set out,
which is to stop the incremental degradation in the walk/bike environment and maintain
the quality of life on all streets.
Past TC and staff discussion has focused specifically on allowing higher congestion in
Commercial areas in favor of pedestrian improvements, however the current staff
proposal does the opposite, specifically saying that for Commercial Main and School and
Recreational Zones not on Regional Arterials, preference is given to Pedestrians,
Bicyclists, and/or Transit.
This means that automobiles are given preference in both Commercial Main Streets and
School and Recreation zones, the exact opposite of the purpose of these classifications. In
fact, the proposal essentially makes the Commercial Main Street classification moot.
The TC's past consensus goal identified the use of the ""Modal Priority"" maps in the TMP
for Multimodal LOS purposes. The staff proposal does not follow this methodology and
the TC should be aware of this during the discussion.
6",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,7,"At the TMP EIR hearing, we heard from 3 different people about the trouble pedestrians
have crossing Broadway near San Jose. Broadway is a Regional Arterial. In moving
forward with staff's proposal, auto mobility will be prioritized over pedestrian; the ability
of the city to respond to these issues will be reduced.
Alameda's regional arterials are not Gilroy-like walled off roadways that can be treated
in isolation of other modes; they run through our business districts, past parks and
schools.
Many of the core Primary Transit Streets are also along the Regional Arterials, in
prioritizing autos over transit, the staff proposal reduces the TC and city council's) goal
of moving people instead of cars, especially as it affects the Park Street Bridge and more
importantly the tubes.
Before the discussion on the ""grid"" begins, I'd respectfully ask that the TC discuss the
goals of the TMP and the desire to create multimodal LOS thresholds. Only through an
understanding of what we are trying to achieve, can the right result be crafted.
Rather than starting with the grid, which is difficult to conceptualize, I would like to
encourage people to talk about policies and trade-offs using the grid to identify examples
of where certain situations might occur and how the TC would like to recommend they be
handled.
Regional arterials streets: Park St., Webster St., Constitution Way, Encinal/Central, 1/2 of
Broadway, Clement Ave., Atlantic Ave., Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, 1/2 of
Main Street, Otis Drive (from Towne Centre to the bridge).
Close public hearing.
Commissioner Moehring noted that the regional arterials should all have transit as one of the
preferred modes.
Commissioner Schatmeier concurred with Commissioner Moehring's comments, and counted
many streets designated as primary transit streets where transit was not mentioned in the priority
column.
Commissioner Moehring left the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Acting Chairperson Krueger noted that the auto was the default modal priority, which he
believed was the reason there was no auto overlay. He noted that the modal overlays answered
that priority. He believed this grid brought the street classification in as a means prioritization,
particularly bringing in the regional arterial as a way of saying automobiles should trump the
other modes, despite the modal overlays. He was concerned that was not how the street
classification was intended to be used.
7",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,8,"Commissioner Schatmeier would like the streets to be prioritized on a case by case basis.
Commissioner McFarland agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier's assessment.
Staff Bergman noted that for the multi-modal priority layers, they were examined in isolation.
Acting Chairperson Krueger suggested that the clarifications, as detailed in the November 12,
2008, minutes (page 5) be reviewed for the benefit of the Commissioners who were not in
attendance at that meeting.
A discussion of the modal overlays ensued.
Commissioner Schatmeier suggested that Park Street be designated as a primary transit street,
because the level of service and ridership was already high; they could be higher by assigning
this priority, and giving preferential treatment to transit.
Acting Chairperson Krueger noted that the classifications were based on a series of rules,
particularly a rule that if a street was designated as a major arterial, that automobiles would
automatically take precedence, which was not the same as saying it was a case-by-case basis. He
believed that staff was trying to craft a set of rules that could be applied to determine the
outcome. He believed that was fair, because it would be practically difficult to handle everything
on a case by case basis; in that event, there would be no need for overriding rules and
classifications.
Commissioner Schatmeier objected to the rule stating that regional arterials would always get
auto-priority treatment, and noted that Park Street was different than Otis.
Acting Chairperson Krueger noted that regional arterials were a major issue in that they were
also commercial streets.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that Webster and Park were major transit corridors, but that
there was no ""T"" listed in the table.
Staff Bergman noted that if the Commission would like to modify the guidelines, that would be
useful feedback for staff.
Staff Khan noted that the City would hire Dowling Associates to work on this specific aspect of
threshold significance. He noted that if this could not be resolved at this time, there would be
other opportunities; this may be a good starting point to get feedback for the next meeting.
Acting Chairperson Krueger believed the discussion should be continued with all of the
Commissioners present, and that the resolution of the conflicts should be identified.
8",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,9,"Staff Khan noted that the stated goals of the Transportation Element would be a good place to
start; the following goals were identified:
1.
Circulation
2.
Livability
3.
Transportation choice
4.
Implementation in a cost-effective way.
Acting Chairperson Krueger noted that he had considered the following goals: protecting
livability; maintaining current bicycle, pedestrian and transit levels of service/access; and
creating equity for the modes.
Acting Chairperson Krueger noted that the statement about regional arterials was tricky because
they ran through all of the business districts. He believed that when the automotive mode priority
in regional arterials, that ran counter to the idea of preserving the walkable business districts.
Staff Khan reflected the comment to mean that the regional arterials would be examined in terms
of looking at giving priority to high-occupancy vehicles.
Acting Chairperson Krueger noted that would be a good start, and would like to explore the
issue of prioritization. He would like to have more information to provide guidance, and if the
modal overlay did not determine the priority, he would like something better than just an ad hoc
statement, and that maybe too many streets were called out.
Commissioner Schatmeier suggested that the goals be used as a guide in setting the priority.
Staff Khan noted that some changes could be made based upon the Commissioners' comments,
and that the revised goals could be brought back at a later meeting.
Acting Chairperson Krueger complimented staff on the presentation and believed this was a very
good format.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired whether the chart included every classified street. Staff Khan
noted that staff only looked at the streets in the transportation model with a LOS of C or more.
Staff Bergman noted that this was done conservatively, and if the analysis were limited to streets
projected to go to LOS D or lower in 2030, it would be reduced to 50 segments. He noted that
this constituted only a small percentage of the City's street network.
Acting Chairperson Krueger noted that good ideas were brought forward.
Staff Khan summarized the direction, and noted that staff would examine the Transportation
Element goals, and incorporate them into the preferences for different modes. He invited further
Commissioner comments, and would report back in January 2009.
9",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,10,"7.
NEW BUSINESS
a.
Appointment of a Long-Range Transit Plan Update Subcommittee
Staff Bergman noted that this item was suggested by Chair Knox-White, since the City was not
successful in acquiring a grant to complete the Long Range Transit Plan update. Chair Knox-
White requested that a scope of work be identified for the time when funding was available. He
noted that the general scope of work was identified in the grant application, and could be fleshed
out. The Subcommittee would be composed of three members, which was not a quorum; the
discussion would be brought back to the full Commission.
Acting Chairperson Krueger invited volunteers to serve on the Subcommittee. Commissioner
Schatmeier noted that he would be willing to serve, as would Acting Chairperson Krueger.
Commissioner McFarland noted that he would be willing to serve, but wanted the new members
to have the opportunity to serve. He suggested that two members be named, with the third to be
named later.
Acting Chairperson Krueger appointed Commissioner Schatmeier and himself as volunteers for
the subcommittee, and deferred naming the third member until the next meeting.
Open public comment.
There was none.
Close public comment.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
There was none.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Khan noted that staff was asked to consider identifying every agenda item as an action item.
After a discussion with the City Attorney's office, it was felt to be problematic.
Acting Chairperson Krueger asked for standard guidelines so that there was consistency between
all the boards and commissions.
Staff Khan noted that the Planning Board did not take action on every item, and that they
included discussion items on the agenda.
a.
Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study
Staff Khan noted that a public meeting was held in October 2008, as well as a policy advisory
committee meeting with members of other agencies. A meeting with the TAT was held on this
issue, and that the report would be brought to the Commissioner.
10",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,11,"b.
Broadway/Jackson Update
Staff Khan noted that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting. A transportation
study would be submitted to City Council on December 17 or 18, 2008, and would be available
to the public.
c.
Monitoring of Oak Street/Central Avenue intersection
Staff Khan noted that there was no report.
d.
Upcoming development-related traffic studies and plans
Staff Khan noted that there was no report.
e.
Future meeting agenda items
Staff Khan noted that staff would examine ordinances related to parking, because residential
permit parking required an ordinance change, and that the issue would be brought forth in
January or February 2009.
Staff Bergman noted that the Interagency Liaison Committee with AC Transit was tentatively
scheduled to meet on the 17th, and was rescheduled for January 2009.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:05 p.m.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\/2009\012809\121008minutes-draft-rev.doc
11",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf