{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-02-22", "page": 1, "text": "CITT\n$\nMINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION\nREGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2006\nCO.\nDATE:\nWednesday, February 22, 2006\nTIME:\n7:00 p.m.\nPLACE:\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Room 360\nAlameda, CA 94501\n1.\nRoll Call:\nThe meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair Huston, Vice Chair Lee, Commissioners Cecilia Cervantes*,\nK.C. Rosenberg and Peter Wolfe*\nStaff:\nAndrew Thomas, Staff Member\nChristina Bailey, Staff Member\n*arrived after roll call\n2.\nApproval of Minutes\nA.\nMinutes of Meeting on January 25, 2006\nM/S/C\nLee/Wolfe\n(approved)\n\"That Minutes of Public Art Commission Meeting on January 25, 2006 be\napproved.\"\nApproved (4) - Huston, Lee, Rosenberg, and Wolfe\nAbsent (1) - Cervantes\n3.\nOral Communications\n- NONE\n4.\nWritten Communications\n- NONE\n5.\nNew Business\nA. Presentation by Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director\nPAC Meeting\n1\nFebruary 22, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-02-22", "page": 2, "text": "Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director, introduced herself and\nreported on Commission staffing. Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner,\nintroduced himself and explained department's role in the Public Art process.\nB. Presentation by Terry Highsmith, City Attorney's Office\nAssistant City Attorney Terry Highsmith provided an overview of the Ralph M.\nBrown Act.\n6.\nOld Business\nA. Draft Public Art Handout (Quick Guide)\nThe Commission commented on the draft document wording and content, and\ndirected staff to bring a revised draft to the next regular meeting.\n7.\nSubcommittee Reports\nCommissioner Wolfe reported that he had spoken to Tad Savinar, Art Consultant\nfor Alameda Towne Centre. He learned that Mr. Savinar is in the process of\nlooking for approximately $7,500.00 in additional Public Art.\n8.\nCommissioner Communications\n- NONE\n9.\nStaff Communications\nStaff member Thomas distributed a Public Art Status Report. Chair Huston asked\nif two items could be added: 1) estimated time frame of project, 2) single- or multi-\nphased project. Staff agreed to keep the report updated for each regularly\nscheduled meeting.\nA. Revisions to PAC description in Boards and Commissions Handbook\nStaff member Bailey reported that City Clerk's office would revise the description.\nThe Commission discussed revised wording for the PAC description. Staff\nagreed to bring a revised draft to the next regular meeting.\nB. Update on BASE High School Student Mural\nStaff member Thomas reported that he had spoken to Amanda Kruger, teacher\nat BASE High School about their proposed mural project. He added that the\nDevelopment Services Department might be interested in placing the mural on\nthe construction fencing for the Theater/Parking Structure Project.\n10. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.\nPAC Meeting\n2\nFebruary 22, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-02-22", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nFEBRUARY 22, 2006\nChair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:\nMembers Present:\nJohn Knox White\nPattianne Parker\nMichael Krueger\nJeff Knoth\nRobert McFarland\nAbsent:\nRobb Ratto\nEric Schatmeier\nStaff Present:\nBarry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works\nAndrew Thomas, Planning\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nCommissioner Parker moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Knoth seconded the\nmotion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 4 (Abstained - McFarland).\nCommissioner Parker stated that there were items discussed at the meeting that were not\nreflected in the minutes, and asked if the Chair could maintain a record of items that require\nresponses from staff.\nChair Knox White said he would discuss this with Staff Hawkins.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nStaff Bergman suggested the Staff Communications be moved up before the Northern Waterfront\nDraft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), so that Andrew Thomas from the Planning\nDepartment could be present.\nChair Knox White agreed.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMUNICATIONS\nChair Knox White mentioned that the only thing not on the agenda was the Pedestrian Master\nPlan Subcommittee.\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-02-22", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Knoth said that he and Commissioner Krueger met with Staff Bergman and\nreviewed the comments from the last Task Force meeting, discussed the draft policies, and\nreviewed the schedule. A set date for the next task force has not been established yet.\nChair Knox White mentioned that the ILC's next meeting is March 22nd 10:00 a.m. at AC Transit.\nCommissioner Parker said that she attended a recent Catellus presentation about the proposed\nAlameda Landing Development. She requested that the TC be given a brief presentation or\nwhite paper on transportation projects related to this project, which may also affect the Northern\nWaterfront project. This would help the Commission to understand what has been approved,\nwhat phases the projects are in, and how they fit together. Specifically, she referred to the\nconstruction of the Clement extension, Tinker Avenue, and Mitchell Mosley Avenue (note: most\nrecent plans have Mitchell connecting directly with Main Street, not joining with Mosley).\nChair Knox White asked when the TC is supposed to be briefed on the Alameda Landing project.\nCommissioner Parker said that it is her understanding that it is scheduled for April, following the\nPlanning Board workshop on April 10.\n8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Bergman presented information on the following items:\nA Request for Qualifications for on-call contracts has been sent out. It covered the range\nof Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering activities including the completion of\nthe Multimodal Circulation Plan.\nA final public meeting for the Park Street Triangle project was held on February 8th in the\nCity of Oakland.\nThe City Attorney's office had forwarded AB1234 to the Commission. Staff Bergman\nnoted that it is not relevant to the Commission at this time, as it only pertains to\nCommission members that receive compensation for Commission related activities.\nThe Bus Shelter Survey was posted on the City's web site the week of February 20th and\nalso fliers were put up at the 22 bus shelters for residents to take. About 100 responses\nwere received in the first week. The fliers are scheduled to remain at the bus shelters\nuntil the end of February.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS\nNone\n7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n7a.\nNorthern Waterfront Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)\nStaff Bergman said that Andrew Thomas from the Planning Department hopefully could stop in\nand answer Commission questions following another meeting he was attending. The TC had\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-02-22", "page": 3, "text": "reviewed and provided some comments to the General Plan Amendment in 2004. A sub-\ncommittee was formed and put together for comments. The EIR report has just been issued and\nwill be available thru the end of March for comments. The packet included the Transportation\nand Circulation sector project description based on the General Plan Amendment that was\ncirculated before. None of the comments have been incorporated as to this date. Once the EIR\nis finalized it will be forwarded to the Planning Board and Council. The TC members can\nreview the comments, which they can modify.\nChair Knox White said that the members would like to review those comments.\nCommissioner Parker had a question. In the Project Description, Page 7, there is a discussion of\nscattered residential properties. She expressed concern that some of these properties might block\na future transit corridor.\nChair Knox White said that it should be on the next meeting for discussion.\nCommissioner Parker said that the DEIR, Transportation and Circulation deal with impact fees.\nSome new developments have had their impact fees waived or reduced. Wants to make sure the\nDEIR is based upon assessment of impact fees to stand firm on its policy. She also stated that\nthe DEIR indicates that the intersection of Clement and Park will be very congested in 2010 and\n2025 whether the Northern Waterfront project is approved or not.\nChair Knox White responded that on Page IV.E-27, the baseline for 2025 with no project is Level\nOf Service B. Commissioner Parker responded that the text on Page IV.E-28 is not consistent\nwith that. She noted that the report says \"the impact of the Clement extension on the intersection\nof Park and Clement in 2025 is determined to be significant and unavoidable.\"\nCommissioner Krueger noted that on page 10, Line 19 runs on weekdays but also on weekends.\nRegarding the transit discussion on page 18, he asked if there is sufficient right of way for a\nfuture transit corridor.\nStaff Bergman responded that cross-sections were developed as part of the Cross Alameda Trail\nFeasibility Study, which illustrate how vehicles, bicycle facilities, and a rail corridor could be\naccommodated. He indicated that along Clement Avenue the cross-sections located the rail\ncorridor within the roadway.\nChair Knox White stated that he was not aware of this, and asked that the cross-sections be\nshared with the Commission for discussion at the March meeting.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that there were originally three rail corridors through the Northern\nWaterfront area, and that there were a number of houses located on them. He asked how the\ndevelopment could have been approved when this area had been identified by the City as a future\nrail corridor.\nCommissioner Parker noted that it is has been recommended by several Boards and\nCommissions that they reserve a continuous transit right of way.\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-02-22", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Krueger noted that this seems to be a pattern.\nStaff Bergman said that the curb-to-curb cross-section for the section of Clement Avenue in\nMarina Cove is 48 feet, the same as it is east of Grand.\nCommissioner Parker noted that at previous meetings, residents of Buena Vista Avenue had\nexpressed their opposition to introducing rail service on the street.\nChair Knox White asked if the transit corridor would be located along the street, and Staff\nBergman responded that it would. Chair Knox White asked that the TC be given an explanation\nof the right of way and how it changes along the corridor at the next meeting.\nCommissioner McFarland stated that the data on page IV.E-6, Roadway Operations, include\nwhat seem like very high vehicle capacity numbers for the Posey/Webster Tubes. He noted that\nfreeway lanes accommodate just over 2,000, and this is for facilities that are 12 feet wide with\nshy distance.\nChair Knox White asked that at the March meeting that staff present the assumptions underlying\nthe peak hour capacity numbers for the Tubes.\nCommissioner Parker wanted to know how \"peak hour\" is defined.\nStaff Bergman said that it was not a specified hours based on what the count was but was the\nhighest hour on the day it was collected.\nCommissioner Parker asked if the Commission could look at the trend of traffic throughout the\nday instead of just the peak hour. This way the Commission could see how long the peak lasts.\nChair Knox White had a questions regarding Section 4, page 5. He noted that the Class II bike\nlanes on Tilden Way exist on only some of the roadway. On page 17 the Northern Waterfront\nTrip Distribution has 11% for trips coming from the south to Alameda and 7% trips going south\nfrom Alameda. He stated that in the Transit Plan and at the Alameda Point Preliminary\nDevelopment Concept public meeting, the number used was 40%. He asked for clarification on\nwhich number is correct.\nStaff Bergman said that at least part of the discrepancy is due to the 40% being a percentage of\noff-island trips, while the 11% is the percentage of all trips generated by the project. A\nsignificant number of trips are expected to begin and end in Alameda.\nChair Knox White had a question on Page 17, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. He stated that\nthe TC had indicated during the discussion of the theater project that it would like to see\nNegative Declarations and EIRs address bicycle and pedestrian usability and access as one of the\nsignificance criteria.\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-02-22", "page": 5, "text": "Chair Knox White had a question on Page 19, Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. It states that\nthe removal of the truck route from Buena Vista will improve bicycle and pedestrian safety on\nBuena Vista, but does not mention that the trucks are moving to Clement where the bicycle lanes\nwill be. The EIR should note this.\nChair Knox White had a question on page 22, Construction Traffic. It talks about re-routing of\nautomobiles, bicycles, buses and emergency vehicles. He suggested that it should read that buses\nshould only be rerouted as last resort to avoid confusion among riders. He asked if the items\nlisted on Page 24 under the TSM/TDM Plan #7 are already in a City plan, or if they are being\nrecommended for inclusion.\nStaff Bergman responded that they are in an existing plan.\nChair Knox White stated that the DEIR should indicate that the elimination of the bike lanes on\nAtlantic and redirecting the bicyclists onto a trail through the former rail yard would be a\nhardship to bicyclists, as it would hinder bicycle access to, from, and within Marina Village. He\nalso expressed concern that the language is overly aggressive in suggesting the conversion of\nAtlantic into a four-lane street. He asked staff to provide information on the level of service\nalong four-lane streets throughout the City during their peak hour of usage.\nStaff Bergman responded that in some locations there may be excess capacity in anticipation of\nfuture development.\nCommissioner Krueger agreed with Chair Knox White: 's concern, and stated that he supported the\noff-road path, but that it should not be considered a substitute for the bike lanes.\nChair Knox White asked how important the need is for additional capacity at this location. He\nsuggested that it may be worthwhile to allow the street to be congested for a short period of time\nin order to maintain the bicycle facilities.\nCommissioner Parker suggested that rather than specifying the number of lanes, that the\nCommission could recommend a consistent width across the Island.\nChair Knox White expressed concern about the tendency to create more four-lane roads as part of\nnew projects, as this will ultimately only increase the traffic volumes.\nCommissioner Krueger questioned whether it makes sense, if the Tube is the primary bottleneck,\nto increase capacity along Atlantic to get to the Tube.\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-02-22", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Knoth moved that the TC is concerned with the consistency of the DEIR\nrecommendations with the wording 4.1.C of the 1990 General Plan, \"Do not increase through-\ntraffic capacity on the Main Island\". Commissioner Krueger seconded. Motion carried by a\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCommissioner Krueger moved that the TC would like the language clarified to point out that\nalthough desirable pedestrian and bicycle access through the belt line is not a substitute for\npedestrian and bicycle access on Atlantic. Commissioner Parker seconded. Motion carried by\na unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCommissioner Parker moved that the TC recommends that the Tilden-Clement connection is\nextremely important to assure the success of the development of the Northern Waterfront under\nthis GPA. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCommissioner Krueger noticed that there was a mentioned on page 30 of using developer fees on\nBroadway/5th Street and Jackson, but no mention of using them to pay for the extension of\nClement for Tilden.\nStaff Thomas said that it's not the additional traffic generated by the redevelopment of the\nNorthern Waterfront. The issue is that much of the traffic would be shifted from other streets, so\nthe development cannot be required to pay for the improvements. He noted that all new\ndevelopment in Alameda pays Citywide Development Fees (CDF). The impact fees are directed\nto improvements at specific locations. Public Works is doing an update of the Citywide Fees to\ndetermine the most important projects to be funded.\nStaff Thomas stated that since the funds are not currently in place yet for the Clement-to-Tilder\nconnection, the DEIR recommends that it be included in the General Plan.\nCommissioner Krueger moved that given the importance of the Tilden/Clement\nconnection, the TC recommends to the City Council to direct staff to prioritize the\nconnection and to identify the funding to make it happen. Commissioner Parker\nseconded. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5.\nChair Knox White asked for the GPA to come back to the TC in March in order to look review\ntheir previous comments on the General Plan Amendment.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\\TC\\2006/0306/022206 tc minutes-FINAL.doc\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf"}