{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-05-24", "page": 1, "text": "CITT\n$\nMINUTES OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSION\nREGULAR MEETING OF MAY 24, 2006\nCO.\nDATE:\nWednesday, May 24, 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 7:08 p.m.\nPresent:\nChair (C) Huston, Vice Chair (VC) Lee, Commission Members (CM)\nCecilia Cervantes, K.C. Rosenberg, and Peter Wolfe\nStaff:\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager\nDoug Vu, Planner III\nAndria DeBose, Staff Member\n2.\nApproval of Minutes\nA. Minutes of Meeting on February 22, 2006\nCommission continued consideration of February 22, 2006 meeting minutes.\n3.\nOral Communications\n(Any person may address the Committee in regard to any matter over which the\nCommission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the\nagenda.)\nThe Commission and staff discussed the approach and format used to prepare\nstaff reports and resolutions for approval. In particular, C Huston sought\nclarification as to how staff determines that a proposed project is in compliance\nwith the requirements of the Public Art Ordinance and how staff recommendations\nshould be formatted. Staff described the approach used to prepare staff reports\nand resolutions and agreed to work with the Commission to refine the format.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager introduced Doug Vu, Planner III to\nthe Commission.\n4.\nWritten Communications\n-None.\nPAC Meeting Minutes\n1\nMay 24, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2006-05-24", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nNew Business\n- None\n6.\nOld Business\nA. Presentation on Alameda Towne Centre\nTad Savinar, Art Consultant presented the Alameda Towne Centre Public Art\nproposal. He described the proposed sculpture by Brad Rude and introduced\nartist John Larsen, who presented the interpretive panels depicting important\nhistoric events or places in Alameda.\nThe Public Art Commission reviewed the materials and continued further\nconsideration of the proposal to a special meeting of the Public Art\nCommission scheduled for June 7, 2006\nB. Public Art Handout (Quick Guide)\nThe Public Art Commission approved the Public Art Handout with minor\nrevisions.\nC. Revisions to PAC description in Boards and Commissions Handbook\nThe Public Art Commission approved the board description with minor\nrevisions.\n7.\nSubcommittee Reports\n- NONE\n8.\nCommissioner Communications\n- NONE\n9.\nStaff Communications\n- NONE\n10. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.\nPAC Meeting Minutes\n2\nMay 24, 2006", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2006-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-05-24", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nMAY 24, 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\nJeff Knoth\nMichael Krueger\nEric Schatmeier\nRobert McFarland\nAbsent:\nPattianne Parker\nRobb Ratto\nStaff Present:\nBarbara Hawkins, City Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that his question at the last meeting what if the AC Transit\nadvertising bus shelter program maintenance requirements are similar to the requirements of the\nCity's maintenance contract.\nCommissioner Krueger requested some edits to the minutes from the April meeting:\nThe motion regarding the bus shelter guidelines, reaffirming based on the results of the\nsurvey.\nIn the discussion of the results, he had pointed out that scores for protection from rain and\nwind are higher for the shelter that have walls than for the canopies.\nCommissioner Schatmeier made a motion to approve the April meeting minutes with the\nrecommended additions. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion approved unanimously, 5-\n0.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nChair Knox White moved Item 7C to the top of the agenda.\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-05-24", "page": 2, "text": "4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nThe Multimodal Circulation Plan sub-committee has not met since the last TC meeting and there\nis nothing to report on. The Pedestrian Plan will be discussed tonight. The Bicycle Plans update\nhas not been started as of this date.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n7C.\nCITY POLICY REGARDING SPACING BETWEEN BUS STOPS\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report. He noted that the Transportation Technical Team (TTT)\nhad requested that the Transportation Commission provide more specific policy direction\nregarding bus stop location and how their benefits should be evaluated against any negative\nimpacts. He distributed the AC Transit bus stop policy.\nChair Knox White asked Staff Bergman to identify what the safety concerns were.\nStaff Bergman said that a representative from the Alameda Police Department would speak on\nthat issue.\nOfficer Craig Rodrigue said that there was a concern from the crossing guard Mr. Garlets on\ntrying to cross the kids with the crosswalk located across Otis Drive which the location of the\nbus stops would hinder the safety of the children. With the amount of traffic they had to step out\na little further past the end of the bus to look for oncoming traffic. There are also cars that creep\nup and keep going across the crosswalk without stopping. There are concerns of having a bus\nstop there in front of the school for both the children and the crossing guards.\nOfficer Rodrigue indicated that he had discussed this issue with Michael Margulies of the Public\nWorks Dept. in the past. After the concerns were raised, the bus stop was bagged and removed.\nPUBLIC COMMENT\nPeter Muzio stated that it is 900 ft to Grand and a couple of thousand feet to the Willow bus stop.\nThe bus stop is not in the middle of the block. He recommended putting the bus stop by the\nwalkway, about half way between the two existing stops.\nBarbara Nemer stated that the proposed bus stop location is hazardous. She said that the\ncrosswalks are not observed by drivers and the location is unsafe because of parents dropping off\nand picking up their children at the school.\nElmer Garlets, a crossing guard at Lum School, stated that the proposed bus stop location is\nhazardous. He said that the bus stops right on top of the crosswalk, which blocks the view of the\ncrossing guards of oncoming traffic and that vehicles cannot stop in time for the crosswalk. He\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-05-24", "page": 3, "text": "suggested moving the stop bar approaching the crosswalk to the west side of the Waterview Isle,\nwhich would direct drivers to stop further back from the crosswalk. It would also need adequate\nsignage for the vehicles to remain behind the line when the crosswalks are occupied. He also\nrequested that a parking stall on the west side of Sandcreek Way be reserved for the crossing\nguards at Lum School during school hours.\nChair Knox White responded that the TC could not make any decisions on specific parking but\nthat this could be presented to the Transportation Technical Team (TTT).\nLiz Cleves reiterated what was said at the TTT meeting concerning the bus stop. She suggested\nlocating it at Pond Isle or Glenwood Isle, instead of near Sandcreek, as this would be closer to\nthe mid-point of the existing bus stops. She noted that the crosswalk near the school is very busy\nwith pedestrians crossing and cars going past without stopping for the pedestrians.\nCLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT\nStaff Hawkins asked AC Transit staff to elaborate on their guidelines in placing bus stops.\nSean Diest Lorgion from AC Transit said that currently the bus stops are 2900 feet apart. Policy\n508 states that mid block stops are rare and considered only when there are no alternatives\navailable and upon approval of the transportation project coordinator along with the\nmunicipality. The design guidelines recommend 1000 feet but the policy actually provides for a\nrange of 800-1300 feet. There are also considerations for ADA access and where shelters are\nplaced.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if there are any policies regarding locating bus stops near\nschools.\nMr. Diest Lorgion responded that he was not aware of any such guideline.\nStaff Hawkins described a situation when the City had requested relocating a bus stop from the\nintersection of Encinal/Versailles to Encinal/Grove. Since the stop would have been changed\nfrom a controlled to an uncontrolled intersection, and the new location was a skewed\nintersection, AC Transit would have absolved themselves of all liability\nCommissioner Krueger asked if there are a defined circumstances under which AC Transit would\ntransfer all liability to the City.\nMr. Diest Lorgion said that their traffic engineer would have to review the location for safety\nconcerns, and that this is done on a case by case basis.\nChair Knox White said that AC Transit's policy seems to address the Commission's concerns.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that all stops should be safe, but potential usage should be a big\nfactor in the stop location.\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-05-24", "page": 4, "text": "Chair Knox White moved to accept AC Transit board policy considering bus stops.\nCommissioner Krueger seconded. Motion was approved unanimously, 5-0.\n7A. Review of Environmental Review Process\nAndrew Thomas of the City's Planning and Building Department described the environmental\nreview process for the Commission.\n7B. Alameda Landing (Catellus) Mixed Use Development Project Draft Environmental\nImpact Report (DEIR).\nStaff Thomas said that this document is a supplemental DEIR. He noted that the proposal is\nactual an amendment to the Catellus Master Plan. The original DEIR was completed in 2000 and\nwas certified by the City Council as adequate.\nPrologis/Catellus has submitted a proposal to revise the approved 1.3 million square feet of\noffice space. The proposal will be going to the Economic Development Commission on June\n15th, then on June 26th back to the Planning Board concerning the project and master plan\namendments. This summer all the responses and comments/revisions done to date will then be\nbrought back to the Planning Board for their final consideration. After that it will be forwarded to\nthe City Council for a final decision.\nChair Knox White wanted to know the steps that were needed to approve the DEIR mitigations?\nStaff Thomas said that there are a couple of steps. When they certify the DEIR they also adopt\nthe mitigation-monitoring program. The mitigations would then be put into a chart for approval.\nDan Marcus of Catellus stated that the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan would\nbe paid for by charging customers when they buy or rent office space or retail space, and to\nhomebuyers when they buy their homes. He stated that once Alameda Point, which is 700 acres,\nis developed, significant revenue can be generated for a coordinated west end TDM program.\nCommissioner Krueger asked if the re-orientation of 5th Street to line up with Broadway in\nOakland had accounted for a possible transit connection across the estuary.\nStaff Thomas said they would build a physical crossing or an aerial tram but it would take time\nand support from the City of Oakland. He stated that there were a lot of issues with Oakland on\nthe bridges/aerial tram, but that a transit crossing would likely be west of Broadway in Oakland.\nPublic Comment\nAni Dimusheva stated that she liked the alignment of 5th Street aligning with Broadway in\nOakland to connect the cities. She was bothered that 5th Street is the only way to get to the\nrecreation area along the water, and suggested extending other streets towards the water. She\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-05-24", "page": 5, "text": "asked how people would be able get out of Alameda? The tube is very congested, and the water\ntaxi would only get people to Jack London Square, still a significant distance from the BART\nstation. She also asked why there is no connection from Alameda Landing directly to the\nAlameda ferry terminal.\nLucy Gigli she stated that many of the mitigation measures would make walking and bicycling\nworse. Adding lanes on a street would make it more difficult to add bike lanes. She asked that\nthe water taxi be used as a mitigation measure, which would be a good way to encourage people\nto get out of their cars.\nRicardo Pedevilla stated that he is a resident and a new member of Bike Alameda. He indicated\nthat he supports improvements that will treat bicycling as a serious mode of transportation. He\nnoted that the Posey tube is a terrible option. He recommended that a water taxi be implemented\nearly on in the project.\nPublic Comment Closed\nCommissioner Krueger found some discrepancies between the document on the cities website\nand the document in the TC packet. The one in the packet has a date of May 11th. Concerned the\nmitigation at 8th and Central that one version talks about widening 8th Street.\nStaff Thomas said there was a draft for two potential mitigations to deal with that intersection.\nThe Planning Board and City Council can review the options and decide what they want to do.\nChair Knox White asked if the city has adopted thresholds of significance beyond those for the\ntubes through the Traffic Capacity Management Procedure (TCMP).\nStaff Thomas said there is not, but that the City tries to maintain consistency from one EIR to the\nnext.\nChair Knox White asked if these traffic projections include the Target project and the Clement\nextension?\nStaff Thomas responded that Target was included, but the Clement extension was not.\nChair Knox White wanted to know how 20% of the retail trips that the site generates would come\nup Westline and 8th Street.\nStaff Thomas said that he would have to get to him on that.\nChair Knox White said that there were discussions that 40% of trips to the main island were\ncoming from the south. On IV.H-2b it shows 18% along I-880. We assume that 22% are using\ncity streets heading south.\nStaff Thomas said that 18% of the office R&D is heading south on I-880 and 15% on Atlantic,\nbut a percentage of that may continue and go over the Fruitvale Bridge.\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-05-24", "page": 6, "text": "Chair Knox White said it appears that there was no analysis done on the transit, pedestrian and\nbikes.\nStaff Thomas said that there is a need to consolidate the set of concerns that need to be addressed.\nNeed to come up with an approach to mitigate impacts of vehicle traffic on bicycles and for\npedestrians.\nChair Knox White asked why not specify TDM program before certifying it.\nDan Marcus said the preliminary TDM will be required and would be consistent with the current\nentitlement, but that the final details would be approved at a later date.\nStaff Thomas said that the water taxi needs certain permits that are outside of the cities control to\nbuild a new landing/dock.\nChair Knox White asked that on the mitigation budget for this TDM if dropping the speed limit\non Atlantic along with some new signs would be a low cost solution.\nStaff Thomas said that it was not in the environmental document. There is a development\nagreement and a development disposition agreement that was approved in 2000 along with\nfinancial agreements. It needed to be amended and that they were trying to get cost estimates on\nthese mitigations.\nStaff Thomas summarized the Commission's comments as follows:\n1. Trip distribution numbers (east end and Fremont)\n2. Transit bike and pedestrian analysis adequately considers the effect of additional\ncongestion on these modes.\n3. Would lowering of speed limits be an alternate of equally effective mitigation as sound\nwalls?\n4. Would reducing speed limits on Atlantic Avenue an alternate mitigation to signals and\nsignal coordination suggested in the DEIR.\nStaff Thomas suggested that the Commission to transmit policy questions to Council separately\nfrom questions about whether the analysis is sufficient.\nCommissioner Krueger expressed concern that some of the mitigations for roadway level of\nservice could have negative impacts on the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes, as well as on\nnoise levels.\nChair Knox White offered his comments:\n1. The long-range transit plan doesn't appear to have been consulted.\n2. Bike plan was accepted but not adopted.\n3.\nHe asked if the parking provided through the project is assumed to be free for users.\nStaff Thomas said yes.\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-05-24", "page": 7, "text": "Chair Knox White said that in the DEIR on page III-6 talks about reducing the impacts on\nautomobiles in the general plan goal. He suggested that it would be helpful to explain how the\nproject would do that, since free parking would actually encourage automobile use.\nCommissioner Krueger moved to complete the discussion of the EIR. Commissioner Knoth\nseconded. Motion was approved unanimously, 5-0.\nStaff Thomas noted that he had a list of the issues raised by the Commission, and that these\nwould be reflected in the meeting minutes and would also be submitted as a letter to be included\nin the final EIR.\nChair Knox White said that a list of polices would be worthwhile for the City Council to look at.\nLook at its thresholds of significance and perhaps create a threshold of documents. The\nthresholds of significance could be updated to better evaluate the impacts on transit, bicyclists,\nand pedestrians. The city should not rush into it but do an analysis on it.\nCongestion may be preferable to the impacts of the mitigations\nStaff Thomas said that they would look very carefully at it. There are no real straightforward\nclear accepted thresholds or methodologies for looking at any of the things have been raised.\nStaff Hawkins asked if there are specific locations that he is concerned about.\nChair Knox White asked that the analysis be done for the intersections of concern and the major\nbike routes. For pedestrians, the area of concern is in the area of the mitigations.\nChair Knox White moved to the following: 1) To request that the City Council direct the\nTransportation Commission, working with staff, to create thresholds of significance to better\naddress the impacts on bicycling, walking, and transit; and 2) To recommend that the City\nCouncil carefully evaluate mitigations that require additional lanes in terms of their negative\nimpacts, since some level of increased congestion may be preferable to adding lanes on the\nwest end. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0..\nCommissioner Schatmeier motioned to extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m. Commissioner\nKnoth seconded. Motion approved unanimously, 5-0.\n6A. Draft Policies for Pedestrian Plan\nChair Knox White suggested adding policy C-2.4c, that the City should work with public and\nprivate schools to identify needs and roles in addressing infrastructure, education and\nencouragement.\nCommissioner Krueger mentioned that the last two polices did not make it into the document\nthat was in the packet. Could not find D4.1.C and D4.3A anywhere.\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-05-24", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Krueger said that D4.1C is to establish an annual program to install curb ramps at\ncrosswalks throughout the City to comply with the ADA. D4.3A is to develop guidelines\nchoosing appropriate street trees and avoiding species with aggressive roots that can cause\nsidewalk damage.\nCommissioner Krueger motioned to adopt the polices as presented with the three additions\nnoted. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion approved unanimously, 5-0.\n8. Staff Communications\nStaff Bergman mentioned the update on the bus stop inventory. He noted that it's about 3/4 of the\nway done and should be completed by the next TC meeting. He also noted that AC Transit staff\nhad passed along some information on the bus bunching issue. They had a consultant look at\nthat issue and what they are considering is lengthening the running time along those routes to\naccount for potential bunching which would result an addition to two peak buses being added to\nthe schedule. Would allow for an additional 8 minutes on the longest run. Staff Bergman said\nthat if this change is approved it is scheduled to be implemented August 27th\nCommissioner Krueger noted that this also happens during non-peak hours, and questioned if\nthere are other operational issues that need to be addressed. Commissioner Schatmeier also\nnoted the problem during off-peak hours.\nCommissioner Krueger asked if AC Transit staff could make a presentation on this topic.\nStaff Bergman said he would make the request of AC Transit.\nStaff Hawkins said that the Economic Development Commission and the Planning Board had a\nmeeting, which they had reviewed the scope of work of a business district Parking Study. Public\nWorks is not leading the study but will be able to provide input regarding things like use of\ntransportation demand management (TDM) measures free up parking spaces. She noted that it\nhas been recommended that the report be brought to the Transportation Commission when it is\n30-50% completed, and again later on in the process.\nStaff Bergman followed up on the discussion at the May meeting by distributing a section of the\nmaintenance contract for AC Transit's bus shelter advertising program.\nChair Knox White asked to receive the complete EIR in the future.\nStaff Hawkins responded that she had requested copies but that Public Works did not receive the\ndocument. She indicated that she would ensure that copies are sent out for the Target EIR.\n8. Adjournment\nMeeting as adjourned at 11:00 p.m.\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\\TC\\2006\\0606\\TC min 51006-final.doc\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf"}