{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2006-12-13", "page": 1, "text": "CITY OF\nTERKA\nORATEID\nMinutes of the\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD\nDECEMBER 13, 2006\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 7:05 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nKaren Butter, President\nRuth Belikove, Vice President\nLeslie Krongold, Board Member\nAlan Mitchell, Board Member\nMark Schoenrock, Board Member\nAbsent:\nNone\nStaff:\nJane Chisaki, Library Director\nMarsha Merrick, Recording Secretary\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nAn asterisk indicates items so enacted and adopted on the Consent Calendar.\nA.\n*Report from Library Director highlighting Library Department activities for the\nmonth of December 2006. Accepted.\nB.\n*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board meeting of November 8, 2006.\nApproved.\nC.\n*Library Services Report for the month of October 2006. Accepted.\nD.\n*Report from Finance Department reflecting FY 2005-06 Library expenditures (by\nfund) through November 2006. Accepted.\nE.\nBills for ratification. Approved.\nBoard Member Schoenrock asked why our payments to Baker & Taylor for the Opening\nDay Collection only totaled $20,000. Actually, Baker & Taylor was paid on two different\ncheck registers during the month of November for a total payment of close to $65,000. The\nlibrary is still waiting for additional billings to come in for the Opening Day Collection.\nBoard President Butter asked for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.\nBoard Member Krongold so moved; Vice President Belikove seconded the motion which\ncarried by a 5-0 vote.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2006-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2006-12-13", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2 of 6\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board Meeting\nDecember 13, 2006\nAt this point, Director Chisaki asked President Butter if the Board would consider going out\nof regular order to allow the Wood Museum to make their presentation. Butter agreed, and\nAUSD Representatives Paul Ruffino and Nancy Ely gave a brief Power Point display\nshowing past art pieces created by Wood Middle School history students in the 6th, 7th and\n8th grades. The students write a paper and put together a label for their art piece as well.\nLast year, over 250 students participated in the program.\nThe board as a whole was impressed and agreed that the Library would be happy to host the\nWood Museum in 2007. In the coming months, logistics will be worked out with AUSD.\nThe opening day reception for the Wood Museum will occur on April 23, 2007 in the large\nmeeting rooms at the Main Library.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nArt Display Policy and Gifts of Art for the Main Library (J. Chisaki)\nDirector Chisaki had prepared a draft display policy, and inquired if the Board\nthought she was going in the right direction before she tackled writing up\nprocedures. Board Member Schoenrock asked if there should be a review process\nfor complaints either against an exhibit or about consideration for an exhibit. The\nappeal might start with the Library Art Exhibit Committee, then if not satisfied with\nthe outcome, move on to the Library Board, and then finally to the City Council as a\nlast alternative.\nExhibits being offered to the Library range from Bay Area photography, to sculpted\nmasks made out of feathers. A woman from the Frank Bette Center has come\nforward to be a volunteer curator if needed, and also has quite a bit of art that could\nbe displayed from local artists who now have no venue. The Library would really\nlike to showcase local art. There is one unlit display case in the living room area by\nthe fireplace, but it has yet to be utilized.\nOne challenge would be hanging things on the walls without causing damage. A\nsuggestion was made to mount wooden strips at ceiling level and drop a line down.\nThe Board agreed that a 5-person committee would be about the right size. The\ncommittee should have at least one Library employee, besides Director Chisaki, that\ncould represent her or at the very least, walk potential exhibitors around the building\nto show them the spaces available for their art.\nBefore being allowed to exhibit, the artist would have to sign a waiver that the\nLibrary would not be responsible for any damage or loss. Conversely, if the exhibit\ncaused damage to the building, the artist would be responsible for the repair cost.\nDirector Chisaki will return at the next meeting with procedures that go along with\nthe policy, and possibly an application the exhibitor would complete as a request.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2006-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2006-12-13", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3 of 6\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board Meeting\nDecember 13, 2006\nB.\nFriends of the Library \"Day\" (J. Chisaki)\nDirector Chisaki found out it would be relatively easy to have the City Council\ndesignate a Friends of the Library day, week or perhaps month, by writing a\nresolution. This could be put on a City Council agenda under Special Orders of the\nDay, or if a party were planned, the Mayor would come and read the formal\nproclamation there. The board thought a Friends week might be appropriate with\nplanned activities going on such as celebrity book readings.\nFriends President Skeen said she would put together a committee to come up with\nsome ideas, and also plan an anniversary party which the Friends had wanted to do\nanyway around the end of March. Director Chisaki will write up the Council\nresolution for the Board's review.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nPresentation on the Wood Museum (P. Ruffino and N. Ely)\nSee notes above on the presentation for the Wood Museum.\nB.\nLibrary Board's Visibility in the Community (J. Chisaki)\nDirector Chisaki asked for some direction from the Board on where they wanted her\nto go with this item. Board Member Krongold stated that she had been searching for\nmaterials from a strategic training session done previously, but hadn't come up with\nanything yet. When she locates her notes, she will pass them on to Director Chisaki\nwho can copy and release them in an upcoming board packet.\nVice President Belikove would like to see a big effort made to visit culturally diverse\ncommunities within the City, and talk to members about getting involved in library\nactivities such as story sessions. Director Chisaki indicated that after the first of the\nyear, there would be a series of Russian story readings taking place.\nBelikove mentioned having a resource list for people to refer to which would contain\nnames of people in the community with special talents to offer as well.\nC.\nAlameda Free Library Foundation (A. Mitchell)\nThere had not been a recent meeting so there was nothing to report. The Board\nasked how much money the Gala had raised; ticket sales took in over $20,000. A\npresentation by the Foundation is planned for the January Board meeting.\nA question arose on naming an area of the Library after Regina K. Stafford who left\na large bequest to help fund the building of the new Main Library. It was suggested\nthe large Community Meeting Rooms be re-named the Stafford rooms. All were in\nfavor, and it was discussed how to approach the Foundation with this idea. Because", "path": "LibraryBoard/2006-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2006-12-13", "page": 4, "text": "Page 4 of 6\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board Meeting\nDecember 13, 2006\nthe money came to the Library, President Butter wondered why the naming decision\nlies with the Foundation and not with the Library Board. Director Chisaki was not\nsure how this came about, but believes the Library Board should take the initiative in\nthis instance. Director Chisaki will write a resolution for the Library Board to sign,\nand Board Member Mitchell can take it to the next Foundation meeting. The\nFoundation will be responsible for ordering and funding the signage.\nD.\nFriends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Skeen)\nFriends President Molly Skeen mentioned that their first author night in the new\nLibrary was on the schedule for the following evening. \"Unreleased Beatles Music\n& Film\" by rock historian Richie Unterberger will take place on Thursday,\nDecember 14th starting at 7:30 p.m.\nThe Caf\u00e9 is in its third open week and the Friends have been working through\nvarious operational issues. The biggest challenge is getting enough volunteers to\ncover all the shifts. The Friends are actively seeking a volunteer coordinator, and if\nthey can't find one soon, they may have to shut down until they are better prepared.\nGross sales are running between $60 and $120 a day.\nE.\nLibrary Building Watch (M. Merrick)\nRecording Secretary Marsha Merrick reported that she was again unable to get an\nissue of the newsletter out. She cited an overwhelming workload in relation to the\nnew Library which is expected to lessen as time goes on, but hasn't happened yet. A\nDecember issue being released was considered unlikely as Merrick's vacation time\nwas coming at the end of the month.\nF.\nPatron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.\nSeveral requests for clocks were made, and by the time of the current board meeting,\n5 clocks had been installed in various places around the building. Labels on DVDs\nand videos instruct patrons not to put them in the bookdrops, but policy has changed.\nStaff is removing these labels as quickly as possible. A request for a step stool at the\nself-checkout counter so children can reach the equipment was made. A stool will\nbe located and placed in that area. A recycle bin was requested for the print room.\nBins have been placed in each printer alcove.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\nAudience member Marc Lambert asked for an update on the CALTAC workshop. Director\nChisaki responded there is no update as no new information had been received. The room\nhas been booked and we are awaiting direction. Lambert related a story about a group of\nyoungsters that were on the same bus as he was on the trip across town. They were all\nexcitedly talking about going to the Library.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2006-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2006-12-13", "page": 5, "text": "Page 5 of 6\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board Meeting\nDecember 13, 2006\nLIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Krongold does tutoring at the Library, and when she was waiting for her\nlearner one evening, there was a line of 5 or 6 people at the check-out desk. The self check-\nout stations were completely free, and Krongold asked if anyone in line would like to try\nusing them or if she could assist them if they were unfamiliar. The group met her with some\npretty frustrated looks, but one woman came over and said if she could figure it out she\nmight use them. Krongold was trying to help her, and felt that the woman clearly wasn't\nable to follow the instructions. She suggested that a display stand with some step by step\ninstructions might be helpful and would be happy to help set that up.\nBoard President Butter had just attended a Planning Board meeting that Monday night, and\nsuggested that \"Oral Communications, Non-Agenda\" be moved up on the regular Library\nBoard Meeting Agenda. This section gives audience members a chance to speak to the\nBoard on topics of interest to them. By moving the section up on the agenda, the public will\nnot have to sit through most of the meeting waiting for their chance to speak. Recording\nSecretary Merrick verified that \"Oral Communications, Non-Agenda\" would be placed on\nthe agenda directly after the Consent Calendar piece.\nButter then asked what was going to be done about the branches now. Director Chisaki is\nplanning some public meetings to take place after the New Year. If the Board agrees, there\nwill be two public meetings for the West End Branch, and two for the Bay Farm Island\nBranch. One of the meetings will be held right in each of the branch libraries, and the other\nmeetings would be held in a community meeting place, such as a church, closely located to\neach branch. Director Chisaki asked the board if they thought a Library Building Team, on\na smaller scale than the Main Library's Building Team, would be appropriate. President\nButter, who had been on this team, said it is a good concept because it enables you to bring\nin standpoints that are lacking in the Board, such as architectural expertise. A disadvantage\nfor the Board is that they might feel a little left out from some of the decision-making.\nDirector Chisaki also stated that the Recreation Commission would have to be involved if\nexpansion was planned for the Bay Farm Island branch, because it would impinge on\nLeydecker Park.\nPresident Butter asked Director Chisaki if they could sit down with Honora Murphy, who\nhad been the Chair of the Library Building Team, and get some input from her perspective.\nBoard Member Schoenrock suggested a scaled down team but with similar representation.\nHaving members of the public on the team would almost guarantee community enthusiasm.\nThere is about $2 million dollars available for branch improvements, plus whatever the\nFoundation and Friends can contribute. With other projects in town underway, such as the\ntheater and parking garage, it is unsure where the branch improvement would fall in the\nconstruction or renovation schedule.\nAfter more discussion had ensued, Director Chisaki suggested that the community meetings\nshould happen first so it could be seen in which direction the public wanted to go, and then\nmake committee or team plans accordingly. The Board agreed with this concept.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2006-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2006-12-13", "page": 6, "text": "Page 6 of 6\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board Meeting\nDecember 13, 2006\nDIRECTOR'S COMMENTS\nThe three full-time positions, Supervising Librarian-Adult Services, Supervising Children's\nLibrarian, and Library Technician are all open right now and the filing period closes on\nFriday of the current week. There are 5, 6 and 2 applications respectively; however the\nHuman Resources Department speculates that more applications will come in right at the\ndeadline. The applications that have been turned in all seem to meet the minimum\nqualifications. One of the major duties of the Library Technician position will be coordinate\nLibrary volunteers. Part-time Aides, Technicians and Librarians will be hired after the full-\ntime positions are filled to help pick up the additional workload created by the size of the\nnew facility.\nMid-year budget adjustments are due at the end of the month, and the Library will be asking\nfor some significant increases as it is very expensive to live in the new building. Being the\nclosest public restroom to Park Street has taken a toll on the janitorial supply budget dollars.\nBob Haun's last day in the building is the following week, at which time he will be on\nvacation until the end of the year. He thanks the Board for their cooperation and patience\nthroughout the process and has enjoyed working with them. There are only five items left\non the contractor's punch list and they should be resolved very soon.\nStaff will have training with the Police Department at the end of the year so they can\neffectively deal with the behavior problems presented by the public in the Library.\nBoard Member Mitchell said that the new Library was mentioned in a Library Hotline issue.\nHe inquired about the date for the next Foundation meeting which Director Chisaki\nconfirmed. Mitchell also asked about the Ethics Training the Board was required to take.\nADJOURNMENT\nBoard President Butter called for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Board\nMember Mitchell so moved, Board Member Krongold seconded the motion, and it was\ncarried by a 5-0 vote.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJane Chisaki\nLibrary Director and\nSecretary to the Library Board\nThis meeting's agenda was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2006-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-12-13", "page": 1, "text": "DRAFT\nTRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nDecember 13, 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\nMichael Krueger\nRobb Ratto\nEric Schatmeier\nSrikant Subramaniam\nMembers Absent:\nJeff Knoth\nRobert McFarland\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Program Specialist II\nEric Fonstein, Economic Development Coordinator, Development Services Dept.\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nApproval of October 25 and November 15, 2006 Minutes. Chair Knox White advised that there\nwas not a quorum to vote on the minutes of October 25, 2006.\nChair Knox White advised that there was not a quorum to vote on the minutes of November 15,\n2006 minutes.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nThere were none.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\na.\nMultimodal Circulation Plan\nb.\nPedestrian Plan\nc.\nTSM/TDM Plan\nChair Knox White advised that none of the subcommittees had met yet. He noted that he received\na letter advising that AC Transit was having a proposed review of\n[[burst of static on", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-12-13", "page": 2, "text": "tape]] service deployment policies. He understood that those meetings would commence in\nJanuary 2007.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nThere were none.\n6A. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE MULTIMODAL CIRCULATION\nSUBCOMMITTEE ON RECONCILING TMP POLICIES WITH THE 7 NEW\nPOLICIES.\nStaff Khan presented the staff report. He noted that on October 17, 2006, City Council approved\nthe initiation of the process for a General Plan Amendment to incorporate the Transportation\nMaster Plan policies and the seven additional policies recommended by the Transportation\nCommission. Following the meeting, the Transportation Commission met in October, and the\nCommissioners asked the Multimodal Circulation Subcommittee to examine the TMP policies to\ndetermine whether any conflicts existed. If conflicts did exist, they were requested to address and\nreconcile the policies. The Subcommittee met after that meeting and developed\nrecommendations, including minor changes to the TMP policies, as well as a substantial change\nto Policy 7 of the EIR policies. He detailed the changes in the policies as described in the staff\nreport. The staff recommendations were intended to ensure that if Policy 7 were to be\nimplemented, and if a certain level of congestion were to be accepted in certain locations in the\nCity, some thresholds would be established that would take into account the impacts that may be\ngenerated from the increase in congestion.\nStaff Khan described the current CEQA process in detail. Staff recommended that Policy 7 be\nstrengthened so that if the TSM or TDM measures were implemented, they would be verifiable\non an annual basis. If they were not being met, additional measures would be implemented. Staff\nrequested that the Commission examine the changes recommended by the Subcommittee and by\nstaff, and to approve the changes with the changed policies as recommended by staff.\nPublic Comment\nThere were no speakers.\nClosed Public Comment\nCommissioner Krueger noted that he was trying to reconcile how staff's wording related to the\ngoal of strengthening the TDM language. He noted that the second set of language seemed to put\nconditions on when unmitigated congestion could be accepted with TDM. He believed that\nweakened the intent of Policy 7 as he understood it.\nStaff Khan noted that Policy 5 addressed the issue of pedestrian and bicyclist impacts, which they\ntried to tie to Policy 7, and which strengthened Policy 7 in establishing thresholds.\nA discussion of the impacts and thresholds ensued.\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-12-13", "page": 3, "text": "Chair Knox White noted that the Subcommittee had addressed Item B-2.1 by email, and came to\nthe consensus that changing \"protect\" to \"promote residential neighborhood integrity\" actually\nweakened the proposed language. He believed that the following four lines appeared to be\neditorializing, rather than making a policy statement. He did not believe it was necessary, and did\nnot believe it added anything to the policy. Regarding Item 7, he recalled that Commissioner\nMcFarland stated that the first part of it was nearly a duplication of the next statement regarding\nthe implementation and verification of a quantifiable TSM. He believed the language as written,\nwhich included words such as \"could be\" instead of \"are going to be,\" significantly reduced the\neffectiveness of Policy 7.\nCommissioner Schatmeier agreed with the lack of necessity on Item B-2.1 in Policy 7, and\nbelieved that the first sentence was superfluous.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that was word \"yearly\" was included to specify a timeline for\nverification, and inquired how important the yearly verification was.\nChair Knox White inquired once the EIR was passed, and the mitigations accepted, what the\naddition of the language would do in terms of the City's ability to do anything differently.\nStaff Khan advised that if the EIR had indicated thresholds, such as a 10% reduction in trips, and\nif there was only a 5% reduction after the first year, the next level of TSM/TDM measures may\nbe required.\nChair Knox White believed the intent of Policy 7 was to bring the City out of having to mitigate\nevery possible piece of congestion at every possible intersection, which created an uncrossable\nenvironment at some intersections. He believed this language may be appropriate for the TDM\nplan, which would say that the TDM plan should have various phases to help achieve the TDM\nplan goals.\nStaff Khan noted that there were two aspects of the language: to ensure the measures were\nverifiable and quantifiable, and to ensure that when the EIR was done, that the public would be\nfully aware of the impacts if a certain level of congestion were to be accepted.\nChair Knox White noted that part of the EIR process was to identify and call out congestion. He\ndid not understand how the additional language accomplished that goal, other than to say it \"can\nbe decided.\"\nA discussion of level of service language and other wordsmithing items ensued.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that he was inclined to accept Attachment 1 as it is, and he\nsuggested that specific language be added to state that the congestion should be quantified. He\nbelieved the City should have clarification on the number of minutes traffic would be delayed.\nHe suggested that language be added explicitly stating that the facts would be put on the table.\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-12-13", "page": 4, "text": "Chair Knox White inquired whether the following language would be acceptable: \"During the\nEIR process, the full extent of congestion at intersections will be disclosed beyond the LOS\nletter.'\nCommissioner Krueger concurred with that suggestion.\nChair Knox White suggested the following language, \"This unmitigated congestion should be\nexpressly evaluated and disclosed during the EIR process, and acknowledged as a byproduct of\nthe development.'\nCommissioner Krueger suggested adding the following language, \"The alternate methods of\ntransportation, impacts of pedestrians, bicycles, queues at intersections, driveway access\" as\nexamples of the kind of disclosure being discussed. He added that including the language, \"could\nbe included, but not limited to as an example of the kind of things to be disclosed.\nStaff Khan thanked the Commissioners for the specific language, and believed that would be\nuseful.\nChair Knox White suggested: \"This unmitigated congestion should be evaluated and disclosed,\"\nand if staff wished to discuss queues at intersection, that would be included in the LOS\ndiscussion.\nStaff Khan noted that LOS addressed delays, but did not take queues into account. He noted that\nthe queue analysis was performed as part of the model that examined LOS at intersections.\nCommissioner Ratto moved to accept staff recommendation with the changes discussed by the\nCommission, including the addition of the language \"This unmitigated congestion should be\nevaluated and disclosed (including intersection delay length of time) during the EIR process,\nand acknowledges a byproduct of the development.\"). Commissioner Schatmeier seconded.\nMotion passed, 5-0.\n6B.\nREVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON DRAFT FUNCTIONAL\nCLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONCEPTS * 2ND PRESENTATION.\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and noted that the consultant, DKS, would continue the\npresentation. He noted that DKS had examined what other cities throughout the country had\ndone. They reviewed the cities' existing functional classification systems, and discussed them\nwith personnel from the other cities, resulting in recommendations and changes to the functional\nclassification maps and overlays. Staff requested the Commission's recommendations and input\nfor staff and the consultant. Staff would return with the final recommendations and changes in\nJanuary 2007, and would present the final report at that time.\nMark Spencer, DKS Associates, continued the presentation on the Street Functional\nClassification System work that they had undertaken with City staff. He presented the overview\nof the material covered in the previous meeting, and displayed a PowerPoint presentation\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-12-13", "page": 5, "text": "discussing the candidate streets and the primary concerns for each street, such as speed, access,\nfunction, design features, land use and other elements explained in the report. This information was\ncompiled into a matrix table, which Mr. Spencer displayed on the overhead screen. He described the\nmethodology for creating the report and the maps. He noted that the pedestrian access layer was\nremoved, as all streets have pedestrian access and are integrated in the grid system. Mr. Spencer\nindicated that there are two key recommendations: 1) implementation policy to recommend design\nstandards, and 2) prioritization and decision-making framework to address stakeholder concerns and\nconflict resolution.\nChair Knox White noted that one step recommended an implementation process for creating\ndesign standards, and inquired whether it was intended to accomplish that before or after the EIR\nprocess. Staff Khan believed it would be more beneficial if it was part of the GPA, and that staff\nrecommended it be accomplished before that. Staff was in the RFP process for the consultant,\nand hoped that by the end of January, a consultant would be found for the GPA analysis. If the\nMultimodal Circulation Subcommittee could meet within the next month and provide some\nrecommendations, he hoped staff could return in January to discuss the implementation policies.\nPublic Comment\nJim Strehlow inquired whether the map depicted existing or proposed streets, because the\nClement Avenue went all the way through. Mr. Spencer replied that it depicted proposed streets.\nMr. Strehlow inquired whether the street segments would be published in a PDF file so the\npublic could comment on the classifications. Mr. Spencer replied that would be possible,\nalthough they were currently unreadable; a new PDF version would be posted on the TMP\nwebsite on the City's website. A higher resolution version would be posted for readability.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that a PDF file would have more flexibility for the user to zoom in\non a segment of the map.\nClosed Public Comment\nCommissioner Krueger noted that Alameda had very mixed land uses, and inquired whether\nsome cities had a mixed use classification, or whether the predominant use in a given area was\nused. Mr. Spencer replied that most cities had mixed use land uses, and that most cities have not\nundertaken this on a citywide basis; rather a more focused scope was used, within a\nneighborhood or street corridor-type basis, which can change from block to block.\nCommissioner Ratto noticed that on the land use map, part of Park Street was designated as a\nschool and recreational area, which he noted was not correct. Mr. Spencer noted that was\nbecause of Island High, which would be moving. Commissioner Ratto added that Park Street was\nstill not a school zone. He noted that it was a Commercial zone, and inquired why it was labeled\nthat way. Staff Khan noted that the way the Transportation Commission looked at the zones,\nthere was a two-block radius around the school. Mr. Spencer noted that the zones were layered\non top of the other, and that the classification on top was the most visible.\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-12-13", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Ratto noted that he had an issue with respect to the maps regarding the proposal to\nextend the truck route all the way down Park Street, from the bridge to Alameda Towne Center.\nHe agreed with the changing classification of Park Street, noting that from the Encinal to Otis\nDrive, it changes into residential, as well as one lane in each direction. He had a huge problem\nwith that being designated a truck route so that it would increase the truck congestion during the\nday. After Alameda Towne Center finishes it improvements, he believed the congestion could\nbecome severe.\nStaff Khan noted that was a very good point, and added that staff would examine it further.\nMr. Spencer added that staff questioned them on that item as well, and he noted that the\nalternative was more circuitous truck routing. Normally, they would want to take a more direct\nroute.\nCommissioner Ratto noted that his association, the Park Street Business Association, would fight\nthat tooth and nail.\nStaff Khan noted that if trucks made deliveries to a certain destination, they would be allowed to\nuse that street for delivery access. Truck routes were defined as handling through traffic.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether the City had truck count information,\nStaff Khan replied that classification counts were performed as part of City studies, and that he\ncould look into it further.\nCommissioner Schatmeier complimented DKS on the quality of the report, and added that he had\nquestioned the need for hiring a consultant to do this kind of work. He had previously expressed\ndismay at duplicating work that had been already done by the Transportation Commission. He\nbelieved that the work shown at this meeting had not substantially added to the work previously\ndone by the Transportation Commission. He noted that the subcommittee consisting of\nCommissioners Knox White, McFarland and himself had been cognizant of the funding needs,\nand also vetted their work with community workshops and other Commissions within the City.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the arterial spacing guidelines on Table 3-2 (page 7)\nreferred to a national standard designed to apply to all cities. Mr. Spencer confirmed that was\ncorrect. Commissioner Krueger was surprised to see on page 8 the spacing of arterials that\nseemed very dense, given the Alameda population of 70,000 people. He would have expected to\nsee that spacing for New York or Chicago, and inquired about the thinking behind the number of\narterials. Mr. Spencer replied that Alameda had very short blocks with tight spacing and a lot of\ntraffic interruption. In addition, the grid pattern was very dense. He noted that Alameda did not\nhave many collectors, and that the main part of the Island was mostly grid.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that given that Alameda was not an intense, highly dense urban\ncore, it may make sense to make some of the streets collectors, and have fewer arterials. He\ninquired about the rationale behind not doing that. Mr. Spencer replied that it was not just the\ndensity, but also how the street functioned. Regardless of the amount of volume, the traffic\nexperienced in Alameda was set up so that most of the streets functioned in a very equivalent\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-12-13", "page": 7, "text": "manner. He noted that if Alameda doubled in population, and if the traffic doubled, the streets\nwould still function similarly, but with much more volume, and assuming they could handle the\ncapacity.\nChair Knox White expressed concern about the way arterials were currently defined, and\nbelieved that the current plan as set up seemed to completely contradict one of the main themes\nof the Alameda General Plan, which was de-emphasis of the automobile. He believed that, as\nproposed, the plan was completely out of compliance with the current, as well as the soon-to-be-\nupdated, General Plan. Regarding the classifications, he was surprised that there was a lot of\nlandscaping design, and that street widths were not called out in the matrix, that the work from\nthe subcommittee regarding the number of lanes for various types of arterials was left out, and\nthat the traffic calming had been left out as well. He inquired why the lanes and the traffic\ncalming had been left out. Staff Khan thanked Chair Knox White for his comments, and did not\nsee any reason why that could not be included. He noted that the consultant tried to incorporate\nthat by examining the buffers, including landscaping, for residential. He noted that by reducing\nthe street grid, the perception of the motorists would result in traffic calming. Chair Knox White\nnoted that he liked the landscaping very much.\nA discussion of the subcommittee's work as it related to this current report ensued.\nChair Knox White noted that on page 10, two goals were expressed in 3.2, \"preserving arterial\nfunctionality\" and \"improving residential livability.' He was not sure that they were not\nopposing goals. He suggested that the Transportation Commission hold further discussion\nregarding those two goals. He noted that it was difficult to back out of your driveway into fast-\nmoving traffic.\nWith respect to land use overlays, Chair Knox White believed the gateways were a landscaping\ncategory, which was acceptable to him. He believed that gateway prioritization should start with\nthe highest occupancy vehicles and zero-emission modes, in other words, not moving the most\ncars, but the most people.\nWith respect to residential corridors, Chair Knox White inquired whether they were only for\narterials, because he believed the map contained collector streets that were not called out as\nresidential corridors, despite being 100% residential. Mr. Spencer noted that he would look at\nthat issue on the map, and added that many arterials were also residential corridors, which led to\nthe conflict pointed out by Chair Knox White.\nChair Knox White noted the language on page 13 read, \"On-street parking preservation is to be\nencouraged over other pedestrian and bicycle improvements if there is insufficient right of way.\nHe noted that the Transportation Commission had attempted to address that issue in a slightly\ndifferent way, which was, \"The preservation of on-street parking should be encouraged when\nthere is no adjacent off-street parking available and additional width is needed for pedestrian and\nbicycle \" He noted that if you were next to a parking lot or garage, it should be acceptable to\ninstall the bike lanes as a buffer, or other improvements.\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-12-13", "page": 8, "text": "Chair Knox White noted that on page 25, the arterial overlay matrix, the automobile column\nessentially focused on peak vehicular mobility and capacity at all times. He noted that the\noriginal intent of the TC Subcommittee, using the modal overlays, was to outline a network of\nusable bike and transit systems that allowed for the City to create that system, including bike\nlanes. He noted that for the bicycle priority overlay, the intent was to prioritize the streets for\nbike improvements. He was concerned that by naming every street in Alameda that went across\nthe Island an arterial, and then stating that the street would be designed to carry as much traffic\nas possible to meet the capacity and maximize flow, the City was limiting itself in the ability to\ndo any bike or transit planning.\nChair Knox White noted that on page 31, he believed the language, \" providing a comfortable\npedestrian environment,\" should be more fully fleshed out.\nChair Knox White noted that the parking part of the matrix was the same everywhere, and he\nbelieved that there should be street parking wherever it is feasible.\nChair Knox White noted that he was willing to accept that there would not be pedestrian zones,\nand noted that the definition of a pedestrian zone was difficult to define. He noted that the\nsubcommittee was not particularly supportive of the idea of pedestrian corridors as a meaningful\nconcept. He complimented the consultant on reflecting that in the matrix. Regarding the bike\nmap, he would like to see the subcommittee's bike map, which included new streets for future\nuse. He noted that they did not call out the classifications. He asked that the transit overlay be\ncalled \"transit priority\" instead of \"transit preferred\", and that the original subcommittee's\ndefinition of a primary transit street be included in the documentation. He complimented the\nconsultant on the transit map, and noted that the consultants elevated Lincoln from a primary\ntransit street to an exclusive transit right of way street, which he would not argue with. He noted\nthat there was a caveat after the description of the three kinds of street which said, \"Streets not\nclassified as either primary, secondary or exclusive transit right of way could nevertheless be\nused by such nontraditional transit services as neighborhood shuttles, paratransit, electric buses,\netc. Nonclassification does not preclude specialized school routes of full-size buses as\nnecessary.'\nChair Knox White believed that if the multimodal overlays were prioritized, he believed most of\nthe conflicts between the uses should be discovered before the document is adopted. He\nsummarized the approaches taken by several other cities that were studied. He believed that any\nprocess that goes forward should honor and acknowledge the Transportation Master Plan that\nwas passed by the City Council. He concurred with Commissioner Schatmeier's statement that\nthe document was well-done and readable, and added that the matrices enhanced the clarity of\nthe work. Staff Khan thanked the Chair for his comments.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that he would submit further comments to staff via email. Staff\nKhan requested that Chair Knox White submit his comments and modifications to staff as well.\nCommissioner Schatmeier supported the idea of developing an implementation policy, and\nwould like to participate in that. He inquired what that would be based upon.\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-12-13", "page": 9, "text": "Chair Knox White suggested that the Commission address that issue during the January 2007\nmeeting, after the proposal final draft is distributed. Staff Khan requested that the additional\ninformation be returned to staff by February in order to be included in the GPA process.\nMr. Spencer thanked the Commission on the level of effort and detail in responding to the\ndocument. He noted that the use of the terms \"arterials,\" \"collectors\" and \"local streets\" would\nbe difficult to precisely define, and noted that the use of the terms allowed eligibility for funding\nand consistency with County-wide, regional, and state plans. He noted that funding was the\nprimary reason for continued use of those terms.\nNo action was taken.\n7A.\nCITY OF ALAMEDA BUSINESS AREA PARKING STUDY\nEric Fonstein, Economic Development Coordinator, Development Services Department,\npresented the staff report describing the parking study for the two business districts. He described\nthe study's background and scope, and advised that the goal was to provide a framework for a\ncomprehensive strategy to manage and regulate parking in the rejuvenating business districts. He\nnoted that the Park Street business district had changed since the last study with the additions of\nmany new retail businesses such as Starbucks and Peet's Coffee. He noted that the consultant,\nWilbur Smith, was completing the first technical memo, which reviews and analyzes the existing\nparking conditions for both on- and off-street parking, including public and private lots. He noted\nthat the study would eventually contain five technical memos: Existing Conditions, Demand,\nLoading Zone, Analyzing the Parking Code/Alternative Code Requirements, and Parking\nManagement Plans/Incentives for Parking Facilities.\nStaff Fonstein noted that after the findings were concluded in the spring, staff would return to the\ndistricts and community workshops to present the findings. Staff would then come before the\nTransportation Commission, EDC, Planning Board and the City Council to present the final\nreport for approval.\nCommissioner Ratto suggested that the study area be extended up to the estuary.\nStaff Fonstein noted that the first task, data collection, was nearly complete, and that it would\nstretch the study budget to return to the field and extend the study area.\nCommissioner Ratto noted that data was collected between 7 and 9, he suggested that the hours\nbe extended to 10. He also suggested that the weekend hours be earlier. He requested an\nupdated work schedule.\nCommissioner Krueger was surprised that the study area for Park Street (Figure 3 map) went so\nfar west, near Walnut Street, but did not extend as far east to Broadway. He inquired why the\nstudy area was so lopsided. Mr. Fonstein noted that the map was drawn erroneously.\nCommissioner Krueger asked why the Webster Street area is so much narrower than the Park\nStreet area.\n9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-12-13", "page": 10, "text": "Staff Fonstein responded that study areas respond to the areas where there are parking\nrestrictions. He advised that a draft recommendation would be presented to the Commission in\nthe spring.\nThere was no action.\nChair Knox White requested a motion to continue the meeting.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m. Commissioner\nKrueger seconded. Motion passed, 5-0.\n7B.\nSTATUS OF RED-CURBING FOR BUS STOPS\nStaff Bergman provided an update on the efforts to improve accessibility at the City's bus stops.\nBased on guidelines and discussions with AC Transit, it was determined that 55 feet of red curb\nwas sufficient at the nearside bus stops, and 65 feet at the far side stops; the City began to\nprovide those improvements. The table attached to the report indicated where there were\ndeficiencies. At 23 of the locations, additional red curb was required; some of those could be\naddressed administratively because only one space was required; the other locations would be\nbrought to the TTT. Twenty-seven of the stops on the list were only served by either school\nroutes or Transbay peak hour-only routes; signage would be used to have minimal impact to\nallow parking on the weekends and other times when buses were not running. Ten other stops\nhad individual situations that needed to be resolved. The staff report indicated that the 60\nlocations will be taken to the TTT beginning in February, and after internal discussion, it would\nbe done more quickly than originally planned if there was not significant opposition. The staff\nreport indicated that red curbing was removed from some locations, and after further\ninvestigation, it was determined that nearly all of them resulted from bus stop consolidations.\nThe only stops affected by that were those that were being relocated.\nCommissioner Ratto noted that in the staff report it states that red curb was removed after it had\npreviously been approved. Staff Bergman replied that was the result of an internal\nmiscommunication, and investigation of most of those sites were the result of consolidation.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether there were any instances where the red curbs were\nremoved, but the bus stop signs were not; he recalled that there were several instances on\nEncinal. Staff Bergman noted that at Mound, there was a bus stop, and that red curb needed to be\nput in.\nChair Knox White thanked staff for compiling the database.\nNo action was taken.\n10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-12-13", "page": 11, "text": "7C.\nSELECTION OF A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT/\nTRANSPORTATION\nDEMAND\nMANAGEMENT\n(TSM/TDM)\nSUB-PLAN\nSUBCOMMITTEE.\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and noted that staff would like to complete the TSM/TDM\nplan by the end of 2007, with implementation anticipated to begin by the end of 2007. Staff\nrequested that the Transportation Commission appoint a subcommittee to work on developing\nthe policy's objectives for this sub-plan. He noted that the subcommittee would participate in\nidentification of thresholds for peak hour trip reduction, revise existing Citywide ordinance on\nTSM/TDM programs, develop management and operation procedures for the Transportation\nManagement Associations, and support the establishment of fees to administer the TSM/PDM\nprograms. Staff would work with the subcommittee to establish the policies, goals and objectives\nas soon as possible.\nChair Knox White noted that he would be willing to participate in the subcommittee, and that this\nwas an issue of interest to him. He anticipated one meeting per month.\nCommissioner Ratto volunteered to participate in the subcommittee.\nCommissioner Subramaniam volunteered to participate in the subcommittee.\n8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Khan inquired whether the Commissioner S had taken the ethics training course. He noted\nthat they were due by the end of the year, and could be taken online.\nMeeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.\n11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf"}