{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting\nWednesday, January 31, 2007\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMember Cunningham\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Lynch, Vice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft,\nKohlstrand, Mariani, McNamara.\nAlso present were Planning & Building Director Cathy Woodbury, Planning Services Manager\nAndrew Thomas and Executive Assistant Latisha Jackson\n4.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nDorothy Reid proposed posting the Planning Board agenda two weeks prior to meetings. She also\nrequested more communication with Board members through email. She felt the amount and/or\nimportance of items in any given meeting should be more evenly divided to avoid long meetings and\npressure to decide on important issues. She stated staff should be able to gather information from all\ninterested parties without having to weigh validity of information. She felt staff should be neutral in\ntheir decisions and not make recommendations on one side of projects going to the Planning Board.\nShe felt staff should serve the public.\nHelen Sause expressed interest in an informational forum on Measure A at the Board's earliest\nconvenience. She also expressed concern over Alameda Point.\nDiane Lichtenstein, HOMES, Inc. echoed Ms. Sause's interest on the forum regarding Measure A.\nShe noted that HOMES Inc. is in favor of modifying Measure A for Alameda Point.\nCathy Woodbury discussed roles and responsibilities for Planning Board members, staff, and others\ninvolved.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft on why the meeting had to end at 9:00\np.m., Ms. Woodbury noted that staff would research that information and bring the findings back to\nthe Board.\nBoard member Mariani followed up on Ms. Reid's comments where it appears the City is advocating\nand not taking all comments into consideration with respect to projects. She inquired why city staff\ncould not be designated to assist groups who may be opposed to projects as well. Ms. Woodbury\nnoted staff does not represent developers but presents an analysis in conjunction with the City's\ncodes, rules and regulations.\nBoard member McNamara noted that one of the roles of the Board is to communicate with staff and\nmake sure there is an open line of communication; she expressed concern with the communication\nsignificant breakdown between staff and the Board. She encouraged staff and the Planning Board to\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nJanuary 31, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 2, "text": "enhance their communication.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted that she felt the role of staff should be to make recommendations to\nthe Board. She felt the Board should be clear on what the City's position is on projects that are\npresented to the Planning Board. She noted that she also felt there was a communication breakdown\nbetween staff and the Board. She encouraged more communication so the Board would be clear on\nprevious projects and she looked forward to updates on those projects.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft wanted to make sure that items that should come back to the Board\nmake it back and not be locked up in administrative decision-making. She also mentioned the\nSafeway gas station proposal and expressed concern with the East/West sidewalk and the proposed\ndriveways.\nMs. Woodbury informed the Board that staff would make every effort to prevent those processes\nfrom happening in the future. She noted that items that should come back to the Board make sure\nthe project is in compliance with conditions set forth in approved resolutions.\nBoard member McNamara mentioned that the City should provide an email so her personal email\nwould not be barraged with correspondence.\nMs. Woodbury noted that the City is in the process of establishing a City based e-mail service for the\nPlanning Board, which would be listed on the Planning & Building Department's homepage of its\nwebsite. She explained that all inquiries, comments and concerns received would then be forwarded\nto the Planning Board members.\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the AB 1234 Mandatory Ethics training stated that there are\nlegal reasons why Board members personal e-mails should not be used. She stated if personal e-mails\nwere used for Board communications, and if litigation occurred, all personal emails could be\nrequested by the person or entity that brought the litigation all personal e-mails could be viewed by\nthe person/entity that made the request.\nVice President Cook expressed concern with the apparent disconnect between Development Services\nand Planning staff.\nPresident Lynch mentioned that there should be more fundamental discussions between the City\nManager and City Council. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and there\npurpose.\nMs. Woodbury responded by mentioning that when there are applications that are questionable,\npublic meetings with the neighborhoods are held.\nPresident Lynch expressed concern with the budget and how it reflects the work plan. He\nencouraged a better understanding of parameters of the Planning & Building Department and other\nCity departments. He also encouraged more communication with other department heads.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nJanuary 31, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 3, "text": "Ms. Woodbury responded by saying that she agrees that it would be a good discussion to talk about\nthe work plan.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Lynch on which order the work program items should be\nviewed in or if the Board should follow the PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Woodbury stated that the\nBoard should follow the PowerPoint presentation. She also brought up the issue of meeting\nmanagement and making the meetings more efficient to accommodate all speakers and to hear\neveryone voice their opinions.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Mariani on the feasibility of having a joint meeting with\nthe City Council, Ms. Woodbury responded in the affirmative. She noted the question of the joint\nmeeting focusing on a specific project was not feasible.\nBoard member Cunningham expressed his hesitancy on receiving e-mail on his personal e-mail\naccount. He inquired about the concern with individual members of the Board receiving e-mails or\nhaving contact with prospective developers that could be viewed as \"back door deals\" on projects.\nMs. Woodbury responded the purpose of setting up this e-mail system was a means for the public to\ncommunicate their concerns to the Planning Board. She noted that the City would provide training\non how to handle e-mail inquiries.\nPresident Lynch expressed concern with receiving and answering emails from the public. He felt at\nbest this system would be a repository for public comment. He suggested that when the system is in\nplace, that no Board members respond to comments. He felt responses could tread in an area in\nwhich Board members are rendering a position on something the Board may need to make a\ndetermination on.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft responded by saying that she welcomes public comment via email and is\nwilling to respond to inquiries. She noted that she would not dialogue with the public but she felt she\nshould be accessible to the public.\nBoard member Mariani noted that she felt opposite about releasing her personal e-mail address to the\npublic. She noted as a volunteer, she felt she should be accessible to the public and did not mind the\npublic having her personal e-mail address.\nMs. Woodbury responded that all views on e-mail availability could be addressed with this system\nprovided by the City. She noted the system would be linked to the City's website as a group\nspecifically designated for the Planning Board.\nMs. Woodbury continued with her presentation and addressed what is expected of the Planning\nBoard. She noted that if a Board member missed a meeting and an item happened to be continued, it\nwas the member's responsibility to obtain information from the missed meeting, such as evidence,\nminutes, and videos, to be prepared for the discussion at the following meeting.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested getting the packets earlier to allow more time for the Board\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nJanuary 31, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 4, "text": "to read the material and contact the Planning & Building Department with questions or concerns they\nmay have. She noted it would be helpful if staff continues to move toward the goal of more advanced\ntime for the Board to review packets and have questions addressed in a timely manner.\nMs. Woodbury mentioned being able to trust staff to enable staff member to give direction and ideas\nto a project. She also mentioned adding conditions and making sure they are enforceable.\nBoard member Mariani requested e-mail addresses, telephone numbers and extensions for staff.\nVice President Cook noted that she has not received more than a handful of electronic e-mail\ncommunications from the public before meetings but she has received hard copy e-mails before\nmeetings.\nMs. Jackson informed the Board that generally correspondence received from the public comes in the\nday of their meeting and is then forwarded to the Planning Board members.\nMs. Woodbury continued with her PowerPoint presentation. She noted that when projects come\nbefore the Board, it is important to remember that no project is perfect when it begins. She also\nnoted that the Board could potential approve a project in concept and give staff and the applicant\nclear direction. She stated to the Board that she understood the only way the Board could do this is if\nthey really trusted staff. She assured the Board that staff would continue to work with the Board to\nimprove communication and gain their trust. She noted there is a comprehensive training schedule for\nstaff to improve their condition of approval writing abilities since new staff has been hired in the last\nfour months.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara regarding what the Planning Department's\nrole is in policing projects to ensure projects are in compliance with conditions and what the penalties\nare for noncompliance, Ms. Woodbury responded it depends on the conditions. She noted that it is\nthe Planning & Building Department's responsibility to monitor and enforce conditions.\nBoard member Kohlstrand commented on the packet deliver times and feels that packets and agendas\nshould be available at least a week in advance for adequate review. She also mentioned approving\nprojects in concept and providing direction to staff. She would like the City Attorney to take a more\nproactive role in meetings. She commended the Planning Services Manager, Andrew Thomas, on his\nability to gather the Board's comments to ensure their conditions are adequately documented on\nprojects he brings before the Board.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Board member Kohlstrand's comment on having the\nCity Attorney take more of a proactive role an the meetings. She also suggested that some staff\nreports be more clearly written to help everyone have a clear plan of action to approve or deny\nprojects based on findings.\nVice President Cook concurred with Board member Kohlstrand's comment on more assistance and\nguidance from the City Attorney during the meetings. She also suggested follow-ups on projects that\nhave previously come before the Board to ensure that what the Board approved is what the project\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nJanuary 31, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 5, "text": "Board focus on what they have before them. She also suggested moving the communications up in\nthe order of the agenda.\nMs Woodbury brought up effective meeting management and how it's the President's responsibility\nto maintain order and keep things moving. She also mentioned that anyone wishing to speak should\nbe recognized by the President to make it easier to compile the public records and connect the\nspeaker to the right statement. Board members must be able to clearly articulate decisions, especially\nwhen it is different from staff's recommendations. She noted the importance for everyone to respect\none another because all their comments are valuable.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nJanuary 31, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 6, "text": "In response to an inquiry by President Lynch on if a Board member could deny a project just because\nthey don't like it, Ms. Woodbury responded in the negative. She stated the Board had to make a\nfinding on why they would deny the project based on the Code.\nBoard member Maiani noted that Board members not take disagreements personally. She noted it is\nokay to disagree respectfully.\n5.\nADJOURNMENT:\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the Planning Board meeting of March 26, 2007. This meeting was\naudio and videotaped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nJanuary 31, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 1, "text": "DRAFT\nTRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nJanuary 31, 2007\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\nRobert McFarland\nEric Schatmeier\nSrikat Subramaniam\nAbsent:\nJeff Knoth\nRobb Ratto\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Program Specialist II\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nThere were none.\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nChair Knox White advised that there was not a quorum to vote on the minutes of October 25,\n2006, and November 15, 2006.\nChair Knox White invited a motion to approve the minutes of December 13, 2006.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Krueger seconded the\nmotion. Motion passed (4-0 McFarland abstained).\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nThere were none.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nThere were none.\n6A.\nREVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON FINAL DRAFT\nFUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONCEPTS - FINAL.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 2, "text": "Staff Khan presented the staff report and noted that two previous presentations had been made.\nThe first recommendation from the Multimodal Circulation Subcommittee was to divide the\narterials into two categories: regional arterials and island arterials. The regional arterials would\ncarry regionally significant traffic in and out of the City, and island arterials would carry traffic\nacross the City and within City limits. The second recommendation would be to examine those\nroadways that would be reduced in their current classification. They are currently classified as\ntransitional arterials or collectors. The Subcommittee recommended that Bayview Drive be\nclassified as a local street, however, staff recommended that it be classified as transitional\ncollector, like Buena Vista Avenue or Gibbons Drive because of traffic volumes, connectivity\nand land use. Staff had previously recommended that an implementation policy be developed to\nexamine the design guidelines development as part of the transportation master plan. It would\naddress some conflicts and concerns raised by the consultant, and would remove the conflicts in\nthe future during implementation.\nMark Spencer of DKS Consultants, displayed a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the\npoints covered in previous meetings. The defined objective was to meet the needs of all street\nusers and the surrounding community while promoting the multimodal transportation system in\nAlameda. Concerns raised included how street classifications could help guide the City towards\nits future goals in terms of where and how the streets would operate, as well as whether it could\nbe achieved in conjunction with other transportation policies. Modal priority streets, bike priority\nstreets and transit priority streets were discussed, as well as truck routes. He noted that the land\nuse and modal classification overlays needed to be balanced with the auto needs. The street types\nwere defined according to the types of trips served and network connectivity. The street function\nwould be defined by the existing uses; those design and operational needs would need to be\naddressed. The terms arterial, collector and local were retained, which would provide\nconsistency with FHWA terminology and CalTrans definitions, and would facilitate applying for\nfunding and dealing with other regional programs. He described the characteristics of each type\nof street and their functionality in detail, especially in relation to transit, bicycles and pedestrians.\nMr. Spencer described the implementation strategy as a firm and flexible application, and noted\nthat the modal priorities must be followed to ensure connectivity of the bike, transit and truck\nnetworks. He believed it was important to be firm on what was a bike street, emphasizing the\nbike amenities, and the same with the transit streets, etc. He noted that it was important to be\nflexible in balancing what happens within the limited right of way. He noted that most of\nAlameda has a built-out network. He noted that they recommended integrating the street\nclassification system and an implementation policy into the TMP. He noted that design\nstandards, block lengths, cross-sections, and congestion standards all affected and\ncounterbalanced each other.\nPublic Comment\nJim Strehlow complimented the consultant on the PowerPoint presentation and requested a copy.\nHe was satisfied with the designation of Gibbons Drive as a transitional collector. He inquired\nhow new development would be added to the plan in the future, and how traffic volumes would\nbe measured and updated.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 3, "text": "Bill Smith expressed concern about traffic in the Tube, and noted that as a frequent bicyclist, he\nwas concerned about the condition of the roads. He believed new technology would help the\nefficiency and safety of auto/bicycle traffic. He would like to see new signage that would\nenhance traffic safety.\nScott Brady asked the Commission to remember that every street in Alameda was residential\nwhen considering the street designations. He noted that people backing out of their driveways\nseverely limited the traffic flow. He noted that traffic on those streets will not be able to go faster\nbecause of the designation change.\nClosed Public Comment\nChair Knox White noted that the specific planning issues would be dealt with during the planning\nof the specific sites. He noted that with respect to traffic counts, the guiding policies of the\nTransportation Master Plan, traffic counts and volume counts were part of monitoring. He\ninquired whether the types of streets had been specifically stated.\nStaff Khan replied that under the County Congestion Management Agency, regular traffic\nvolumes were collected on the streets in the system on either a two- or five-year cycle. He would\nreport that information to the Commission at a future date. He noted that trend counts would be\ncollected to show how the traffic volumes change in certain areas of the City. Staff would be\namenable to that being either a policy or guideline.\nCommissioner Schatmeier objected to the characterization of the modal overlay governing transit\nas a \"transit priority.\" He noted that he was a member of the Subcommittee, and recalled that\nthey were defining candidates for transit service, not priorities. He stated that there were three\nmain purposes in identifying these streets: 1) to identify streets that are candidates for physical\nimprovements, 2) assist the policymakers, and 3) predictability about possible locations for\ntransit. The last two were the factors given the greatest consideration by the Subcommittee.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether it would help to add language stating whether the street\ncurrently carries transit. He noted that if there are existing or planned transit services on any\nparticular street, the associated physical improvements could be included in the design of any\nproject.\nChair Knox White suggested replacing \"can assist in prioritizing\" with \"prioritized.\"\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that they had shied away once from addressing transit streets as\nanything more than candidates because of the potential uproar it would create by defining them\nas priority transit streets. He noted that was something they had tried to avoid before. He\nsuggested that the wording be changed to acknowledge that many streets labeled as transit streets\nthat either don't have transit, and probably won't in the foreseeable future without changes in\nbudget realities. He did not believe there was a reason to create an uproar by changing what they\nhad intended by classifying those streets as transit streets in the first place. He suggested labeling\nthem as transit candidates.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Krueger noted that he would not want to water the language down to the point\nwhere it downplayed the physical improvements. He indicated that it is important to say that the\nmodal overlay will determine the priority, not just suggest it.\nChair Knox White suggested changing the language under \"Modal Overlays\" to read, \"The\nmodal overlay classifications prioritize operational elements within the constraints of the right of\nway.\" Commission Schatmeier noted that would be acceptable.\nCommissioner Krueger asked why the exclusive transit right-of-way along Clement Ave. does\nnot extend all the way to the Fruitvale Bridge. This would mean that there would be a shared\nright-of-way at the most congested point in the corridor.\nStaff Khan noted that both High Street and Park Street currently function almost at capacity, and\nas a result, staff was examining Fruitvale Bridge to absorb additional capacity. Also, lower level\nof transit priorities intersect at Tilden, so this could serve as a transfer point.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that future plans depended on whether the City was serious about\nthe mode shift and emissions reductions or not. He inquired whether the language on page 27\ncould be strengthened, stating that the modal overlays will be used to establish the priorities, not\njust that they can assist. He also asked that on page 30, the language referring to \"enhanced bus\nstops\" be changed to \"enhanced bus stops/stations\" because that could go beyond a mere bus\nstop, and might involve a different mode.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that the reference to a commercial main street on page 20 seemed\nsomewhat weak in stating that bike racks might not be feasible on some streets. He noted that in\nhis submitted comments, he inquired about the language about sidewalks on both sides of the\nstreet, which had been originally mentioned in the matrix beginning on page 34. It appeared that\nthat language was dropped, but he could not find any language addressing it. He inquired\nwhether it was delegated to the pedestrian plan.\nMr. Spencer noted that the pedestrian aspects had been taken out in several places, because they\nanticipated it would be included in the pedestrian planning activity; there was a certain amount\nof redundancy assumption built in to it. He noted that sidewalks on both sides of the street was\nnot necessarily a given, and there could be right of way tradeoff decisions could be made as well.\nCommissioner Krueger felt that the strong emphasis on pedestrian access in the General Plan, as\nrelated to the strong support for walkability in the community, that he believed that having\nsidewalks on both sides of the streets would be very important. Chair Knox White suggested\ndeferring this discussion to the pedestrian plan. Commissioner Krueger agreed.\nChair Knox White also noted that on page 2, under \"Objectives of the Alameda Classification\nSystem,\" a key issue to address is cut-through traffic. He believed the wording should be\nchanged to \"residential traffic impacts.\" On page 7, under \"Numbers of Lanes,\" it read, \"This\nshould be determined through operational evaluation; it should be tied to threshold LOS, which\nare being developed as part of the TMP, and should also be weighed against neighborhood", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 5, "text": "livability issues.\" He observed that throughout the text, a lot of decisions made seemed to be\nbased on LOS. Also, under \"Congestion Tolerance - Congestion Should Be Reduced,\" it was\nalso determined through threshold LOS for different modes of transportation and balanced\nagainst livability issues.\nChair Knox White noted that with respect to Bayview, the subcommittee had suggested that it be\na local street; it is currently in the plan as a transitional collector. He invited the Commissioners'\nfeelings on that issue.\nCommissioner Schatmeier believed that was reasonable, and believed it should be a local street.\nCommissioner Krueger stated that the transitional designation seems appropriate, as it\nacknowledges the street's current volumes.\nCommissioner McFarland agreed with Commissioner Krueger's assessment.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether the traffic counts had been affected\nby the traffic calming measures, Staff Khan believed that 30% of traffic volume on Bayview\nDrive had been reduced. Staff supports the transitional designation, as it would give the City the\npower to make changes in the future to reduce traffic volumes.\nChair Knox White noted that under Land Use Overlays (General section), it read, \"All unmarked\nlocal streets are designated residential corridor streets,\" but a map indicated highlighted\nresidential corridor streets. He noted that the markings should be consistent. He believed it was\nodd to highlight a few key streets.\nChair Knox White noted that page 19, under Residential Corridor Streets (Adequate Travel\nLanes), read, \"Provide sufficient lanes for adequate capacity to minimize queuing impacts at\nresidential driveways \" but this did not seem to be a residential-oriented goal. He stated that\nlivability issues should be more of a goal than ensuring that traffic proceeded so that there was\nno queuing.\nChair Knox White invited Commission comment under Commercial, with respect to keeping\nbuilding frontages at a common setback to maintain a pedestrian-friendly environment. Also,\nbuilding entrances should face the street. Also, he suggested that would be a design feature of the\nstreets under Commercial Main Street. Commissioner Krueger supported that view, and\nbelieved it was very important for the pedestrian environment.\nChair Knox White wished to add to the language, \"Marked pedestrian crosswalks are to be\nfrequent and should be based upon pedestrian activity and activity generators.\" He noted that\nsometimes there was no pedestrian activity because people were scared to cross the street. He\nconcurred with Commissioner Krueger about the bike racks; if operationally and physically\nfeasible, he believed there should be bike racks on each block, and if there was no place to fit\nthem, the Commission could address the issue in that event.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 6, "text": "Chair Knox White noted that on page 22, he was reluctant to reduce the parking requirements in\nthe City. He noted that the language \"if sufficient off-street parking is provided\" indicated that\non one hand, the City planned to reduce that need, and on the other hand, a plan was being put\ntogether that requires additional parking capacity. He noted that while \"sufficient\" was not\ndefined there, but that it could be worded, \"off-street provided as called out in the parking plan.\"\nStaff Khan suggested referencing the General Plan, since the parking plan will probably modify\nthe General Plan. Chair Knox White agreed.\nChair Knox White made several additional comments:\nthat under \"Sidewalks\" under Commercial Street, wished to add the language \"can be\nnarrower than residential corridor, an exception for designated corridors like the Cross\nAlameda Trail.'\nthe language under \"Regional Arterial\" read, \"Three to four lanes as determined by\ncapacity needs and modal constraints' or \"modal priority maps.\nOn page 38, \"Island Arterial Overlays\" (Bicycle, School Zone and Recreation), read,\n\"\n.ideal for bicycle network, bike lanes, wind safety network, connectivity are provided,\nprovide intersection amenities pedestrian comfort and access are highest priorities\nin\nconjunction with other street functions, appropriate lighting and suggested route signs,\nprioritize amenities against lane width and on-street parking.\" He believed that the\nlanguage under the pedestrian aspect should appear under the bicycle aspects as well.\non page 40, \"Number of Lanes\" (Island Arterial), it should read, \"two to three lanes,\"\nremoving \"typical, but may have four lanes.\"\nunder \"Island Collector,\" the grid under Number of Lanes did not agree with the text,\nwhich read \"two to three lanes\"; the grid read \"no more than two lanes.\" He was\nagreeable with either one.\nOn page 44, under \"Local Street Overlays\" (Bicycles), read, \"Local streets will likely not\nrequire bicycle treatments\"; he believed that the bike overlay and the determination of the\nbike plan should decided whether or not there were bicycle treatments.\nunder \"Recommendations for the City of Alameda Implementation Plan,\" there did not\nappear to be an actual recommendation. He inquired whether DKS had a\nrecommendation for an implementation plan that they believed would be a good fit for\nAlameda. Mr. Spencer noted that they tried to create a unique presentation for Alameda,\nand that an individual implementation plan must be created to work for the City.\non all of the maps, particularly the bike map, the Clement Extension was drawn\nincorrectly; it was drawn to indicate that it connected directly into Eagle. He noted that it\nshould connect further up into Atlantic. He would like to add the connection of the bike\npath through the Beltline.\nChair Knox White suggested adding a path connection between the end of Portola and\nNinth Street. This may be possible in the future.\nCommissioner Krueger would like to see a dedicated right of way off the Island, and believed the\nClement Extension and Fernside acted as alternate routes to the other bridges.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 7, "text": "Chair Knox White stated that Fernside is okay as an island arterial, but that Clement should be\nclassified as a regional arterial. Commissioner Krueger noted that this would be predicated on\nthe completion of the Clement extension.\nStaff Khan stated that once the Clement extension is completed, and it becomes an arterial, that\nthe hope is to downgrade the classification of Blanding.\nCommissioner Krueger moved that the designation for Clement from Tilden to Ohlone Street\nshould be Regional Arterial. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed\nunanimously, 5-0.\nCommissioner Krueger moved that the entire length of Tilden from Park Street to the Miller-\nSweeney Bridge be classified as a potential exclusive transit right-of-way. Commissioner\nMcFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.\nChair Knox White suggested that Encinal at Sherman should be considered a commercial main\nstreet. He also asked why Oak Street was classified as a collector, and did not understand what it\ncollected, as it was only two blocks long. Staff Khan noted that it collected traffic from side\nstreets, as represented by traffic volumes, and that provided connectivity between two arterials.\nMr. Spencer noted that it acted as a bypass for Park Street in the area.\nCommissioner Krueger asked that the school and recreation map be modified to reflect the\nrelocation of Island High School.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to accept the consultant's report with the comments made by\nthe Commissioners. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously,\n5-0.\nChair Knox White complimented the consultant on a job well done.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to continue the meeting after a five minute break.\nCommissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.\n7A.\nALAMEDA LANDING TDM GOALS AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT - 1ST\nOF 2 PRESENTATIONS.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 8, "text": "Bruce Knopf, of Catellus, noted that his presentation was intended to engender Commission\nfeedback and comments, and will be brought before the Commission again in February. Their\nobjective was operate a successful Transportation Demand Management program, and reduce\nsingle-occupancy vehicle trips, as well as to produce a draft TDM plan that will go to the\nPlanning Board in March. The program would be operational on \"day one\" - defined as\noccupation of 100,000 square feet of the commercial development, or 150 housing units. He\nnoted that in the project's EIR, they did not take credit for any anticipated benefits from a TDM\nprogram. The use was intended to be pedestrian-friendly and bike-friendly, as well as transit-\noriented.\nThe program's financing mechanism will be permanent, with resources to be provided by the\ntenants and residents of the development. He stated that the primary feature of the program\nwould be a supplementary ground shuttle system that, when viewed in conjunction with AC\nTransit, can provide 15-minute headways, based on their hope that AC Transit will provide\nservice to and within the site.\nMr. Knopf noted that the program also included a water shuttle, operating for a minimum of one\nyear, and providing service between the project and Jack London Square. The water shuttle\nfeasibility study would be completed by day one. ProLogis has been working with Bike\nAlameda to identify a window when that shuttle would begin operation, and they are proposing\nto start no later than completion of the second phase of development.\nMr. Knopf invited Commission feedback on a process for monitoring the elements of the TDM\nprogram, and what criteria should be used to evaluate the program. He noted that the working\ndraft has not been reviewed by Public Works or the Planning staff. He noted that the parking\npricing and parking cashing out options had been removed from the TDM draft, because they\nwould not be viable given the demand for parking in Alameda.\nMr. Knopf noted that the next steps would be to received the Commission's feedback and\ncomments, and return with a draft plan in late February. They planned to present that to the\nPlanning Board at their March 12, 2007, meeting. He introduced the TDM plan manager, John\nAtkinson, who had been active in this area for almost 20 years. He had previously run the\nsystems in Santa Clara, Berkeley and Downtown Walnut Creek.\nStaff Bergman noted that he received a communication from Nathan Landau at AC Transit\nearlier in the day, and wished to present it. He believed Mr. Knopf covered the major points\ninvolved in the program, and wished to ensure there was a clear understanding about the baseline\nfor measuring the trip reductions. He noted that he received the letter from AC Transit too late to\ncirculate to the Commission, and read it into the record:\nAC Transit has concerns about the way the Draft Alameda Landing Transportation\nDemand Management agreement is structured. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the\nCommission meeting tonight to address the issue. AC Transit is pleased that a\ncommitment to TDM policies and implementation measures is being made for this\nimportant project. We have not yet had an opportunity to discuss the proposed agreement\nwith City staff, or to review it fully, having seen it for the first time yesterday. The", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 9, "text": "agreement is structured around rerouting of an AC Transit line and addition of a\nsupplemental shuttle. We are concerned that this combination is not necessarily the best\napproach to providing transit service to the site. This divided duplicative service nay\nundercut the use of AC Transit service to the site, particularly if the shuttle is free to the\npassenger. Divided service does not necessarily advance the goal of encouraging the\nresidents and employees of Alameda Landing to use the regular transit system.\nAC Transit would also appreciate the opportunity to consider routes in this area in the\ncontext of our evolving plans for West Alameda and Alameda Point. We recognize the\nimportance of providing frequent service, especially in the peak hour, to encourage\nridership.\nAC Transit is developing ecopass programs, which provide systemwide bus passes to\nemployees and residents of a given development. We would like to discuss ecopass\nopportunities, which in some cases can raise funds for additional service in this context.\nTherefore, we would request the opportunity to meet with Planning and Public Works\nstaff, and with the developer to discuss this TDM plan before it is finalized. I would\nstress that AC Transit does not have a preconceived plan at this time, but instead wishes\nto explore and resolve the issues involved in a timely manner.\"\nMr. Knopf noted that they had not begun to consider pricing, and added that they want to work\nwith AC Transit as much as possible. They would entertain contracts with them, and did not wish\nto duplicate service.\nCommissioner Schatmeier requested further information from staff regarding dropping the two\nmost effective strategies. Mr. Knopf noted that one of the staff reports reported that 71% of the\nAlameda residents who commuted to San Francisco took transit. He noted that reflected the cost\nfor parking in San Francisco, and that because that was not a reality in San Francisco, it did not\nseem to be a feasible strategy to put on the table as an effective tool.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether transit passes had been considered. Mr. Knopf noted\nthat it was included in the conceptual plan a year before, and noted that its omission was\nunintentional, and that they would explore it.\nPublic Comment\nBill Smith noted that Mr. Knopf had previously been a City employee, and that Don Parker had\nhelped develop Marina Village. He understood that Marina Village was an assessment district,\nand that this property was next to Marina Village with respect to impacts. He inquired whether\nthere should be an assessment district on this property.\nMr. Knopf noted that there were districts for both the residential and the commercial retail that\nwould pay for the TDM program on an ongoing basis.\nJon Spangler noted that he had long been interested in improving the Estuary crossing, and noted\nthat he had served on the Estuary Water Shuttle Task Force with Mr. Knopf and other Catellus", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 10, "text": "staff. He commended Catellus for being on the leading edge with a TDM, which he viewed as an\nunfolding work in progress. He believed it was important to integrate AC Transit's views as\nexpressed in the memo, and that best practices should be implemented with other organizations.\nHe believed the City should be careful in evaluating the TDM plan and the impact of Catellus at\nAlameda Landing overall, not just in terms of shoppers, workers and business owners, but also\nthe potential costs and benefits realized by the entire community from the TDM options that\nwould be funded by residents of Alameda and Oakland. He hoped that as the City evaluates the\nTDM, that it will be able to examine tourism funding, funding through the Port of Oakland and\nChamber of Commerce, or other economic development sources normally used in Alameda. He\nwas encouraged by this progressive approach.\nJeff Cambra, Board member of Bike Alameda, spoke on behalf of the Estuary Crossing\nCoalition, agreed with Mr. Spangler's comments. He noted that the Coalition's interests include:\n1) Establishing criteria for the earliest possible initiation of the Estuary water shuttle\nservice, taking into account that there is sufficient project improvements and occupancy\nto create ridership;\n2) Such criteria should include\na. extra Alameda Landing west end demand, as determined by non-developer-\nfunded surveys and City-sponsored feasibility studies;\nb. operational effectiveness as determined by the use of Estuary water shuttle\nridership surveys and other TDM surveys proposed by Catellus to determine\nregional impact;\nc.\nany disagreement regarding initiation of the Estuary water shuttle should be\naddressed as part of the TDM annual report submitted to the Council.\nMr. Cambra noted that it was the Coalition's understanding that the Coalition and Catellus agree\nin principle on these interests, and that the Coalition supports this draft document as it relates to\nthe Estuary water shuttle. Due to the short time between the release of the draft TDM document\nand this meeting, the Coalition will continue to meet with Catellus to provide additional\ncomments for the next TC meeting in February.\nClosed Public Comment\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that he was interested in the shuttle service, and that\nCommission as a whole was interested in reducing single-occupant automobile trips, rather than\ntrips in general. He wished to echo the AC Transit comments and concerns about how a shuttle\nservice can be overlaid with AC Transit service. He understood that the details had not been\nworked out yet. He believed that 30-minute headways are not sufficient. He added that pricing\nneeds to be further investigated, and that the AC Transit fare from the development into\ndowntown Oakland of $1.75, plus $0.25 for a transfer, when piggybacked on top of a BART fare\nwould be a deterrent to ridership. He stated that free shuttles such as those operated MacArthur\nBART to the Kaiser facility also detracts from AC Transit ridership. He suggested subsidizing\nthe AC Transit fare on the 19 line in coordination with a free shuttle.\nCommissioner Krueger stated that the utility of transit increases when integrated into a larger\nnetwork. For this reason, that he was not generally a fan of small, limited shuttle services, and", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 11, "text": "that there was more benefit being part of a larger system. In lieu of a shuttle, he suggested\nproviding an Ecopass, or a combination of an Ecopass and contracting with AC Transit for\nadditional service to get people onto regular AC Transit buses.\nJohn Atkinson, consultant to Catellus, noted that the shuttle was the cornerstone of the program,\nand added that they intended to apply a systemic approach to reduce SOV traffic. He noted that\nthey were exploring ride-matching systems with carpools and possibly van pools. He stated that\nAC Transit has indicated that not all of their buses are equipped for handling an Ecopass\nprogram. Also, in trying to price services, AC Transit was $130-140 an hour to run shuttles,\napproximately double the cost of a private operator; an economically feasible situation should be\nfound. Catellus' goal is to coordinate not just with AC Transit, but also with BART and the ferry,\nand that they want to work with AC Transit as much as possible.\nStaff Bergman noted that the Interagency Liaison Committee had addressed the possibility of\nusing an Ecopass. AC Transit had not been ready to implement that concept yet, and that they\nhad three programs that had been individually negotiated. They are currently trying to\nstandardize that process, and would will an update at the next ILC meeting within the next\nmonth.\nA discussion of integrating the service into the Island grid followed.\nCommissioner Krueger was surprised to see that the monitoring would be done only through\nsurveys.\nMr. Knopf noted that Catellus has proposed taking the ITE trip generation rates that such a\ndevelopment was expected to generate in the outlying and surrounding area, and to take those\nnumbers and examine the level of reduction in SOV trips expected to accomplish. Through direct\nsurveys, the level of usage would be compared against the survey results.\nCommissioner Schatmeier suggested measuring at the key access points of the actual car trips,\nand running the numbers from that.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Department, noted that Mr. Knopf and staff had done a good job in\nintroducing the major issues. He noted that the Planning Department saw this as the beginning of\na much larger West End TDM program. He believed that although he was very happy that\nCatellus had stepped forward in committing the $425,000 per year at buildout, it would take a lot\nmore money to run an effective transportation program. The Planning Department believed that\nCatellus should create an organization so that future projects may be built in the West End. He\nnoted that Alameda Point could have 1400-1500 market-rate units, which could potentially\nprovide a major financial contribution to this program. The Planning Department believed that a\nmajor source of annual operating funding should be generated which should be turned over to\nAC Transit when it became big enough so they could provide the levels of services needed in the\nWest End. If an Ecopass program is initiated, everyone who pays the annual fee may participate.\nHe believed it was important to get this organization started now. He noted that they needed to\nbe able to adjust to changing system requirements.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 12, "text": "Commissioner Krueger believed the most significant goal was the reduction of the total number\nof SOV trips generated by the project. He noted that while emissions were important, the trips\nhad the most impact on the neighborhoods.\nChair Knox White believed there could be benefits of a TDM program that reduced West End\ntrips that did not come out of carbon trading for commute trading, and there could be a benefit\nfor the rides that the project could get credit for. He felt he did not have enough information to\nmake a determination about whether an 8-10% trip reduction is appropriate. He noted that the\ngoal was to mitigate traffic, and that the Commission's EIR policy is not to expand roadways to\nmitigate the traffic, and to mitigate traffic aggressively through TDM. He stated that the TDM\nprogram should be as aggressive as possible within the project budget, and that the TDM\nprogram should not take credit for ridership on AC Transit's 19 bus line. He suggested using a\nbiennial survey of the HOAs to get trip information. He noted that he supports the development\nof a TMA, but he believes it should be connected to the City, rather than be an independent\nagency. He believed the TMA should focus on the West End, not just the project participants. He\nwould like the use of AC Transit to be the preferred agency when possible, but understood that\nAC Transit recognized the use of private shuttles when needed.\nChair Knox White noted that\nthe first bullet point under Administration (Key Administration Goals, page 9), read\n\"represent Alameda Landing\"; he believed the TMA should represent a broader scope\nand should represent the City.\nHe was surprised to see costs associated with a guaranteed ride home and ride matching,\nsince those were both regional project programs that were free to appropriately sized\nbusinesses.\nUnder \"Evaluation of Success,\" the language talked about \"participation rate of Alameda\nLanding employees in the program.' He was concerned that a private shuttle and AC\nTransit, it would be beneficial to the TDM program to draw riders away from some other\nform so they could get credit for success. For that reason, he believed it was important to\ncount cars and use surveys, as opposed to asking whether they were using the services.\nPage 12 discussed \"During Phase A, trip reduction target is 2 to 3 percent\"; the original\nmemo said \"5%.\" He understood there would be a ramp-up, but 2 to 3% seemed very low\nto him. He believed that if there would be a lower percentage goal for the first five years,\nhe believed the project should be re-evaluated when the real goal was met.\nHe recommended evaluating the TDM program based on cost per rider, and nothing else,\ndue to the limited funding for this program.\nHe noted that RIDES no longer exists, and that the program is currently called 511\nRideshare.\nHe said that he would email his comments on the surveys.\nStaff Bergman noted that traffic congestion in the tubes is primarily an issue heading out of\nAlameda during the AM peak hour, and heading into Alameda during the PM peak hour.\nHowever, TDM programs are generally more successful when applied to employment sites, so\nthe potential for the TDM program proposed by ProLogis to reduce traffic congestion is greater\nin the direction opposite that of the major congestion problems. He requested feedback from the\nCommission regarding how this issue should relate to the program's goals.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-01-31", "page": 13, "text": "Chair Knox White suggested that those trips causing the congestion should be targeted, such as\nthe City-outbound trips. He noted that while the specific percentage could not be determined\nnow, both an overall trip reduction goal and a peak-hour trans-Island trip reduction goal should\nbe identified.\nStaff Khan noted that the Congestion Management Agencies created goals for the County, and\nassigned trips in a mode split, which could be looked as a base trip generation.\nChair Knox White did not wish to penalize the developer with a baseline, but believed they\nshould be aggressive in their goals to mitigate the traffic to as high a level as possible.\nCommissioner Krueger wished to raise the issue of parking fees and parking cashout, and there\nmay be a fear that would reduce the attractiveness of the development to businesses.\nChair Knox White noted that most of Alameda had free parking, compared to San Francisco, and\nthat companies may decide to locate across the Estuary where there would be free parking.\nMr. Knopf noted that they wished to be treated equally as compared to other property owners.\nNo action was taken.\n8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nMeeting adjourned at 11:00 PM.\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\\TC\\2007/022807\\January 31 TC Minutes - Final-rev.doc", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf"}