{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 1, "text": "ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION\nMINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING\nWednesday, February 28, 2007\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER\nChair Bob Wood called the special meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. in Room #391, Alameda\nCity Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.\n1-A.\nRoll Call\nRoll call was taken and members present were: Vice Chair Ray Gaul, Commissioner Bill\nSchmitz, Secretary Jane Sullwold and Chair Bob Wood. Absent: Commissioner Betsy\nGammell and Commissioner Sandr\u00e9 Swanson. Also present was Golf Services Manager\nMatt Plumlee.\n1-B\nApproval of Minutes-Special Meetings of November 29, 2007 and February 11, 2007.\nThe Golf Commission elected to add to the agenda the approval of the minutes of the\nSpecial Meetings of November 29, 2007 and February 11, 2007. The minutes of\nNovember 29, 2007 were approved unanimously. The following changes were made to\nthe minutes of February 11, 2007:\n2-A, line 7: change from \"award the RFP for the Operational Review.\" to \"recommend\nthree candidates to the City Manager, and she will then choose the consultant.\"\n2-A, paragraph 2, line 6: change from \"Chair Wood made the motion to accept the\naforementioned fee changes\" to \"Secretary Sullwold made the motion and Commissioner\nGammell seconded to accept the aforementioned fee changes\".\nSecretary Sullwold made the motion and Vice Chair Gaul seconded to approve the\nminutes with the aforementioned changes. The Golf Commission approved unanimously.\n2.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n3-A\nReport on Chuck Corica Golf Complex Master Planning and Conceptual Design of Clubhouse\nFacility. (Action Item)\nChair Wood introduced Miriam Delagrange of the Development Services Department. Ms.\nDelagrange referenced the Dahlin Group Master Plan, which the Golf Commission had not\nreceived. The plan goes over what cost estimates Dahlin would provide and the cost of their\nservices. At a meeting on January 25, 2007 between Dahlin representatives, Doreen Soto and\nMiriam Delagrange from Development Services Department and Dana Banke from the Chuck\nCorica Golf Complex, Dahlin was given direction on some basic concepts to enable the project\nto be completed in phases. The Dahlin report breaks the Master Site Plan into the following\nphases. Phase A-New Bar/Grill/Banquet Facility (approximately 8,500 s.f.), Phase B1-New Pro\nShop Facility (approximately 8,000 s.f.), Phase B2-Exterior modifications to the existing Pro\nShop Facility (assumed as a potential option, it the existing pro shop building is to remain for\na\nlonger period of time after Phase A is completed), Phase B3-New Entry Canopy and Site\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 1\n2/28/07\nGolf Commission Minutes", "path": "GolfCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 2, "text": "Development: development of an entry canopy that will \"join\" Phase A and Phase B1, along\nwith the development of a new vehicle routing/bag drop area, Phase C-Site and landscape\nimprovements immediately adjacent to the existing/new building areas, Phase D-Entry Drive\nImprovements, Site Monument (at entry drive and at the corner of Island and Dolittle Drives),\nPhase E-Site Parking Improvements, site entry bridge feature at creek, realigning of the on site\nparking and addition of planter islands and irrigation for landscaping. The Dahlin report is a\nmaster plan proposal to do the basic design not for submitting any construction drawings just an\nidea to work with and get cost estimates to see how much each phase would cost so that it can be\nproposed to City Council to determine which options to proceed with. She also stated that there\ncould be cost savings by completing the planning now rather than later. Chair Wood stated that\nthe Golf Commission will not be able to take action on the item without first reviewing the\nmaterial. The Golf Commission was given copies of the report and the discussion ensued. Ms.\nDelagrange referenced the report stating that Dahlin will utilize previous design concepts and\ncost estimation, they will provide minor modifications to the site and the cart barn, driving range\nand snack shack structures are existing and no work is planned at these areas. The buildings will\nbe demolished on a per phase basis. The new buildings will be placed at about the same location\nas the existing buildings to minimize additional site work. No changes in the golf course design\nwere included. Dahlin will also provide an analysis for anticipated cost savings if the City were\nto\nconstruct both Phase A and Phase B as one project instead of separately. As part of the\nconceptual building design, they will provide a scenario for creating a shared set of restrooms\nbetween the Bar/Grill/Banquet Facility (Phase A) and the Pro Shop (Phase B). Dahlin will\nprovide a maximum of two conceptual layouts for the new Bar/Grill/Banquet facility (Phase A)\nand the Pro Shop (Phase B). Included in the professional fees are three presentations/meetings\nwith the Golf Commission and one presentation/meeting with the City Council and provide\nstandard design review submittals and cost estimation summaries for all presentations/meetings\nSecretary Sullwold requested that a cost estimate be looked at for renovating the existing\nrestaurant building and build a new kitchen and banquet facility behind it. Chair Wood agreed\nthat the use of the existing structures should be looked at and if the structures are not usable he\nwould like to know why. The request will be passed on to Dahlin for evaluation. The general\nconsensus amongst the Golf Commission is that the main priority is the banquet facility. Ms.\nDelagrange referenced the site drawings prepared by BMS. The BMS material relates to Phases\nC, D, & E in the Dahlin report. The master site plan shows the entrance drive, parking and\nproposed temporary banquet facility. The Golf Commission did not receive copies of the\nentrance area drawings, which includes the following three alternatives. Alternative 1 is a\nminimal site change plan that includes removing existing pavement, the roadway wall, and the\nexisting fence. The plan would add two eight foot entry markers, a six-foot ornamental wooden\nfence, a new curb and gutter, a concrete pad, various trees, shrubs, ground cover and lawn,\nincluding irrigation, for the total cost of $218,057. Alternative 2 is a modest site change\nincluding all of the changes in Alternative 1 with the addition of a six foot entry wall made of\nconcrete block in place of the two eight foot entry markers. There is also miscellaneous site\nfurnishings and asphalt paving. The cost for Alternative 2 is $298, 397. Alternative 3 combines\nthe items in Alternative 2 with the deletion of the furnishings and adds a faux pond and a project\nidentification sign at a cost of $304,572. There are also three alternatives for the parking area\nand temporary banquet facility. Alternative 1 is a minimal site change plan that includes\nremoving existing pavement and sidewalk and curb. The alternative includes a rerouting of the\nentrance to allow for a bag drop area, project identification signs, new curbs and gutters, asphalt\nconcrete paving, concrete sidewalk, various trees, shrubs, ground cover and lawn, including\nirrigation, and miscellaneous site furnishings for a cost of $285,725. Alternative 2 is a modest\nsite change plan that includes removing existing pavement, sidewalk and curb. The alternative\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 2\n2/28/07\nGolf Commission Minutes", "path": "GolfCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 3, "text": "includes a more extensive rerouting of the entrance to allow for a bag drop area with additional\nfoliage in and around the clubhouse building and beautification to the courtyard area, in addition\nto the project identification signs, new curbs and gutters, asphalt concrete paving, concrete\nsidewalk, various trees, shrubs, ground cover and lawn, including irrigation, and miscellaneous\nsite furnishings. Alternative 3 is a major site change plan that includes removing existing\npavement, sidewalk and curb. The alternative includes a more extensive rerouting of the\nentrance to allow for a bag drop area with additional foliage in and around the clubhouse\nbuilding and beautification to the courtyard area with special colored paving, in addition to the\nproject identification signs, new curbs and gutters, asphalt concrete paving, concrete sidewalk,\nvarious trees, shrubs, ground cover and lawn, including irrigation, and site furnishings for a cost\nof $758,650. Chair Wood suggested that additional lighting be added to the proposal for the\nparking area and the exterior of the buildings. The action on the item has been postponed to a\nfuture meeting.\n3-B\nReport on the Chuck Corica Golf Complex Marshal Program. (Action Item)\n:\nThe Golf Services Manager reported that at the special meeting of the Golf Commission\non February 11, 2007 the Golf Commission requested staff to present a revised Marshal\nWork Program and a revision to the Employee and Volunteer Benefit Program for the\nChuck Corica Golf Complex (CCGC). The current program consists of 40 volunteers\nthat help patrons with their golf cart, start players on the first tee and monitor play on the\nthree golf courses. Marshals work a minimum of a 6-hour shift and receive benefits for\nthe service. The recommended program would have a maximum of 35 marshals, with an\nadditional 5 relief marshals and 3 marshal coordinators and the Marshals are to work one,\n7 hour shift per week during the peak season, and one, 6 hour shift per week during the\noff season. The marshals are expected to attend bi-annual general meetings with golf\nprofessional staff and be trained every 6 months by marshal coordinator trainer and the\nMarshals are to assist with Golf Complex sponsored events. The CCGC Employee and\nVolunteer Benefit Program provide complimentary green fee, cart fee and range\nprivileges to volunteers and employees of the Golf Complex. It is important to provide\nuse of the golf course facilities in order to attract a volunteer and paid work force.\nHowever, in order to help achieve greater revenues it is important to protect the \"peak\"\ntimes in which patrons use the golf course. Therefore, complimentary use of the facilities\nshould be curtailed to protect peak revenue times. Currently there are no constraints on\nwhen volunteers and employees can receive complimentary privileges. The\nrecommendation is for the volunteers/employees to receive complimentary golf Monday-\nThursday on all courses. Fridays all day on the Jack Clark Course and Mif Albright and\nat twilight on the Earl Fry course. Friday at Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays after\ntwilight on all golf courses. One bucket of range balls per day and they must register in\nthe range pro shop. There will be a cart fee of $10.00 per player for employees,\nvolunteers and guests. The volunteers and employees will still receive 20% off\nmerchandise (soft goods only), excludes golf balls, and golf equipment and no discount\non sale/clearance items. Special orders are cost (including shipping) plus 10% and tax\nand there is a discount on food and beverage on scheduled workdays.\n3-C\nReport on Volunteer and Employee Benefits at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. (Action Item)\nThe recommendations made in the previous agenda item will also apply to the employees\nat the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. The $10 cart fee per rider will include all\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 3\n2/28/07\nGolf Commission Minutes", "path": "GolfCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 4, "text": "complimentary play as well.\n3-D\nReport on Fiscal Year 2006/2007 Budget.\nChair Wood introduced the City Manager Debra Kurita and Chief Financial Officer Juelle Ann\nBoyer. The City Manager stated that at the February 20, 2007 City Council meeting the Golf\nComplex deficit was brought up during the Mid Year Budget Update. The City Council directed\nthe Chief Financial Officer to draw up a resolution mandating a balanced budget for the Golf\nFund by the end of the fiscal year within 30 days and will be brought to the City Council at the\nMarch 20, 2007 meeting. The first course of action was to determine what the deficit would be\nby the end of the fiscal year. The Chief Financial Officer determined that by the end of the fiscal\nyear based on the prior months actual revenue and expenditures and a forecast for the final 5\nmonths of the year that the Golf Fund would see a net cash loss of approximately $212,000. The\nGeneral Manager had recommended various expenditure cost cutting measures such as a\nreduction in the cart fleet and water usage. The City Council understands that if it would harm\nthe operation of the Golf Complex to balance the budget then other solutions need to be looked\nat. Commissioner Schmitz mentioned that the Golf Commission has recommended various fee\nincreases to help increase revenue. The forecast does not include any funds for Capital\nImprovement Projects. The monthly reports the Golf Commission currently receives are based\non the online information available to the golf staff. The Finance Department has access to more\ndetailed information. The Golf Commission would like to have the General Fund Expenditures\nitemized in detail on the monthly financial report. The request was made to receive the Chief\nFinancial Officer's report on a monthly basis to give the Golf Commission a clearer view of the\nGolf Complex financials and a running Enterprise Fund Balance. The ultimate goal is to have\nthe Golf Fund's current revenue equal the current expenditures. The balanced budget does not\nensure that the Enterprise Fund will not continue to go down. The question was raised as why\nthe $300,000 lent to Development Services is non-interest bearing. The Chief Financial Officer\nstated that the interest on inter department loans is negotiated at the time of the loan, and interest\nwas not added to the loan to Development Services.\n4.\nANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT\nRon Salsig announced that he received two writing awards for articles, which appeared in\nthe New York Times, Los Angeles Times and the Alameda Sun. The Golf Commission\ncongratulated Mr. Salsig on his accomplishments. The City Manager announced that the\nCity Council and the Alameda Unified School District would have a Joint Meeting on\nMarch 15, 2007.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned at 8:37 PM.\nThe agenda for the special meeting was posted 24 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 4\n2/28/07\nGolf Commission Minutes", "path": "GolfCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting\nWednesday, February 28, 2007\nConference Room 360, City Hall\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nChair Lee, Vice-Chair Huston, Wolfe\nCommissioners Cervantes and Rosenberg were absent.\nSTAFF PRESENT: Douglas Vu, Planner III, and Tony Ebster, Recording\nSecretary\n3.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the Regular Meeting of November 29, 2006\nVice-Chair Huston motioned to continue the minutes of November 29, 2006 to\nthe Public Art Commission meeting of March 28, 2007.\nChair Lee seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 2.\n[Abstain: Commissioner Wolfe - 1; Absent: Commissioners Cervantes and\nRosenberg - 2.]\n4.\nORAL COMMUNICATION\nCarol Burnett with the Alameda Art Association introduced herself and informed\nthe Commission that they wanted to raise awareness of local artists. She\nexpressed the desire for developers and project applicants to use local artists.\nShe requested the Alameda Art Association be placed on the City's Artist\nDirectory. Commission Member Huston agreed to refer the Alameda Art\nAssociation to the groups identified in the Artist Resource List.\nCommissioner Wolfe asked if there were other art associations in Alameda. Ms.\nBurnett gave some information on other organizations in Alameda that can be\ncalled upon for projects. The Commission agreed that as part of the to do list,\nthey would only maintain an Artist Resource List.\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA\na.\nApprove Meeting Calendar for 2007\nM/S Huston/Lee to continue item to meeting of March 28, 2007\nAYES - 3; NOES - 0\nb.\nReview of Alameda Towne Centre History Panels and Update", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Vu mentioned that the developer for Alameda Towne Centre is installing\nmore art than is required by the Ordinance.\nMr. Vu asked if there were any changes or concerns regarding the panels for\nAlameda Towne Centre. Chair Huston mentioned that too many people were\nomitted and thus the panels didn't reflect the diversity of Alameda and the panels\nform a false history. Otherwise, she believed the panels were really well\ndesigned. Commissioner Wolfe agreed there wasn't enough representation\nregarding the diversity of Alameda. Chair Huston expressed concern that non-\nwhite people were only shown as workers and not as heroes or persons of\ndistinction. The Commission agreed there needed to be more acknowledgment\nof the diversity and segregation in Alameda's past. It was suggested that either\nadditional panels be incorporated or current panels be updated to include the\ndiversity of the City.\nMr. Vu offered to draft a letter to Tad Savinar to commend the work done on the\npanels as well as offer thoughts and suggestions on what could be added. Chair\nHuston agreed to proof the letter prior to mailing.\nC.\nReview of Alameda Free Public Library Art\nCommissioner Wolfe stated that he liked the panels at the new Free Library but\nexpressed some issues with their installation. He liked the stone panel inside.\nHe felt the rabbit was not as good and was worried that someone could injure\nhimself or herself on it. Chair Huston stated the rabbit was supposed to be\ninteractive and felt that it wasn't. She also questioned the poor quality of the\nwork.\nCommissioner Lee expressed concern that a screen behind the children's desk\nhad been proposed but wasn't there.\nThe Commission agreed the outside panels were successful but were concerned\nthe windowsills hang over the panels too far and take attention away from the\npanels. They felt that the architecture frames the panels poorly and are oriented\nmore towards rainfall and not the integration of the art. This resulted in the\npanels looking too subtle. The Commission also felt the original plans didn't\nclearly illustrate how the panels would be installed, therefore making it difficult to\nvisualize how the finished product would look. The finished panel was not\nexactly what was expected.\nThe Commission would've liked to see more detailed plans for the art in order to\nget a better sense of the context. They would've liked more consideration given\nto the integration of the architecture and the artwork.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 3, "text": "The Commission then proposed the idea of a catalog, or record of art projects.\nThe catalog would be for future Commission Members and would consist of\nseveral items:\n1.\nThe original art proposal for a given project\n2.\nA review of the finished product\n3.\nCommission Member comments and opinions on the finished\nproduct and how accurate it was to the original proposal.\nThe Commission felt this would be a valuable asset and a good reference for\ncreating and updating the art review process.\nd.\nPerforming Arts Program at Bridgeside Shopping Center\nChair Huston felt the conditions of approval did not reflect the programming that\nthe applicant and Commission agreed to, and therefore, the resolution approving\nthe Bridgeside amphitheatre project was inaccurate. She expressed that the\napplicant should be held to their agreed details, even though specific details\nweren't reflected in the resolution.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nChair Huston expressed concern regarding whether the renovation of the Historic\nAlameda Theater will fulfill the public art requirement. She stated that any\nrestoration work already being done as part of the project's scope couldn't also\nbe used to fulfill the public art requirement. She stated there were inaccuracies\nidentified in Development Services' staff report to City Council. Commissioner\nWolfe stated that he disagreed with Chair Huston's assessment of the Ordinance\nand its Policy Guidelines regarding what aspects of a project can be used to fulfill\nthe public art requirement. Chair Huston and Commissioner Wolfe agreed to\nreview the Ordinance and its Policy Guidelines and discuss their findings at the\nnext meeting.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\n8:45 pm\nRespectfully submitted,\nDouglas Vu, Secretary\nPublic Art Commission", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nFebruary 28, 2007\nChair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.\nMembers Present:\nJohn Knox White\nJeff Knoth\nMichael Krueger\nEric Schatmeier\nSrikant Subramanium\nAbsent:\nRobert McFarland\nRobb Ratto\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Program Specialist II\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nOctober 25, 2006\nb.\nNovember 15, 2006\nc.\nJanuary 31, 2007\nChair Knox White requested that page numbers be inserted in the minutes. Commissioner\nSchatmeier requested that in the January minutes, that they be changed to reflect that Mr. Knopf\nwas comparing Alameda to San Francisco.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved approval of the minutes for the October, November, and\nJanuary meeting minutes. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed\nunanimously, 5-0\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nChair Knox White suggested that the Alameda Landing TDM item be heard before the shuttle\nstudy.\nTransportation Commission\nFebruary 28, 2007\nPage 1 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 2, "text": "4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\na.\nMultimodal Circulation Plan\nb.\nPedestrian Plan\nc.\nTSM/TDM Plan\nChair Knox White encouraged people to sign CalPIRG's online petition opposing the budget cuts\nby Governor Schwarzenegger, which would cut $1.1 billion from the Public Transit account.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nThere were none.\nStaff Khan inquired whether the Commissioners would be available for a joint meeting with City\nCouncil on March 27, 2007. He understood that Commissioner Schatmeier was available, as was\nChair Knox White and Commissioners Krueger and MacFarland. He added that Commissioners\nKnoth was not available, and that he had not heard from Commissioner Ratto. Commissioner\nSubramaniam indicated he may be able to attend. The meeting would be held in the evening.\n6B.\nAlameda Landing TDM Goals and Program Development - Second Presentation\nOutcome: Review and recommend finalization of performance goals, the methodology\nby which the goals will be evaluated, monitoring guidelines, and a process\nStaff Bergman summarized the staff report, and noted that this discussion item would return as an\naction item in March, and would go to the Planning Board in April.\nJohn Atkinson, consultant to Catellus on this project, complimented City staff on its expertise.\nHe believed the City had a unique opportunity to forge a sustainable TDM program. He noted\nthat the program goals would be to reduce vehicle trips and congestion. Mr. Atkinson stated that\nthe emphasis of the program would be reducing peak commute times through the tubes and into\nthe project area. Later the program would have broader goals. He believed that the TDM\nmeasures should be judged on cost effectiveness. He stated that the intent of the project is for an\nAlameda Landing Transportation Management Association to be established to serve the project\narea and to ultimately merge into a future West End TMA. He stated that Catellus agreed\nwholeheartedly that the implementation of an EcoPass program through AC Transit would be\nbeneficial for the project. He stated that the Census data for the rest of Alameda were not directly\napplicable to this project.\nMr. Atkinson noted that there was a concern about bike capabilities on the shuttle, and that some\npeople had asked about using a trailer. He noted that none of the operators he contacted were not\ncomfortable with that concept for safety reasons. He noted that bike racks could be mounted on\nthe front and the back of the shuttle, which yielded a capacity of six per loop, or approximately\n36 per day.\nTransportation Commission\nFebruary 28, 2007\nPage 2 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 3, "text": "He believed that the TDM program would be comprehensive enough that retail trips could be\nreduced. He noted that the water shuttle could potentially partner with Alameda Power &\nTelecom. Part of the agreement was to do a comprehensive water shuttle feasibility study, and\nmany of the issues would be raised there; the type of vehicle would be included in the\ncomprehensive water shuttle study. The shuttle would be coordinated with existing transit, as\nwell as with the employers' work schedules in order to make it effective. Their goal was to\nprovide a variety of commute options, and they would continue to work with AC Transit with the\nresidents and employees of the Landing. He noted that there would be a maximum amount of\ncommute choices, and a minimum amount of waiting time for those choices. With respect to\ncounts, they believed that surveys would serve as a viable reflection of the effectiveness, and\nwould allow them to make changes based on users.\nMr. Atkinson noted that staff had suggestions for the survey particulars, by expanding the survey\nto maximize the return. The end goal was to get as much feedback on these programs from the\ntenants and residents as possible, in order to tailor and make the program as effective as possible.\nHe noted that they wanted shuttle feedback, and that the dock location would be covered under\nthe comprehensive water shuttle study. They have had ongoing meetings with the Port of\nOakland and a variety of other agencies, and of the approval process that would be needed; they\nwould forward that to staff. He noted that the study would examine whether the shuttle would be\non demand or operate on a regular schedule.\nPublic Comment\nThere were no speakers.\nClosed Public Comment\nCommissioner Krueger noted that he looked at the updated version online, and saw that the\nEcoPass was mentioned only as an optional measure. He did not see that it would play a large\nrole, and inquired whether it was still under development.\nMr. Atkinson noted that the EcoPass representative attended their meeting with AC Transit, and\nthat the EcoPass would be part of the long-term solution. If it proved to be economically and\noperationally viable for them to make changes to existing lines and provide a greater degree of\nservice to Alameda Landing and then other sites, the EcoPass would be a part of that\ncomprehensive AC Transit strategy to serve the project. While EcoPass programs have typically\nserved large employers, he suggested that it may be possible to enable smaller employers to\nparticipate by having the program administered through the TMA. He noted that the budget for\nTDM measures was limited. It may be that AC Transit service would be a good long-term\noption, but there would not be sufficient funds and ridership available for it to be implemented\nearly in the project, so the private shuttle would provide interim service.\nTransportation Commission\nFebruary 28, 2007\nPage 3 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. Krueger stated that the financial analysis seemed to treat the AC Transit option as a\nstandalone option. He inquired whether it could be viewed as an incremental extension of the\nexisting service. He suggested reconfiguring two existing lines to include Alameda Landing and\nAlameda Point, and believed it would only need to cover the incremental cost of the existing\nline. He added that it would not cannibalize the AC Transit ridership with the shuttle, and did not\nsee that possibility listed.\nMr. Atkinson agreed it was that was a viable point.\nCommissioner Schatmeier inquired whether the possibility of incorporating the EcoPass into a\nprogram with employers similar to a parking cashout. Mr. Atkinson replied that could be\ninvestigated for both businesses and residential uses.\nA discussion of the EcoPass program ensued.\nChair Knox White stated that developments like Alameda Landing pay taxes and that AC Transit\ntherefore has a responsibility to provide some level of service there. He believed that the TDM\nprogram should be augmenting this service, not paying AC Transit to serve the development.\nChair Knox White believed one of the major issues faced by the Commission was how to start a\nTMA that was Alameda Landing-focused, and meld it with the Citywide TDM process. He\nbelieved that would likely result in a Citywide TMA. He recommended that the document state\nthat the TMA is originally being set up for Alameda Landing to address its TDM goals. He noted\nthat there was an expectation that once the City's TDM program is completed, and has gone\nthrough the EIR process and Council adoption, it would be folded into a larger TMA. He also\nexpressed a concern that the TDM program is being set up as a benefit for the Alameda Landing\nproject, while the intent is that the program should be mitigating traffic congestion.\nStaff Khan stated that staff wants to help ensure that the TMA addressed the goals that were\nestablished, and not have to wait until the rest of the entities joined in for the program to be\nsuccessful. So it should establish a TMA for Alameda Landing, and should be able to move into\nthe future for the West End TMA, and ultimately would be consistent with a citywide TDM plan\nand program.\nBruce Knopf, Catellus, noted that they were very interested in ensuring the program achieved the\ngoals that were set out. He added that Catellus was very experienced in running TDM programs,\nand they participated with other entities in Emeryville in operating the Emery Go Round. They\nunderstood the process of working with partners to achieve goals, and always thought of this\nprogram as fitting into the larger transit picture in the West End. They were also very concerned\nabout ensuring that the financial obligation that the tenants and residents would be paying into\nwill bring direct benefits to the project. Over the long term, they were looking for a way to\nbalance those two objectives.\nTransportation Commission\nFebruary 28, 2007\nPage 4 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 5, "text": "Chair Knox White would like to further explore the role of municipalities in other TMAs, and\nwanted to ensure that the City had a real voice in how it moved forward, such as the Council\nhaving a voting member or be required to approve the program. He wanted to be careful that the\nTDM program did not become exclusively a shuttle program. He felt strongly that the City\nshould evaluate the program by counting trips, using the ITE trip generation rates as a baseline.\nMr. Knopf noted that the City Council has some authority over the TDM program, as it must\napprove any reallocation of the budget involving at least $45,000.\nChair Knox White recalled that at the last meeting, Commissioner Schatmeier suggested not\nusing the word \"shuttle,\" and that it should be discussed in a more inclusive sense. He believed\nthe surveys were good and worthwhile, but believed that counting cars would be the best way to\njudge the effectiveness in the early years. He believed the agreement between City Council and\nProLogis gave a lot of cover for not meeting the goals. He believed that the efforts should go\nbeyond what was expected, and that all participants should work aggressively to meet the goals.\nChair Knox White noted that page 3 of the TDM program read, \"The first phase of TDM\nprogram will have regular supplementary ground shuttle service running at 30-minute\nheadways.\" He had assumed that AC Transit would run some type of service through the project\narea, and that tension would build between AC Transit and the private shuttles. He believed that\nlanguage was needed that addressed AC Transit service as the preferred transit service, and that\nan agreement be reached between AC Transit regarding the thresholds that would trigger their\nability to go into offering that service.\nChair Knox White noted that the bottom of page 3 read, \"Within Alameda Landing, neither\nproperty owner or tenant, other than the affordable housing, will be a participant in the TDM\nprogram, paying annual TDM assessments.\" He requested a clarification that this referred to the\npayment, that the affordable housing tenants would not be asked to pay into the TDM program,\nbut that they would be able to participate in the program. Mr. Knopf confirmed that they would\nnot be asked to pay into the program. He stated that they would also be able to access the\nEcoPass.\nChair Knox White echoed Commissioner Krueger's comments about including the EcoPasses as\none of the priority possibilities for the program, rather than a voluntary or optional item. He\nnoted that Table 2 on page 10 (Projected TDM Implementation) should be titled as an example\nof TDM implementation. He wanted to allow the flexibility of the program to change as its\neffectiveness is evaluated over time. He also noted that some items called out as part of the TDM\nprogram were already parts of the City ordinances, and were required independent of the\nexistence of the TDM program. They included bike parking and bus shelters. He would like\nthose prerequisites to be pointed out as such.\nChair Knox White noted that a car share programs should not cost the project any money to\nimplement. Mr. Knopf noted that the $2000 for guaranteed ride home was mostly for the\nmarketing efforts and implementation; he noted it would not be effective if nobody knew about\nit.\nTransportation Commission\nFebruary 28, 2007\nPage 5 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 6, "text": "Chair Knox White noted staff's concern that the guaranteed ride home may only be offered to\nlarge companies. He had spoken with the CMA about a project in which they were willing to\nallow residents to take part in this program as long as there was a program coordinator. He was\npleased that the applicant was being proactive with these items.\nMr. Knopf noted that they would return in a month to follow up.\n6A.\nREVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON FINAL REPORT ON\nWEST END SHUTTLE STUDY Outcome: Review and recommend finalization of\ndraft report on West End Shuttle Study. Discussion/Action.\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report, and described its background based on Council's\ninterest in using electric vehicles as a way to improve linkages from the West End to BART.\nJohn Atkinson, the City's consultant on the project, noted that he had spoken with AC Transit\nrepresentatives, who were interested in their roles. He hoped to have more substantive\ndiscussions in looking at more concrete discussions. He thanked Staff Bergman for his patience\nand hard work as this project changed throughout the process. He presented three conceptual\nmaps, and described the features and the routes. He noted that by improving the 63, it would not\nimpact any of the existing service, and the cross-Island service would still be at 30-minute\nintervals; it might be improved to 15- to 20-minute intervals connecting BART to the West End.\nHe noted that service on other parts of the Island would not be diminished to benefit the West\nEnd.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that if the loop in the Phase 3 map is only 1 direction, that some\npeople would face a very long trip to connect to BART, but if the loop were bi-directional, the\nheadways would be doubled.\nChair Knox White noted that the written description of \"hybrid electric\" stated that emissions\nwere \"slightly reduced\" from diesel, but the grid showed that hybrid electrics have \"low\nemissions\" and diesels have \"high emissions.\" Mr. Atkinson replied that it depended on the type\nof fuel used in the hybrid.\nChair Knox White inquired whether the mechanics' rates of $50 per hour were based on the\nCity's rates, and wished to ensure that whatever was listed matched what was actually paid.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the cost comparison with AC Transit was truly fair.\nWhile their cost per mile is higher, they may be able to service the area by incrementally\nexpanding an existing route, rather than establishing a new one, so the cost comparison should\nreflect this. He also asked that the analysis account for the benefits of providing a service\nthrough AC Transit, which would integrate into the larger system. He noted that a potential\ndisadvantage of a City- or privately-provided shuttle would be the possibility of taking riders\nfrom AC Transit, which could have a negative impact on AC Transit's existing service. In\nTransportation Commission\nFebruary 28, 2007\nPage 6 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 7, "text": "addition, it may be difficult to coordinate such a service with AC Transit in terms of providing\nriders with information such as maps.\nChair Knox White noted that this study originated from the Council's interest in developing a\nservice that would utilize electric vehicles, and added that some cities continued to use electric\nvehicles. He suggested that since the analysis does not recommend electric vehicles, that a more\ndetailed explanation should be provided.\nMr. Atkinson noted that given the route under consideration - connecting Alameda to Oakland\nthrough the tube - that the grade in the Tube would be a challenge for these vehicles.\nChair Knox White would like to know more about the advantages and disadvantages. He noted\nthat Santa Barbara still ran electric buses, and would like more information. He believed\nAlameda would be a good place to run electric vehicles because it was generally flat, so it would\nhelp to include a description of circumstances under which such vehicles would be a viable\noption.\nMr. Atkinson noted that the Phase 3 route as shown on the map would be an ideal application for\nelectric buses because it was short and flat, operates only within Alameda, and had the\nopportunity for charging between runs.\nChair Knox White asked that the report include a summary grid of the cost information. He\nbelieved the conclusion should be more robust, and that the recommendations should include\nsome options. For example, if the City chooses to run electric shuttles, the pluses and minuses\nshould be included, including higher capital and maintenance costs.\nMr. Atkinson noted that Staff Bergman had made similar recommendations that separated the\nmonetary concerns from the other recommendations in a more sequential manner. He noted that\nhe wanted to include pricing on bio-diesel, and added that fueling stations were often donated.\nHe suggested that a bio-diesel fueling station could be constructed in the West End, and added\nthat the technology was continually advancing. He added that resistance to bio-fuels was\nbeginning to relax on the vehicle manufacturers' part.\nCommissioner Schatmeier inquired about the source of the higher maintenance for electric\nvehicles. Mr. Atkinson noted that it was because of the use of prototype vehicles for which\nreplacement parts are not standardized and readily available.\nCommissioner Schatmeier requested that more detail be provided about electric buses, since that\nwas a major reason the study was undertaken.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the European track record had been examined.\nTransportation Commission\nFebruary 28, 2007\nPage 7 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 8, "text": "Mr. Atkinson noted that the manufacturer for the Santa Barbara vehicles was in Goleta, and that\nthey had a vested interest in ensuring they worked well. He noted that the electric load on rainy\ndays was often a challenge, when the heater and windshield wipers were needed while the\nvehicle was running.\nChair Knox White noted that since this item will be sent to the City Council, he would like to see\nit again. He believed the Commission's comments were extensive, and he would rather not send\nthe recommendations to City Council without reviewing the revisions.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked why fuel cells were not discussed in the report.\nChair Knox White believed that AC Transit made a policy commitment to this technology, and\nthat they decided not to implement CNG in favor of hydrogen.\nA discussion of the proliferation of shuttles ensued, including revenue impacts and ridership\nconfusion.\nCommissioner Schatmeier recommended changing the name of the study, which seemed to\nindicate that the City was about to implement a West End shuttle.\nStaff Khan noted that a unit cost could be identified for the 15-minute interval, and therefore\ncould be applicable in other parts of the City\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked to see more analysis of why the routes were chosen, and what\nroute choices were available. He suggested renaming the document \"Shuttle Operational\nAnalysis\" so members of the public did not think a shuttle was imminent.\nNo action was taken.\n8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Bergman noted that the first meeting of the Line 51 Task Force was held earlier in the day,\nand that it was a staff-only meeting that presented data identifying some of the issues and\nproblems.\nChair Knox White requested an oral report or minutes from that meeting.\nCommissioner Krueger requested a status report on the red curbing. Staff Khan noted that the\nfirst batch was ready to go to the TTT on March 14, 2007.\nTransportation Commission\nFebruary 28, 2007\nPage 8 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-02-28", "page": 9, "text": "Commissioner Schatmeier asked what the status was regarding the proposed bus stops on Otis\nDrive.\nChair Knox White noted that he and Commissioner Krueger understood that the TC's\nrecommendation was for two stops in front of Pond Isle and Willow, but Willow was not\nspecifically referenced in the motion. He noted that the staff report recommended that stops be\ninstalled along Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way and Willow.\nStaff Khan noted that what was going to the Council was actually an appeal of the Commission's\nrecommendation to install the stop at Pond Isle.\nMeeting adjourned at 10:00 PM.\nTransportation Commission\nFebruary 28, 2007\nPage 9 of 9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf"}