{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting\nWednesday, March 28, 2007\nConference Room A, Alameda Free Library\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:04 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nChair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Cervantes\nCommissioner Wolfe arrived at 7:18 p.m.\nCommissioner Rosenberg was absent.\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nCathy Woodbury, Planning and Building Director; Douglas Vu,\nPlanner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary\n3.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the Regular Meeting of November 29, 2006\nCommissioner Cervantes motioned to approve the minutes for the meeting of November\n29, 2006, as amended.\nVice-Chair Lee seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 3\n[Abstain: Commissioner Wolfe - 1; Absent: Commissioner Rosenberg - 1]\nMinutes for the Regular Meeting of February 28, 2007\nChair Huston motioned to continue the minutes of February 28, 2007 to the Public Art\nCommission meeting of April 25, 2007.\nVice-Chair Lee seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 4\n[Absent: Commissioner Rosenberg ]\n4.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA:\na.\nApprove Meeting Calendar for 2007\nChair Huston identified scheduling issues and proposed checking with the\nCommissioners for availability.\nChair Huston motioned to continue item to meeting of April 25, 2007\nVice-Chair Lee seconded the motion\nMotion carries\nb.\nProgram to Promote Public Art in Alameda\nCathy Woodbury explained the goals and mission of the Public Art Program and then\nasked everyone in the audience to introduce themselves. Ms. Woodbury then discussed\nthe Program's requirements and informed the Commission it is their responsibility to", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 2, "text": "create a Public Art Plan that is to be submitted to the City Council on an annual basis.\nShe also identified the Public Art Fund and described how those funds could be used to\npromote art in Alameda.\nMs. Woodbury stated that she is working with staff to create a more comprehensive work\nprogram, known as the Public Art Plan. She proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation.\nSome of the highlights included:\nDeveloping an Artist Resource brochure\nCreating a Public Art Map\nAssembling a Public Art Catalogue\nEstablishing a public art review process\nPreparing an Alameda Public Art web page\nExplore the possibility of increasing the cap on public art fees\nChair Huston thanked Ms. Woodbury for her presentation. Members of the public in\nattendance then commented on the Plan and made the following suggestions:\nHave the PAC require or encourage developers to have a \"general call\" for art\nproposals to fulfill their art requirement on new projects\nEncourage City officials to attend art and cultural events\nProvide more gallery space in Alameda, especially City-owned buildings\nProvide local artists and arts organizations more exposure\nProvide grant funding for arts programs or to improve facilities\nReduce or eliminate fees for event space for art shows and cultural events\nCreate an Arts Council\nChair Huston then clarified the roles and responsibilities of the Public Art Commission.\nShe stated that although desirable, some of the suggestions made by the audience were\noutside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission.\nCommissioner Wolfe proposed amending the statute.\nCommissioner Cervantes proposed that the Public Art Commission expand their role in\nthe community since they are now a Commission and not a committee.\nMs. Woodbury talked about the revenues for the Commission and what they are to be\nused for.\nMs. Carol Burnett mentioned that she is working with the City of Walnut Creek about\nsome of the projects they are working on and she mentioned changing the ordinance.\nChair Huston concurred with the point that Ms. Burnett made regarding the cap and how\nit affects the type and quality of public art projects.\nCommissioner Wolfe pointed out that the percentage of public art money within a project\nis relative to the budget as a whole and smaller projects pay more. The cap is\ndisproportionate in larger projects. He also mentioned that the developer can choose\nwhether or not they provide public art or pay the in lieu fee.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 3, "text": "Chair Huston clarified that the Commission is the filter by which the city acquires art and\nthey do not get to select the art. They make sure the art is in public view.\nMs. Woodbury suggested that people who are interested in public art take a look at the\nprojects that are going to the Planning Board, go to the meetings and get involved in the\ndevelopments.\nChair Huston suggested creating a proposal for curatorial management and the in lieu\nfund could pay for this.\nMs. Woodbury responded by clarifying that the in lieu fund could not be used for a\ncurator but rather for hardware to hang pictures, etc.\nMs. Burnett asked if the Commission gives developers a list of artists to choose from.\nChair Huston responded by clarifying that the Commission cannot give specific names to\navoid a conflict of interest.\nThe amphitheater at the Bridgeside Shopping Center was mentioned. The general\nconsensus was that the finished project was not what was proposed and that it is not\nsuitable for most of the events that were proposed such as musical acts and literary\nreadings.\nMs. Woodbury clarified the role of the planning department and that they make sure the\nart for a project is feasible and they make sure the project is built according to the plans\nthat were approved.\nCommissioner Wolfe clarified that the Commission only approves concepts and not\nplans.\nMr. Vu stated that the developers at Bridgeside are required to submit an annual\nprogramming plan and when finished, an on-site manager will oversee the programming\nplan for three years. This must be submitted to and approved by Ms. Woodbury.\nChair Huston replied by saying that the developer was required to provide a useful\ncommunity performance space and an audience. She expressed concern as to who will\noversee the programming for the space to make sure they fulfill their obligations.\nIt was asked if the in lieu fund could be used for existing projects. A response was given\nthat the in lieu fund cannot be used for existing projects, only new projects.\nMs. Burnett offered her services and experience as an art consultant and developer for\nfuture projects.\nThe Carnegie building was mentioned. Ms. Woodbury responded by saying that\nconsultants are being recruited to submit ideas for its usage.\nGeneral consensus was reached that the conversation needs to be expanded to include\nmore people, ideas and proposals in the community.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 4, "text": "Ms. Burnett suggested creating a cultural arts center to attract more artists and attention\nto the art and culture of Alameda. The Commission concurred that it would be a good\nidea to create such a place. It was suggested by a citizen who attended the meeting\nthat several art locations in addition to a cultural arts center would make it easier for the\ncommunity to access the public art.\nCommissioner Lee likes the idea of a cultural arts center in that it brings artists and\npeople of the community together allowing them to meet, network and get to know each\nother.\nIt was suggested that in addition to being prestigious and supportive, having a cultural\narts center would provide valuable gallery space for visual arts such as paintings and\nphotography.\nIt was suggested that gallery and meeting space be provided in several City-owned\nbuildings such as the Veteran's Hall and City Hall. It was asked if along with its use as a\npermit center, the Carnegie building could be used for gallery space. Ms. Woodbury\nresponded by saying a portion of the building could be used as gallery space. General\nconsensus was that this would be very beneficial to the artists and community.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nMeeting adjourned at 8:52 pm\nRespectfully submitted,\nDouglas Vu, Secretary\nPublic Art Commission", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nMarch 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\nAbsent:\nRobert McFarland\nRobb Ratto\nSrikat Subramaniam\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Program Specialist II\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nCommissioner Schatmeier requested a change in the February minutes. He is quoted as saying\nthat if the shuttle loop were bidirectional that the headways would be cut in half, when it should\nbe doubled. The same error is in the support material for the shuttle item and should be changed.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved approval of the minutes with the requested change.\nCommissioner Knoth seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nChair Knox White suggested that the Alameda Landing TDM item be heard before the shuttle\nstudy.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nClaire Yeaden Risley noted that on March 12 and March 13, she had requested in writing the\nTransportation Commission minutes from Alameda Access and the City Clerk, and she had not\nyet received a response to either request. She noted that she had previously requested them in\nperson starting in the Spring of 2006. She added that the City Clerk had referred her to Public\nWorks, which was not fruitful. She noted that they should be available to the public, and\nPage 1 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 2, "text": "requested that the Transportation Commission minutes for the last two years be available to the\npublic.\nChair Knox White noted that the minutes that have been approved are now available on the\nCity's website.\nCommissioner Krueger believed that hard copies of the minutes should also be available.\nChair Knox White agreed with the Commissioners that the minutes should be available to the\npublic, and apologized to Ms. Risley for her request not being fulfilled.\nLiz Cleves noted that at the City Council meeting of March 6, 2007, Councilmember Doug\nDeHaan addressed an AC Transit engineer and said, \"At this point, Shoreline is strictly for the\nexpress, the W to San Francisco. At any point in time did we have bus stop service going down\nthere, and I believe we did, and why would that be the area that you would most likely have a\nhigher likelihood of ridership? Because that's where you placed the W Knowing that this route\nis known for high usage and high ridership when you go that route.\" She noted that AC Transit\nengineer was unable to answer the question, and turned the question over to an AC Transit\ntransportation planner, who stated, \"There used to be a bus that used to go down Shoreline. I\nbelieve in 2003, December, due to service cuts, I believe it was sent down Otis Drive to save\nrunning time. Currently, the bus schedule is about 50 minutes of running time, and I guess, in our\nbusiness, the more running time, the more, the higher the cost. Taking it down Grand to\nShoreline would add running time to the route.\"\nMs. Cleves noted that Mr. DeHaan then asked, \"What is more important, running time or\nridership?\" The AC Transit planner replied, \"I know there was limited resource for the City of\nAlameda.\" Mr. DeHaan interjected, \"The reason I ask, and I think anyone in the audience\nunderstands, that Shoreline itself is adjacent to the heavier density of residents, and that's why\nyou route the W there. I just can't see that run time becomes more important than ridership, but\nI'm a taxpayer, and I would like to preferably have the 63 bus line on Shoreline.\" The AC Transit\nplanner responded, \"We could cut a different part of the route, and reroute it via Shoreline, if that\nwould be something that the City would want to do.\" She noted that in the past, she understood\nthat the City must do what AC Transit wants, but noted that AC Transit had made it very clear\nthat they would do what the City wants. She noted that as a taxpayer, she would prefer that the\n63 line be back on Shoreline, where there was greater density and no schools. She believed that\nroute would be more profitable for AC Transit, and safer for the children, the crossing guards and\nother pedestrians in Alameda. She noted that Councilmember DeHaan's question about the\nrelative importance of running time versus ridership was very important, and further asked\nwhether running time or the safety and peace of mind of Alameda taxpayers was more important.\nDiane Voss noted that she had also attended the March 6, 2007, City Council meeting, and\nconcurred with Ms. Cleves' statements. She noted that the issue of AC Transit Line 63 on Otis\nDrive has been a source of disagreement since 2003, taking considerable time of Public Works,\nCity Council, the Transportation Commission and the Transportation Technical Team. She\nbelieved it had pitted neighbor against neighbor, angered many parents of Lum School students,\ncaused problems for the crossing guards, been a taxpayer burden, and harassed many residents\nPage 2 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 3, "text": "that live on Otis Drive. She noted that Councilmember DeHaan's suggestion for putting the 63\nback on Shoreline was correct, where the residents of apartments and condominiums could use it.\nShe added that the Hall of Justice was also on the route, which would serve those who have lost\ntheir drivers licenses.\n6A.\nSHUTTLE SERVICES AND OPERATIONS ANALYSIS - FINAL\nPRESENTATION.\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report, and detailed the background of this item, including\ncomments made at the last meeting. The consultant has tried to address those concerns in the\nreport, and requested feedback. One point was that the incremental costs of increasing AC\nTransit service was in the context of Alameda Landing, and the cost of serving the new site may\nnot be comparable to the introduction of a new route. Staff conducted discussions with AC\nTransit to analyze potential modifications of their existing routes to serve that site. AC Transit\nindicated that in terms of Alameda Landing, that there is enough time available in the existing\nLine 19 schedule to reroute it through the site at no additional cost. The 63 could be routed\nthrough the Alameda Landing site, although that would require an additional bus. He described\nand demonstrated the proposed changes.\nJohn Atkinson noted that he was in continual discussion with AC Transit, and received an email\nfrom one of their planners regarding the 63 and the 19 lines. He noted that the end goal was to\nhave the public transit provider of Alameda County be the primary transit provider at Alameda\nLanding. He noted that it may be a two-pronged approach, where shuttles come in the initial\nphases, since such as service could be implemented quickly, and they may not meet the\nminimium ridership thresholds AC Transit would need. He noted that they could get ridership\nbuilt up, and then look at AC Transit as a solution for the long-term.\nPublic Comment.\nThere were no speakers.\nClose public comment.\nChair Knox White complimented staff on its report, and noted that it answered most of their\nconcerns. He noted that they could add the 19 line at no additional cost, and while it was not a\nshort-term cost, it would not answer the short-term run.\nStaff Bergman described the cost factors.\nChair Knox White noted that he would feel comfortable forwarding this to City Council, but\nwanted to clarify any issues with respect to costs that were not reflective of what was proposed\naccording to the staff report.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that he was studying the costs on page 14, and requested further\nclarification on the map. He noted that the costs did not work out, and that there seemed to be a\nPage 3 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 4, "text": "discrepancy between the calculation above which talked about 16 hours for two buses, but the\nmileage was the same at 120.\nMr. Atkinson replied that was with respect to route miles, and that it may not have been changed\nin the report when the language regarding two buses was added.\nCommissioner Krueger wanted to make sure that the report contained apples-to-apples\ncomparisons.\nMr. Atkinson responded that he would fine-tune the numbers.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the Shuttle Services and Operations Analysis, to\ninclude the adjustment of the AC Transit operational cost analysis to conform with the AC\nTransit proposed routing of one bus; to include Commissioner Krueger's comment regarding\nthe map on page 14. Commissioner Krueger seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.\n6B.\nALAMEDA LANDING TDM GOALS AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT -\nFINAL PRESENTATION.\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report and noted that Catellus has revised the plan submitted\npreviously based on the Commission's comments. Staff's additional comments were that the\nprogram relied exclusively on surveys, and recommended that some traffic counts be performed\nto bolster the survey data. Second, the trip reduction for the commercial retail portion was\ndiscussed only in terms of employees, and that trips associated with retail customers that\ncontribute to congestion should be included. Staff agreed that the ITE trip generation rates should\nbe used at the baseline to measure the reduction, but that some traffic counts should be conducted\nto help verify that those rates are valid for this particular site. The draft report indicates that the\nshuttle be provided at 30-minute headways, and staff would like to see a proposed route, with the\npossibility of providing more frequent service. Assuming that transit service is provided by AC\nTransit for the site, the TMA should consider reallocating all shuttle related expenses toward\nother TDM-related program elements, such as an Eco-Pass or other programs. There was also the\ndiscussion of the difficulty of ensuring the high resident response, and staff suggested that\nparticipation might be encouraged and enhanced by offering incentives such as completing the\nsurvey to receive the Eco-Pass. The cost of the AC Transit service was also discussed, given the\navailable time in the route, which made the cost more competitive with a shuttle. AC Transit\ndiscussed examining the 19 line, as well as peak hour service-only on the 63.\nStaff Bergman noted that the TDM discussed what would be provided on \"Day One\", and staff\nhad inquired how the number of bike racks based on demand would work. Staff also inquired\nabout the phasing beyond day one. Staff suggested that the shuttle not be limited to Alameda\nLanding, and that the West End and Northern Waterfront be considered as well. Under Section\n4.2 (Monitoring), the program endeavored to reach a 40% response rate, which was considered\nto be statistically significant, and inquired what confidence level that referred to. Under Section\n4.3, staff requested clarification on the number of trips reduced.\nPage 4 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 5, "text": "Bruce Knopf, Catellus Development Group, noted that they were pleased with the latest draft,\nwhich they believed was cleaner and simpler. He thanked staff for their comments, and noted that\ntrip counts was one of the mitigations that they were obligated to address in the most effective\nway. They intended to operate a shuttle as successful as the Emeryville Shuttle, and would\nservice shopper needs as well. With respect to reducing trips under the project approvals, he\nnoted that the budget could potentially be increased by 15% if specified conditions are met. He\nnoted that ITE trip rates would be the basis for trip reduction estimates, and noted that it was\nimportant to use the surveys to understand the actual trip reductions so they would be consistent.\nHe noted that Bay Area Air Quality Management District and MTC use surveys in order to\nevaluate success and ridership, and he believed that was appropriate to use the same measure.\nRegarding the Route 19 proposal, he wondered how long it took for a rider to actually get to\nBART; they continued to discuss this matter with AC Transit. They expect Eco-Pass to become a\nprogram component over the next few months, and for AC Transit to be a provider that serves the\nsite; he noted that there was a lot of work to be done over the next few months.\nPublic comment.\nThere were no speakers.\nClose public comment.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the Eco-Pass would be available for residents of\nAlameda Point through homeowners dues.\nMr. Knopf noted that AC Transit had been candid in stating the Alameda Landing posed\nchallenges to them with respect to the Eco-Pass, and that they hoped to enact it for residents. He\nnoted that a residential EcoPass program had never been implemented by AC Transit.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that they were trying to make it more consistent with a citywide\napproach, although they were not asking Alameda Landing to support the rest of the City.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that staff's comments on page 2 referred to relocating shuttle\nresources if AC Transit picked up the slack, and inquired whether that was an either/or situation.\nHe envisioned that they may be in a situation where AC Transit provides some baseline level of\nservice, the TDM program provides some additional funding that would allow them to put some\nadditional service hours out there in lieu of a privately operated shuttle.\nStaff Khan noted that the Transportation Commission had previously discussed not compensating\nAC Transit for providing baseline service.\nMr. Knopf noted that during his meetings with AC Transit, he gleaned that the Eco-Pass was their\nway of providing a convenience and a benefit to a rider, but it did not necessarily result in\nenhanced levels of service.\nPage 5 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Krueger noted that on page 9, in the budget section, there was a discussion of the\nwater shuttle. He recalled discussing whether the water shuttle should be funded as an amenity,\nrather than as a TDM item.\nMr. Knopf responded that the water shuttle was mandated by the DDA between the City and the\ndeveloper as part of the TDM program.\nCommissioner Krueger referenced page 10, Section 4.1 (Annual Report), and added that on page\n15, the only parking management options listed were division of specially assigned, optimally\nlocated spaces reserved for carpools and ride share vehicles. He was concerned that that was a\nshort list considering the language on page 10 seemed to rule out anything not explicitly\nmentioned.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that he would not vote for anything that prohibited City Council\nfrom doing anything, unless it was specifically stated in the DDA.\nMr. Knopf noted the language was so boldly worded was to have clarity, and added that if it is\napproved by the Planning Board, it could still be overruled by the City Council. He described the\nprocedures going forward if that were to occur. He was inclined to remove the optional section at\nthe end, which he did not believe accomplished anything. He noted that the development\nagreement for the Alameda Landing project specifically stated that there would not be any\nfinancial penalties to property owners, tenants or the operation of the program for failure to meet\nany numerical thresholds or criteria, except for the 15% as specifically stated. He understood the\nCommissioners' reaction to the language, and noted that it was important for the language to be\nclear. He suggested that the Transportation Commission approach City Council about additional\nlanguage in the TDM.\nMargo Bradish, Counsel for ProLogis on the project, noted that the development agreement\ncontained very specific language that was approved by City Council, which provided funding for\nmonitoring equipment that was recommended by Public Works staff. The DDA also contained\nspecific language regarding the Year 5 15% adjustment. She noted that the language in the\ndevelopment agreement was very clear in saying that other than the 15% adjustment, there are no\nconsequences to the project, financially or otherwise, if it does not meet any goals. She noted\nthat was intended to give certainty to the developer with respect to their financial obligations.\nShe noted that the cashout can be encouraged, but not mandated.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that his specific concern was with respect to the cashout. He did\nnot have any problems with the statement made by Ms. Bradish. However, he noted that if the\nmoney was used to provide the money for the parking cashout, that seemed like a TDM measure.\nChair Knox White suggested removing the language, and did not believe it needed to be in the\npolicy. He added that the policy would not override the plan.\nCommissioner Krueger agreed with staff with respect to page 3 regarding the bike racks. He\nsuggested clarifying that language that there would be enough to meet demand.\nPage 6 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 7, "text": "Mr. Knopf noted that their intent was to have enough bike racks to meet demand. He noted that\ntheir intent was to serve their obligations to Bike Alameda as much as possible, including the\nwater shuttle.\nChair Knox White noted that with respect to page 8, he was concerned that about the TMA\nshould state that at the end of the day, the Alameda City Council would have ultimate say; the\nTMA was a mitigation plan rather than an amenity plan for the site. He wanted to clarify where\nthe TMA fit into the larger picture.\nMr. Knopf noted that they could not make any financial changes over a certain dollar threshold\nwithout Council approval.\nChair Knox White requested clarity with respect to the possibility of the TDM not working. He\nbelieved there should be provisions for the possibility of City Council being able to say that\nchanges should be made as part of the working budget.\nStaff Khan suggested that could occur in the annual report that goes to City Council.\nChair Knox White would like the TMA to be directly answerable to the City Council, for\ndefinitive accountability.\nMr. Knopf noted that presentation of an annual report to City Council had been negotiated with\nCouncil. Their intent was to run the best possible TDM program, ground shuttle and water\nshuttle, as they do in Mission Bay and Emeryville.\nChair Knox White asked for an explanation of the difference between the provisions regarding\nthe success of the project and the internal rate of return (IRR).\nMs. Bradish noted that (iii) was the result of comments from a particular Councilmember stating\nthat if a lot of money is made on the project, the City wants some of it back. The IRR was a rate\nof return on the land. The 18% is a benchmark for City participation in land profits. The other\ntwo criteria came out of concerns expressed by other Councilmembers that if the project was\nbuilding out very quickly, and therefore there were more cars on the road than anticipated, there\nwas a need to do more TDM; (ii) and (iii) came out of that discussion.\nA discussion of funding details ensued.\nChair Knox White was believed that the trip counts would not ever happen. He did not want to\nrecommend to City Council how they would be paid for, and he would like to remove that\nsentence so City Council made that decision.\nStaff Khan agreed with Chair Knox White's comments, and that the referenced sentence on page\n12 should come out.\nChair Knox White suggested the following language: \"City Council has the option to request the\ncollection of peak hour traffic count data to validate the survey.\"\nPage 7 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 8, "text": "Chair Knox White supported private shuttles, but believed that the language on page 14 reading\n\"shuttle service to transit providers\" clearly said that the overall plan is not to prioritize AC\nTransit. He noted that occurred on page 8 referred to a \"BART commuter shuttle\", which is more\nof a point-to-point service rather than one which would pick up additional passengers along the\nway. He suggested inserting the language \"implement and administer any shuttle services\"\nrather than \"BART commuter shuttle\", and that it should state that the service should connect to\nthe existing public transit systems.\nChair Knox White noted that part of his thinking in making his comments is that this document\nwill be used as a template for Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront, and that it was\nimportant to release as accurate and solid a document as possible in order to best protect the\nCity's interests.\nMr. Knopf suggested using \"intermodal shuttle\" instead of BART commuter shuttle. Chair Knox\nWhite and Commissioner Krueger supported this language.\nCommissioner Knoth moved to accept the Alameda Landing TDM Goals and Program\nDevelopment with the following changes:\nAdding residences or HOAs to the Eco-Pass language (in two places);\nThe TMA should fit into the Citywide strategy of the TDM policies on pages 3 and 8;\nPage 10: remove the last half of the sentence referring to the City Council\nPage 3: Rephrase (iii) to reflect that there will be sufficient bike racks;\nClarifying in 4.3 that the target numbers for Year 5 will use the same statistical methods so as\nto correlate with the ITE methodology of the EIR;\nOn the same page, remove \"at City cost to require Public Works staff\" and replace it with \"to\nrequest the collection of actual peak hour\"; and\nUnder the section about the annual report (p. 8), add: \"Present to the City of Alameda\nTransportation Commission and send with Commission recommendations to the Alameda City\nCouncil for approval.\"\nCommissioner Krueger seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously, 4-0.\nChair Knox White believed this kind of document should be part of any development before it is\napproved. He noted that this was the first time the City had undertaken something like this, and\nthis could be a learning opportunity. He suggested perhaps communicating the Commission's\nrecommendations regarding future agreement to the Council.\nStaff Khan noted that when the TSM/TDM plan is in place, that should address some of the\nCommission's concerns. He noted that it would be helpful for developers to have an\nunderstanding up front of what would be expected of them.\nStaff Bergman responded that he could draft something based on the discussion at tonight's\nmeeting and prepare it in a form for Chair Knox White to sign.\nPage 8 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 9, "text": "recommended approval of this item.\nChair Knox White believed the draft Transportation Element generally looked good, and inquired\nwhy the document needs to go back to all the Boards and Commissions. Staff Khan replied that\nwhile the Multimodal Circulation Plan policies have been to the other boards and commissions,\nthe pedestrian policies, street functional classification system, and TSM/TDM policies have not\nyet been circulated.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that there was a segment in the City that was opposed to bus\nservice. However, he stated that the General Plan should state that transit was an asset to the\ncommunity, rather than a perceived liability. He believed there should be more bus service, not\nless.\nChair Knox White suggested adding a new policy, 4.3.1.c, with the following language:\n\"Actively encourage increases in public transit, including frequency and geographic coverage.\nChair Knox White also suggested including support for a biking or walking estuary crossing. He\nalso recommended that serious study be given to adding transit to bike and pedestrian bridges;\nsince they are required to support maximum loads, there would not be a great increase in cost.\nCommissioner Krueger stated that the policy should note that this should not be an automobile\ncrossing, but would accommodate transit, walking and bicycling only.\nChair Knox White also asked that language be inserted to indicate support for the Cross Alameda\nTrail and for implementation for enhanced transit service, including but not limited to bus rapid\ntransit and an exclusive transit right-of-way.\nCommissioner Krueger stated that unless specified in an existing plan, the route for the transit\nservice shouldn't be specified, as this might preclude looking at alternatives, although there\nshould be language referencing the use of the bridge. He believed that Lincoln may have been\nreferenced in the transit plan as a potential route for future rail service, and asked that staff check\nthis.\nCommissioner Schatmeier suggested citing support for the Cross Alameda Trail, and support for\nimplementation, as well as enhanced transit service without exclusive right of way, including but\nnot limited to bus rapid transit and right of way rail.\nPage 9 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 10, "text": "Commissioner Krueger suggested mentioning the Lincoln Avenue corridor on page 35, with\nrespect to the transit plan, as an alternate route.\nCommissioner Krueger suggested leaving the bridge in the document, but not to set the route in\nstone in the General Plan.\nChair Knox White requested that staff work with Commissioner Krueger to fine tune the\nwording.\nChair Knox White noted that in the TSM/TDM, B-3.3 should be changed to read: \"Support the\nuse of alternative fuel vehicles for all or alternative-transportatio modes.\"\nChair Knox White supported Objective D-8, and noted that D-8.1 reads, \"Explore funding\npossibilities to provide new revenues to AUSD to implement a school bus program for\nelementary and middle school students.\" He noted that they could look into it, but was unsure\nhow much demand there was for an elementary school bus, which had previously been cut for\nlack of ridership. He noted that with the neighborhood school system, not many people live that\nfar away from their schools. He noted that a middle school bus program may be more open to\nexamination.\nCommissioner Knoth opposed referring to modifications in the curriculum, and requested that the\nlanguage be modified.\nA discussion about bicycle and transportation use classes in schools ensued.\nStaff Khan summarized the suggested revision: \"Work with the AUSD to include transportation\nchoice awareness in education in the schools.'\nRegarding support for school buses, Chair Knox White believed that \"provide new revenues\"\nsounded as if the City might be providing monies to the school district to fund buses.\nCommissioner Knoth stated that the issue of providing school buses has not been raised as a\nconcern.\nIt was agreed to remove the recommended policy D-8.1, regarding the City working with AUSD\nto pursue funding for school buses.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that he was totally opposed to casual carpooling in any form.\nHe used to live in Oakland near the biggest casual carpooling stop, and that most carpoolers were\ntaken off high-occupancy vehicles such as buses to low-occupancy vehicles (cars) at a\ntremendous economic impact, costing AC Transit and BART over $1 million annually.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the draft Transportation Element, incorporating\nthe comments provided. Commissioner Knoth seconded the motion, which passed\nunanimously, 4-0.\nPage 10 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-03-28", "page": 11, "text": "The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.\ni:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\\TC\\2007/052307/032807minutes-final.doc\nPage 11 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf"}