{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-05-23", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting\nWednesday, May 23, 2007\nConference Room 360, City Hall\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nChair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioners Cervantes,\nRosenberg and Wolfe\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nDouglas Vu, Planner III\n3.\nMINUTES:\n4.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA:\nApproval of 2007 Meeting Calendar\nMotion to approve Calendar (Huston) Second (Rosenberg)\nMotion passes with unanimous vote 4-0\nCommissioner Wolfe Abstained\nRhythmix Cultural Center Public Art Proposal\nCommissioner Rosenberg talked about the guidelines regarding the fulfillment of the\npublic art requirement. It was clarified that programming could fulfill the requirement.\nChair Huston asked how much of the public art proposal was for Rhythmix Cultural\nCenter and how much was for the general public. She wondered if the 14-month\nproposal was 14 shows.\nMs. Koike clarified that the proposal was for 14 months of rent and that Cal Vita is\nproviding to Rhythmix Cultural Works, the space for public art.\nChair Huston asked if for the 14 months, the shows would be free. She also asked if\nthey are 14 consecutive months. She was also concerned with staffing the gallery and\nthought it may be excessive to have the gallery staffed as proposed and suggested\npossibly amending the schedule after a two-month period.\nMr. Doug Vu and Chair Huston want to adjust the language in the resolution to include\nthe suggested amendment to the public art proposal, which includes the hours of\noperation for the gallery space, a minimum amount of hours to be open and a time span\nof 24 months within which the gallery will be open for 14 months.\nCommissioner Rosenberg motioned to adopt the resolution as amended.", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-05-23", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Lee seconded the motion.\nMotion passes with unanimous vote. 5-0\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting adjourned at 8:20 pm\nRespectfully submitted,\nDouglas Vu, Secretary\nPublic Art Commission", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-05-23", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nMay 23, 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\nMichael Krueger\nRobert McFarland\nRobb Ratto\nEric Schatmeier\nSrikant Subramaniam\nAbsent:\nJeff Knoth\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nApril 25, 2007\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that his intent was to ask if the garage could be used as a park\nand ride lot.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that on page 12, his intent was for staff to contact the appellant to\nmake better use of existing off-street parking.\nb.\nMarch 28, 2007\nStaff Khan noted that staff would review the tapes, and if there was a difference between the\ntapes and the stated intent of the Commissioners, they would bring the minutes back to the\nCommission.\nCommissioner Ratto advised that the unanimous vote was indicated to be 4-0, and that it should\nbe 5-0.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved approval of the minutes for the March and April meeting\nminutes. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0 with Commissioner\nMcFarland abstaining.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nThere were none.\nTransportation Commission\nMay 23, 2007\nPage 1 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-05-23", "page": 2, "text": "4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\na. Multimodal Circulation Plan\nb. Pedestrian Plan\nc. TSM/TDM Plan\nChair Knox White requested that CalTrans report on the I-880 projects.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nThere were none.\n6.\nOLD BUSINESS\nThere were none.\n7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n7A.\nReview and Provide Comment on Harbor Bay Village VI Draft Environmental\nImpact Report (DEIR) Outcome: Review DEIR and provide comments to be\nforwarded to Planning Board.\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report and summarized the scope and layout of this project.\nStaff developed a list of concerns regarding the project:\n1. Page 3.12-17: The DEIR notes that the City's adopted Bicycle Master Plan includes a\nproposed trail connection from Catalina Avenue to North Loop Road at the end of\nIsland Drive. This connection is not being recommended for inclusion in the project.\n2. Impacts on transit service are addressed by the EIR only in terms of whether the\nexisting transit service could accommodate the anticipated riders from the project.\nThey did not consider what kind of demand could be generated from whether the\ntransit service should be modified to directly serve the project, with over 100 units\nthere. The nearest existing bus stops to the transit service would be approximately\n2000 feet from the development.\n3. Page 2-8: The DEIR incorrectly refers to the lines that are serving the area.\n4. Page 3.12-18: Discusses impacts on traffic capacity, and the DEIR states that there\nwould not be significant traffic capacity impacts based on the data presented in the\nDEIR.\n5. The report was not accurate with regard to the intersection of Harbor Bay Parkway\nand South Loop Road. The intersection is currently at Level of Service F during the\nAM and PM peaks. The City's threshold of significance at intersections operating at\nLOS E or F in the baseline scenario is an increase in delay of four or more seconds.\n6. The DEIR indicates that to mitigate the impacts, the proposed project would\ncontribute toward the Harbor Bay Business Park Traffic Impact Fund, which in turn\nwould fund the signals when they are determined to be needed. However, the TIF\nTransportation Commission\nMay 23, 2007\nPage 2 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-05-23", "page": 3, "text": "monies would not cover the developer's pro rata share for any new signals. This\nwould be funded separately and independently as project impact mitigations.\n7. Table 3.12-6: There is a projected increase in delay from 280.9 seconds to 328.2\nseconds during the AM peak, although there is no increase expected during the PM\npeak. According to 3.1207, delay during the AM peak is projected to increase from\n648.3 seconds to 747.6 seconds. Delay during the PM peak is projected to increase\nfrom 431.5 seconds to 912.1 seconds, which exceeds the City's threshold of\nsignificance.\n8. Page 3.12-16 (TR-2): The DEIR indicates that if the intersections of Harbor Bay\nParkway at North Loop Road and South Loop Road, and at Harbor Bay Parkway at\nSouth Loop Road and B Street, it is expected that traffic signals would eventually be\nrequired should further development occur. The DEIR states that the project would\npay towards these signals as part of the TIF, but it should be more specific that this\nwill be a pro rata share based on the project impacts. The TIF monies would not\ncover the developer's pro rata share for any new signals, and they would need to be\nfunded independently as project impact mitigations.\n9.\nMitigation Measure TR-2.1: This discusses only the signal at the intersection of\nHarbor Bay Parkway and North Loop and South Loop.\n10. Table S-1: Summarizes the mitigation measures also does not mention the signal at\nHarbor Bay Parkway and South Loop and B.\n11. The developer must pay the Citywide Developer Fee to mitigate for cumulative\nimpacts associated with the project.\nStaff recommends that the Transportation Commission review the DEIR for the Harbor Bay\nVillage VI, and provide comments, which will be forwarded to the Planning Board. Staff\nBergman projected the project map on the overhead screen.\nChair Knox White invited comment from the AC Transit representatives. They had no comment.\nChair Knox White recommended that because this change would require a General Plan\nAmendment, from commercial-business to residential, and that as such it represented a\nsignificant change in policy, which is the purview of the Transportation Commission to make\nrecommendations on. Before the DEIR moves forward, he requested that policy change for the\nGeneral Plan be brought to the Transportation Commission for comments on the transportation\nissues.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that would presuppose a change to the General Plan.\nCommissioner Ratto requested that because Item 7A would entail a lengthy discussion, that the\nTransportation Commission hear Item 7B first, and then return to Item 7A.\nChair Knox White agreed with Commissioner Ratto's suggestion, and postponed the discussion\nuntil Item 7A has been heard.\nTransportation Commission\nMay 23, 2007\nPage 3 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-05-23", "page": 4, "text": "7B.\nAC Transit Line 51 Task Force. Outcome: Review Line 51 data and provide\ncomments to staff.\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report, and noted that bus bunching along the 51 Line is being\naddressed by the task force assembled by AC Transit. He described the route of Line 51 and\nnoted that it had the highest patronage in the AC Transit system, with approximately 22,000\nboardings daily. Headways were generally eight to 10 minutes, and running time changes would\nbe implemented in June, which would add nine minutes of running time during the afternoon\npeak period in the southbound direction, and eight minutes in the northbound direction. The\noperating speed would be approximately nine miles per hour, which is 25% slower than the\ndistrict system average. The additional running time would require an additional two vehicles to\nmeet the scheduled service frequency. He described the makeup of the task force, and noted that\nseveral variables were examined, including running time, boardings, service deployment\npolicies, AC Transit service policies, using the TRB Transit Capacity and Quality of Service\nManual. The staff report indicated what tasks had been completed to date, as well as the future\nitems to be examined. The statistical baseline would be developed; service delivery options\nwould be identified; and service design options would be examined. He detailed the attachments\ndistributed to the Commission.\nTony Bruzzone, AC Transit, noted that their Board requested that they look into this problem,\nand added that it was not a new problem. He noted that they were engaged in new data\ncollection. They intended to have AC Transit staff ride the buses with a laptop, inputting every\ndelay that occurs to identify the specific causes. He noted that was an intensive effort that would\ntake about two months, and that they will collect the data after Labor Day. This will allow the\nnew schedule to be implemented, and avoid data collection during the summer when ridership is\nlower.\nChair Knox White noted that the Task Force was a staff body, not a public body. He noticed that\nthe plan did not identify a deliverable, which was the identification of existing problems.\nMr. Bruzzone confirmed that was part of the statistical baseline, and noted that the formal work\nplan included deliverables that were not included in the summary.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that since 1998, there had been a brief improvement before it slid\nback. He believed there should be some permanent monitoring, and inquired about AC Transit's\ncommitment to ongoing monitoring.\nMr. Bruzzone replied that the section on service delivery addressed that issue, and noted that the\nBoard was very interested in getting good data on a consistent basis. He added that there was an\nongoing discussion about what the benchmarks should be.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that the discussion about running time under \"Measurable\nObjectives\" read, \"While in motion, the average speed of the bus is 9.9 miles an hour.\" He\ninquired whether it discounted dwell time. He inquired what the average speed was, including\nTransportation Commission\nMay 23, 2007\nPage 4 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-05-23", "page": 5, "text": "stops. Mr. Bruzzone noted that the average speed does not include dwell time, but does include\nstops for traffic signals and other stops not associated with loading and unloading passengers.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that Exhibit 1 discussed magnetic stripe payment systems, and\ninquired about the comparison between Translink reader systems and the magnetic stripes. Mr.\nBruzzone noted that when they work, the Translink reader systems were faster, and added that\nmagnetic stripes were extremely slow. He noted that on Spare the Air Day, when fares were not\ncollected, an MCI bus took 3.2 seconds per passenger to board; paying passengers increased the\ntime to 8 seconds per passenger.\nChair Knox White inquired about the percent of on-time performance (OTP) under \"Line 51 Best\nPractices.\" He was surprised at how well the 51 seemed to be doing at 67.8%, and noted that as a\nregular rider of the line, he did not perceive that to be the case. Mr. Bruzzone noted that on-time\nperformance consisted of being within five minutes of the scheduled time. Chair Knox White\ninquired whether OTP included stops at the early part of the route.\nPuja Sarna of AC Transit replied that it was for the full day. He inquired whether OTP was\nmeasured at some key spots such as 12th and Broadway during certain times of the day. He did\nnot perceive that OTP figure as being representative of the performance at the key spots. He\nnoted that he frequently hears complaining about the route in downtown Oakland. Ms. Sarna\nnoted the OTP averaged the data from the entire day. She noted that they could make a range of\nOTP at the same points, and noted that during the next data collection effort, they would have\ntraffic checkers at certain points along the route, checking to see how far apart the headways\nwould be, as well as what the lead times would be. They could match the OTP to those same\npoints during different times of the day. She noted that the data was skewed with the 6 - 8 a.m.\ndata, and 10 p.m. to midnight data, which would be much more on-time than peak times.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that when he used the 51, he would ride into Oakland in mid-\nmorning, and return to Alameda about 7:30-8:00 p.m. and found the service to be reliable at that\ntime. He acknowledged that the traffic congestion at that time was not as bad, and crush loads\nwere not being carried.\nMr. Bruzzone noted that the measure of on-time performance was minus 1/plus 5, and that a bus\non a 10-minute headway drops back five minutes, that would create a big gap. If the follower bus\nwas up one minute, there would be only four minutes between buses, leading to bunching. They\nwould also examine headway adherence, as well as running times.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the fact that the line was being observed would have an\nimpact on the on-time performance. Mr. Bruzzone noted that was a good point, but they did not\nobserve that. He noted that performance does change with manual traffic checkers, but not with\nan APC unit. He noted that some traffic checkers board with tickets so they would not be\napparent to the driver as a traffic checker.\nTransportation Commission\nMay 23, 2007\nPage 5 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-05-23", "page": 6, "text": "Public Comment\nKathi Young noted that she has ridden transit in locations such as Seattle, Florida, New Orleans\nand Hawaii, and with the exception of Orange County, she had not seen a route as bad as the 51.\nShe noted that she had recently seen four 51 buses sitting at the Berkeley Amtrak station, which\nall left together. She would like to know what AC Transit planned to do to change the situation.\nClosed Public Comment\nChair Knox White believed the plan would be effective in identifying the problems and creating\na plan to mitigate them. He complimented those involved in creating the plan. He believed the\ndata should clearly illustrate the extent of the problem. He inquired whether the satcomm data\ncould be used to calculate on-time performance in a meaningful way. He suggested that UC\nBerkeley be contacted to see whether students could perform that work.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that the data did not tell the Commission why the problems\nexist.\nMr. Bruzzone acknowledged that both were needed, and that understanding the problem and\nhaving a way to collect the data in the present and in the future were both very important\ncomponents. He noted that after problems are resolved or eased, they often backslide because of\na lack of monitoring in the future.\nIn response to an inquiry by Staff Khan whether AC Transit was examining a correlation with\ncongestion, Mr. Bruzzone confirmed that was the case. In the last five years, they had added five\nvehicles to the afternoon peak to meet schedule and to reduce headway.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier whether a Rapid bus could be added, Mr.\nBruzzone replied that there were several options:\n1.\nRapid, which would be difficult to run on College and Broadway. The City of\nBerkeley has told them they would be interested in implementing a peak period\ntowaway lane in the right lane, which would be similar to the diamond lanes used on\nSan Francisco city streets. He believed that would make a big difference on\nUniversity Avenue.\n2. Limited, for which the bus would stop at a reduced number of locations, and\n3. A/B stop buses, for which some buses would be designated \"A\" or \"B\", and stops\nwould be designated, for A buses, B buses, or both.\nChair Knox White inquired whether it would make sense to extend the 51 to Fruitvale. Mr.\nBruzzone noted that the line is currently very long, and they were originally going to cut it at\nBerkeley Amtrak and combine it with the Shattuck bus. They also considered cutting it off at\nother points.\nTransportation Commission\nMay 23, 2007\nPage 6 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-05-23", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Krueger noted that he would like to see the ridership potential to Fruitvale\nexamined.\nMr. Bruzzone noted that there was concern about the impact of the opening and closing of the\nbridges on operations.\nNo action was taken.\nPublic Comment\nThere were no speakers.\nClose public comment.\nItem 7A (continued)\nChair Knox White noted that the Transportation Commission was limited in its comments as to\nthe adequacy of this DEIR.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the Commission would be able to comment on the\ntransportation design and impacts of this project.\nChair Knox White noted that the DEIR addressed the impacts. He added that the future plan and\nthe design of the project were not part of this item, and inquired whether the TC will be able to\ncomment on the improvement plans once they are prepared.\nStaff Khan noted that was not usually done, but if the Commission requested it, he would be\namenable to providing that.\nA discussion of the baselines and their time horizons ensued.\nCommissioner Ratto inquired why the proposed bike connection described in the Bicycle Master\nPlan would not be implemented. He strongly supported the bike connection. Staff Khan replied\nthat was also a major comment made by staff, and that they would like to push for it as well.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto whether any appeals had been filed by\nneighbors, Staff Khan replied that staff submitted the comments in September/October 2006,\nthey received the administrative draft, made comments and found that those comments were not\nincorporated in the revised DEIR. He noted that staff is working with the consultant to resolve\nthese concerns; they should be addressed by early June.\nWith respect to level of service, Commissioner Ratto noted that the second paragraph of TR-1\n(page 3.12-16) stated, \"Because the proposed project would not affect existing level of service at\nany of the 13 intersections in the study area, the impact to intersection level of service would be\nless than significant.\" He noted that when an intersection has an existing level of service of F,\nand it was slightly changed, he supposed that would be somewhat true. He believed that a 15-\nTransportation Commission\nMay 23, 2007\nPage 7 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-05-23", "page": 8, "text": "minute wait, more than double the existing wait time, at an intersection was definitely a\nsignificant impact even though the starting point is LOS F; he believed that kind of analysis did\nnot make sense.\nChair Knox White noted that he was very pleased with the staff comments.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that he found it difficult to believe that the intersection of South\nLoop Road and Harbor Bay Parkway could be LOS F. He had spoken at the City Council\nmeeting about the peak hour traffic congestion as a result of Amelia Earhart School, which\nimpacted intersections 9, 10, 11 and 12. He noted that those intersections were close to gridlock\nduring peak hours, sometimes taking 15 minutes to clear.\nCommissioner Ratto noted that he questioned the validity of all the tables, and did not know\nwhere all the numbers came from. He referred to the baseline chart, which stated that intersection\n#10 (Island Drive/Maitland Drive) would not be affected by the project. He found that very\ndifficult to believe, and inquired how the drivers would get to the main island.\nStaff Khan noted that Table 3.12-5 defined the trip distribution, and that staff would ask the\napplicants to include a map or sketch showing trip distribution by location instead of just a list.\nCommissioner Ratto remarked that he was very concerned about the data, as well as the bicycle\nissue and not having any access to Island Drive. He cited the paragraph under TR-4 (3-12.17),\nwhich read, \"The proposed project would not have a significant adverse effect on pedestrian,\nbicycle or transit facilities.\nHowever, due to the sensitive nature of this proposal, this\nconnection has not been included in this analysis and would not be required as mitigation.\" He\nwas very concerned about that language, and did not believe it was meaningful; he requested\nstaff to address that issue as a primary concern.\nCommissioner Krueger noted the section on transit, bicycle and pedestrian impacts read, \"A\nproject would result in a significant transit, bicycle and/or pedestrian impact if its\nimplementation would conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs.\" It continued to say in\nTR-4 that they would knowingly conflict with the Bicycle Master Plan. He believed they were\nproducing a significant impact by blatantly conflicting with an existing policy, and stressed that\nit was not consistent.\nChair Knox White noted that he was surprised that there was only a 30.9 second wait in the\nmorning peak. In response to his inquiry regarding the peak hours, Commissioner McFarland\nstated that the data were collected in June 2006, which was after the school year had concluded.\nChair Knox White believed that was a significant methodological flaw, and added that data from\nthe school year should be included. He suggested that 9 through 12 were not correct.\nCommissioner Ratto believed the methodology should be examined, and believed that an average\nof school times and nonschool times would be misleading.\nCommissioner Subramaniam noted that 3.12-5 stated \"when school was in session.\"\nTransportation Commission\nMay 23, 2007\nPage 8 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-05-23", "page": 9, "text": "Chair Knox White believed the numbers were incorrect.\nStaff Khan noted that the city had no intersection counts, and that it will be collecting that data as\npart of the TMP project.\nChair Knox White believed the motion should include all staff comments. Commissioner Ratto\nconcurred with that statement.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that the report referred to long-discontinued lines 43 and 69. He\nadded that there was also a passage on 3.12-17 that stated, \"AC Transit is planning additional bus\nservice along North Loop Road.\" He did not believe that was accurate, and that the report should\nbe modified to reflect this.\nStaff Khan noted that the reason for the staff comment was related to pedestrian access to transit,\nand that staff wanted connectivity to the bus stop.\nWith respect to the cumulative level of service in the AM peak hours of 13.8 seconds, and the\ncumulative plus the project was 13.7, Commissioner Ratto inquired how the project would\ndecrease the delay at that intersection.\nCommissioner Ratto noted that with respect to TR-5 regarding parking, it appeared that there\nwould be 208 covered spaces for the units. He inquired whether there would be any garages.\nStaff Khan replied that the project would provide off-street parking, which would include garages\nor other parking schemes off the street. Each house would have two parking spaces, which was\nthe genesis of the 208 number.\nCommissioner Ratto noted that the City had requested 0.5 guest spaces per unit to be provided.\nHe believed that adequate guest parking was very important, and that if it was not provided,\nguests would park in areas that could impede emergency vehicle response times. He believed\nthat was a reprehensible recommendation.\nChair Knox White suggested that comment be included in its own motion.\nChair Knox White noted that with respect to trip distribution, he was surprised that Ron Cowan\nParkway was assumed to be the key road, given that it currently is so lightly used.\nChair Knox White noted that 3.12-17 read, \"Also, any proposed sound walls would need to be\nproperly designed so as not to restrict visibility.\" He believed that discussion about sound walls\nshould be removed, and added that the Planning Board and City Council had determined that\nsound walls would not be utilized. He recommended that the discussion of sound walls be\nremoved from the document.\nTransportation Commission\nMay 23, 2007\nPage 9 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-05-23", "page": 10, "text": "Chair Knox White discussed the project in terms of the seven EIR policies recommended by the\nTC and accepted by City Council. He noted that the project did not conflict with first three EIR\npolicies (no extra lanes, no widening of intersections, and speed limits not above 25 mph). Policy\n4 stated that all EIRs need to analyze bike, ped and transit. He noted that this DEIR did not do\nthat, and it specifically stated that the effects on levels of service and the ability to use would\nconflict with adopted policies. He noted that there was no analysis, and that it was completely\ninadequate on that level. Regarding Policy 5, he noted that the only place the mitigations could\nget in the way is transit, but that cutting down the level of service problems at some of the\nintersections would benefit transit in this case.\nChair Knox White noted that EIR Policy 6 addressed the use of TDM to mitigate, and that there\nwas no discussion of TDM in this proposal whatsoever. He believed that if this project were to\nmove forward it must include, as part of the mitigation to the actual traffic it would create, some\nkind of ferry passes or transit accommodations. He noted that the bike/pedestrian connection\nbetween North Loop Road and Catalina was not included despite it being part of an adopted City\nplan. He believed the project should also be required to include a transit connection between the\ntwo streets. He believed the recommendation should include some mitigation looking at the\nbuses between Catalina and North Loop, along with bikes and pedestrians. He noted that any\nroad built for emergency vehicle access should be able accommodate transit as well.\nCommissioner Ratto noted that the return trips at Intersection 5 indicated that the people using\nthe inbound route would not be returning. He did not believe those numbers made sense, and\nwondered if the rest of the numbers should be questioned as well.\nChair Knox White believed from a transportation perspective, and in particular from\na\npedestrian/bike/transit perspective, this was about the worst project that could have been\ndeveloped. He was concerned that if the project was built, everyone would drive because the\nalternative modes of transportation would not be feasible to use.\nStaff Khan believed that number was the result of a Synchro software that analyzed the\nintersection LOS, and believed if they subtracted the volume for #5 instead of adding them.\nCommissioner Krueger believed that if the project were to go forward, the only way it would\nmake sense would be to completely reorient it so that everything was connected to Catalina. He\nbelieved they should try to integrate it into the existing neighborhood of residential homes, as\nwell as improve the connectivity. He had serious concerns about the project design.\nChair Knox White called the question.\nCommissioner Krueger believed it could be stated that the Transportation Commission had\nserious concerns about the project design, and requests that since it requires a General Plan\nAmendment to exist, that the Master Plan be brought before the Transportation Commission for\nfull comment.\nTransportation Commission\nMay 23, 2007\nPage 10 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-05-23", "page": 11, "text": "Staff Khan noted that the Master Plan had not been developed yet, which would be completed at\nthat time.\nCommissioner Ratto moved that the Transportation Commission recommend that the\ntransportation portion of the project EIR is wholly inadequate, would drive residents to using\nautomobiles, and did not deal with the reality of trying to encourage people to use alternate\nforms of transportation. The project EIR should be significantly rethought and rewritten. He\nadded that all comments from staff report and all Transportation Commission comments from\nthis discussion should be included, minus the parking issue. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded\nthe motion. Motion passed 6-0.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that Bay Farm Island was never designed for public\ntransportation, and noted that most of the housing was too far from transit. He noted that the Bay\nFarm Island development had many cul de sacs and paths. He did not disagree that this\ndevelopment would be contrary to Alameda's plans, but believed it seemed unfair to single out\nthis particular project among others on Bay Farm Island.\nStaff Khan noted that staff would create a memo that could be brought before the Planning Board\nstating the Transportation Commission's concerns about this document.\nChair Knox White stated that if the parking were to be restricted, it would not substantively\nincrease usage of the bus line.\nCommissioner Krueger believed the number one driver of automobile usage was the availability\nof parking. He believed the requirement of 2.5 spaces per unit was over and above what was\nrequired by other houses in Alameda.\nCommissioner Ratto noted that while the business associations were trying to eliminate the\nparking requirement for the individual developers, because it was not up to the developers to\nprovide parking; it was up to the City and Business Association to provide parking. He believed\nthe needs of residential parking versus business parking were completely different.\nCommissioner Krueger believed the addition of 2.5 spaces per unit was counter to the City's goal\nof reducing automobile traffic and increasing use of alternative transportation. He believed the\ndeveloper should be required to not build more parking.\nStaff Khan noted that the City's concern was to avoid impacts on City infrastructure when\nresidents and guests may have to park on City streets that did not have parking.\nCommissioner Krueger moved that the Transportation Commission recommend that the City\ndrop the additional guest parking requirement because the houses already met the two parking\nspaces per dwelling unit requirement, as it is contrary to the General Plan's goal of de-\nemphasizing the automobile. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-1\n(Commissioner Ratto opposing).\nTransportation Commission\nMay 23, 2007\nPage 11 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-05-23", "page": 12, "text": "8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Khan noted that a special meeting was held between City Council and the Transportation\nCommission. The City Council members requested that the Transportation Commission examine\nseveral projects related to the Bay Farm Island Bridge and the Posey and Webster Tube\nlocations. They wished to address single occupant vehicles using these access points, and how\nthe SOVs could be reduced. Chair Knox White had requested introduction of delay numbers.\nStaff Khan brought the Alameda Landing EIR that had been approved in 2006, as well as LOS\nand delay numbers for that study. Staff suggested working on that by using the MMC\nSubcommittee to chart out an action plan to bring back to a full Commission in order to tackle\nboth projects. Staff was somewhat concerned about the impact on staff resources. Staff would\nalso bring back the pedestrian plan implementation policies and goals being developed at this\ntime. Completion of the TSM/TDM plan would be the next goal to complete by the end of 2007.\nCommissioner Ratto requested a daily volume count for the Tubes, currently, and when the Base\nwas open. Chair Knox White noted that Staff Khan had provided that information, and that it was\n17% less than when the Base was open.\nStaff Khan noted that the peak traffic hours were different for Base operations than current work\ntravel patterns.\nStaff Bergman noted that staff received an email from a resident, who requested that their\ncomments be forwarded to the Transportation Commission dealing with the proposed parking\nrestrictions on Central Avenue and Fifth. The resident expressed concern, and the email was\ndistributed amongst the Commissioners.\nMeeting adjourned at 10:00 PM.\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\\TC/2007/072507/052307minutes-draft.doc\nTransportation Commission\nMay 23, 2007\nPage 12 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf"}