{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-08-25", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nAugust 25, 2008\nTIME\nThe meeting convened at 6:38 p.m.\nPRESENT\nChair Lord-Hausman, Commissioners Berger, Longley-Cook, Kirola, Kreitz and\nKrongold.\nABSENT\nVice-Chair Moore and Commissioners Robinson and Fort.\nMINUTES\nThe July 28, 2008 minutes were approved with corrections to Agenda item number two under New\nBusiness.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nSecretary Akil distributed information regarding a memo from the Mayor concerning the September\n17, 2008 kick-off meeting at the O'Club for Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda, which\nwill address climate protection.\nNEW BUSINESS\nThere was no new business.\nOLD BUSINESS\n1. Bike Plan Task Force Committee (Commissioner Kreitz):\nCommissioner Kreitz stated that there has been no meeting due to scheduling conflicts.\n2.\nAlameda Buena Vista Commons and Opening (Commissioner Longley-Cook)\nCommissioner Longley-Cook attended the grand opening event and reported that the units\nturned out nice. There are solar panels on the roofs and PG& E offers rebates to families who\nuse alternative energy.\nChair Lord-Hausman asked Commissioner Longley-Cool if she viewed the accessible units to\nwhich she replied yes, although the stairs were not as wide but the other rooms were very\naccessible. Chair Lord-Hausman asked if the upstairs bathroom was accessible to which\nCommissioner Longley-Cook replied that it is not. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she would\nfollow up with staff regarding this issue.\nChair Lord-Hausman reiterated that any new construction activity in the City should include\ninput from the CDI.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-08-25", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nAugust 25, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 5\nCommissioner Krongold stated that she would be willing to coordinate a presentation by\nUniversal Design Associates to assist the CDI in its review of accessibility items under new\nconstruction activity. Chair Lord-Hausman agreed and asked that Commissioner Krongold\nfacilitate that presentation.\nCommissioner Berger indicated that she knows Dan Lachtman, ADC Executive Director and\nwill call him regarding the upstairs bathroom not being accessible. Commissioner Berger also\nsuggested that Center for Independent Living (CIL) be on the checklist for future building\nconstruction activity within the City.\nChair Lord-Hausman suggested that the CDI write a letter to the City Council to address these\nissues and thanked Commissioner Longley-Cook for attending the grand opening.\n3. Commission Disability Internet Webpage (Chair Lord-Hausman/Secretary Akil):\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that she and Secretary Akil met with the City's IT Manager\nregarding the webpage. The page will happen, although it will be basic to start.\nCommissioner Krongold asked how much it cost to which Secretary Akil responded up to\n$3,000. Commissioner Krongold offered her services to assist in the design and\nimplementation of the page to which Secretary Akil responded that in order for the page to be\nconnected to the City's website, it must be done through the City's current web provider.\nFurther, the ADA Plan Update and information is an official document of the City and must\nlocated within the City's website.\nCommissioner Kreitz asked why couldn't the Commission apply grants on behalf of the City to\nwhich Secretary Akil responded that the Commission is not a non-profit with 501(k) status and\nwould not be permitted on that basis.\n4. Discussion Regarding the Start Time of Board Meetings (Commissioner Berger):\nCommissioner Kreitz stated that she commutes from Dublin and it is difficult for her to get to\nthe meeting with a start time of 6:30 p.m.\nCommissioner Berger stated that her commute does not allow her enough time to get to the\nmeeting on time and requested that the meeting be pushed back 30 minutes.\nCommissioner Longley Cook stated she likes the earlier start time, thereby ending the meeting\nearlier in the evening rather than leaving later at night.\nCommissioner Krongold stated that she likes the earlier start time.\nCommissioner Kirola stated she likes the earlier start time.\nSecretary Akil stated that the reason the meeting was changed to an earlier start time was to\n G:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes(2008\\Minutes_Aug 25 2008.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-08-25", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nAugust 25, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 3 of 5\naccommodate individuals who used public transportation, including Paratranist, as well as an\neffort to promote greater public participation by engaging the community and bringing greater\nvisibility and awareness of issues regarding disabled services and resources within the City.\nThe 6:30 p.m. start time also secures sufficient staff coverage for the duration of the meetings.\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that she liked the earlier start but also recognizes the importance of\nhaving all of the Commissioners present for the start of the meeting. The Chair asked for an\ninformal vote to change the meeting time to 7:00 p.m. to which there were five yes; zero no's;\nand one abstention. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she would confirm with the\nCommissioners not present, as to whether or not they want to the change the start time from\n6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.\nSecretary Akil stated that should the Commission decide to change the start time, the CDI\nBylaws would have to be amended and adopted by a majority (2/3) vote during the September\n22, 2008 meeting.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nThere was no staff communications.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS\n1. Commissioner Longley-Cook asked what was the status of the Commission Calendar to which\nCommissioner Kreitz responded that it was not here and not completed. Chair Lord-Hausman\nstated that she made changes and asked that the updated version be distributed at the September\n22 meeting.\nCommissioner Krongold stated that she would provide information about other events over the\nnext six months that may be of interest to the Commission, which could be added to the\ncalendar.\n2.\nCommissioner Longley-Cook requested that the proclamation for Disability Awareness Month\nbe agendized for the first City Council meeting in October and emphasized the importance of\nsticking with that date, since last year's proclamation was pushed to the end of October.\nCommissioner Kreitz asked what is the status of the tree planting during Disability Awareness\nMonth to which Chair Lord-Hausman stated that she would call Vice-Chair Moore for a status\non her progress.\n3. Commissioner Berger stated that she and Commissioner Kreitz attended the Crab Cove event in\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes(2008\\Minutes_Aug 25 2008.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-08-25", "page": 4, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nAugust 25, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 4 of 5\nAugust and no one showed up and suggested that the Commission should redirect its energy into\nother events, such as job fairs. This issue should be revised in Spring 2009 before commitments\nare made for CDI representation. Chair Lord-Hausman responded that the other Crab Cove\ndates were successful with good turn out and response to the CDI table.\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that the CDI can discuss other choices, however the focus should\nremain on City events such as Earth Day, Park Street Festival, as an example.\nSecretary Akil stated that since the adoption of the ADA Transition Plan update, there has been\nan increase in visiting the current webpage for reference. Once the ADA/CDI webpage is up\nand running, there will be more exposure for the CDI.\n4. Chair Lord-Hausman distributed copies of highlights of the Federal Disability Programs\nprovided by the GAO office. It provides information on how coordination could facilitate better\ndata collection to assess the status of people with disabilities.\nCommissioner Berger asked that with the national elections coming up, what could the CDI do\nto ensure total accessibility for those with disabilities, to which Chair Lord-Hausman responded\nthat she could check with Mastick Senior Center. Commissioner Kreitz suggessted to check\nwith the Registrar of Voters.\nCommissioner Longley-Cook stated that because this is an important election year, there would\nbe a more active response by people, in general.\n5. Chair Lord-Hausman read a travel article which advised that when individuals with disabilities\nreserve hotel rooms, they should use the word \"blocked,\" instead of \"guarantee\" as often times\nrooms for the disabled are not honored when requested.\n6.\nChair Lord-Hausman distributed copies of the local Disaster Registry form to approximately 12\nindividuals that she knows, who have all submitted their completed forms to the Fire Department\nwithout hesitation.\nCommissioner Krongold confirmed that the CERT program manages the Disaster Registry.\nCommissioner Berger suggested distributing the form to people who receive Meals on Wheels.\nADJOURNMENT\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes(2008\\Minutes_Aug 25 2008.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2008-08-25", "page": 5, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nAugust 25, 2008\nMinutes\nPage 5 of 5\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, September 22, 2008 at\n6:30 p.m. in Room 360 at City Hall.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLucretia A. Akil\nCommission Secretary\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes(2008\\Minutes_Aug 25 52008.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2008-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-25", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the\nPlanning Board and Transportation Commission\nMonday, August 25, 2008\nPresident Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nChair Knox-White\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPlanning Board: President Kohlstrand, Vice President Ezzy\nAshcraft and Board members Autorino, Cunningham and Lynch\nwere present.\nBoard members Cook and McNamara were absent.\nTransportation Commission: Chair Knox-White, Commissioners\nKrueger, Lee McFarland, Moehring, and Schatmeier were present.\nCommissioner Subramaniam was absent.\n4.\nMINUTES:\n(None)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Kohlstrand proposed moving Staff Communications to the end of the agenda in\nconsideration of the Transportation Commission.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nAnyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by\nsubmitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.\nNONE.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nConsent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted\nby one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from\nthe Planning Board or a member of the public by submitting a speaker slip for that item.\nNONE.\nPage 1 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-25", "page": 2, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A. Draft Transportation Element General Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental\nImpact Report. A public hearing to take public comment on a Draft Environmental\nImpact Report and draft amendments to the City of Alameda General Plan. No final\naction or decision will be made at this meeting by either body.\nMr. Thomas summarized the staff report and noted that at this time, staff would record comments\non the adequacy of the EIR, and the appropriateness of the Draft Transportation Element. He noted\nthat the Transportation Commission played a critical role in producing this draft Element.\nMr. Obaid Khan, Public Works, displayed a PowerPoint presentation describing the Draft\nTransportation Element in detail.\nPresident Kohlstrand suggested that the public hearing be opened, and noted that five speaker slips\nhad been received. She suggested that the speakers' time not be limited in this matter.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Bill Smith noted that land use and transportation issues were closely connected. As a bicycle\ncommuter, he supported additional bicycle capacity along Fruitvale Bridge. He believed that\nbicycle lanes worked well as a traffic calming measure because they narrowed the street\navailable to cars; they also made room for bicycles. He was encouraged by the direction taken by\nthe Draft Transportation Element.\nMs. Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, stated that she believed the analysis of the\nimpact considering alternative modes like bicycles, pedestrians and transit were very important.\nShe noted that some mitigation was good for public transit, such as widening roads, were not\ngood for pedestrians and bicyclists to gain access to the buses. She inquired about the effect the\ncurrent parking requirements might have on the amount of traffic generated by a project, as well\nas other environmental impacts. She inquired about the effect that decisions like street\nclassifications and possible interruptions of the existing grid might have on people's access to\npublic transit.\nMr. Richard Bangert noted that he had read Transportation Commission Chair John Knox-\nWhite's comments in the newspaper. He wished to discuss some unintended consequences on\ntraffic flow near his home, near Calhoun and Broadway close to Otis. He noted that change to\nthe traffic flow on Broadway between Otis and Encinal, and that there was no strong language in\nthe new Transportation Element that could lead to it being corrected. He believed that most of\nthe focus was on addressing problems that might arise with a new development, and that\nunintended consequences should be corrected. He noted that signal priority should be given to\npedestrians, but that was complicated in instances where there are no signals. He believed that\nlanguage requiring that a signal or stop sign be installed should be included. He expressed\nconcern about the school-age children in the area.\nPage 2 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-25", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Eric Scheuerman stated that he believed that Alameda's current major and minor street\nclassifications were uncomplicated, and that the new Transportation Element was essentially\nredevelopment of Alameda's street system. He cited the recent reworking of Webster and Park\nStreets as a good example of refinement. He would like to see a study on the potential of\nexcessive street striping, and how it affects neighborhoods. He believed that there were examples\nof both good and bad striping in Alameda, and added that more double yellow lines were being\nadded to Alameda, creating a more congested, crowded and stressful environment. He believed\nthe new Transportation Element would be a major change for Alameda, and urged the City to see\nthe excellence of Alameda's existing hardscape street design, as well as the downsides. He urged\nthe City to consider a policy of refinement.\nMr. Bert Libby noted that he was pleased to see the EIR statements and the livability goals in the\nTMP. He believed there was too little attention given to quality of life impacts and increased\ntraffic in development issues. Major Johnson had stated that the TMP would accommodate future\ngrowth, maintain Alameda's unique character, and protect the current quality of life. He believed\nthe TMP was missing two important sections, and that it was geared towards Alameda residents\nand their vehicle usage, but did not address non-Alameda traffic originating from off-island. He\naddressed the State and federal emission goals, and noted that Major Johnson had signed the U.S.\nConference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. He believed strongly that mitigations for\nfuture development should be solely directed at reducing traffic in order to reduce the negative\nenvironmental effects of development. He noted SB 375, which implemented AB 32, promoting\nsmart growth development and required that new developments be located near transit corridors\nand centers in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled and emissions.\nMs. Ani Dimusheva expressed concern about the street classification system. She believed that\nAlameda had a very residential character, and was concerned that the street classification system\ndefined some streets as more residential than others. She suggested a trial period to determine\nwhether the solutions cause any unintended consequences elsewhere. She would like to see more\ntransit in town. She would like to see more solutions for bike safety, and believed that every\nstreet should be a bike street. She suggested implementing \"bicycle preferred lanes\" on streets\nlike Park, and would like to see less regimentation of transportation modes on streets.\nMs. Corinne Lamden expressed concern about pedestrians trying to cross two-lane roads safely,\nparticularly when the drivers did not look for pedestrians carefully.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board and Commission discussion.\nPresident Kohlstrand suggested taking comments on the plan first, followed by the environmental\ndocument.\nBoard member Lynch believed there were a number of overlaps because one document was\ntechnical in nature, while the other was more qualitative in nature. He did not have any\narguments with the technical document. He suggested a discussion addressing the present street\nuses versus traditional past uses of streets, and to share that information with the public. He\nbelieved there would be a heightened sense of comfort, and did not believe the methodology of\nthe EIR could be argued. He believed the EIR was very sound and thorough, and appreciated\nstaff's work in that regard. He noted that the plan was very comprehensive.\nPage 3 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-25", "page": 4, "text": "President Kohlstrand noted that the Transportation Commissioners' intent was trying to draft these\ndocuments so they would be more in sync regarding the movement of vehicles, as well as\nrecognizing the need for buses circulating in the City and the need for every street to be pedestrian-\nand bicycle-friendly.\nBoard member Lynch noted that on his street, parking was allowed right up to the intersection. He\nnoted that children walked across the street from Lydecker Park are not visible because of that\nparking arrangement, and that it was a quality of life issue. He inquired whether such issues should\nbe included in the plan.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft commended the authors of this report, as well as the public for their\ncomments. She noted that Alameda was growing like every other Bay Area city, and that it cannot\nremain frozen in time, but she did not believe the small-town character and quality of life should be\nsacrificed. She noted that the roads did not belong to one particular transportation mode. She had\nsome concerns about significant decreasing levels of service at some intersections. She noted that\nwhen an accident occurred in the Tube heading out of town, traffic throughout Alameda backed up.\nShe noted that on page 4 of the Transportation Element Update, Objective 4.1.4 addressed proactive\ncitizen involvement, particularly maintaining a public forum such as the Transportation\nCommission to facilitate public involvement. She suggested creating a citizen input website so they\nwould not have to wait for the next public meeting. She noted that more off-street bicycle parking\nwas needed, and parking lots should be striped to allow that.\nCommissioner Krueger expressed concern with page 2.0-3 of the EIR summary, regarding Impact\n4.2.1, which discussed traffic delay and the level of service. It stated that there was no feasible\nmitigation available, thus the resulting level of significance was significant and unavoidable. He\nwas very surprised by that statement, and that the Transportation Commission discussed using\ntransportation systems management and transportation demand management to reduce the number\nof trips generated and mitigated in that way. He was surprised that was not considered as a\nmitigation, and would like that to be addressed in the EIR. Similarly, page 2.0-4, for Impact 4.2.5,\nthe claim was that it was significant and unavoidable because there was no mitigation available for\nthe intersection impacts in a cumulative sense. He did not see why Transportation Demand\nManagement (TDM)/Transportation Systems Management (TSM) was considered, which he could\nunderstand if it concluded the mitigation was not sufficient; however, it seemed to him that it was\nnot considered at all. He noted that pages 4.2-20 through 4.2-22 indicated mitigation measures\nTDM/TSM were mentioned, but the conclusion was that the impact would be significant and\nunavoidable. He did not see how it could be known in advance that the mitigation would fail, and\nthat it could be potentially significant. He inquired what would happen if the traffic on Park Street\nwere given priority, which would preserve the level of service for traffic on Park Street and using\nthe Park Street Bridge, which he believed was the primary objective. He believed that at peak times,\nthere would be a backup on Clement, and people would take alternate routes. He believed that\nwould preserve the Island access, and while people may need to take alternate routes several times\nduring the day. He noted that when the intersection was not at overflow capacity, there would still\nbe there benefits of the Clement Extension. He believed that some of the analysis was somewhat\nsimplistic in examining the Level of Service (LOS) for the entire intersection, rather than\nprioritizing one direction over another.\nPage 4 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-25", "page": 5, "text": "reduced delay in the intersection, yet the conclusion was that it was significant. He noted that also\nhappened on High and Fernside on page 4.2-29, and for High Street and Otis on page 4.2-29-4.2-30.\nHe would like to see further explanation of that, so the effects of implementing the TMP to the\nbaseline.\nPresident Kohlstrand noted that she had the same questions, and added Island Drive and Doolittle,\nPark Street and Blanding, and Broadway and Tilden and Eagle. She noted that it was not clear what\nwas analyzed, and that if the delays were less, why it was a significant impact. She believed\nconfusion had been created over what was being analyzed, and that it changed the picture from\ndealing with traffic and travel in Alameda that was not solely focused on the auto, and that the\nproject should be given its due credit.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that it was important to get a quantitative number out, as well as to\nobtain a qualitative look as well. He would like the TDM to be taken into account.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that one of the fundamental issues addressing the need was\nbased on the supply or demand for transportation within the community. Under the assumptions in\nthe EIR, there was an assumed growth of jobs in the community from 31,000 to 49,000, which\nrepresented a 65% increase in jobs on the Island, relative to an increase in housing from 31,000 to\n36,000, a 17% increase. He noted that it would be important to identify where the supply and\ndemand would be. He anticipated that there more growth in the Alameda Point area. He believed\nthat mitigation should address getting people from areas where the housing was concentrated to\nwhere the jobs are. He would like to see other plans within the Transportation Element such as\nwater taxis that would mitigate people not using roads; he suggested that a water taxi from Harbor\nBay to Alameda Point may be workable.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that he had raised the definition of LOS in the Town Centre\nmatters, and would like to add further clarification. He noted that a delay over 60 seconds at\nSanta Clara would be a LOS level \"F\", and intersections such as Constitution and Atlantic at 53\nseconds would qualify for LOS level \"E\". Board member Cunningham believed that study\nshould be done before adoption of the plan. He inquired whether alternate LOSs would be\nconsidered based on the classification of the route. Mr. Thomas replied that would be a\npossibility, and noted that in Oakland, they had changed the threshold of what was significant.\nBoard member Cunningham inquired whether a safety factor was linked into the LOS, and noted\nthat most of what they had seen was based on timing.\nPresident Kohlstrand noted that it was based on average seconds of delay.\nPage 5 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-25", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Krueger wished to clarify that he did not want two different definitions of LOS,\nand that they should stick to the standard definitions. He added that the City should determine\nwhat they were willing to accept on certain circumstances, given the standards. He inquired\nwhether it would be possible to analyze the levels of service of two different legs of an\nintersection, or whether CEQA required treating the whole intersection as one.\nStaff stated that information about each leg of the intersection could be provided.\nPresident Kohlstrand added that information was included in the tables in the background\ninformation.\nCommissioner McFarland had no comment.\nCommissioner Lee had no comment.\nCommissioner Moehring thanked the public for their comments. She wanted to concentrate on\nsafety issues. She noted that safety in crossing intersections was a major issue, and recommended\nthat drivers use both hand and directional signals when driving. She appreciated the comment on\nthe ability to correct things that did not work as well as anticipated. She agreed with the concept\nof starting simply and moving forward in smaller steps. She would like to see a little more traffic\non Webster Street to patronize the businesses, and did not want the alternate routes to be so fast\nthat they completely avoid Webster Street.\nChair Knox-White noted that he did not have a comment on the plan itself, and that while page\n4.2-2 of the EIR discussed a light rail corridor, the TMP did not mention a light rail corridor. The\nTMP did mention an exclusive transit street. He believed that bike parking could be highlighted,\nand noted that the design factor of the retail streets should receive more focus. He noted that the\nPedestrian Plan had been approved by the Planning Board. He complimented Mr. Bergmann on\nthe effectiveness of public transit surveys. He agreed with Commissioner Moehring regarding\nthe street classification, and added that a random survey to up to 2,000 homes had been mailed as\nan insert in AP&T bills. As a result of that survey, people believed that all streets should be used\nequitably, but there should also be streets that would take people across the Island. He noted that\nthe City tried its best to balance those needs. He noted that the EIR mentioned that there would\nbe less than significant impact on air quality (4.3-8). Commissioner Knox-White noted that with\nrespect to levels of service at intersections, he would like to take the long view and be sure that\npedestrian and bicycle levels of service were addressed. With respect to the EIR, he noted that it\nwas odd that there were two or three intersections that were found to be significant and\nunavoidable in the document that had already been declared significant and unavoidable for the\ntraffic generated. He noted that the Alameda Landing EIR stated the traffic was significant and\nunavoidable, and he believed that every following project was identified as the source of the\ntraffic being significant and unavoidable. He believed that it should be stipulated that it was\nsignificant and unavoidable, and that it may not make it worse, or may make it better.\nCommissioner Knox-White expressed frustration that proposed mitigations were identified, but\nthat the effects of those mitigations were not examined, positive or negative.\nPage 6 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-25", "page": 7, "text": "Chair Knox White added that the City Council has already accepted the idea of reducing trips\ninstead of accommodating them, but that the EIR did not address that option at all. He believed\nthat while flexibility was good, cities should be able to identify their priorities. He noted that\nMariner Square Drive was listed as a four-lane road, even though it was supposed to be reduced\nwhen it came to the Transportation Commission. He cautioned against the unintended\nconsequences of mitigation. He expressed concern about the ability of residents on Fernside to\nget out of their driveways because the platoon of cars released from traffic lights travel down the\nstreet at intervals that do not break. He suggested that the City become more aware of those types\nof consequences. He would like the FEIR to discuss the length of the LOS-D at intersections.\nChair Knox White noted that Eighth Street has more traffic under the Project than under the No\nProject use of Eighth Street, even though the project was meant to decrease its use. Under the\nEnvironmentally Superior Alternative, he suggested removing EIR policies 1, 2 and 6. He would\nlike further clarification of the purpose of 500 pages of turn diagrams, which he believed puts off\nthe average citizen. He added that there was a lot of technical data that would have been useful\nbut was not included in the document. Chair Knox White echoed Board member Cunningham's\ncomment regarding the price of gas, and believed the City was moving in the right direction\nregarding a mode shift; he added that the City would have the appropriate infrastructure and the\naccompanying planning process in place for the time when that shift occurs.\nCommissioner Krueger requested that the technical appendices be separated into another\ndocument. He emphasized that it should be available, but believed that it would be more\nconvenient and less intimidating for the residents if it were contained in a separate document.\nPresident Kohlstrand believed that the direction of the Transportation Element was very positive,\nand that it tried to reflect the values of the residents of Alameda. She did not believe Alameda\nwanted to have seven-lane intersections such as those found in Pleasanton or Livermore, and did\nnot believe they enhanced the pedestrian atmosphere of those cities. She believed that everyone\nwas a potential pedestrian, and that they should be respected. She believed the essence of the\nplan did not appear in the document, such as the goal of restricting the future amount of roadway\ncapacity. President Kohlstrand believed the thresholds of significance will be very critical, and\nthat the City was in the awkward position of analyzing the Transportation Element using old\nsignificance criteria. She believed it was a goal worth pursuing, and that there was public support\nfor changing the focus of transportation within the City. She believed the design standards for the\nstreets and pedestrian improvements were also critical. She believed it was very important for the\npublic to have an opportunity to provide input into that process. She believed it was important\nfor runoff and drainage to be improved, and for them to be more friendly to people who live and\nwork in those areas.\nBoard member Ezzy-Ashcraft noted that she had supported green landscaping ordinances to\naccompany the green building ordinances. She noted that staff had stated that the time was not\nyet right for that, and that the positive aspect was that the Board would be able to work with\nPlanning staff to incorporate these recommendations into a future green landscaping ordinance to\nmeet legal requirements. She added that it was more economical as well.\nPage 7 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-25", "page": 8, "text": "President Kohlstrand emphasized that Planning and Public Works must work together on this\nissue, and that the standards should respect both safety issues and improving upon current\nstandards. Regarding the environmental document, she was surprised to find that no intersections\nin Alameda Point were listed as problematic.\nCommissioner Krueger wished to discuss Section 6 with the No Project Alternative and the\nEnvironmentally Superior Alternatives, which were meant to distinguish them from the proposed\nTMP. He could not see any evidence that the phenomenon of induced traffic was taken into\neffect. He added that occurred when capacity was added in an attempt to mitigate congestion, an\nincrease in traffic may also be caused because of new trips or shifted modes. He believed the\nimpacts in 4.1.1, which stated that road widening can divide communities, and 4.2.2, Alternative\nTransportation, which documented negative outcomes of a mode shift, should be verified. He\nadded that 4.1.2 should be checked as well, regarding land use and the increase of auto-oriented\nland use. He noted that 4.2.3 (page 6.0-10) should be checked with respect to safety, and that\nwidening roads would allow for more free-flowing traffic, and that the speed limits may be\ncompromised. He requested that 4.3.2-5 regarding air quality be checked, as well as 4.4.2 and\n4.4.3, regarding increasing noise impacts and induced traffic. He believed that some of the\nanalysis was too simplistic, allowing people to believe that road widening was environmentally\nsuperior. He believed there was considerable evidence to suggest that was not the case.\nPresident Kohlstrand noted that a one-page summary of proposed thresholds of significance had\nbeen distributed. She recalled an experiment in New York City where several streets were closed\nto all traffic on a Saturday morning, and noted that would be tested in San Francisco by early\nSeptember.\nChair Knox White discussed the summary, and explained the issue of multiple levels of service\nand their impacts on all modes of transportation. He noted that solutions to the impacts must be\nprioritized, and added that the Transportation Commission will continue to have conversations\nabout those issues.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n6-A.\nFuture Agendas\nStaff presented a report on upcoming agenda items.\n6-B. Zoning Administrator Report - Meeting of August 19, 2008\nStaff presented a report on the Zoning Administrator meeting of August 19, 2008. Two use\npermits were granted. One for 1712 Everett Avenue and one for 473-475 Central Avenue.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\n10-A\nTransmittal of August 2008 Public Review Draft of the Gateway District Strategic Plan\nfor consideration at the September 8, 2008 Planning Board regularly scheduled Meeting.\nPage 8 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-08-25", "page": 9, "text": "11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or make\na brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral to\nstaff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at\na subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to place\na request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.\nBoard member Lynch requested staff look into options that limit skateboarding in front of\nthe theatre as it can be hazardous to pedestrians.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft suggested signage stating \"No skateboarding on\nsidewalk\" be placed near the theatre to address Board member Lynch's concern. She\nasked staff to provide clarification to the Board on the public misconceptions regarding\nthe Boards action on the Grand Marina housing project.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n10:31 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 9 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf"}