{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-10-22", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nOctober 22, 2008\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\nJane Lee\nRobert McFarland (arrived after Roll Call)\nKathy Moehring\nEric Schatmeier\nSrikant Subramaniam\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nSeptember 24, 2008\nCommissioner Moehring moved approval of the minutes for the September 24, 2008,\nmeeting and minutes as presented. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion.\nMotion passed 6-0.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nThere were none.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\na.\nPedestrian Plan\nb.\nBicycle Plan Update Group\nc.\nAlameda Point Advisory Task Force\nChair Knox White noted that none of the task forces had met since the last meeting.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS\nNone.\n7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-10-22", "page": 2, "text": "7A.\nReview of SunCal Company's Redevelopment Concept Plan for Alameda Point\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, presented the SunCal Preliminary\nRedevelopment Concept for Alameda Point, with a focus on its transportation strategy.\nHe noted that the document was an important milestone in the redevelopment process for\nAlameda Point, and was the first major submittal by the SunCal Companies that was\nintended to lead to a final plan for Alameda Point, which would then lead to Alameda\nPoint's actual redevelopment. He detailed the background of this item, and noted that the\nplan was submitted on September 19, 2008, and that City staff was reviewing the plan,\nconcurrently with the Alameda community and the Alameda boards and commissions.\nWeekly meetings have been held with those boards and commissions, focusing on\nvarious aspects of the plan. Once comments have been received from all boards and\ncommissions, staff will present all the comments to City Council on November 5, 2008,\nsitting as the ARRA. He added that the Draft Master Plan will be submitted to the City by\nDecember 19, 2008. Staff believed the transportation issue was probably the most\ndifficult and significant issue to tackle for Alameda Point, which was an extremely\ncomplex development. Staff was very concerned that SunCal put together a strong\ntransportation plan to complement the land use plan. Staff believed it was very important\nto have a transportation strategy that can actually be implemented. He noted that in\naddition to Pat Kelleher, SunCal Companies was also represented by Nick Kosla and Sara\nChavez.\nMr. Pat Kelleher, SunCal Companies, noted that this was a very challenging site for a\nnumber of different reasons, and added that understanding the physical site constraints\nwas critical to understanding how Alameda Point could be developed. He noted that one\nof the constraints was the PDC floodplain, which was assumed during the PDC process.\nHe displayed a PowerPoint presentation. He noted that one critical item was determining\nwhether or not the finished floor levels of the historic buildings would be out of the flood\nplain. They did not believe it would be feasible to fill between six to ten feet of dirt\naround the buildings. He noted that a significant portion of the finished floor levels was\nabove the floodplain. He noted that the environmental conditions had not changed from\nthe PDC, and that the environmental cleanup issues were a current concern. He described\nthe presence of the young bay mud, which was subject to differential settlement issues,\nand loosely consolidated sand on the side closest to the marina and seaplane lagoon\nhangars were subject to liquefaction.\nMr. Kelleher noted that Peter Calthorpe, the urban planner, had four guiding principles:\ndiversity and balance in the project; human and pedestrian scale; conservation and\nrestoration; and connections and interdependence. He noted that there had been an\nextensive community planning process, and that three large workshops had been held,\nattended by approximately 700 people. He added that they had done considerable polling,\nand that many comment cards had been received. He described the proposed affordable\nhousing units, and noted that connectivity within the site was critical. He displayed the\nlayout for four soccer fields, as well as football and lacrosse fields, and four baseball\nfields. He noted that diverse housing opportunities would be important to the project's\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-10-22", "page": 3, "text": "success, such as single-family homes, townhomes, live-work, multifamily tuck-under,\nsenior housing, workforce housing, commercial development, and mixed use retail. He\nnoted that a diverse housing mix enables more flexible and effective reaction to a\nchanging marketplace.\nMr. Matthew Ridgway, Fehr & Peers, noted that Megan Mitman's name should be on the\nslide as well, due to her significant contribution to this work in close coordination with\nthe City. He augmented Mr. Thomas' comments on the contractual arrangement on this\nproject. He noted that while SunCal provided the funding, Fehr and Peers' contract was\nwith the City of Alameda. He displayed a series of slides illustrating present and future\nauto congestion, which they anticipated would become worse with or without the\nAlameda Point development. He noted that they encouraged people to use alternate\ntransportation modes as much as possible. He noted that there was no draw on the\nGeneral Fund, and that the project was at least fiscally neutral.\nMr. Ridgway detailed the six guiding principles of this project:\n1. Attract eco-minded residents and tenants. All residents and businesses will pay for\nan ecopass program, whether they use it or not;\n2. Create a self-sufficient community, with shopping, work, child care, educational\n(elementary school) and recreational opportunities on-site;\n3. Provide the best transportation services and facilities in the city, with a dedicated\nshuttle to connect to the 12th Street BART in Oakland in the initial phase. A Bus\nRapid Transit (BRT) system with two routes (between Alameda Point and 12th\nStreet BART, as well as to the Fruitvale BART station) will be implemented.\nHe noted that the proposed addition of the new ferry terminal at the seaplane\nlagoon would enhance ferry operations. He noted that the Transportation\nCoordinator would host regular transportation fairs and organize rideshare\nmatching. He detailed the route and operations of the dedicated shuttle line, and\nadded that a new shuttle would augment the 63 route. He estimated that the costs\nfor the overall transit improvements would be between $35-50 million.\n4. Provide Island-wide benefits for the City. He noted that reduction in auto use\nmust be implemented to free up the capacity for the additional travel associated\nwith the development of Alameda Point. He noted that it was expected that there\nwould be a 2-4% reduction in motor vehicle trips, and a significant increase in\ninfrastructure to accomplish that goal. The BRT system would be an addition to\nthe transit choices. The bikeway system would provide an additional benefit, and\nthat a trail facility would be extended along the former Alameda Belt Line\ncorridor along the length of the Island. The $5-7 million cost would be built into\nthe development pro forma. The system would provide additional travel and\nrecreational opportunities, as well as travel to the Ferry Terminal.\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-10-22", "page": 4, "text": "5.\nLimit vehicle trips to and from Alameda, and the inclusion of a car and bike share\nprogram. The cost of parking would be unbundled from the cost of purchasing the\nresidential units. The second parking space would cost incrementally more than\nthe first space, and ride-share and alternative fuel vehicles would have the\nopportunity to have premium on- and off-street parking. As little parking as\npractical would be provided, and it would be managed as best as possible to\nobtain the highest and best use of it.\n6.\nImplementation and monitoring of the more successful programs by an on-site\ntransportation manager.\nMr. Ridgway displayed each phase of the proposed project and described the high points\nof each phase.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that he would be concerned if the proposed BRT station\nwest of Main Street were to be split, and that there could be a conflict between having the\nstation or maintaining the large landscaped area at that location. Mr. Ridgway replied that\nthey would examine that issue in detail.\nCommissioner McFarland noted that page 106 discussed the reduction of commercial\ntrips by 30%, and residential trips by 10%. He inquired how the percentage was\nmeasured. Mr. Ridgway replied it was based on anticipated peak hour trips.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Moehring regarding the guaranteed ride\nhome, Mr. Ridgway replied that it would enable people to feel comfortable using transit,\nand that it would probably entail a contract with a taxi company. It would allow transit\nusers to be reimbursed for a taxi ride home for unanticipated trips home.\nCommissioner Moehring requested clarification of the additional cost of a second vehicle,\nand whether an alternative fuel vehicle would receive a discount. Mr. Ridgway noted that\nthey were more concerned about congestion than fuel type.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired about the statement on the shuttle on page 109,\nspecifically that it would operate every 10 to 15 minutes. He inquired whether it was for\nthe peak commute, or throughout the day. Mr. Ridgway replied that he did not have the\ninformation at hand.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that page 199 addressed the market-based fees for street\nparking, and inquired about the management for lot capacity for the market-based off-\nstreet solution. Mr. Ridgway noted that they made assumptions about the parking revenue\nconsistent with their operating revenue assumptions. He noted that they would want to\nencourage people to use the Ferry Island-wide. Commissioner Krueger liked the market-\nbased approach, and suggested that if the parking lot was empty, the fee should be cut.\nHowever, if the parking lot was above 85% full, it would be possible to charge a higher\nfee without discouraging anybody.\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-10-22", "page": 5, "text": "Staff Thomas noted that staff intended to bring the Transportation Element before the\nPlanning Board on November 24, 2008, for the final recommendation to the City Council\nfor their hearing in early January, 2009.\nCommissioner Lee expressed concern about school budgeting which can cause student\ndiversion from Ruby Bridges to Bay Farm Elementary School because of classes at\ncapacity. In terms of transportation, she believed that would be a nightmare. She believed\nthe plan was innovative, and liked the idea of the EcoPass.\nCommissioner Moehring requested that with respect to the intersections at Webster\nStreet, that the Business District should be a part of discussions because of the impact on\nthe Business District. She noted that traffic turning onto Webster was a concern to her.\nOpen public hearing.\nMr. Stuart Ricard expressed concern about the Tubes, and inquired about the number of\ntrips in the Tube with and without the mitigations and the project.\nMs. Mitman noted that the preliminary traffic numbers in the Tube with the project would\nbe 2,000 vehicles in the morning, about 1,300 inbound, and 750 outbound; about 1,960\nvehicles would use the Tube in the afternoon, with 790 inbound and 1,200 outbound. She\nnoted that was slightly higher than the PDC numbers, and that the numbers reflected full\nbuildout, but without the 2% islandwide credit. She further described the numbers at Mr.\nRicard's request.\nMr. Ricard expressed concern about locating retail at the outer portions of the Island, and\nbelieved it would be better to have it more centrally located. He was also concerned about\nimpact on the Tube, and inquired about the number of units west of Grand Street. Mr.\nRicard stated that this was the time to make a decision about this development, and not\nlet it get so big that it cannot be affected. He believed there were huge benefits to this\nproject, but was also concerned about the impact on the Tube.\nMr. Bill Smith expressed concern about congestion in the Tube, and noted that the\nrecumbent bicycle he has developed will also be available as a free public transit vehicle.\nHe supported public/private peer-to-peer financing such as that utilized with solar energy.\nClose public hearing.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that this document was an exciting item, and believed\nthat it was essential for the development to provide alternatives for people from Day 1.\nHe believed this kind of strategy was important in attracting people to such a\ndevelopment. He understood that details about headways were still forthcoming, and this\ndevelopment would make it possible for people to travel the Island without using an\nautomobile. He discussed the last round of service cuts at AC Transit, and noted that the\n63 had been a catch-all line. He believed that because the 63 was supposed to do\neverything, it didn't do anything very well. He suggested running the 63 on 15-minute\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-10-22", "page": 6, "text": "headways, rather than 30-minute headways. He would like the 63 to be rethought in a\nsignificant manner.\nCommissioner Moehring appreciated the innovation, creativity and diversity in this plan,\nand especially appreciated SunCal's flexibility in working with the community.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that on page 57, the intersection of Atlantic and Orion was\nvery good, but that the potential BRT station planning needed to be integrated into the\nsite design, because the station would be a potential focal point. He noted that Fruitvale\nwas an example of how bad planning of a station can ruin an otherwise great\ndevelopment. He would like to avoid having a split station. He noted that on page 108,\nthere was a typo in the Mode Choice section, stating that residents would have a 10-mile\nwalk to the ferry, and that it should read \"10-minute\" walk to the ferry. He noted that on\npage 109, the shuttle frequency should be clarified. He believed that the parking lots at\nthe transit station should be managed in a market-driven way, the same as the street\nparking.\nChair Knox White was happy to see that the personal rapid transit (PRT) was\nunderplayed, and while the technology would become developed in the future, he did not\nbelieve it was the right use for this development. He noted that under Commercial, the\ndocument identified three parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, which was 25% lower\nthan Alameda's current minimum. He believed the plan was a good one from a\ntransportation standpoint, and should be backed up by realistic data. He hoped the plan\ncould move forward in a timely manner.\nNo action was taken.\n8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Knox White noted that he had received an email about the new traffic signal at\nAtlantic and Webster, stating that inbound cars turning right and west on Atlantic were\nrunning the red light because they were used to the old configuration.\na.\nEstuary Crossing Feasibility Study\nStaff Khan noted that he was not present at the two public meetings that were held during\nOctober, and that he had not received the feedback from the consultant. He would present\nthat information at the next meeting.\nb.\nBroadway/Jackson Update\nStaff Khan noted that the project study report has been submitted to CalTrans, and that\nthey had not scheduled or budgeted the project study report (PSR). Staff was currently\nworking on incorporating the PSR.\nc.\nMonitoring of Oak Street/Central Avenue intersection\nStaff Khan noted that he had originally planned to bring it to this meeting, but it was\ndelayed and will be brought at the November 12, 2009, meeting.\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-10-22", "page": 7, "text": "Chair Knox White inquired whether the changes were necessary, and he hoped the report\nwould indicated whether the traffic generated in that area would have caused the\nconcerns, particularly the traffic blockage on Park Street.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether traffic counts had been\nconducted, Staff Khan replied that they were done.\nChair Knox White inquired about the results of the traffic counts, and how they\ncompared.\nStaff Khan replied that staff used the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) analysis,\nand that the information would be brought forward at a later date. Generally, staff found\nthe impact to be much less than what was cited in the MND.\nd.\nUpcoming development-related traffic studies and plans\nStaff Khan noted that staff would keep the Transportation Commission updated on further\nSunCal updates.\ne.\nFuture meeting agenda items\nStaff Khan noted that the Final EIR comments for the Transportation Master Plan would\nbe brought forward on the November 12, 2009, meeting or later in November in a joint\nmeeting with the Planning Board.\nStaff Khan noted that the parking study for the Business District will be brought forward\neither in November or December.\nCommissioner McFarland noted that he drove to work from High Street to I-880, and\nnoticed a lot of activity on the road by the Shell station in Oakland. He inquired about the\nstatus of the I-880 widening work, and noticed a lot of utility and drainage work. Staff\nKhan replied that the plans were to start some of the work in 2009. He added that the\nproject would be coordinated with the County's work as well. He added that CalTrans\nplanned to do most of the work at night, without closing lanes during the day.\nStaff Bergman noted that the Interagency Liaison Committee meeting had been held with\nAC Transit, which had collected some data in September about the changes on Line 63,\nand how they affected run times. Each proposed change at Alameda Point and near\nEncinal High School was anticipated to gain about two minutes each.\nChair Knox White noted that Staff Bergman mentioned that the City did not receive the\ngrant to fund a long-range transit plan update. He believed that in terms of the casual\ncarpool issue, the City should be careful to prioritize things. He proposed that in\nNovember or December, either staff or a Transportation Commission subcommittee\nshould be develop a scope of work for a long-range transit plan update.\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-10-22", "page": 8, "text": "Staff Bergman noted that Walk and Roll to School Day had been held earlier in the\nmonth, and that he would report to the Transportation Commission on the participation\nnumbers once they become available. He noted that Alameda was very active in the\nelementary and middle school participation.\nStaff Bergman noted that both of the City's Safe Routes to School grant applications did\nnot receive funding.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that the new bus stop work on Shoreline looked very good,\nand was glad to see the paving taking place. He inquired whether the bus stop on\nVersailles and Fernside had been red curbed. Commissioner McFarland replied that it\nhad been red curbed.\nADJOURN: 9:30 p.m.\n G:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\\TC/2008\\111208\\102208minutes-final.doc\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-10-22.pdf"}