{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2008-12-10", "page": 1, "text": "Chy\nOF\nthe\n6\nTERRA\nMinutes of the\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING\nDecember 10, 2008\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:02 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nRuth Belikove, President\nMike Hartigan, Vice President\nKaren Butter, Board Member\nAlan Mitchell, Board Member\nAbsent:\nGail Wetzork, Board Member\nStaff:\nJane Chisaki, Library Director\nMarsha Merrick, Recording Secretary\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nAn asterisk indicates items so enacted or adopted on the Consent Calendar.\nA.\n*Report from Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Month of December 2008.\nAccepted.\nB.\n*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of November 12, 2008. Approved.\nC.\n*Library Services Report for the Month of October 2008. Accepted.\nD.\n*Financial Report Reflecting FY 2008-09 Expenditures by Fund through November 2008.\nAccepted.\nE.\n*Bills for Ratification for the Month of November 2008. Approved.\nVice President Hartigan asked why the telephone account is in the negative on the Expenditure Status\nReport. Director Chisaki explained that each department pays a monthly chargeback to IT (the Library's\nshare is $2,200) for debt still owed on the phone system. Being unaware of this charge, additional\nmoney was not budgeted. Hartigan also asked why there is only $15,000 left for electricity this year.\nChisaki said a large chunk of money is already encumbered on a purchase order for Alameda Power &\nTelecom, and the $15,000 is what is left after that, so we are still in very good shape. Chisaki went on to\nsay that if funds become available, there is already a request in to install solar panels on the Library.\nPresident Belikove asked for a motion to accept the Consent Calendar as presented. Member Butter so\nmoved; Member Mitchell seconded the motion which carried by a 4-0 vote.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2008-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2008-12-10", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2 of 3\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nDecember 10, 2008\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\nThere were no communications from the public members in attendance.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nNeighborhood Library Improvement Project (G. Wetzork)\nIn Member Wetzork's absence, Director Chisaki reported that the NLIP team met and came\nup\nwith 4 firms to interview on 12/16/08. Contractor selection will be made that day; all firms\nreceived our boilerplate contract with the proposal package, so the City Attorney's office has\npromised to push this through quickly. The contract award is expected to go through at the\nJanuary 6 City Council meeting.\nB.\nConsideration of Art Donation (R. Belikove)\nSpace was found to hang the Gary Bukovnik painting on the first floor Lincoln Street side of the\nbuilding; it can be broken up and mounted separately. President Belikove and Supervising\nLibrarian Hall went to San Francisco to view the piece which looked to be in good condition.\nMember Butter asked what the circumstances of the donation were, i.e., will we be able to\ndispose of the piece later, or are we to keep it for perpetuity. Butter was quite concerned about\nacceptance without a policy in place. Member Hartigan also pointed out this piece would take\ndisplay space away from the rotating exhibits the Library hosts. Director Chisaki asked Belikove\nto tell the artist that we need to have our policy in place before taking the art. Chisaki has given\nHall some art policies from other libraries to get started on putting ours together.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nArt Exhibit Committee (R. Belikove)\nPresident Belikove said Peggie Williams moved so is no longer on the art exhibit committee.\nThey need to recruit a new member, as they have only 4 now. A newspaper advertisement needs\nto be placed, asking people to submit letters of interest as they did upon the committee's initial\nformation. Belikove had a few possible leads, so she will make some calls first; if these people\nare interested, she will ask that they submit a letter. The next exhibit coming to the Library in\nJanuary will be Chinese Brush Painting by artist Dolly Fong.\nB.\nAlameda Free Library Foundation (A. Mitchell)\nThe Foundation approved their investment policy, and the Executive Board will meet later in the\nmonth. Instead of giving money to the Library piecemeal for individual requests, the Foundation\nhas decided on an annual distribution instead. This will vary on what interest has been earned,\nand half of the amount that was raised throughout the year on special programs. This year's\ndistribution amount will be around $7,500, plus $5,000 from the Michael Pollan event.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2008-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2008-12-10", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3 of 3\nMinutes of the Alameda\nFree Library Board Meeting\nDecember 10, 2008\nC.\nFriends of the Alameda Free Library (M. Lambert)\nMarc Lambert reported that the newsletter had come out that day, with a new feature on the\naddress label showing membership status. The Friends have adopted their 2009 budget; they\nexpect to raise $49,500 this year. The next Friends meeting will be on January 26.\nD.\nPatron suggestions/comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's response.\nA request was made for signage around the Circulation Desk instructing patrons to wait until the\nprevious person is done with their transaction before stepping up to the counter for assistance.\nThis has been a challenging area to control. With the elevator, staircase and express check-out\nstations right there, it is difficult to clearly form a line. Some new signage alternatives will be\ngiven a try. A request was made that I.D. be required along with your library card to check out\nbooks. That way, if someone steals your card, they would not be able to use it. It is important to\nkeep your library card as secure as you would a credit card, and report its loss immediately.\nLIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard Member Butter mentioned watching the City Council meeting, and how confusing it had been\nwhen discussion was held on how much bond money proceeds were available for Library construction.\nThe Interim Finance Director had been talking about a special fund that pays the debt service for the\nLibrary. Finance will send a report to Council with a full explanation, and better numbers will be\navailable for Director Chisaki after her meeting with Finance staff on the following day.\nDIRECTOR'S COMMENTS\nChisaki reminded Board members to do their AB1234 ethics training so the certificates can be turned in\nto the City Clerk's office. \"The Buzz\" - a newsletter from the Harbor Bay Athletic Club - is out and it\nlists the Library's upcoming programs and events, The Art Exhibit Calendar will be included in Board\npackets starting in January. On January 20th, the League of Women Voters, the Friends of the Alameda\nFree Library and the Alameda Free Library will co-host an inauguration viewing event, starting at 7:30\na.m. in the Regina K. Stafford Community Meeting Rooms.\nADJOURNMENT\nPresident Belikove asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Vice President Hartigan so\nmoved; Member Mitchell seconded the motion which carried by a 4-0 vote.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJane Chisaki, Library Director and\nSecretary to the Library Board", "path": "LibraryBoard/2008-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-12-10", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION\nREGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2008\nCONFERENCE ROOM 360, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nCONVENE: Acting Chair Lee called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT: Vice Chair Lee, Commissioners Ibsen and Leal\nABSENT:\nCommissioner Candelario\nSTAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary to\nPublic Art Commission; Maria Luisa Flores, Intermediate\nClerk, Planning & Building\nMINUTES:\nMinutes from the meeting of November 12, 2008\nMotion (lbsen)/Second (Lee) to approve minutes with modifications\nAyes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent 1. Motion passed.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\nREGULAR AGENDA:\n(4A.) Adoption of Resolutions Acknowledging the Service of Former Public Art\nCommission Members to the Citizens of Alameda\nAyes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent 1. Motion passed.\n(4B.) Public Art Proposal for Perforce Software at 2320 Blanding Avenue\nMotion (Ibsen)/Second (Leal) to adopt the resolution approving Application No.\nPLN08-0606 for the public art at the Perforce Software building, based on the\nfindings suggested by staff and subject to the following special condition in\naddition to the conditions recommended by staff:", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2008-12-10", "page": 2, "text": "The tiles depicting the wisp of breath from the figure on one panel towards\nthe bubble wand on the adjacent panel shall be extended so the relationship\nbetween the panels is more direct. A drawing depicting this modification is\nsubject to approval of a subcommittee of the Public Art Commission, who\nshall report their decision at the next regular meeting. Subcommittee\nMembers - Ibsen and Lee.\nAyes: 3; Noes: 0; Absent 1. Motion passed.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nStaff reported.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\nCOMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS:\nEric Ibsen and Andrea Leal have drafted a press release regarding locating public art in\nAlameda which they would like to have agendized for discussion at a future meeting.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJon Biggs, Planning Services Manager/Secretary\nPublic Art Commission\nG:\\PLANNING\\PAC\\Agendas_Minutes\\Minutes_08/12-10-08 draft minutes.doc\n2", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2008-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-12-10", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nDecember 10, 2008\nActing Chair Krueger called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.\nMembers Present:\nMichael Krueger\nRobert McFarland\nEric Schatmeier\nKathy Moehring (arrived after Item 4)\nJane Lee\nMembers Absent:\nJohn Knox White\nSrikant Subramaniam\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\nEric Fonstein, Development Services Department\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nOctober 22, 2008\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that with respect to page 7 (Future Agenda Items), he did not\nrecall raising the issue of High Street and I-880, and believed that another Commissioner made\nthose comments. Staff Khan believed the comments were made by Commissioner McFarland.\nCommissioner Lee noted that with respect to school budgeting on page 5, the language should be\nchanged to:\n\"\nschool budgeting, which can cause\n\"\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the minutes of October 22, 2008, as amended.\nCommissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.\nb.\nNovember 12, 2008\nThere was not a quorum to consider these minutes, which will be considered during the January\n28, 2009, meeting.\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-12-10", "page": 2, "text": "3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nThere were none.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nNo task forces met since the last meeting.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS. - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS\nThere were none.\n6.\nOLD BUSINESS\n6A.\nParking Management Strategy for the Park Street and West Alameda Business\nDistricts.\nEric Fonstein, Development Services Department, summarized the staff report and detailed the\nbackground and scope of this item. He noted that West Alameda Business Association and the\nPark Street Business Association expressed concerns that the Alameda Municipal Code did not\nreasonably take into consideration the type or size of the business, or its location, when applying\nthe minimum parking requirements. The members also believed that the City's in lieu fees were\nburdensome and expensive, especially for small businesses. The third concern was raised by\nresidents in the neighborhoods regarding lack of adequate on-street parking. He noted that in\nresponse to those concerns, the City hired Wilbur Smith & Associates to conduct a parking\nstudy, which measured occupancy, turnover and duration of both on-and off-street parking in the\ntwo districts. He noted that the study was completed before the completion of the new Civic\nCenter parking structure and Movie Theater, although those facilities were included in the future\nparking demand calculations.\nMr. Fonstein advised that the study found high on-street occupancy levels several times during\nthe day; City-owned parking lots A and C were also highly used, and that many of the private\nlots were highly underused; and there were high occupancies in the residential areas near the\ndowntown area. Similar findings were found in the West Alameda district. He noted that the\ngoals of the parking strategy were:\n1. Management of the existing supply should be enhanced, and that the bargain hunters and\nemployees should be moved from the on-street parking spaces and into the private and\npublic lots through pricing mechanisms, and to open up the on-street parking for the\nshoppers, which benefit the district; and\n2. Lower the barriers to private investment and business expansion in the districts.\nStaff Fonstein noted that the infrastructure and supply were in place, but that the resource\nmanagement tools must be sharpened. He noted that on-street parking was an underpriced, finite\nresource, which was capable of being exploited or sold out. He noted that an appropriate price\npoint for on-street parking should be found, so that merchants and employees did not monopolize\nthe on-street parking; parking structures and off-street lots would be preferable. He noted that by\nappropriately pricing the on-street parking, the turnover rate would be optimized. He noted that\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-12-10", "page": 3, "text": "short-term parkers were less sensitive to the price, and preferred the convenience. He noted that\nProfessor Donald Shoup of UCLA discovered that appropriately priced parking actually reduced\ntraffic congestion by up to 30%, which was the percentage of drivers cruising around the block\nlooking for a parking space. He noted that the goal was to have 15% vacancy of meter space\navailable at any one time, or approximately one empty space per block. He noted that in the Park\nStreet district, the on-street meter rates were increased from 50 cents to $1 per hour. The off-\nstreet public lots were kept at 50 cents. Staff recommended monitoring the parking conditions on\nPark Street.\nStaff Fonstein noted that on certain areas of Webster Street at certain times, there was high\noccupancy, but that there was not enough to consider raising the on-street meter rates. Both\ndistricts would continue to be monitored. He noted that an ordinance may be considered to\nestablish a target occupancy rate of 85%, and create a threshold of meter rates which could be\nadjusted up or down at 25% intervals. He noted that this plan needed neighborhood support,\nactive enforcement and should be self-funded to avoid impacting the City's General Fund.\nStaff Fonstein noted that staff's recommendations were to establish a cost-neutral program,\nwhich would be borne by the permit holders, estimated at approximately $75 annually. It would\nalso establish two-hour parking for non-residents in a permitted area; active enforcement would\nbe very important, and that violators would receive a ticket. The program should be located\nwithin three blocks of the commercial area; 75% of the on-street occupancy in any given two-\nhour area should demonstrate an impact on those streets; and one-third of the neighborhood\nshould sign a petition to bring it forward to the City. After a study, the City should present the\nmeasure to the residents for a vote, with a majority approval by the property owners.\nStaff Fonstein noted that the third management strategy was to use employee parking permits,\nallowing employees to park in off-street lots and parking structures, freeing the on-street parking\nfor customers. He described the prices of the various parking permits. Staff recommended that an\nRFP be prepared and issued for a trial project for both districts, as funding becomes available.\nStaff Fonstein noted that the second goal was to encourage private investment, infill development\nand business expansion in the business districts. He noted that there were some concerns by\nmembers of the business associations about the parking requirements. He noted that the goal was\nto find the right size of parking requirements for uses. He noted that there were comments that\nthe requirements did not take the realities of on-street business locations into account, and that\nmotorists may park once for many destinations. He noted that another concern was that\nrestrictive requirements would increase the cost for infill development. He noted that staff would\nlike the flexibility to go below the stipulated requirements, using either a demand waiver, a\nhistoric waiver, or a shared parking waiver. Staff would like to look at shared parking, and that a\nCity employee parking lot at Lincoln and Walnut may be opened to the public on weekends, and\nfor special events. They would also like to create a shared parking database for people to use.\nStaff would like to re-examine the shared parking code, to ensure that it would be easy to enter\ninto the agreement.\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-12-10", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Fonstein noted that the third goal was program management, with periodic monitoring,\ndepending on the availability of funding. He noted that issues such as satellite parking programs,\npark & ride, casual carpool, loading zones, the possibility of extending enforcement to Saturdays\nor evenings, valet parking, the needs of disabled patrons, and to develop a long-range financing\nplan for future parking in both districts. He noted that WABA endorsed this plan the previous\nweek, and it was presented to PSBA for consideration in January. He noted that the EDC did not\nhave a quorum on November 20, 2008, and that it would be re-presented on January 15, 2009.\nThis plan would be brought before the Planning Board at their January 12, 2009, meeting. They\nhoped to bring it to the City Council in February 2009.\nCommissioner Schatmeier inquired about the impact of casual car pooling on surrounding\nneighborhoods. Staff Khan noted that it was not defined fully at this time, but that there would be\nsome impact. He noted that Encinal/Park and Santa Clara/Webster are currently being used\ninformally for this purpose.\nCommissioner Moehring inquired about the payment machines, and would like to confirm that\nthey would accept cash in addition to credit cards. Staff Fonstein confirmed that they would\naccept cash. Commissioner Mehoring ask when funding for these machines would become\navailable, Staff Fonstein for the initial pilot project, and that the cost was $48,000 for two\nmachines. There would be one machine per block. Commissioner Moring noted that it would be\nnice to try a machine, and inquired whether they could be solar-powered.\nStaff Khan noted that some machines can be loaded via cell phone.\nOpen public hearing.\nThere were no speakers.\nActing Chair Krueger suggested this might be a good time to read Chair Knox White's written\ncomments into the record.\nStaff Bergman noted that Chair Knox White stated that \"in-lieu fees should be used for\naccommodation of transportation, but an emphasis on transportation options that reduce the need\nto build more parking. Bus shelters, benches, bike racks, etc., not just parking for bikes or for\ncars.\" After receiving the comment, staff examined the Municipal Code, and it appeared to allow\nconsiderable flexibility, and should accommodate Chair Knox White's concerns, although it was\nnot explicit. The Code stated that \"fees should be allowed where the City can identify\nappropriate uses for funds reasonably related to the project. Appropriate uses shall include, but\nnot be limited to, acquisition\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-12-10", "page": 5, "text": "Close public comment.\nCommissioner Schatmeier agreed with Chair Knox White's comments, and was concerned about\nthe portion of the study that recommended lowering the cost of commuter parking in off-street\nparking to address the balance between on-street and off-street parking. He believed the lower\nparking cost would serve as a deterrent to using transit in areas where transit service was dense.\nActing Commissioner Krueger requested that the possibility of the TransLink card be\ninvestigated, because the program was moving very slowly. He agreed with Chair Knox White's\nsuggestion about broadening the usage of the in lieu fees for transportation improvements, with\nan emphasis on parking demand reduction. He believed that the minimum and maximum long-\nterm fee adjustments should include adjustments for inflation. He noted that the criterion for the\n15-minute transit service was good except the requirement that it also be 15 minutes on\nweekends during peak business hours, which he believed was met only by the 51. He believed\nthat was too strict.\nStaff Khan agreed and stated that it should be changed to weekdays only for the criterion.\nActing Chairperson Krueger suggested using 15 minutes during the week, and 30 minutes during\nthe weekend, which would apply to both the minimum and maximum. He suggested lowering the\nprice of garage parking would encourage people to park there, or to increase the cost of street\nand residential parking.\nStaff Khan wished to confirm that Commissioner Schatmeier suggested that before changing on-\nstreet pricing, that the impacts should be evaluated, and if the residential permit parking could\naddress the on-street parking issues. Commissioner Schatmeier confirmed that was correct.\nStaff Khan noted that he understood the other comment to examine casual carpool analysis more\ncomprehensively, consider TransLink card use for payment of parking meters; broaden the use of\nin lieu fees that could be used not just for bicycle or parking supply facilities, but also for transit,\ntransit shelter and parking demand management strategies. He understood that inflation be\nincluded for maximum parking meter charges, as well as examining making a change to a waiver\nthat changes weekday 15-minute and weekend 15-minute headway to weekday 15-minute and\nweekend service being available.\nStaff Khan summarized the Commission's desire that shared parking would be available for all\nparking and would apply to all waivers if a facility acquired a new waiver. He added that for the\nmaximum waiver, shared parking could also satisfy as part of the waiver.\nActing Chairperson Krueger noted that was not his comment, and that having looked for shared\nparking should be part of the conditions in order to obtain the waiver. He noted that in order to\nget the waiver, you must show that you cannot satisfy it through shared parking.\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-12-10", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Moehring moved to recommend approval of the plan with Commissioner\ncomments forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion.\nMotion passed 5-0.\n6B.\nProposed Method for Identifying Preferred Transportation Modes on Street\nSegments Where Multiple Priorities Have Been Identified.\nStaff Bergman summarized the staff report, and provided the background on this item. He\ndisplayed a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the staff report.\nCommissioner Moehring noted that segment 68 (Central to Atlantic) gave preference to autos\nand pedestrians, but that it was also a major transit route, which should be addressed as well.\nStaff Khan agreed.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that the segment 15 listed transit and bicycles on Challenger at\nMarina Village Parkway, which was not a primary transit or an exclusive right of way transit, yet\ntransit was listed as the preferred mode. He inquired whether that was correct. Staff Khan noted\nthat staff would re-examine that item.\nOpen public hearing.\nThere were no speakers.\nStaff Bergman noted that Chair Knox-White submitted comments in writing, which he distributed\nand read into the record:\nThe current report/proposal does not address the goals that the TC and the TMP set out,\nwhich is to stop the incremental degradation in the walk/bike environment and maintain\nthe quality of life on all streets.\nPast TC and staff discussion has focused specifically on allowing higher congestion in\nCommercial areas in favor of pedestrian improvements, however the current staff\nproposal does the opposite, specifically saying that for Commercial Main and School and\nRecreational Zones not on Regional Arterials, preference is given to Pedestrians,\nBicyclists, and/or Transit.\nThis means that automobiles are given preference in both Commercial Main Streets and\nSchool and Recreation zones, the exact opposite of the purpose of these classifications. In\nfact, the proposal essentially makes the Commercial Main Street classification moot.\nThe TC's past consensus goal identified the use of the \"Modal Priority\" maps in the TMP\nfor Multimodal LOS purposes. The staff proposal does not follow this methodology and\nthe TC should be aware of this during the discussion.\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-12-10", "page": 7, "text": "At the TMP EIR hearing, we heard from 3 different people about the trouble pedestrians\nhave crossing Broadway near San Jose. Broadway is a Regional Arterial. In moving\nforward with staff's proposal, auto mobility will be prioritized over pedestrian; the ability\nof the city to respond to these issues will be reduced.\nAlameda's regional arterials are not Gilroy-like walled off roadways that can be treated\nin isolation of other modes; they run through our business districts, past parks and\nschools.\nMany of the core Primary Transit Streets are also along the Regional Arterials, in\nprioritizing autos over transit, the staff proposal reduces the TC and city council's) goal\nof moving people instead of cars, especially as it affects the Park Street Bridge and more\nimportantly the tubes.\nBefore the discussion on the \"grid\" begins, I'd respectfully ask that the TC discuss the\ngoals of the TMP and the desire to create multimodal LOS thresholds. Only through an\nunderstanding of what we are trying to achieve, can the right result be crafted.\nRather than starting with the grid, which is difficult to conceptualize, I would like to\nencourage people to talk about policies and trade-offs using the grid to identify examples\nof where certain situations might occur and how the TC would like to recommend they be\nhandled.\nRegional arterials streets: Park St., Webster St., Constitution Way, Encinal/Central, 1/2 of\nBroadway, Clement Ave., Atlantic Ave., Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, 1/2 of\nMain Street, Otis Drive (from Towne Centre to the bridge).\nClose public hearing.\nCommissioner Moehring noted that the regional arterials should all have transit as one of the\npreferred modes.\nCommissioner Schatmeier concurred with Commissioner Moehring's comments, and counted\nmany streets designated as primary transit streets where transit was not mentioned in the priority\ncolumn.\nCommissioner Moehring left the meeting at 9:00 p.m.\nActing Chairperson Krueger noted that the auto was the default modal priority, which he\nbelieved was the reason there was no auto overlay. He noted that the modal overlays answered\nthat priority. He believed this grid brought the street classification in as a means prioritization,\nparticularly bringing in the regional arterial as a way of saying automobiles should trump the\nother modes, despite the modal overlays. He was concerned that was not how the street\nclassification was intended to be used.\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-12-10", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Schatmeier would like the streets to be prioritized on a case by case basis.\nCommissioner McFarland agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier's assessment.\nStaff Bergman noted that for the multi-modal priority layers, they were examined in isolation.\nActing Chairperson Krueger suggested that the clarifications, as detailed in the November 12,\n2008, minutes (page 5) be reviewed for the benefit of the Commissioners who were not in\nattendance at that meeting.\nA discussion of the modal overlays ensued.\nCommissioner Schatmeier suggested that Park Street be designated as a primary transit street,\nbecause the level of service and ridership was already high; they could be higher by assigning\nthis priority, and giving preferential treatment to transit.\nActing Chairperson Krueger noted that the classifications were based on a series of rules,\nparticularly a rule that if a street was designated as a major arterial, that automobiles would\nautomatically take precedence, which was not the same as saying it was a case-by-case basis. He\nbelieved that staff was trying to craft a set of rules that could be applied to determine the\noutcome. He believed that was fair, because it would be practically difficult to handle everything\non a case by case basis; in that event, there would be no need for overriding rules and\nclassifications.\nCommissioner Schatmeier objected to the rule stating that regional arterials would always get\nauto-priority treatment, and noted that Park Street was different than Otis.\nActing Chairperson Krueger noted that regional arterials were a major issue in that they were\nalso commercial streets.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that Webster and Park were major transit corridors, but that\nthere was no \"T\" listed in the table.\nStaff Bergman noted that if the Commission would like to modify the guidelines, that would be\nuseful feedback for staff.\nStaff Khan noted that the City would hire Dowling Associates to work on this specific aspect of\nthreshold significance. He noted that if this could not be resolved at this time, there would be\nother opportunities; this may be a good starting point to get feedback for the next meeting.\nActing Chairperson Krueger believed the discussion should be continued with all of the\nCommissioners present, and that the resolution of the conflicts should be identified.\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-12-10", "page": 9, "text": "Staff Khan noted that the stated goals of the Transportation Element would be a good place to\nstart; the following goals were identified:\n1.\nCirculation\n2.\nLivability\n3.\nTransportation choice\n4.\nImplementation in a cost-effective way.\nActing Chairperson Krueger noted that he had considered the following goals: protecting\nlivability; maintaining current bicycle, pedestrian and transit levels of service/access; and\ncreating equity for the modes.\nActing Chairperson Krueger noted that the statement about regional arterials was tricky because\nthey ran through all of the business districts. He believed that when the automotive mode priority\nin regional arterials, that ran counter to the idea of preserving the walkable business districts.\nStaff Khan reflected the comment to mean that the regional arterials would be examined in terms\nof looking at giving priority to high-occupancy vehicles.\nActing Chairperson Krueger noted that would be a good start, and would like to explore the\nissue of prioritization. He would like to have more information to provide guidance, and if the\nmodal overlay did not determine the priority, he would like something better than just an ad hoc\nstatement, and that maybe too many streets were called out.\nCommissioner Schatmeier suggested that the goals be used as a guide in setting the priority.\nStaff Khan noted that some changes could be made based upon the Commissioners' comments,\nand that the revised goals could be brought back at a later meeting.\nActing Chairperson Krueger complimented staff on the presentation and believed this was a very\ngood format.\nCommissioner Schatmeier inquired whether the chart included every classified street. Staff Khan\nnoted that staff only looked at the streets in the transportation model with a LOS of C or more.\nStaff Bergman noted that this was done conservatively, and if the analysis were limited to streets\nprojected to go to LOS D or lower in 2030, it would be reduced to 50 segments. He noted that\nthis constituted only a small percentage of the City's street network.\nActing Chairperson Krueger noted that good ideas were brought forward.\nStaff Khan summarized the direction, and noted that staff would examine the Transportation\nElement goals, and incorporate them into the preferences for different modes. He invited further\nCommissioner comments, and would report back in January 2009.\n9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-12-10", "page": 10, "text": "7.\nNEW BUSINESS\na.\nAppointment of a Long-Range Transit Plan Update Subcommittee\nStaff Bergman noted that this item was suggested by Chair Knox-White, since the City was not\nsuccessful in acquiring a grant to complete the Long Range Transit Plan update. Chair Knox-\nWhite requested that a scope of work be identified for the time when funding was available. He\nnoted that the general scope of work was identified in the grant application, and could be fleshed\nout. The Subcommittee would be composed of three members, which was not a quorum; the\ndiscussion would be brought back to the full Commission.\nActing Chairperson Krueger invited volunteers to serve on the Subcommittee. Commissioner\nSchatmeier noted that he would be willing to serve, as would Acting Chairperson Krueger.\nCommissioner McFarland noted that he would be willing to serve, but wanted the new members\nto have the opportunity to serve. He suggested that two members be named, with the third to be\nnamed later.\nActing Chairperson Krueger appointed Commissioner Schatmeier and himself as volunteers for\nthe subcommittee, and deferred naming the third member until the next meeting.\nOpen public comment.\nThere was none.\nClose public comment.\n7.\nNEW BUSINESS\nThere was none.\n8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Khan noted that staff was asked to consider identifying every agenda item as an action item.\nAfter a discussion with the City Attorney's office, it was felt to be problematic.\nActing Chairperson Krueger asked for standard guidelines so that there was consistency between\nall the boards and commissions.\nStaff Khan noted that the Planning Board did not take action on every item, and that they\nincluded discussion items on the agenda.\na.\nEstuary Crossing Feasibility Study\nStaff Khan noted that a public meeting was held in October 2008, as well as a policy advisory\ncommittee meeting with members of other agencies. A meeting with the TAT was held on this\nissue, and that the report would be brought to the Commissioner.\n10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-12-10", "page": 11, "text": "b.\nBroadway/Jackson Update\nStaff Khan noted that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting. A transportation\nstudy would be submitted to City Council on December 17 or 18, 2008, and would be available\nto the public.\nc.\nMonitoring of Oak Street/Central Avenue intersection\nStaff Khan noted that there was no report.\nd.\nUpcoming development-related traffic studies and plans\nStaff Khan noted that there was no report.\ne.\nFuture meeting agenda items\nStaff Khan noted that staff would examine ordinances related to parking, because residential\npermit parking required an ordinance change, and that the issue would be brought forth in\nJanuary or February 2009.\nStaff Bergman noted that the Interagency Liaison Committee with AC Transit was tentatively\nscheduled to meet on the 17th, and was rescheduled for January 2009.\nADJOURNMENT: 10:05 p.m.\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\\TC\\/2009\\012809\\121008minutes-draft-rev.doc\n11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf"}