3A Public Hearing 2010 0517 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Marc/t 25, 2010 Agenda No. IO-03 Page 4 of 20 Commissioner Reed wondered whether anyone has considered going back to the drawing board and decide to do nothing at this time; in other words, a "no-build" option -and what are the costs associated with each option? Mr. Cooke said there is no direct impact to the City budget with this project. The funding, even for staff review time, is covered by AC Transit's project budget. As long as the project is funded by federal and local sources, those costs will be picked up. He also acknowledged that no-build is another option. Secretary Livermore clarified that in 2007, the Planning Commission and City Council weighed in on BRT, making a recommendation to the AC Transit Board to terminate the BRT line at the downtown BART station. Option A is consistent with that decision. Commissioner Brannan asked whether staff has an opinion on the no-build option. Mr. Cooke said that from an objective point of view, BRT offers an ability to improve transit with minimal impact on existing traffic, so from that perspective it "appears to be a decent investment" for San Leandro. It affords us an opportunity to "try out" BRT and also have an effective BRT system that can show people its benefits. Commissioner Collier reiterated concerns she has previously expressed about the impact of any kind of improved bus stops or anything else on McKinley School and businesses in the narrow area of East 14th Street. The area is simply too narrow and businesses -already struggling -are right on the sidewalk. Mr. Cooke pointed out that he did not show slides related to that option (Option B). The considerations Commissioner Collier described swayed the decision to recommend Option A. He said eventually we would hopefully be able to work out some kind of transition to dedicated lanes in that area, but not now. Part of the beauty and flexibility of BRT, he added, is the ability to make rapid improvements, particularly relative to, say, a light rail system. For example, he said it's a 10-year process to make atwo-mile BART extension, whereas various methods can b.e used to extend BRT to help realize benefits. Commissioner Collier said that with the TOD focus on the vicinity of the downtown BART station, it makes sense to figure out ways to get people to that area and let them disperse as they want. She cannot envision 1,800 to 2,000 people wanting to go to Bayfair BART; the downtown BART station is more logical for school children and other potential passengers. Mr. Cooke said they know that East 14th Street is an important corridor with a lot of users, so there is always a need to improve transit efficiency there. The 1 R is a good start in that regard, and the BRT proposal builds on that. Commissioner Reed asked whether Bayfair Center management has expressed any opinions or comments about BRT. Secretary Livermore said that in a meeting earlier this week, AC Transit indicated having met with Bayfair representatives. Commissioner Fitzsimons inquired about the process going forward. Once Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro express their LPAs, does AC Transit take that under advisement? Secretary Livermore said that quite a number of letters suggest studying the full build-out, so that at the Final EIR stage, AC Transit will have the most options. She said that the sense from the Planning Commission, City Council, community meetings and so on is that BRT should terminate at the downtown San Leandro BART station, but there is no harm in studying what an optimized Option B would mean. AC Transit received considerable feedback about impacts on access to the Post Office on East 14th Street and McKinley School, for instance, and although has