Bruce draft 2/10/04

Deborah,

I had some "waiting" time near a computer so I took a shot at this while I was still wound up. I assume close-to-zero knowledge of the scheme on the part of the reader, which is good to assume I think, so the letter can be read by anyone. The point of view is "citizen," and hence may not be quite appropriate to a letter purporting to be from DBA. But - maybe this can be fused with your part; then we can run it around by e-mail to the others, and thereby get useful.

Bruce Wicinas
______________

To Mayor, Council Members, City Manager, …..

To accommodate BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) in Berkeley 's downtown, AC transit is going to completely rearrange traffic lanes, medians, diagonal parking, pedestrian crossing features and streetscaping. In other words, the physical arrangement of Shattuck Avenue and of some connecting streets will soon be drastically altered. This will completely change the character of the core of Downtown, forever altering the flow of cars, pedestrians and busses, the interaction of these, and the feeling and character of the street.

These changes can be done in positive way, one which enhances the quality and function of downtown. Or they can be negative, “killing” the viability of downtown by turning it into a place everyone avoids. The outcome is completely a function of the design.

AC planners have prepared alternate scenarios for the new transit lanes. Their presentation shows maps, street section drawings and photo-realistic computer graphic renderings. They clearly show the mechanical possibilities but do not take much account of the human considerations and quality-of-experience subtleties. Of course, the problem AC must solve is largely a matter of engineering – how to fit the new transit while accommodating regular traffic, pedestrians and parking.

The City of Berkeley has a lot more at stake, and the citizens of Berkeley care about more than engineering considerations.

To make certain that the dramatic changes to downtown Berkeley wrought by this are acceptable to the residents and businesses of Berkeley the Downtown Berkeley Association Design Subcommittee recommends that the City immediately commence its own comprehensive planning effort so that it is not forced to merely select one of the AC engineering alternatives. This will require the hiring by the City of a designer who can coordinate a process as well as to create designs. The person must have professional background in urban design and transportation, relevant to this kind of problem. He/she must also have administrative and public process skills so that public input can be adequately accommodated and the input of experts can be incorporated. There are many experts in our local community but their input cannot be solicited and put to use without accompanying staff work. He/she must be able to work effectively with the AC professional staff. Besides serving as coordinator and designer, he/she will be the visible advocate for the design interests of the City of Berkeley .

This position should be of one year's duration, not permanent. A year should be sufficient to accomplish the critical mission. But it is very important to start immediately. With each month that passes the option for influencing the plans of AC are reduced. If much time goes by – such as if the whole issue is relegated to Berkeley 's Commissions – we will lose the opportunity to have a say about anything beyond cosmetics like “choices of paving.”

It may be possible to designate a person already on the City staff to assume this. But it's unlikely any current staff person can immediately drop their entire workload to give this 100% attention. The likelihood of success would be higher with the hiring of an outside person.

This probably entails a one-time City expenditure of $100,000 or more, depending on the amount of staff support, the money allocating for outside consultants, etc. Perhaps some of the money can be had from AC, but obviously they must not “own” the process or they will own the outcome. We're aware of the budget woe of the City at present. But that is a transient woe. This fundamental change to the heart of Berkeley being fashioned by AC engineers will be “permanent.” That is, it will be Berkeley 's downtown for the next 25 years. The duty of city leaders is to recognize a once-in-a-generation opportunity to author a lasting improvement and avoid an enduring mistake. So the necessary resources need be allocated in a timely way. This is a huge “prize” which the city can have for little investment. The capital funding for these changes – which is extremely large – is all coming via AC. The city need only put up the planning money.

The “budget” hard times will not be forever, but this opportunity will not be around when they're gone.

Bruce,
I'll confirm for 3pm at DBA Office. We can go elsewhere if it's preferable.
Check it out, Matt is the planner hired by the City! I'm not sure if it's public yet, but interesting!
Deborah

----------
From: "Rhoades, Mark"
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:53:04 -0700
To: "Deborah Badhia" <deborah@downtownberkeley.org>
Subject: RE: Can we talk about DAP & visioning? How about Friday afternoon?

Deborah,

Thanks for following up. We could also take the opportunity to introduce you to the City's project manager, Matt Taecker.
Matt started yesterday.

Mr. Wicinas' piece is interesting, and contains most or many of the elements one would expect to find in such a process. ...This piece sounds perhaps like a good place for the DBA to sort out what it would like to bring to the broader discussion for the Downtown Area Plan. It could provide a good start. I don't quite see what the end product would be.

Mark R.

-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah Badhia [mailto:deborah@downtownberkeley.org]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 5:00 PM
To: Rhoades, Mark
Subject: Can we talk about DAP & visioning? How about Friday afternoon?

Hi Mark,

wanted to see if we can get together this Friday between 2-4pm with Bruce Wicinas, DBA Design Committee Chair. Here is his URL about his concept for visioning downtown Berkeley. I hope you can take a look (it's pretty short).

http://www.busduse.org/VisioningDowntownSteps.html

I would appreciate your response to it. (hopefully in person). The idea is starting to become more public as people get interested in it.

The Mayor's office was concerned about whether it's redundant with other efforts. At Calvin's advice, I spoke to Rob Wrenn. Based on a short email, Rob appears to be positive about the idea and does'nt seem to think it's redundant, nor conflicting. He had some suggestions for us that we are working on right now.

I still plan to call someone from Livable Berkeley to find out what they are doing. (We hear they want to do a charette). Additionally, we still need to find a few other sponsors to give it the wide credibility and trust that it needs.

This could become a pressure release valve for the City process. If it works out well, we can collect broad public opinion, and figure out how to reflect it within the planning process. The Downtown will gain the trust of many more residents which is crucial to the success of the "renaissance". This could be a way to start the conversation to get more people engaged.

The idea has been floated publicly quite a bit now, so people are starting to talk. It's taking on life now...so want to keep you in the loop. We are talking to a divergent group of people, with many different perspectives.
So, it should be interesting.

Regards,

Deborah

To: John Roberts CC: Deborah Badhia; Mark McLeod; Jamie Rusin; Wendy Sitler; Bruce Wicinas

Next week is the candidate week for the sketch session at the ELS office - an idea hatched when Jamie and I spoke last week.  Jamie has been out of town all this week. John Roberts was not around last week. Presumably all still consider this a good idea? Is there a day and time next week which we could all attend? "All" includes Jamie, John Roberts, Deborah, Mark, myself and Wendy.

The exercise which Jamie of ELS is proposing is far from producing design for Center Street. It's really an exploration regarding dimensions. If a 25' creek is dropped into Center Street, what can remain? What if the creek is not centered? What happens if the width varies from, say, 10' to 25'? These sketches, exploring how a creek might fit Center Street, are like those John Roberts did  2 1/2 years ago concerning BRT fit into Downtown.. The holders of the pencils are to be John, Jamie, Wendy. The rest of us are needed to comment and brainstorm. A couple of these sketches may subsequently inform 3D studies by which we can show the reality of sight lines, shadows, and the pedestrian's perception of the void.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

In "spare hours" I've been practicing on the modeling program at which Wendy pointed me - SketchUp. I measured the section of Center Street last weekend - confirming the 80 ' building-to-building, a 42' traveled way, sidewalks 15'10"' and 22'2". I estimated the heights of the current buildings. This modeling program is capable of much, much more in experienced hands. But even in my inexperienced hands a first study tells something about a gently zig-zagging 5' deep by 25' wide channel cut into the northern half of Center Street. Except for the aerial view the eye point locations are realistic so the scene is as a pedestrian would experience it.

Bruce Wicinas

Attached is the agenda for the next Center Street Subcommittee meeting at 7pm on Thursday, October 26 (upstairs at the North Berkeley Senior Center).  Also attached is a summary of "consensus points" provided by Rob Wrenn.  Best regards,  Matt

____________________________
Matt Taecker AICP
Principal Planner, Downtown Area Plan
Phone 510-981-7487

<<Agenda2-CenterStrSubcommittee-61026.doc>> <<ConsensusPts-CenterStr-61005.doc>>

Center Street Subcommittee Consensus Points

The following points were agreed on at the first meeting of the DAPAC Center Street Subcommittee meeting on October 5, 2006. The Subcommittee supports inclusion of these points in the Downtown Plan. [Note: Since we did not get through the entire list of issues at the first meeting, it is anticipated that additions will be made to this list.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES & GOALS FOR CENTER STREET

•  Center Street is and should remain the primary pedestrian connection from BART to the Campus.

•  Center Street should be developed in such a way that it strengthens the connection between Downtown and the Campus.

•  Enrich the pedestrian experience on Center Street beyond what it is now.

•  Support, as land uses on Center Street , a hotel and conference center and the proposed UC Art Museum.

•  We want to help all three projects move forward: redesigned Center Street , museum and hotel.

A CITY PLAN FOR CENTER STREET

The subcommittee consensus was that the City should develop a plan for Center Street :

• The Museum and Hotel designs should be integrated with designs for a redesigned Center Street to the greatest degree possible
• Invite the designers of the Hotel and Museum projects to look at Center Street in relation to their projects and come back with concept proposals in order to integrate the new land uses with the design of the street.
• The City should develop a series of designs for the street, including one that incorporates the “creek” option described below.
• In addition to a creek option, options with more limited “water features” should be developed.
• Plans should include consideration of increased permeability of surfaces to accommodate storm water absorption and filtration that are the result of development upstream.

DESIGN OPTIONS FOR CENTER STREET

There was a consensus that the status quo on Center Street is not optimal and that the street can be improved and should be redesigned.

The Subcommittee recommends that the DAPAC should consider for inclusion in the Downtown Plan the following design options for Center Street between Oxford and Shattuck:

Option 1

Fully Pedestrianized Street

In this design, the street would be completely pedestrianized. Regular through traffic would not be permitted. Parking and curbs would be eliminated. Street would be designed to allow the easy passage of foot traffic to and from Campus, and provide opportunities for people to stop and gather. Permanent and moveable amenities (e.g trees, landscaping, benches, street furniture, public art) would be added. An unobstructed “lane” could be created to accommodate emergency vehicles. Delivery vehicles could use such a lane for deliveries at specified hours (e.g. early morning), or deliveries could be relocated entirely to a side street.

Option 2

Slow Street/Woonerf *

In this design the street would be primarily for pedestrian use but would have one or two travel lanes for cars that would be as narrow as possible. The street would be designed in such a way that cars would have to drive slowly. Parking lanes and curbs would be eliminated. Cars would not prohibited from driving onto the street; anyone who needed to could drive onto or through at any time. It was recognized that the “maximum feasible creek” option (see below) would not be compatible with this option due to space limitations.

CREEK/WATER FEATURES

There was agreement that a full-flow restoration of the creek on Center Street or “no constraints” option was not practical.

One design that should be prepared as part of putting together a plan for Center Street is:

Maximum Practical Creek

In this design, diverting a portion of the natural flow of Strawberry Creek would create a creek-derived water feature or partial creek restoration. As in Option 1, the street would be fully pedestrianized, with unobstructed space created to accommodate emergency vehicles. The size of the creek is constrained to approximately 25-30 ft wide due to the width of the right of way and current and planned development on private/UC property. The depth of the creek would be approximately 8 ft and the slope of the creek banks could vary. Creek-side vegetation using a variety of materials will add texture and dimensions to the streetscape.

WOONERF

Woonerf (Dutch word which means "street for living") is common space shared by pedestrians, bicyclists, and low-speed motor vehicles. They are usually streets raised to the same grade as curbs and sidewalks. Vehicles are slowed by placing trees, planters, parking areas, and other obstacles in the street. Motorists are treated as the intruders and must travel at walking speed. This makes a street available for public use that is essentially only intended for local residents. A woonerf identification sign is placed at each street entrance.

*Definition of a Woonerf from this Web site:

http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/transportation/traffic/tools/woonerf.html

To: Bruce Wicinas; Jamie Rusin; John Roberts; Wendy Sitler; Deborah Badhia; Mark McLeod

All,

I turned the model pictures into a web page for ease of access:

http://www.busduse.org/dba

This is of course not intended for public consumption as yet. You are the only individuals who have the URL for this page.

I look forward to being the "audience" for the "exercise" tomorrow at the ELS office. I will not arrive until 2:30 or after. But I've already had my "input." Much of what I "discovered" was of course obvious without modeling but would not be obvious to most people without the aid of pictures.

1. A 25' wide ravine which meanders has a wider-than-25' rectangular footprint.

2. A ravine of asymmetrical section located on the north side of Center street needs a pedestrian barrier on its north side and a car barrier on its south side (though my model does not show these merely due to my modeling learning curve.) A ravine of asymmetrical section located on the south side of Center street needs a pedestrian/car barrier only on its north edge. The south side location also makes the creek located in a deep ravine visible from the southern sidewalk. The south side located creek can also usurp some of the extremely wide south side sidewalk. Together these factors seem to strongly favor a south side location.

3. (opinion) The 5' deep options, regardless of landscape artifice, look like infrastructure to me. I wouldn't pay $10M - $20M (probable price tag?) for that.

4. (opinion) The at-grade alternative I must admit looks rather charming, embodying the "garden" prospect with which John Roberts verbally excited the "Enviros" subcommittee of the DAPAC. Of course an at-grade implementation is not at present favored by the hard-core creek people. But maybe they can be persuaded...

FOR YOUR REFERENCE

The section of Center street :

Northern sidewalk: 15' 10"

Street (curb to curb) 42' 0"

Southern sidewalk: 22' 2"

The trees are offset from the curbs by about 3' on either side. There are three trees on the northern sidewalk located along the parking lot. The tree spacing along the south is about 24' on center. Model alternates B and C show the trees approximately faithfully.

Bruce Wicinas

Dear DAPAC BRT Committee,

On Feb. 28, 2004 the DBA sent a letter to the Mayor, the City Council and City Manager Kamlarz urging the city of Berkeley to fund a planning process for development of BRT to ensure it enhances the quality of life and consumer environment.

In March, 2005 the City Transportation Department solicited proposals for a Bart Plaza and Transit Area Design Plan, due April 12, 2005. After some time the City made a response. The funding was $75,000, a grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commssion.

In June, 2005 Jim Cunradi brought to the DBA Design Comittee his presentation regarding BRT. The slideshow he left with us can be seen at http://busduse.org/ 05-06-07BRTslides.ppt That commenced more than a year of work by the DBA on this subject. This included discussions to formulate a DBA position, consultations with professional downtown designers and a public forum. Excerpts are below.

On July 27 the Draft Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza & Transit Area Urban Design Plan was submitted to the City. This is known by the acronym “TLC” for Transit for Livable Cities, a part of Metropolitan Transportation Commission. It is also known in the City as “Transit Zone Urban Design Plan (TZUDP) of 2006.” A large amount of work was executed for the $75,000. By its own assertion the plan just points directions for more comprehensive design. But it is our only design resource so far. It contains our only drawings of alternatives for consideration.

BRT entails relocation of traffic lanes, bus stops, parking, sidewalks, transit canopies, raised platforms, signage, street lights, trees. It is a complete re-configuration of the core blocks of downtown. From AC transit we cannot get design, only engineering. For examples of what AC engineers can provide without a 3 rd party source of design, see the June, 2005 slides cited above. A unified design response which can preserve a pedestrian-friendly downtown core, will require professional design services.

The possible relocation of the BART drum to the east side of Shattuck is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. It can happen only via strong public support as well as decisive leadership.

Below I have copied some positions by the DBA and comments by professionals who considered the issues at its request.

Compiled by Bruce Wicinas, DBA Design Committee

6/3/2007

I. General Concerns and Issues

II. Public Forum April 24, 2006: Transit Design for Retail Vitality

Barry Elbasani and Jamie Rusin, ELS Architects and John Roberts of Northmore Roberts & Associates

Sponsored by DBA

paraphrase notes from Barry Elbasani's comments

Downtown at present is kind-of “broken.”

We talk a lot about height, about setbacks, but what Berkeley is really all about is what meets your eye from the ground to about elevation 6'.

Portland , Oregon , has really figured “it” out – the “City Living Room.”

By what mechanism can merchants influence the occupancy of both sides of the street, on the key retail blocks? What sort of owners do we want, to reinforce uses downtown? There is presently no “Class A” office space in downtown.

Option 3 (of the TLC alternatives - the two-way west leg of Shattuck option) “recovers” about three really good blocks in the center of downtown [by restricting the heavy through transit to only a fraction of downtown blocks leaving the three recovered blocks narrower and quieter.]

The intense multi-modal confluence of transportation along Shattuck at the center turns those blocks into a transit station. A transit interchange is not a meandering place. People are hurrying through it to change transit. It is unwelcome to retailers and to potential retail customers.

There is a price to be paid for getting people out of cars.

“Plan a public gather place first”, THEN design the transit around it.

There has not been a public process to generate alternatives for downtown.

Post-forum Discussion

Meeting minutes from Downtown Berkeley Association DESIGN COMMITTEE - May 9, 2006

a. DBA likes BRT, but DBA needs to make certain that BRT and BART design are compatible with retail.  
b. BRT and BART will channel project funding into Downtown Berkeley, and DBA needs to make certain that these monies are used in such a way as to make Downtown Berkeley a better place.
c. The ELS-led forum on April 25 at Aurora Theatre was a great way to launch the discussion of making a transit hub and retail compatible.
d. The discussion was effectively continued in the Transportation Committee Open House on April 29.
e. The discussion has increased the chances that the BART station will be moved to the east side of Shattuck.
f. Question:  Why are there only the four models which have been presented?  Are there additional options which should receive consideration.
g. DBA's concern with BRT is restricted to the blocks of Shattuck on which BRT will run (probably Durant to Addison ).
h. The chances that BRT will damage retail in Downtown diminish if platforms and canopies are eliminated in this area.
i. Traffic flow on Shattuck is "B" on a scale of "A" to "F."  This means that BRT may not need a private lane.

III. Planning Department's BART Plaza Design “Charette”, 6/9/06
Outcomes of the City Planning Department's “Special Design Session” on 6/9/2006.

from Downtown Berkeley Association DESIGN COMMITTEE - Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2006

a. There is some enthusiasm for using Model 4 to create a Barcelona-style “Ramblas,” which has a park running down the middle of a wide boulevard for 1.2 kilometers, with only a single lane on each side for motor traffic.  Such a street design, dedicated to foot traffic, would be, of course, inimical to BRT
b. The new Octavia Street in SF was also discussed as a model.
c. Alan Jacobs wondered if there was sufficient density to make such models realizable in Downtown Berkeley.
d. There was considerable interest in designing a great public space, and then figure out how to integrate good transit in and around the space.
e. Many felt that increase in population density was essential ­ both residential and commercial.

IV. DBA Goals on BART/BRT Design:  
from Downtown Berkeley Association DESIGN COMMITTEE - Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2006

Jamie Rusin summarized apparent DBA positions upon which there seemed to be consensus:
a. Enhance pedestrian experience.
b. Enhance retail experience.
c. Minimize transit impact.
d. Minimize use of private cars.
e. Avoid most or all of the BRT infrastructure.  No platforms, canopies, etc.
f. Maintain at least limited vehicular traffic on all streets, including Center St.
g. Eliminate Shattuck dogleg at University.
h. Place two-way traffic on west side of Shattuck.
i. Have slow traffic and buses on east side of Shattuck between Center and University.
j. Retain as much street parking as possible.
k. Move BART station to east side of Shattuck.
l. "Let buses act like buses."
m. Support buses.
n. Design to enhance retail.
o. Make use of and honor historical resources.
p. Some traffic congestion is OK.
q. Support hotels/conference-center/museum/PFA complex.

Question: What is the relationship between availability of Class A office space and capture of tax revenues from highly successful companies, and the design of the downtown district.

V. DBA VISION FOR THE TRANSIT ZONE

Downtown Berkeley Association June 1, 2006

The DBA has a vision for the downtown Berkeley district that we would like to see emerge in upcoming years. Some key elements of our vision that most directly relate to the transit planning include:

2. Downtown Berkeley's is primarily a retail center with vibrant ground floor activity. It is the City's "living room" - a comfortable destination for all Berkeley residents. It also feels like the "kitchen" - people are sharing food and drinks in cozy places.

3. Downtown Berkeley is a "destination" not a through way. Visitors become engaged and participatory in the environment.

4. Transit serves the retail and other offerings, and enhances the general circulation patterns in and around downtown, and between campus and downtown.

DBA RECOMMENDATIONS

"Circulation Mechanics": Pedestrian, Transit and Commerce Coexistence

The following recommendations are made with retail vitality as the primary desired outcome. Maximum business activity will result in a healthy and engaging environment, stronger district character, public safety, and fiscal health for the City.

1. BART

Consider improvements to the existing BART Plaza and Drum

* Consider re-surfacing or eliminating the Drum for greater transparency and more open design.

Consider moving the BART Drum to the east-side of Shattuck Avenue .

(Note that this would require a 2-way configuration of Shattuck Avenue .)

* This places the large numbers of BART-riders with UC destination to the east of Shattuck Avenue .

* This allows the westerly sidewalk to be re-sized to conform to preceding and succeeding blocks of Shattuck Avenue .

* The east side is the sunny side of the street.

* Visitors would emerge from the station surrounded by activity.

Do not move the BART entrance to the middle of Shattuck Avenue .

* The people arrive in the "middle" of the street with moving traffic on both sides.

* Transit transfer is encouraged versus interaction in the downtown.

* It further separates the east and west side of Shattuck.

* The plaza would be too small to allow any concert or activity.

Improve all of the BART stations.

* Name the main entrance clearly as "Downtown Berkeley BART Station".

* Place signage on all exits with the street name and the major destination of that exit. For example, "Addison Street/Downtown Berkeley Arts District", "Allston Way/YMCA/Berkeley High School", "Center Street/Berkeley City College"

* Say "Welcome" in the signage.

* Post maps to orient the public to bicycle parking, visitor Information, etc.

2. BUS RAPID TRANSIT

Consider Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station design

* Consider reducing or eliminating dedicated lanes, raised platforms, and shelter canopies - especially in the last three to five blocks of the BRT route.

* Let the buses operate like ordinary buses in traditional fashion.

Consider BRT routing options.

* Consider whether downtown is really the "end of the line". How might BRT link with San Pablo later? How might University Avenue be integrated?

* Consider the possibility of ending the BRT at Kittredge. Jim Cunradi himself mentioned this as a possibility

3. AUTOMOBILES, DELIVERY VEHICLES, EMERGENCY VEHICLES

Maintain vehicle traffic on all streets.

* Merchants need every type of traffic possible! Plus, they require deliveries - sometimes very large and very regularly.

* Closure of Center Street should be limited to partial day and test periods should be implemented prior to any permanent treatment.

* Consider "flexible space" which will allow response to changing trends over time. For example, utilize paving surfaces that allow parking spaces to be easily shifted to other uses such as outdoor dining.

Preserve and enhance street parking.

* Consider the eastern side of Shattuck Avenue from Center to University to develop as a public space that includes landscaping and diagonal parking. (If the western side becomes 2-way).

* Utilize street parking to help the pedestrian experience by slowing traffic, providing a barrier between shoppers and moving cars, allow proximity to destination, and create connection between pedestrian and the street.

* Learn the calculation for average customer expenditure per parking metered space. Our understanding is that sales revenue per space can represent the annual sales of a small (1,500 sq. ft.) business.

* Reduce the number of parking spaces lost to BRT, and mitigate those that are lost.

* Consider multi-modal usage of street and curb space. For example, allow red curbs to become public parking after certain hours.

4. RETAIL DEVELOPMENT

Design for retail vitality

* When there are design choices, ask "which is the best choice in terms of supporting retail vitality?".

* Maintain or enhance the visibility of storefronts, signage, and historic architecture.

* create synergy between both sides of the street.

Identify blocks to concentrate retail.

* The public has an approximate 3 block threshold to interpret the public environment. Anchor tenants, amenities, and other features are needed to break up the district into smaller and more navigable areas.

* Identify streets where retail can be concentrated.

* Create sub-districts or nodes.

Extend the "Arts District" activity eastward to Oxford Street .

* Creates a physical connection towards the new Hotel/Conference Center and to UC.

* Consider concern that Addison Street could end up as a service street unless designed properly.

Consider ratios and dimensions for optimal street and sidewalk width

* Consider ratios for balance between building, sidewalk, and street width.

* Forty feet is considered an ideal width for a small retail street. ( 4th Street has this dimension.).

* Consider the 180 foot width of Shattuck Avenue as a public realm to be shaped by people, cars, and transit.

* Determine the minimum depth for sidewalks needed to allow outdoor dining. Center Street has a "perfect" sized sidewalk - with dimensions proportional to the street and the building.

5. OTHER, AND SPECIFICS

Make Shattuck Avenue a 2-way boulevard.

* 2-way streets tend to slow traffic and give street more of a neighborhood character.

* This will eliminate the "dog-leg" on University Avenue and re-invigorate the retail on those blocks that are now a "speed-way".

Consider a Center Street water feature / garden element.

* Consider how to include an aesthetic contribution, a piece of public art, some recognition of nature.

* Reference Donlyn Lyndon's photograph of the Rhine / German Plaza . (on file at DBA).

Consider the public maintenance requirements of any design feature.

5. Consider the fluctuation of our City's fiscal health and the staffing needed to maintain any features installed.

Consider "longevity" of landscaping and street furniture.

* Successful shopping malls update their physical design every 7-10 years. Since cities cannot afford this, it's important to make best possible design choices for long life span.

* When there are design choices, ask "which is the best choice in terms of supporting retail vitality?".

Improve lighting

* The lighting in BART Plaza needs to be improved.

* Should be bright enough to ensure security in the evening.

* Sodium vapor should be avoided in favor of white lighting which renders more realistic colors, less sinister appearances, and a more inviting, comfortable, and reassuring feeling for shoppers.

Work with UC to ensure a vibrant downtown edge to the core of campus.

Create a downtown population invested in caring for downtown, which means encouraging office and housing uses at high densities associated with a downtown.

END

Downtown Berkeley Association June 1, 2006

Design Recommendations for the Transit Zone

VI. DBA Endorsement and Comments regarding Transit Zone Urban Design Plan (TZUDP) of 2006, short-term improvements .
Following are comments on the plan's recommendations for short term improvements. We see Berkeley on the brink of an opportunity for major longer term improvements of which short-term recommendations should be mindful.

A. Design - BART Entrances, Bus Stops, Canopies and Furniture ­

Develop a "downtown Berkeley " design vocabulary, not merely a "transit" design vocabulary. Step beyond “transit furniture design” recommended in the report to a “downtown street furniture design.” The elements in conformance with this can gradually supplant the present furniture elements of disparate design. This approach might also save money over the long run.

   1. Contract with an industrial design firm to develop a “signature” shape language of designs, forms, materials and construction details for all the street furniture elements of downtown. These may include signs, illuminated signs, shelters, racks, and planters. Besides aesthetic improvement this provides a sense of place uniquely associated to downtown Berkeley . It also provides orienting cues to the visitor. A one-time authorship of designs and details which skillfully use common materials allows the City to commission items as needed without re-commissioning design. Items which are variations of a standard design have the desired visual kinship and should save money in the long run relative to one-of-a-kind custom designed creations.
   2. The Kiosk at BART Plaza is an example of a shape language - an attractive though not an “economical” one. Its utility is somewhat diminished by being one of a kind rather than one of a family sharing resemblance.
   3. Ensure that new street furniture and landscape features are designed to handle heavy foot traffic, and public abuse. Keep maintenance in mind ­ such as full access around all sides for steam cleaners.
   4. Signage should tie in to the design "signature look". Directing people to public restrooms is a signage priority.
   5. Signage, including the kiosk, needs lighting to be visible at night. Improve directional signage for the various nodes of downtown - especially to significant destinations such as the arts district and the community college. This signage should be located above and below ground in the BART stations.

B. BART Plaza ­

Allow design to encourage positive uses, but also deal with practical issues.

   1. The DBA supports the type of zoning that will invite desired activity to the Plaza such as outdoor dining. However, outdoor dining has been tried in our downtown and found marginally practical. We caution against committing short term resources to a vision of outdoor dining. Don¹t expect it to happen.
   2.  Allow dining tables to be located next to the buildings if desired by business owners. Business owners need to be able to look at customers. Outdoor tables tend to be problematic due to safety, health, and check dodging.
   3. Tully¹s should remove or remodel the seating under the windows.
   4. Design should account for the businesses' need to put their garbage cans out on a routine schedule.

C. Planters ­

Landscaping should enhance the ambiance without compromising public safety or adding unduly to the City's maintenance burden.

The present planters raise public safety issues by curtailing visibility of sidewalks from the street. Due to ill-treatment of the plants and planters they have deteriorated in quality. We consider this a failed design and have no loyalty to them.

D. BART Entry Rotunda ­

We regard the “drum” as a design which has outlived its time and look forward to relocating the main entrance/exit to the east side of Shattuck Avenue . Hence we recommend frugality regarding the short-term improvements to the drum.

   1. At the Rotunda, around the perimeter, bike parking is ok but seating seems questionable.
   2. Is it prudent to spend money on the BART drum which is hopefully nearing the end of its useful life? Frugal interim improvement such as painting is fine.

E. East side of Shattuck ­

This needs to be improved to accommodate the foot traffic and especially bus users.

   1. Consider straightening out the curb for the full block even if it results in the decrease of traffic to two lanes. We are not quite endorsing this concept, but it looks promising. The current situation needs improvement. Whether to widen the sidewalk is contingent on the long term transit arrangement of Shattuck Avenue lanes.
   2. Games of Berkeley is downtown's best retail corner and the corner is worthy of care. As the report mentions the other three corners at Center and Shattuck feature banks with "dead" windows. The Games storefront needs to be visible. Hence any bus shelter or canopy in front of it must be in  appropriate proportion and not a visual barrier.

F. Bike Parking

Bike parking ­ needs to be increased but must not usurp too much "prime real estate" of the BART Plaza. We favor much of the proposal's recommendation to place small bike racks throughout the transit zone.

To inform city decision regarding bike parking needs it is desirable to capture data on current bike parking users. For example, the Downtown Restaurant has 50 employees. About 6 commute by bike and park them in the basement storage area because they do not trust outdoor bike parking.

   1. We favor small clusters of bike parking located at the Rotunda and at secondary BART entrances. We support the expansion at the current underground bike parking site and the provision of larger bike parking areas near but away from the core.
   2. Discourage parking of large numbers of bikes in the Plaza as this is prime space for pedestrian use.
   3. Discourage bike parking under bus canopies. This precious limited space is provided for passengers, not for bikes.
   4. Downtown needs excellent signage to advertise the bike parking. Improved signage would increase usage of existing facilities.

G. Public Art ­

We enthusiastically favor increased deployment of public art.
   1. The Addison Street BART entrance is a prime candidate location for public art, both within and without.

H. Consider Long Term plans for Center Street plans

Design changes on the east side of Shattuck must be coordinated with the Center Street plans.

We look forward to a very poetic solution for Center Street to honor the investment and excitement of the proposed Hotel/Conference Center and the UC Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive.

   1. DBA recommends against closure of Center Street. We support a one-way Center street with a parking lane thus maintaining access for police, emergency and delivery vehicles.
   2. If a landscaped feature is constructed it should be no more than 25 feet wide. A ravine of depth exceeding 3 feet is not pedestrian-friendly and introduces a host of problems.
   3. If a landscaped feature is constructed, multiple mid-block crossings are needed.
   4. DBA favors a phased approach to any major rearrangement of Center Street.

END – The DBA comments on Transit Zone Urban Design Plan (TZUDP) of 2006 short-term improvements.

June 26, 2007

Jim Cunradi
Senior Transportation Planner and
AC Transit East Bay BRT Project Manager
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
1600 Franklin Street
Oakland , CA 94612

Re: DBA Comments on AC Transit East Bay Bus Rapid Transit DEIS/DEIR

Dear Jim,

Downtown Berkeley Association (DBA) is pleased to be able to offer the following comments on the draft environmental documents for the proposed East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project. First, a summary of our conclusions followed by some specific comments on various components of the draft DEIS/DEIR.

•  DBA strongly supports AC Transit's desire to expand and improve bus transit service and patronage to Downtown Berkeley, a key regional transit hub.

•  DBA strongly supports physical changes to Downtown Berkeley that emphasize improvements to the pedestrian, retail, and cultural environment, and that emphasize traffic-calming measures.

•  DBA believes that the impacts of the new BRT infrastructure on the merchants, the pedestrian environment, and the urban design of Downtown Berkeley have not been fully assessed and mitigated in the current draft DEIS/DEIR.

•  DBA believes that a “Side Running” alternative for the proposed transitway in Downtown Berkeley could have considerable merit while mitigating many of the negative impacts of the central median transitway and stations. We recommend that AC Transit develop a “Side Running” BRT transitway and station alternative for Downtown Berkeley and assess its impacts.

•  Given the range of options offered in the current draft DEIS/DEIR, DBA believes that the “No Build” option offers the advantages of improved transit service via a “Rapid Bus” system to serve Downtown without the large infrastructure costs and disruptive impacts of the BRT system. Absent a “Side Running” alternative to consider, the “No Build” option warrants serious consideration as the preferred option for Downtown Berkeley.

The following are specific comments on Downtown components of the proposed BRT options.

•  Purpose and Need:

•  BRT must not be simply a transit enhancement. The primary purposes of the BRT system are, rightfully, related to the improvement of transit. However, the new transit infrastructure is significant and needs to be integrated with, rather than imposed upon, the urban context in order to realize the potential for the system.

•  Integration with and enhancement of the urban context is not explicitly stated as a need of the BRT system in the draft DEIS/DEIR, and the omission has skewed the range of urban design alternatives under consideration.

•  We believe that the required BRT infrastructure alternatives, as proposed in the draft DEIS/DEIR, are an imposition of transit engineering systems on Downtown Berkeley's densely built environment, rather than a careful integration into and enhancement of that environment, with significant negative impacts that are not adequately mitigated. The alternatives and mitigations offered do not adequately demonstrate how the new infrastructure will improve the overall urban design or the pedestrian, retail, and cultural environment. Additional transit patrons, separate transit lanes, crosswalk mitigations, and new stations do not necessarily lead to overall improvements in the urban environment.

•  Adherence to local design guidelines alone will not be adequate for framing the integration of the new transit infrastructure with the existing urban environment.

•  Separate BRT vs Combined BRT and Local Transit :

•  Combined BRT and Local systems will cluster rather than disperse the transit infrastructure and pedestrian/patrons in Downtown, thereby containing the impacts compared with separate systems. We prefer the combination in Downtown Berkeley.

•  If the combined BRT and Local bus service stations are located in the center-median BRT Transitway, as currently proposed, all the pedestrian/patrons will be removed from the sidewalks into the center of the street with significant negative impacts. The center of the street is an unhealthy, unpleasant, and potentially unsafe environment relative to the sidewalks, and it offers a generally negative impact on the quality of the pedestrian experience in downtown. A combined service located at the sidewalks could enhance instead of diminish the pedestrian experience.

•  Pedestrians/patrons clustered in the center street-median will not add to the vitality of the sidewalks as compared with a location integrated with the sidewalks. Removing the local transit patrons/pedestrians from the sidewalk will diminish sidewalk vitality.

•  Transitway Alignment:

•  Two-way transit on Shattuck alternate is our preferred alignment since it retains the downtown core area as a transit hub with direct BART connections and without the secondary intersection impacts of the one-way loop alternate on Oxford Street .

•  An alternative alignment that includes “Side Running” transitways along Shattuck Avenue is not included in the current document. Such an alternative is necessary in order to properly assess potential mitigations of impacts on the pedestrian environment, parking, and left turn lanes as well as the overall urban design. Such an alternate would use the existing (or expanded) sidewalks/plazas for the station locations. Left turn lanes along Shattuck Avenue could possibly be retained in this alternative, as could buffered parallel or head-in parking.

•  The potential for two-way traffic flow on both sides of Shattuck Square will effect all the BRT alternatives and must be assessed for each of the alternative alignments.

•  The proposed BRT Layover location, with its related infrastructure needs (eg. Size, Restrooms, etc.), needs to be part of the environmental review of the BRT system.

•  The future extension of BRT beyond downtown must be accommodated in each of the alternatives and evaluated.

•  Stations:

•  Stations will be new urban features placed into the downtown that will significantly affect the visual environment, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, access to and visibility of stores, and the quality of the pedestrian experience. Appropriate station siting is critical for downtown, since each location will have different impacts.

•  Stations located in the median at the center of the street tend to favor traffic, asphalt, and transit infrastructure over the quality of the pedestrian environment, access to and visibility of merchants, and the creation of a cohesive urban place.

•  The current plans propose a station located north of Center Street at Shattuck Square , and the impacts of this choice are noted as minimal or positive. We believe that the impacts to the merchants, to the visual and pedestrian environment, parking, and traffic flow will be significant and negative for such a station location. The double-length center-of-street raised platform required for a station in this location, with canopies and guardrails, detached from the sidewalk will block views of stores and artificially separate a narrow street right of way while placing pedestrians in an undesirable and potentially unsafe situation.

•  Station options on Shattuck Ave. south of Center Street (between Center Street and Allston Way ) are not offered as alternatives. A curbside station option in this location is needed, in concert with the “Side Running” alignment option, in order to fully compare the station impacts in the heart of downtown. Such an option will likely have less negative impact to the pedestrian and retail environment, while helping to enliven the sidewalks.

•  Sidewalk stations at the Bancroft/Shattuck location are similarly not offered in the current document, but would offer significant benefits with the “Side Running” transitway alignment. Simple expansions of the existing plazas on the east (Peet's) and west (Library) sides of Shattuck between Bancroft and Kittredge could accommodate the stations.

•  The Bancroft or Bancroft/Durant station option located off of Shattuck Avenue would not serve Downtown as well as the station located on Shattuck Avenue .

•  Parking:

•  Mitigations for the 19-54 parking spaces lost to the BRT system in Downtown Berkeley include replacement of 0-20 spaces. There is no criteria offered for determining the conditions under which spaces are to be replaced. Under no circumstances can we support the replacement of 0 spaces. Criteria must be clarified.

•  Left Turns on Shattuck:

•  There is no option offered in which left turns on Shattuck are allowed to continue. Without this capability, the traffic-calming characteristic of the street is diminished, making Shattuck Avenue essentially a through way, reducing its role for serving local traffic. It appears that left turns would be possible with a “Side Running” alignment option and sidewalk stations in the Downtown. The impacts on traffic flow and possible loss of curbside parking should be quantified as part of this option.

In general, we feel that the draft DEIS/DEIR information as presented is insufficient to evaluate the full range of alignments, station configurations, and impact mitigations available for a successful BRT system in Downtown Berkeley. Important negative impacts of the some of the options that are presented are missing from the evaluation. A potentially valuable “Side Running” alignment and station alternative is neither presented nor evaluated.

Our conclusion is that the BRT plans as presented result in a combination of impacts from the center-of-street stations and transitways, elimination of left turns on Shattuck Ave., and elimination of parking with minimal mitigation that, will have a significant detrimental effect on the downtown pedestrian and retail environment. Without additional options to consider for Downtown Berkeley that are more complementary to the existing environment, the draft DEIS/DEIR makes a compelling case for the “No Build” option.

Sincerely,

DBA